Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts

Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate. That's usually the best solution for everyone involved. If problems continue, then there are further options as described in this dispute resolution process link and the info-box to the right. For more information, click any of those links, or start with this article: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

IMPORTANT: Read the instructions before posting your alert. Review the section titled Procedure for this page, immediately following the table of contents below.

Please help to respond to Wikiquette alerts. This page is run by regular editors just like you, and needs more editors to help with the alerts. Anyone is welcome to help out, and in particular if you have been helped by this page, please return the favor by offering your advice on other incident reports. That's not a requirement for posting your report, but it's a good idea, and your help would be much appreciated. Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures. Wikiquette in a way is the basis of what allows the community to work smoothly together, so those are valuable skills to develop for those who like to edit Wikipedia. Thanks!

Are you in the right place?

Please keep in mind that WQA is a non-binding, informal forum.

What WQA can do:

Intervene as a neutral third party to talk to editors who are engaging in incivility, or who might be new or unaware of Wiki policies
Provide neutral perspective on issues of incivility
Give guidance on where on Wikipedia to take a particular problem

What WQA CANNOT do:

Give or enforce blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures.
Intervene in content disputes, extreme personal attacks, vandalism or 3RR incidents
Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users

Procedure for this page

Instructions for users posting alerts

This page is not formally monitored; all helpers here are volunteers. It may take some time to receive a response. If the problem is continuing and you have not received any results from your posting here, return to this page and post an update to your original statement of the problem.

If you have not received help and the problem becomes urgent or is escalating, refer to the list above and post your report to one of the Administrator Notice boards instead. In that case, please edit your post on this page to inform us that you have reported it elsewhere.

If your specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere, please do not file a WQA. It is much easier for other users to help you when your dispute is being handled in one forum, not ten. If an issue is already serious enough to have gone to WP:ANI or WP:RFC, there's not much we can do to help.

If you're filing a report to complain about a WQA editor who responded to a previous WQA alert, please stop now, and think. If you were contacted by a WQA volunteer based on a previously filed alert, they were acting as a neutral third party and probably have no interest in personally entering into a dispute with you. Asking you to respect WP:CIVIL or telling you not to make personal attacks does not itself constitute any sort of incivility or personal attack.

Instructions for editors responding to alerts

All editors are invited to assist resolving reports entered on this page. Please strive for neutrality and focus first on calming tempers where discussions have become heated.

To help with this page, place it on your watchlist so you can see when new alerts are posted. Or you quickly scan the page for items here that are either marked with the WQA "Work in progress" message-box or have no status indicator at all. If an alert does not have any kind of response yet, it is open and needs attention.

The five templates may optionally include your signature and additional summary comments by including them after a pipe, for example, {{resolved|User has been reminded about [[WP:NPA]] ~~~~}}, or {{stuck|Referred to [[WP:ANI]].}} This automatically formats the included text as small text displayed next to the template. For detailed instructions on using the templates, click any of the template name links above. Please note that using a timestamped signature with one of these templates will delay the automatic bot archival of that alert to 14 days from when you sign the template.

Archiving alerts

Reports are considered closed and automatically archived by bot (whether tagged or not using any of the templates described above) one week after the last timestamped signature in the discussion. Reports marked resolved, stuck, or NWQA (as above) may be manually archived sooner than this. Links to the archive pages can be found in the Archive Box next to the Table of Contents above.

Active alerts

User:Romaioi

User:Romaioi was identified as a potential sock puppet of Generalmesse, as required User:noclador informed of this and explained the checkuser process on his talk page. The checkuser proved to be negative, although all the other sock puppet suspects proved to be correct. Unfortunately User:Romaioi has taken this extremely personally and in his defence, launched a series of personal attacks against User:noclador. As a result after explaining the checkuser process User:noclador has chosen to disengage with this editor, see [1]. I have attempted to smooth things over but User:Romaioi has seen fit to publish further personal attacks on his talk page. Discussion over the sock puppet accusation have been moved to an archive page User talk:Romaioi/Archive 1. I have urged him to withdraw the personal attacks but he is unrepentant. I can only see this escalating, would someone be able to intervene please. Justin talk 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

UNDINDENT Apologies for not having replied sooner - I do not log on every day. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) has echoed my sentiments. This issue does not have much to do with Justin. I appreciate what he was trying to do. However, to claim a series of personal attacks by me towards User:noclador is incorrect. All I am guilty of is calling User:noclador a liar. Beyond that, the language in my initial defense was emotive in tone (and I had good reason beyond being accused in the manner in which I was). On the other hand User:noclador delivered several personal attacks on me, and also abused my sincerity. The referring to me as a fanatic, simply for my exercising my right, in accordance with the rules, to present a thorough defense and the continued deletion of my edits represents a large degree of prejudice on my accuser’s part (I know, this statement will be seen by some as a personal attack – but that’s just a deduced conclusion with no personal motive). Now, as I have just learn from Justin's link above:[2], he has acussed me of being a bully in a one sided passage that I see as another manipulation of my words. The reason? I do not know. I can only speculate that he may have preconceived ideas concerning my character. He did state that he firmly believed me to be Generalmesse, (as per his statement on Jume 30: you have massively reinforced the suspicion that you are in fact a sock of User:Generalmesse). Regardless, the personal attacks and insults towards me were stronger than anything I dished out in my defense.

So in regard to Justin's position, I appreciate what he has tried to do. I respect him as a result. The last thing I am trying to do is attack him and I am sorry that he feels that way. However, I do feel, respectfully, that there is a slight double standard in my being sanctioned when it seems plainly obvious that the injustice was done to me in several regards yet, the purveyor of it has received no sanction.

The summary on my user page is not intended to escalate the situation. It’s intention to to be an example of the ethical issue which Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) has illustrated with the definitive purpose leaving it there. (I did leave fine print saying that I would delete any further discussion.) Beyond that I have not continued this. I was trying to be sincere and thought it was fair to summarise given all the circumstances. I have even removed names and highlighted my own mistakes (as any reasonable person should in the case of the latter). I do not think I have been unreasonable. But I certainly think that my accuser was. Given the circumstances I believe I should be allowed some grace on the matter.

Moreover, the summary at User talk:Romaioi and my reams of dialogue following, I believe, show evidence that I understand and appreciate the purpose of the investigation. I am all for that sort of thing. Though, had my accuser been more thorough in his investigation, as per my summary etc, I cannot see how it could have been logically concluded that I was a sock puppet in the first place.

I do not think its unreasonable to leave the summary in place. If I remove it, all the negative remarks concerning me, that are elsewhere, will still remain without answer. How is that fair?

PS. Unrepentent? I have been apologising to all others involved repeatedly.Romaioi (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My second response (and hopefully one of the last on this)

Ok there are a few things I would like and probably a few things I need to re-stress to support why. I apologise for that but I see no other way – there are important ethical issues that should be addressed here. Let’s not forget that I did not continue this beyond my summary. This is taking up time I do not want to spend. I feel it important to defend my reputation and unwarranted that I have been put through all this almost from the point that I started contributing – it has not been very encouraging.

Unfortunately, most of the negative comments are on the sockuppetry pages and as they are part of a broader dialoge, I cannot practically see how they can be deleted. Also, if these comments are deleted then it removes evidence of my accuser’s behaviour. Most of his claims of vandalism on my part have been undone by other users, so I am satisfied there. But there are couple things:

Well, that's a whole lot of text to read, but just skimming to the bottom, one thing I can say is that I think your brief statement is pretty good. I'd drop the last sentence (honestly, not even for civility issues -- it just makes you look bitter and petty, and I think you come across much better with just the rest).

I am not an admin (not that it means that much in making pronouncements like you request anyway; there are 1500+ admins so they disagree quite often! :D ) but if you were to replace the rant on your User Talk page with the statement you suggest, I absolutely agree that no action is necessary. Not even 100% sure we would have taken action anyway (WP:UP#NOT is not particularly enforced these days), so no worries there. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

User:TheKhakinator

The user posted personal attacks against me and foul (right word here?) language on the talk page about the World Youth Day 2008. cf. [15]: bitch, cumdumpster. Answering to his own comments he stated that cumdumpster don't constitute a personal attack because "It merely references the anal rape which is often associated with Catholicism today." Please note that I removed his posts from the talk page because I'm not willing to leave such scandalous insults openly. --Saint-Louis (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, so now Saint-Louis is destroying talk pages and project pages everywhere. I posted in response to his unfounded allegations and somehow this has been completely removed from this page. Possibly an edit conflict - see how I'm assuming good faith? He should try sticking to WP:NEUTRALITY in the first place. In any case, he's basically read things the wrong way and is now editing with no regard for WP:ASSUME. It's sad that this kind of conduct goes by unchecked on Wikipedia. There were absolutely no personal attacks in that message, perhaps if he read the comments I made (including the response to clarify) he might have realised this. Users such as Saint-Louis are dragging the whole project down when they try and push their own agenda. TheKhakinator (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rezistenta

A registered user reverted vandalism by an AnonIP, but misunderstood the sources, and inserted incorrect information about the Romani population in Romania, something this Rezistenta is particularly sensitive to. He responded with two reverts, and in response to a request to discuss on the talk page, insulted the other user. I suggested the insults were unwarranted, and he became further irritated. I suggested that, although his edits were correct, Rezistenta should have assumed good faith rather than resorting to insults. He responded that he has no obligation to understand other people's edits (although the other user did include clear edit summaries) and that his original statement "I think you should drink less" was not an insult. A brief look at Talk:Roma people will show numerous personal attacks from Rezistenta (and others) and numerous warnings. I'm not sure where to go from here. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with bad faith by User hAl

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While dealing with a problem of hAl making multiple reverts. A single use account posted a lie stating that I was a sockpuppet on HAl's talk page. hAl jumped on this as it was taking away the spotlight from himself. I tried to get the libel removed but ran into an admin who thought it was perfectly ok for hAl to drag my good name in the mud. I need to find out what is the best way to deal with this. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, I was the one that made the claim that AlbinoFerret and Kilz are the same person. HAl shouldn't be punished for my claims.

The best defense against libel is the truth. AlbinoFerret, why don't you just drop this rather than forcing my hand? 75.45.104.89 (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to stop defending myself. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Another point of clarification: I did not "post a lie stating that you are a sockpuppet." An Internet sock puppet is "an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community." I merely stated that AlbinoFerret and Kilz are the same person. To my knowledge there's no deception going on, especially because the Kilz account hasn't edited in a few months.

Really, this is all very silly. Given HAl and AlbinoFerret's recent disagreements, I thought it was prudent to let HAl know who exactly he was disagreeing with. What's the big deal? 75.45.104.89 (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you came up with this idea, but it is not correct. What you did was toss kerosene on a fire. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

IMO sockpuppets suspicions should be removed unless there is a procedure to identify sockpuppet abuse. --Saint-Louis (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Saint-Louis, what would be the next step? AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

this. If someone who is not involved in the conflict thinks I went to far please inform me on my talk page. --Saint-Louis (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not appreciate you doing unasked for edits on my userpage. I was not informed of this discusion and find it strange to read about this in an edit blanking my user talk page. That at least seems inappropriate and against any kind of wikiquette. I will restore the section in question and you can then discuss this appriopriatly namely by including me in the disscusion. hAl (talk) 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The claims on my user page are not so much that AlbinoFerret is sockpuppeting but that he is a reincarnation of a former sockpuppeting user that who tried several times to get my account blocked and who would now be using a different account. I find that fairly relevant to me and I am glad that someone warned me of this as it this user has a customary way of editting to try and get someone reported on the admin noticeboard. Now I know and can watch for such behaviour. On my user page this info is not really in the open and without AlbinoFerret himself discussing it here it would have been removed in a few weeks anyways as I useually clean my talk page every now and then when there is no more discussion about the subject. hAl (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

And are you indeed the same person as behind user:Kilz ? A relevant question as this is what is was stated on my user page and looks extremly likely to me, especially seeing your edit style and behaviour. hAl (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

If there is concern that AlbinoFerret is engage in disruptive sockpuppetry, the correct thing to do is file a report at WP:SSP.

AF, where is the "slander" and "libel" you are referring to? Please be careful about using these terms, BTW, as they are very strong words, and it always makes people nervous per WP:LEGAL. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to come across the accusations on the userpage, and that lead me to this board. Maybe "slander" or "libel" are the wrong words, but the accusations do appear to be uncivil, and will result in unnecessarily high tensions. I recommend the accusations be removed from the user talk page, so that it doesn't further inflame tensions.--Lester 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Jaysweet The libel is the accusation that I am a sockpuppet, it can be found here. While the words slander and libel do have specific legal meanings, I have no intention of involving any authority other than that on Wikipedia in resolving this issue. As Lester has said, perhaps I could have chosen better terms. But I do not tolerate attacks on me or my reputation. I have seen the harm it can do to people. The problem is that an anonymous editor has made statements that I am a sockpuppet. I am not, and I have done my best to follow all the guidelines on Wikipedia. HAl has chosen to leave this lie in place. HAL normally deletes everything from his talk page. The fact that he is leaving this section in place speaks for itself. I asked HAl to remove section. He has not. I have warned him that I was going to involve others in getting it removed. AlbinoFerret (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"The problem is that an anonymous editor has made statements that I am a sockpuppet." Not true. I said that AlbinoFerret and Kilz are the same person. I never said AlbinoFerret is a sockpuppet. That would be impossible because AlbinoFerret's and Kilz's edits don't overlap.

Let's move on. HAl should remove the word "sockpuppet" from his talk page as sockpuppet is a "bad word." I don't see why he should be forced to do anything in particular about my claim that AlbinoFerret and Kilz are the same person, unless it's "bad" to be either AlbinoFerret or Kilz. Or if AlbinoFerret would prefer, I'd be happy to prove that those two users accounts belong to the same person. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

A lie can not be proved. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Proven.

In his user page, AlbinoFerret says, "I own 2 ferrets. One is an albino named JB." (Link.)
A person who goes by the name SticKK / SticK is listed as the developer of the Swiftweasel project.
Kilz created the Swiftweasel page and has edited it many times.
Kilz mentions that he is active in the Ubuntu Forums.
A search on the Ubuntu Forums brings up Kilz's user page.
Kilz's user page indicates that tghc.org is his website.
Via archive.org, we discover on tghc.org that StickK and Kilz are the same person. (It's at the bottom of the page.)
In this Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JB."

So given that SticK and Kilz are the same person, that means Kilz and AlbinoFerret both own albino ferrets named JB and are both staunch critics of Office Open XML. It's unlikely that's just a lucky coincidence. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I had a feeling your proof was going to be a multiple step theroy. But I found a few problems with this theroy.

It may prove that Kilz at one time on tghc.org used the name Stick. But the developer of Swiftweasel is SticKK and not Stick. There is no proof that they are the same person or even that the Stick on the one site, is the SticKK on the other
After looking at the Swiftweasel site it appears that it is a browser created/packaged for Ubuntu. It should not be a surprise that Ubuntu users are active in its forums. Kilz is an active member of the Ubuntu forums by his post count, he is probably a Ubuntu user.
In the Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JP." He said JP, not JB.
I expect you will try to come up with some other coincidence filled theory in an attempt to prove something that isn't. AlbinoFerret (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think someone is socking, file a report at WP:SSP or else STFU.

AlbinoFerret, I don't normally do this, but I'm going to go ahead and remove the content from hAl's page. I am in no mood. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I find that if you remove the content you might as wel file a report at WP:SSP with some of the above evidence. Reading this I am really furieus that you are siding with this sockpuppeteer. hAl (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

He's not sockpuppeting, though. The edits of the 2 accounts don't overlap. He's doing nothing wrong. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"In the Switfweasel Forum posting, SticKK says, "I have an albino ferret named JP." He said JP, not JB."

Nice try. As of last night, when I made a local copy of that web page, it said JB. (In other words, my local copy still says JB, but you changed the online version to say JP.) And you can also check out the Google Cache of the page to see that you changed it. 75.45.104.89 (talk) 18:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, so.... if you folks want to argue about the evidence over whether someone is a sockpuppet or not, try WP:SSP. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Rolex is kind of spam

The article Rolex looks like an adverticement of the rolex company. Perhaps, User:Ckatz believes that amount of the rolex clocks exceeds the amount of the rolex messages; but even in this case both meanings of the word (1.email spam; 2.Company) should be presented in Wikipedia. The way User:Ckatz keeps the discussion seems to me non-academic. Could any non-envolved user to read the history and express his/her opinion? Sincerely, dima (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear SarekOfVulcan, I understand your message, I stop to edit, and I collect cites:

According to distributors of rolex and amount of rolex messages they send to me, I am great specialist about Rolex. If I am great specialist, then I should bring to the people my knowledge about the subject. From these "correspondents", I get the first-hand information: rolex is kind of spam, junk; it successfully competes with viagra. It is the main meaning of the term. As supporters of rolex delete the references I bring and promise to block me for attempts to edit "their" article, I qualify their behavior as misconduct and inform the society about this misconduct. dima (talk) 09:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Pwnage8 - Berating talk page editors

Verbally attacked an editor to a talk page who had suggested the need for a neutral point of view in a particular article. The section descends into mud slinging by all parties. This detracts from Wikipedia's good(?) name, and does not help the article gain respect among the public. A new editor was seemingly driven from WP, and although he spoke rudely after a few replies, his ( or her? ) criticism was valid. That criticism will help Wikipedia raise the quality of the article to encyclopedic standards, and that's the point to all of this.

When a long standing, ostensibly respected member bites the newbies with "This isn't your kind of place. Your first comment made that very clear. Tootles. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)" I feel this is entirely inappropriate, in appalling taste. Anybody of his standing should be expected to show a minimum level of grace, especially to newcomers.

All I was hoping to achieve is to learn whether or not good faith improvements to Wikipedia articles by the general public are encouraged or discouraged. I've learned that they're discouraged, and as well that this alert system is a rubber stamp for some type of WP clique. I was hoping for a more positive end, but I've learned what I need to know, and won't bother you further. 71.231.142.60 (talk) 01:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The HAL problem still exists

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I see the section Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Dealing_with_bad_faith_by_User_hAl I started above asking for help has been locked. The reason given is that it has been referred to WP:Suspected sock puppets. But I started the section, and I dont think the problem has stopped. While it is true that some users accuse me of being a sockpuppet. Referring them to WP:SSP does not stop the problems happening on HAl's talk page. I dont want to bring that problem here. I dont want to go into the reasons that one thing or another are not true. But I would like for someone to give me advice or help on ending the discussion that is going no place on hHAl's talk page. If it cant be done here, can someone please recommend a next step for me, not the other side, to take. AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You could try WP:ANI. I really don't understand hAl's refusal to try SSP and insistence on blabbing on the talk page. If he's got a problem with the alleged socking, report it. If he doesn't have a problem with it, back off. Right? I just don't understand... Anyway, try WP:ANI. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this will help you understand his not filing a report a little better. In his own words. "We can´t report that one WP:SSP because you need evidence of sockpuppetingthen. We do not have that.". AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Adam sk

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I don't particularly care for the tone of this posting on my talk page. I have done plenty of good work on areas all over the world, and I find it insulting to suggest that I should be editing only a certain area. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Biruitorul is, so far as I can tell, not anything remotely like an expert on Canadian history, and yet, he goes around unilaterally deleting section of articles on Canadian prime ministers without even letting people with knowledge of the topic discuss it first. I have absolutely no time for users who have a "delete first, ask questions later" approach to Wikipedia - I think it's insulting to all of the other users who put in tons of hours of time and effort only to have their work unilaterally deleted. So, quite frankly, I've seen the guy's profile - he's done a lot of good work on eastern European articles, and, more power to him: I'm all in favor of his adding to articles and improving articles in his field of expertise. But I don't approve of his unilateral deleting of entire valuable sections of articles way out of his field of competence and think he should confine himself to making creative contributions to Wikipedia and avoid destroying other people's contributions. Adam_sk (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam, he didn't destroy anyone's work. Your efforts still exist, and can either be restored or transfered to the Commons depending on the outcome of the discussion. Please refrain from using terms like "destroy", or from suggesting that other editors do not have the necessary expertise to question your edits. Your comments at Talk:William Lyon Mackenzie King were extremely inappropriate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Godwin's law at Talk:History of Hinduism

A some people might know, there was a recent edit war between User:Dbachmann and User:Thirusivaperur at History of Hinduism. Dbachmann became blocked for 24 h for breaking wp:3RR, whereas Thirusivaperur became blocked for "48 hours for ..[his] harassment of Dbachmann, in addition to .. general disruption and edit-warring." and also WP:DTTR. By the time another editor had started a section "I am concerned" on User talk:Dbachmann I was looking through the disputed revisions and found myself concerned about something else. I specified my concerns on the talk page of the article. After another editor was of the opinion that my concerns were unjustified I then got this reply from Thirusivaperur:

Dbachmann removed this wp:personal attack and informed Thirusivaperur AGAIN on his talkpage about our guidelines on this. However, on the discussion page, Thirusivaperur has refused to apologize and his other behaviour is not encouraging, either. Pending the question whether Thirusivaperur's proposed revision is acceptable, his behaviour hardly is. I would appreciate it if a few other editors could look at this issue, and, if necessary, help to apply Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Consensus accordingly. Zara1709 (talk) 07:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Warren at Talk:Windows XP

To be quite honest I was tempted to let this slide but User:Warren's language and aggressive attitude is making it hard to continue rational discussion at Talk:Windows XP, which is why I've chosen to list this.

Some time ago editors agreed that certain images should remain in Windows XP after User:Warren had deleted the images. Despite my request for explanation of his reasoning[16] Warren never responded. Instead, on 23 July 2008, he again removed the images, ignoring the (albeit limited) consensus leaving an edit summary that contained a profanity.[17] After some discussion, in which he demonstrated aggressive behaviour in the very first line of one of his posts[18] and threated to "write me up" at Wikipedia:Copyright problems if I continued insisting we abide by consensus I made what I believed was a reasonable request to tone things down.(see last paragraph).

After my request was made he responded with a post, the first part of which was completely irrelevant to the issue, attacking my editing experience and insinuating that he had far more experience.[19] And, of course, the language used was aggressive. For example "And yet, you tell me that I don't understand Wikipedia's non-free image policy? You have some damned nerve. You want me to be civil towards you? Start by n