Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Glengordon01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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: 20:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

On September 8, 2006 I responded to the following post at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts:

*User:Scottandrewhutchins is continuously violating WP:Dick. There is no attempt at conflict resolution, even most recently. He hijacks new topics started on the Charun discussion page with an obsession over a "Charun bashes souls" debate, telling one individual in particular that he is "incompetent" multiple times for supposely not supplying references that challenge his viewpoints. However, he has supplied references against his views. This has been lasting weeks and weeks. Scott has even brought about an edit freeze on the article so that his anti-WP:NPOV version remains stuck there. It honestly seems like an egotrip going on but no one has done anything substantial to solve the problem.03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What I found differed considerably from that description. While neither party's conduct is blameless in this dispute, several days of attempted mediation have convinced me that User:Glengordon01 is principally responsible for the deadlock on this page. In a dispute that has lasted over a month the only sources he has cited fail WP:NOR while the other editor has produced ample references. One of the authors of those references has even responded personally. Despite this and the attempts of several neutral Wikipedians to seek a common ground, Glengordon01 not only refuses to compromise, but insults those who attempt to mediate, has declared an unwillingness to do further research, and has implied that only an expert in Etruscan mythology can mediate the page. Not even an attempt at intervention by a university professor whose Ph.D. dissertation at U.C. Berkeley was on Charun has succeeded: the deadlock remains.

During my time as a Wikipedian I have responded to over 100 requests for comment and other forms of informal mediation. This is the first occasion that has prompted me to start a user conduct RfC as a neutral third party: I would have suggested formal mediation, but that has already been tried. The normal functions of page locking are to protect high traffic pages from vandals or to impose a temporary cooldown in an edit war. This page protection has continued for the better part of a month and it appears to me that a new form of dispute resolution is needed. Having conferred with the other moderator from the third opinion request (who agrees with my assessment), I open this user conduct RfC in the hope that it will resolve the dilemma. Durova 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

On August 10, 2006 Glengordon01 began editing at Charun and left a message on the article talk page that this Etruscan god carried a labrys instead of a hammer. This editor has been adamant that the article ought to state that, but has failed to provide an encyclopedic source that specifically states so. The page's other editor Scottandrewhutchins has located ten references that specifically call Charun's implement a hammer.

The page has been edit protected since August 25, 2006 because of this dispute and the two parties have been in formal mediation since that date with no progress and no prospect of progress. The dispute has spilled onto the French language Wikipedia article about Charun. Glengordon01 refuses to agree to unlock the page, to seek additional research, or to accept the feedback of impartial third parties. Although neither party to this dispute has behaved impeccably, the majority of uncivil and uncooperative behavior has been on the part of Glengordon01.

[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.)

[edit] Charun article edits

  1. Deletion of cited information:[1], [2], [3].
  2. Having repeatedly removed the article's only citation, removes the unreferenced template as well: [4].

[edit] Talk:Charun incivility

  1. Combative tone: "Scottandrewhutchins, again with the crap." and "... your sources are hog manure. Please, grow up. (Or if you're under 12, perhaps you should consider asking your parents to help you.)"[5].
  2. Sarcasm and incivility:[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].
  3. Personal attacks: [12], [13]

[edit] Inflexibility

  1. Refuses to seek sources: [14].
  2. Attacks neutral party: [15].
  3. Attacks existing citations rather than providing requested citations (with a rude edit note): [16].

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:V
  2. WP:NOR
  3. WP:RS
  4. WP:CIVIL
  5. WP:NPA
  6. WP:POINT

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

  1. A neutral party responds from the third opinion page: [17], follows up [18].
  2. Wikiquette alert response: [19].
  3. The author of one of the cited sources responds on User talk:Glengordon01: [20]
  4. Invitation to work out a compromise: [21].

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Durova 21:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
  2. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 13:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Scottandrewhutchins 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC) I don't believe I became uncivil about this until I had to deal with repeated personal attacks and accusations of bad faith and vandalism, on which Glengordon01 continually demonstrated a hypocritical attitude.
  2. Ace of Sevens 07:42, 15 September 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.}

The complaints are lead by User:Scottandrewhutchins and they are untenable because of a longer list of offenses on his part that have not stopped, particularly the personal provocations on my own talk page. I feel that I'm spending more time forced to defend my honour now, then pursuing my area of interest without slander.

[edit] Misrepresentation by User:Scottandrewhutchins

1. Repeatedly ignoring sources provided here and elsewhere on Charun's discussion page : [22], [23]
However sources already cited many times to no avail, sources which state that Scottandrewhutchins' "idée fixe" absolutions are only opinions, not facts, and reasonable doubt is justified:
1. Massimo Pallottino, The Etruscans (1975), p 149
Explains Charun and the "pessimistic" afterlife, admitting possibility of other interpretations.
2. Arnobius, II, 62
Etruscan religion offers "salvation" through animal sacrifice funeral rite, hence their underworld not just a place of torture as per modern Christian bias (eg: Werner Keller's The Etruscans, comparing Etr.deities to "angels" and "demons", and yet his previous book The Bible as History).
3. Servius, ad Aen., III, 168
More about animal sacrifice (supporting Arnobius' mention of salvation).
4. Martianus Capella, II, 142
Supports "happier", less sensationalist version of Etruscan afterlife.
5. J. A. MacCulloch, The Religion of the Ancient Celts (1911), p. 30
Hammer and axe linked by same symbolisms across Europe and Near East.
6. Robert S. P. Beekes, The Origin of the Etruscans, p 31-32
Explains use of double-axe as symbol of authority in Etruria.
2. Libel by attributing wrong quotes to others to attack credibility (ie: Marxism comments): [24]
3. Using a purported lack of sources as excuses to attack credibility: [25]
4. My little faith in cooperating with Scottandrewhutchins (stated clearly here [26]), given the long list of his vandalisms, edit wars and his subsequent block has been distorted to mean "unwilling to cooperate", as per complaint above, which is just not the case.

[edit] Talk:Charun incivility

  1. Unsourced "poetic license": Charun, [27]
  2. Personal attacks: [28], [29], [30],[31]

[edit] More personal attacks on talk pages by User_talk: Scottandrewhutchins

  1. Harrassment on User_talk:Glengordon01: [32], [33], [34]
  2. Harrassment and accusations on User_talk:CanadianCaesar: [35]
  3. Harrassment and accusations on User_talk:Doc glasgow: [36]
  4. Accusations on User_talk:Alphachimp : [37]

[edit] More attacks on Gremlins by User_talk: Scottandrewhutchins

  1. Accusations: [38], [39], [40], [41] (directed towards User_talk:CanadianCaesar)

[edit] User_talk: Scottandrewhutchins causing multiple edit wars / vandalism / accusations

  1. edit-wars on Gremlins
  2. edit-wars on Charun
  3. edit-wars on Vanth (I've left Scottandrewhutchins' unsourced nonsense there to avoid another 3RR fiasco: "She was the herald of death, [...] and inhaled good demons")
  4. unsourced nonsense, vandalism on Emmet Fox: [42], [43], [44]
  5. edit-wars, accusations on Homeric Question: [45], [46]
  6. deletion vandalism on Phoenix Theatre: [47]
  7. hostility on Monster in My Pocket: [48]

[edit] Warnings and block (on User_talk:Scottandrewhutchins)

  1. Warnings for violating WP:Civility
  2. Block initiated by User_talk:Doc glasgow: [49] (edit-warring and violating WP:Civility)

[edit] 3rd party fueling conflict

1. Personal attacks:
User_talk:ONUnicorn:
[50]
"Oh, and by the way, if you want references for all that I said about the derivatives of the Christian view of the afterlife, I have a book from the course I took on it in college, and I could cite the book, but why would I take time out from my busy life to dig through old textbooks and try to find the one I'm looking for, when you won't take time out from your busy life to source your position." (However, Christian afterlife irrelevant to topic, and my position is already sourced. Sarcasm don't encourage people to find more sources; it encourages them to leave WP altogether.)
2. Misrepresentation
[51] (I never said anything of the kind; this is angry paraphrasing.)
[52] (persistent dismissal without reasons of cited references)
[53] (admitting little knowledge of mythology, let alone Etruscan mythology, dismissal of cited sources, characterizing me as "original research" despite sources, misrepresenting my position as "your repeated insistence that the modern view of Charun is derived from a Christian view of Satan and Hell." which is not what I said at all, in fact, the total opposite! I said Etruscan interpretations by MODERN authors are biased by MODERN Christian beliefs, not that Charun is derived from or associated in any way with Christian views!)
3. Yet constant dismissals or purposeful ignorance of cited sources:
[54] (exactly how are the above sources "off-topic")
[55] (what exactly isn't understood at this point? vague questions stifle discussion.)
4. Admitted lack of knowledge in subject they mediate, thereby creating confusion:
User_talk:Durova: [56]
"You're right, Glen - I've got no expertise on Etruscan mythology."
User_talk:ONUnicorn: [57]
"I'm not an expert on mythology (though I'm not totally uninformed in the area), and my knowledge of mythology does not extend much into the Etruscan."

[edit] Poor sources/wording on current version of Charun

1. Use of science fiction authors who naturally lack authority on Etruscan mythology and constitute a 2nd- or 3rd-hand source:
  • Rovin, Jeff. The Encyclopedia of Monsters. New York: Facts on File, 1989. p. 50
2. Emotive statements stated as fact, showing WP:NPOV violation:
" Charun loves violence and participating in warfare."
3. Vague statements from secondhand sources lacking explanation:
"Rovin says that some accounts (though he does not say which) depict him with a sword, and that he "slices" souls with it."

[edit] Poor sources/wording on current version of related Vanth page

1. Use of science fiction authors who naturally lack authority on Etruscan mythology and constitute a 2nd- or 3rd-hand source:
  • Rovin, Jeff. The Encyclopedia of Monsters. New York: Facts on File, 1989. p. 50
2. Invalid sources by sci-fi authors with unauthoritative opinions:
"Jeff Rovin believes that she encourages people to be violent and is attracted by open graves and tombs."
3. Unsourced pet theories stated as fact:
" She was the herald of death, assisted ill people on their deathbeds and inhaled good demons."


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Glengordon01

[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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Glengordon01_da95.html"