Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance

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. (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge) Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

Skyemoor (talk · contribs)

Repeated edit warring, insisting that he/she has been collaboratively editing Solar energy, though repeatedly reverts only the edits of one editor, myself. Suggested setting up a sandbox, then failed to use the sandbox, other than to trash it, and reverted having it restored. I really don't care about an edit war in a sandbox, but it really isn't productive. Fails to understand really common sense arguments about why there are problems with the lead section that they continually revert to, and refuses to go back to a previously agreed version while a new one can be worked on in the sandbox. Apteva (talk) 02:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples please? --neon white talk 09:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I most certainly can. Apteva has been blocked a few days ago for edit warring]. 3 other editors have been restablizing and improving the article during his block, but he has returned with the same insistence that his edits are the only 'acceptable' edits and insists that everyone consider his version the "original", "current", and future version. He has been repeatedly inserting a hand-drawn diagram against the wishes of the other editors, and has refused to follow the findings of an RfC. There is a sockpuppet investigation going on against him, and he truly needs to be blocked from Solar Energy for a month or more. One of the other editors is on international travel and Apteva knows it, and is trying to take advantage of it as much as he can right now. Any help you can provide will be truly appreciated. --Skyemoor (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, that is the findings of mediation (and possibly article RFC). You may need to make a request for comment on user conduct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The RFM was closed as successful, but what actually happened is that of the three editors involved, one went on Wikibreak, and a second announced they had lost interest in the project (as an SPA it was not clear if they meant WP or the article). In the meantime someone else had already filled the vacuum by putting an image in the lead that no one objected to, making the RFM moot. Apteva (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva, what we REALLY needed was diff's showing their incivility, not existing sockpuppet investigations, etc.IN fact, if additional actions are already underway against the editor, there's usually no requirement to load this WQA as well... BMW(drive) 20:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not aware of any existing investigations against Skyemoor. Here are the examples I am referring to. In particular referring to an edit as "by recently blocked Apteva" as if that was important.

[1] 8 hours after a talk section had already been created, but not used by Skyemoor. [2] after I was still waiting for Skyemoor to participate in the talk page discussion. Skyemoor's first participation on the talk page was not until 20:20, 9 October 2008. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that their cache was showing a previous version of the talk page.

Since the lead was in an edit war, I moved it to a sandbox and restored the version from September (not "my" version, but the last consensus version, based on the fact that it had been in the article unedited for about the last month). Skyemoor immediately resumed the edit war by reverting to what to me was an unacceptable version.[3] The "work" of several editors had been moved to the sandbox so that it could be fixed. Even though Skyemoor had said that using a sandbox was a good idea, they didn't use it, (until later) other than to question[4] [5]and trash the section headings.[6] [7][8] Evidently Skyemoor's definition of consensus is to block one editor and use the others as a consensus. It doesn't work that way.

I really don't have any problem with an edit war in a sandbox, but it is completely unproductive.[9][10] Once Skyemoor started using the sandbox a consensus was quickly reached,[11] as I pointed out.[12]

Frankly it seems that just bringing up a Wikiquette complaint has encouraged Skyemoor to use the sandbox, and although their agreed to version is rife with weasel/peacock words and irrelevant information, it does not have any technical flaws, which was my only objection. Apteva (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As to "One of the other editors is on international travel", I have not taken that into consideration, other than to ask them to recruit someone while they are there to help create an article about Solar power in Japan. It is my assumption that they have internet access in Japan. The last time I was overseas I still had internet access. Apteva (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva has been a disruptive editor for most of a year, insisting on his text and his hand-drawn diagrams, even though the unit types mismatched (power vs. energy). We had indeed talked about a sandbox, but when he was blocked, other editors began modest edits to the article, so I collaborated with them. Yes, one of the primary editors is on travel, so Apteva ratcheted up his activity, resulting in his block. The fact that other editors and I have a smooth working relationship seems to anger him. I believe he has the potential to contribute to WP, but would suggest he learn to participate as a group member. --Skyemoor (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, like Skyemoor, I am technically trained, so more apt to notice technical deficiencies than non-technical deficiencies (saying I don't understand power and energy would be like telling a geometry teacher they don't know the difference between radius and diameter). I'm happy that the issue has been resolved and if Skyemoor continues to stay away from auto-revert mode this can be closed as resolved. I would hope that they understand, however, the difference between collaboration and choosing sides. By the way I interact with thousands of editors and have a fairly good relationship with most of them. I don't have any "problems" with any of them, but I do try to correct any of their errors, as needed. Apteva (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I may have spoken too soon. I see that Skyemoor is still in auto-revert mode, but this time it's a content issue, and can not be resolved here. Apteva (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

From my view of the handful of diff's you have provided, every single one of them has to do with content and not specific incidents of incivility, and as such this is not the right forum ...am I wrong? BMW(drive) 11:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be that both editors have been edit warring and need to be reminded to use the talk page to discuss changes and gain consensus, leaving the article alone until an agreement is reached and even then it would probably be better if another editor made the agreed changes. If this cannot be done voluntarily, it may warrant a block. --neon white talk 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that I was using the talk page, and the sandbox, while Skyemoor's only tool was edit warring. And yes there will be a long discussion of content, but barring either of us from editing the page is not necessary. Apteva (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The history shows both users edit warring. I believe it would show good faith for both users to refrain from editing the page until the content dispute is resolved. --neon white talk 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Skyemoor is still stuck in auto-revert mode. After being asked to refrain from editing the page (I will give them the benefit of the doubt in possibly not seeing the request). Then when it was agreed on the talk page to change the article and it was incorrectly changed, and fixed, who steps in and auto-reverts? Skyemoor.[13] Unfortunately the article has been protected for so long by an SPA (today: "I need to add xx", instead of "I would suggest that xx be added" - they just don't get it that WP is a collaborative project) that it is hard to find anyone willing to actually work on the article, because they tend to just get chased away. Apteva (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Apteva is the one chasing people away. His tendentious editing goes against the wishes of nearly all the other editors currently and historically involved. He has used sockpuppets to reinsert material and he has been blocked from editing numerous times. The page would have long since reached FA status if not for Apteva. He doesn't understand the subject at hand but argues for argument's sake. His involvement is not conducive to progress. Mrshaba (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speak of the devil. If I had known about Wikiquette alerts a year ago I would have entered one against Mrshaba, the SPA that I was referring to, but I did open the more appropriate AN/I. No, I tend to be quite welcoming, and encourage participation in many ways. And you are kidding yourself about FA - the article was only brought up to a real GA by the FA team (it was given GA by someone who really wasn't familiar with what is required - the article still had the same problems as when it was rejected before, and their very next GA was summarily reverted). However, I am told that the article was much worse before Mrshaba started working on it - and would have been so much better if Mrshaba would understand that it isn't "his" article. Many times I have explained to Mrshaba proper ways to do things and all he does is mock me and worse. I won't go into any more on Mrshaba here, because this isn't about Mrshaba, this is about Skyemoor, who was a primary editor for the article but stayed away for about a year. See[14] I see that Skyemoor didn't actually made any edits during that time.[15] So welcome back, but I would ask you to count to ten before you hit the auto-revert button - and then don't do it. Apteva (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr._T _Based thinking he's God of Tales of Symphonia Dawn of the New World article

Resolved

Hello. I am attempting to make a constructive edit to the Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World article but User:Mr_T_(Based) continues to delete my edits, accusing me of vandalism. It is perfectly valid to include a professional website's opinion on the subject, and T not only deletes my edits but provides no reason for doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.244.82 (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

CAn you provide some diff examples? also notify the editor. Seems he has been warned about edit warring and breaching the WP:3RR. --neon white talk 11:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Both editors have already been warned about edit warring on this article. 71.72 ... you should be very careful with what you place in edit summaries, as many of the ones you have done on that article are more than uncivil in their own rights. I would also recommend a quick visit to WP:SOURCE to see what is and what is not acceptable as a reference. BMW(drive) 11:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems he has been warned about edit warring and breaching the WP:3RR. I'd like to remind both ediror's to remain civil in edit summaries and discuss on the talk page and use dispute resolution if necessary. Also accusations of vandalism are not assuming good faith and User:Mr_T_(Based) needs to more careful not to brand good faith edits as vandalism. See WP:VAN for clear definitions about what is and what is not vandalism. I also have concerns that User:Mr_T_(Based) is 'owning' this article and should refrain from so many reverts. Some of them seem to be quite petty. --neon white talk 11:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think perhaps User:Mr_T_(Based) looked at the IP's contributions and just assumed he was dealing with a vandal. That's quite understandable, given the earlier ones. I think the solution is for both parties to remain civil, to discuss these issues on the relevant article Talk pages, and to solicit the opinions of other editors using dispute resolution mechanisms. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That may well be the case and it seems User:Mr_T_(Based) considered any edit by the 71.72.244.82 to be vandalism which is not acceptable. You cannot 'assume' edits are vandalism, especially if you are in breach of the 3 revert rule by removing them, which was the case several times over here, they need to be checked or you may be acting to the detriment of the article and not improving it. However looking at the article history, this kind of 'owner' behaviour by User:Mr_T_(Based) has not been only restricted to edits by 71.72.244.82 but with multiple editors to the page. I recommend User:Mr_T_(Based) should be reminded that pages are not owned and to discuss changes more with other editors. (note that he/she has very few contributions to talk pages in comparison with the amount of edits performed.) --neon white talk 12:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I have a positive history with the editor, and will have a chat ... BMW(drive) 12:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Important note I fail to see anywhere on Mr T's talk page where the complainant either tried to solve this issue between editors OR advised Mr T that this Wikiquette complaint was filed. Bad, bad stuff. BMW(drive) 13:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Resolved - this diff [16] on Mr T's talk is quite clear on the topic BMW(drive) 13:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin

Template:NWWQA Arthur Rubin wrote in Talk:Graph isomorphism: "I should add that, before, during, and after the Soviet era, Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability. See lysenkoism for "during", but it's not just the Soviets. Andrew Odlyzko asked me to verify some obscure Russian papers in combinatorics while I was working at JPL, and I found most of them to be incorrect.— Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)"

Is it Rasism? Is it Discrimination of another sort? --Tim32 (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize, I am having difficulty grasping the nature of this dispute. From looking at the talk page: it appears that Tim32 has put forth a proposal which local consensus (active editors on that article) is against. I note that Arthur Rubin did remark that "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability"; this is not a personal attack. Tim32: I would recommend to not use bolded statements in your comments; these are frequetly interpreted as agressive.

Also, from the talk page, I would advise that this seems to be a content dispute. In that case, I advise either a Third Opinion or Request for comment. However, from my reading of the situation: local consensus seems to be against your additions. If there is more to the situation than I am seeing, please advise. Kindest regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am living in Russia, and many of my papers have been printed in Russian sci. journals. Arthur Rubin insults the journals and these my papers as well, he insults Russian science and all Russian scientists. The fact is that time to time any error may be reproduced in any paper in any journal, it may be Russian journal or American journal or international journal. It is independant of the place where the journal had been printed. Otherwise we may think that Russian science goes from bad to worse. Is it Rasism?--Tim32 (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim32, I don't think anyone would have to show a lot of references that would actually prove that there have been some "challenges" with the quality of some Russian, but most specifically Soviet era scientific journals. The comment could easily be made regarding WW2-era German maps (that tended to show Poland as "German land, currently occupied by others"). By saying that "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability", this is a historically-proven statement, but also allows that some have been fine and some have not. No racism whatsoever, and certainly does not insult all Russian science. Wikipedia relies on valid references ... just as some newspapers are not used as references, some journals may have a history of being "wrong" whether they are Russian, American, Chinese or whatever. I would, however, be very careful with citing your OWN papers in ANY journal - that still can qualify as original research whether it's been printed in a reputable journal or not. There is significant conflict of interest in using your own papers. BMW(drive) 13:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is prejudice against Soviet journals, it's for sociopolitical-historical reasons, not due to racism. That's how it looks to me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bwilkins wrote: "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability", this is a historically-proven statement". Who and when proved it, for mathematical, phisical or chemical journals?! Arthur Rubin noted lysenkoism, but may be somebody here knows about Yuri Gagarin, for example. Was "the first human in space" possible for low level of sci? and for low level of sci. journals?--Tim32 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of racism made above is a repeat of an accusation made on the Graph isomorphisms page. Isn't this a breach of our civility and no personal attacks policies? Verbal chat 19:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Bwilkins wrote: "be very careful with citing your OWN papers in ANY journal". I write in Wiki only items that I studied. As a rule I printed something about these items (totaly I printed about 100 articles in Russian, American and interanational journals).--Tim32 (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. Arthur Rubin dislikes this. Is it envy? --Tim32 (talk) 13:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What it is, I think, is time for Tim32 to stop insinuating that other editors are acting on bad faith motivations. Wikipedia:No personal attacks tells us to comment on content, not on the contributor, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith says that we should assume other editors are here to improve Wikipedia, and there's been no evidence to the contrary. My advice to Tim32 is to concentrate on the content issues, and if necessary to take disputes about reliable sources to the appropriate noticeboard (i.e. WP:RSN). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile nobody answers my question: "Was "the first human in space" possible for low level of sci? and for low level of sci. journals?" Bwilkins wrote: "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability", this is a historically-proven statement", but he did not answer: "Who and when proved it?" SHEFFIELDSTEEL wrote: "Wikipedia:No personal attacks tells us to comment on content, not on the contributor" But Míkka wrote in GI talk page: "Who the heck is this Trofimov? What's his international scientific recognition?", "The fact that it is repeated in some obscure articles by persons with little credentials in graph theory bears little weight" etc. It looks like Double standard: one standard for Russian journals- another standard for American journals, one standard for Russian editors - another standard for American editors, etc.!--Tim32 (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) (M.Trofimov)

No one answered your question about Soviet cosmonauts because it was obviously rhetorical. As I said, to discuss whether specific Soviet and/or Russian journals should be considered reliable sources, go to the reliable sources noticeboard. Meanwhile, this noticeboard is for discussing the conduct of editors who breach our etiquette guidelines. I don't think that Mikkalai's remark ("Who is this Trofimov?") is a personal attack. He's questioning the standing of a source, not attacking an editor. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it was not rhetorical question: Arthur Rubin and Bwilkins sudjested absurd statement (about all Russian sci. journals) supported by you, so you also have to answer this question to prove this statement. I do not understand why somebody on another page should explain your motivation. The fact is that Mikkalai's remark was about me (you can see context and can find another similar remarks in GI talk page), and so your sophisticated idea is not reasonable. Meanwhile, I revised my statement in GI article, the word "difficult" was excluded, because Arthur Rubin disliked this word in this statement. But Arthur Rubin deleted this revised statement without any comment in talk page. This means that he does not want to find any consensus!--Tim32 (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) This forum discusses civility. We have responded to your original concern that perhaps racism was involved: this was not a case of racism, it is a case of validity of references. As I have noted, there are many references in all languages/from all areas of the world that are valid and invalid. You have been directed to WP:RS to further pursue the issue of whether the sources are reliable or not. We are unable to deal with reversions/deletions and other content changes in this forum. -t-BMW-c- 15:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability, this is a historically-proven statement", so you needed this statement to discuss civility. I only ask you to prove these your words. Otherwise, you used false argument in this discussion of civility!--Tim32 (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back 2 steps, and hopefully you'll understand. You accused an editor of racism because they claimed a "mixed degree of reliability of Soviet-era journals". THAT was the gist of your civility complaint. Civility is directed at a specific person. You were not personally attacked by a description of the quality of journals that may have been around before you were even born. Your accusations of racism are baseless. Civility is therefore not an issue. Your argument is, as discussed, to do with RELIABILITY OF SOURCES. I have stated that ALL COUNTRIES have issues with reliability of sources. Do not take my words out of context in a way of trying to prove your own point. If you want additional updates about civility, you can get answers from someone else, as I'm out of this one, effective now. -t-BMW-c- 16:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: "because they claimed a "mixed degree of reliability of Soviet-era journals"" -- it is not correct -- Arthur Rubin wrote in Talk:Graph isomorphism: "I should add that, before, during, and after the Soviet era, Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability." -- Again, not only "Soviet-era", but "before, during, and after the Soviet era"! So, please, try again to go back 2 steps.--Tim32 (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PS. BTW I was born in 1957.--Tim32 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter which era is being referred to. BMW's point is still valid. The editor wasn't being racist but discussing reliability of sources. Racism isn't saying, "before, during, and after the Soviet era, Russian journals have a somewhat mixed degree of reliability." Racism is saying, "these journals are unreliable because they were written by Russians". I hope that clarifies the issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attack by PaddyM

Greetings. I come here, as a first step, to gain neutral insight into the most recent note which PaddyM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) left on my talk page. In it he called me a hypocrite and referred to my opinion about templates as "hilarious". I do not know why PaddyM has taken it upon himself to leave this sort of note on my talk page. We haven't communicated in many, many months but it seems he has been monitoring my talk page, looking for something to rip into me about. This unprovoked attack violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Before I leave a message for him on his talk page, a template or run to AN/I I thought it most appropriate to come here and obtain some sort of mediation and neutral insight. I look forward to any assistance which may be rendered. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 01:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see much of an attack there. It's probably just best to avoid PaddyM as much as you can. Grsz^X 02:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am completely avoiding him, as much as possible. In fact previous this his note on my talk page we had not communicated in over a year. His message comes clearly out of the blue. Thus I am quite miffed and confused. Bstone (talk) 02:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone. First, I commend you for bringing the discussion here; rather than escalating the dispute. In this situation, perhaps it would be best to let PaddyM go his way. He may have an explanation for the remark, and you may have a reply regarding your take on templated messages. However, the discussion is unworthy of escalation; the best possible outcome would be to let the dispute drop. Since you see each other once a year, likely the problem will not resurface. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 02:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I've like to say I am extremely annoyed at it. I've actually reverted the remark as I find it unacceptable.--Mathematiquizard 17:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would you do that? It was on someone else's Talk page, and it's currently being discussed right here in this forum ... it's like removing evidence, and it's Bstone's right to decide whether to remove it or not. BMW(drive) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Just posting to say that I thought PaddyM's message was rather impolite and seemed to be provocative. I certainly hope that provocation is unsuccessful, and I would advise Bstone to let this go for now at least. It's on the record, if there are any future problems. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean- he's already been blocked once [17], he'll end up being blocked again if he's uncivil again.--Mathematiquizard 12:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, I was blocked putatively for a 3RR (which is, of course, not the correct use of a block), which was disputed by both myself and other neutral editors of that page. Regardless, although I tend to find that my disputes with Bstone end with him using language disproportionate to the material in question, the simple fact that he was admonished for templating a regular, yet believes that someone who templates him is committing vandalism is, in fact, pure hypocrisy. It cannot possibly be vandalism against him, but useful information to someone else for the same offense. Cheers, PaddyM (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a more interesting essay: User:DESiegel/Template_the_regulars BMW(drive) 10:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He's made another attack, this time on my talk page, see here. Any further incivility and I'm going to report him to WP:AIV.--Mathematiquizard 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, here's his third edit, this time accusing me of violating WP:NPA. He's going on WP:AIV.--Mathematiquizard 15:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please note: Mathematiquizard is yet another entrant in the whack-a-mole game that is removing sockpuppets of User:Tom Sayle. [ roux ] [x] 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Venture Bros.

There seem to be a lot of good faith editors being stymied by another editor on this page. I'm kind of new so I'm not an expert on policy, but it seems like a lot of the information being taken out is good and notable even if it needs to be Wikified. Can some peeps check this out and see what they think? I was struck by everything taken out between: Revision as of 03:05, 23 September 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venture_Bros.&diff=240356161&oldid=238709588 and Current revision as of 02:42, 17 October 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venture_Bros.&diff=245810822&oldid=245806346 Sorry, I don't know how to diff a comparison in one link. There's also some discussion of the situation on the article's talk page. Holla!(Wallamoose (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I would be a bit careful with this. Based on the second diff provided, your edit that was reverted (twice) includes the line "<ref>Some geek who has way too much time on his hands...</ref>", which is not beneficial to this project. Different editors have been involved in both the quoted reversions. This appears to be, however, more of a content dispute - which I see has lengthy discussion on the talk page - as opposed to one of Civility. BMW(drive) 13:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying, "some geek who has way too much time on his hands" is a bad ref? Hmmm, I see your point although in this instance I think it's arguable. I wasn't really trying to question those two edits, but all the material taken out inbetween. How do I do a diff that shows this? There are all kinds of interesting details, the composer, references made in the show, you name it that's been taken out and all by one editor. Makes me want to cry, and judging by the talk page I'm not the only one. And for the record the geek bit could have been taken out, but that was only one small portion of the edit that was reverted.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Fun with diffs: In a nutshell, start with the History tab at the top of the page, play with the radio buttons, then click the big button at the top. More info is at WP:DIFF SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.

This user is back at it today taking out all kinds of things.

All this is gone in one edit:

The writers have presented Dr. Venture being an adult analogue for Jonny Quest. Flashbacks and references to merchandise show Rusty as a Jonny Quest-like child adventurer. This was expanded upon in season two with brief appearances from Hector, who served as an analogue for Hadji, and former boxing champion Swifty as another analogue for Race Bannon. - - Characters and devices from Jonny Quest appear in person in six episodes. "Ice Station – Impossible!" and "The Invisible Hand of Fate" feature cameo appearances from Race Bannon. In "Twenty Years to Midnight", a drug-addicted adult Jonny Quest lives in the same bathysphere that Jonny's father, Benton Quest, once used to communicate with sea life. A character called Radjni (another parody, of Jonny Quest's friend Hadji) later appears in the season three episode "The Doctor Is Sin" as an employee of Jonas Venture Jr., who is trying to take care of the drug-addicted Johnny. Also in "Fallen Arches", Dr. Venture has built a "Walking Eye" machine, reminiscent of the spider-like robotic spy built by Dr. Zin from the Jonny Quest episode "The Robot Spy". In the third episode of Season 3, "The Invisible Hand of Fate", Race Bannon can be seen working as a torturer for the OSI. In the fifth episode of Season 3, "The Buddy System", Johnny, apparently now sober, was working at Rusty Venture's Day Camp for Boy Adventurers. He is still extremely high strung, breaking down emotionally as he talks about his father. Later, Dr. Zin himself would show up as a special guest at a show for the children, scaring Jonny out of his mind. Sergeant Hatred appears in the same episode (as a replacement arch villain for The Monarch) and gushes with admiration for Dr. Zin, referring directly to an incident that occurred in Episode 5 of the original Jonny Quest series ("Riddle of the Gold"). The Sergeant states that Dr. Z had his No. 2, Kaseem, eaten by a cheetah, which reference Dr. Z relishes, quoting the Dr. Zin character directly. In actuality, Kaseem in the Jonny Quest episode was killed by what appears to be a cheetah enraged that Kaseem had previously killed its master, though Dr. Zin looks on from a monitor approvingly, decrying Kaseem's "last blunder."

And as far as unsourced and original research, I understand those policies, but let's be honest a lot of articles have been written by good faith editors. This isn't a case of Wikifying it's more like Armageddon. STOP THE MADNESS! What's the harm in allowing the page to include a lot of information that's of interest to the show's fans. PLEASE!!! Do something Dr. Venture!!! (Wallamoose (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

His edit title is: "rm unreferenced junk, while I'm here". Stop this villain! One man's junk is another's treasure!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Venture_Bros.&diff=245846226&oldid=245831804(Wallamoose (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I dont think this is the correct place for this. It's a content dispute that should go to dispute resolution. There has been no editor named to comment on. --neon white talk 23:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that based on recent history, he's being polite and not naming names, knowing we can likely see it for ourselves. However, this is content-related, and not yet incivility ... BMW(drive) 23:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That's all very well but it kinda defeats the purpose of a wikiquette alert. How can anyone comment on the behaviour of an editor if we they know who it is? --neon white talk 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that contested and uncited material can be removed, but blanking helpful, verifiable and uncontested content because it lacks sources is pointy disruption which is blockable. That's what is going on there, so I don't think it's just a content dispute. And I'm happy to name names if that would be helpful.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

There may be valid reason why the editor is removing edits, have you asked? --neon white talk 00:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaakobou

I come across this editor from time to time, mostly on Israeli-Palestine articles, where we both edit. There has long been a dispute on a separate article, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, over the inclusion of a cartoon which has been alleged by one campaigning non-WP:RS to be some sort of celebration of the attacks (published in a Palestinian newspaper) some six years after the event. There is consensus on the talk page from every editor apart from Jaakobou to remove the image (see the discussion, which I initiated, here)

Myself and another editor (User:Imad marie) have continued to engage on the talk page, initially leaving it up to Jaakobou to remove the image himself. Two other editors have commented to support removal, no-one has come in to support retention. Imad Marie did then remove the image, per consensus, twice in the space of four days (the second time after ongoing discussion), only to be immediately reverted. Jaakobou has now taken to accusing that editor of "edit-warring" and myself of "trolling" in his latest contribution to the discussion, while still not addressing any of the points being raised as to why the image is not relevant and not appropriate.

This article does have a complicated history and of course up to a point this is a content dispute, but surely it is not acceptable to be referred to as a "troll" or accused of not being "collaborative" for actually taking the time to explain the problems with using an image based on an inflammatory accusation; to be accused of being part of a "clique" on account of being on the consensus side in a debate; and also for that editor to continually revert a consensus change, and while doing so, to make accusations against others of edit-warring?

This is despite a specific recent request to this editor from me to back off from personalising any disagreements we have, here, following a stream of accusations (linked to on that talk page) that I was engaging in "tendentious editing", "stalking" etc. In all of the debate here, I have been calm and reasoned, while explaining the points at issue with I hope some clarity. One mildly sarcastic remark has been picked up on (indeed I received a short and quickly overturned block for it, something I am still a little bemused by), but at all times I have assumed good faith and discussed the issue rationally, without resorting to any form of direct accusations aimed at Jaakobou. Instead myself and other editors who disagree with him are being hit with repeated, specific and unwarranted abuse. --Nickhh (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the forum for content disputes, and you are misrepresenting the factual basis of that dispute, on top of things - there is no consensus to remove the image, for one thing. It is somewhat disingenuous of you to come here and complain about Jaakobou's behavior, when you have just been blocked for incivility toward him. NoCal100 (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not bringing this here as a content dispute, as is clear from what I have written above. Most incivility stems ultimately from a content dispute of one sort or another, I have merely noted that this is indeed the case here, by briefly setting out the background. I am pretty clearly - you would have thought - not asking for adjudication on that dispute. I am making a specific note about being accused of "trolling" or being part of a "clique", following on from previous personal attacks. As for your other point, I was pretty swiftly unblocked. It was one comment, of a flippant nature and not malicious or abusive. I have noted this in my post here in any event, so to accuse me of being disingenuous is, well, disingenous itself. Thank you --Nickhh (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You opened your post here with two detailed paragraphs about the content dispute, misrepresenting it while you are at it. Those are not needed. You were unblocked after you agreed to apologize for your behavior, but then you come here to continue the battle in another forum , which suggests that you r apology was nothing more than lip service, to get yourself unblocked. NoCal100 (talk) 14:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, your contribution has been noted. I refer you to my previous comment and to my initial post, where what I am saying should be quite clear and not at all misrepresentative of anything. I must have missed the point as well where I had to apologise for my alleged incivility btw. Nor am looking for a battle - I simply want Jaakobou to tone down his language and to lay off making accusations against me and other editors when discussing article content, as I asked him to do a while ago on his talk page. Could you please lay off the aggression as well? --Nickhh (talk) 15:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Where and when did Nickhh apologize? Provide the diff. Imad marie (talk) 15:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There was no apology. Nickhh maintained that he should not have been blocked. The block notice mentioned ArbCom sanctions related to a different subject area. Elonka's opinion was that he should be unblocked based on "time served". His unblock request was accepted on that basis. [18] SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And Elonka in fact also specifically said that in her view "a full block was excessive". Anyway this is all a bit off-point - I did acknowledge that this had happened as part of the debate on the page, and in so far as any action was needed in respect of this one individual (in my view pretty harmless) comment, that action has been taken and the issue dealt with. The reason I came here was in respect of the personal attacks accusing me of "trolling" and being part of a "clique". These came, as I have said, as part of a series of ongoing accusations made by the same editor, which I had asked them to desist from several days earlier. NoCal has effectively derailed that by wading in here as they did above. It's somewhat ironic of course that I come here to raise problems with an editor's comments and general attitude towards myself and others, only to find that the first person to respond here is another editor (now involved in the underlying content dispute), who launches into yet more personal attacks, accusing me of being "disingenuous", of wanting to "battle in another forum" etc - while at the same time claiming (entirely falsely) that I have had to apologise recently for some appalling breach of civility myself. --Nickhh (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Jaakobou has a record of edit-warring persistently against overwhelming consensus (as he seems to be doing again in this case). This table here demonstrates how, earlier this year, he refused to accept a consensus 8-1 against him, an RfC, an ArbCom and a block before the BLP he wanted was finally removed. It all took an astounding 19 months, completely dominating the TalkPage, and leaving everyone so exhausted there's been no further movement on the biography of an important player. PR^talk 16:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Ibaranoff24

User: Ibaranoff24 has repeatedly made personal attacks against me. He has ordered me to “back off” when I have been adding sourced information into an article because he disagrees with it (here [19], and here [20]). He has repeatedly accused me of “pushing POV” (here [21], here [22] and here [23]), when all I’m “pushing” is sourced information. He has now accused me of sock-puppetry simply because another user is supporting me (here [24]). He has also shown agitation and aggression through use of bold, all caps and exclamation marks (as here [25]) and made statements regarding my edits such as “I refuse to bow down to flakey editors trying to insert bad sources and poor writing into articles in order to dumb down their content.” ([26]), and edit summaries such as "responding to user's arrogance" ([27]). Prophaniti (talk) 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment - a MedCab case was opened here regarding the root dispute between Prophaniti and Ibaranoff24 (content dispute at Hed PE). I am confident that if we can get both parties to discuss the issue politely, all of these problems can be resolved. [ roux ] [x] 23:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading the dispute i think both editors need to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia:Five pillars. I've never seen such a misuse and misconprehension of policy! This could have easily been dealt with at the reliable sources noticeboard. --neon white talk 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are suggesting I have been acting in the same manner as Ibaranoff24 then I would have to assume you haven't been reading the discussion at all, sorry. There really is no comparison.

The medcab resolution is for solving the dispute itself, this is regarding the personal attacks that have arisen throughout, something separate. Prophaniti (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Once the dispute is solved everything should calm down. None of the personal attacks are that serious, though the user in question could do with being a bit more patient and stepping away from a dispute if tempers flare etc. --neon white talk 20:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If the "attacks" are occurring as part of the medcab, they are part and parcel of that activity. BMW(drive) 09:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The majority are from before the medcab started, a couple are from the start of it, but personal attacks are personal attacks, a medcab project is no excuse. Prophaniti (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The MedCab is now closed. [ roux ] [x] 12:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User: Pandacomics

I made edits on Jay Chou so that the article complies with the Chinese naming convention.

• Pandacomics reverted my edit with no editing summary (PC-revert 1).

• I reverted his revert and cited the naming convention (PYL-revert 1).

• Pandacomics reverted my revert with a comment saying "um, no" (PC-revert 2).

• I explained in his personal page asked him to be civil and elaborated in details why my edits were for the Chinese naming convention. I reverted his revert (PYL-revert 2).

• Pandacomics partly replied to my comment then reverted the article again (PC-revert 3).

I again explained in his personal page about the naming convention and gave him the 3-RR warning, as he was in violation of the "no 3-RR rule".

He then gave me 3-RR warning with a comment saying "You want to play dirty? I'll show you dirty". As I have reverted the article twice, the warning was incorrectly given. The act of giving an incorrect warning, together with the comment which alleged me of "playing dirty", as well as the blanket revert when Pandacomics only had issues with one aspect of my edit is uncivil. I have asked him to civilly sort out the content disputes via discussions, instead of engaging in an edit war or further uncivil behaviour.

For your reference,

My talk page is User talk:pyl#October 2008; and

Pandacomics' talk page is User talk:Pandacomics#Jay Chou_2

Jay Chou revision history is [28]--pyl (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, his 3RR warning was correct. Three reverts is not an entitlement, quota, or target. Neither of you should be reverting the other repeatedly, and the edit summary of a revert is not the place to resolve content disputes. That's what the article Talk page is for. If you can't resolve this by discussing things politely, follow the dispute resolution guidelines. Having said that, I have left a warning on Pandacomic's Talk page, since their remark does accuse Pyl of acting in bad faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Pandacomics posted to my Talk page acknowledging the warning. I think we can mark this as resolved, and hope that these two editors can remain polite towards one another going forward. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Dstebbins

Dstebbins has engaged in uncivil comminication with editors.

On the posts side, Dstebbins made an extremely uncivil post on User:Slakr's talk page [29]. Dstebbins also posted an uncivil post on my talk page including a personal attack and a threat [30]. He has also made an AfD post giving no reason for keep other than basically showing anger towards me [31].

On the edit summaries side, Dstebbins made edit summaries that include personal attacks towards other editors: [32][33]. Regardless of his changes, they're were still personal attacks in the edit summaries.

Can somebody help get this user get on the civil side?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 11:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Indef-blocked. ffm 20:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess this was much more severe than a Wikiquette issue. Right?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 23:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you have read their Talk page, you'll know there's more going on than civility, and a quick read of Aspergers Syndrome might have helped you to better interact with the user (not that I'm excusing the other editor from anything!). BMW(drive) 09:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Trendy Sammy

Please see user's comments on Talk:Easton Press, namely calling me a "monster" and other accusation. --RossF18 (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue seems to have resolved itself per user's clarification. --RossF18 (talk) 00:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like this user is rather new to Wikipedia and could use some help finding their way around. If you'll re-read the comment you're referring to, they didn't call you a monster - they were referring to the large list as a "monster". They even explained this in a later post on the talk page just before you posted this and appear to be trying to find a way to resolve your dispute. See if you can't work together to figure out how to handle the article and any possible lists, or use dispute resolution to get some other outside opinions if you can't agree on a way forward. Shell ^babelfish 00:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also left a "did not notify" message {{subst:User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify|WQA}} on Ross's page as you should always notify the other party of this filing. BMW(drive) 22:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

SkyWriter

Need help with resolving bad-faith being assumed by editor who thinks Inigmatus is edit warring[34][35]. Article changes to Messianic Judaism have been reverted by SkyWriter without addressing issues in talk first. inigmatus (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of editors making these accusations, i recommend reminding all involved in the dispute to remember to assume good faith and use the talk page to gain consensus before editting. --neon white talk 20:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

*I* think Inigmatus is edit warring; I recently blocked him for 3RR. I think he needs to look rather more carefully at his own behaviour William M. Connolley (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

All editors are required to assume good faith, not make personal attacks and remain civil while resolving a dispute. There seems to be a number of editors involved in edit warring on the article. I'm interested to know why SkyWriter, an editor with a previous block for edit warring, wasn't even warned about it? This alert is about the 'bad faith' accusations only not the dispute itself. --neon white talk 22:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Snowded

This User has accused me of being a sock puppet, and apparantly claims i need to report in to him with my IP and any edits i make otherwise i'm being dishonest. I don't think this very polite could someone look into please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.42 (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you give pointers to or links to the specific instances where you consider this has happened? Also, I see you have a history of never signing your comments. This means it is difficult to see who is saying what at times, and can cause a little understandable irritation at times. It would help immensely if you signed your comments by typing ~~~~ at the end of each of your messages. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The user is editing under two newly created IP addresses and demonstrates knowledge of WIkipedia processes that would not be present in a new editor. He is refusing to answer questions about past history of editing. I have said on both of the IP talk pages that multiple editing and refusing to disclose prior history is an indication of sock puppetry. Given the history on any page to do with Britain, Ireland or Celtic matters its a reasonable concern. There are similarities in editing style with previous sock puppets. My comments on the talk pages are here and here. The user also seems determined to place fact tags all over the place, see here--Snowded TALK 09:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

After a quick glance at the IP's Talk page, I would recommend a little WP:AGF. If you have a sockpuppet situation, making veiled threats is a no-no. You either file your WP:SOCK case, or leave it alone. You're not the sock-killer. Make your case as per WP:SOCK and remain civil. BMW(drive) 10:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Opinion noted, but I'm afraid I don't agree. These and related pages are plagued with one time IPs and socks. A polite request to the effect of "have you edited before" is reasonable. Repeating that request when the editor displays all the signs of having knowledge of Wikipedia beyond that of a newby is also reasonable. I didn't make any veiled threats, I know I'm not a sock killer and I am remaining civil. All the IPs have to do is answer a reasonable question. I also don't file sock puppet requests at whim, that would be uncivil, I prefer to give the editor in question a chance to state formally that they have not edited before. If they do, then I trust them unless proved otherwise (if you want some diffs on that I can give them. So try and be civil yourself and assume good faith. Some of us are trying to get some stability onto controversial pages. --Snowded TALK 11:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bringing this back from Snowded's talk page...this diff [36] is really rather pushy regarding this. -t-BMW-c- 12:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any sign of incivility or an assumption of bad faith from User:Bwilkins (a.k.a. BMW). On the other hand, repeatedly demanding answers is more uncivil, in my opinion, than simply filing a case at WP:SSP. If you believe that "refusal to answer... speaks for itself" then go ahead and cite it as supporting evidence. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking twice, then asking again when a new IP address appears from the same editor on the new site hardly constitutes "repeatedly" and the use of such a word which does not in any way correspond to the facts could be interpreted as provocative (but I won't). Giving potential new editors a chance to declare if they have edited before rather than leaping to a report at WP:SSP is a good example of assuming good faith SheffieldSteel. --Snowded TALK 18:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please try to be less confrontational, particularly when talking to volunteers who are here to evaluate your own conduct. This edit summary is not helpful, based as it is on your position that the word "repeatedly" "does not in any way correspond to the facts" when the facts, as stated by yourself, are that you asked three times. Regarding the subject matter, please review the guidelines at WP:SOCK, particularly Wikipedia:SOCK#Identification_and_handling_of_suspected_sock_puppets, and try to avoid behaviour which could be seen as biting the newcomers or assuming bad faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Twice to one IP editor, and once to another IP editor (to ask if they are the same person) is not "repeatedly" under any normal use of English. One volunteer editor (me) explaining to another volunteer editor (you) that I think jumping to a sock report is not the way to greet a potential newcomer is hardly confrontational. Volunteer editors who spend hours most days clearing up vandalism and dealing with socks and newby IP addresses on controversial pages develop ways to handle those issues, where possible avoiding continuously reporting people. Its called avoiding biting the newcomers and assuming bad faith. Jump into support Bwilkins by all means. I disagreed with his comments and elaborated on that politely on his talk page. We may still disagree, that is Wikipedia. I will also feel free to evaluate your comments/conduct while welcoming yours on mine. So far I think my language is less confrontational. --Snowded TALK 19:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So far in this thread, you've described the editors who've criticised your actions of as being incivil, provocative, confrontational, assuming bad faith and not providing facts. I think we will have to disagree. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

We will, including the appropriateness and accuracy of that last comment. --Snowded TALK 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

• incivil: [37]
• provocative: [38]
• confrontational: [39]
• assuming bad faith: [40]
• not providing facts: [41]

SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh really? Please read the material. your incivil, confrontational and assuming bad faith are invitations to the editors concerned to consider if words they used could also be applied to them. Your provocative was a suggestion that you tone down your language. Not providing the facts was I think an accurate statement. I have tried, patiently to explain my comments and I am very happy to let them stand as is. I would strongly recommend that you look at the whole picture and try be a little less sensitive when people simply feed back to you words that you have used yourself. --Snowded TALK 20:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. Now go and edit an article or suspect some sock puppets or something. Just please try to follow the guidelines while you're at it. Of course, that wasn't an accusation that you've acted outside of any guidelines; just an invitation to consider whether you might do so in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I have been happily editing in parallel with this less serious activity. Suspecting sock puppets is an occupational hazard on the pages I edit (have a look at Wikipiere if you want an example) Always good to be reminded of the need to keep within guidelines and I welcome all informed criticism and comments as I am sure you do. Context as ever is king --Snowded TALK 20:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The cluster of articles connected with articles England, United Kingdom, and so on are continually being plagued by one-time IP editors who swoop in and make contentious edits for a while against established consensus before disappearing, or anonymous IP editors who are disruptive, or even newly created SPA doing the same thing. Of course not all editors who fall into this category are like this, but enough are for it to be a point of comment. United Kingdom, England, and the other articles (Wales, for instance) have suffered from this for a long time, and some actions (concerning the use of British Isles) have gone to arbitration on the matter. All this can be verified by simply looking at the histories of these articles, their talk pages, and their logs. Some of the articles are having to repeatedly be semi-protected or fully-protected to stop the edit warring, and only recently has there been a concerted effort to try to make the talk pages conform more to WP:TALK, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NOTFORUM, and WP:CRYSTALBALL to remove the disruptive, personalised, soapboxing style of comments from some. In the light of this, and taken in concert with the failure of this IP editor, despite being reminded on more than one occasion, to sign their posts, relatively mild perceived infractions can become a source for irritation. I don't think the reaction of Snowded should be divorced from the context in which they were made, whereupon, I don't think there is much to apologise for, though his comments perhaps could have been phrased a little differently. Administrators do ask people if they have edited under other i.d.s from time to time, and I don't see that doing so is such a heinous crime, especially in the context, which I have outlined above.  DDStretch  (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It would help things along, if the IPs-in-question would create accounts. I know it's not required (creating an account), but it sure would help. I fail to understand why there's a negative reaction to Snowy's questions. PS- Yes, I support mandatory registration (in case anybody questions my views). GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is contentious about placing fact tags on unsourced statement, and putting notes that the content and style need to be improved, and correcting spag? i could understand if was rewriting articles to say the english are as bad as nazis or adding masses of unsourced analysis, put please Goodday tell me what edit you feel was contentious and i will be happy to discuss it with you. Why exactly should anyone have to give account to anyone else of their action? are not all editors equal? or do you consider some editors more equal than others? Also as for signing post and the term infractions please refer to the fifth pillar of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.162 (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the edits you've made. I'm just curious as to your negative reaction to Snowy's request (concerning wheither you've edited before). I'm assuming this is the same editor, I'm responding to. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way IP, according to your contributions history, you've only been on Wikipedia for 'less then a day'. How'd ya know about making Wikiquette reports? I never knew about them for over a year. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

User:193.142.220.10

Resolved

Please take action against the vandalism of this user. See for example: [42] --Mazarin07 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't vandalism. User has only made 3 edits in the last 48 hours and appears currently inactive. If the editor returns, contact him or her, via their talk page, and request that they use the talk page to discuss edits. --neon white talk 13:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Deleting an interwiki link is not a simple editing, but real and actual vandalism.--Mazarin07 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible the editor did not know what an interwiki link is? Please WP:AGF a little, and help by educating/discussing with the editor and not calling it vandalism right away. In addition, you should advise the other editor when you file an Wikiquette report on them. -t-BMW-c- 14:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW has summed it up - see Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers. Also, we don't handle vandalism at this venue - please try here in the future. Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BMW did not summ up anything. I already warned the user in question to refrain from deleting interwiki links. In addition, I am convinced that he/she is not a newcomer, but an old editor who doesn't want to edit under his/her real name because of the subversive nature of his/her deletions.--Mazarin07 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

The minor (possibly accidental) removal of an interwiki link is not vandalism. Most people don't even understand them, and many might be tempted to therefore remove them. WP:AGF, my friend, WP:AGF. "Warning" vice "discussing" are two different things. -t-BMW-c- 16:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Per BMW. Additionally, if you think someone is a sockpuppet, you should try WP:SSP. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I cannot find any evidence of sockpuppetry, considering the scant amount of edits made by this ip and the fact that the edits have never been made before under any username i fail to see where the claims are coming from. I think this can be considered resolved. --neon white talk 16:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Besides, Sockpuppetry is an deliberate attempt to change IP's, etc in order to skirt the Rules/perform multiple votes. I have personally used hundreds of different IP addresses, and sometimes forget to login. Does that mean I'm a sock? -t-BMW-c- 16:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil comments by Readin

While discussing on the talk: demographics of Taiwan, I noticed that User:Readin did not responded to my comments directly and I said:-

"I note that you did not directly respond to my comments above your response, please do so. Thank you."

Then I got a reply saying:-

"please do so I did not realize I was being paid to follow your orders. I will respond or not respond as I have time. Please have patience and stop demanding that other editors follow your personal schedule."

In my view, discussion on an article cannot progress if an editor argues for A then other editors responds with B. I didn't demand Readin to "follow my orders" or "follow my personal schedule", I find the comment quite uncivil, uncalled for and it did not assume good faith.

For your reference, the diff is here [43]. Thank you.--pyl (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would point out that this is not the first time that Pyl and I have disagreed. The "follow...schedule" comment refers to instances where Pyl has set arbitrary deadlines for responding to his comments. Also, my comment began with "I don't have time to say a whole lot this week, but...", to which Pyl responded that I should spend more time responding to him. And I did respond to his comment. He did not make clear what he meant by "directly". Readin (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Jimmi Hugh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2008_October_13#Is_Windows_7_being_released_so_soon_because_of_the_criticisms_about_Windows_Vista.3F

I requested that the user please remain civil on the reference desk, and he responded by saying, "Ugh... If I wasn't civil with my identical style of response... then you definetly weren't being civil. Especially as I added surreal and friendly humour so you could cop out of responding and not feel like you were being attacked for posting unnecesary messages in an attempt to have ago at Kainaw. So, I was being Civil, you on the other hand are being somewhat rude and childish. As for making the claim... If he wasn't considering, reviewing or analyzing the possiblity and/or action of making such a claim then he wouldn't have posted the question, so on some level there is achance he might want to, or at least feel he could come to make or not make that claim. Kainaws response was Valid, complete and his claim note was entirely on point. You on the other hand are just a twat... now that's not civil :)."

I don't think calling users "twats" is really appropriate. 98.221.85.188 (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears he has had other warnings issued to him regarding civility and personal attacks here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimmi_Hugh#Warning 98.221.85.188 (talk) 00:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)