Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive17

Archive index

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 and WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines.

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. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 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. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at the start of the dispute (tell me if i got the wrong place) 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. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 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. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 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? &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 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 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 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) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 15:57, 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)


 * Thanks for your response KB. I should point out that all I have done is stated I suspect the users of being meatpuppets. I have no idea who it might be, and I'd rather not get into a situation whereby I make unfounded allegations against any editors based merely on a hunch I have. If anyone who is capable of it would like to follow up my suspicion, then that is fine.. its something I think should be done. The reason I reported it here are: I don't believe it is necessarily an isolated incident, considering my suspicion of meatpuppetry; I'm not sure it will be the last such incident; and finally because I wanted somewhere 'official' to record a grievance. I had assumed this was the lowest level of the dispute resolution process. My apologies if there is somewhere more appropriate I should have reported this.


 * I'll have a look at the WP:Checkuser (hopefully that will turn blue) page/policy and provide some information there. Thanks for the advice. -- Mal 00:29, 7 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)


 * thanks for taking an interest, i appreciate your comments Mujinga 22:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The place of the dispute
On Talk:Bernard Manning (see Talk:Bernard Manning.)

The object of the dispute
Whether Alkrington should be described as being in Greater Manchester or Middleton.

Who is involved
User:Ddstretch (initiator) and User:Iceage77

The Wikiquette issues

 * I am a late-comer to this dispute, but it seemed reasonable to do what no-one else so far on there had done: that is, go to official government sources that would be able to shed light on the official local-government areas in this part of the UK. My first contribution to the debate was made earlier today (8 July, 2007).
 * In response, User:Iceage77 implied that my contribution was irrelevant, when it clearly was relevant.
 * He stated that he had used an article in a daily newspaper to verify his position (which was not irrefutably backed by my own verification, whereas the opposing position seemed to be.)
 * I explained my reasons for stating that my contribution clearly was relevant, and also adding that using official government-sponsored sites seemed to have greater power of verification than a daily newspaper report given the nature of what was being claimed.
 * After one more exchange, the user has responded with WP:TROLL to my latest message.
 * I view this implied accusation to be serious enough to need some investigation, and I would like this matter to be looked at.  DDStretch    (talk)  14:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, taking a google search on "Alkrington, Middleton" revealed multiple uses of the two together, of the likes of etc. So perhaps though the boundary has changed the locals still think "Alkrington, Middleton". All I mean by this is you should expect some sensitivity from local people when strictly applying government sanctioned boundaries. IMO some kind of compromise between the two is a much better solution, "Manning's house in Alkrington (Middleton), Greater Manchester was..." instead of "Manning's house in Alkrington, Middleton, Greater Manchester was...", sbandrews (t) 15:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh - I totally accept what you say, and was merely pointing out what the official sources said. In fact, the compromise which you mention (or something like it) had already been put in place. I thought it useful to place the debate in the context of what the official sources said. I do not consider this to be trolling. In fact, the issue could be said to be about whether any perceived insensitivity (which may or may not have been there) justifies the label of "troll" being directed at me. I don't consider it does. Iceage77 was also editing in apparent contravention with Naming conventions (places), as can be seen by messages on his talk page (User talk:Iceage77).   DDStretch    (talk)  15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No I certainly don't consider you were trolling either, and I think that's also clear to anybody reading the page, so really the best thing to do would be not to respond do it. Quite often responding can make matters worse not better, though I understand that such comments are unpleasant. As for the perceived insensitivity - well from experience the smallest thing can set people off. No its not right, no its not civil, but I think you will become a better editor if you learn to take that kind of flack without striking back (at least straight away :D), hope this helps. As for the naming conventions issue perhaps you could take that as a general question to the naming conventions (places) talk page, I'm sure you'll find someone to advise you there, regards sbandrews (t) 17:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've also been involved in some of the reverts as part of this - though I've qualified by changes by using the talk page of course. Without meaning to extend this issue beyond what's required here for a sensible outcome, looking at Iceage77's contributions, his/her motivations appear to be to hide contemporary British geography from Wikipedia (it's been an ongoing problem from a minority of users who are affliated with "alternative" groups such as CountyWatch), and in this capacity I find it hard to assume good faith from Iceage77. There is a small chance of some single purpose sleeper accounts which may or may not be involved here too which I'm looking into...


 * In terms of the content issue, this really shouldn't be happening here, as ultimately, Alkrington is officially/verifiably in Greater Manchester; it's not a disputed territory in anyway at all. It WAS in Middleton until 1974, and does perhaps retains strong cultural links with this settlement, but per a whole host of reasons and policies, I beleive we should state Greater Manchester.


 * User:ddstretch holds alot of respect amongst the editting community, and think raising this issue in this way as a means for feedback, is a credit to his drive to retain that respect and proffessionalism - I'd have to support him all the way on this. Jza84 21:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

(←) User:ddstretch is clearly not trolling. In general I concur with sbandrews' comment above that it's usually best to ignore inflammatory comments, or reply to them with an extra measure of politeness to avoid escalating. The WP:TROLL comment from User:Iceage77 is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I have posted a response on the talk page in support of User:ddstretch. --Parzival418 Hello 22:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for the comments. I have not responded to any messages from Iceage77 since the troll accusation was made, thinking it best not to inflame the matter further beyond asking for independent views (here). Although Iceage77 has edited articles subsequent to the accusation and my posting to this noticeboard, nothing more has been received from him on the page where he made the accusation or on related pages. By default, I think the matter is closed, except that some indication of him accepting that what he had done was not right would have been advantageous, otherwise he may not feel inhibited in using this tactic again. I guess however that realistically nothing more can be done. DDStretch   (talk)  17:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and marked the case as "stale" since it appears that no further progress is being made. DDstretch: If this situation arises again, please feel free to call on us again in the future, or to go to informal or formal mediation next.  Good luck! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Quantitative theory of money : exclusion of the transactions on capital goods
The debate is such. should the article make it clear that transactions on capital goods are suppressed by the exclusive reliance on GDP as a proxy of all transactions ?

This debate has led to two main related edit "wars" :

1 The first is about wether lack of available data is the main reason for using Q instead of T.

2 The second is wether the failure of the equation of exchange is only due to inability to assess the proper money agregate or wether it is also caused by the inability to assess the proper transaction agregate (because of the rise in financial transactions).

I ve received accusations of being a troll, lack of english mastery, I have answered with accusations of stupidity and political bias ... I ve left for a while. When I came back the last comment on my talk page did not exactly please me. Even though it may look a rather technical subject I would at least appreciate advices on how to go from there.

OK may be I m not doing it right. Here it seems to be about complaining about others and getting guidance. Well I then feel I have been part of a dispute with user slamdiego. I m not exactly proud of how I behaved but I find the user seems to have a huge track record of getting into conflicts. I do not know how I could attract other editors to the content of the article. The critics part that I ve written could be improved. And I need external opinions on the content of the article. In itself, this would make things less personal.

Panache 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks at Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination)
User:Nathaniel B. Heraniaos has made repeated personal attacks on other users at Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination), a nomination he made simply because he did not like the page's subject. He's trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, in hopes that Conservapedia will disappear from the net since he doesn't like its contents. Even after I've warned him, he insists that he's not disrupting Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a clear violation of WP:CIVIL to me. This should probably be referred to the Admin Noticeboard.  I'm not familiar enough with this process to help further, though. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 03:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)The AfD has already been closed as a "Speedy Keep". So the article will not be deleted. The disruptive user has already pretty much reported himself by his over the top comments at the debate, in other words his comments are visible in the archived debate. For now, don't worry about it. There is no reason to do anything else unless he bothers you or others in the future, in a new situation. If that happens, let us know and we'll help you figure out what to do. --Parzival418 Hello 02:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - but only vadalism
Although this might not affect many users - Harrypottersux has 5 contributions. But, he also vandalised 5 times. He has vandalised German Swiss International School 4 times in the course of a month, and then vandalised my userpage after I reverted his vandalism. I do not believe he is contributing to Wikipedia in a positive manner, as per wikipedia policy.

-Arthuralee 11:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you report this to WP:AIV. Usually, reporting there requires that the vandalizing user has already received four warnings.  But since he has already vandalized your userpage, I doubt you'd get anything but trouble from him if you try to place the warnings yourself.  Make sure to be clear about this when you file the report, ie, as to why you are reporting him before placing warnings.  The reports on that page need to be very concise.    Also, you might mention a concern about his username when you file the report, it seems uncivil at first look.  Another option would be to report the username here:  WP:UFA.  --Parzival418 Hello 11:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor (PaulBurns) refusing to act civilly
Last year I tagged an article for copyvio on the basis that the page was copied from a webpage. I left a standard warning with User:PaulBurns, a new editor, shortly after tagging it and received no response. The article was duly deleted as per normal procedures, and the editor made some further edits some months later. Now after a year, he has finally realized what happened to the article and has claimed that he did write both the article and the copyvio source (which corresponds between the copyright name and the user name). So it would appear that I made a mistake in copyvio'ing it. I've admitted as much.

The problem is that the editor is refusing to act with any degree of civility regarding the matter and is beginning to make personal threats. Even though I've tried to direct him to appropriate wiki policy and explain what happened and why, this does nothing. It's really a shame, since I think that with some perspective and more Wikipedia experience, he'd probably be an excellent contributor. I was wondering if a neutral third-party would be able to set him back on the right path, because it's clear that I am not. (Most discussion has been on each of our user talk pages.) Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 00:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * left a msg on User talk:PaulBurns. DES (talk) 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour by User:KSmrq
In Talk:Integral, KSmrq is repeatedly engaging in uncivil comments, personal attacks and lying to portray my edits in an unfavourble light. This is not really a big issue for me, but just for the record I'm notifying the community, in case the editor has prior history of disruptive behaviour or may behave in such a manner in the future. Loom91 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I took a look through the Talk page, and I do see some cases where this editor seems to be responding to others in a confrontational manner.  Since the discussion is over such complex material (most of which I can't pretend to understand without doing a lot more research into it myself), I'm not in a position to assess whether KSmrq's statements of value judgement are justified or not.  To my eye, though, it appears that he's contributed a significant portion of the technical content to the article, and thus is a bit protective of that content.  He does seem to be a bit quick to judge others on their "usefulness", making statements about their grasp of the subject and the English language, etc. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 17:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've replied to the "Request for comment" discussion on the article's Talk page, giving procedural advice and specifically advising KSmrq to abide by WP:CIVIL (specifically WP:SKILL). I've advised both editors to step back from editing the article - both involved editors are dangerously close to (if not already in violation of) WP:3RR. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to stop participating in civility discussions on Talk:Integral. I'll be happy to continue helping out here, but otherwise will no longer contribute there. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to thank KieferSkunk for his work towards resolving the dispute. His presence helped to calm the situation and resulted in improvement. There are still some issues to be resolved, and discussion continues elsewhere.  Please do not add further comments  here.  If the situation becomes more stressful again, add a new subsection below the archived portion of this alert; please make comments specific and short and include links or diffs.  Please do not debate the details here, we will address any new events that are reported here on the page where the situation is happening.  Thank you.  --Parzival418 Hello 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I marked this issue as Resolved - civility issues seem to have calmed down, but the dispute itself continues, centered pretty much entirely around procedures and content.  I've advised all parties as best as I can on the procedures and on working toward consensus.  There is nothing more I personally can do, but at least I believe the hostility has passed for the time being. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: Thistle;" | Archived discussion of Wikiquette Alert filed by User:Loom91 in re Uncivil behaviour by User:KSmrq
 * style="border: solid 1px #Indigo; padding: 8px; background-color: Lavender;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px #Indigo; padding: 8px; background-color: Lavender;" |


 * This is an archive. Pease do not edit this portion of the discussion. If new comments are needed, please begin a new sub-section, outside of this archive box.

WQA Feedback by uninvolved user KieferSkunk
Hi there. I am not involved in the technical discussions for this page - I am responding to Loom91's request for comment from WP:WQA. I am also not a WP administrator and have no authority, but am simply providing peer-to-peer feedback. While I am not versed enough in this topic to make any judgements on whether Loom or other users are contributing correct or useful knowledge to the article, I would like to make a couple of comments based on what I have read above (especially in the Lead thread):


 * I'd like to warn all editors against WP:3RR. Please do not get into a revert war over any material - instead, all editors should discuss it on this Talk page.  Looking over the history, I see the potential for 3RR to occur, though I do also see discussions taking place here.
 * While I'm not "taking sides" in this issue, I do believe Loom91 has a valid concern about the comments he's received from KSmrq. KSmrq, it looks to me as though you are very quick to pass judgement on other editors when they bring up points that you see as incorrect or unhelpful.  For example, making statements about Loom91's command of the English language is a violation of WP:SKILL (a portion of WP:CIVIL).  Regardless of the helpfulness or veracity of an editor's contributions, or his persistence in making them, all editors are encouraged to keep discussions about article content to civil, well-reasoned discussions free of personal statements and attacks.  If a personal argument arises, it should be moved to either user's Talk page or another appropriate forum.
 * I will defer to a mediator with more knowledge of the subject being discussed to determine if any other advice can be given regarding this particular dispute. I am not qualified to give guidance on the subject matter itself.

Thanks, and good luck! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * After taking a more in-depth look at the article history, I'd say that WP:3RR has already occurred, but not to the point that it needs more intervention since WP:WQA was contacted. I'd like to advise both of you to step back for now, discuss the matter civilly, discuss your references and sources, and see if you can come to an agreement on this topic.  Bring in other editors knowledgeable on the subject as well, so that the community can come to a proper consensus on the issue.  But for the time being, it may be best to leave the affected sections of the article as-is so that discussions can continue here. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted on Talk:Integral that User:KSmrq is still tending to phrase his responses as though he's assuming bad faith. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 18:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by mathematics editor arcfrk

 * I can see how this debate over a relatively minor point in the lead has escalated, but my impression, reinforced by the above accusations of 'uncivil comments, personal attacks and lying to portray my edits in an unfavourble light', that there is a lot Loom91 needs to learn about civility. Reverts with perjorative summaries are completely unacceptable, and both parties have engaged in it. Here is the history of the last round of reversions, as of now:


 * 1) (cur) (last)  19:38, July 6, 2007 Jitse Niesen (Talk | contribs) (57,698 bytes) (change text on what dx denotes, see talk)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 16:19, July 6, 2007 Loom91 (Talk | contribs) (57,760 bytes) (revert KSmrq's replacement of referenced content with original research. Please stop violating WP content policies.)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 14:01, July 6, 2007 KSmrq (Talk | contribs) (57,632 bytes) (revert, as explained at length on talk page; PLEASE STOP)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 13:27, July 6, 2007 Loom91 (Talk | contribs) (57,760 bytes) (revert KSmrq's replacement of referenced content with original research. Please stop violating WP content policies.)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 13:18, July 6, 2007 KSmrq (Talk | contribs) (57,632 bytes) (Please stop this)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 13:15, July 6, 2007 KSmrq (Talk | contribs) (57,760 bytes) (→Introduction - major revision, major sprawl, figure to come)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 13:03, July 6, 2007 Loom91 (Talk | contribs) (56,098 bytes) (some rewordings)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 12:47, July 6, 2007 Loom91 (Talk | contribs) (55,991 bytes) (revert KSmrq providing precise reference)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 16:13, July 5, 2007 KSmrq (Talk | contribs) (55,970 bytes) (→References - +author links)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 12:37, July 5, 2007 KSmrq (Talk | contribs) (55,722 bytes) (enough with the bullshit, again, as detailed on talk)
 * 11) (cur) (last) 07:19, July 5, 2007 Loom91 (Talk | contribs) (56,601 bytes) (corrections to the lead; information present was simply incorrect. Please see talk discussion.)

I disagree with Ksmrq's choice of expression in the summary of his reversion ('bullshit', to be exact); however, he is right about this tugging back and forth being a nuisance to the other editors of the article. Moreover, he expended a lot of time explaining his (uncontroversial) position concerning what goes into the lead. Given that he is one of the main driving forces of the development of this article, I would suggest giving it a careful consideration. By contrast, Loom91 seems more interested in using edit summaries as a soapbox and making disparaging personal comments (I do see him using word 'lying' in the bold font in the article talk page, and it's repeated again in the posting at the top of this section), if not outright personal attacks. In summary, while both parties engaged in somewhat uncivil behaviour, my impression is that Ksmrq is making positive contributions to the article, including the lead, and Loom91 is engaged in escalating minor points of contention about the lead into a full blown revert war, together with time-consuming argumentation of personal nature. Arcfrk 01:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's my view as well. I tried to be very careful to stick to citing WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR and such, and not passing any value judgements on the article content or the individual contributions of either editor, simply because I don't know nearly enough about the content to be able to tell if Loom91's edits and reverts are justified.  Having been in a similar dispute myself, though, I see a similarity in the way this dispute escalated.  I'm watching it carefully to see if things continue to heat up, and will recommend other action if the dispute continues. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 01:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for your comments. I think it's best to keep this discussion centralised to the talk page of the article, instead of continuing here. I do not agree with Arcfrk's assessment of my actions, but I will like to make my arguments on the talk page instead of here. Thanks again. Loom91 07:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For matters of civility and personal disputes, I'd recommend that you either continue it here or take it to a User Talk page - the article talk page should be limited to discussion about the article's subject matter itself. If, of course, your discussion is strictly about the article content, then by all means, the article talk is the most appropriate place. :)  Cheers! &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 08:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment by mathematics editor Cronholm144
Taken from the talk page of Integral


 * I like the current lead. But while it discusses the Riemann integral in some detail, the general purpose of an integral, that of totalling, is not really alluded to, nor is its relation to a sum. I think the examples of various types of integrals should be replaced by some general discussion of why anybody wants to use an integral. Anyway, my purpose of initiating this RfC has suceeded: peace and sensibility has been restored. Thanks to everyone who helped out.Loom91 07:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have refrained from commenting until this point, but Loom, your comment about peace and sensibility does not sit well with me, because you are the on who initiated this conflict. You summarily dismissed an editor's work as being "simply incorrect" and edit warring ensued. Please do not act as if peace was your goal from the beginning. I am sorry if this came of as harsh but I felt it needed to be said.--Cronholm144 07:34, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm, how would peace have been my goal from the start? There was not a conflict to begin with. My goal, from the start, has been making the lead accessible, helpful, accurate and referenced. Some of KSmrq's edits did appear incorrect to me and I said so (providing a reference later, where KSmrq did not bother to provide any), following which KSmrq started to dismiss my edits using various adjectives such as bullshit, nuisance and foolishness. Editorial disputes are normal, even expected, when two editors are both trying to work in the best interests of the article (which, despite KSmrq's assertions to the contrary, I was and am). I don't, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to, shy away from editing fearing conflict. All that is necessary is discussion, which I've constantly been engaging in. In past, I've resolved disputes by citing sources, but KSmrq seemed unable to accept the policy of citing sources and that's what escalated this conflict. That's also what prompted me to seek outsider advice. I think the result should satisfy everybody. Extra pairs of hands and eyes are sure to help the article. Loom91 08:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * According to WP:LEAD the lede should contain nothing that isn't addressed in the article. So there really isn't a pressing need to have a citation there at all. KSmrq is very blunt, but he has a reputation here as an excellent editor with a great amount of experience in his field. Your reputation is not as well-founded. I am not saying that experienced editors should not be questioned, but your tone and initial approach rankled in my mind. If you had simply posted here and waited to change the article until he responded, we would not have had a war at all. Leland, King, and K, worked very hard this month to put this article together and it would have been courteous to hold off on making wholesale changes. You also could have addressed the article instead of K directly with your initial comment. This is all water under the bridge though, and I hope that we can all move on.--Cronholm144 08:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, arguing about the lead should come last in the development of an article. The body should be developed first. We still haven't finished illustrating the article and we still have complex integration left to add. After these additions and polishing the body, the lede will likely come more naturally.--Cronholm144 08:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

This sums up my my opinion on the matter fairly well.--Cronholm144 09:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Procedural accusations against me
The following posting has been imported from Talk:Integral. Arcfrk 19:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

arcfrk has accused me of using pejorative edit summaries. I personally can't find any. The only thing offensive I see among the edit summaries presented by you is the word bullshit. My edit summaries were (or at least intended to be) statements of fact. To the best of my knowledge, no matter how trivial content may be, it must be backed up by sources if contested, especially when the replacement cites sources. Not doing so, IMHO, is a clear violation of Wikipedia content policies. Dismissing opposing sources as falsehoods without providing counter-references is not the way to edit. My perception of standard Wikipedia policy and practices is that the principle of citing sources are the fundamental foundation every reasonable editor agrees upon. If a fact is so trivial that only fools contest it, why is there not a source being cited for it? It defeats me how arguing for preserving such a fundamental guiding principle of Wikipedia can be deemed foolish, a nuisance and WikiLawyearing. I also do not see how making positive and valuable, even referenced, contributions to the rest of the article makes KSmrq exempt from this policy in the lead. If I wrote a fascinating and extensively referenced article on a topic, would I be allowed to insert a section of unreferenced original research?

I'm also not aware of "using edit summaries as a soapbox and making disparaging personal comments" or making "time-consuming argumentation of personal nature". I make it a point of priority to be factual and objective in the face of hostility. If my actions were incivil, I'm truly sorry and I apologise to all parties involved. But I personally do not consider stating the truth to be incivil. I called KSmrq's actions lying, and I intentionally bolded the word to make it clear that I was making a perfectly serious accusation rather than simply delivering an idle rant. Let me present to you the history of this talk page:

(cur) (last) 19:32, 6 July 2007 KSmrq (Talk | contribs) (97,188 bytes) (→The lead - wrong)

(cur) (last) 19:28, 6 July 2007 KSmrq (Talk | contribs) (96,971 bytes) (→The lead - sigh; go away)

(cur) (last) 19:00, 6 July 2007 Loom91 (Talk | contribs) (94,806 bytes) (→The lead - KSmrq, you are violating policies)

(cur) (last) 18:26, 6 July 2007 Loom91 (Talk | contribs) (94,331 bytes) (→The lead)

(cur) (last) 10:22, 6 July 2007 Leland McInnes (Talk | contribs) (93,188 bytes) (→State of the article)

I reverted him with a post on the talk page. Then KSmrq reverted me without countering my arguments on the talk page. At this point I made my second post warning him that revert-warring without taking part in discussion was against the policy and spirit of Wikipedia and reverted him again. Almost half an hour after this, he made his reply on the talk page, reverted me, and then made a further comment  as if I had accused him of not taking part in discussions without bothering to read his reply, when the truth was that his reply was made after I actually posted my comment. While I'm willing to accept that this was a misunderstanding caused by him taking a very long time in writing his reply, the fact remains that he reverted me without discussing my arguments with him. Discussion seems to be another pillar of Wikipedia, one that I try to follow at all costs (the reason why I initiated this RfC before the conflict escalated further).

All in all, I don't agree with the allegations of procedural lapse against me. The principles of Wikipedia are of utmost importance to me, and I always place them above my personal judgment calls. Loom91 07:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Loom, I'd advise against continuing to pursue this here - the article talk is not a good place to out another editor. You've already requested assistance via WP:WQA, and there are other methods by which you can request dispute resolution if you feel they are necessary.  (All I'm going to say on the matter - as I said before, I have no authority and am not in a position to take sides or do anything more than advise on WP:CIVIL and similar policies.) &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 08:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an archive. Pease do not edit this portion of the discussion. If new comments are needed, please begin a new sub-section, outside of this archive box.


 * }
 * My thanks (again) to KieferSkunk for being willing to step in, regardless of outcome.
 * I thought it might be of interest to note for the record where things stand today. As this thread shows, the mathematics community continues to share my concern about Loom91's misbehavior, which has flared up again. If not for the procedural hassles, I believe we would proceed directly to having him banned from editing integral.
 * I do apologize here (as I did at Talk:Integral) for being perturbed enough to use an expletive, however accurate (again, as detailed at Talk:Integral). In my experience, calling someone clueless, say, does not magically give them a clue, and is counterproductive.
 * A good night's sleep after a long day editing helped restore some of my equanimity (not the intervention; sorry, KieferSkunk), but Loom91's ongoing disruption has driven away at least two valued contributors, which troubles me deeply. The mathematics community includes many admins and two ArbCom members, so I remain guardedly optimistic that we can deal with him ourselves.
 * Regardless, there is probably little more that readers of this forum can do. Perhaps a further caution to Loom91 about his own civility (as mentioned repeatedly here and at WT:WPM) would be justified, along the lines of "people in glass houses…"; but would it be productive, or merely provoke defenses? Formally, of course, Wikipedia has dispute resolution procedures; but they are not intended as a way of life. In the long run, I believe that Loom91 would do well to learn a better way to participate, and I'm not sure how that's going to happen.
 * Sorry to trouble the readers here, and thanks again for your interest. --KSmrqT 10:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to trouble the readers here, and thanks again for your interest. --KSmrqT 10:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding, KSmrq. I left a comment for Loom as to the fact that it seems he is unlikely to sway consensus at this time without going through other forms of peer review.  Hopefully that will help things. &mdash; KieferSkunk (talk) &mdash; 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:MonstretM in Talk:Food irradiation
Several of MonstretM's contributions on the talk page of food irradiation are exessively ad hominem, directed personal attacks, against those of a differing opinion. In that sense I feel some of the users content is in violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, and WP:SKILL. Victims include User:Arved Deecke, User:GermanPina, User:DieterE and myself. User:DieterE and myself have both raised concerns how User:MonstretM argues personalities over facts and how he has been oafish in doing so. I would appreciate help that allows us to return to a civil discourse centered around WP:Wikiquette and focused on reaching agreement. RayosMcQueen 09:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Considering that the page is already protected due to the edit warring, I don't think we can do much here. You already have a respected administrator helping you on the talk page.  If you have concerns about civility issues, you could bring it up there and receive some help.  If you do, make sure to provide very specific links to the comments you find are problems, and make your statements concise so you can get the attention you want.


 * If it turns out that there are continuing civility problems, and you don't find help elsewhere, you are welcome to re-open this report, but if you do, please provide diffs for specific comments that you feel are problems. There's way too much on the pages you listed for us to sort through and try to find what's happening without specific examples.


 * Aside from all that, it may be best to just try and ignore the "oafish" behavior and with extra politeness, continue returning the discussion to the topic. It's hard not to react to provacative comments, but if you can let them just slide by, you may find that you get better results.  Also, by making your responses extra-civil, even beyond what would normally be needed, later if you do need to point out examples of the bad behavior, it will be obvious who is the source of the problem.   --Parzival418 Hello 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Czimborbryan in Yantic River and lots of other CT articles
An anonymous editor came in and started adding links to a number of Connecticut-recreation-related articles. When I looked at the links and saw that they seemed to be for the purpose of getting Google ad revenue, I started reverting them and warning the anon about linkspam. After 4 warnings, he was blocked. A while later, Czimborbryan came in and started re-adding the links. Elipongo, after welcoming him, engaged him, and explained why he seemed to be acting against policy. He defended himself in several private emails, which Elipongo responded to on his talk page. He claims that even though he controls the site he's linking to, he's not violating WP:NOR. He proceeded to eventually post a long defense of his actions on the talk page of every article he had added the link to, and he also posted to the WP:Village pump (policy), where several users attempted to explain why what he was doing might have issues. Haemo also jumped in after a request by Elipongo, to no avail.

At some point, I went through all the articles where he had added his link under References and changed them to External links, as the content he was posting did not seem to actually be backed up by the links. He started complaining that I was violating copyright law, with such phrases as "Please revert all of the External Links edits that you had made to my articles using Connecticut Explorer's Guide as References. These links are references citing copyrighted material and you do not have my permission to remove these sources as references." and "Even though the GNU gives permission to edit the content mercilessly, it does not give permission to remove cited sources under References. This is a copyright matter and protected by law. Otherwise, it would be assumed that the information posted is original to the author." (which I found highly amusing, considering that he was citing his own page, and that I was not removing links, but just changing how they were labeled). I pretty much give up on trying to explain things to him -- can somebody else take a swing at it?--SarekOfVulcan 14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read your discussions. You've been very patient and explained the policies clearly, multiple times.  User:Czimborbryan has not shown any interest in learning about how Wikipedia works or even responded in any significant way to anything you've told him.  I don't think there's anything further you can do, and I don't think he will be interested in hearing from anyone else either.


 * I recommend you edit the articles as you have been, remove or correct the links as needed, and pretty much ignore his comments unless he starts to make sense. As long as he doesn't engage in edit warring or incivil comments, just let it go, or reply by letting him know that you're willing to discuss, but only if he's willing to learn. If he seems to become receptive, then you could give him some guidline links to read, but if he is not interested in what you have to offer, then don't waste your time.


 * If his legal threats continue - even though they're sort of confused - I suggest reporting that at WP:AN, because there's no way for you to know how seriously he takes what he is saying. It might be best to let someone with experience on that kind of thing make the decision about it.  --Parzival418 Hello 10:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Parzival. Over the past day, he proposed one link on a talk page. After I reviewed it and saw that it appeared to show the entire subject of the article, and nothing else, I added it myself: I figured that doing things the right way should be encouraged. --SarekOfVulcan 17:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Exploding Boy reports alleged incivility and harassment by User:Yug
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;" ! style="background-color: Thistle;" | Archive of Wikiquette Alert filed by User:Exploding Boy in regards to User:Yug - Alert is closed - do not modify
 * style="border: solid 1px #Indigo; padding: 8px; background-color: Lavender;" |
 * style="border: solid 1px #Indigo; padding: 8px; background-color: Lavender;" |


 * This is an archive of Wikiquette Alert filed by User:Exploding Boy in regards to User:Yug


 * This alert is closed - do not edit this archive.

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)
 * --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)


 * Oh, well if there is no dispute then of course ignore my comments :) my apologies for taking up your time, regards sbandrews (t) 16:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no edit dispute because of your recent edits, there is an edit dispute because of your reverts or de facto revert (ask merge after an already explained split, see : Talk:Strokes order/RfC), while "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.".
 * I say it again, there are not edit dispute by your edits, but by your previous reverts and planed de facto revert.
 * Please, wait and accept that the RfC will make his statement.
 * --Yug (talk)  16:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be difficult for the RfC to help you both out of this dilemma if one party feels that it is not an edit conflict and of course it is difficult for me to help if the other party feels that this is not a harassment issue. But I maintain that it is both an edit conflict and a case of harassment. The attack page is harassment, the reverts and merge tags are raising tensions on an old edit conflict. Perhaps a first step towards a resolution acceptable to both parties is to agree on what is upsetting the other party, rather than focussing all the time on what is upsetting yourself, sbandrews (t) 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Because there has been so much discussion here, the topic has been obscurred.


 * I concur with user:sbandrews that there seems to be both harrassment and edit warring happening at the same time, but it's hard to tell because of the extensive back and forth debate.


 * I request that in order to help us help you, please restate the Wikiquette report, and response if any, in summary form. Please keep your statements to a few sentences or a couple paragraphs.  Please do not continue debating here, but allow us understand your statement(s) of the problem so we can offer some assistance, or a referral to where you can find help.  Since you already linked many of the relevant pages above, you don't need to re-include all of those, but if there are some in particular you want to emphasize, you are welcome to include them here.


 * Thank you. --Parzival418 Hello 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the page about EB that I maintain, I want notice two things :
 * this arbitration request was and is still "hide" in my user space (such /User:Yug/... ). And I never communicated its existance or http address to anyone. EB, as expected, discovered it by watching my contributions. This page was virtually unknow to other users. But then, EB himself spread accross Wikipedia the link toward this page.
 * this page list EB's edits which lead me to think he made abusives (?) reverts/comments/summaries. This page first aimed to make him admit that he made many hasty edits and mistakes which lead to me to assume bad faith from him. His insistance to never admit is part of responsability in the current endless impasse lead me to maintain and expand this page. Now, as a French and Commons admin, I think this list of things is not acceptable from an administrator, and that this behaviour may maybe need an arbitration request.
 * Naturally, EB want this potential arbitration request to be deleted. But in the other hand, he is the one who spread the link toward this page, what I never did.
 * But before that, I hope the asked RfC will make his statement on our edit dispute, put each of us to his pertinent place, and improve the situation.
 * An other true thing to notice is that EB have improve his behaviour, but have not admit his previous mistakes, even in obvious cases (see RfC). This silence lead me to don't know if he had understood and truly changed.
 * --Yug (talk)  10:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * So you maintain that a page on the internet available for the whole world to see simply by looking at your user contributions page is in some way hidden? Do you not feel that the user contributions page is put there precisely for the purpose of showing other editors what we are doing? I certainly use it a lot, after all everything we do here, either in mainspace or our user areas, is public property as soon as we hit the return key. sbandrews (t) 12:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

restatement of the alert

 * Please enter restatement of the alert report in this section.

Exploding Boy writes: I don't really see the point of this, since I feel I was more than clear in the inital post. But...


 * The situation began when Yug disagreed with some edits I made to the Stroke order article. Since then, his own stated desire to "control" and "lead" the article (and related articles) have exacerbated the problem, despite the fact that I've avoided all related articles for weeks in an effort to put an end to his harassment.
 * The page Yug maintains about me is inappropriate harassment. At very least it violates AGF.  It's more or less a record of things that in Yug's view I've done wrong, with an ominous link to ArbCom at the top.
 * The merge request for two closely related articles was made in good faith; this is supported by the fact that the only two other editors who had commented on the request when I last checked yesterday both supported a merge (Yug does not).
 * The "RFC" Yug has created is further harassment: it's not an article RFC at all; rather, it's entirely about me ("EB did this," "EB didn't do that," and so on). It also contains misinformation, particularly about his block, which I'm sure User:Luna Santin (the blocking admin) would be willing to comment on.
 * In addition, it's not a properly filed RFC; it's simply an orphan page, and as such, like Yug's page about me, is further harassment.
 * Yug is inappropriately demanding I prove my credentials on the subject in question (based on a little test of his own devising!!!); I have never once made reference to credentials in support or objection to any edit on any article.
 * Yug has posted and continues to post comments about me on about half a dozen pages, both user and article talk, and even on the French Wikipedia.

As requested, this is only a very brief summary. There is actually a lot more to Yug's disturbing behaviour. He seems to have snapped: a look at his user contributions shows that he has become consumed with this issue, which is mostly of his own creation, and has done little else on Wikipedia for several weeks. I have repeatedly asked Yug to: stop the harassment; stop the incivility; stop the accusations; get on with editing; leave me alone; comment on the edits and not the editor. But to no avail. Please note that I will only be available sporadically for the next week. Exploding Boy 16:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason why the merge tag is not in good faith is because like it or not you are involved in a dispute and the merge tag is holding up a resolution. There are many things we can do as editors that are well within the rules but which we know that by doing them problems will ensue, you should be well aware of this. If not, however, the more you bury your head in the sand and say 'its his fault not mine' the longer this process will take. The demand for another editor to 'leave you alone' while still demanding the right to edit the same pages (yes, merging and reverting is part of editing) is just unworkable. You are right about the test and that you have made no claim of credentials, that we can ignore, however you display a lack of compassion for your fellow editor that is at the very least unhelpful, sbandrews (t) 16:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, I thought you were supposed to be impartial. Second, I thought the whole purpose of this section was to restate the alert briefly, not to discuss it.  Third, I only became aware of the Stroke (CJK character) article on June 24, which is when I proposed the merge.  Fourth, as I've stated umpteen times, I haven't edited either artle for weeks: June 24 (13 days ago) was when I added the merge tag to the CJK article.  June 13 (24 days ago) was my last substantial edit to Stroke order, per talk page discussion.  Fifth, let's get it correct: I asked Yug to comment on my edits, but otherwise to leave me alone.  And finally, I really don't understand what "lack of compassion" is supposed to mean in this context.  As I have said again and again: this Wikiquette alert is in regards to Yug's behaviour, not to my views of his work on articles.   Exploding Boy 17:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No i'm not impartial, though I am giving both of you a hard time, which is impartiality of a sort. Yug is commenting on your edits - specificaly your merge request, he would like you to remove it - would the world come to an end if we were to give him that? Maybe, just maybe, it would help and you would then get what you want, do you see the reasoning? sbandrews (t) 17:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments and Suggestions from uninvolved editor. I believe a positive collaboration is possible if everyone involved works together with mutual respect.

Mostly, Exploding Boy's complaints about Yug are justified, per WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:CONSENSUS. Yug has chosen to focus his comments on EB personally and not on the content discussions about the articles. Some of Yug's comments have been less than civil, condescending and include a variety of unfounded accusations about EB. Also, we don't have "lead" editors on articles and we don't use credentials as a basis for editing.

Yug, you don't see your hidden page about EB as an attack page, but other people will see it that way. If you need to work on a report, do it quickly and proceed with your case. If you keep the page over a long period of time, that creates the sense of stalking or harrasment. It's a bad idea and makes you look bad to the community.

If you feel you must keep that information, copy it into a text document on your computer and blank the page. Remove it from public view. But it would be best to completely drop it. EB does not have a history of causing trouble. You are not likely to get the result you want by keeping that page. It's just keeping your angry feelings alive. Erase that page and let it rest in peace. That would be the right way to handle that, in my humble opinion.

EB has used reverts rather than edits at times, and some short edit summaries. But it does not appear this has been excessive or uncivil. Most often, it seems that EB responded by asking Yug to stop discussing EB and instead focus on discussing the content of the articles, an appropriate response. On the other hand, knowing how important the articles are to Yug, EB can soften the effect of his edits or reversions by posting a short note on the talk page to explain what he did. Edit summaries can easily be misunderstood even when everyone is a native speaker of English.

The merge tempaltes are inflaming the situation. Eventually maybe the two articles can be merged. But there's no hurry. Maybe after the articles are improved it will turn out that they are better separate. If not, there can be a merge proposal later. EB, I request that you remove them for now. Let things improve; you can re-add them later if you still feel they're needed. Meanwhile, you would generate good faith by compromising on this.

Since both of you have so much interest and knowledge on this topic, why not collaborate? Choose parts of the topic to discuss on the talk page, come up with a way of approaching that part of the article, and then work out the wording together. Since Yug does not have strong command of English, if EB would be willing to accept some of Yug's ideas about the content of the article and his skill at locating references, and if Yug would be willing to respect EB's contributions as a knowledgable editor, the resulting content could be much better.

Summary:

Yug, please stop talking about EB. Remove your "hidden" page. Do not post on EB's talk page, or complain about him to anyone else. Collaborate with EB about what you want the article to say. Discuss the content of the articles only, not EB as a person. Consider that EB is worthy of the same respect as you are. Ask him to help you with your English. Help him by providing references that you have located.

EB, please remove the merge templates for now. Continue to disengage from Yug's comments about your behavior, as you've been doing. Use edits instead of reverts and mention your reasoning on the talk page. Offer to help Yug with his English, starting first with parts of the article that are not in conflict. When you want to make a major change to the article, such as the intro, discuss first on the talk page.

Yug and EB, several other editors are discussing on the talk pages and seem to have some knowledge. Bring them into the debate so it's not just the two of you. Visit related article talk pages and invite more editors who have interest in this topic to come and participate. Not as a formal RFC, but just to have more people involved, to break up the dynamic between the two of you.

Well,... I wrote way more than I planned. I hope it's helpful. --Parzival418 Hello 22:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Done and done. Exploding Boy 00:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Edit of good will : Done. The situation is not perfect, but that's improving. I will make soon other "good will" edits to move forward. --Yug (talk)  18:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All you've done is "hide" the content using <! tags. It's all still there.  Exploding Boy 15:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes; Yug, by removing the page I meant putting a tag at the top. Even deleting all the content on the page still leaves the page history. sbandrews (t) 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)Yug, I concur with both sbandrews and Exploding Boy. Please remove the page completely by blanking all of the content and then requesting deletion by adding on the newly blanked page.

You have a text editor where you can save the text in case you need it, it does not need to be on Wikipedia. You said you are showing good will, but not removing the page shows you still harbor resentment. To truly show good will, please remove the page. --Parzival418 Hello 18:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that although Yug has made several edits since his last post here, the page remains. Exploding Boy 18:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Noted sbandrews (t) 20:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * EB, you can be more exhaustive. As of 18:50 of July 15, when you noticed that "[Yug] has made several edits", I just had made 2 edits in one week since the 9 July 2007 request of deletion of the page (by You, and by Sbandrews), despite I was travelling across the South West of France without computer.
 * See my contributions :
 * # 17:19, 15 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Stroke (CJK character)
 * # 17:17, 15 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Stroke (CJK character)
 * # 20:35, 8 July 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Stroke (CJK character)
 * So yes, the page remains hidden by the <! tag despite I had made 2 other more need edits.
 * One hours and half after this 2 edits, you are noticing to everybody that "although Yug has made several edits [=2] since his last post here, the page remains", what means this ? Can't you simply notice on my talk page something more efficient, such : "Please see : Wikiquette alerts --~ ".
 * --Yug (talk)  21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see this edit (3rd of 3] on my user page. One of the offending pages seems to have been removed (with a threat to continue to maintain such a page, along with various vague non-good faith remarks), while the other remains.  How much longer will this be permitted to go on?  Exploding Boy 00:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Future strategy
Yugg, thank you for deleting the page, it is a good step forward, and matches EB's edit of good faith, however I have serious concern that you qualified it with the statement I will ask the deletion of my EB-page on Wiki-en, but I frankly say it to you, I will continue to maintain a "Exploding Boy watch page", if this is in fact your intention then it completly nullifies the requested page deletion - I ask you to refrain from such statements or intentions. I appreciate that you have issues that you wish to take up about the editing practices of EB but these should be taken up through the correct procedures, not through the creation of attack pages in your user space sbandrews (t) 06:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC) --Yug (talk)  14:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC) With regard to Talk:Strokes order/RfC, it could be viewed that this is simply in the wrong place. Correct procedure for an RfC is to place the discussion on the talk page of the article itself, rather than as a separate article in namespace. If Yugg is still wanting to keep the RfC open, and that seems a very good idea, then we could move it there. Please note that an article RfC should focus on content issues, sbandrews (t) 06:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * However, an article RFC should be about the article itself, not about specific editors. Exploding Boy 06:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed, and it seems that an editor RfC requires two editors to initiate it. In your opinion where is the appropriate venue for Yugg to discuss his issues with you as an editor, here? sbandrews (t) 07:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My RfC request
 * User Sbandrews, can you give me an hand to neutralize and put in the good place my RfC request.
 * I want a page or section to request other user's opinion about the edit dispute with EB and me. This is need to confirm or denied clearly that I have or not the knowledge need to improve this article and the 11 mistakes I previously found. Then I will be frankly and without suspicion allow again to improve this article, i.e. by deleting some misleading contents, merging some sentences, changing the plan of this article.
 * I don't know if this should be a RfC (as administrator Nlu noticed me) or a "Peer review". Your help is welcome. But this article need an huge re-writing work, that I'm the only one (on Wikipedia) able to do and overview. And I now need to be publicly trusted in this work.
 * My possible request for arbitration
 * For the possible request for arbitration, I sincerely and frankly say want I think about this : hide, or delete this request of arbitration, without admitting that some sentences, edits, and reverts of EB may be understand by other as hasty or abusive (sbandrews perfectly say my believe by saying: "There are many things we can do as editors that are well within the rules but which we know that by doing them problems will ensue"), and then lead to endless opposition, by an other admin (!! me : admin on wiki-fr and commons), is not good, neither for EB, nor for Wikipedia.
 * I encourage(d) EB to read it, understand my position, and admit is part of responsibility in this one-month lost of time. EB requested a deletion of this page, without admitting is part of responsibility. I declined the request.
 * You (Sbandrews) agreed with him : so I accept the request. But being an administrator, I think it's not the good choice for Wikipedia, nor for EB. I say it clearly : the deletion is not the solution, understanding and admitting his part of responsibility is the only sincere solution possible. Then only, understanding this page, EB would make new edits in a new way impossible to view as abusive.
 * But I understand that delete this stub of request for arbitration is from your eyes the easiest way to close quickly this edit dispute.
 * So, I say it again : EB have improve his behaviour, seems by his edits to have admit his part of responsibility, but have not admit his previous mistakes, even in obvious cases (see RfC). This silence lead me to don't know if he had understood and truly changed, and to have to maintain an "Exploding Boy watch page" readable by EB.
 * --Yug (talk)  10:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (admin on fr.wiki and commons)


 * I think the most important thing for us now is to put what happened in the past behind us as much as is possible for now - it is too complicated and too messy - we can move forward from here by starting fresh with a clean slate and some good will, let us all judge each other by what we do from now forward, this gives us a chance that we may lose if we delve too much into the past. EB's silence I interpret as wariness, he has stated that he is willing to discuss specific edits, this seems reasonable. Remember that it was EB who made the first step towards reconciliation, and without preconditions, sbandrews (t) 10:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Simply put, there is no current dispute: I haven't even edited the page in question for over a month. Perhaps if Yug wasn't a single-issue editor he wouldn't be so consumed with ... what?  I don't even know.  I have suggested umpteen times that he move on, perhaps editing the relevant pages on Fr. in his own native language where there will be no reason to worry about language issues.  The current problem, as I see it, is all being caused by Yug.  It has always been Yug who has blown things out of all proportion (partly due to issues with language) and then gone on rampages accross various pages (and Wikipedias!!).  It is Yug who is maintaining offensive pages about another editor.  It is Yug who has been blocked for his behaviour in relation to me and the Stroke order article.  It is Yug who is unwilling to get on with editing.  It is Yug who is failing to assume good faith, who admits to feeling he "owns" certain articles, and whose behaviour has generally been tendentious, disruptive, obstinate and petulant.


 * I have done what I can. I tried to work with Yug, repeatedly asking him to discuss proposed changes on article talk pages. I've put up with personal attacks and a general attitude of bad faith from Yug, not to mention what amounts to a cross-Wiki smear campaign.  Since it became obvious that Yug was determined to prevent me from editing them, I've avoided the articles in question.  In fact, I've avoided Yug generally.   I've removed a good-faith merge request because Yug interpreted it as a personal attack.  I consider it a mark of my patience and willingness to diffuse the situation that I haven't started an RFC regarding Yug's continuing harassment and stalking.  I've even put up with what seems like endless velvet-gloved negotiations here, when it seems clear to me that what is really needed is a warning to Yug to either get on with editing or shut the fuck up.  Quite frankly, I have better things to do.  While Yug has been doggedly pursuing his current course, I have been reading, editing and starting a wide range of articles, doing admin-related work and participating in deletion and policy discussions, intervening in disputes on other articles and oh yeah, getting on with my real life as well.  Maybe if Yug tries doing the same thing this will all seem as ridiculous and petty to him as it does to me.  I was fed up with this situation weeks ago.  Now I'm reaching a point where I really don't care any more.  Enough is enough.


 * I can tell you right now that any attempt to start an RFC will likely be denied, because not only has Yug failed to follow the basic required procedures, but this situation doesn't even qualify for RFC. Similarly, ArbCom refuses to hear cases that haven't gone through the usual dispute resolution procedures.  In addition, in light of his behaviour throughout our brief acquaintance, my friendly suggestion to Yug is that he may wish to consider the possible repurcussions of attempting such a strategy: namely, that the strategy is in my opinion highly likely to backfire, and he may find himself penalized due to his own tendentious behaviour.


 * How can I put this more plainly? Move on.  Exploding Boy 16:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * EB, sadly I believe the above comment displays just the kind of incivility which has upset Yug, I find it hard to understand why you have made such a comment now, just when Yug was begining to come round to mediation, of course it is your choice to throw away what we have achieved here, but it seems a sad end to me, sbandrews (t) 17:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Incivility?? I have never been incivil in my dealings with Yug or here. I'm simply fed up with a situation that shows no signs of improving. Even Yug's removal of one of the two inappropriate pages he created was done reluctantly and with a clear warning that he intends to continue to maintain such a page.  I really don't know why you're accusing me of throwing anything away, since I really can't see that much real progress has been made here, judging by Yug's most recent remarks. Furthermore, I really don't find that remarks such as the one you posted just above are at all helpful in this situation.  As I said above (and as you said further above): we need to just move on.  Exploding Boy 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yug has made good progress, he has deleted the page in his user space as requested, completing his 'edit of good faith', and we are on the way to removing the incorrectly set up article RfC and placing it on the article talk page. sbandrews (t) 18:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Previous posts read. EB, the temporary deletion of the "EB watch page", and the sentences "EB have improve his behaviour, seems by his edits to have admit his part of responsibility, but have not admit his previous mistakes" an "[EB's] edits and sentences which may have been understand as abusive", were a wide and clearly open door write to you, allowing you to take your part of responsibilities and end our opposition by a 50/50 gentlemen agreement.
 * Your answered post is not what I expected. I don't answer to your list of accusations, I already did it in other place.
 * --Yug (talk)  23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * "Temporary deletion" really says it all. I'm still waiting for the outrageous "RFC" page to be deleted or refigured as a proper article RFC.  Frankly, if Yug doesn't change his behaviour, and quickly, I'm simply going to begin a user RFC about him.  I'm utterly fed up with this situation.  Exploding Boy 23:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * have you looked at it recently, in what way is it outrageous? sbandrews (t) 23:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just came back here from looking at it, and Yug has altered the page to bring it inline with article RFC rules. I'm happy with that.  However, I will note that ongoing threats about maintaining so-called "watch pages" are still an issue.  Exploding Boy 23:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yug is doing just fine, please don't try to provoke him, sbandrews (t) 23:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon? Exploding Boy 23:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved third-party. After reading the talk pages, histories and contribs, it is clear that User:Yug's continuing unfounded accusations against User:Exploding Boy (including for example his recent and unprovoked comment here, on User Exploding Boy's talk page) are violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, borderline harrassment, and just plain antagonistic.


 * EB's edits and edit summaries on the two articles were proper and civil.
 * EB has made no "abusive" edits or comments (such as Yug has claimed)
 * On Talk:Stroke order, multiple other editors agreed with EB's changes, per WP:CONSENSUS.
 * EB removed the merge tag as Yug requested.
 * EB has disengaged from interactions with Yug. He has not contacted Yug, or written any comments about him, other than to defend himself here, rightfully, against Yug's groundless accusations.
 * EB has not edited either of those articles, or posted on the talk pages of either of those articles, for more than two weeks.

Yug: I respectfully ask that you immediately stop all communications with or about User Exploding Boy.


 * Do not post on his talk page.
 * Do not discuss him as a person, or his behavior, on any page including this one.
 * If you edit an article that he also edits:
 * Do not engage in edit warring or revert warring; read and follow WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS.
 * In talk page comments, only discuss edits, not EB as an editor.

You have a lot of knowledge and skill to offer. But, simply and directly: your behavior towards Exploding Boy has been unacceptable and needs to change. Let it go and get on with editing the articles. --Parzival418 Hello 07:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "unfounded accusations against User:Exploding Boy" ? yes: the page where I listed and explained my accusations, EB requested its deletion, sbandrews agreed, so I agreed too. The page had link toward EB's hasty revert, and other edits understandable as abusive, but the page and my explanations were deleted yesterday to appease the opposition. Then, it is really easy to write : "EB's edits and edit summaries on the two articles were proper and civil" (when he partially admit to Luna Santin to haven't read neither my edit summary comment, nor the talk page, but reverted either) and "EB has made no "abusive" edits or comments (such as Yug has claimed)" (when the page where I list such cases was deleted yesterday).
 * Now that I accepted, and that I notice than that I still believe that EB have to admit his part of responsibility, his answer put all the the fault on me. He said to avoid me, but it's him who open about 8 sections accross Wikipedia (including this Wikiquette alert) to put our opposition from one place (unsuccessfully) to an other (unsuccessfully), and lead me to quickly answer to avoid to be look simply as a vandal, and to explain again that's it's an huge edit dispute plus an huge "talk dispute" with suspicion of bad faith from the both sides. All this in EB's native language, on "his" wikipedia, which is in his advantage. Don't you (EB include) think I'm tired too ? Don't you think I feel attacked too ? and insulted too by his summaries depicting me as a perfect-bad-user, his reverts without look the edit-summary box (june 10), his perfect silence on his mistakes (the Ti talk, the 11 mistakes he wrote or never found), his 2 Administrator_noticeboard/Incident requests, his 6 requests to Luna Santin who from the first request asked both of us to go on a medium way, his de facto unworkable proposition of word-by-word correction which just allowed one word change in 2 hours of talk despite my encouragement to go faster, his last recent request on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts depicting me as a perfect vandal (implicitly to block). Isn't this insulting for me ? for my 3 years work on the CJK stroke order project on commons ? isn't this insulting for my 15.000 edits made on all wikipedias in 3 years ?
 * I never talked of this, but shouldn't feel harassed by this 8 unsuccessful request depicting me as a little evil ?
 * In face of me, I have an English skilled user, in his native language, who make about 30 reverts a day, and which made hasty reverts which he later partially admitted. But my trouble come with the fact that EB was the former author of the Stroke order article plus the fact he never want talk or admit his mistakes, even minor, and I can cite several cases (several were already on the deleted "EB watch page"). This lead him to insist to look me as a bad user, to put on me all the responsibility, and to start about 8 requests depicting me as the only responsible : all conclude that we were both in partial fault.
 * I ask(ed) to EB to read my requests, to look again on his edits to understand that several of his edits was understandable as hasty or abusive, and so to admit his part of responsibility. Instead of this, he launched himself several talks on new places, while keeping a perfect silence on mistakes he made, and asked to delete my "EB watch page". The game is perfect : use nice words, keep silent on his own mistakes and edit/revert hastily is ok on the English wikipedia, words are stronger than "de facto".
 * --Yug (talk)  12:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New strategy of Yug
I'm yug, and I make a brief summary of my new strategy to you : I will "play the die".

As I said, I opened widely a door to EB, allowing him to said something such "Ok, I admit that some of my edit may have been understood as abusive. I try to do my best and I made some hasty revert which may have launched the opposition of Yug", followed by a behaviour de facto in correlation.

Both, the 50/50 gentlemen agreement and the behaviour de facto in correlation didn't came, and seems impossible to come.

Our opposition involved so much texts that nobody, except EB and me, know the full story and the "true".

My own believe is that EB, being an administrator and being deeply Japanesed is totally unable to admit his previous faults -minor or not- and his part of responsibility. This is, de facto, a perfect impasse. My believe also stay that such pride behaviour is not acceptable from an administrator, who de facto also need to be a good mediator, and able to admit quickly his mistake. Especially obvious ones. But stop this or not is now into English users' hands.

My final conclusion is that I have to withdraw this impasse, despite I frankly think that will be a bad thing for Wikipedia. I also conclude that my frank and "de facto" view, and my wish to make appear clearly his "de facto" hasty edits by asked him to admit his mistakes totally failed. In a such endless opposition, in a foreign language, I was finally incapable to make the "de facto" supersede the appearance.

This will also be bad for my reputation on wikipedia since I will continue to be look by EB as the bad one who lost.

The good point is that I contacted 2 weeks before Tom Bishop of the Wenlin Institut, who work with the Unicode Consortium. Him and myself had a really interesting talk on stroke order and alternative stroke order from country to country, on some special cases, on the list of CJK strokes, and I received yesterday a proposition to contribute to their Wenlin & CDL project, to input alternative stroke order and write an article about differences.

The deal will be to share the bitmap stroke order diagrams generated by this Wenlin project with commons' CJK stroke order project.

Last thing : I really thanks Sbandrews for the sentence "There are many things we can do as editors that are well within the rules but which we know that by doing them problems will ensue", it's also the core of my opposition to EB, but my English is not good enough to defend me on such cases.

I ask both Sbandrews and Parzival418 to defend me and stop EB if he start a new request here or in an other place, since the request de facto ask me to answer. --Yug (talk)  14:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yug, you don't need to worry about your reputation on Wikipedia being affected by the results of this WQA. This is was not a contest - there is not a winner or a loser.


 * Our only goal is to help everyone get along with each other better.


 * The only reason this has continued for so long, is that you have continued to make comments about EB. If you stop doing that as I requested, soon this whole report will be archived and probably no-one will read it again - unless the problems start up again.


 * Please let this rest, don't think about EB any more, and don't worry about the results of this process. No-one thinks you are the loser, we just want peaceful cooperation all around. --Parzival418 Hello 18:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the ~8 section opened about me whithout never talk about one of his mistake are also in cause for this endless opposition, dont' you think... --Yug (talk)  19:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Yug: Stop posting comments here. This alert is closed. No-one is reading this section any more'''. --Parzival418 Hello 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Simple solution
Move forward. Be civil. Get back to editing. Discuss the edits, not the editor. Exploding Boy 15:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take a time out, perhaps the process will do better without me, there is some editing I have been neglecting, good luck all, I am available on my talk page if needed, regards, sbandrews (t) 17:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Exploding Boy's comments above.

Thank you to sbandrews for his work in calming the situation and helping to format the article RfC.

Let's all agree to consider this alert closed. --Parzival418 Hello 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Be civil also start by admitting his own part of responsibility, such that you reverted me several times, and the last without look neither on the talk page neither on the edit summaries comments. As sole answer to my frame explaining the impasse where you putted me, you reverted my div and the image used without answer to the request, and I finally was block on the behaviour "restore several time a disruptive image", you then used this block to ask admin to block me again. You said having always encouraging talk, while you were missing of the talk page. Your proposition to work together was totally inefficient and unworkable.
 * You are in all appearance Civil, but "de facto" your revert without read my comments lead to the conflict, even if you can't admit it. We both know that.
 * I really don't have to received lesson from some who avoid totally to talk about his past mistakes. A "simple solution" is also to admit your part of responsibility.
 * --Yug 19:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

'''Yug: Stop posting comments here. This alert is closed. No-one is reading this section any more. ''' --Parzival418 Hello 19:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, so ask if EB agree too, and archive it. --Yug 20:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an archive of Wikiquette Alert filed by User:Exploding Boy in regards to User:Yug


 * This alert is closed - do not edit this archive.


 * }
 * }