Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Heja helweda

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 25 Mar 2006 00:40 UTC.

---

• (Cool Cat | talk | contributions)

---

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 1.2.1 Heja helweda (talk • contribs) 1.2.1.1 Neutrality 1.2.1.2 bad faith 1.3 Applicable policies 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.

• I feel the users in question have repetively stayed hostile/incivil towards all parties not suited to their POV. Users have been warned to stay civil by a number of users but I observed no improvement in their behaviour. On ocasions users rained threats (axamples are given below).
• It could also be said on some occasions users were writing highly biased articles if not pov pushing. In my view users lack the basic understanding of neutrality. On many occasions, users work together in making similar biased edits which could be viewed as systematic bias.

[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.}

[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] Heja helweda (talk • contribs)

[edit] Neutrality

1. Kingdom_of_Kurdistan: 00:55, 3 March 2006 - User:Heja helweda - Northern Kurdistan (Southeastern Turkey)
   • • The Kingdom of Kurdistan did not last long, thanks to the British Royal Air Force acting on behalf of a puppet government in Baghdad. The British were not much kinder to the Kurds. It is wrongly preserved that the first regime that used poison gases against Kurds was Saddam Hussein’s government. This is wrong. British were the first regime to gas Kurds in Iraqi Kurdistan.
   • Hardly neutral. Especialy the 'gas attack' section summerised above.

[edit] bad faith

1. User is responsible for a number of articles that violate copyrights. I noticed some and marked them as copy vios due to a request by User:FrancisTyers [1]
   • In retaliation he 'found' copy vios on a number of articles related to turkey [2]. On one case mislabeled [3] as a copy vio as the page contained information from the cia world factbook, a pd source.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks
2. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View

[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}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
2. Really shouldn't post copyvio text. - FrancisTyers 11:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
3. ManiF 23:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[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.

The copyright issues were mainly due to my lack of experience. Following the insightful comments by some users (like Cool Cat and FrancisTyers), those issues have been fixed in the following articles : Kurdish Institute of Paris, Kurdish Institute of Istanbul, Kurdish PEN and International Journal of Kurdish Studies. As for the quote on Churchill, it was taken from a well known website about Kurds[4](under British role in the destruction of the Kurdistan Kingdom), though I agree that the sentence was not encyclopedic. Heja Helweda 05:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

1. FrancisTyers 11:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[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 (sign with ~~~~):

[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.