This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Exploding Boy (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 17 July 2007 (→Future strategy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to wikiquette assistance
Wikiquette assistance is a forum where editors who feel they are being treated uncivilly can request assistance. The goal here is to help all parties in a situation come to a mutually agreeable solution. It is designed to function via persuasion, reason, and community support, rather than threats or blocks. Your first resort should be a polite attempt to discuss the problem with the other editor(s). No binding decisions are issued here. If you seek blocks or bans, see WP:ANI instead. Sections older than 5 days archived by MiszaBot II. Click here to purge this page (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge) Shortcut WP:WQA Please notify any users involved in a dispute. You may use {{subst:WQA-notice}} to do so.
Search the Wikiquette archives Additional notes: Before posting, see that you've made every attempt to follow the advice at Guide to avoiding disputes. Consider the helpful advice here and see the dispute resolution process. Include diffs that show the situation. See the Simplest diff guide for help. The conduct of all parties will be taken into account. Assistance may involve suggestions for altering your own behavior to avoid conflict. Volunteers are welcome. See the volunteer instructions.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:

Active alerts

User:Soxrock's disruptive editing pattern

Note: This issue was archived without any attempt at resolution. I have restored it back here with hope that someone will try to come to a consensus on this issue. Thanks, Caknuck 00:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(← outdent) Hi - I've reviewed the information above and visited some of the links. I concur with sbandrews, and I think you're on the right track following his advice. One other point to consider is that there is a difference between problems with the behavior of a user and with the content of the articles. As long as you don't let the personal stuff bother you and minimize your responses on those elements, you can focus on the article. But in a situation where you feel an editor or two are stopping you from editing the article, you need to be extra careful to read and understand the most important Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines (Misinterpretation, An example of Policy, Two examples, Proof that this is a bad idea) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Zheng He

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Veganism

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

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

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

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

Repeat2341 11:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Harrassment by user:Morton_devonshire

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

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

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

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

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

(UTC)

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

User:Exploding Boy reports alleged incivility and harassment by User:Yug

(←)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 {{db-userreq}} 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 " 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 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 : Misplaced Pages: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)

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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 " 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? 23:53, 17 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)

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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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, Misplaced Pages 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. --KSmrq 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusation that I am a troll by User:Iceage77

The place of the dispute

On Talk:Bernard Manning (see Talk:Bernard Manning#Alkrington is in Greater Manchester.)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages (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! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination)

User:Nathaniel B. Heraniaos has made repeated personal attacks on other users at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Ten Pound Hammer • 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 00:35, 16 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)#Define External Links Spam, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Dispute situation with User:Tenebrae in John_Buscema - should I agree to mediation?

My problem is that the disputant is willing to go to mediation but presents the request in a way that leaves me wary -

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/John_Buscema

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:John_Buscema (see last entry)

There's seems to be such an accusational, prosecutional, and uncivil tone that I hesitate to agree to mediation when such an attitude is displayed.

There are also two situations involving the user, which would seem to indicate a regular occurance of controversial behavior:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tenebrae2

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/Request_for_comment/Asgardian (see June 16 entry)

Any ideas on how to proceed would be much appreciated.

--Skyelarke 23:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to think of a reason to turn down mediation. If mediation works, it will give a way forward. If it doesn't work, you and the other editors should be no worse off than before. It seems there is a long-running dispute, and the RfC didn't work. So try something else. EdJohnston 01:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference War of aggression was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution