Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive15

Archive index

Growing edit war on "Unsportsmanlike conduct"
Unsportsmanlike conduct is a stub page; recently, at least one editor (Obdej1 (talk)) has been adding non-encyclopedia information about a local sports radio show with the same name. I have reverted several times with WP:NOT and provided warnings on the user's talk page, but the same content is now being re-added, either by others or by the same person without being logged in.

It seems to me that the content fails on a number of counts: it's blatantly ad-like, cites no sources, violates stylistic guidelines (it's just dumped after the "stub" marker with no headings), makes no attempt to display notability, and borders on nonsense ("Stacie "the sports sack" has HUGE...eyes. Nobody cares about anything else.").

At the same time, I'm trying to avoid an edit war and 3RR violations, and it seems silly to have to protect a stub page.

Opinions? Tlesher 13:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Tlesher, it looks like you're doing everything by the book. If you stick to that, including escalating the warnings you've placed on Obdej1's talk page as appropiate, etc. the end result of such behavior will be a block for Obdej1 and no repercussions for you.  In truth, it appears that Obdej1 was set up exclusively to create this spam and I would suspect that the person who did so has already forgotten the login password to that account. If the issue does not recur soon, with your consent, we should mark this issue as closed.  (Oh, and don't think that the irony of the article's title is lost on anyone here.)  Gruber76 17:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Tlesher 17:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Give peace a chance in Indianapolis, Indiana
Once a user has declared: "I will just delete naptown from the list nicknames every time it is listed....." in an RFC and declines invitations to engage in discussion, etc, how do you proceed? Gruber76 18:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me there is Tendentious editing happening on that page, and that "naptown" satisfies WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY and should be included in the article. I have entered detailed comments at Talk:Indianapolis, Indiana.   --Parzival418 Hello 20:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * RfC at the above link seems to have come to consensus. --Parzival418 Hello 10:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:だってばよ
I made a perfectly civil request to this user asking them to please change their User ID because it contains non-Latin (I never said non-English nor non-American) characters. And since that time, I have received nothing but personal abuse and attacks on America. I have asked the user to please quit posting on my Talk page, as I have no desire for further communication, but they persist. ,. They have been admonished by others about No Personal Attacks, yet they continue. And yet they continue with attacks on others, as well: Corvus cornix 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, I don't normally post here, but after looking at those comments, I seriously suggest you post at WP:ANI and request administrator intervention. --Iamunknown 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a procedure for this. You can file a complaint at WP:RFCN that this user's name is inappropriate. There will be an opportunity for discussion, as in an AfD. EdJohnston 04:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, he's certainly got a temper, but it seems more like he's reacting to what he perceives as people trying to push him around than than going out and making trouble out of nothing. I'm not saying his incivil comments are justified, clearly they are not.  But I think it may be too soon for a report at ANI, since mostly it's his username causing difficulty in that it can't be rendered by some users' browsers.  Maybe best to focus on solving that problem first and then see how he develops after he's been here a while.  If the lashing out continues, that can be brought up again later.


 * I suggest filing a report here: Requests for comment/User names. That RFC page can request a block, but I would not recommend that, rather I recommend requesting that he be compelled to use a username that fits within accepted policy. If that can be accomplished, so people can read and spell his name, then we can find out if he will be able to fit into the community without making trouble.  --Parzival418 Hello 04:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I did make a request for comment on user names and it was removed by a user who claimed that such names are acceptable. Corvus cornix 20:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. Actually, I listed it at Usernames for administrator attention.  I'll try the RfC route, then.  Corvus cornix 20:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Rfc came, went (was speedy closed). The user is not particularly active, so I guess just see what happens.  --Iamunknown 03:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Kwork
Sethie believes user Kwork is grossly misunderstanding wiki policies and crossing the line numerous times with civility- and it is starting to affect the Alice Bailey page.

WP:CIVILITY/WP:NPA

[] [] [] (neebish meaning "A weak-willed, timid, or ineffectual person" [] (at least this time he gave me the link for the definition!)

His response when Sethie asked him to cool his tone down: []

extreme lack of WP:AGF [] []

Now he and Sethie are argueing about whether it is valid to keep Sethie's concerns and request for civility visible on his talk page! Help appreciated. Sethie 01:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Sethie's summary above that Kwork has repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and even WP:NPA. Some of his comments are offensive and include completely inappropriate insulting statements about Sethie and other editors.  Kwork also shows an ongoing pattern of Tendentious editing.


 * It is my opinion that if Sethie or any other editor were to post an RFC/U or request some other form of administrative intervention, it's possible that a short term block might result, but it would be a lot of work and might not help in the long run.


 * I suggest that a new method be used in responding to Kwork's contentious and offensive comments. Clearly, he is not interested in a real conversation - he's pretty much stated that directly in his writings that he will not change his viewpoint or approach no matter what anyone says to him. So, don't take the bait and let him entangle you in wasteful and unpleasant exchanges.


 * I recommend that communication with Kwork on his talk page, even warning templates, be completely avoided. It only adds more fuel for the fire, and he's not receptive to the content anyway. Likewise, I recommend that if Kwork posts on Sethie's talk page, or any other user's, that the user only reply if the comment is civil and respectful.  If Kwork's comment on a user's talk page does not meet those conditions, then I recommend striking out the text but not deleting it, and responding with a simple statement that the user is not willing to communicate with anyone who does not treat him in a respectful and civil manner.  I would not respond to the content of the communication unless/until it is stated in a respectful manner.  That way, the fun of posting an insult is de-fused and it gets boring.


 * On article talk pages, I would take a similar approach, but I would not strike out the offensive comment. Instead, I would reply by stating that the comment is offensive or insulting and that it violates WP:NPA or whatever the appropriate guildeline is. I would respectfully request that Kwork re-edit his comment to strike-out or delete the offensive material.  That's it, I would not add anything else about that behavior.   If there is a content to the post that needs a response, I would direct that to the editors in general but not personally to Kwork.


 * Then there is the question of how to protect the page from damage by tendentious POV editing. There are two editors other than Kwork working on that page currently, so Kwork will not be able to continually insert material that violates NPOV because he would be limited by the 3RR rule.  However, a protracted battle like that is highly undesirable, so what can be done to improve the situation?  My suggestion is to post an WP:RFC  -  not about Kwork's behavior, but for the article itself.  Invite more editors to come and view the conflict and build a consensus about what is the best balance for the article in regards to the anti-semitism issue.  If you do post an RFC, be clear in the formatting of the RFC section on the talk page to focus on the content issue and not Kwork's incivil behavior, and keep the description simple so it can be quickly understood.  I would also then post invitations on talk pages of related topics, linking to the RFC and inviting editors to bring their expertise.  Some places you could post the invitations would be - articles about antisemitism, theosophy,  occultism, metaphysics, wikiprojects about religion, spirituality, etc..  It seems to me if you could get two or three more editors to bring their voices, that would make a big difference.  Once there is consensus, there would be no one individual for Kwork to focus on in his comments, especially if his insults no longer generate any interesting responses. --Parzival418 Hello 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Sethie
Kindly refer,  and  user is using harsh and threading language, insted of participating in discussion, and expressing his concerns over edits. If there is any problem in edits, that can be discussed in polite and civil manner. There is no need for using statements like "enough is enough" and "one last time". Kindly advice --Shashwat pandey 10:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read the links you posted and I do not see any violations by Sethie of WP:CIVIL. The phrases you quoted, "enough is enough" and "one last time", are not of themselves uncivil, they are comments about Sethie's view of your methods of editing and/or discussing, and his frustrations that you have not fully reviewed and understood the Wikiguides.  In his note to you on your talk page at One last time, Sethie makes some strong statements, but they appear to me to be well-grounded in Wikipedia policy.  I believe his suggestions may be valuable for you.


 * I recommend that you minimize your direct communications with Sethie and when you do encounter him, don't take his comments personally. If something bothers you, let the emotions fade away before you respond.  When you respond, focus on the content of the article only, not the interpersonal elements of the conversation. When you make a statement about why you feel something should or should not be written in the article, explore the Wikipedia guides such as WP:ATT, WP:VER, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and many others that are readily available.  Spend some time reading through them and following the links.  Use what you find in your discussions, to support your position.  You may find that the discussions become more smooth and comfortable.  Here are some more guides that may be of helpful:


 * BOLD, revert, discuss cycle
 * Staying cool when the editing gets hot
 * Civility
 * Etiquette
 * Disruptive editing
 * Tendentious editing
 * Truce
 * Policies and guidelines


 * Often when people post references to the guides, readers skip over the links and just figure "Oh yeah, that one, I've read that, I know what it means, it's just shorthand for an idea - I don't need to read the link." But I've found that even after reading them many times, I still learn something new when I review the guides.  A lot of people have put a lot of thought into finding ways this system can run smoothly with so many editors involved.  It's pretty amazing.  So please, consider reading the guides I linked here, you may find some pearls of value for you. --Parzival418 Hello 22:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)