Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive17

Archive index

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

Stale

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 Wikipedia: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)[1] 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 Wikipedia policies, mostly WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR, and use those policies in deciding how to make your edits - for example, including WP:FOOTNOTES and other ways of mentioning your WP:Reliable sources.

The next part of that formula is WP:CONSENSUS. To make that work, you need to have more editors come to the articles you're working on, so you are not carrying the banner on your own. That's what the editor meant in the arbitration page when he wrote "Did you file an RFC yet?" He was referring to a Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Editor assistance and asking one of the listed editors their to show you how to do it and help you keep it fair and effective.

In the long run, with a long-running dispute, it's not likely that you'll convince the other guy(s) to change their minds. The only way to solve it is to have more editors come to the page and make a consensus. Of course, it might not go the way you want it to, but at least then, even if you don't get what you want - you won't feel it was imposed on you by one person, you'll be going along with a real consensus, and that's a much better result. Or the consensus might agree with you, we don't know yet. Hope that's helpful. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up... Just wanted to add one note for clarity. Disengaging from the argumnet as sbandrews mentioned above is still the first step. Keep in mind, there's no urgency. Even if the article gets changed, your work is not lost because it stays in the history where you can find it again later... You can safely take your time and edit other stuff while everyone calms down and while you learn about RFCs and maybe check out the Editor Assistance page. --Parzival418 _Hello 23:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this point I'm prepared to say that the issue has become stale. JAF is no longer directly arguing with me, and appears to have done the wiki equivalent of throwing his hands up in the air and saying "Fine, you do whatever you want!" to the rest of the CVGProj editors who've been arguing about scoring details and the like. He still refuses to acknowledge that he's done anything wrong and has said he's never going to apologize for his behavior. But if it's possible to archive the messy portions of the affected Talk pages so that the atmosphere isn't as poisoned as it currently is there, I'd appreciate it.

Affected Talks: Talk:Pac-Man Championship Edition (Do not mass delete, Blue ghost needs fix, This looks fine, Scoring Details, Don't like people editing your remarks huh?, Response from potential mediator, Here an example, And he changes the page the way he likes it, Other strategy guides, KieferSkunk's methods), and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines (Misinterpretation, An example of Policy, Two examples, Proof that this is a bad idea) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sectarian abuse by User:Smash Divisions

I warned User:Smash Divisions of impending WP:3RR violation here and the response was in clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

I also suspect this new user of being a sockpuppet. --Mal 21:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I'm not so sure that one isolated incident of incivility warrents an opened case on WP:WQA, but because incivlity is not something that should be tolerated here, I'm going to give the user a warning. Hopefully, he/she will take heed of it and return to editing in a civil manner.

As for the sockpuppet situation, you will have to provide more information than the user's contribs alone, and state who you believe this user is a sock of. Claims like these should not be made lightly, but if you are fully convinced, you might want to request Checkuser information, since this is not the proper place to assess this claim. Here goes...The Kensington Blonde _Talk 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I'll have a look at the WP:Checkuser (hopefully that will turn blue) page/policy and provide some information there. Thanks for the advice. --Mal 00:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Harrassment by user:Morton_devonshire

Resolved

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)

Accusation that I am a troll by User:Iceage77

Stale

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 [2] 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 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), as can be seen by messages on his talk page (User talk:Iceage77).  DDStretch  (talk) 15:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I went ahead and marked the case as "stale" since it appears that no further progress is being made. DDstretch: If this situation arises again, please feel free to call on us again in the future, or to go to informal or formal mediation next. Good luck! — 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination)

Resolved

User:Nathaniel B. Heraniaos has made repeated personal attacks on other users at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservapedia (fourth nomination), a nomination he made simply because he did not like the page's subject. He's trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox, in hopes that Conservapedia will disappear from the net since he doesn't like its contents. Even after I've warned him, he insists that he's not disrupting Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 02:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a clear violation of WP:CIVIL to me. This should probably be referred to the Admin Noticeboard. I'm not familiar enough with this process to help further, though. — 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 Wikipedia in a positive manner, as per wikipedia policy.

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

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

Editor (PaulBurns) refusing to act civilly

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

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

left a msg on User talk:PaulBurns. DES ^(talk) 00:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour by User:KSmrq

Resolved

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, Wikipedia has dispute resolution procedures; but they are not intended as a way of life. In the long run, I believe that Loom91 would do well to learn a better way to participate, and I'm not sure how that's going to happen.

Sorry to trouble the readers here, and thanks again for your interest. --KSmrq^T 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)

Dispute with User:MonstretM in Talk:Food irradiation

Stuck

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

Stuck

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 Wikipedia works or even responded in any significant way to anything you've told him. I don't think there's anything further you can do, and I don't think he will be interested in hearing from anyone else either.

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

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

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