Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Steven Crossin (talk | contribs) at 21:53, 15 September 2012 (Marking historical, per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)&oldid=512742266#Closing_Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikiquette assistance was an informal method for editors who felt that they were being treated uncivilly, to request assistance from others. There was discussion among the community about it's effectiveness, and a consensus was formed to close WQA in favour of other options.

In future, if you require assistance with resolving a conduct issue, please refer to the guidance on this page to see if it assists with resolving the dispute, which also shows alternative forums that can be used to resolve the dispute if necessary.

Active discussions

Talk:Broadsword_(disambiguation)#August_2012_cleanup

Recently Trofobi made an edit, which I reverted. He/she instantly reverted it back, which as far as I understand is against policy or at least bad form. I re-reverted it, which is probably rather bad, and He/she instantly reverted it back again, but at least started a discussion. Sadly said discussion has gone badly. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation of why the edit was made, and the motivation for the reverts, but Trofobi has repeatedly refused to answer. Also, I have been baselessly accused of certain actions and motivations, but that is not really important and may be ignored for the purposes of this request. As to diffs and the such... Well, the section of the talk page, listed above covers everything rather well and it's not that long.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against immediately reverting someone, especially when the revert includes an edit summary besides the default "undo" message, and especially when the first edit is against consensus. According to the page history, you made the first edit which Trofobi reverted, citing the Manual of Style in his edit summary. You then restored the edit calling the MOS "merely a guideline," which Trofobi (rightfully) reverted. Had I been there, I would have reverted you as well. There has been significant discussion on the talk page, Trofobi was just restoring the article to the version that met both local consensus (as established on the talk page) and site-wide consensus (which is what guidelines represent). There has been no wikiquette violation, but you have a serious case of WP:IDHT. There's no action to take here, except to draw WP:Boomerang attention to a potential edit-warrior (that'd be you, Zarlan). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is simply not true. This is the first edit.
What you call the first edit, was my revert of that first edit, made by Trofobi.
As to re-reverting a revert of ones edit, I cite from What BRD is and is not: "Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed, as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.". Besides, even if it were not so, it's still very much bad form. Nevertheless, that's not the issue at hand. The issue is that Trofobi refuses to discuss the matter. He makes responses, but doesn't answer any questions, makes baseless assertions, and won't explain what he does or why.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see discussion on the article talkpage ... including Trofobi. We go by WP:CONSENSUS here ... try and obtain consensus for your changes dangerouspanda 23:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can there be discussion if one party is refusing to explain anything or answer any questions or anything? Which questions has Trofobi answered? What explanations for his edits has Trofobi made? Any explanation that the previous version didn't comply with MoS is entierly pointless, unless Trofobi will explain what part and how of the MoS it doesn't comply with (something I have repeatedly asked for, which Trofobi refuses to answer). Furthermore, Trofobi claimed that the previous version lacked some information, despite his edit actually removing information and not adding any (he did add a few links, sure, but my reverts didn't remove those. Well one did, but I immediately put them back. Either way, those added links are rather a separate issue, as far as I see it).
As to trying to get consensus... The previous version had been there for quite a while, thus making it consensus. Then Trofobi made a significant edit, going against consensus as the change hadn't been discussed in advance (which is hardly required). I reverted the edit back to the old consensus. Trofobi didn't agree with this. That means that there was a disagreement. If there is a disagreement, that should be discussed. Trofobi didn't do this, but rather re-reverted. Something that the WP:BRD article indicates is against policy. Even if it isn't, it's rather bad form and arrogant. It's kinda like the attitude of a kindergarten argument "yes it is! no it isn't! yes it is! no it isn't![...and so on]". You may think that you are right, but you can't just insist that your right and take your version of things and try to bulldoze it through. Thus I had no reservations to reverting it back again, though I should probably have handled it differently. Once discussion started, though, I at least tried to engage in it. Sadly it didn't turn into a dialogue. I takes two to tango. It's just monologues right now.
As I asked in the talk page:
  • What new information did my reverts remove? Trofobi claims the old version was lacking information, I have asked what lacking info that may have been, but Trofobi refuses to answer.
  • What misleading/outdated links were replaced, and in what way were they misleading/outdated? Again Trofobi has claimed he/she did that. I have asked what lacking info that may have been, but Trofobi refuses to answer.
  • What part of MoS is relevant. Trofobi's main argument for the edit was the MoS. I have asked repeatedly about this, but Trofobi refuses to answer.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 13:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that it is not making an exceptional claim, the author may be wrong in dispute raising or not, but as far as content ONIH is wrong because it is not unduly self-seving or "an exceptional claim" as much literature would exist that would broadly agree with their self-denigration as being " democratic libertarian", and I don't see how stating what end of the political spectrum a party is is unduly self serving, for example it is the exact same as "the conservative party" caliming they "stand for conservative values" a self-published source is usable only when "making claims about themseleves" and it fufills neither the unduly self serving nor the exceptional claim clause as given above (exceptional claim is defined as one of a minority position that does not have significant reliable 3rd party back up, clearly this is not a minority position and would have reliable 3rd party agreement sources that would state similar). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As already posted in my first edit on the article's talk page, the article changes have been discussed on the DAB-Project and Zarlan's second revert was not just reverting my edit, but also the edits of George Ho and JHunterJ. I only refuse to answer questions that I have already answered or that are clearly visible in the article history & talk. Especially when you, Zarlan, mess up also my talk page and post PA there - I even gave you the chance to fix that. --Trofobi (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
discussed on the DAB-Project? (I kinda missed that, but it hardly matters) No discussion on the articles talk page, or with any editors involved? (until the second revert, that is) I'm hardly impressed, nor do I see how it is, in any way relevant.
As to the claim that my reverts also reverted George Ho's and JHunterJ's edits... In the case of George Ho... He was essentially making sure that the article started by mentioning the main thing called a broadsword, and follow that with a "Broadsword may also refer to"-bit. This was true of the previous version I reverted to, so my revert wasn't really removing what he added. It just slightly rephrased it, and added more information. As to JHunterJ's edit... He was essentially making style fixes to your version, which were hardly applicable to the old version (as it was different and any style fixes would have to be reapplied, rather than copied). JHunterJ's edit being reverted was simply an unavoidable consequence of reverting your edit.
As to already having answered the questions... Could you show where you answered any of the questions I have mentioned here? And remember: Other people are not the same as you are. What you personally know or consider obvious, isn't true of others. --ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Subsequent contributions were originially posted on my talk page, but upon my request now moved here with Zarlan's permission. --Trofobi (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
You can deal with the headline-mess. You can delete the whole thing if you want. It's you talk page. The important thing is that I've notified you.
As to a personal attack... I don't see one. Could you please explain in what way I have done such a thing? (but then, given that you haven't answered any other question I have asked, I'm not expecting much) I remind you that you are required to assume good faith (that being a fundamental principal of wikipedia, for good reasons that fully agree with). If there is a personal attack, then surely the Wikiquette Assistance will be able to identify and deal with it? Thus I see no problem there, and if you were to try and take things in your own hands would, no doubt, seem rather inappropriate ...and would probably make everyone more inclined to think that you are acting in a uncivil manner. In other words: I wouldn't recommend doing so.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, now I see what might have made you say I made a personal attack! The mention of trolling. Well, you did talk about the MoS, while repeatedly refusing to answer. In a reply where I requested an explanation for the n:th time, I said that further refusal would mean I'd have to check if there is a way to report trolling. "Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict."
Oh course one could argue that, given that trolling has to be "deliberate and intentional", I am failing to assume good faith ...but really. You were asked a basic and reasonable question. Repeatedly ...and repeatedly refused to give an answer. I didn't assume bad faith, I was simply given strong, repeated, indications of it ...but whether you really have been trolling, or otherwise uncivil, I'll leave to the Wikiquette Assistance.
Speaking of which, I would like to point out to you a few things from Wikipedia:Etiquette (directly copy-pasted) that are, or may be, relevant:
  • Work towards agreement.
  • Do not make misrepresentations.
  • Do not ignore reasonable questions.
  • If someone disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think that it is appropriate.
  • Recognize your own biases, and keep them in check.
  • Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except where exemptions apply. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
  • When reverting other people's edits, give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page, if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes
  • Amend, edit, discuss.
  • Remind yourself that these are people with whom you are dealing. They have feelings. Try to treat others with dignity. The world is a big place, with different cultures and conventions. Do not use jargon that others might not understand. Use acronyms carefully and clarify if there is the possibility of any doubt.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 23:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As all the ways I have up to now tried to find solutions that are also acceptable for you, Zarlan, remain not only fruitless; but instead you keep escalating, writing longer and longer and more demanding texts - therefore I kindly ask all other users who read this to post their opinions and to suggest possible solutions. (In my personal perception the way you, Zarlan, are excessively arguing and heating up any single point of the whole story, is clearly and highly disruptive behaviour.[as Ian.thomson already stated above]) --Trofobi (talk) 01:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I said "you have my permission to move them there, as long as you copy all of it". You didn't do so. You only moved one post, not all of it, and have thus not done the move with my permission.
While it is true that the ways you have tried have failed, I would suggest answering questions and explaining your edits (which is what I have asked for, from the beginning). If you have already done so, as you claim: Show it! If I write long, it's partially because I like to clarify things and partially because I am somewhat lacking in my ability to be concise. As to "more demanding"... If the demand stays the same, how can it increase? Anyway this Wikiquette assistance isn't really here to let the editors dispute in a separate area, is it? I'd rather wait to hear from someone else. There has hardly been any input on this at all, yet, but these things can take time.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing by TheRedPenOfDoom at List of unusual deaths

A list article, for which TheRedPenOfDoom has repeatedly blanked successive entries. This is claimed to be about sourcing, or maybe definition of the list, or else WP:MOS issues, but that precise issue seems to be somewhat fluid. Multiple reversions by a number of separate editors.

Raised at Talk:List_of_unusual_deaths#Fail_WP:IINFO_and_Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style.2FLists, although not a fruitful discussion.

This is nowhere near a useful discussion about the improvment of an article, it's just one editor alone bitching pointlessly about anything they can hang the most tenuous link to any random policy. Such notable deaths as St Lawrence, Jan Palach and the crew of Soyuz 11 have been blanked - these people have city squares named after them. As a policy issue, then it's generally accepted that referencing for list entries can depend substantially upon sources within a substantive linked article on each list entry. This behaviour is pretty much the antithesis of collaborative editing, it's just disruptive petulance. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has presented any rationale or discussions that prevent basic Wikipedia policies such as WP:V from applying or being applied to this article. As far as user actions that deserve to be discussed at Wikiquette one may wish to consider this edit which was followed by an AfD nomination which appears to have been instigated by trolling through my contributions to find a tit for tat. -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that this is an acceptable article, meeting our standards or notability and verifiability, but you still wish to delete List of unusual deaths? Obviously I found this by looking at your edit history, but there's hardly any need to invoke "tit for tat" to see reason to delete it! Andy Dingley (talk) 01:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No i dont. thats why i !voted to redirect -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Andy, retaliatory AfD's are childish and in incredibly poor taste, and greatly diminish your credibility. Frankly, I consider what you did a much greater breach of Wikiquette than anything TRPOD did. It sure does look like "tit for tat" to me, even though I would have voted to redirect if the AfD had not been retaliatory. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dominus. AfD retaliation makes me shake my head in dismay. Jusdafax 01:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Retaliation" would have been to AfD one of his other two created articles for deletion, only because it was his. As you rightly say, that's not on. However having seen the state of an article that was no more than an unreferenced "See also" section, I certainly wasn't going to leave it lying around. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I too have been rather dismayed at TheRedPenOfDoom's modus operandi of "delete first, discuss later" (if discuss at all). Collaboraive editing would suggest a search for a source if none is given, or at least additon of a {cn} tag. I'm sure that it may be difficult to get this article to fit in with the standard pattern of articles, but that does not mean it's worthless. TheRedPenOfDoom suggested, quite rightly, that the criteria for inclusion, at the top of the article, were not clear. But instead of engaging in a detailed debate about how to improve these, at the Talk Page, he began a series of unilateral deletions, for a variety of supposed reasons. Thi8s seems a bit back-to-front. This is not an artcle that has just sprung up over-night. As for AndyDingley's proposed AfD - I don't see how this can be considered "tit-for-tat" when this article has not even been nominated by TheRedPenOfDoom as an AfD. I had thought that Andy may have been trying to point out that other articles may be "borderline" cases, and that to defend one over another might be seen as hypocritical. (But he's now just clarified his actions above and any editor is free to AfD at any tme, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jan Palach already meets WP:N and WP:V. Long established practice for list articles is that if the individual entry is linked to a substantive article on that topic specifically, and there is good sourcing within that article, then that's adequate sourcing for the list too. Are you going to AfD Jan Palach and Soyuz 11 as non-notable or not? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On several occasions sources have been requested to be copied here, from the substantive article, to avoid an entry being removed as "unsourced". I think the policy should be made clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason not to copy sources from Jan Palach to the list, should an editor consider it worthwhile. It's not necessary, but it's certainly not discouraged.
There is no reason why The Red Pen of Doom couldn't have done just this.
Andy Dingley (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever sourcing might exist in other Wikipedia articles it is up to the person adding or restoring content to an article to supply the sources for that particular article and not my job to do it for you. And dispite your claims to the contrary Items in lists are required to be sourced, just as any other content is.-- The Red Pen of Doom 14:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have completely failed to understand WP:CIRCULAR
Your approach here appears to be, "When encountering unsourced content, it is better to repeatedly blank that content against the opposition of multiple editors than it is to copy the linked sources that are already available to you". This is not an approach that should garner much support. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
= it's my job to do the easiest thing, which may infuriate a few other editors but, hey, who cares? Surely, no-one wants to be a Jobsworth? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what is being proposed here: I am somehow responsible for the fact that people are infuriated that they are being asked to do the work to keep their pet article up to the basic standards required by Wikipedia for all content. Is that accurate? -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to be "asking" other editors snything, but are just deleting material because you think this whole article should not actually exist. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what is being proposed here, rephrased: I am somehow responsible for the fact that people are infuriated that they will have to do the work to keep their pet article up to the basic standards required by Wikipedia for all content.-- The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a proposal, it's an observation. But yes, I think they'd prefer to be asked, rather than see a string of edit summaries saying simply "unsourced". Especially when there are question marks, raised by you yourself, about what the criteria for inclusion should be, and how these should be explained at the top of the article. But it's not "my pet article", it's just another one that I think should be improved rather tha deleted. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The editors have now been formally asked to provide appropriate sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm offended by a lack of sourcing, then I'll add sources. I might even remove the item, but I'm yet to see one which warrants this.
As I don't have a problem with Jan Palach demonstrating WP:NOTABILITY (that utterly trivial Wikipedia-only shibboleth that the real world laughs at) via its own extensive article, then I'm unlikely to feel any need to add to it here. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is perfectly fine for you not to add sources, I cannot and will not attempt to force you to do so. H However, you should not return content to articles without providing sources, and if you do not provide sources, and no one else does either, you will need to then abide by the fact that the content may (probably will) be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And in the spirit of creating a collaborative editing effort, I would ask that editors refrain from comments such as this one and focus on how/whether the content of the article can be brought into agreement with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a bit sexist, wasn't it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has now taken over and is removing all entries which are not described as "unusual" by the supporting source. There has a very small amount of discussion on the Talk Page that this might be used as a criterion for adding, but no clear consensus has been reached. I don't think it's really acceptable for one editor to decide a new criterion for acceptability and to then apply it unilaterally, when that criterion has not been agreed and is not clearly given at the top of the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And even though reverted by a different editor, removed some of tbe items again with the same rationale. No engagement on Talk Page and now approaching 3RR for some. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
because of course, this article is exempt from WP:V and WP:OR and WP:LIST. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, what a relief. I almost thought for a minute there was some kind of edit war going on. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking on the issue of whether or not individual entries need sourcing or can the sourcing be inferred from the linked article - heck yes sourcing is needed in the list article. You have a list topic that includes a peacock term ("unusual") making inclusion in the list immediately contentious - what makes a death "unusual"?. That requires a nearby inline source, period - specifically, what makes the death "unusual" as determined from independent third-party sources. RPoD is in his right, per BURDEN, to remove entries that are unsourced on that list page (even if they are sourced on the linked page), though obviously one gets more flies with honey and if he were to try to move in a few sources that would be better, but that is absolutely not required. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Unusual" a peacock term, eh? I wonder if any other articles ever use that outrageous word. But perhaps you're right. Perhaps no death is any more or less unusual than any other. They are all inevitable, at some time. And perhaps no unusual births either. Only unsual lives (but sometimes especially near their end... ) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the sense that what makes a death unusual? The manner? The person? Other circumstances? EG, I would consider any confirmed death reported at the Darwin Awards as unusual, but that's likely not the intent of the list.
As counter-examples, I offer two lists I work on: List of Internet phenomena and List of commercial failures in video gaming. The former list is potentially extremely broad and subjective, and thus to assure we are discriminate, we require inline sourcing from reliable works to assert that something is a phenomena. In the latter, calling something a failure without merit is definitely OR and possibly slander, and thus we assure all entries are described as commercial failures from reliable sources. Same with unusal deaths here: you have both a list that could be infinitely broad and indiscriminate based on how one interprets "unusual", as well as potential for editors to try to shoe-horn in deaths they think are unusual. (For example, I would consider Dermot Morgan's death 24hr after filming the last episode of a series he was wellknown for to be "unusual" in my head, but I would expect before I add it to find sources that assert that fact). --MASEM (t) 15:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would amplify Masem's comments: any editor that reverts one of RPoD's deletions is clearly violating policy unless they provide an inline citation, in the list, that supports the categorization of the death as "unusual", as WP:V requires that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". I will enforce that policy by means of blocking without hesitation.—Kww(talk) 14:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"So long, article.. ", let's all wave bye-bye, then. It's been nice knowing you. We don't even need to bother to go to RfD. We'll be left with maybe one or two entries and we can then just delete as an unwanted and useless stub. Yay! But at least nobody gets blocked (without hesitation), eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If RPoD was removing all the entries because of being unsourced, that might be an issue, but he's clearly being selective. Many are already sourced (though I will caution: sources that just note the death and not the unusual nature of it are not appropriate in this case.) so it's not the list is going to go away; it needs either pruning of entries that are on there as original research, or sourcing to avoid that. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured, following the advice kindly given by User:Kww, there will be nothing left worth keeping. Or is it all down to RPoD's selective discretion? That would be ironic. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you misunderstood. You are free to revert removal of unsourced material by restoring it and providing a source that substantiates its inclusion in the list. You aren't free to create a list of unsubstantiated items. Why would you think a list of unsubstantiated items was worth having in the encyclopedia?—Kww(talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One of the discussions at that Talk Page, which I'm sure you will have read carefully, was concerned with exactly what "substantiated" means in that context - essentially the difference, if there is any, between "reliably sourced" and "substantiated as unusual". But your swift ruling has apparently swept aside the need for any such niceties. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame me, blame the rules against original research. If people were nitpicking about sources that used words like "strange" or "extraordinary" because they weren't literally the word "unusual", that would be one thing. To say that the source has to substantiate the inclusion in the list isn't some surprising innovation that should have caught you or any other editor by surprise.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, "nitpicking" is exactly what's happening. Have you read the endless thread about Moliere, where "strange saga" is one of the descriptors that's being challenged as inadequate? Are you ruling, as an administrator, as to which side is right? --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we care about careful discussion on edge case (which is being done) on the page, just that the attitude I'm reading from those that are in dispute with RPoD are actually the ones that need to find a way to bring themselves to meet policy in general for that article, and not the other way around. Certainly WP can support a page of "list of unusual deaths", it's the issue of citation policy for this consensus fact, and individual item evaluation. --MASEM (t) 17:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

correct way to proceed.

Please see:

  1. [1]
    [2]
    User talk:190.212.229.61

I've a feeling I could have done a much better job, and may have violated 3RR myself while trying to undo vandalism. I would appreciate guidance as to what "best practices" may be in this situation. Thanks! 78.26 (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it could have been done much better. First, assume complete ignorance of Wikipedia's rules and give them an appropriate Welcome template to start. In this case, some type of reference to WP:EL#NO and original research might have been beneficial. You did, indeed, break 3RR ... and as it does not appear to validly meet the definition of vandalism, you may also have been blocked for the edit-war. Calling a cause that is obviously important to someone "vandalism" is more likely to escalate the situation, rather than defuse it. Requesting page protection much earlier would have been beneficial dangerouspanda 10:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfriendly Behaviour by User:Beyond My Ken

The content in dispute is tiny, but User:Beyond My Ken shows some unfriendly behaviour, and raises some unsubstantiated accusations. No communication is possible, since BMK instantly undoes all my messages on his talk page.

It started when I changed some formatting in Trouble in Paradise (film), including the removal of a spacer comment. These comments are conflicting with WP:MOS, so I routinely remove them. BMK reverted this part of the change, and after a little back and forth, the comment is now gone. BMK then followed me to Principal photography, where a similar thing happened, though this time he added the spacer comment twice.

During all this, we had a little chat on his talk (removed by him since then), where he started to question me about my motives and alleged some unnamed malfeasance on my part. When I ignored his questions he concluded that I must be a sock of a registered user and announced that he was going to watch my edits.

Meanwhile, he was adding some more spacer comments, while undoing my requests to avoid edits that conflict with WP:MOS.

Finally, I asked for a WP:Third opinion, which was amazingly denied because BMK used the WP:3O page for a discussion. That leads me here.

Is the spacer comment important? Not terribly, this is not about the importance of the spacer comment though, but rather about BMK's behaviour. --91.10.37.58 (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the spacer is useful to the visual look of the page, and you admit that the edits are not important, I feel sure that you will stop following me around to revert them. Other than that, I have no inclination to have a substantial discussion with a registered editor (which you clearly are) who refuses to identify him- or herself, and masks their identity using dynamic IPs. (The one's you've listed are not the only one you've used, as anyone can see by looking at your first edit with the first one. These are merely the IPs you have to admit to in order to file this vacuous WQA.) Other than that, I have nothing to say, and will not particpate here unless specifically asked to do so by an editor in good standing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would discuss the validity of the spacer comments with you, but this is not the proper place. The important fact is that it conflicts with WP:MOS, and that you know it.
You have no reason to assume that I am a registered editor, so stop making false claims about me. (For the record: I once had a UserID, but have not used it in the last couple of years, and I have no intention of ever using it again.)
I never claimed that these are the only IP addresses I used. I get a new one every day or so. The ones listed are the ones with relevant edits. --91.10.37.58 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@91.10.37.58, it is customary when accusing another editor of uncvil (what you call "unfriendly") behavior to include diffs as evidence. I don't see any. You say the content dispute isn't what's important, but then you spend the entire time discussing it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought my diffs are clear. Does complete non-communication constitute civil behaviour? Do false accusations?
I am not discussing the content issue here. I provide links to BMK's edits to provide evidence that he cares for neither WP:MOS nor his fellow editors. --91.10.37.58 (talk) 02:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreeing with you is not uncivil. You've provided no evidence that BMK doesn't "care" about other editors. Disagreement with guidelines, particularly MOS guidelines, is common and not a basis for coming to this forum. I suggest you move on.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm puzzled. Where did you get the idea that I was thinking that disagreement would be uncivil?
His lack of care is evident in his non-communication and in several unfounded allegation against me. He does the very same thing in this very section, scroll up a bit.
Please advise me: How should I best prevent BMK from making edits that conflict with WP:MOS all over the place? --91.10.37.58 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I was missing the obvious here. BMK's behaviour is drenched in Assumptions of Bad Faith on my part. That's not merely some uncivility, that's blatantly breaking 5P. --79.223.13.115 (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While this is going on, BMK makes some more edits that conflict with WP:MOS. Is this his way to deescalate the situation? --91.10.37.58 (talk) 02:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about if you recognize that MOS is a guideline, not Holy Writ or a sledgehammer. Are any articles being damaged in a way that our readership will see? If not, what is your problem? Franamax (talk) 05:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would discuss the validity of the spacer comments with you, but this is not the proper place. The important fact is that it conflicts with WP:MOS.
Please advise me: I what way should I proceed to resolve the dispute with BMK? --79.223.13.115 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, since we've shown that there's no civility or even "politeness" issues, you're back to this being a content dispute - insomuch as it has to do with the appearance of an article. Such discussions usually take place on the article talkpage, until WP:CONSENSUS by all editors is reached. If you cannot get consensus, follow dispute resolution. Remember as you move forward that a disagreement in how something looks is not uncivil by itself. You want something, someone else wants something else: that's the way of Wikipedia, and the goal is not to "win", but to obtain consensus as it relates to policy and guidelines. The default is "no change" when consensus is not changed dangerouspanda 10:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed something. Let me recap:
* Complete non-communication is civil behaviour.
* False allegations out of thin air are civil behaviour.
* Complete and instant assumption of bad faith is civil behaviour.
Is that what you are trying to tell me?
Gaining consensus is fine, but (again) BMK is actively working against that by blocking all communication attempts. (I might add that in this case, consensus is already established and written down in the MOS and on the page where this bout started. BMK just ignores it.) --79.223.13.115 (talk) 10:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were already past attempts to claim that the MOS is a hard and fast set of "rules" - it's a set of guidelines only, and consensus rules. You've been advised that, so please stop moving this attempt to assist you backwards. Your insistence about this is what's leading to your entire set of communication issues: when you don't listen yourself, you cannot accuse others of not communicating. BMK stopped trying to communicate because you stopped listening - this is now at least the 3rd time you've been advised about the MOS, but you keep going back to it dangerouspanda 10:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BMK never discussed the merits of the comments. His very first statement about this already assumed bad faith. He stopped communication after he made up the claim that I am a sockpuppet.
I am fully aware that the MOS is not a hard and fast set of rules, and I never claimed otherwise. I am however under the impression that it should be followed unless there are reasons not to. Is that view wrong? If yes, ie. if the MOS can be ignored willy-nilly, then what's its purpose?
Please answer my question above: Are complete non-communication, false allegations and assumptions of bad faith civil or uncivil? --79.223.13.115 (talk) 11:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is asking if you have an account considered to be bad faith; it's not, nor do I see any true allegations that you're a sock - indeed, from looking at your edits, it looks like you are editing while logged out - however, your lack of understanding about some core Wikipedia policies can convince me otherwise. You're the one who's communication style is driving others away. If you are indeed a sock, then you're causing yourself greater issues; if you're not one, then move along and edit properly - and make sure your edits don't match another editor exactly so that nobody applies the WP:DUCK test. If he asked for you to be blocked as a sock without filing an SPI, then you may have an argument for bad-faith - unless of course your behaviour was a 100% match. Otherwise, like I said, move on and prove yourself to be a good editor who understands and follows policies. If they think you're a sock, then they're effectively allowed to ignore you until you show otherwise dangerouspanda 11:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please answer my question above: Are complete non-communication, false allegations and assumptions of bad faith civil or uncivil? --79.223.13.115 (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=512745599"