This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum. For incidents requiring administrator attention, refer to this link in the introductory text below. For mediation or other formal procedures, refer to the dispute resolution info-box on this page. Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts.

Shortcut: WP:WQA

Dispute resolution
Negotiation
Article talk pages Editor assistance Third opinion Requests for comment Wikiquette alerts
Mediation
Mediation Cabal Mediation Committee Requests for mediation
Arbitration
Arbitration Committee Requests for arbitration Completed requests Arbitration clarifications Request Arbitration enforcement
Remedies
Editing restrictions General sanctions Mentorship

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?

• To report obvious vandalism please use administrator intervention against vandalism.
• Violations of the three revert rule should be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
• If you feel an article needs protecting against rampant vandalism or a persistent edit war, please use requests for page protection.
• If you believe that one or more editors are sock puppets, please use Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.
• See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and helpful advice is at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors
• For all other incidents that may require administrator intervention, please use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If two or more editors have warned another editor about his/her behavior, and the problem has continued, an alternative to posting to this page is to post at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct.
• If you would like to get one-to-one advice, feedback, and counseling from another editor, you can use Wikipedia:Editor assistance.

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.

• Post your alert to the bottom of the page — add a new sub-heading with a short description of the issue (click here to start a new section).
• A single posting per alert is sufficient. Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page and instead supply a simple direct explanation of the problem, along with the user-ids of the Users involved and a link or two to the page where the problem is happening. A concise way to do this is to include diff's that show the problem. (A guide to creating diff's is here).
• Describe the problem or issues as neutrally as possible. Avoid emotional content that could cause the problem to escalate.
• Sign your report by using ~~~~ or the signature button in the edit bar.
• Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.
• Do not continue your discussion in detail here. Instead, continue discussing it wherever you originally were—editors responding to posts here will review the discussions where they are occuring. They may post notes there, however in situations that involve mulitple pages, reviewing editors will post their comments here, so watch this page and refer back to your entry when you notice that a comment has been posted.

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.

• Review open items and when you find one that you feel you can help with, visit the relevant pages and observe the situation. When you are ready, enter your helpful comments and strive to improve the situation, at the disputed page if appropriate, or on this page if that seems better.
• Enter a note on this page in the relevant section to indicate that you have joined the process. Add the {{WQA in progress}} template (as displayed above) to the top of the report item's sub-section.
• If there is no action needed, or after action has produced results, enter a note on this page to describe the results, including constructive comments on about any Wikiquette breaches you may have seen.
• When the issue is ready to be closed, follow the steps below.

Closing the reports:

• If you believe the situation is resolved with consensus or at very least grudging acceptance of the involved parties, close the item by entering the {{resolved}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

• If on the other hand, after you have done your best you find that the problems are continuing and you feel there is nothing further that you can do, then consider what the best next step for the parties would be. State your suggestions on the relevant talk page, and also in a comment here, what dispute resolution process you recommend, and include a link for them to follow. To close the item here, enter the {{stuck}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

• For items that remain open but have no additional comments added after several days to a week, close the item by entering the {{stale}} template at the top of the item's sub-section.

• For items that should not have been posted to WQA at all -- blatant vandalism, accusations of sock puppetry, a request for adminship, etc., please refer the original poster to the proper forum, and place the {{NWQA}} template under the section heading.

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:Nosferamus

From the amount of information placed in the Marco Lupis page, it is clear that the user is Lupis itself.

It should be pointed out also that Lupis has a long list of infinite-blocked sockpuppets on the Italian Wikipedia due to presenting his family as noble, without valid sources or with copyvio. 89.96.108.150 (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say this doesn't look like a civility issue, and you should visit WP:SOCK and file a sockpuppet report. BMW(drive) 14:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He does not have sockpuppets here; I was thinking more of rules against writing bios about yourself, and about the presence on en.wiki of the info that was found to be unsourced on it.wiki, leading to Lupis being blocked and to him creating an inordinate amount of sockpuppets. 89.96.108.150 (talk) 20:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So then it's content ...and still not civility. If the edits are vandalism, visit WP:AIV, if it's more annoyance, try WP:ANI. BMW(drive) 18:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

User:GabrielVelasquez's conduct at Talk:Gliese 581 c and other articles.

Olana North

User: Jaakobou

When I reverted the large-scale, undiscussed edits of Jaakobou (talk · contribs) in I'm a PC, he responded by attempting to derail the DYK nomination that would have introduced the article to a wider audience of editors, by suggesting the DYK was NPOV. He acknowledges that he knew this would happen, and did so in an effort to force me to bargain with him in the article. Note that this was done without discussion, and he reverted his massive edits in yet again before being coaxed to the discussion page.
I had asked him repeatedly to remove/strike through the comments, but he has either ignored them or made them conditional to getting what he wants.
Trying to keep my cool here, but pointy, behavior to game the system is pretty uncool. Thoughts on how to address this beyond how I already have?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Jaakobou:

Drama: I honestly don't know why Arcayne is so interested in drama. There were already comments from two external observers (one asked him to revert) which he ignored and now he insists that I revert a legitimate concern - "or else".

DYK accolades: Considering the volume of my contributions to the discussed article, I believe we'll both be receiving some type of DYK banner but my concerns precede any silly accolades.

Concerns: I've raised the concern that Microsoft is being made a fool out-of in a bloggish manner with words such as "lampooned" and the their official response being sandwiched between two bloggers who discuss the "irony" of their error. Arcayne contributed to my sentiments with a large revert that destroyed a couple hours' work as well as comments like "[Microsoft] ass-clowned themselves into a pickle". The concerns are still there and still need to be resolved by a community concensus.

Responsive collaboration: We've already resolved a nice amount of my concerns and now that more external editors commented, we're compromising a bit further. I agreed to have him move my concerns from the DYK to WP:3O so I fail to understand why he'd refuse this and respond by starting a WQA. I invite anyone to the talk page to help resolve the minor issues left.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC) invite. 07:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

p.s. I noticed Arcayne did take up on my suggestion and moved the concern to the 3O talk page.[22] I will ignore the "admits was meant to derail" rhetoric, but I'm not sure the DYK should pass while the article insists on hammering the "Microsoft sucks" point. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 08:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: Jaakobou, you DID try and derail an article going DYK by using extremely non-NPOV, and it's rather obvious by your statement above. You are not the determinor of DYK, your role as an editor is to help any article attain DYK, whether you 100% agree or not. If you don't like the topic, then stay away. Controvertial articles have achieved DYK on many occasions. Personally, although ironic, this "issue" proves my personal belief: Windows sucks for audio/video/graphics production, and Mac is the de facto standard for such, even in MS commercials. BMW(drive) 11:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Why would I derail receiving a DYK? I have absolutely no issues with the topic and did not hide any of the criticism. I do, however, see a number of issues -- mostly in the 'undue' department -- in the lead as well as the body of the article. I'm not sure on procedure for resolving such matters before the article goes public so I've made a note for others to give this issue a look within the couple days left before the article is featured. You are invited as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

From my reading the links/diffs, your "tone" was certainly coming across as an attempt to derail. You were overly assertive about certain things, including your POV, and you did try and throw some "weight" around. I know this may not be what you meant, but that's what your style of writing said. BMW(drive) 16:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's assume that you are correct and my initial action was 'pushy'. I've raised a compromise suggestion and made a considerable attempt to try and work on the content from there. I'd appreciate external comments on the raised concerns - I'm willing to accept consensus against me, but as of this moment, editors have supported my perspective on the issues and it is my counterpart who is ignoring them and insisting on a WQA notice when he's already taken up on my compromise suggestion to move the DYK notice to 3O. It really feels like an unnecessary discussion now that he's moved the comment. You could say (just like the accusations pointed in my direction), that he's trying to derail the attempt to portray Microsoft in a reasonable light before the DYK date arrives. Anyways, I feel everything can be solved if external opinions arrive and we both align with the consensus view. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC) m.fix 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, don't get me into the content. My read on the article to begin with was to show that MS tried to lampoon the Mac ads, and failed miserably...partly because the ad was created on a Mac ...that's what makes the article AND the DYK interesting. Take that focus away, the article itself is no longer notable, and let's CSD or AfD it ASAP. BMW(drive) 17:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The 300 Million US Dollar campaign is notable regardless of it's content. The hook, that the campaign was revealed to have used Apple computers, is both funny and interesting. The note that Microsoft responded by deleting metadata and making an official statement that various computers were used, is somewhat undue for the lead in my opinion - and the "lampooned/compounded/embarrassment" type of language insisted upon just made me further believe that the metadata detail should remain in the body and not appear on the lead. It's not a matter of removing the embarrassment, rather putting it within reasonable, encyclopedic standards. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As had been pointed out to you at least twice, the Lead is not just a introduction to the article, but summary of such as well. It notes such bumps as they occur. Mistake 1 was to use Apple for commercials about how PC is better than Apple. Mistake 2 was to attempt to conceal that mistake after a press release about it made it a non-issue. If it wasn't a problem for MS to use Apples, why scrub the data in an effort to conceal it?

However, that's beside the point. Your behavior was inappropriate, because you attempted to derail the DYK. The DYK brings editors to the article of every stripe. By attempting to hostage the DYK until you got what you wanted, thereby framing a preferred-version of the article for newly-arriving editors, you gamed the system.

I thought that bringing the problem here, where you could be enlightened as to how that sort of shit doesn't play here (and specifically with me); the alternative was taking it to AN/I, where the disruptive behavior would have likely had you blocked or warned. That you asked me to remove the post for you put you within a rat whisker of me filing via ANI anyway. That you consider the pointing out of your error as drama underscores the need for the wikiquette alert. Unfortunately, the next time this sort of thing happens with you, I will bypass this venue and head right to AN/I.

You handled this situation extraordinarily poorly, Jaak. If you aren't willing to recognize how your behavior in these sorts of situations ius unacceptable, I am fairly certain that your block log will be getting ever longer. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just to point out, the criticism section is longer than the rest of the article. If anything's going to derail a DYK it'd be that. Wizardman 18:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that would be more of a reason to list a well-written (if I may say so myself) new article at DYK - it attracts new editors, who can add in all those tender bits about the background, campaign, etc. The massive irony is what set off the notability magnet.

However, that is neither here nor there; that isn't what Jaak pointedly said was his reason for interrupting the DYK process. As the DYK featured on 5 October, its something of a moot point now. The WQA was submitted as part of the DR process, as usertalk page communication was ineffective in resolving the problem. The underlying issue was the willingness to game the system to get leverage on another user in article editing. In the real world, that would usually end in a trip to the dentist for reconstructive surgery. Here in Wikipedia, it means bringing the problem to a larger audience for perusal. I am happy with the latter alternative. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

TharkunColl

User:TharkunColl constantly wholesale reverts whatever recent edits I make without discussion, and usually with comments designed to incite a reaction. This has been going on for some time. He objects to my editting on topics involving the term "British Isles" and he is trying to make it appear political. He rarely (hardly ever) discusses the edits, and always leaves comments such as "Reverting wholesale vandalism" or "Removing politically driven POV", etc (see recent revert comments below). I've asked him to stop several times, and posted warnings on his Talk page. While I don't believe he sock-puppets, his actions are remarkably similar to LemonMonday and Blue Bugle. Here are a number of recent reverts from today:

• European Green Party
• Cup and ring mark
• Old-time music
• Drovers' Road

There's numerous other examples going back in time (more than 6 months). Other recent reverts such as:

• Derry and Derry
• Saint David

show the same pattern, but if you go back over his edit history, they're pretty obvious.

In a nutshell, Tharky believes I am incorrectly removing the term "British Isles" from Wikipedia and accuses me of having a political or anti-British motivation. I deny this, it is simply not true. While many of my edits involve removing the term British Isles where it is being used incorrectly, they are nearly always correct. I try to be a good editor - I'm always happy to discuss my edits if someone asks, and I always try to include references where possible. My editing is completely in line with the draft task force document at WP:BISLES - which shows that my edits are not extreme or fringe (or political).

But leaving aside the rights and wrongs of the content. My objection is that Tharky reverts without trying to provide an argument or reference. He removes good verifiable references where provided. And he leaves personal attacks accusing me of political POV, etc, as edit summaries. This behaviour needs to be addressed. I'm perfectly happy to address any of his questions or concerns on an edit-by-edit basis, using references and citations, etc.

--HighKing (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend from this momment on, there should be no more restoring or removing of British Isles on any articles, 'until' the Taskforce (mentioned by HighKing) concludes. PS- I wish Tharky would participate in that Taskforce. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

GoodDay, that's probably a sensible suggestion, and I'm happy to abide with it. But it still doesn't solve the problem of Tharky's behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I did participate to start with, but the arguments are just endless - just as on the British Isles talk page. And, my I add, some of the accusations levelled against certain editors there make my rather mild comments seem as nothing by comparison. Terms like "imperialist" and "genocidal" spring to mind. ðarkuncoll 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

But that's where those arguments can be held. That's where frustrations & emotions can be spilled. Compromises tend to follow exhaustion. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Every successive compromise breaks down when a new bunch of remarkably similar IP addresses all suddenly appear making ridiculous demands again. ðarkuncoll 19:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of "demands", we're dealing with civility. Referring to editors as "trolls" and asserting "political reasons" in permanent edit summaries is well beyond the realm of civility. BMW(drive) 19:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You've a point there Tharky, concerning IP acounts at British Isles & Republic of Ireland discussions. My participation at the Taskforce, is conditional. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing more I can add folks. I hope things work out. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Excuse me, but this is not about anon IP accounts at any article Talk page. Stick to the point here. Tharky reverts with personal comments and attacks, even to the point of removing research and references. His behaviour has gone on for long enough and to the point where a host of other editors, encouraged by his behaviour, User:LemonMonday, User:Blue Bugle and the latest User:MidnightBlueMan all leave the same nasty remarks and all revert without discussion, tag teaming and cooperating. They refuse to provide reliable references, ignore policy at will, and refuse to discuss or compromise. It is this behaviour we are discussing, not commentary by anon IP's. --HighKing (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If there's concerns of sock-puppetry? request checkusers. PS- I'm not very good at Wikiequette reports, sorry. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where are the "nasty remarks" that I'm supposed to have made? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

In fairness to MidnightBlue, he has not left comments that I would call "nasty", but this edit summary is still a personal comment and is done without discussion, and today you are tagteaming with User:TharkunColl on Scottish Blackface (sheep), Saint David, ]Glowworm, and Doyle. Same general behaviour though. --HighKing (talk) 20:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine, but you've got to admit, that edit was designed to get rid of British Isles in that instance. However, there was no mention of getting rid of it in the edit summary. I notice GoodDay's suggestion, and your subsequent comment above, about refraining from restoring and removing British Isles. If you refrain from removing it I would certainly refrain from restoring it, or adding it for that matter. Will others do likewise? MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to pick the editor with the worst behavior in this group of tag team editors and apply either a warning or sanctions. That may have the effect of convincing the others to behave more civilly. Civility is not just polite words. It also requires polite actions: refrain from making provocative edits; refrain from repeatedly reverting the same editor. If somebody misbehaves, report them here instead of mass reverting them. Jehochman ^Talk 21:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Threats are unhelpful. There's no tag teaming here. Please look at what's going on under the cover to get an appreciation of the complex issues surrounding this matter. For example, have a look at the editing histories of those involved (apart from mine, there's nothing much there yet), and Talk page comments going back quite a while. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

So, once again we have a content complaint that has turned uncivil, all over the use of the term "British Isles" (which is a political term, and not a geographic term - and this is the genesis of the entire issue). This is an issue that MUST be decided either by consensus on the article Talk Page, or via a project forum. Regardless, Tharkuncoll has, as I noted, been extremely uncivil in their edit summaries. This will not do on Wikipedia. We argue EDITS and not EDITORS. Unfortunately, MidnightBlueMan has joined the incivility, as much as they would like to claim to disagree (this edit [23] is the first one I looked at, and lo and behold, it was uncivil. Right now, I do not believe that additional diff's are necessary). MidnightBlueMan, although you are not the subject of this WQA report, I would urge you to consider your own civility in the future. Every edit that anyone does, and every Edit summary are permanent records for the world to see. Accusations and incivility (and possible therefore defamation) are therefore also permanent. Passionate editing is a good thing, being uncivil is not. If someone templates you with a personal attacks template, you should take a quick look at your own activities and see why, rather than dismiss it as "spurious". As well, sometimes it's better to discuss the issue without templates, and try and resolve the editor-to-editor issue. I have replaced the level 2 personal attacks warning on Tharkuncoll's page, as it was indeed valid. I would suggest that future similar action (or other uncivil actions such as multiple reversions of the same editor), will likely be greeted with a block. BMW(drive) 21:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You also appear not to be looking at the underlying issues, and please look at the remarks that caused my incivility. MidnightBlue (Talk) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, your incivility is not the thrust of the issue here, merely your FUTURE civility, as I am WP:AGF. If you'd like me to look further at your comments, I will ... BMW(drive) 21:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

British Isles is not a political term, and predates the formation of the British state by some two millennia. The problem here is some editors trying to turn it into a political issue. I shall attempt to be more circumspect in my edit summaries from now on, but shall not refrain from reverting what I consider to be incorrect or wrong-headed deletions of the term. And since it was HighKing who brought up this dispute, I would like to ask him a simple question. How come almost all your edits to Wikipedia are to remove the term British Isles? If it's not political, what is your motivation? If it's just a simple desire for accuracy as you see it, why concentrate on that particular term? You've been doing it, under your previous account, long before the task force was thought of. ðarkuncoll 22:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

(quick note that is not intended to be inflammable: the "British Isles" are historically very limited in scope. As one noted scholar recently noted (and I paraphrase) "neo-Imperialists are prone to expand that definition to mean all of the islands belonging to the UK, contrary to its proper usage. You do not hear the phrase 'Canadian Isles', you hear 'Islands of Canada' when it comes to geography, but you only hear 'British Isles' in political or neo-Imperialist terms") BMW(drive) 22:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said that is simply wrong, I'm afraid. In my experience, the term is used precisely because it is neutral, and carries no implication of political ownership. ðarkuncoll 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, woe. Diverted onto the definitions of a commonly used geographical term, which in certain contexts including its beginnings in English language usage is embroiled in politics. Also intruiging is the notion that some non-blackface sheep is the most common in the country with the confusing name which for the sake of clarity we're allowed to call the RoI. Trust evidence from references will be forthcoming. But I digress. It is a highly charged topic, and all concerned should minimise raising the temperature in edit summaries. In the past I've noticed some rather dodgy summaries from TharkunColl, and it is to be hoped that he'll make every effort to avoid treading on toes, as should everyone. Failure to keep snarkiness in check undermines rather than helps making a case. . . dave souza, talk 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

See dave, I did say that it was a content dispute :-) However, my reading of the "tone" of TharkunColl's reply (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that they are AWARE of the complaint, and of the issue ...and I anticipate future immediate improvements...am I correct in my reading? BMW(drive) 23:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly hope so. It is a prickly subject, and care is required to maintain a reasonable level of civility. When a source clearly says one thing but editors take issue with political implications and want to change it to something else, it's inmportant to try to avoid giving or taking offence in discussions. As you say, those concerned are clearly aware of the required standards of behaviour. . dave souza, talk 23:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say it's a geographical term, for which there is no easy substitute, but lets' not get into the content dispute.:) If there are going to be sanctions for actual edits, rather than for wikiquette, which is what this board is about, I definitely don't think one person should be singled out over another for punishment, just to make an 'example' of them. That seems very wrong. If people's edits are problematical, they should be considered on an individual editor basis only but treated fairly and equally. But wikiquette is not really about that sort of stuff, this isn't really the place to impose anything on editors for their style of editing so much as their manner of editing or something- even then wikiquette board is rarely the place people go to decide on blocks or something, it is one of the first steps in WP:DR. As to 'tag teaming'- there's no evidence any of the editors are in particular off wiki communication and organization. If they just happen to share an opinion but are operating independently, that's not tag teaming an to say so is an unpleasant accusation. It's late here so I hope you all can understand vaguely what I mean.:) Sticky Parkin 02:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a long history of this type of behaviour. I lodged this complaint last May and you can see that older complaint could be a cut and paste for the current one. If you search the admin noticeboard, you'll see that Tharky is no stranger to this behaviour. I'll say again - the behaviour of reverting edits because, basically, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and his constant trying to attribute a political or underhanded motive to my edits has to stop. Even to the point of sanctions if the pattern doesn't change. I've reverted the current crop of articles that were reverted, and I'm happy to discuss these articles on their talk pages. Perhaps in the meantime a voluntary 1RR be imposed on all articles where editors object to the removal of the term British Isles? --HighKing (talk) 12:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are no stranger to the content dispute aspect of this report yourself, and have been warned and blocked precisely for your British Isles issues in the past. You also have different conduct issues, such as templating people with warnings if they criticize your editing. Sticky Parkin 13:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)You haven't answered my question above, as to your true motives. I suggest that it is you who should look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I shall revert your arbitrary deletions. ðarkuncoll 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well this response pretty much sums up Tharky's attitude. He has just reverted 3 more articles, no discussion or attempt to provide any kind of verifiable references. And continuing to ask for "true motives" is nasty and underhanded, and a crude attempt to avoid examining my edits or providing references. He is in breach of editing policy, as well as several other policies such as WP:AGF, etc. We've tried in the past, and he agreed to stop this behaviour, but he simply waits for a period of time and then continues to edit-war. He has also pretty much ignored this Wikiquette alert. What is the next step towards getting this editor blocked for disruption? --HighKing (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. You will notice that my edit summaries make no mention of your motives at all. This is what you complained about, right? As for AGF, it works both ways you know. ðarkuncoll 13:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Asking for "true motives" and calling my edits "arbitary deletions" here makes it clear that you are still attacking the editor and ignoring the edits. You have deleted my work and my references without regard for discussion and have offered absolutely no justification in terms of references or citations for this. You are wikistalking, and trying to disguise it by attempting to attribute a motive to my edits. To this point, you haven't even acknowledged that there is anything wrong with your behavior. You simple can't continue to revert my edits without an attempt to justify your version. --HighKing (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the references you deleted. Don't revert my edits without a discussion on the Talk page to justify your version. --HighKing (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree totally Tharkun, your being accused of reverting, when some editors have their own agenda to remove the British Isles from Wikipedia, and constantly revert themselves then try to get others banned. very much pot calling the kettle --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rocky, many editors on WP have an agenda. Some editors even have extreme views on things. I don't, and I've always stated that my interest is accuracy. This is an encyclopedia after all. But seeing as how you and others continually try to attribute a political motive to my editing - no doubt so that the reverts can all be justified as combating some sort of republican anti-British POV pushing edits - let's meet this head on for once. Your challenge now is to now put your money where your mouth is. Either back up, with facts and diffs, your insinuation on "agenda", or withdraw your comment. Failure to do so will prove my point. --HighKing (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I've returned - I'd recommend (starting today), a 1RR on all related articles, concerning adding/removing or altering the term British Isles (this covers both Tharky & HK); any takers? GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - it is ineffective at resolving the core issue that would result: slow edit-warring. They should continue to pursue dispute resolution, and discuss their differences (even if it's through article RFC or mediation). If they cannot stop edit-warring, then they both can be prevented from doing so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly i don`t have the time to lavish going through wikipedia looking for this and that. Secondly i have made a generalized comment and have not mentioned yourself in this edit, and nor any other editor for that matter, so i don`t have to back anything up. --Rockybiggs (talk) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(Res to Ncmvocalist). Seeing as the adde/remove dispute is mainly between Tharky & HK? the Mediation Cmte would seem the correct route. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

From the brief look I took, it also involves MBM. It doesn't really matter whether mediation is formal (link you've given), or informal (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) - whichever works, but regardless, all the involved editors need to agree to being subject to mediation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It involves more editors than that. There's also User:Blue Bugle (banned for sock puppetry) and User:LemonMonday (who was warned here and here. He has made three reverts so far today, two without an attempt at discussion - Cup and ring mark, Old time music and Drovers' road. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The best solution to this problem is for all involved editors to agree not to add or remove the term "British Isles" from any Wikipedia article until this issue can be resolved. An exception can be made in cases where a clear consensus emerges, of course. Edit warring is disruptive, regardless of the rate of edits, and if the involved editors can't restrain themselves voluntarily then other methods can be looked into. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe the best solution is to adhere to existing policies for providing references, remaining civil, and discussing the edits. The problem here is that Tharky and other editors make no effort to follow these policies. Making this out to be solely a content dispute means you are condoning Tharky's (and other's) behaviour, and even giving weight to the unfounded allegations of an "agenda" on my part. That said, I'm very happy to go along with whatever the community decides *after* the issue of Tharky's behaviour has been dealt with properly. --HighKing (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree to this. I will not add, remove or otherwise modify references to the British Isles (unless obviously wrong and with agreement) provided HighKing and others also accept this proposal. LemonMonday (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In response. You were warned about this previously, most recently by Alison here, yet you've already reverted three times today - Cup and ring mark, Old time music and Drovers' road. --HighKing (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Both sides must agree, that adding/removing or alterting British Isles on Wikipedia is a powdered keg. Thus my reason for calling an end to the changes & reversions. Tharky & HK have both been giving 'advice' on this topic before. As for Tharky's conduct? he must curb is opinons & use more discussion/less reverting. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

GD, your comments are in danger of turning this into a content issue, and that would suit Tharky no end as he wouldn't have to address this ongoing issue. This is not about the content. This is solely about behaviour. And if you have any reason to believe that there are problems with my behaviour, then we can address that here also. But let's not divert this discussion into an argument about content - we are already dealing with that on WP:BISLES and in other places, as you know. The issue of Tharky's and others behaviour must be dealt with once and for all. --HighKing (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I read ya. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

HighKing, you're aware that your actions are provoking disruption by another user, that these changes are contentious, and that this matter is the subject of an ongoing attempt at discussion. Until there's a resolution, then, why won't you stop? Why not make a gesture of good faith in the interests of reducing drama and disruption? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You are asking me to stop making changes because I'm provoking disruption. Hang on - I don't force Tharky or any other editor to behave in a disruptive manner, so I don't accept the accusation of provoking anything. And if I behave in a disruptive manner, point it out. In effect, you are suggesting a form of censureship. You are asking me to stop editing. Let's dig further. You say that the changes are contentious. I ask why? Which edits are incorrect? Where am I pushing a POV? Where are my edits out of line with the (draft) WP:BISLES recomendations? Have I done something wrong? And I'm curious as to why you see fit to focus on my behaviour, and not address the complaint on Tharky's behaviour - your suggestion to stop editting suits Tharky's agenda and effectively condones his behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer your last question, I am not focussing on your behaviour. My proposal was aimed at defusing the content issue which is fuelling the conduct issue, and I then replied to your response. Let me put my suggestion differently. Why not wait until the draft is no longer a draft? There is no deadline for when these changes have to be made, after all, and it's much easier to resolve content disputes (and avoid user conduct problems) when you have a policy or guideline to justify your edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be much more amenable to your suggestion if I saw that the community had an appetite to comment on and even to threaten to sanction Tharky's behaviour. If the community does not, then it condones it. As you can see, it appears to be an effective tactic for WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues. In effect, perhaps we will see other editors adopt these tactics.... --HighKing (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

When WP:BISLES reaches a conclusion, you've got an excellent basis for saying that your edits are in keeping with WP guidelines, and by extension, that reverts are WP:POINT violations. Until then, I think WP:BRD is the order of the day. TharkunColl has at least agreed not to attribute any motive to you in further edit summaries. That's encouraging. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing new here - we've been here before to no avail. TharkunColl agreed not to attribute any motive yesterday, but hasn't committed to following WP:BRD, to provide references where requested, to stop reverting without discussion, etc. And from what I can see, there's no appetite among admins to point out anything erronuous with his recent continuing behaviour. And I don't need to wait for any conclusion in WP:BISLES as the basis for editting or not - they are already reasonable edits, whereas Tharky's behaviour is in breach of policy. --HighKing (talk) 20:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

(reduce indent) As far as I can see - essentially what's happening is that TharkunColl is a "sore loser". He's long supported the idea that 'British Isles' is a neutral and inoffensive geographical term that's been in continuous use back to the Ancient Greeks. Unfortunately his ideas have been repeatedly demonstrated to be untrue - with extensive supporting references. Rather than following the Keynes idea of "When the facts change, I change my mind" TharkunColl is determined to insist that he was right all along and to engage in any kind of tactic to try to "win the argument". His aim in inserting (or reverting) the term 'British Isles' in articles is to try to continue a fighting a war that he has lost on the actual British Isles article page - although he did pop up recently there and delete a bunch of text and the supporting references (tsk tsk). The idea that one should assume good faith with TharkunColl became ridiculous long ago. This has become a personal obsession for him and apparently no amount of reasonable discussion (or reputable sources) will change his mind. Expect his campaign to go on. 'British Isles' will be put in where it doesn't belong, protected where it shouldn't be, and defended where it's indefensible. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That's really unhelpful. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it? Why? It's how I see it. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a bit Irish ;) dave souza, talk 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) <Scotticism>

It's definitely a bit odd that one is apparently not supposed to criticize an editor's behavior even on a page dedicated to discussing behavior. Wouldn't it be nice if the purpose of this page was only ever to alert how well editors were behaving? It would be nice, but it isn't the case. Thus, regrettably, I'm afraid that I stand by the comments. I believe they are true. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it's what I believe. 79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to remind people what I've said about a plague of very similar IP addresses popping up and disruping articles and discussions. ðarkuncoll 23:10, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary Breeak

Comment This stupid, time-wasting non-argument is now spreading and damaging articles