Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Simon.Pole (talk | contribs)
436 edits
diff links more clear
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Historical document}}
{{shortcut|WP:WQA}}
{{historical}}
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]
Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view.


'''Wikiquette assistance''' was an informal process, [[Special:PermanentLink/10842811|set up in March 2005]], available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=512742266#Closing_Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance discussion among the community] about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally [[Special:PermanentLink/512745599|marked inactive in September 2012]].
==Procedure==
At the bottom of the list, just post:
*A '''single''' link to the problem or issue as you see it (for example, a single posting or section of a talk page).
*Label the comment '''neutrally''' but do not sign and '''do not use names''' (type <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki>, which gives only a timestamp).
*Please avoid embarking on a discussion of the points raised on this page. Carry on discussing it wherever you originally were &mdash; editors responding to posts here will come to ''you''!


If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]].
If you would like to get an outside view on your own behaviour, please post it here too.


For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see [[WP:PAIN]].
Outsiders who visit the link are encouraged to make a constructive comment about any Wikiquette breaches they see. Postings should be removed after seven days.


{| class="wikitable" style="float:left;vertical-align:top;"
(Old alerts moved to [[/archive]].)
| width="300" style="text-align:center;"| '''Search the [[Template:Wikiquette_assistance/Archive_navbox|Wikiquette archives]]'''

|-
==Active alerts==
|<inputbox>

type=fulltext
===October 3===
prefix=Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
*[[:Image:Hazel O Leary fisher.jpg]] Improper removal of Copyvio tag (multiple; see history).
break=no
**See [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Pigsonthewing_2]]
width=40
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Hazel_O_Leary_fisher.jpg&diff=24635568&oldid=24634308|Abusive abusive edit summary on the above]
searchbuttonlabel=Search
</inputbox>
===October 4===
|}
*See [[Aerial (album)]] and associated discussion page
One editor is making repeated minor alterations to a cross-reference, claiming "I can do this all day, you know" Opinion is invited. 22:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

*See [[Joseph of Arimathea]] and associated discussion page.
We need some level-headed Wikipedians to compare the reasonable, neautral encyclopedic former entry with a new entry that seems to be an essay in pressing a series of agendas about a "known" history of Joseph of Arimathea based on popular mythology.
===October 5===
*See [[Bogdanov Affair]] and associated discussion page.
The article isn't too pleasant, with near constant revert wars and vandalism and no shortage of apparent sock puppets. Some outside help would be nice to head this off at the pass before it gets to RfC. Thanks. 12:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
===October 6===
* An anon user at IP 203.59.6.175 has been putting links to the Buddhist Society of Western Australia on tons of Buddhism-related article, neglecting the fact that the BSWA site doesn't have relevent information about many of the topics. As an example, a link was added from [[Abhidhamma]], but a quick use of the search box at [http://www.bswa.org bswa.org] turns up almost nothing relating to the Abhidhamma. 09:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

* See [[Bektashi]] article, its discussion page, and recent versions upto three days. One editor deleted some part of some section, the one who inserted them thinks they should be kept, but the other editor cuts out the discussion. 22:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 11===

*[[User:Wbfl]] refuses to discuss his edits to [[Road]] and [[Pavement (material)]], despite being politely offered every chance to do so. He has now reverted three times, removing what seems a reasonable statement from the text. His responses to the comment on [[User talk:Wbfl|talk page]] has consisted of little more than insult, and his edit comments are full of the same. This is the sort of thing that really ticks me off, I just want to get on with something interesting - can someone take a look and sort this out? [[User:GRAHAMUK|Graham]] 09:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

*[[User:Scottfisher]] blanking sections of his [[User talk:Scottfisher|talk page]], including complaints about his copyright abuse and requests that he cease making pesonal attacks. Also making further personal attacks. 14:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
**Still refusing to address any points put to him about his negative behaviour. See [[User talk:Pigsonthewing/Scottfisher|an archive of comments he's deleted]]. 20:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

*Things are getting seriously out of hand in the spanish version of wikipedia, and there is a mass abuse of power. Some spaniards have become obsessed with "Gibraltar bashing" placing untrue and POV items on the Gibraltar page. There are many spaniards in WP, but not many Gibraltarians, so I am fighting a losing battle. There are many abusing their power as sysops, and banning me from correcting their lies, or coming up with a "consensus" that has nothing to do with truth or neutrality. Could someone please look into this issue, and assure objectivity and fairness in future? Many Thanks --[[User:Gibraltarian|Gibraltarian]] 22:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 12===
Things are also seriously out of hand on [[Neuro-linguistic Programming]]. We really need assistance there to restore "assume good faith" and "no personal attacks". 11:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

On the WP edit template, there is a direct request made to editors: if you don't want others to edit what you write, don't submit it. Unfortunately I've found there are many Wikipedians who refuse to honour that request, angrily reverting even the most minor clarifying edits to "their" pages. Some Chinese editors are particularly nasty, accusing all who clarify articles on China of vandalism (the "use the sandbox" message). It's reached the point where I'm off to more productive work than WP - I'm just not into edit wars with doctrinaire and possessive people. Unless you can find a way of handling people with high revert counts, I'm certain you will lose other qualified editors too. [[User:JohnSankey|JohnSankey]] 13:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


===October 13===
There is currently an edit war heating up at [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style]]; an anon. user continues to reinsert text regarding the German 'ezrett' character w/o apparent consensus. I don't feel qualified to jump in, but I do feel that the MoS is not a good place for an edit war, so I'm hoping a more qualified editor will have a look. 16:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Administrator [[Fire Star]] is deliberately getting involved in edit wars and then threatening those involved with banning. This is obviously conduct unbecoming of an administrator. [[User:24.250.136.236|24.250.136.236]] 22:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:You were warned against reverting more than three times. Since I edited the article, I wouldn't have banned you, I'd have reported you on the 3RR noticeboard and someone else would have blocked you for 24 hrs. I ''will'' ban you permanently if you make any more threats like you did on [[User talk:12.18.108.242]], specifically, this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:12.18.108.242&oldid=25327939]. That is conduct that will not be tolerated here. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star]] 22:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
::Tsk, tsk getting a little antsy are we, Mr. Fire Star? It is clear I was just joking around with what's his face, but who was the only other person editing that article. Hmmm ... you? For me to have reverted 3 times (which I did not do) would have meant you would have had to have reverted 3 times. But the rules don't apply to you do they? Maybe I should link to what you wrote me on my user page and on the page we were arguing over. [[User:24.250.136.236|24.250.136.236]] 22:41, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:::No, actually, it isn't clear that you were joking at all. Especially given your short, yet disruptive, edit history. Other users don't "joke" like that more than once here, either.
:::My job is to clean up after vandals and to warn new users when they start to look like they are headed in that direction. You don't want to be considered a vandal, do you? You did not revert more than three times, so I did not report you, it is that simple. If you look at the article's [[edit history]], you'll see that there was a reversion back to my version by [[User:81.109.122.94]] when they tagged the article for [[speedy deletion]], a reversion that put me one ahead of you. FYI, that is a function of how [[consensus]] works to stabilise article disputes. My other edits were edits of the [[npov]] version, not reversions of your opinionated offering. That is evidence that despite your perception of how I am working with you, I do indeed apply [[wikipedia policy|the rules]] to myself when I need to. If I ever don't, for whatever reason, there are plenty of other knowledgeable and courteous users here who I'm sure would gently remind me of the oversight. --[[User:Fire Star|Fire Star]] 01:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 15===

[[User:Harprit]], also known under various socks and anonIPs (see [[User:Sukh/Revert War Evidence]]) has repeatedly vandalized my userpage and is now following me about reverting all my edits. He has also threatened me, albeit indirectly and completely ineffectually -- "Why don't you come down to Bombay so we can show you how to really play Holi. Then you will understand that you shouldn't write about something you don't know." This is wearing me down. Do I have any recourse? [[User:Zora|Zora]] 07:40, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[[User:Heptor]] is making what I consider bad faith reverts of the [[Six-Day War]] article after I've spent weeks researching appropriate scholarly sources. I can't see the point in trying to improve the article any more. Is there a solution? --[[User:Ian Pitchford|Ian Pitchford]] 17:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[[Template:WivesMuhammad]] - revert war has been raging for two months due to a content dispute. Attempts to use page protection and reach consensus or compromise have repeatedly failed. 07:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 17===

We are having disputes on the [[vegetarian]] pages as to what constitutes the definition of the word. Whether to use the definition as it applies to Britain and the US or worldwide. While discussion is going on, edits are being made that is further aggravating the issue. --[[User:Pranathi|Pranathi]] 16:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user has removed speedy delete tags no fewer than three times on [[Secret Secret Page]]. They keep replacing the text with a message to "Wikipedia admins" that the page is "currently being edited." [[User:Aeverett|Al]] 16:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:Nevermind. It got speedied. [[User:Aeverett|Al]] 16:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

* [[Dhul-Qarnayn]] - Extremely controversial Islamic topic. Large group of apologetic POV pushers are making unexplained edits, deleting vast amounts of content and refusing to explain their edits. A certain user started a version fork of the article on her User pages and certain apologists have taken this opportunity to start a revert war dedicated to replacing the article with the version fork, without adequate discussion. Mediation, comments, or participation in editing is strongly requested. 01:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 20===

[[User:ThomasK]] is persistently blanking the [[Talk:Michelle Forbes]] page, which contains exactly one comment. When questioned about it on his own [[User talk:ThomasK|talk page]] he reverts the question, and does not respond. 08:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Page [[CS 5555]] was created a little while ago. According to the content, it is a class assignment given to a student specifically to create a page on Wikipedia. It does not contain any encyclopedic content. Presumably there will be other articles created from other students in the same class. Can someone head this off at the pass? 12:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 23===

[[User:TDC]] is reverting frequently other users contributions without proper motivation. Questions on his [[User Talk:TDC|talk page]] are regularly ignored. If he motivates his reverts his comments are often provoking and abrasive. He is not neutral in his revert-policy but is pushing his point of view. 09:12, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[[User:82.47.148.236]] is purging factual infomration from [[British Sea Power]], claiming some is "not important" and including [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_Sea_Power&diff=26038051&oldid=26031492 a very abusive edit summary]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] 11:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
:Ongoing, despite evidence cited, by several editors, to support the material he's removing. 15:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

*User:[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] - Continuous instigations in an attempt to create an environment of argumentive attention and confusion, to make editors screw up then laying the blame on them with, revert wars, stalking of edits, uncivil snide edit comments, and user has been blocked on multiple occasions. User seems more concerned to cause above examples than be civil. Example is his user page and pending disputed behavior/ [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing|RFC]]. 15:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 24===

[[User:M1ss1ontomars2k4]], otherwise apparently responsible (but not a newbie either), is repeatedly inserting a sentence into the lead paragraph of [[Drosophila melanogaster]]. The point appears to be to push, as a joke, a certain alleged nickname for the species and/or a mention of "AP biology" instruction at what is presumably his U.S. high school. 13:16, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

William M. Connolley reverted the article of the lomborg whitout any explanation or any note in the talk pages[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg&diff=26303176&oldid=26302390]. '''This constitutes a violation of his parole[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/William_M._Connolley_and_Cortonin#Temporary_injunction].''' I expect that the appropriate action is taken.--[[User:MichaelSirks|MichaelSirks]] 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=prev&oldid=26360721 This edit] 19:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 25===

[[User:Adraeus]] continuously refers to civil comments directed to him as "vandalism," and "harrassment" and the people posting them as "trolls." This has gotten him banned from Wikipedia for one month in the past, but has not helped him come to terms with the problem. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAdraeus&diff=26445980&oldid=26445915 Here] is an example of a civil comment to his talk page made by me, which was deleted, the edit summary claiming it constituted harrassment. There are examples of where he has done the same to other users.

In the particular conflict between me and him which led up to this, I have myself behaved badly. I was tremendously annoyed by his behavior, and said inappropriate things. I will accept any form of punishment that may result because of this. Please continue this discussion on my talk page. I cannot post to Adraeus talk page without him deleting my entries. [[User:Miai|Miai]] 17:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[[User:Snowspinner]] is making personal attacks and generally behaving with incivility on [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines]]. He's been asked politely by other editors to stop the incivility but he just seems to be getting more obnoxious and hostile, becoming more and more profane and posting links to blog discussions with comments about how people on wikipedia make him "really feel" "like killing." This has turned what had been a safe, productive conversation into one that is threatening and uncomfortable for other participants. Is there something that can be done about this ? 09:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

===October 28===
[[User:Nick Boulevard]] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Food_and_drink_in_Birmingham%2C_England&curid=3015476&diff=26717725&oldid=26694197 Hostile talk page comments]. 19:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
:This is hostile? [[User:Leonig Mig|Leonig Mig]] 10:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

==October 30==
[[Phish]] / [[Talk:Phish]] - anonymous editors repeatedly reverting cleanup attempts when a previous topic RFC produced a clear consensus to do so. 21:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

==November 1==
[[User:24.88.252.207]] - continues to re-add the comment

"The company is particularly noted for its low level of customer service, among the worst in the cable industry, and for employing criminals. Several senior Charter executives received felony fraud convictions in 2003."

or derivations thereof to [[Charter Communications]]. A few users that watch this page continue to either revert the statements or delete the statements. The user has only targeted this page, as viewed on [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=24.88.252.207 User:24.88.252.207 Contributions] the article has been growing slowly but steadily over the last few weeks, despite these statements. 01:51, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 2==
At [[John_Kerry#First_Purple_Heart]] there is a year long edit war over the word 'minor' being used to describe Kerry's wound. [[User:Rex071404]] is pitted against [[User:Gamaliel]] and [[User:JamesMLane]]. [[User:Dubhdara]] tried to add this sentence: "Kerry's detractors consider this wound "minor" while other people don't." But, that doesn't seem to placate either side in the dispute. 18:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 4==
Please see [[Casa Zimbabwe]] and the associated [[talk:Casa Zimbabwe|talk-page]] regarding a current edit/revert war, please see page history. Calton is an ex-member of a rival [[Cloyne Court Hotel|Co-op]], I don't believe that [[user:calton|Calton]] is editing constructively. Rather than making concret suggestions, he reverts the page to a very *early* version. He even removes the house flag image.
Thanks [[User:Joachimp|Joachimp]] 03:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 5==
[[User:NSR|NSR]], an experienced and well-respected editor, today appears to have used an automated procedure to create identical new stub articles for [[w:Category:Villages in Gloucestershire|every single village in Gloucestershire]]. Is this a good thing to do? Wikipedia has '''notability''' requirements for persons, rock bands, etc.; does it have (or need) any comparable criteria for geographical places? [[User:IslandGyrl|IslandGyrl]] 17:19, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:It was for a long time a common complaint that somehow there must be limits to what Wikipedia can hold, and therefore any move towards really trying to cover all of some paticular category (highschools, grammer schools, villages) must be a bad thing and someone needs to set up "importance" criteria. In fact, putting all the villages of Gloucestershire is still far short of putting every village in the world in (therefore, theworry is premature), and it is near impossible and kind of against the philosophy of Wikipedia to say which villages will have merit and which will not. Fact is, if push comes to shove, some village articles that seem to not move beyond a real short stub might get combined by the next Gloustershirerer. Obviously there are topics the expansion into which could produce a lot of pretty useless articles for Wikipedia ("Parts List for a 1935 Ford", for example). But all such entries can only be handled on a case by case basis. I do not think places on the planet rise quite to that level of insignificance, so I would support articles on each village of Gloucestershire or anywhere else for that matter - [[User:Marshman|Marshman]] 18:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 7==
A simple edit war over on [[Vodcast]]. An annoymous user is repeatedly removing external links to other vodcast directories, breaking the "3 reversions a day" rule. This has been mentioned in the discussion section but ignored. Either any directory is allowed to be mentioned or all are removed. As it is, I don't feel this behavior benefits Wikipedia users. Please help! 10:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:Marshman - you're my hero! Things at [[Vodcast]] seemed to have settled down now so you can take off the cape and mask. Thank you, until next time... 00:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
::I'm sure they did. I blocked the jerk for 48 hours. Buit he might be back shortly. If so, we will extend the ban - [[User:Marshman|Marshman]]

[[Tales From Topographic Oceans]]- See discussion on [[Talk:Tales From Topographic Oceans]]. Anon user has expanded article into a 'critical essay' with lots of personal opinions, etc. Needs third party view/input/severe editing and cleanup, possibly user needs clarification re. NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

:Apologies, this isn't an anon editor but [[user:thoss]], who I assume is the previous anon contributor now signed in. Could still do with a third party look-over though... [[User:Quercusrobur|quercus robur]] 22:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[[User talk:64.83.164.192|This anonymous user]] has seen his or her recent additions to the [[Natalee Holloway]] article reverted three times for pushing a POV and not providing citations for disputed claims. A third party could help keep the article neutral. 00:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Two users, both anonymous, have been reverting each others' edits to sections of [[Greek reconstructionism]] for months. A heated [[Talk:Greek_reconstructionism#Come_watch_NPOV_lose_a_round.21|talk page discussion]] full of personal attacks appears to have accomplished nothing in the way of compromise. "Assume good faith" doesn't seem to be the philosophy of the day. 00:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 11==
[[User:HappyApple|HappyApple]] dropped by to leave a POV warning on the article I'm working on, the [[Cenepa War]]. The problem is that he doesn't seem to be too enthusiastic to talk about it. Also, the reasons he brought forward explaining the notice do not look like justifying an POV warning. Perhaps a notice of expansion would be more adequate? Thanks. 18:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 12==
[[User:Cunado19]] has been reverting and excising text on the [[Bahá'í Faith and Science]] page that don't conform to his POV on the matter of "Life on other planets." A great deal of discussion has occured on the [[Talk:Bahá'í Faith and Science|talk]] page addressing his points in detail to no avail. He's removed text that has sought middle ground, and called edits contrary to his opinion a revert war. In my opinion the last, clean version is: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_Science&oldid=27519837 05:38 6 November 2005].

Another example of the subject user's tone may be found here: [[User_talk:Jeffmichaud]]

I'm requesting assistance. [[User:MARussellPESE|MARussellPESE]] 19:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 13==
[[User:Jooler]] refuses to abide by the "football (soccer)" compromise on [[Current sports events]]. See [[Talk:Current sports events]]. -- 13:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 14==
*I would like to get an opinion about whether or not [[User:Molobo]]'s behaviour on [[Talk:Zygmunt Bauman]] (wholesale deletion of replies that he alleges contain "personal attacks" without any indication - see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AZygmunt_Bauman&diff=28238526&oldid=28133651 this] and subsequent edits) is considered acceptable practice? Thanks. 18:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

*I'd like to have an external opinion on recent undergoings in [[Russian military ranks]], where one user keeps inserting questionable information amd ignores any comments, and other parties keep reverting his edits while trying to negotiate the point. [[User:DmitryKo|DmitryKo]] 17:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

==November 15==

*[[User:Timecop]] and several other users are systematically vfd'ing all blog-related entries at Wikipedia. The list they're following is [[User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs | here]]. They've vfd'd [[J.D. Lasica]] and seem to be targetting non-American emtries such as [[Progressive Bloggers]] and [[Canadian blogosphere]], violating Wikiquette around [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias | systemic bias]]--[[User:Simon.Pole|Simon.Pole]] 09:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:37, 29 November 2020

Wikiquette assistance was an informal process, set up in March 2005, available to editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly. There was discussion among the community about its effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to eliminate the Wikiquette assistance process. This page was formally marked inactive in September 2012.

If you require assistance with resolving a content issue, please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For a similar noticeboard which was also discontinued and marked historical, see WP:PAIN.

Search the Wikiquette archives
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=991273557"