Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bittergrey (talk | contribs) at 13:39, 24 July 2012 (→Personal attacks and incivility at WikiProjectMedicine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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:

    Active discussions

    Personal attacks and incivility at WikiProjectMedicine

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – The kind of disruption can not be dealt with at WQA. WQA is not actively patrolled by admins and only deals with providing guidance with WP:UNCIVIL actions. ANI is a possible venue, but for those filing with unclean hands, watch out for the large boomerang. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    As some here might know, WLU has been wikihounding me for over a year, even including false accusations to this board[1]. However, that is not the current reason I'm asking for help. I've long been watching wikiproject medicine, and noticed a post involving the Dissociative Identity Disorder article. There, WLU was making an ad hominen attack against another editor, pointing out her self-disclosed DID as a reason to revert her[2]. WLU's victim had my sympathy, since he had used many of the same tactics against me. I spoke up to defend her, and WLU's friend whatamidoing echoed WLU's attack, and added a claim about my sexuality as a reason to ignore me, arguing that people with conditions were apt to "accidentally misread sources."[3] I pointed out that these were ad hominen attacks, a violation of Wikipedia policy. WLU deleted both of my comments[4].

    WLU has also edit warred to force his version of the DID article[5][6][7], placing a 3RR warning on Tylas' user page[8]. WLU was at 3RR, Tylas was not. Tylas lost initiative in the edit war when she discussed the deceptive 3RR warning instead of reverting.

    WLU's victim has invested a lot of time into the DID article in good faith. I would hate to see her driven off. However, there is little that I can do: I'll be out of town this weekend and if I do anything, WLU and friends will doubtlessly accuse me of wikihounding. BitterGrey (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Bittergrey. That would be me! It's so nice someone on WP understands what it's like to try and work on an article where WLU has time invested. I have felt attacked since I first tried to edit the DID article. I still have had ever single edit I have ever tried to make reverted by WLU. ~ty (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to add to this that in the past, I have attempted to edit this article and suffered similar attacks from WLU (as well as a few others), although not directed at any particular personal condition (perhaps because I have revealed none?). Unfortunately, these repeated attacks eventually drove me off, which is what they are apparently designed to do. Prior to giving up a few years ago, I considered perusing the dispute resolution process, except against DreamGuy (who has also engaged in similar activity). I would say that the two of them seem to work together to hold the article hostage to their POV. I've seen numerous new editors arrive and make descent contributions only to be blindly reverted. Then, they appear to wonder off figuring they can't get anywhere with the article (here's just one example). The environment for any would-be editor to this article is extremely hostile and, I believe, designed to deter editors from touching "their" article on "Why alleged 'DID' is just a lie invented for therapists to make lots of money", going so far as to saying that alleged trauma survivors have not endured any trauma at all, since their condition is one strictly caused by seeing a therapist. I would go so far as to call this a personal attack against anyone claiming to have DID and a sort of chilling effect (i.e., "you're lying/delusional/mentally ill, so shut up"). Daniel Santos (talk) 07:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Your diff does not show anything. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WLU wanted editor and content expert TomCloyd banned from the DID article and he got his way. As a result, this man, Tom Cloyd, who worked happily as a Regional Ambassador left WP in it's entirety leaving this comment about his experience with WLU: "I have learned first hand why there are so very few content experts involved with Wikipedia. Initially, I thought it odd, but no longer. From the moment I showed up at the DID article, making clear who I was (something I have always done - at my User Page and professional website), and what my interest was (I offered an critique of the article, and some suggestions as to where I thought it needed to go), I have been meet with attempts to control me, and outright hostile reactions. At no point was I welcomed. I was treated as if I know little about Wikipedia, not to mention the subject of the article itself. On its face, both of these reactions should seem illogical." ~ty (talk) 08:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Tylas, your user talk page User_talk:Tylas#WLU_gets_a_Content_Expert_Banned and User_talk:Tylas#What_is_a_Wikipedia_Bully.3F has a number of inappropriate comments about WLU, I suggest you remove them. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no evidence of anything inappropriate by WLU. Firstly, don't interpret good faith actions to this board as "false accusations". Particularly when an apology was given. If the motives of an editor is relevant as mentioned here [9], then discussing them is important, there is nothing in this that can be construed as an Ad hominem attack. Your interpretation of the diffs is completely at odds with their content, what I see in [10] is someone removing a number of off-topic bad faith assumptions. Similarly this comment is perfectly legitimate: [11]. It was not completely improper for WLU to be removing bold changes from the article per WP:BRD, it was improper for the editor who was trying to edit war their version of the article in, if your changes get rejected take it to the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to disagree. First, an editor acting in good faith - or even appropriate skepticism - would have simply read the comment and then acted. WLU made accusations to this board based on a comment he hadn't read. His accusation here was in bad faith, an act of prejudice. WLU treats sources as flippantly, often fighting for bad positions based on resources he hasn't even read. Tylas gives a recent example. I could give older ones. I'll remind IRWolfie that content discussion should be driven by sources, not attacks against the editors. If motivation is to be considered, we need to consider WLU's chronic sense of ownership, even to the point of attempting to drive away many other editors. ...and that IRWolfie has a long pattern of taking WLU's side in these matters.
    Ad hominem attacks, such as the ongoing([12][13][14][15]...) cracks about my sexuality, have no place on Wikipedia. BitterGrey (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not make baseless accusations against me, or involve me in your dispute. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    WLU works to drive off editors that do not agree with him. He has stalked me off WP, looking for anything he could find to get me off the DID page. He swore at me and attacked me as my introduction to the DID page. So much for a warm welcome to new editors. Given his list of subjects of interest that he displays on his page, his looking for me off WP scares me since I do have 5 children. I was ran off a couple of times now by WLU, but keep coming back in hopes that the rest of WP is not what editor WLU makes it for many of us - a place where even on a medical article, he and his extreme POV dominate. ~ty (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bittergrey is a self-disclosed activist for people like himself, who have paraphilic infantilism. By "self-disclosed", I mean that he has advertised his personal website in support of PI people on his Wikipedia userpage since 2006. It can hardly be a "personal attack" to say about himself exactly what he says about himself, unless you believe that having an apparently harmless paraphilia is somehow dirty or shameful.
    So the "personal attack" must be my recognition of reality, which is that people who strongly and publicly advocate for a position in their real lives—no matter what the subject or position is—tend not to be the single most unbiased editors in the community. People who self-identify with a particular psychological condition or quirk, no matter whether that is condition that society calls "normal" or "abnormal", tend to believe that they know a lot about the condition and that their beliefs are the Truth about their condition. This is just basic human reality: if they thought they were wrong, then they'd change their minds!
    This has practical consequences for Wikipedia: People with _____ (fill in the blank: paraphilias, psychiatric challenges, special educational needs, whatever) psychological situation (1) tend to be interested in editing the articles about those conditions and (2) tend to want to make the articles sympathetic to and reflective of their own beliefs about their conditions.
    So Tylas identifies with DID: Tylas is interested in the article on DID (Guess who the #1 editor is) and wants the DID article to reflect Tylas's own beliefs about DID. Bittergrey identifies with paraphilic infantilism: Bittergrey is interested in the article on PI (Guess who the #1 editor is) and wants the PI article to reflect Bittergrey's own beliefs about PI. We could name other examples: people with bipolar disorder want that article to reflect their views; parents of children with mental retardation want that article to reflect their views; people with multiple chemical sensitivity want that article to endorse their views; people with learning difficulties want special education to reflect their views; transpeople want that article to reflect their views; gay men want that article to reflect their views; and so on.
    And this is fine, within limits. The problem is that some single-minded editors don't understand the limits. Activists and other people with strong commitments to their point of view often don't realize that their view isn't actually the mainstream view. So Bittergrey isn't trying to have a biased articles about paraphilias, but his best efforts to make them accurately and adequately (in his mind) reflect his personal beliefs about the subject have the actual, if inadvertent, effect of promoting a minority viewpoint (in this case, promoting the viewpoint of the sexual minority itself over the viewpoint of the academics). Tylas is trying to write a balanced article about DID, but it's very difficult, if not humanly impossible, for a person who has dedicated years of his or her life to a particular psychotherapeutic approach to really take on board the critics of that very approach. What looks "balanced" to a dedicated adherent of any particular point of view will look "biased" to anyone else.
    This isn't unique to psychological subjects: Having a close personal relationship with the subject can be a conflict of interest no matter what the subject. Religious people aren't always able to see their bias in favor of their religion; anti-religious people aren't always able to see their anti-religious bias. Neither the pro-abortion-rights nor the anti-abortion activists are the people we should look to for balanced, unbiased work on the abortion articles. The woman who believes her cancer was cured by drinking juice isn't the best person to work on Breast cancer treatment. Even when these people search for sources, they tend to choose, believe, and favor sources that validate their own experiences. It's called confirmation bias, and it's hard-wired into the human brain.
    This is just reality: if you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to have a clear, undistorted view of the subject. If you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to recognize or accept sources that completely disagree with you. If you're very close to a subject, you are not likely to notice when sources subtly disagree with you. This happens even if you are trying your level best to avoid it. That's why WP:MEDCOI echoes the main COI guideline by encouraging people with any medical condition to be wary of re-writing articles so that the articles match your own personal experience.
    All of which adds up to this: Bittergrey is fond of filing noticeboard complaints, but COI and inadvertent POV pushing are the real issues here, and it is never a personal attack to accurately point out a COI problem or an instance of POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WAID - why do you do this? You twist things around when you run to WLU's rescue. #1 - I do not want the article twisted to my own beliefs - I don't have any. I am neutral on the subject and have said many times that I do understand iatrogenic methods and have no doubt that a temporary dissociated state can be created through poor therapeutic practice which were used in the past. #2 - There is some slight controversy as to how adult can get DID. Rather than overwhelming the board here with vasts amount of research on this topic: see this page. It is a good summary of what is the general consensus in not only the psychology, but the medical world of DID. #3 - You talk to WLU so I am sure you know exactly where those stats come from. In case you do not, since this is the 2nd time you have repeated this foolishness and I have corrected you in the past but again - any edit (I think it is absolute and he might have missed one or two but I doubt it) I have ever made on the DID page WLU has reverted almost immediately. A couple of weeks ago, I began to edit, he reverted. I reverted back and then I continued to work on it without being harassed by WLU. Two other editors came in and did a bit of work. I did the edits pretty much one at a time on the DID page hoping others, including WLU would come and help. I know my WP procedures are not up to par with WLU, but I still had hope he would help and others would come as well. This all ceased when WLU reverted everything single edit I made during those couple of weeks to a version he had in his sandbox. I am not saying the version I was working on was more WP correct, but it was certainly more accurate as far as the subject of DID goes. And Encyclopedia should report correct information about the subject at hand. I was working on the other issues and had posted a notice on an editors board for unbiased editors to come and help. I wanted help with this project. WP is not a one man show. So - all those edits you are complaining of were made during that one short period of time where WLU left me and the others alone to edit, then he reverted every single one of them in one sweep to his own version from his sandbox. Please quit spreading this same inaccuracy around. ~ty (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WAID - Again not true. If you know about DID then you know I am ANP - hypoaroused and unemotional. I have a BS in Biology and a MS in ex. Physiology. I spent my school years learning to not be biased. I have not dedicated years of my life to DID. I only recently found out that I have DID and I am totally open to learning all I can about it- everything, but this extreme POV of iatrogenisis, has its place in history, but for now it is just a minor issue that good researchers are trying to get out of they way so they can do real work. Even so, I had mentioned iatrogenisis in the lede and there was a long paragraph about the entire controversy. There was a great deal of it in the history too. This view of iatrogenisis is important to the history of DID research, but times change and quite quickly in the area of science. Those with a strong POV on DID (and others things thought to be due to a traumatic childhood) tend to be of a percentage of the population with a like mindset.~ty (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not change my comments. I have undone your changes to my comments, fixed the formatting, and moved your comments to the end.
    WAID - I did not change your comments - I answered in the part of the paragraph that was about me. Please talk about me and Bittergrey in separate paragraphs. It makes it difficult to reply to you.~ty (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not defending WLU; Bittergrey is accusing me of being uncivil for noticing the contents of his userpage and believing them to be a good example of POV pushing due to a personal or ideological conflict of interest.
    And your reply basically proves my point: you say "I am neutral on the subject", which actually means "Like all humans, I am often unable to recognize my own biases on subjects that are very important to me". You don't have to be angry or fearful or sad to be biased. I believe that you are making a sincere effort to be unbiased, quite possibly more of an effort than any other person who has worked on that page. But while you effort is admirable, that does not mean that you have been wholly successful. Like any other person with a conflict of interest, you need to take advice from the editors without a conflict of interest. On the DID article, that means writing the article so that editors who don't have DID, aren't treating people with DID, don't have family members with DID, don't have websites promoting a viewpoint about DID, etc. think it's an appropriate description, not so that people who have been affected personally or professionally by DID think it's right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And ultimately it's not the COI that is the problem; it's the behaviour of the person with the COI that is unacceptable. Nobody will block Bittergrey for being a paraphilic infantilist, or Tylas for having a diagnosis of DID. Blocks or bans will be issued if either one breaks the 3RR, POV-pushes beyond the tolerance of the community or persists in incivility or personal attacks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WAID - Thank you. I would love to take the advise of editors without a COI, which is why I posted asking for a general editor - not someone with an agenda. I do not know anything about Bittergrey, but he seems to be nice, but at his ropes end - like me and Daniel (who I also don't know but has been friendly and helpful on the DID and appears sharp as a tack!). I am not just trying to be unbiased. I am. It's WLU that has said - he has no interest in learning about the traumagenic model at all. Please don't ask me to dig for that diff in that huge talk page. I will if I have to though, but the point is his interest is in the iatrogenic model. ~ty (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? I said that?
    Yeppers! You did! ~ty (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if I did, that's different from insisting the traumagenic position not be represented on the page. I've never insisted on that, only that both positions appear in accordance to their representation in reliable sources, as required by WP:NPOV. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true, but it is not the problem. Again the 2 views are not equal and should not be presented as equal. I know this goes against all you believe in, but it is how it is in the real world. ~ty (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me be clearer, for the record: WLU does not have a COI. You do. When I say that you should accept the advice from editors without a COI on this subject, I mean that you should accept the advice that WLU is giving you (and anyone else who has no personal or professional connection to the condition). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WQA is not able to resolve disputes like this, see further possible instructions at the top of this section for all involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's refocus here. IRWolfie, if I were to delete all of your comments above, would you consider that uncivil? Were I to say that your input, not just about Ireland but in everything, should be ignored because you claim to be Irish, would you consider that uncivil? BitterGrey (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Like all nationalities, Irish wikipedians are not immune to being effected by pro-Irish bias; it is possible that there are Irish editors who push a particular point of view on the subject of Ireland. If a person can't detach from their own personal point of view then it can be problematic. This avenue of talk is not going to lead anywhere productive though, see the top of the section for further instruction and also the relevant guidelines and policies WP:NPOV etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    But IRWolfie, would it be civil of me to disregard all of your input, including all that you have written above, merely because you were Irish? ...And to persistently bring up your Irishness anywhere we had a debate, and anywhere you debated with one of my friends, as a reason why your input was worthless and why everyone else should ignore any input you might offer? Cracks about my sexuality are being made, made repeatedly, and being given in multiple places across Wikipedia as a reason why my input about any topic should be disregarded. Since you took it upon yourself to tell everyone else who might otherwise have looked into this that no incivility is occurring, I'd like to get a better idea of what you consider uncivil. A yes or no is all I ask. (Well, two yes-or-nos actually. There is also the question about deleting other's talk comments, which also did occur[16]. )

    Oh, and the trick of tagging open issues closed to avoid discussion is getting old[17][18]. Didn't work there either. BitterGrey (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion is closed, go to the correct venue. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two simple yes or no questions about what you consider proper wikiquette, IRWolfie. Are they so hard to answer? As for "go to the correct venue", it sounds exactly like the "this isn't the approp[r]iate venue" you gave when defending WLU elsewhere[19]. No, you need to come to terms with your position here, or you'll be defending WLU at some other forum next time, telling whomever WLU is trying to drive off that week to go away. BitterGrey (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks and insults to multiple users by BScMScMD

    Apparently BScMScMD Thinks it's okay to refer to people as "morons" if they make a typo on a talk page. I and MrBoire have been involved with the user, and this seems to be retaliation for having been told that they were showing their ignorance, the state of being uninformed, about a subject. Perhaps there is a deficiency in language, as demonstrated by the user's comments, and this is at the root of the retribution. It is of note that in the contributors native language, the term fr:Ignorance is also used to describe a person who "does not know."--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    can you provide the relevant diffs as well IRWolfie- (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    read edit summaries.
    I didn't mean for me, I've already responded to the editor on their talk page. It can be handy for other editors. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, there was absolutely no typo on my user page. The message was strictly bitter and obviously did not have its place on a Wikipedia talk page. Having that said, before summarizing an issue to other editors, you, UnQuébécois, should be sure to include real facts, not bits and pieces of misleading information. --BScMScMD (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Um, no one said there were any typos on your page. And the summary is exactly what it is, it highlighted the major points. I have tried to assume no ill intent, however after reading the response on your talk page I am not sure you understand the concept of etiquette.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I strongly believe you have the "it" disease! --BScMScMD (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    User is still at it, here, with their "nit picking" on talk pages. It's very frustrating behavior, and from the comments left on their own talk page, is On purpose.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 23:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I have asked the editor not to do it and pointed out how uncivil it is. Not editing the comments of others is also policy. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dickhead

    Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere
     – This has already been escalated to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Non-autoconfirmed_posts and WP:ANI. IRWolfie- (talk)

    I complained to AndyTheGrump that "remove image and explain why)" did not describe http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Penis&action=history. I also complained that he had written "I would take the suggestions of this 'contributor' more seriously were it not for their recent contribution history. [20] Might I suggest that you'd make a better case if you didn't make a habit of spamming pages with pictures of people urinating?". This contradicts the idea of assessing edits, not editors. It is also wrong, as i had only added photographs of a man and a woman urinating to Urination and Talk:Urination, and a photograph of a penis urinating to Talk:Penis. Please try to be more accurate in the future." He wrote "If you don't like my comment, fine. Report it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance or wherever." Subsequently in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhallus&diff=503393294&oldid=503391356 he wrote " I'd ask 93.96.148.42 to stop being such a dickhead. " and "l. If 93.96.148.42 wishes for policy to be revised to enable off-topic pictures of human genitalia to be added to whatever article he/she wants, on the basis that it is supposedly 'censorship' to do otherwise, this isn't the place to do it". I am not happy at this abuse.93.96.148.42 (talk) 07:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see this contributors recent edit history, and the new thread I've started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#user:93.96.148.42. I'm not interested in discussing matters of Wikiquette with people clearly out to cause trouble - and in the case of this contributor, my description of him/her as a 'dickhead' was not intended as a metaphor. I suggest the contributor should either grow up, or fuck off and troll elsewhere... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Is 93.96's recent trolling style of editing good witiquette? Or should some further action be taken, maybe by an admin, to stop the disruption? Adding: I see that's just been done: Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user:93.96.148.42 —MistyMorn (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    AndyTheGrump created that complaint after telling me to fuck off here. No action has been taken by an admin.93.96.148.42 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Factually incorrect. I posted at ANI first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a board to discuss perceived incivility and work from there to resolve misunderstandings etc. It's not a place for enacting bans etc. Considering that things have escalated to ANI and AN (non-autoconfirmed) this thread has no further purpose. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmmmm...sandwich-pushing... WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, what a sensational essay! And yes, it does sum up the situation very well. Sometimes English has trouble encapsulating the silliness of a situation, but "dickhead" somehow fits the bill in this case—Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED so I can add dick pics on any article related (in my mind) to the topic. Johnuniq (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Threats made by Administrator

    Due to a disagreement with a reversiona reversion, done by myself at Fort Hood Shooting an Administrator threatened a reduction of editing privilege against myself and acted in, what I perceive as, an uncivil manor. I pointed this out to the administrator, which was meet of a response of, as I perceive, as continued incivility. After continued correspondence the administrator followed up with an additional threat and a threat to wikihound myself.

    I am unsure if this is the appropriate place to bring up an administrator's actions towards regular editors, however I feel that the final posting of the editor warranted additional review.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I read John's post to you, I wasn't quite sure what was meant. It sounded like he was saying you wouldn't have the right to revert, but reverts and edits are pretty much the same thing. Regardless of the poor phrasing, the proper course of action is to discuss this content dispute on the Talk page of the article. I see that you guys are doing that now, and other than suggesting to John that he rephrase the 'threat' into a positive call for discussion, I don't think you have much to worry about at this point as long as the editors in question don't begin an edit war. One thing that might spur the participants to discuss more is temporary protection for the article, so that no edits can be made for a while. -- Avanu (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking here: [21], on the initial message there is no personal attack or incivility. Do not claim something is a personal attack or uncivil when you aren't sure, and avoid saying it to the individual anyway when you are sure, as it is needlessly inflammatory. Further, never revert another editor with BRD as your sole reason. Also, Assume good faith and avoid being inflammatory. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean by this is, don't use make an accusation in the same thread, provide your reasonings quietly on their talk page in a new section, be sure to not be confrontational etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that there has been a misunderstanding.
    I am not saying that incivility has occurred on the article Fort Hood Shooting, or its talk page. The subsequent discussion following the reversion has so far been civil regarding all parties involved there.
    My concern was regarding the incivility that I feel occurred solely on my talk page, in regards to the reversion of the Fort Hood Shooting article.
    As for myself being unsure, I was sure that the initial message left in response to the reversion was uncivil, and thus why I civilly reminded the administrator of the pillar. What I was unsure about was this was an appropriate noticeboard to bring up questionable actions of an administrator.
    As for the initial reversion, the reason for it was it was blanking/deleting content that was verified from multiple reliable sources; it was done boldly, and thus subject to reversion. I believe that I stated as much in my following edits in regards to the reversion (specifically on the talk page) of the article. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All of my response is aimed at what is covered at the talk page and what was said. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't quite understand this edit—why does it redirect to an AfD about another article?? However, it would be inappropriate for any admin involved in an editing dispute with you to revoke your privileges himself, but if he goes through the proper channels i.e. ANI then that's his prerogative. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    @Betty: I think you just have a bad diff link, try http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fort_Hood_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=503477640
    @Betty Logan, let me replace the diff. Thanks for pointing this out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I read John's comments at User talk:RightCowLeftCoast#July 2012 as messages that would be appropriate if rollback had been used. However RightCowLeftCoast does not have the rollback right, and did not use it. Perhaps John had his mind on something else and took the edit summary starting with "Reverted" as the standard rollback edit summary which is "Reverted edits by X to last version by Y" (his first comment includes "the reversion tool is to be used only in cases of vandalism..."). Having had a very quick look at the situation, I think it could be summed up as that John's comment would have been ok if rollback was involved, but was inappropriately phrased under the circumstances. However, I can see the point that if an editor (RightCowLeftCoast) is going to revert an edit which involved an edit summary linking to WP:MEMORIAL, they should discuss first rather than reverting less than half an hour after John (yes I know what BRD says, but something like a list of victims in an article on a shooting rampage should be justified in advance). RightCowLeftCoast focused on the threat part of the comment when really just an observation that in their opinion such a comment was inappropriate would be sufficient. Editors should be aware that idyllic niceness is not always possible, and after making a reply about the tone of someone else's comment, further discussion should be restricted to the topic (text in an article). Johnuniq (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance&oldid=503946800"