In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
I would like to be able to see this user become a productive member of the Wikipedia community. This user has a wealth of knowledge but his knowledge is overshadowed by his reaction to criticism.
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
This user violates WP:NOR by not citing various transportation articles. When user makes changes to articles, and someone else makes other changes that he does not necessarially agree with, he will make abusive edit summaries, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) Violations of WP:NOR
Violations of WP:CIVIL
Violations of WP:NPA
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BWCNY reveals that User:BWCNY and User:Rob110078a are likely the same user. The latter username is completely inappropriate, and has been indefinitely blocked. Use of sockpuppets with a username designed to look like a user with whom one is in dispute is completely unacceptable and must stop immediately. Use of sock puppets in a dispute is also unacceptable. This sort of behavior, if the situation continues, is likely to lead to sanctions. GRBerry 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
The supposed incivility and personal attacks this user has made are nowhere to be found in the diffs provided. Did you think that we would just take your word for it when you posted "WP:CIVIL," "WP:NPA?" The sockpuppetry, if it is indeed the case, merits a ban. The incivility has yet to be shown. KazakhPol 04:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 23:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
I would like to be able to see this user become a productive member of the Wikipedia community. This user has a wealth of knowledge but his knowledge is overshadowed by his reaction to criticism.
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
This user violates WP:NOR by not citing various transportation articles. When user makes changes to articles, and someone else makes other changes that he does not necessarially agree with, he will make abusive edit summaries, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.) Violations of WP:NOR
Violations of WP:CIVIL
Violations of WP:NPA
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BWCNY reveals that User:BWCNY and User:Rob110078a are likely the same user. The latter username is completely inappropriate, and has been indefinitely blocked. Use of sockpuppets with a username designed to look like a user with whom one is in dispute is completely unacceptable and must stop immediately. Use of sock puppets in a dispute is also unacceptable. This sort of behavior, if the situation continues, is likely to lead to sanctions. GRBerry 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
The supposed incivility and personal attacks this user has made are nowhere to be found in the diffs provided. Did you think that we would just take your word for it when you posted "WP:CIVIL," "WP:NPA?" The sockpuppetry, if it is indeed the case, merits a ban. The incivility has yet to be shown. KazakhPol 04:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.