Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive17

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! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Noted on Talk:Integral#Recent edits that User:KSmrq is still tending to phrase his responses as though he's assuming bad faith. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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 [3]. Then KSmrq reverted me [4] without countering my arguments on the talk page. At this point I made my second post [5] 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 [6] , reverted me, and then made a further comment [7] 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.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 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.

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)

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 {{db-userreq}} 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 {{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 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 : Wikipedia: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.