Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. See the dashboard for an expanded listing.
General
Content
User
Other
Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks.
  • Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s).
  • No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead.
 Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II.
Click here to purge this page
(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
Shortcut:
Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives

Additional notes:
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:


[edit] Active discussions

[edit] Constantly being following around Wikipedia with Uncivil intents about my actions.

Users involved

Articles/pages/diffs involved

Description

(Please note: The story is actually long. I admit that I should've gone here earlier but I'm just going to get to the main points. The users involved(including myself) will post the other parts, diffs and other articles involved later when we all have time.)

This began when I nominated the Ell & Nikki article for deletion by mistake because the AfD didn't become the discussion I planned. I gave several points but got very little replies or input from users other than being told about WP:Notability guidelines. They didn't really comment much about the I point made but instead focused on posting about why the article shouldn't be deleted. After the discussion was closed prematurely due to a snowball keep I was thinking of asking the non-admin that closed it prematurely to re-open it with the hopes of getting other Wikiproject users involved but it was rejected. I figured that if I just ask a question regarding my point rather than re-opening the AfD I would get the answer that I am looking for. However I started to panic when these two users (BabbaQ and CT Cooper) followed me here. I later discovered that BabbaQ has been notifying Wesley Mouse about my activities and questioning my intents. This is when it became a big problem. I got extremely worried about this so I left a note on this page. But their replies gave me the feeling that they were ganging up on me. I made replies that could've have violated several policies and guidelines. I think this was because I've never been in a position before where I've been completely misunderstood and this really hurt me and made me feel frustrated. In particular, Wesley Mouse mentions that I was being negative in the AfD. Something that I completely disagreed with and it really hurt me when that user told me this. I later decided to drop the argument because it was just going nowhere. This is what I just think.

After some users suggested that I should do a merger here and I took this suggestion to the talk page of the article in question more arguments erupted. It ended when Wesley Mouse gave me a kindly written letter on my talk page asking me to put my merger proposal on hold for now. I respected his letter so I agreed. I decided to move on, editing other articles, and going through several guidelines and policies here in Wikipedia so that I could handle this problem more easily in the future. During the course of that time I still had doubts and I asked for Editor's assistance if whether or not it is safe to propose a mergerhere Just yesterday, they(BabbaQ, Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) managed to find me there. I went through their talk pages and once again suspicions about my intents have been aroused. I'm not sure how they managed to find the page but my only guess is that wthey've got my talk page on their watch list and recently a user left a comment which may have notified them of my recent activities and went through my contributions to check on what I am up to. Then notified each other of my page.

Certain points that I am failing to understand with these users?

  • Implies that the article meets WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E therefore my suggestion is unnecessary.
  • Believes that a clear consensus had already been reached on the AfD to Keep the article. Therefore, doing a merger proposal would be going against this consensus and could be a violation of policies and guidelines.

Why do I disagree with these points?

  • I disagree because according to Wikipedia:Notability: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline...This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article."
  • I believe that consensus was only to Keep the article including its information in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that its content or information is protected from being merged to other articles. I do respect the consensus and I am not trying to wipe out Ell & Nikki's evidence/existence in this site but according to this page here:"Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists."

Main point

  • I believe that Ell & Nikki's article is unlikely to be expanded in the future because it only covers their participation and involvements together at the Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and Eurovision Song Contest 2012. Therefore it is best to merge it into the "Running Scared". Besides we already have separate articles about each of the duos Nigar Jamal and Eldar Gasimov.
  • After both events ended, Nigar Jamal and Eldar Gasimov have not released anymore material together as a group. They have just released their solo materials separately and done separate endeavors. They may have been involved in some more group activities together but these are not really outside their Eurovision Song Contest involvements. This gave me some doubts that Ell & Nikki was just formed for the purpose of participating in the contest and performing/presenting the song. They were merely an official group but just a collaboration between two singers(eg. Kanye West & Jay-Z, Brandy & Monica), and Rock 'n' Roll Kids).

I am feeling really scared right now. I feel like my experience here in Wikipedia will never be the same again after my encounter with these users because I am constantly being followed and my contributions are being taken out of context. I am also worried that they will report me and get my account banned in Wikipedia which I do not wish to happen. Can someone please help us get into an understanding? Thanks Bleubeatle (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is quite a lot here to read for a speedy response to be made, and the time here in the UK is just gone midnight. I find the entire thing to be perplexed and being taken way out of context than what was actually said. Nevertheless, I shall be courteous and delay my want of sleep so that I can respond to this accordingly. Wesley☀Mouse 23:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
A lot of what is cited above is a month old and I thought that some kind of mutual agreement had been reached to move on. We have long past the point here in which it is reasonable to request that you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. I understand that you felt others were "ganging up on" you, but you choose to make some serious accusations about other users, and a defensive response was justified. As for this "following around" issue, I think we've had this conservation. If a person starts a discussion about other users or issues to which they are involved, you should expect them to find out and comment on what you have said about them. If this was users following you round commenting on multiple unrelated topics, I would see the point, but as it stands I don't. There is no right under policy for users to demand that others don't find out or don't partake in a discussions, to which they are a party, on a public noticeboard or project talk page - this is an open and collaborative project, and a person's contributions list is public for reason. Bleubeatle's other complaint here seems to that of disagreement in a content dispute, which is fine, but this page is not for resolving content disputes. CT Cooper · talk 23:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
CT, since you are listed as one of the involved users, could you be more specific on what you feel "some kind of mutual agreement" means? It sounds rather vague to me. If you could be specific, we might be able to see if this could be agreed on by all parties here. -- Avanu (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, I have read this entirely, and have pre-written an in-depth response covering every little grain of sand detail thoroughly. There is quite a lot though, so would you like me to post it in its entirety, or in segments? I'm happy either way. Wesley☀Mouse 00:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
The time now is 2:45am, so I'm off to bed as I'm absolutely knackered and I have a busy schedule in the morning. If there are any questions/comments that require my attention, then please could you leave a notice on my talk page, so that I can read them when I get a spare moment tomorrow. In the meantime, if you wish to read my pre-written response (which is very lengthy), then it can be accessed here. G'night all - Wesley☀Mouse 01:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I can only say that the title of this discussion is the basis of the problem. Bleubeatle throws accusations around and also stated that its not OK for us to respond to posts which are directed at us which is very odd. My main concern has been that Bleubeatle seems unwilling/unable to let the matter go for the moment or at best discussing it rationally. When given a response which isn't in line with Bleubealtes own opinions he/she either simply ignores and asks the same question again or acts like he/she doesnt understand the reply. On the question of merging I am under the impression that a majority of the responses Bleubeatle has recieved has been in favour of Keeping all three article such as the AfD on the matter and also most responses on talk pages. And still the user keeps bringing the matter up and that is where it gets trickier. Bleubeatle has the right to start new threads etc, but now it seems like the user is not following several users good faith suggestion that the user waits too ask about the Ell & Nikki possible merger for awhile and let the matter cool down. I find that a bit offensive that the user doesnt wait a while for it all to cool down, is it the users intention to stir up emotions or? I dont know. The title of this section is offensive in itself and shows that the user is unwilling to compromise on the matter. My other opinions can be found on the several sections Bleubeatle has started all over the Wikipedia about the Ell & Nikki merger. And I am not willing to respondany further and waste my precious time on this matter which has been kept alive by Bleaubeatle for over a month now. This is my only comment on this section. --BabbaQ (talk) 10:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ OK, I would like to know how we can be accused of having "uncivil intents", when the accuser kept on telling people who disagreed with their opinions, to "leave conversations" such as 1, 2, and 3, are just a few examples of such remarks. The accuser also admitted to being uncivil himself towards BabbaQ, which can be seen in this diff, and in the same comment he took other's comments entirely out of context. In this diff Bleubeatle made false accusations about myself, in saying I had informed Bleubeatle that BabbaQ wanted to "fight". I had never said such remarks, and fail to comprehend how Bleubeatle came to the conclusion that I had made such a statement. But that very same diff, also shows one of the numerous occasions that the user has redacted their own comments shortly after someone had responded to his original comments, thus making it look that the responders where making no sense in their remarks. What would possess a user to do that, unless there were hidden intentions? Nevertheless, everyone (as far as I am aware) assumed good faith in Bleu's unknown reasons for redactions.

I find the fact that some people are being accused of "stalking", when this has never been the case. As I am the main editor of the Project newsletter, I have every member on my watchlist, so that I can make sure the EdwardsBot had delivered the newsletter to everyone without any technical glitches. Is this the wrong thing to do? Also, Bleubeatle keeps on stating that everyone questioned his intentions to have an article deleted, and that he never had any such inclinations to have an article deleted to begin with. If that be the case, then why would someone with no intent to have anything deleted, proceed with a nomination of deletion? Surely that is evidential enough to show that every action and comment being posted in regards to the deletion was premeditated with intent.

Then we come to the points that Bleu has raised in bullet-points above. Every single one of those points where originally asked in the AfD, and everyone who voted to keep, explained to Bleu that he had misunderstood the guidance on WP:BIO1E, informing him that those guidelines where for events and not living persons. The same people also pointed out that WP:BLP1E would be the correct guidance to look into. Providing the correct page link was an act of goodwill, and in the assumption that Bleu was unaware of that page. However, following the snowball closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ell & Nikki, Bluebeatle went on what can only be described as a canvassing exercise posting the same questions and directly/inadvertently naming users on talk pages Wikipedia talk:Notability (music), Talk:Ell & Nikki, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision, Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, and more recently Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests; also accusing an editor of barnstar misuse in regards to the AfD debate. Blatantly going around various pages casting false accusations about other editors is by far more uncivil, and from reading the original comment before the user redacted their own words, again, then it is no wonder that people would start to have suspicions about why someone who is generally quiet and reserved, would start to behave in such a condescending manner. Anyhow, I have clearly written a lengthy response here as it is, so I shall pause for now, and am willing to answer any further questions in due course. Wesley☀Mouse

I am also somewhat frustrated that this has been dug-up yet again, since I have a lot better things to do with my time. I am however happy to answer questions, and what I meant by "some kind of mutual agreement" was closing comments made on the discussion at WT:EURO, in which Bleubeatle stated amidst some problematic comments, that he wouldn't reply any more, in which I interpreted to mean that he was going to drop the issue, for which I was happy to do. Bleubeatle however instead starting more threads on the subject, sometimes in inappropriate places such as WT:ATA, and usually containing at least some kind of questionable statement about what other editors had done or said.

What Bleubeatle needs to understand is that when you propose something and consensus doesn't go your way, you let the issue die and move on, even if you are not personally satisfied with the reasoning - you don't forum shop by starting lots more threads until you get the answer you want. Starting one or at most two more threads on a subject might be defensible depending on the circumstances, but the level to which Bleubeatle took it was way past what was acceptable.

There is clearly a lot of emotion in the above comments by Bleubeatle, which I see as unjustified for the situation he actually faced - for instance nobody has called for him to be banned before now. As I've said before, his earlier comments stating "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" do come back to haunt him here. Bleubeatle needs to learn that editing a collaborative project such as this does involve receiving criticism and dealing with disagreement, and he needs to learn to handle such events appropriately, and not respond with extreme emotion or unjustified allegations about "questioning my intent" or the like, which can and did in this case, make things worse. Finally, and most importantly of all, Bleubeatle needs to realize that his actions have consequences. It has already clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant disruption to this project, and that such behaviour, even if done in good faith, is not going to be put-up with indefinitely. I have repeatedly tried to explain to Bleubeatle where he is going wrong, but such efforts have failed so far. CT Cooper · talk 22:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be best if I explain that situation now. I have to say that what you've said in WP:EURO actually hurt me: "I am offering no apologies, and expect few others will either, as I don't think I or anyone else has committed any real offence here." Afterwards you started making corrections about my posts but I don't think that you even realized how much frustration I was going through after my posts were taken out of context by Wesley Mouse. That gave me the impression that you were belittling me and that actually hurt. I know that may not have been your intention but if you wanted to help me then you could've at least been more cautious with your replies and showed some sign of understanding about my feelings. I felt that if I retaliated further then it would only make this discussion much more worse so I decided to leave and tell you that "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel". That may not have been the reply that you intended to hear but I was pretty much hurt about what you've written. In another talk page you even stated that what I said in regards to those comments: "may come back to haunt him here." and to me that felt like a threat and made me question if you were even trying to help. I think you should just be more careful with your replies and think about how it can actually make people feel. Also maybe you could try and understand what situation they are going through in the discussion first before focusing on what they've written wrong? Anyways I have actually already learned a lot from that incident when I read through it again and I will make sure that I don't make anymore replies like that in the future. I just hope that this Wikiquette assistance page will help clear things for all of us and I hope that you understand what I've said in this paragraph regarding my conversation with you at the WP:EURO discussion page.Bleubeatle (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I have only just noticed this part been sneakily added midway as if intended to be unnoticed. Firstly, to accuse me of taking your posts out of context is a blatant lie. You know fully well that I never once took a comment of yours out of context. If there was something that made no sense, then I always asked you to further explain. To come out with such a lie like that you are actually belittling me. You then accuse CT Cooper of "correcting your posts". Cooper has never corrected any of your posts, it is known that Cooper is fully aware of WP:TALK, so again a second lie. And on the subject of Cooper's comments, you state he posted "may come back to haunt him here." on a different page!? I see no other page other than this one where that comment has been posted. Then you tell us that we should've been "more cautious with your replies and showed some sign of understanding about my feelings" - yet in every other post you have made you state that you never told us about how you was feeling. We have even told you that you should have made your feelings known so that people could have been more sensitive towards you. So you have literally contradicted yourself there. To leave comments such as "I don't care how you feel about what I wrote." and "I am not going to bother reading what you've written below. No matter how disheartening that it will make me feel" are clearly uncivil, and you would have known that as you have in a round-about way confirmed this. You know as an established editor to always assume good faith, and to assume the assumption of good faith - both of these had been pointed out to you several times, and you stated you knew about those policies. So no matter how upset you may have felt, it didn't give you the right to be uncivil towards another editor by using such remarks. A proverb that is well known is "treat those how you expect to be treated in return", so if you are to treat people uncivilly, then you should expect to get the same treatment back. Everyone was courteous and explained/answered every question you asked in a civil manner. By repeating the same questions on near enough every talk page possible, caused people to wonder why you were behaving in such an unusual manner. People, even uninvolved editors, asked you why you was repeating posts, and advised you to let things drop. Instead of taking their advice, you continued on a rampage of nuisance repetitive thread posting. Anyhow, a proposal has been made below, which 3 of the 4 involved users appear to support. So the sooner this draws to a closure, the better. Then I can get back to stressing over the Olympics (which are 14 days away now). Wesley Mouse 16:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Before I reply to any details regarding the posts above me here I just want to start off my saying that the user I found the most difficult to communicate with was BabbaQ. I first encountered this user when I first proposed the article for deletion. The user objected and told me about it on my talk page. Later on after the AfD ended and while I was asking for the non-admin user who closed it for re-opening, the user began following on this pagepage. I have also noticed that for most of the time, the user has always been constantly the other two users(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) of my actions on each other's talk pages as seen on some of these diffs: [1][2][3][4]. From my observations, this may explain why the other two users have followed me around Wikipedia ever since. During the discussion that I opened on this page, the user became disinterested and rude when after many agreed that the article should be merged instead. A user noticed this behavior. I also noticed it on the article's talk page when I tried to converge with the user here. The user even tells me that "its a fight you are unlikely to win unfortunately" and "are you sure you are not looking for proof?. Im out of this discussion. Its over and done.". The user clearly opposes anything being done on the article whether it is deleting or merging and doesn't want anymore or anyone to discuss about it in the future. That kind of behavior should stop because other users may find this rude and will not lead to a proper discussion. From my observation, the user seems to be trying to gather support to prevent the inevitable from happening and that is by arousing suspicions about my contributions on these two users'(Wesley Mouse and CT Cooper) talk pages. The user needs to realize that is not a battleground and that winning is not everything. Also I believe that the user has rejected all signs of neutrality and peace as shown on these diffs:[1], [2], [3],[4] and [5].Bleubeatle (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I will probably give another statement like this paragraph for the other two users later on if it is needed. Just reading through some of the paragraphs above, I have to tell you all that I already understand most the things that you've said. What needs to change is your approach and your posts towards users like myself. You may think that you could be doing something right but sometimes it can hurt people as well. No one in Wikipedia enjoys being bossed around. I'm pretty sure neither of you do. Sometimes you need to take a break and have a good look at your own posts. You should be more careful with what you write and understand that not everyone communicates the same way you do. Besides this is the internet. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, BabbaQ has never been rude in any of his comments. He, like any other editor on Wikipedia, is entitled to put across his opinion in regards to article related matters, whether it be creations, change in policies, deletions etc, it is what is known as building a consensus, gathering data etc. If any editor, and not just BabbaQ, wishes to oppose something then they are perfectly within their rights to tell someone why they oppose it and provide reasons for that. If everyone was to just agree to everything, then we might as well not hold any form of democratic discussions, and scrap any such discussion boards all together.
Secondly, what you need to realise here is that if you go to other talk pages and start slagging off people without letting them know, then yes, it would only be a matter of time until those who you slagged off would find out about it. And they would be well within their rights to comment on what is being said about them. You cannot and should not, just put across your side of events and thing that the entire picture is complete. To put it hypothetically, would you go to a court of law and only allow one side to be told and then make a judgement without hearing what the other side has to say? No, you wouldn't - so why should that be any different in here, unless you don't want others to know the real truth.
Thirdly, in relation to redacting of comments. Not only do you start to redact your own original posts after someone has already responded to them, in order to make it look like no sense is being made. But after reviewing this redaction of other's comments is clear evidence of disruptive behaviour and goes against WP:TALK. What gives you the right to hide someone else's comments without their consent? From everything that is clearly visible and the way hat you speak to people, that you are guilty of your own accusations.
And finally, for the record, the comment CT Cooper posted above which reads "It has already [been] clear that by digging this up again, he has caused a great deal of stress to one party involved, and therefore convinced me that he has crossed the line from behaving inappropriately to causing significant disruption to this project", the person being refereed to in that statement is myself. As it is known by some editors on here, my mother passed away a few weeks ago, and on 2 July my uncle also passed away. I am going through enough pressure and stress at home dealing with that, and also the preparations for my volunteering at London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. By dragging up something that should have been dead and buried from the moment the AfD closed, has made me physically sick. I couldn't get a wink of sleep the minute this discussion was opened, when I finally managed to sleep, it was only for 4 hours. And then after that I ended up vomiting as a result of the stress that you are putting me through. Several uninvolved editors, and not just the ones listed above, have repeatedly told you to just let it go, drop the stick, walk away from it, get on with more constructive editing. You yourself have even demanded people should let things go. How can you expect people to let thing go, if you go on this crusade of dragging up shit (excuse the language) knowing full well what the consequences are, and how much distress you know it will bring to people. For someone to go about such nature is most likely doing it in a vindictive and malevolent manner. I still have my in-depth detailed response, which answers every single one of the sentences of your re-edited opening post above. And I say re-edited, because the edit history shows that you changed parts of your original report, which is becoming a bit of a normal pattern with you lately. Wesley☀Mouse 15:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
In light of the complexity of this matter, and the constant 'he said; she said' bickering. I hereby would like to submit the following diplomatic proposal in the hope that it may resolve this matter peacefully.
Proposal
  • All involved parties to refrain from making comments about users in regards to anything relating to the afd/merger issues, whether they by naming them directly or inadvertently naming in the context of 'a user' or 'the user'.
  • Any previous comments posted on other pages other than their own (such as WT:EURO, WT:ATA, WP:EAR, and WP:WQA) to be placed in a collapsible box with a brief explanation as to why that has been done - thus wiping the slate clean, so to speak. Individuals may also implement this onto their own user talk pages at their discretion.
  • Postponing any merger proposals for at least 4 months minimum - gives enough time for the dust to settle.
  • Any merger proposals connected with Ell & Nikki to be supervised by an uninvolved administrator.
  • If anyone is seen to be failing to comply to any of the above, then they are to be held responsible for their actions and may face possible sanctions, whether it be topic bans, interaction bans, or worse, as a consequence.
As the proposer of this idea, I will gladly support and abide to them. Do the other involved users (listed at the start) have any objections to this proposal? Wesley Mouse 18:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I support this proposal 100%. --BabbaQ (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
As I said on my user talk page, I agree with this proposal. CT Cooper · talk 22:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Before I make an agreement I would like to ask if I can add some more towards the proposal? I believe it is important for all of us to have an input towards this matter so that we can all come to an agreement and understanding. Please note that if you have some doubts about any of them, could you please state your comments or questions below? I would be happy to clarify or change some of them around for you. Thanks Bleubeatle (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Additional proposals
  • If you are concerned about a user's recent actions or contributions(regarding any recent edits, questions, answers, or words written in other pages) then you have the right to notify the user on their own talk page regarding your concern. The user should be prepared to explain to you what intentions they have in mind. You must then provide feedback or suggestions to help this user understand why you are concerned about their actions. If for any reason you have decided to notify 'another' first, that 'other' user should make his/her own talk page open for the user(whom is of concern) to give an explanation about his/her recent actions. Feedback and suggestion can then be provided towards the user of concern in that page or his/her own page if possible.
  • If anyone has any questions regarding the diplomatic proposal then you can contact one of the users involved(listed at the start) by leaving your questions in their talk pages. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


Not to sound to pedantic here, but those additional proposals are part and parcel of ground policies on Wikipedia anyway, and should be commonsensical to anyone who has been an autoconfirmed user for a reasonable length of time. Plus they are covered in point 4 of my proposal in a round-about way. Wesley Mouse 07:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I am with Wesley on this matter. Also it seems like a backway to continue the bickering so I still support Wesleys original proposal.--BabbaQ (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont want to sound gloomy but if we get too unrestricted with the proposal we can just as well not have one, because we all know that the bickering will continue. I will support Wesleys five guideline proposal and with no changes. I want this bickering to stop immediatly and atleast let it rest for the next four months.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I have also made a suggestion on Bleubeatles talk page that if we all in a months time have followed the original proposals and we all have cooled down then perhaps we could make additions such as getting less restrictive on talk page interaction etc. I feel that Bleubeatles first additions to the proposal opens up for new drama to occur within days. One comment in the wrong tone on anyone of our talk pages right now I feel could make this dispute blow up again. Im just being realistic here.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with BabbaQ's point of view. The additional proposals does appear to leave a "back-door" open for sly bickering to occur, and that should never be allowed, as it would mean we'd be running the gauntlet and could inadvertently get blocked because it would allow Bleubeatle to be able to say whatever he likes, and we'd be forced into silence. Its an all or nothing scenario now. Wesley Mouse 08:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
And not only that, Bleubeatle's additional suggestion, would make point 1 of my 5-point proposal null and void. The first point clearly states to refrain from naming users, while Bleubeatle wants to be able to continue discussing a matter which has already been proven to be a over-heated and hostile topic. Wesley Mouse 08:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I just want to say that my point is that it will help prevent further miscommunication if the user explains what they are up to. But it kind of does open some room for 'bickering' as you've stated above. Also you mentioned that they are "under Wikipedia's ground policies" therefore even if I withdraw the proposal they may still take effect right? If that is so then perhaps the first point of the additional proposal would not be needed after all. Bleubeatle (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Bleubeatle's additional proposals expand the scope beyond the AfD/merger issue which I don't think is necessary. Simply ending discussion on the merger and related discussion about the users involved, as Wesley proposes, should be sufficient. My only additional suggestion is that there be a sunset clause on the first bullet as well, possibly in four months to match the merger discussion, or if that is to likely to cause drama in four months perhaps extend it to a year, so we are all clear on how long this will apply for, in event it gets dug-up in the distant future. CT Cooper · talk 14:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, points 1 and 3 could technically go hand-in-hand in regards to a timeframe of validity. Wesley Mouse 14:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I would say that one year is much more realistic for a possible new discussion on merging the article. In four months time this discussion will probably still be as infected as it is at the present.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I initially said 4 months, as that would bring us to November, by which time people will be too busy stressing out over Christmas preparations to be bothered about stressing over this too. Wesley Mouse 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. A year without discussing this matter further would benefit my sanity and most likely yours too.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
OK a year sounds reasonable I suppose. Another thing that has concerned me slightly in the "proposed addition" is the following line "If for any reason you have decided to notify 'another' first, that 'other' user should make his/her own talk page open for the user(whom is of concern) to give an explanation about his/her recent actions." - I never knew a user could close their talk page from others to edit? Isn't Wikipedia an open space for anyone to post on any talk page, unless they have an interaction ban imposed on them. Wesley Mouse 15:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think something was lost in translation there. I think it is very possible that English as for me isn't Bleubeatles first language.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, one year at a minimum for discussing that between the parties would be acceptable. And the best way to deal with the situation as that would give time for Ell & Nikki to perhaps do more music together too, making a merging discussion even more irrelevant in a year.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
A year is a long time not to discuss merging, but will certainly allow a fresh start to made, so I would happily agree to that. If Bleubeatle wants an earlier expiry, then I would happy with anything from 6 months onwards. I don't really understand the "open talk page" proposal either, since users cannot unilaterally ban users from commenting on their talk pages, and my talk page most certainly is open. CT Cooper · talk 18:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm glad to hear that your talk page is open. I guess the first point of the additional proposal may not be needed after all. I just want to say that the purpose of the main point of the additional proposal is to clear up any miscommunications. And yes I agree, waiting for 1 year would be too long. In regards to what Wesley Mouse has said, most people would be too busy during Christmas and New Year. Perhaps a minimum of 5-6 months would be better? Also, I noticed that earlier in this section of the Wikiquette assistance page did you mentioned something about the dispute resolution? Would it be a good idea to have one before a proper merger proposal can happen? Bleubeatle (talk) 23:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

6 months sounds good to me. And nobody mentioned dispute resolution in this very thread. Disruption yes, but dispute no. Going down DR before a merger would basically be failing points 2 and 3 of the proposal. And why would we need to revisit the past 6 months from now by opening DR? The whole point of the proposal is to just drop everything, and start a clean slate. Wesley Mouse 11:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with six months. There are many forms of dispute resolution - with discussing an issue on the talk page and trying to reach a consensus being the first method of choice. I would suggest that after the six months have passed, we have a fresh discussion on an appropriate talk page and try to reach a consensus in either direction. If talk page discussion breaks down, then requesting mediation is generally the next step. According to Wesley's proposals we will already be having a supervising non-involved admin involved anyway. CT Cooper · talk 21:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, do we have an agreement? Once this is confirmed, the terms can be implemented. CT Cooper · talk 08:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I guess 6 months sounds fine. Oh and what about the second point that I made on the additional proposals? I might discount that as well but..if we do have any questions regarding the proposal we can just ask each other right? Bleubeatle (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
The additional proposals haven't reached consensus and therefore aren't presently part of the agreement. However, if anyone is confused about the agreement after it has passed, then I won't have a problem with anyone asking for clarification. CT Cooper · talk 10:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with what CT Cooper has said. The additions don't seem to have reached any consensus, and the context of them do seem to cover either core Wikipedia policies or the point that were made in the original 5-point proposal. In regards to asking for clarification at a later date, yes I can agree on that too. As I'm sure my brain will go into a complete state of mental breakdown once I've completed my Olympic Volunteering schedule in September (I'd wave to the cameras so you can see me, but you don't know what I look like, unless I walk around with banners showing your Wiki-names on them LOL). That being said, I'm assuming we're safe to implement this proposal then, and set an expiry date - which upon calculating from the calendar would be Monday 14 January 2013? Wesley Mouse 14:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I am a longterm WQA volunteer (over 1000 edits) who was asked to comment by Wesley Mouse. Historically I don't comment unless I have time to thoroughly review all contributions. While I've spent some time the past fews reviewing the interaction history here, I can't claim I've reviewed everything.

My overall impression is everyone has been acting in good faith and without any malicious intent; it's simply that disagreement leads to frustration which can lead to ill considered words. No individual editor is jumping out as significantly more at fault than anyone else.

This alert is actually fairly extraordinary because it is very rare that editors who have gotten to the point where they get to WQA show the maturity and grace to work through to a mutually agreeable solution as well as I'm observing here; that's a compliment to all the involved parties. In general I'm wary that elaborate interaction proposals are hard to maintain in practice; however, since you're all agreeable to the concept I encourage you to proceed as you are.

My two pieces of advice are:

  1. If you're willing to meet the other editor halfway -- you're probably going to fail miserably! You'll end up getting into a scuffle about where "halfway" actually is. Try to be willing to meet the other editor at least 3/4 of the way. When another party posts something particularly wrong or unfair, take an extra moment or two before replying. (Sometimes my extra moments are measured in days). The more calm and neutral the tone of your replies the more effective they are in the long run.
  2. Take into consideration that any agreement you make among yourselves cannot be considered binding upon the rest of Wikipedia. So if after you come to final consensus a new editor comes along in next month and Afds Ell & Nikki you have to ready to participate in a positive manner without getting on each other's nerves again. Nobody Ent 13:16, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Firstly thank you Gerard for taking time to look into this. I appreciate how extremely busy your schedule is at this present time. Also thank you for the complements too, that indeed caught me by surprise and brought a smile of pride to my face learning that I had done something right and diplomatic. Sure has inspired me in the right direction here, and giving that want to do more similar acts of diplomatic help in the future on Wikipedia. Wesley Mouse 14:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance concerning user America69 undoing edits I made and threatening banning me

So I apologize in advance if I have not entered all of the above information correctly. I have not attempted a dispute resolution before. Concerning user America69 I have been unable to contact this person as they are "Semi-Retired" and I don't see how to type on his page to notify them. My issue is concerning the Florida Gubernational Election 2014 page. I originally edited it to add myself as an independent to the page. America69 removed my edit and the current comment he posted as his reason is "(→‎Potential: this is all self-promotion... there is no reputable source to indicate he is running.. so annoying all these people that have to self-promote) (undo)"

Yes I do realize I added an Independent category to this page and added myself to it. I believe the entry was very neutral. I did not hype myself in this edit nor did I add any links to the page. Independent voters do exist as do independents running. I have produced over 6 hours of Youtube videos discussing candidacy issues for Florida Governor. Based on the Wiki guidelines if I can not add myself as an independent and people that know me can not add me as an independent then how can anyone ever be added as an independent/democrat/republican? By definition anyone adding anyone else to the page 'knows them.' So at what point then is an Independent candidate considered to be a valid candidate? Do they have to spend $10,000 on tv ads? $100,000? $1 million dollars? I personally feel it is a sad day when democracy in America is determined by whom can buy elections which is what this seems to be coming down to especially with America69 comment in his edits and his threats to have my account squashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnblumberg (talk • contribs)

Note that this isn't dispute resolution, this is board is for discussing issues related to civility and not content issues. Note also that the edit summary "This is all self-promotion... there is no reputable source to indicate he is running.. so annoying all these people that have to self-promote" [1] was not actually directed at you. Further, click here to be lead to the dispute resolution noticeboard, but note that they require that significant discussion on the relevant article page should already have taken place. They also require that interested parties agree to the dispute resolution; it isn't mandatory. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
And note also that it appears that you have fundamentally misunderstood how Wikipedia works, and what its purpose is. It is not a venue for self-promotion, no matter how worthy the cause. I suggest you start by reading Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and then ask yourself whether you might do better to direct your energies elsewhere. Without published secondary reliable sources to verify the fact, and to verify that it is in any way of note, the fact that you are running as a candidate in an election is of no direct consequence to this encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=502918086"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export