This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum. For incidents requiring administrator attention, refer to this link in the introductory text below. For mediation or other formal procedures, refer to the dispute resolution info-box on this page. Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts.

Shortcut: WP:WQA

Dispute resolution
Negotiation
Article talk pages Editor assistance Third opinion Requests for comment Wikiquette alerts
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Requests for arbitration Completed requests Arbitration clarifications Request Arbitration enforcement
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions Mentorship

Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate. That's usually the best solution for everyone involved. If problems continue, then there are further options as described in this dispute resolution process link and the info-box to the right. For more information, click any of those links, or start with this article: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

IMPORTANT: Read the instructions before posting your alert. Review the section titled Procedure for this page, immediately following the table of contents below.

Please help to respond to Wikiquette alerts. This page is run by regular editors just like you, and needs more editors to help with the alerts. Anyone is welcome to help out, and in particular if you have been helped by this page, please return the favor by offering your advice on other incident reports. That's not a requirement for posting your report, but it's a good idea, and your help would be much appreciated. Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures. Wikiquette in a way is the basis of what allows the community to work smoothly together, so those are valuable skills to develop for those who like to edit Wikipedia. Thanks!

Are you in the right place?

• To report obvious vandalism please use administrator intervention against vandalism.
• Violations of the three revert rule should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
• If you feel an article needs protecting against rampant vandalism or a persistent edit war, please use requests for page protection.
• If you believe that one or more editors are sock puppets, please use Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
• See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and helpful advice is at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors
• For all other incidents that may require administrator intervention, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If two or more editors have warned another editor about his/her behavior, and the problem has continued, an alternative to posting to this page is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
• If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor, you can use Wikipedia:Editor assistance.

Procedure for this page

Instructions for users posting alerts

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers here are volunteers. It may take some time to receive a response. If the problem is continuing and you have not received any results from your posting here, return to this page and post an update to your original statement of the problem.

If you have not received help and the problem becomes urgent or is escalating, refer to the list above and post your report to one of the Administrator Notice boards instead. In that case, please edit your post on this page to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

• Post your alert to the bottom of the page — add a new sub-heading with a short description of the issue (click here to start a new section).
• A single posting per alert is sufficient. Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page and instead supply a simple direct explanation of the problem, along with the user-ids of the Users involved and a link or two to the page where the problem is happening. A concise way to do this is to include diff's that show the problem. (A guide to creating diff's is here).
• Describe the problem or issues as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could cause the problem to escalate.
• Sign your report by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.
• Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.
• Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it wherever you originally were—editors responding to posts here will review the discussions where they are occuring. They may post notes there, however in situations that involve mulitple pages, reviewing editors will post their comments here, so watch this page and refer back to your entry when you notice that a comment has been posted.

If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help.

If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack.

Instructions for editors responding to alerts

All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on this page. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated.

To help with this page, place it on your watchlist so you can see when new alerts are posted. Or you quickly scan the page for items here that are either marked with the WQA "Work in progress" message-box or have no status indicator at all. If an alert does not have any kind of response yet, it is open and needs attention.

Work in Progress - comments welcome(Optional comment and/or signature)

• Review open items and when you find one that you feel you can help with, visit the relevant pages and observe the situation. When you are ready, enter your helpful comments and strive to improve the situation, at the disputed page if appropriate, or on this page if that seems better.
• Enter a note on this page in the relevant section to indicate that you have joined the process. Add the {{WQA in progress}} template (as displayed above) to the top of the report item's sub-section.
• If there is no action needed, or after action has produced results, enter a note on this page to describe the results, including constructive comments on about any Wikiquette breaches you may have seen.
• When the issue is ready to be closed, follow the steps below.

Closing the reports:

Resolved. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• If you believe the situation is resolved with consensus or at very least grudging acceptance of the involved parties, close the item by entering the {{resolved}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Stuck. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• If on the other hand, after you have done your best you find that the problems are continuing and you feel there is nothing further that you can do, then consider what the best next step for the parties would be. State your suggestions on the relevant talk page, and also in a comment here, what dispute resolution process you recommend, and include a link for them to follow. To close the item here, enter the {{stuck}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Stale. (Optional comment and/or signature)

• For items that remain open but have no additional comments added after several days to a week, close the item by entering the {{stale}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere(Optional comment and/or signature)

• For items that should not have been posted to WQA at all -- blatant vandalism, accusations of sock puppetry, a request for adminship, etc., please refer the original poster to the proper forum, and place the {{NWQA}} template under the section heading.

The five templates may optionally include your signature and additional summary comments by including them after a pipe, for example, {{resolved|User has been reminded about [[WP:NPA]] ~~~~}}, or {{stuck|Referred to [[WP:ANI]].}} This automatically formats the included text as small text displayed next to the template. For detailed instructions on using the templates, click any of the template name links above. Please note that using a timestamped signature with one of these templates will delay the automatic bot archival of that alert to 14 days from when you sign the template.

Archiving alerts

Reports are considered closed and automatically archived by bot (whether tagged or not using any of the templates described above) one week after the last timestamped signature in the discussion. Reports marked resolved, stuck, or NWQA (as above) may be manually archived sooner than this. Links to the archive pages can be found in the Archive Box next to the Table of Contents above.

Active alerts

User:Romaioi

Continued from archive page:

Thanks for your support Jaysweet. I have made those modifications as per your suggestion. I am not afraid of appearing bitter as long as the truth has been highlighted. I don't look favourably on the kind of flippant behaviour that Noclador demonstrated, regardless of whether it was directed at me or anyone else.

However, I do not know why this page has been archived as I do not consider it to be resolved - I have made several requests as per Ncmvocalist' comments and have not receieved his reply. I have made concessions and recieved none regarding the anti-User:Romaioi negative comments.

Romaioi (talk) 07:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Will see if I can take a look later this week. Sorry about the delay. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems, I'm in no rush. I know I wrote a lot. Thank you, by the way. Romaioi (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've finally looked through your comments there.

I'd said we can archive relevant sections or comments sometimes...but note; the ANI page you referred to has already been archived - meaning, that's that. In response to your concerns over the ANI, and the merits of the incident report: the fact that no administrative action was taken (or any other responses were given) speaks for itself. That's how it will also be looked at should the dispute ever escalate. The edit-summary you've cited is something we can't do much about here I'm afraid.

That said, I agree with Jaysweet's conclusion - if you were to replace the rant on your User Talk page with the statement you suggest, I absolutely agree that no action is necessary, and that this complaint is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and patience on this talk. I do not mean to sound belligerent, but I do not consider this resolved.

You have someone who was given the power to do an investigation (Noclador) during which he carried out a series of personal attacks on one of his targets, in addition to denigrating the target’s character. In response, beyond defending oneself and calling the accuser/abuser a liar, the target did nothing untoward.

The types of personal attacks made on the accused were not insignificant.

Yet, the wrongly accused target was also the subject of a WQA and an ANI. On the other hand the abusing accuser has received no sanction, no counseling, nothing. If no such action is taken then the accuser (Noclador) will see this approval for him to act in the same manner to the next person. Maybe an ANI is required in reference to his behaviour.

As I said earlier, I think it is fair to have statement inserted here by someone indicating that I am not guilty of incivility, but rather was more the victim of it. Alternatively, simply state that the WPQ action, pertaining to me, is unwarranted. I also asked, as an alternative, for a statement at the ANI page stating that Noclador’s statements are misleading and inappropriate. Seeing that it is already archived, a statement should suffice – Noclador’s comments are is still there to be read with no defense made (I was not even notified about it at the time). Else, I will put something there myself, linking back to here.

I have already changed my statement, but I do consider the previous version to fit the definition of a rant.

Sincerely

Romaioi (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Romaioi, the archive pages are only to contain threads that existed at ANI, as they appeared at the time. It's not to be altered to add a defense that was never made at the time or to clarify messages that are already there or to link back to discussions that didn't exist at the time. It's not allowed, and users who do are promptly reverted.

In this case, the person who filed the WQA simply wanted some intervention in regards to what was on your talk page so that this dispute does not escalate. That part has been somewhat resolved.

If you're still concerned about Noclador, you can try the next step in the WP:DR link or asking for input at an administrator noticeboard. But remember, action taken is preventive rather than punitive - Noclador has moved past the dispute and is editing per usual. It's your choice if you want to do the same by letting it go and moving on, or not. But I'm afraid I myself can't help you with this any further - perhaps Jaysweet or someone else can. Anyway, best of luck! Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ncmvocalist, if you want to leave it there and cannot do any more then thats fine. I appreciate the efforts of yourself, Jaysweet and all others involved. But I am not happy with the outcome. No defence was able to be put up at the ANI page because I was not even notified that it was going on. And Noclador has been able to move past it because no one has taken him to task on his abuses. He has been able to abuse his power and not be held accountable whatsoever. In fact, he was gven a pat on the back. (Describing what he did in regards to his attempts to implicate me as lying certainly does not do it justice - much stronger adjectives apply.) Instead the victim of Noclador's abuses and insults has been taken to task for highlighting the abuse and was perversely accused of abuses he did not commit (the claim that I made personal abuses (plural) is rubbish). You have an unethical abuser, in noclador, who now has carte blanche approval to do what he wants to whoever he wants. That’s how I see it. Of course it has been easy for him to move on. It is difficult for me to do the same because I keep getting dragged back in (from pathetic and abusive sockpuppetry accusation, to misleading WQA (the instigating text is misleading) to perversely inappropriate ANI). All the best. Romaioi (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User: Keeper76

Resolved. Apology by Keeper76 has been accepted by Xander756. —Travis^talk 15:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Africa-related regional notice board.

Disagreement over wp:talk, User:Blockinblox and User:Jeandré du Toit, diffs: [2] [3] [4]. -- Jeandré, 2008-08-03t12:55z

User:BehnamFarid

Resolved.

Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

User Domer48Fenian & BigDunc

I would like an admin to look at my situation. There is evidence at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/GDD1000 and on talk pages that the user names I have listed are united in an attempt to harrass me and prevent me editing the article at Ulster Defence Regiment. The discussion page there shows that their involvement stretches back more than a few months and that they have strangled attempts by other editors to improve the page by similar harrassment, incivility, bullying and the use of propaganda against other editors. So far I have had an untrue allegation of sockpuppetry leveled against me. I have been called the, "Self confessed former Ulster Defence Regiment member GDD1000 with a major conflict of interest", accused of adding disruptive material to the article, deceiving other editors, making a mockery of this encycopedia, being dishonest, adding unsourced additions, biased POV additions and copyright violations, having several "brand new accounts," collusion, pretending to be a new user, avoiding scrutiny, lying, appalling, editing problematically and pretending to be someone else. The following statement was made by the DomerFenian user: "You are an editor with a long history of disruption, gross POV editing, edit warring and copyright violations, you should not be permitted to try and get a clean start under a new name, and deceive other editors by editing the same article pretending to be a brand new editor". The tags of my accusers are: Domer48_'fenian' and BigDunc^Talk Everything I've read about new users, harrassment, good faith, the five pillars etc etc etc etc tells me that all of this is VERY wrong. Why should I, or anyone, be subjected to it? I do note that the user Domer has a history of being blocked for extended periods of time for similar abuse against other editors. All help appreciated.The Thunderer (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Domer has two blocks for incivility and I recently filed a report here against Dunc.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Despite two admins closing the sockpuppet complaint as unfounded he (BigDunc) has opened it a third time and demanded information to continue their vendetta.The Thunderer (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong not a single admin has closed it as unfounded, and not even a single admin has closed it. Also I'd even point out the first close was done on a non-existent reasoning acording to Enigma here. BigDunc^Talk 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither I, nor the user GDD1000 who you have such a bee in your bonnet about, have been found guilty of anything more than reacting to the abysmal treatment handed out by you and your tag teaming partners. Your manipulation of guidelines and policy seems to be matched only by your dogged perserverance in hounding anyone whose opinion doesn't concur with yours on articles related to Irish nationalism. The history of the extended attempts by GDD1000 to become a useful editor on Wikipedia is littered with your reverts, always quoting policy but doing nothing to assist the user in editing points into the pages the user was trying to contribute to. I note that "post-departure" your malicious behaviour continued against that user by damning his/her mistakes as a new, but enthusiatic editor, as "copyright violation," "POV pushing," etc. Not once in the history of that user do I see you or your fellow tag teamers welcome the new user or give him/her encouragement to continue posting, despite the overt politeness and appeals for assistance made to you. I see the same thing happening with me. Your welcome to me consisted of you jumping on the sockpuppetry bandwagon, reverts to my edits with the most spurious of policy quoting and a refusal to accept the word of an admin who has done a checkuser proving there is "no abusive sockpuppetry". You appear determined to pursue a course of incivility, harrassment, disinformation and propaganda against me to drive me off the Ulster Defence Regiment article and prevent the addition of useful, encyclopedic knowledge. That indicates to me, as it will to any person who bothers to check your edit history, that of your cohorts and of GDD1000. You've objected to my presence on Ulster Defence Regiment when I posted encyclopedic history of the regiment, its formation, armaments, vehicles, structure, commanders, awards, image, effect on the local community, duties, bases, casualties and allegations of collusion between loyalist and republican paramilitaries, all with inline references and citations and all you contributed in the same period was a revert to challenge information which was a direct lift from an article on Wikipedia which had been there, untouched for two years. In effect you've been hoist by your own petard for pursuing a vendetta.The Thunderer (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me state that 1) there is no abusive sockpuppetry being perpetrated here by The Thunderer and 2) I'm less than impressed with both BigDunc and Domer48's campaign of intimidation of the above editor. It's pretty obvious that they don't agree with his standpoint on certain issues and have taken it upon themselves to smear the guy's reputation with insinuations and accusations of sockery. Obviously, the goal here is to drive him from the project and, though I think his words to-date have been a bit strident and OTT, he has every reason to feel put-upon here. I'd like to see Dunc and Domer drop the matter, leave the editor alone, and basically get back to editing - Alison ^❤ 23:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the SSP case is not only closed but the door has been slammed shut at this stage. It only took two admins and a checkuser to close it. In short, it was a classic SSP 'fishing' case and one placed to simply cause trouble for their target. C'mon, guys, let's not do that. Had that been RFCU, I'd have thrown the case out for Checkuser is not for fishing - Alison ^❤ 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Alison. I apologise for being "strident" but this type of harrassment is very hard to swallow, particularly when there is so much emphasis placed on friendliness in the guidelines published on Wikipedia. The Thunderer (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that I recently had an incident of gaming at the hands of these two users. Perhaps something can be done now. There is a clear recent history of disruptive behaviour.Traditional unionist (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an Admin can guide me on how to ensure I don't have to suffer this type of harrassment on Wikipedia again?The Thunderer (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Longchenpa WP:3RR warning help

Taken to WP:AN/3. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:AlexLevyOne

I could use some advice and help regarding User:AlexLevyOne. The account is just a couple of weeks old but already reflects several hundred edits of highly variable quality. While his intentions appear to be good, he frequently displays some pretty bad judgment, and despite the efforts of several concerned editors to engage him on his talk page, has responded simply by blanking their comments. Example here.

It is, for example, not a bad idea to scan articles looking for {fact} tags. But some assertions are more squirrelly than others and it is not always sound editing simply to remove the tagged fact in every instance. Likewise, several short paragraphs can often be collapsed into one, but not at the expense of legibility. This post to the user’s Talk page by User:Deor (blanked shortly thereafter) illustrates several of his problem edits: diff.

To sum up, AlexLevyOne makes some good edits, but many irresponsible ones as well. I think he needs to be reined in a bit – focused a bit better – but given his unwillingness even to acknowledge Talk page requests, I’m not sure how to go about it. As for his edits -- I’ve tried to repair some of them, but he is prolific and I can’t keep up with him. That’s another reason for this request. Comments, advice, extra eyes or hands are all welcome. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you as to this user's editing. He declines to have any interaction whatsoever when people raise issues with his edits.

However, I don't know what WQA can achieve. If he won't talk, he won't talk. He doesn't have to talk, but he should recognise that failure to engage will lead to his dubious edits being regarded as disruptive.

If he continues to decline to engage, we can do little but revert and warn. Ultimately, his editing is going to lead to a block. Mayalld (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is WP:ANI a better place for this? (Part of the problem I'm having is that I can't quite figure out what to use to warn him - it's not vandalism, really, but more often just *really bad judgment*. What's a level 3 warning for that?) JohnInDC (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The user clearly has a less-than-adequate grasp of the English language and should probably be editing the French WP rather than trying to "improve" this one. I thought of asking the admins at WP:AN what to do about an editor like this (good faith but incompetent, who refuses, apparently, to read the editing guidelines or to discuss his edits), but frankly, I'm not sure that they can do much, either. I agree that the need to clean up many of his edits, coupled with his persistent silence, are quite frustrating and am open to any suggestions. Deor (talk) 14:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given that many of his edits are messing up the appearance of an article, uw-mos might be appropriate (leading to uw-generic4 in the end), some of his edits delete formatting, so uw-delete, or, bluntly, given his persistence in doing the same thing again after non-templated attempts to engage him over his problematic behaviour, uw-vandalism. Mayalld (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, those MOS templates are good. Thanks. I added one to his Talk page based on one of this morning's edits. JohnInDC (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Krzyzowiec

User with long history of extreme incivility incidents [9][10] , multiple civility and revert warring warnings [11] [12] and blocks[13], now openly instigates revert warring, making extremely incivil personal remarks seasoned with anti-Semitic rant about Jews in Czech language [14]"žid nemůže krásti -- on jen bere, co jeho jest. Peníze nežida jsou majetkem bez pána -- Žid má úplné právo si je přivlastnit" ("Jews don't steal, they take what belongs to them. Money of the non-Jew is a property without the owner - a Jew has a right to take it" and so on. I think open instigation of revert wars and openly anti-Semitic rants like this are not acceptable, and something must be done about it. M0RD00R (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Mayalld

This is a follow up on a case of contested speedy deletion, which I deal with on the appropriate place -- see more here. This is also, I believe, a case of an editor who seems to be misusing his admin power by evading detail clarification of his speedy deletion nomination, and by letting the speedy deletion status on so that deletion was completed while I was showing interest in improving the posting and actively providing evidence why the posting was justified and notable.

As you could see on the talk page of the deleted IGO Search, I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the admin, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing Wikipedia help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion was the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time to discuss deficiencies of the article properly. I wonder how is it possible that one single person, without other views, discussion, and without an editorial consensus, and especially without providing comments and time on how to improve a possibly deficient article, how can one such person cause deletion of someone's work. Moreover, when I complained to him about this very incident, still trying to be very polite and talking about his actions rather than himself as a person, he deleted both of my posts and posted an note on my talk page to which I could hardly, with my own words deleted, defend against.

Summary: I am all for intelligent discussions backed by clear and irrefutable evidence, and I am hereby protesting against single-person non-discussed deletions of the above user. I believe blatant deletion of other people posts is not a way of discussing issues described in them. I shall be very grateful for any consideration and recommendations as to how can I -- or other people affected by someone deleting their work without proving any wrongdoing -- proceed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjfulopp (talk • contribs) 23:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidea

Wikidea is currently using edit summaries to accuse me of trolling, stalking (despite the fact that I first edited that page on 24 February 2008) and for not being smart. On article's discussion page he also accused me of being a troll and expressing wish that I would go away [15].

He was warned to watch on his manners by User:84user [16], me [17], and User:Yannismarou [18], [19]. -- Vision Thing -- 23:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)