Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BZ(Bruno Zollinger)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

---

• BZ(Bruno Zollinger) (talk • contribs • logs)

---

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

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside view 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

{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.}

User:BZ(Bruno Zollinger) often uses article talk pages for off-topic musings and personal conversations. When asked not to do so, BZ responds uncivilly and expresses contempt for Wikipedia policies and guidelines—and for other editors, often in nationalistic terms. As BZ has literally never edited an article (all of his edits are to talk pages), he has never violated policy in article content, but his talk page contributions are disruptive.

While his comments often show a genuine interest in and knowledge of the subjects in question, they frequently digress into (a) hostile opinions toward Wikipedia community and policies, especially NPOV and NOR; (b) statements about how the Swiss (e.g. himself) compare favorably to other nationalities. This happens even when no one is responding critically (or at all) to his posts. He is frequently sarcastic to such a degree that it can be hard to determine which side he is arguing on, but the hostility is unmistakable. ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[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.)

Violations of WP:CIVIL

1. Posts a useful piece of information (that the title of The Lathe of Heaven was changed in translations) - but when User:Hob mentions that this isn't terribly unusual, BZ replies with hostile sarcasm directed at an imaginary "German user" (apparently meaning Hob, since no one else had commented) who "neither knows the original nor the translation" and who answers posts without reading them. [1] [2] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
2. On Talk:Miracle, complains that an article is misstating David Hume's views, but doesn't specify the point or suggest a correction [3]. Another editor suggests repeatedly that BZ edit the article to correct any perceived errors; BZ responds with increasing hostility, saying his comments are more valuable than article edits, that sarcasm is "the mark of a great writer", that Hume's essay may be clear to Americans but that BZ must explain it for the benefit of the Swiss, and that others should not tell him "what to do and how to write". [4] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3. In response to questions of POV on Talk:Martin Heidegger, tells User:Noosphere that "In Switzerland you wouldn't get away with pontificating about POV and Original Research. In Switzerland you'd have to prove your assertions, Noosphere. But then, of course, you don't live in Switzerland. Lucky you!" [5] Also claims that "Switzerland is the only country, where a majority of people can still read and evaluate a German text". [6] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Soapboxing and disregard for purpose of talk pages

1. Continues to post about how translators should not have changed the title of The Lathe of Heaven. Hob requests that the discussion stay oriented toward article content. BZ replies that "In Switzerland, where I come from, we think that every important text needs a commentary" and that "to turn logic completely on its head, and to see the bringing forth of changes in the text as the function of the commentary, is really taking it a bit far". Hob refers BZ to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. BZ responds that "Wikipedia is not here for its editing community. It is here for the readers", and continues to post his opinions about the dangers of bad translation. [7] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
2. On the same page, engages User:Jahn Henne in a side discussion that covers Jahn's family history and BZ's own dreams. BZ also criticizes other editors for thinking it is possible to stay on topic. [8] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Posts opinions on multiple articles stating that the editors, and/or the authors of the texts the articles are about, are mistaken about the significance of the subjects; does not suggest any way the articles could be improved. [9] [10] [11] Includes sarcastic remarks about how Wikipedia's rules encourage editors to report "the opinions of German Literaturprofessoren" rather than "facts" (i.e. BZ's own statements). [12] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Posts an opaque commentary on Talk:Golem claiming that a quote from the Mishnah is "an American view", and that "In Switzerland, where I come from ... the numbers differ". [13] [14] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
5. On Talk:The Little Prince, claims that Saint-Exupéry is dismissive of children's opinions, and that "the American Wikipedia" and "its great Forepicture, the German Wikipedia" are similarly arrogant because of policies on POV and OR. [15] [16] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
6. On Talk:Mind-body problem, posts a lengthy argument that there is no concept of "mind" in German, because the German word Seele is not exactly equivalent to "mind", and that therefore Americans could only understand 50% of the subject. Offers no clue as to how this relates to the article. Claims rhetorical victory as follows: "Now, what more could I have DONE on or for your project than make this point clear? (A dead march. Exeunt, bearing off the bodies: after which a peal of ordnance is shot off.)" [17] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
7. On Talk:Damon Runyon, posts a complaint that another editor's comment from 2005 had not been addressed, causing an error in the article. User:mjb suggests that BZ make an edit; BZ responds that "It would never occur to a Swiss to lecture the person who pointed out the mistake, and much less to ask him to correct a mistake that he is not responsible for." It becomes apparent that BZ in fact misstated the comment and there was no such error. User:JPMcGrath explains purpose of talk pages; BZ says that's not how the Swiss see it. [18][19] [20] ←Hob 21:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:ISNOT#OR, item 3, "Personal essays or Blogs that state your particular opinions about a topic", and item 5, "Discussion forums". ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
2. WP:CIVIL ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

(provide diffs and links)

1. On Talk:The Lathe of Heaven, User:Hob requests repeatedly that BZ try to separate general opinions and side discussions from discussion of the article, and suggests that BZ try editing the article to correct perceived omissions. [21] [22] BZ states that it is Hob's comments that are off topic, as judged by "many people that I showed this page to here in Switzerland", and refuses to discuss "rules and regulations and unfounded allegations". [23] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
2. User:Agne27 concurs that some of the posts are off topic, and that "Discussions should be focused on what can be done to improve the article." [24] BZ responds that he was the first contributor to the talk page (basically true), and that despite Agne's "interesting point of view", Ursula K. Le Guin (author of the novel in question) will support his position: "I guess you got in touch with Ms Le Guin by now. What did she say?" [25] [26] ←Hob 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. I've tried to assume good faith with this user, but it is very difficult. There's very little evidence of him engaging constructively with anyone (except for his friendly dialogues with User:Jahn Henne, but those aren't about articles) or acknowledging the possibility of being off base. The odd emphasis on Swiss vs. German vs. American makes me wonder if we're seeing some spillover from an argument on the German WP, especially given this odd reference to Jahn "feeling at home" in an RFC [27]. If so, I would add WP:POINT to the complaint. ←Hob 20:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
2. While I have not personally encountered the incivility, I do endorse the summary of the "off topic" talk page use and the comments involving my attempts to resolve the dispute. I don't find an appeal to some personal knowledge of what an author's would "jive" with to have any place or standing to trump Wikipedia policy. Looking at The Lathe of Heaven talk page it is quite disheartening to try and swim through all the "chit chat" about what a wikipedian's dream mean and how their family is doing, in order to find some real discussion on what can actually be done to improve the article. It's my opinion that this off topic conversation is a distraction to productive editing and serves as an unneccesary impediment to editors wanting to seriously communicate about editing the article. As the diff provided note, I have requested that editors voluntarily delete the off topic "chit chat" and help clean up the talk page to get it refocused on the topic. Agne 06:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3. I am the user involved in the dispute on Talk:Miracle, and Hob's description of the circumstances there is accurate. As a result of events there, to keep my Wikistress to a manageable level I was compelled to withdraw from any further work on that article. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
4. I too have had some interaction with Bruno, and for my own part I have concluded that it's a waste of time and energy. As he is not disrupting articles, we might leave it at that. But he is disrupting the progress of the wikipedia: (i) He is making it hard to find what's relevant at the talk pages where he adds his so-called commentaries. (ii) He is engaging the time and energy of unsuspecting editors, involving themselves in exchanges with him because they assume good faith. He often seems to succeed in making people believe that there must be something valuable and relevant somewhere in his posts. (In fact, that may even be true, but he is really making an effort not to help anyone locate that.) - As noted elsewhere, there's some friendly chit-chat with a user:Jahn Henne at User talk:BZ(Bruno Zollinger) and at Talk:The Lathe of Heaven. I just noticed that Jahn, too, never edits any articles, except for adding de: interwiki links to Bonnie Bassler and John Middleton Murry, Jr.. He also made one small edit to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primal therapy, an edit which appears to be an intrusion into a post by user:172.173.59.242 (in fact a rather funny and relevant intrusion). Now, one might imagine user:BZ(Bruno Zollinger) and user:Jahn Henne to be one and the same individual. User talk:Jahn Henne demonstrates an attitude to wiki processes resembling that displayed by Bruno. Is it possible for anyone to look into some IP logs or whatever to check this?--Niels Ø 10:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. I took a quick look hrough the various discussion pages mentioned and it is quite clear that this user has violated the policies and guidelines cited. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
2. While I haven't been involved in these disputes, I took a look at the problem when User:Hob mentioned it at the Village Pump and was the one that recommended to him that he should start this RfC. The user in question has quite clearly caused many disruptions and has no real positive contributions. The constant nationalist statements are especially grating. --The Way 22:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Also an uninvolved bystander, here. This user's contributions almost exclusively consist of semi-coherent pseudo-intellectual gibberish posted to various talk pages. I'm not a psychologist, but the simplest explanation for this behaviour is that this user is in some way mentally imbalanced. Dealing with him as though he could understand (which he doesn't appear to) that he's violating policies and causing disruption may not be productive in such a case. Unless he begins to interact with other people in a meaningful way, and unless he stops posting his word salad to random talk pages, I guess a block would be the only way to prevent further disruption. Sandstein 22:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[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.

{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] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.