User talk:Lundse/AH RfC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Standstill
2 RfC request (message sent)
3 Links
4 Comments
5 Statement of the dispute
6 Response
7 Outside view
8 Discussion

[edit] Standstill

I have halted this RfC for now - the user was blocked for 24 for namecalling and now seems to be improving his behaviour ever so slightly and although I have no expectations, one can always hope it gets better with time. I have chosen not to confront him on issues dealing with this RfC for now (though I have reiterated certain arguments once again as I do not believe I should censor myself) - I am afraid it might make him "flare up" again. I hope this is the last edit on this page before I blank it (for now I am keeping my options open). Lundse 11:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC request (message sent)

I have been attacked one time too many by User:Andrew Homer - see his response to my last request he stop personal attacks [1] I am going to start an RfC and I was hoping you would certify it as a user who tried to resolve the problem. If you will leave a message about this on my talk page I set up for this purpose, you can also see more about it as I am drafting the RfC there.

Regards, Lundse 10:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

[2]

[edit] Comments

For others to leave comments about this RfC - if you came here because of my message, thanks. Look it over and tell me what you think. I am drafting the RfC below (this is my first, so I am being cautious).

If you put forward this RfC, I will certify it. Unfortunately, I have to confess that I don't think this is likely to have any effect on Mr. Homer's behavior, but we have to try, I suppose. This user does not respond to queries, merely insults and attacks anyone who questions him, and seems to be genuinely delusional. siafu 14:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Andrew Homer (talk • contribs • logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

I and others have repeatedly tried to make Andrew Homer stop making signed, POV (and sometimes personal attack) edits in article space. His behaviour in the talk pages is extremely offending, condescending and not conducive to any sort of debate.

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Andrew Homer is an astrologer, who after I talked out against him having a vanity page (which was removed with a convincing consensus) somehow got mad at me. He makes personal attacks (not just against me, but primarily), which I do not think this is up for debate (check the diffs). Several editors have asked him to stop, both ones who disagree with his views on astrology and those who agree.

The problem stems from his view (shared by at least one other astrologer here) that in order to test a claim put forward by astrologers, one must know about astrology. It is my claim that one must know about scientific validation in order to check such a claim for scientific validity; that one can test the claims and results without knowing the theory (like you can test whether a car can drive without knowing about engines).

Furthermore, I think that AH does not aknowledge WP:CITE based on his statements and continued disregard of it. His edits are often extremely personal in nature, even when not direct attacks.

I am sure instances can be found where I have been snide or curt towards this user, I am also sure these do not warrant such a level of personal attacks (plus refusal to discuss) or that they are in any way in against policy.

Also note that Andrew Homer has another account called StarHeart (not sockpuppetry, he just changed after I suggested he userfy the personal page he set up).

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

His second-to-last response. Note that I asked him to tone down... [3]
Last answer; again, note what he responded to. [4]
Log of his personal article which got deleted, note his respones. [5]
His response to an editor asking him to stop making signed comments. [6]
Here he is joining the police state discussion (he has no edits on the talk page) [7]
Another at police state, this time very personal. [8]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.