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

Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software (initial report was titled: User:Timeshifter)

Stuck

 – Disagreement about article content and methods of communicating is ongoing. No one particular editor is causing the problems. Recommend avoiding all personal comments and focusing on content only. RFC active at the article, hopefully more editors will visit and consensus can be found. Interested editors, please visit this link to enter your comments: Talk:List of mind mapping software#Request for Comment: List of mind mapping software --Parzival418 _Hello 07:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC).

I suggest that this item can be archived. EdJohnston 23:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kellygorge

Resolved

 – Not certain if he gave up or was satisfied by the last edit I made to the article in question, but the problem is resolved for now. Caerwine 05:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps making badly formatted and unreferenced edits to Technician Fourth Grade and related articles. I've asked him to at least make decently formatted edits and that I'd be willing to put some effort into verifying his edits, but instead he keeps making badly formatted edits without response. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to concentrate on formatting his/her entries (as he/she is a new editor) and place fact tags next to contentious material - then if a reference isn't provided after a few days, by either you or another editor, you could remove the material, this might help calm the situation down a little. Try and put plenty of reasoning into your edit comments, keep them calm, polite and instructive, often a good way to reach uncommunicative editors - use the edit comments to invite discussion on the talk page - good luck, sbandrews (t) 19:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Race and genetics

Resolved

Edit war with User:XGustaX for removing cited material Muntuwandi 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice. User:XGustaX deleted the above report from this page as of 22:47, 19 June 2007 with the edit summary "(debate is over)". The alert text has been restored because content entered on this page is for community involvement and should not be removed except in unusual circumstances, with justification. When an alert is resolved, it can be noted here for the record, but not deleted. I have not reviewed the specifics of this alert, but it should be noted that removal of the alert by User:XGustaX was inappropriate in that it was his conduct being questioned by the editor who posted the alert.

Editors are invited to review and comment on the alert as reported. --Parzival418 _Hello 08:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry I was not aware it was against the rules. The issue does seem to be over we have reached and agreement and we have finished disussing how to add the information and revise the other information. XGustaX 13:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it's not a big deal. It's just that this page is a record for the community of these discussions. After a while if the alert is inactive it will be removed from this page and archived by date, linked in the archive box near the top of the page. It appears the conflict is resolved. If it flares up again, you've welcome to add to this alert posting. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Toupee

Resolved

During a heated debate over content in the Toupee article, IP 24.15.208.65 declared that I was arrogant and then, when I tried to urge him against calling names, he simply reaffirmed the statement. After the second time I suggested that we discuss content not contributors, he was rude. I even kindly said that I would, "rather putz around arguing with you about a list of toupee wearers than see you not contributing, so don't make personal attacks, okay?" All of this is documented on Talk:Toupee#two concerns. VanTucky 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I had a read through wp:npa and the most fitting piece of advice I found for you was 'Frequently, the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all.'. Though it's rather too late to use in this instance, looking back through the comments on the talk page it's easy to see how the conflict grew out of a few badly chosen phrases and words on both sides. My solution for you? One of you needs to either apologise (the brave way) or back off (less brave :D) and forget about the harsh words, kind regards sbandrews (t) 08:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the advice. I've since agreed that I was just complicit in provoking the attack by responding and by threatening a block for violation of npa. VanTucky 05:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Pregnancy and user:bobsmith319

Resolved

This guy has continually been a one-man crusade to censor the nude image of a pregnant woman, and despite consensus being against him, today I noticed he once again removed the image, for no reason, with no edit summary and not even an attempt to discuss on the talk page. I went to his talk page and warned him if he tries it again I'll have to do something, I figure a RfC, but I've no idea if even that would convince him to stop being disruptive. he's been warned multiple times, but I'm going here first because it's been a while since he last tried it, and I'd rather prevent this from becoming messy like last time. Kuronue 02:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see his many arguments on the talk page for removing the image, but Bobsmith319 has only removed the image from the article once recently and once six months ago. So he's not revert-warring or causing trouble with the article. I see that he makes strong statements on the talk page and often veers into borderline incivility, but as long as he does not actually remove the image from the article, those are just words and you can ignore them, especially since there is consensus at the article to retain the image. If he removes it, revert the change. If he removes it again, post a notice on the talk page to the other editors (not directly to this user - don't argue about it) and ask to confirm consensus so someone else can revert it and you don't get into a reversion war. Review the article on WP:Consensus for some good tips. Every comment does not need a response. You can't change someone's mind if they are not open to change - comments on the talk page are just talk. As long as he's not disturbing the article, I suggest you ignore his provocations. Most important, don't post on his user talk page, that can inflame the problem. If he posts on yours, if he is civil, reply if you wish. If his comment is uncivl, strike it out and let him know you will only reply to polite comments. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Soxrock's disruptive editing pattern

Despite pleas from several editors, User:Soxrock persists using a highly disruptive method of editing articles that, while technically not against any specific policy, is disruptive and detrimental to the database as a whole. Specifically, the editor in question has been making rather minor changes to articles (typically dealing with sports statistics) as a series of several dozen tiny edits instead of one or two large edits. Several editors, including myself, have urged Soxrock to stop this primarily through the use of the "Show preview" button. We have explained that his editing style has major negative impacts on the project's servers: the server load and bandwidth required to update the pages for every single edit he submits, the clogging up of edit summaries and the wasted extra storage space required for the thousands of intermediate pages he leaves in his wake. None of this has dissuaded him from this pattern.

For specific examples of this behavior, please see the following diffs:

1. [10] — List of managers for the Cincinnati Reds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 218 consecutive edits over the course of 27 1/2 hours.
2. [11] — 2007 Tampa Bay Storm season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 47 consecutive edits over the course of 14 hours.
3. [12] — 1961 American Football League Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), 250 edits (plus 5 edits from another editor who was trying to demonstrate how to accomplish the same amount of work with only a handful of edits) over the course of two days.

These are only the most egregious examples from the past week.

When confronted about this disruptive behavior, Soxrock has been alternatingly duplicitous — by saying he will change his ways (see here and here)— and indignant (as with here).

For some reason, this only seems to be problem that has surfaced in the last two months. Per my comments here, I think that Soxrock has a bad case of editcountitis. (See here for Soxrock's edit count and edit summary usage.) What we need to impress upon him is that in the long run, he is doing more harm than good as far as the project goes.

Thanks, Caknuck 03:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

His main purpose for doing this, as Soxrock himself has admitted, is to avoid edit conflicts. But in reality, he makes these series' of edits on articles in which he is the only editor, if not one of the very few editors, who edits that article, reducing the risk of any edit conflict arising dramatically. --Ksy92003(talk) 03:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe his main purpose of doing this is to drive up his edit count. I questioned his editing techniques before, here: User_talk:Soxrock#Small_Edits_on_ATH_Stats. Just looking at his contributions, I see that the situation hasn't gotten any better. The last 37 edits (all on June 25th) of this article 1999-2000_NHL_season are his, including an astounding 29 edits in 17 minutes. Bjewiki 12:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rigdonite

Resolved

I personally believe that JCG has a hard time assuming good faith, (usually explicitly assuming bad faith) and doesn't appear to understand wikiprocedure (see Talk:Rigdonite). Right now I feel as if I'm fighting an uphill battle against him. McKay 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a read through - it is starting to get a bit heated :) but you are both making some good points. What do you think about his/her suggestion of a merger with Sidney Rigdon as a way of moving forward? sbandrews (t) 15:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

call me crazy, but I'm having a hard time seeing his points as being sensical. I don't think either of us think a merger is necessary. Both of us think that the topic is probably notable, but I put the tag up, because the notability guideline hasn't been met, and he insisists that it has been met, without ever stating how. That's the crux of the issue. I quote guidelines, he just says I'm wrong. I'd appreciate any input on that page or on The Church of Jesus Christ. McKay 16:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• "take a chill pill" Was I being uncivil? McKay 16:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I was out of line in my comments. The chill pill comment was made to redirect you to my actual statement about capitalizing the C in all Restoration groups, which was my major comment that you had not commented on. Thanks guys! Jcg5029 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct in your statement about my not commenting on the uncial 'C'. I did not have any substantive comment on that part of your statement. McKay 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you accept my sincere apology? Jcg5029 19:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I accept an apology, but it appears as if several other problems remain:

1. You don't appear to understand wikiprocedures
2. nor do you explain your reasoning within wikipolicy.
3. Removal of cleanup tags without consensus happens repeatedly, McKay 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I edited both your comments a bit to keep us on track, my apologies for being away for a while - basicly I repeat that I do think you are both making some good points here, its the kind of discussion that happens very often on wikipedia, the important thing is as both of you point out to keep on assuming good faith - and from an outsiders point of view may I assure you both that I see heaps of good faith on both sides.

I have also renamed the discussion here - as realy this is a discussion about what is happening in the rigdonite article, this is not an editor review nor have I any intention of becoming involved in one - nor imo is one needed sbandrews (t) 06:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As a way of bringing in more editors to get a broader range of views on the subject proposing a merge to either Sidney Rigdon or Latter Day Saint movement could prove very constructive - my vote would be for the latter - and would in no way diminish the value of the work in the article, indeed the added context would probably improve it greatly. sbandrews (t) 07:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

good, if either of you want/need help setting up the merge templates do please ask, kind regards, sbandrews (t) 04:43, 28 June 2007 (1UTC)

Dispute with User:JAF1970 in Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition

I have been involved in an active dispute with User:JAF1970 over the nature of edits I made to the Pac-Man Championship Edition article for a couple of days now. JAF1970 wrote the majority of the article's original content, and I came along some time after that and performed some cleanup, which involved removing sections that I thought were either overly detailed or unnecessary. This has led to a heated dispute over, among other things, who is right about what kind of content should exist in the article and who should make the edits. In my opinion, JAF has essentially declared himself the owner and protector of the article at this point, and my attempts to reason with him have resulted in further escalation of the dispute. More details below.

I performed about 6 or 7 edits in a relatively short period of time, attempting to thoroughly explain the purpose of my edits in the edit summaries, and most of what I did involved condensing existing content, rewording it for clarity, reorganizing it to group similar thoughts together, and removing content that I interpreted as "game-guide" or "strategy-guide" material, such as scoring details and minutae. In the process, I was attempting to the best of my abilities to interpret and enforce WP:NOT#GUIDE and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Scope of information.

JAF very quickly reverted all of my edits and claimed that I was vandalizing the article. Even after being informed by another user of the guidelines I appeared to be following, JAF continued to press the matter, insisting that I should have started discussion in the Talk page before I made my edits. (If I'd known that my edits would step on his toes so badly, I would have.) I attempted to defend the nature of my edits, and we both got very upset at each other. I took some time to cool off, officially apologized for my behavior, and attempted to resolve the issue in User talk:JAF1970 (noting that he had clashed with other users in the past). He basically told me this was all my fault and refused to acknowledge that he might have behaved uncivilly toward me.

Later in the PMCE Talk, I surfaced a general concern that I had about scoring details and minutae in many Pac-Man articles, and JAF replied with a direct threat that if I removed any more content from the article, he would quickly undo it. He has declared that the article is just fine the way it is, and it does not need any more edits. At this point, I don't see that there's anything more I can do to reason with him without some outside help. I have tried multiple times to say that we should work together to improve the article, but in my opinion, he is not open to discussing the matter at all.

Thanks for any assistance you can provide. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please look into this? JAF is continuing to attack me over my attempts to get consensus on article-related topics and has taken to making personal attacks in what should otherwise be an on-topic discussion about the article. I realize that some of the comments I've made on that Talk page also fit the personal-attack category - I later apologized for those comments and attempted to resolve the issue on his Talk page. That failed. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking a look at the start of the dispute (tell me if i got the wrong place)[13] I can't help but feel (on first reading) that you waded in too fast, with edit comments that were rather too abrupt. My recommendation for you is to take a wikibreak from the page for a while and help out answering wikiquette alerts for a week or two - from personal experience it has reduced my wiki-stress levels no end and made me a much better and less confrontational wiki-editor, kind regards sbandrews (t) 18:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see how that edit summary might sound a bit confrontational - I just meant that if someone were to find a real source that said that this game was also known as Pac-Man 2, they were welcome to revert and cite. I'll be more clear on that in the future. But actually, the dispute began as a result of several edits beginning with this one - JAF accused me of vandalizing the article because I removed several sections (attempting to follow consensus in the CVGProj guidelines) and didn't first ask for permission to do so. I hadn't been aware that I needed permission to make those edits, but I did tell him I was more than happy to discuss the issues in question. However, when I attempted to open up discussion on those issues, he insisted that I was just plain wrong, that I was trying to make the article an incomprehensible mess, and that I should leave his version of the article alone. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sbandrews: Please take a look at User:KieferSkunk/ArbCom Snapshot - this page is an archive of my request for arbitration (which currently looks like it's going to be declined). I escalated to this level when it appeared that JAF was unwilling to mediate, but I now agree I probably moved too quickly on that. Still, I hope that the diff links I provided on that page will help explain my case a little better, so you don't have to wade through kilobytes of text. JAF is welcome to present his own evidence against me if he so wishes. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Wiki-disputes often have a very similar structure - a few unfortunate edit comments, a bit of bad timing, and then it's gloves off time :) Actually in that respect this dispute isn't that bad, I've seen much worse by far. But once toes have been stepped on pulling things back to reasonable editing can be difficult - which is why I suggested - and still suggest - that if you are committed to editing this page then taking a wiki-break from the page for a while is a good way forward. Now, if it is rather that you feel offended by some of the things that JAF has said to you then I'm afraid I have no useful advice for you - my feeling is that - however unwittingly - you started off on the wrong foot and never recovered. The best thing for you to do would be to put all the agro behind you and get back to editing this encyclopedia. If you are going to continue editing the Pac Man CE page then limit your edits to one a day to begin with - perhaps giving notification beforehand (or simultaneously) on the talk page. Keep your edits short and simple to start with and make changes to one item at once. That advice applies to the talk page too, limit your edits to give you and your fellow editor time to think, kind regards sbandrews (t) 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the response, and I'll take your advice. What do you suggest I do, though, if this situation should repeat? I will ask for discussion on consensus and guidelines issues in the future. If JAF or another user attempts to block this process, what should I do? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

(← outdent) Hi - I've reviewed the information above and visited some of the links. I concur with sbandrews, and I think you're on the right track following his advice. One other point to consider is that there is a difference between problems with the behavior of a user and with the content of the articles. As long as you don't let the personal stuff bother you and minimize your responses on those elements, you can focus on the article. But in a situation where you feel an editor or two are stopping you from editing the article, you need to be extra careful to read and understand the most important Wikipedia policies, mostly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and use those policies in deciding how to make your edits - for example, including WP:FOOTNOTES and other ways of mentioning your WP:Reliable sources.

The next part of that formula is WP:CONSENSUS. To make that work, you need to have more editors come to the articles you're working on, so you are not carrying the banner on your own. That's what the editor meant in the arbitration page when he wrote "Did you file an RFC yet?" He was referring to a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. That's a way you can attract more editors to come to the page and help create consensus about the best way to present the information. You can file an RFC formally at WP:RFC (read the instructions carefully, and look at some examples first). You can also do those informally by posting requests on the related Wikiporject pages and talk pages of related articles.

The main thing with an RFC is that before you post the invitation, make sure you format the problem statement and desired outcomes clearly, so new editors visiting the talk page don't get confused by all the arguing. Keep the RFC section on the talk page completely separate from the other disussions, and keep it neatly organized so it's easy to read and get oriented. Invite the other editors in your dispute to write their statement of how they want to present their side in the RFC, so it stays neutral and you don't only present your view by itself. I recommend visiting Wikipedia:Editor assistance and asking one of the listed editors their to show you how to do it and help you keep it fair and effective.

In the long run, with a long-running dispute, it's not likely that you'll convince the other guy(s) to change their minds. The only way to solve it is to have more editors come to the page and make a consensus. Of course, it might not go the way you want it to, but at least then, even if you don't get what you want - you won't feel it was imposed on you by one person, you'll be going along with a real consensus, and that's a much better result. Or the consensus might agree with you, we don't know yet. Hope that's helpful. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up... Just wanted to add one note for clarity. Disengaging from the argumnet as sbandrews mentioned above is still the first step. Keep in mind, there's no urgency. Even if the article gets changed, your work is not lost because it stays in the history where you can find it again later... You can safely take your time and edit other stuff while everyone calms down and while you learn about RFCs and maybe check out the Editor Assistance page. --Parzival418 _Hello 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this point I'm prepared to say that the issue has become stale. JAF is no longer directly arguing with me, and appears to have done the wiki equivalent of throwing his hands up in the air and saying "Fine, you do whatever you want!" to the rest of the CVGProj editors who've been arguing about scoring details and the like. He still refuses to acknowledge that he's done anything wrong and has said he's never going to apologize for his behavior. But if it's possible to archive the messy portions of the affected Talk pages so that the atmosphere isn't as poisoned as it currently is there, I'd appreciate it.

Affected Talks: Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition (Do not mass delete, Blue ghost needs fix, This looks fine, Scoring Details, Don't like people editing your remarks huh?, Response from potential mediator, Here an example, And he changes the page the way he likes it, Other strategy guides, KieferSkunk's methods), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines (Misinterpretation, An example of Policy, Two examples, Proof that this is a bad idea)

— KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Madchester

Resolved

I have been the victim of harassment by User:Madchester over the last few days. Any edits I make are immediately reverted, and attempt to make contact with User:Madchester is regarded as vandalism, and he continually reverts my talk page when I have asked him not to. I will attempt to inform Madchester of this page.

Any assistance with this user would be most appreciated, thankyou. Thatswhatsup 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy is that users should not delete (warning) messages on their own talk page, though I understand that can sometimes be frustrating, that's just the way it is - hope that helps sbandrews (t) 19:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I read Whatsup's message as saying that Madchester was reverting Whatsup's Talk page, not his own. That qualifies as open harassment, if true. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

the reverts were done to replace warnings on Whatsup's talk page - Madchester is an admin and had left them there (I think) sbandrews (t) 20:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thatswhatsup was constantly remove other editors' comments and warnings without their permission. Barring blatant vandalism, that is unacceptable per WP's talk page guidelines. --Madchester 20:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now that I look over Whatsup's contribution history and history on both his and Madchester's talk page, I agree. It appears that Whatsup has engaged in active vandalism and has been properly warned, and is in fact harassing Madchester in retaliation for administrator warnings. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thatswhatsup: As explained above, Madchester is a Wikipedia administrator, and near as I can tell he was well within his right to warn you about your behavior. Your responses to him, including your tone and the blanking of your Talk page, were visibly inappropriate. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk: I was not harrasing Madchester, I tried to communicate with him on his talk page and my edits would continually be removed and a warning of vandalism. It was after that I used foul language, which I agree is inappropriate, but as is reverting my edits without cause. I was not vandalising any articles, I was contributing, yet my articles would be reverted without cause or justification, and any uploaded images deleted regardless of license. I do not want Madchesters comments on my talk page, and have removed his comments, as this user is causing me much frustration and is distracting me from making useful edits to the wiki. Furthermore removing my comments from his talk page that is unacceptable per WP's talk page guidelines Thatswhatsup 13:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your contribution history, the history on your User Talk page and Madchester's User Talk page do not bear you out. Madchester does not appear to have removed your comments from his talk page - all he did was add the {{unsigned}} template to your comments to indicate who had left them. He moved portions of his talk page to a set of archives. Meanwhile, your tone toward him appears to have been very aggressive, posturing and/or threatening from the start. I am basing my assessment on reading the Diffs for your edits and edits surrounding yours, from all three sources.

Early in your contribution history, you appeared to be adding or changing established images in several articles to the same unrelated image file. Those changes were reverted, and it appears that Madchester gave you a warning to stop doing that, among other things. At this point, I do not believe Madchester has done anything wrong. If you can post links to specific examples in whcih you feel you have been wronged by Madchester, we can go from there. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 14:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not know how to check my contributions or to retrieve history, but any attempt to edit any page at all seems to get reverted automatically. Surely in his talk history it shows that I made comments which were removed with a vandalism warning as my only response. I apologize for my atagonistic communication, but continual reverts without reason or communication is frustrating. At this point I do not want his name on my talk page as I am still quite angry. Thatswhatsup 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk: If you want proof just look at my talk page, I am now being accused of using an alternate IP, my talk page is continually reverted against my will, and I am accused of vandalism(it is my own page....), I am getting mighty sick of this, and would like some sort of restraining order, why not have a different editor make reverts if they feel it is warranted? Also, I expected to be banned temporarily any second now, as I have archived my talk page, and Madchester won't like that. Thatswhatsup 18:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things: First, it's not a good idea to bait admins into taking disciplinary action. Second, to check your contributions, click on "my contributions" at the top-right corner of any WP page. While on your User or User Talk page, you can also click on "User contributions". To see the edit history of any page, navigate to that page and then click the "history" tab at the top. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, continually blanking your page despite a recent block is not going to improve your reputation on Wikipedia. Don't take the warnings personally, they're only suppose to help you improve your contributions to the site. I don't want to extend a block on your account for both the repeated talk page refactoring and evading a block by using an alternate IP.

And I had to archive my last month of comments, b/c one of the bots had placed some 50+ image tagging warnings on my talk page. It just made it impossible for other editors to communicate with me properly. --Madchester 16:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not used an alternate IP at all, if I have it was automatic, and not something intentially done, I decided to wait until I could complain about you, since you removed any ability to talk to you and failed to communicate with me when I could. I want your name of my talk page, feel free to let some other editor summarise your "warnings". Thatswhatsup 17:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't look to me like you understand, Thatswhatsup... if you want to resolve a conflict, violating WP policy (blanking your Talk page) and telling Madchester to get "the hell" off of your Talk page isn't the way to do it. Those warnings he left on your page are official policy warnings, given by a WP administrator, and unless I missed something along the way, those warnings were left for a reason. Not to harass you, but to let you know that your behavior appeared to be out of line.

I do not see any evidence that you have actively tried to resolve your conflict with Madchester at all - all you have done was to tell him (in a very confrontational way) to not leave any messages on your Talk page, and then complained about him here.

To Madchester: It's difficult to prove IP-address issues regarding IP-based blocks, though I believe there's enough circumstancial evidence to support your claim. I'm sure you're aware that most ISPs assign dynamic IPs to their customers, and in many work environments (behind firewalls, etc), the IP can change dramatically even between page loads. Also, as I understand it, a user can still access his/her own Talk page even when blocked from the rest of WP, specifically so they can protest the block. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

KieferSkunk, If you look at madchesters talk page history, I had asked why he would not stop blanking my talk page, you would think he could give a warning with a bit more explanation. Regardless, I am not the only one who has violated WP policy. Please explain what evidence you are referring to that supports that I tried to get around the block? I am thinking of starting ove with a new username, one that is not on MadChesters watchlist. Tis a sad world when someone is blocked and cannot even edit their own talkpage to protest. Thatswhatsup 13:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that you tried to get around the block, I will ask madchester to clarify sbandrews (t) 13:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Madchester has confirmed that he was mistaken on the issue of block evasion - so I have struck through the relevant part of his edit on this page sbandrews (t) 17:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

An apology would be nice, and I request to be taken of Madchesters watchlist(he is notified of any edit I make), as I feel that is not unlike being spied upon. Perhaps he in the future he can provide an explanation with his warnings. Thatswhatsup 13:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never heard of any such watchlist - not one that notifies of any edit you make - though of course all of our edits on wikipedia are open for all to view. I think it is unlikely that you will get any apology, since you were exceedingly rude to him! Try to remember that admins are just normal people who work voluntarily in this project to help, in the end, people like you. I did point out to him that more explanations with his warnings would be a good idea, I'm sure he has taken that onboard, sbandrews (t) 17:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Richmond, California

Iliketobeanonymous is being very unvicil to me on the Richmond, California article, talk page, edit summaries called me an idiot, and has made lots of intimidating belittle snips at me^{Cholga is a SUPERSTAR}¡Talk2Cholga!_{Sexy Contribs} 04:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

but you seem to be giving as good as you get :) - I read through some of the discussion on the talk page, and one thing that strikes me is that a few times you say there can be no compromise (when it comes to the facts) - well from my experience on wiki when it comes to an edit dispute there always has to be compromise, so this is my advice to you, start learning how to get *part* of what you want by compromising a little - its like bartering at a market eh? Can be fun, luego amigo :) sbandrews (t) 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Zheng He

I have been trying to avoid edit war over whether Chinese voyager Zheng He reached the Americas in the 15th century. User:Sllee19 (talk) has engaged in multiple reverts and I have been critical of his contributions. User:HenriLobineau (talk) has accused me of an "unhelpful (almost closed-minded) attitude," "deliberate misrepresentation" of the views of another, and deletionism. Talk:Zheng He is long, but the Americas debate begins at Talk:Zheng He#Original research. See also User talk:Sllee19 and User talk:HenriLobineau. Please bring us your counsel. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One visitor came to the page, and I have created a sandbox for the discussion. Posted the following at Talk:Zheng He#Sandbox created:

As the discussion over purported evidence of a Chinese presence in the Americas before 1492 has become lengthy and is drawing on highly detailed evidence, I have acted on the suggestion by HenriLobineau and created a sandbox for the discussion. Everyone is invited to continue this discussion at User:Alarob/Zheng He. My hope is that we can arrive at a consensus and perhaps improve one or more sections of this article. Please visit the page (which contains only a descriptive header) and let me know if you would like to see some additional ground rules or a better description of the page's purpose. Also let me know how the debate should be structured. Perhaps there should be a section on the brass medallion, one on the Big Dipper flag, and so on. I look forward to an instructive and friendly exchange of views.

-- Rob C (Alarob) 16:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It now appears that the two users who complained about me are unwilling to hold a discussion. Thanks to User:Weston.pace for stopping by. Anyone else? Please? -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be going about things in the right way - most importantly you are keeping your cool! Some of the editors involved have very short edit histories, often they will disappear when the talk page calms down, so a good technique is to space out your edits, making the whole situation less interesting to those not here to write quality encyclopaedic entries. As is often the case the issue is what is a good source, have we provided a balanced picture of current academic thinking... I have added the page to my watchlist, sbandrews (t) 12:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Ceiling fan

This article has been largely written by one person. I feel it needs a lot of work to conform to WP:NPOV and WP:Cite. user:Piercetheorganist who has largely written the article by himself, continually fights any edit made to the page, frequently not with civility. I am concerned by his behavior (he has been banned once for incivility). I mainly would like another experience editor to review what is going on and to bring more editors into the process to try to build a consensus. Idioma 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

could you narrow it down a bit - which edits in particular do you find questionable? sbandrews (t) 08:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Khaybar

Various editors keep reverting my {{globalize}} tag for the article without having achieved consensus or addressed the issues raised by me on the talk page. My concern has been an inadvertent violation of WP:NPOV by the introduction of a Systematic bias into the article by the exclusion of notable mainstream non-western academics as non-RS due their affiliation with Muslim institutions of learning. I do not wish to get into an embroiled in an extended edit-war over the expression of a concern with the article!!--Tigeroo 21:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:MaxPont re: Talk:Stephen_Barrett#Refusal_to_accept_Mediation

MaxPont has been questioning the three editors that disagreed with a mediation attempt [14] by commenting on their talk pages [15] [16] [17]. After each editor responded, and MaxPont was warned not to take the issue further (User_talk:MaxPont#Mediation_was_declined), MaxPont has taken it to the article's talk page. --Ronz 15:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

A complicated situation - with regards to your recent discussion on Maxpont's talk page, I agree that his questioning of the three editors had an element of harassment to it, however all three seemed to respond well, calmly explaining their reasons (even apologetically) , after which Maxpont left them alone - all good. Do you realy feel you have the right to *warn* other users away from discussing issues - that too has an element of harassment to it, don't you think? sbandrews (t) 16:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering that MaxPont escalated the issue to the article discussion page, yes I think it was appropriate to warn him previously. One reason that I didn't mention for giving the warning was the discussions on the mediation talk page, which was deleted. The answers that the editors gave again for MaxPont had already been given on the talk page. For that matter, they had been previously given on the article talk page before the mediation was even suggested as a part of the prior RfCs, prior mediation, and prior three months of non-stop discussion on the issue which led to this mediation. --Ronz 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It reminds me a bit of the never ending arguments on the talk:global warming page - several of the editors on the stephen barrett page, no doubt yourself included, are suggesting just letting the issue drop for a while - and that seems like a very good idea, but can we really demand that all others do likewise? Who is to decide that consensus has been reached to stop discussion? sbandrews (t) 17:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Still it's no excuse to violate WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS just to make a WP:POINT. --Ronz 18:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Ronz archived the talk page section.(diff) (diff) After MaxPont had reverted both edits, I removed the section once again from the Barrett talk page (no consensus required to remove stuff like this. how does violating WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIVIL, and WP:HARRASS help build an encyclopedia?). MaxPont is invited to make their points without (restoring) policy violations that poison the atmosphere. Avb ÷ talk 21:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Apostrophe re: multiple articles involving persistent violations of WP:CIV

• Apostrophe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Please see special contrbutions for user Apostrophe as to edit summaries such as "completely incomprehensible...get over it...it takes a special kind of idiot....dumbest use...READ...incoherence much?" etc. This goes on for months and this editor has been banned for such discourteous behavior without any demonstrative change exhibited after being censured. Below this post are those of fellow editors who also expressed that this should be posted elsewhere other than WP:AVI where it was initially posted. Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:16, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

doesn't look like a obvious case of vandalism, more like an edit war. Might want to try Wikipedia:Resolving disputes instead. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 07:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree -- this is probably worth looking into, but is also probably more suited to a discussion board, such as WP:AN/I. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You might list them at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Corvus cornix 07:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

GATXER unable to resist violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

• GATXER (talk · contribs · email) is under the impression that calling me "idiot," "moonbat" and "vandal" is acceptable. Could somebody take a look and inform this user of how to adderess other contributors, especially the ones we disagree with? Details can be found at Talk:Iraq Resolution read his contributions down from Talk:Iraq_Resolution#Thoughts_on_Running_Parenthetical_Commentary_in_Outline_of_Factors_used_to_Justify_Authorization_of_Force and here. Also, look at his edit summaries that at times do not reflect the actual edit, which without exception is a revert of the article in question.. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. After taking the time to review the actions of this user, I have come to the conclusion that some intervention may be needed. User has clearly violated civility rules and referring to sourced content as "POV vandalism" is unacceptable. I hope this can be adequately resolved, but since this user already has a case pending in the 3RR Noticeboard, I don't know how likely this is. I'm going to try to reason with him/her nonetheless. Hope we can get this user's side of the story and come to some type of resolution. I'll notify him/her now.The Kensington Blonde T C 22:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus on this subject was reached days ago.Editor Nescio then requested a Mediator. The Mediator then agreed with the rest of us and told Nescio he was wrong and we are right. Editor Nescio still refuses to listen to the Consensus.I may have violated civility rules, frankly I'm not sure of that, but its out of frustration that Editor Nescio refuse to accept the Consensus.

As for vandalism, I have been told if someone continues to change a page after Mediation and page Consensus, that is considered Vandalism. Is that not true?

Frankly I believe Editor Nescio just wants to change the page to fit his POV. He's in mediation in many pages. I admit he's knows how Wiki works more than me but doesn't that mean he also should know what Consensus means? GATXER 02:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you please direct me to these instances, so I can take a look? Are you referring to this case? If so, yes, you are somewhat correct in that it was decided something along the lines of "we now know" was inappropriate. But it was also decided that using sourced content to describe the critics' views was within the rules. Could you explain why you then continued to remove sourced content and refer to it as "POV vandalism" after the ruling response on the mediation had been made?The Kensington Blonde T C 03:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page, Consensus that we should list the reasons and then put the Criticism in the Criticism section and not a running Commentary. "We now know" was POV just as ::(This is not a valid casus belli under the laws of war and with the prohibition of a war of aggression in mind.) is. That is the POV part left. No court in the world has ruled that.

POV vandalism now only is for the This is not a valid casus belli.

Consensus of the talk page has been clear that the running Commentary is POV and should be removed.

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_Resolution#Thoughts_on_Running_Parenthetical_Commentary_in_Outline_of_Factors_used_to_Justify_Authorization_of_Force

Also from the Mediator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iraq_Resolution#Suggestion_by_Addhoc

The Running Commentary makes the page hard to read and understand. That's not just me saying so, Its everyone but editor N.

I've made some mistakes. I admit that I'm new to this. I let Editor N get under my skin.For that I'm sorry....for Doing what the Consensus agrees with,I'm not sorry.

In the year or so I've been on here, I have never seen a page Consensus that was everybody on one side but one.GATXER 04:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What I would suggest at this point would be to re-arrange the sourced paragraphs to state that "critics assert" or "critics state" or something along those lines. Whatever consensus stated, the deletion of these sources in their entirety without good reason (i.e. the sources are blatantly inaccurate) is unwarrented, and was not suggested by any mediating body. If you can manage to handle the remainder of this conflict in a civil manner, we just might find a resolution that would be favourable to both sides. However, if you continue to edit in the manner you have done so, you could damage your reputation, or worse, be blocked. And I, for one, would not like to see this happen.The Kensington Blonde T C 04:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has been very clear on this issue, Even before I joined in. We think the reasons for the war should be stated and then criticism should be in the criticism section right below. The Running Commentary just makes the reasons had to separate out. Some of the stuff like "(This is not a valid casus belli under the laws of war and with the prohibition of a war of aggression in mind" isn't backed up by any court in the world at this time.

It should be pointed out that its not criticism we mind, which is good because the entire page is filled with POV stuff. For example every single References is anti-war or Bush. Its just that we think that Editor N is trying to confuse the reasons to make it harder for people to understand. The "Casus" is clearly POV.those are the edits I have been making. I have NEVER touched anything in the criticism section I believe.

I would point to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force and to the fact there is no running commentary. GATXER 05:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• To be clear, this request was not another attempt at mediation. Although I appreciate the effort, all that is required is that this editor stops his abusive and belligerent way of contributing. No more, no less. By his own words he is under the impression that "frustration" is a carte blanche to violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please inform him that such is unacceptable even when things get heated. Further, you will find the mediator has done what this user refused to do and that is to move the information this editor unwaveringly was deleting against "consensus." The inclusion of the disputed information by the mediator shows that the claimed "consensus" against doing so is a misrepresentation of the facts. Also, continuing the debate while the mediator has already settled the case[18] implies a lack of sufficient knowledge of events on the part of Mr G, or may be part of the behaviour I ask him to stop. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since this particular noticeboard pertains to civility rules and the violation thereof, I would have to agree with Nescio, at least in this particular portion of the ongoing dispute. GATXER, the fact of the matter is that you have been shown to resort to uncivil tactics, something that is not accepted on Wikipedia. We don't want to see users frustrated here, but there really is no justification for personal attacks. Such tactics serve only as disruption. I may have gone a bit too far here in telling you not to delete the sourced content in question. You doing so is clearly a violation, but since this pertains to etiquette, it's just not my place to take part in the matter, so here is my take:

GATXER: I'm going to give you advice which I hope will be the final word in this portion of the active dispute. Personal attacks are not acceptable. I would strongly suggest that you read both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA thoroughly and repeatedly if necessary. Whatever it will take to get you to return as a civil editor. I would suggest you limit user interaction until both the articles mentioned are read. If this type of behaviour continues, you will be reported to the Administrator Noticebord, where you may be blocked. Because you seem to be remorseful for these attacks, I am under the impression this will not be necessary. Demonstrate your willingness to cooperate with the project as a whole be reading these articles, and abiding by them. Doing this will help your cause, in one way or another. That is all, and I hope the mediation provides the both of you a favourable resolution._TThe Kensington Blonde _C 18:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I consider this matter closed. I was uncivil to him. However I find it funny coming from a man who called George Bush " Fuhr, err, Great Leader." before I called him a Moonbat, who then complains about name calling. I really wonder why editor N needs so many Mediators on Bush pages.. IMHO editor N uses a mediator to bully people to get what he wants. Should it really be necessary to have a mediator decide if "we now know" was POV?. Anyway its over. For those confused by this whole nightmare.....The Mediator fixed the page doing what the Consensus wanted.He did what we all wanted and Editor N was 100% against. I want to thank.Addhoc publicly for it. I have read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and will try to do better.GATXER 21:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• I consider the matter closed, although the way this user persists in his ad hominems, and misrepresentation of the facts, does not seem to match the "remorseful" attitude described above. Nevertheless, I will accept his apologies and hope that in the future he continues to adhere to the above cited policies, even when confronted with "emotional" and "controversial" topics. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Resolved

Hello. I am trying to edit the page on Veganism ( at least) so that it contains counterarguments. Currently, the article is completely imbalanced. All of the editors for that section are members of the Wikipedia Animal Rights project, and as far as I can tell they are all confirmed animal rights proponents.

They continuously remove my attempts to add conflicting content, or even links to it, on the ground that it is insufficiently academic. But my counterarguments, although they are simple, are ones I had to derive on my own BECAUSE no academic or internet source contained balanced information about this subject. The effects on my personal life have been devastating, and I consider this a very serious issue, like having Wikipedia's page on drugs not mention anything negative.

I attempted to turn this matter over for formal dispute mediation, but the proposal was rejected, I think because I had not yet exhausted all other options. I consider that these options are likely to be fruitless, but I am prepared to try them all at this time so that I can get assistance from the Mediation committee in the future. I will not repeat the discussion here, but instead link to the mediation request page, which contains links and discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Veganism

Repeat2341 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

From looking over the veganism and vegetarian pages I would say that part of the problem is that you are not yet following the correct procedure for making such edits - i.e. ones that are likely to be disputed. The first and most important thing to know is that when someone reverts one of your edits, take it to the talk page! The talk pages are where most disputes are discussed first, and you don't seem to be taking full advantage of this. A good idea is to search the talk page and its archives to see if similar ideas have been discussed before, perhaps to find editors who have expressed similar views, sbandrews (t) 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by user:Morton_devonshire

For the second time user:Morton_devonshire has accused me of being a sock puppet, which is quite a serious allegation in my opinion. both times he has done so because i have made edits on 9/11 conspiracy pages, where our views appear to differ considerably. the first time, i ignored it, this time i think i don't think i should. i see from his talk page that he has been leaving similar messages on other people's talkpages too. i have been here for more than a year and have made 1800 edits. I don't like this harrassment and I am interested to hear what other editors think. Cheers! Mujinga 00:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He left a note on my talk page too accusing me of being "striver" though I don't know who the heck he is. Abureem 14:38, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend you ignore his accusations and don't let it get you down. As long as they are only on your user talk page and he is not accusing you on article talk pages, you can just erase his comments and add a note that you did so, or you can strike them out and state that if he has evidence he should show it. Since it's your own talk page, other than with formal warnings, you can edit as you wish. For guidelines see WP:TALK.

If he makes that accusation on an article talk page or about you but on the talk page of another user, where it can affect the outcome of discussions or how other editors perceive you, then you would need to make a stronger response. Be polite in your comments; ask him to stop making unfounded accusations. If at that point his public accusations continue, that would be a new situation, so post another alert here if that happens.

Meanwhile, as long as he's only doing it on your talk page, just figure it's his problem, not yours - delete or strike out the messages, add a polite response if you wish, and don't worry about it. Make sure to read and follow WP:CIVIL in all communcations, even if he gets you feeling upset. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Yug

User:Yug objected to some of my edits to the Stroke order article some time ago, and since then has been engaging in increasingly uncivil behaviour. This behaviour resulted in his being blocked for 24 hours, but the block did not prevent him from continuing on his return. In brief, he accuses me of various things too numerous to go into here (see his talk page for some details) in regards to certain articles (including the Stroke (CJK character) article, which I've in fact never edited).

I've attempted to get User:Luna Santin, the blocking admin, to intervene (see his talk page, but with little result. I've tried to avoid Yug, and I haven't edited the Stroke order article for several weeks (except for one spelling edit), but nevertheless Yug just made this addition to RFC/Language and linguistics that suggests there's an ongoing dispute. Yug is angry because I proposed a page merger he disagrees with, is maintaining a page all about me which has a link at the top to the Arbitration Committee, and has recently been demanding I prove my credentials or stop editing certain articles, despite the fact that I've never once made reference to my credentials in support of changes I've made or proposed to any article.

This is beginning to feel like harassment. Yug is himself an admin (on the French Wikipedia), and should know better than to engage in this type of behaviour. Exploding Boy 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Huge and convenient biases of a really more complexe opposition.

I, Yug, admin on wiki-fr and commons, also de facto leader of the Stroke order project, disagree with EB because of his unexplained reverts, despite EB visible lack of knowledge on this issue. I'm currently astonished by his recent content change proposal (a merge), which with almost no explanation plan to undo an (my) already fully explained split (see talk).This knowledge opposition is finally the core of our opposition. That's why I opened an RfC, just one hours before this Wikiquette alerts. This RfC is visible in the link bellow :

Talk:Strokes order/RfC

--Yug (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

(technical note) With apologies for editing your comment, I changed the template you entered here for your RfC to a link instead. We do want the editors here to see your RfC, but the template was confusing for this page's format and archiving process. Interested editors are invited to visit the RfC at this link: Talk:Strokes order/RfC. Thanks for your understanding. --Parzival418 _Hello 20:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If readers understand that a Request of Comment was also launch, by me, on this opposition, here... Then that's fine for me. --Yug (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I request Yug to stop making substantial edits to his posts a long time after they're posted, as he did just now. He has been warned about doing this on other pages.

I would further note that this is really not the place for a long discussion, it's a noticeboard.

Additionally, I note that I have repeatedly asked Yug to stop this behaviour and in general to leave me alone unless he's commenting on a specific edit he thinks is problematic. Given that I haven't edited any articles he works on for several weeks; Yug's own admission that he desires to "control" the Stroke order article; his frequent, rapid-fire posts, reposts and post edits; his habit of leaving comments about me on probably half a dozen different pages; and his pit-bull-like refusal to let go of things that happened long ago, this has gone from being "like harrassment" to being actual harrassment, and probably stalking as well. I have no desire at all to communicate with Yug unless it's absolutely necessary (for example, in regards to specific articles), and I've made that clear to him several times. I have gone out of my way to avoid him, but he will not leave me alone, and I'm tired of it. As an admin himself, he knows better (unless things are very different on the French Wikipedia). Exploding Boy 21:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Request of Comment will make its statement. Then, If I'm right, you will be officially encouraged to respect and not undo changes I already explained. Both by direct revert and by indirect (i.e. : undo an explained split)

Accept this RfC and its consequences. --Yug (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

For my "own admission that he desires to "control" the Stroke order article", I note that you didn't cite the following sentence which list the dozen (?) of "mistakes" that you included or never corrected on Stroke order, despite you were the main editor.

The sentence was :

All the trouble is that we both aim to "control" this article. These 6 months shown me that I haven't the English need to do so, and that you haven't the knowledge need to do so.

and I can frankly say it again : de facto, we both want lead this article's changes.

--Yug (talk) 22:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Two items. First, the RFC is in regards to a move request, not in regards to me personally. Second, the sentence Yug quotes above was written by himself; I've repeatedly stated I'm not interested in "controlling" or "leading" any article. I think that's all I have to say on the matter. I'll be unwatching this page as of now. Exploding Boy 01:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You are both experienced editors on Wikipedia, so you both know that being involved in an edit dispute is pointless and wasting time for everyone involved but mainly for yourselves. You both probably have good reason to berate one another, but perhaps its time to call it a day and get back to work? What you need is to give each other a sign of good faith, a sign that you are willing to move back to normal editing. I suggest that Yug you could start by removing your page about EBoy, honestly such a page is not in the spirit of wikipedia and IMO has no place here. As for EBoy you could begin by removing the merge templates from the Stroke pages - since you are embroiled in this dispute there is no way you are going to achieve a meaningful consensus, their presence simply stands in the way of a resolution and seems almost spiteful (to an outsider), kind regards, sbandrews (t) 08:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the section header. This alert was posted by me specifically about User:Yug. It has nothing to do with the Stroke order article, and it is not about an edit dispute, and there really is no edit dispute: I haven't edited the Stroke order article for weeks. In fact, Yug is inappropriately using an article RFC to harass me.

Let's try to focus on the actual issue here. This Wikiquette alert is just that: a Wikiquette alert, specifically about the fact that Yug has been harassing me; that's why I posted it here and not at RFC/articles or Peer review or any of the other editing-related places. As for the merge proposal, it was simply that: a proposal. Any editor is allowed to propose a merger, and if it gets enough support so be it. In fact, although the merge proposal has only been discussed by two editors besides myself and Yug, both of them supported a merge. As for signs of good faith, I take the fact that I posted here and not at RFC/user as a pretty good sign. I've given Yug every opportunity to stop his harassing behaviour. Exploding Boy 14:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian abuse by User:Smash Divisions

I warned User:Smash Divisions of impending WP:3RR violation here and the response was in clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

I also suspect this new user of being a sockpuppet. --Mal 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I'm not so sure that one isolated incident of incivility warrents an opened case on WP:WQA, but because incivlity is not something that should be tolerated here, I'm going to give the user a warning. Hopefully, he/she will take heed of it and return to editing in a civil manner.

As for the sockpuppet situation, you will have to provide more information than the user's contribs alone, and state who you believe this user is a sock of. Claims like these should not be made lightly, but if you are fully convinced, you might want to request Checkuser information, since this is not the proper place to assess this claim. Here goes...The Kensington Blonde _Talk 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)