Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Go for it!

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: 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Go for it! (talk • contribs • logs)

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

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
- 3.1 Outside view by Lethe
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.

He is unwilling to take criticism seriously. Shows lack of respect for other's opinions. Mis-use of voting procedure. Keeps attempting to overhaul prominent page without community approval, and without sufficient experience to understand the confusion he is creating.

[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.}

Go for it! keeps trying visual and navigational design experiments on prominent pages such as the Community Portal creating hundreds of aesthetic-tweak edits over a matter of days. He has been asked numerous times in the case of the Community Portal, to take his experimentation to a draft page until complete, this was ignored. He takes an attitude of ownership towards pages he has edited, or features he has added. He has conducted confusing design experiments just to prove a point. Most recently he started a straw poll for the stated purpose of getting feedback on redesign drafts, but then stated elsewhere that it was purely a political mechanism he was using to get his design reinstated, when the problems it was removed for had still not been changed.

These attitudes were also encountered at the Help talk:Contents page, during the Main Page redesign, and elsewhere.

[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 warring at Community Portal on March 31 and April 1
edit warring at Help:Contents on March 31
edit warring at Community Portal/Redesign on April 3 - setting up the draft project, then the poll.
Talk page spamming

[edit] Dispute with Go for it! on Monday (April 3) at Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign

When an admin revert back to a stable version and protected Wikipedia:Community Portal, User:Go for it! finally came over to the Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft page to participate, only to blank it and insert his version of the design as "the draft". There had been another version that was being collaboratively worked on. I stepped in and made the draft "redesign" page into a project page, and moved both drafts to subpages (Draft1 and Draft2). He then shuffled the draft pages around, making his "Draft0" instead of "Draft2". I reverted that and set them up, with his as "Draft1a" and the other "Draft1b". He then blanked the project page and inserted a poll. He conceded to keep the project details there, but then I had to argue [1] [2] [3] with him over use of headings. The purpose of the poll was also a moving target, initially to decide what design style/direction the draft project should take. He changed that to make a referendum on getting his version restored to the current Community Portal page. He then went on to talk page spamming to solicit votes. When warned about this, he then left messages on several project pages: Help desk, Village pump (proposals), Village pump (technical), Community Bulletin Board. It was super annoying and frustrating to have to argue all this with him on Monday. Though, had I not been around to fight this, he would have just bulldozed through the Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft page, completely overtaking the place and disregarding others. Since December when I met him here, I've seen his abundant enthusiasm for Wikipedia. And, while I dislike some of his design ideas, he does have some good ideas too. I've gone to great lengths to assume good faith and work with him on various matters. This dispute with him is not specifically over the aesthetics of the community portal, but the manner in which it was created (through iterative changes, constant shuffling things around, and treating it as a sandbox). His designs have some issues with their use of color, and the coding (accessibility issues, particularly for those using screenreaders). However, I was hesistant to go in and make these fixes, as he would likely see my edits and assistance as endorsement of his design and editing process. --Aude (talk | contribs) 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] His user and talk pages

His user page archiving techniques are sneaky and deceptive. Look at the edit history for his User page, and there are only two edits. On April 1, he moved his user page to the subpage User:Go for it!/lab3. As a subpage, it technically qualifies for speedy deletion (Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User_pages). However, I consider these sneaky moves and speedy deletion requests as blatant violation of the policies. As an admin, I can see the deletion records where I find:

18:07, 1 April 2006 . . Go for it! (moved User:Go for it!/lab3 to User:Go for it!/Workshop/lab3: move to proper subpage)
Somewhere in the process the User:Go for it!/lab3 was blanked, moved or something.
06:44, 2 April 2006 Wiki alf deleted "User:Go for it!/lab3" (U1 applies - user requested deletion - content was: '{{delete}}housekeeping - useless redirect - toss' (and the only contributor was 'Go for it!'))
12:52, 2 April 2006 . . Go for it! (edit to User:Go for it!/Workshop/lab3, where he blanked the user page and replaced it with "{{delete}} housekeeping - old draft - toss".
13:01, 2 April 2006 Chairboy deleted "User:Go for it!/Workshop/lab3" (content was: '{{delete}}housekeeping - old draft - toss')

And now his user page history is gone, with non-admins unable to see the history.

He hasn't had his talk page archives deleted (that I'm aware of), but also does sneaky moves with them. The only way I can find old comments I left for him on his talk page are by using Interiot's tool and looking through my own contributions there. I find these habits with his user and talk page quite annoying. I'm also disappointed that admins User:Wiki alf and User:Chairboy didn't look at these page histories, went along with this, and granted his speedy delete requests. This makes it exceedingly difficult to have a conversation with User:Go for it!, provide constructive feedback, and work with him on the Community Portal and other matters. --Aude (talk | contribs) 15:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional note on page moves

Among Goforit's page moves of 2 April 2006 was a move of his talk page to User:Go for it!/Workshop/Library. One effect of this move is that the history of his proper talk page reaches back only to 2 April 2006 and edits that were made to his talk page prior to that date are found in the history of User:Go for it!/Workshop/Library. Several conversations relevant to the case under discussion are therefore not at his talk page (or its history) where they were originally held and where one would expect to find them. Apparently no link to the new location was provided. Moving a talk page to an unusual location without leaving a link makes it difficult to locate past discussion and should be avoided. Kosebamse 20:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] Applicable guidelines

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

(provide diffs and links)

Previously warned

Criticisms of his unilateral editing habits, and unprofessional visual design skills.

His talk page archive. The bottom third, particularly:

User talk page - February 8th
[4]
[5]
[6]

Most recent ignoring of criticism.

Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Redesign/Poll_archive#Let.27s_continue_the_discussion.__A_vote_is_premature_at_this_point
User_talk:Go_for_it!#Community_Portal_2
Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal#Stop_changing_the_community_portal_design (current community portal talk page)

Other relevant pages.

Community Portal at time of dispute filing.
Community Bulletin Board at time of dispute, with his notice at top implying redesign project leadership.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(Note: the above summary has been edited after being signed by some of the users below. That may be not the proper procedure as they may not agree with the content added. I will notify those involved Kosebamse 20:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC))

Quiddity 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
--Aude (talk | contribs) 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) - regretfully, other means haven't worked. (there have been some additions to the above statement, since I first signed. I agree with what's been added. --Aude (talk | contribs) 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC))
--Barberio 09:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Regretfully. Kosebamse 09:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC). (I disagree with the assessment "sneaky and deceptive" but agree that page moves of the type described are confusing and the impression of deceptiveness may arise Kosebamse 20:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC))
the wub "?!" 10:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

Ambi 06:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Here T oHelp 20:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC) - This is not to say that he does not make some good contributions or bring up some good ideas. That being said, I agree.
I've examined the dispute (in which I'm uninvolved), and the summary appears to be accurate. This is consistent with the behavior exhibited by Go for it! in his interactions with me. He does have a tendency to assert ownership, and he seems to believes that it's his duty to "plow ahead" with his edits, irrespective of outside feedback. When challenged, he often criticizes others' failure to "be bold." —David Levy 05:07, 8 April 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.}

[edit] Outside view by Lethe

Go for it's editing technique leaves me rather frustrated. When there is a disagreement, he almost never replies on the talk page. First he brings it to my user talk page, scolding me for reverting him. Then he posts 4 (!) new sections in the help talk:contents page, having never responded to my original comment, nor any of my responses to his 4 new postings. Garg! It's like he only has write access only to talk pages. Dialogue is very difficult, though in the end, it can be forced. I have an unverifiable suspicion that he sometimes acts in a dishonest way: for example he claimed he was changing the page because it shouldn't use templates, but I believe he was using that as a backdoor to revert to his version after the template had gotten away from his control. Ditto for his arguments about dialup speeds, which he conveniently forgot when it was pointed out that his work is also download-heavy with all its icons.

On the whole, I don't agree with his vision for WP:HELP, and I don't appreciate his disruptive way of ignoring the voices of other editors.