User:Hipocrite/BD7RFC

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:BigDaddy777 is a new editor to Wikipedia who is either unable or unwilling to try to work with the community. While some of the changes he makes to politically loaded articles head towards improving the quality, they are surrounded with talk page behavior that serves to inflame disputes, and other article space edits that are little more than POV pushing. While the passion he shows for his subjects is admirable, I feel that it is important that we try to work together rather than apart, to that end, I have filed this RFC to get a full spectrum of perspectives about how BD777, and minority editors in general, can best prosecute their case without prosecuting their opposition.

I would like to note that I do not believe that this issue is easily solvable with jus a few slight modifications to behavior.. This RFC is an attempt to get the community to help convince BD777 that his behavior is in no way helping to improve this project, or even push his POV into article space. I would hope that he takes the advice contained herein to heart, and becomes the productive contributor that I saw the promise for when I first tried to moderate his behavior. He needs to stop reporting people and playing games and instead make articles better.

As an additional note, this RFC also serves to inform BD777 that he needs to stop putting newlines between each of his sentences on talk pages.

[edit] Description

User:BigDaddy777 is a new contributor to Wikipedia who has failed to assume good faith, engages in personal attacks, and is generally uncivil. While it seems he has valuable contributions to add to Wikipedia in balancing out what he perceives to be a liberal bias on Wikipedia (which is a view shared by many), he unfortunately emphasizes polemics over arguments to make his point. Typically large, the content of his edits on the talk pages generally consist of one or two small changes sandwiched between name-calling, attacking other editors, and exhibiting a complete lack of good faith on his part. In the few short days he has been on Wikipedia (first edit on September 1st), he seems to be highly bitter about his perception of Wikipedia's liberal bias and insists it is intentionally kept this way.

An illustrative example is seen in his unfortunate disagreement with cosponsor Kizzle.

In an isolated post on the divisive Talk Page for Cindy Sheehan, BD777 wrote this:

"Has anyone jumped the shark quicker than Cindy Sheehan? Thanks to Matt Drudge and Fox News revealing her true feelings about Israel and Bush, she's now got ZERO following. My condolences go out to all the left wing propagandizers masquerading as editors in here who CONTROL the content so that it slants left. Sheehan as Rosa Parks??? I guess it just goes to show you can't change reality by manufacturing a fictional narrative in an encyclopedia, huh?" - [1]

This is just on example of the worthless political point scoring that typifies BD777's first contribution to a talk page - it's designed to inflame other editors to attack. Please note that this talk page contribution was totally unrelated to any article space contribution - it seemed more like a message board contribution.

Sadly, editor Kizzle bit:

"Thanks for the laugh Big Daddy, it's always fun to hear accusations of the left-wing wiki cabal. I'd respond to your comment but I'm afraid that would constitute feeding the troll." - [2]

Having hooked his liberal, BD777 bored in:

Fo shizzle, my Kizzle. I always knew in my heart that, in Wikipedia, any conservative voice would be considered a troll. Thanks for confirming my suspcion. [3]

Kizzle, realizing that he might have overstepped what was appropriate, offered to withhold my previous label if he would withold his personal attacks:

"As for "firing a shot across the bow" at you, I really really hate it when people complain that there is some secret organization of liberals that "control the content", and it did seem that you were soliciting a hostile response, as in the very definition of trolling. You certainly weren't trying to be civil. But I will withdraw my previous label of troll if you withdraw your personal attacks." - [4]

But that was to little too late, and since this exchange, BD777 has unleashed an unrelenting tirade of personal attacks. This pattern of behavior typifies his relations.

BigDaddy continues to deride and attack those who disagree with him and it does not seem that his tirades will slow down anytime soon. I personally have pleaded with him more than several times to stop hostilities towards his fellow editors, thus while I do not want to bite the newcomer, I feel that he has been warned far more than his share.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

The following section is just a snippet of BigDaddy's "style" of discourse, note that it has only taken 9 days to rack up what is on this list, which represents about half of BigDaddy's hostile comments.

  • "What the heck is this - the winner of the essay competition in the Special Olympics???" - [5]
  • "I'm only guessing, but I THINK this 'brain surgeon' is referring to Ann's recent comments about New York CITY that it's citizens would 'surrender' if attacked by terrorists." - [6]
  • "Sheesh what is it with you WackiWiki Liberals???" - [7]
  • "I am beginning to question your abilities as an editor at Wikipedia. You seem to lack the most basic skills of reading comprehension and in addtion to an obviouls lack of common sense. However, I do not want to make this a personal attack." - [8]
  • "But, it serves his purpose of trying to guilt trip Ann..." - [9]
  • "Wow!...you liberals really do OVERPLAY your hand...dontcha?" - [10]
  • "All this says to me that those folks are completely UNqualified to be editors..." - [11]
  • "To suggest that it is **I** who am bringing a POV to this HATCHET JOB + would be laughable, if it weren't so pathetic." - [12]
  • "I'm gonna take a wild guess and say you don't have a clue." - [13]
  • "My condolences go out to all the left wing propagandizers masquerading as editors in here who CONTROL the content so that it slants left." - [14]
  • "I edited this whole section It was HORRIBLY written (no suprise - hateful rage does tend to impinge upon people's intellectual capacities)" - [15]
  • "Also, and I'm sure much to the chagrin of the liberal editors here, I took out most of those nasty vicious ad hominem attacks that you guys just love to smear Coulter with (even in her encyclopedia entry.)" - [16]
  • "He ownly disowned her in the wonderful world of Wikipedia where, a liberal democrat can do no wrong and a Christian is always the bad guy." - [17]
  • "You liberals are insane!! You are so DRIPPING WITH HATE FOR FOX NEWS that you can't even mention Roger Ailes without cheap shotting him? Why not just say ...'Roger Ailes of Fox News, who has a large ass boil on his right butt cheek!'???" - [18]
  • "Good God liberals....chill out. The constant oozing of all that hate can't be good for your health..." - [19]
  • "Oh you poor misguided soul... Don't you know that the liberal editors at Wikipedia feel it is their MISSION TO "discredit O'Reilly as a TV commentator"??" - [20]
  • "You might have better luck trying that argument in metafilter. I see thru insincere drivel like this as if it was saran wrap." - [21]

[edit] Applicable policies

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

User:Hipocrite tries to restore normality: (BD777 had racked up quite a page of test warnings) [22] [23] [24] [25]

He's rebuked: [26]

Tries again: [27]

No responce. User:Hipocrite goes to another contentious article, and tries the same approach: [28]

The responce from BD777 is offputting - "let's get it on" is language you use for a fight, not a collaberation. That's the least of the problem: [29]

Tries to show BD777 how to disagree thoughtfully: [30]

But that advice is ignored for yet another "Liberals" screed: [31]

Which gets the "why don't you fix it, then": [32]

The responce is that his changes don't stick: [33]

So I'd back him up if his changes didn't suck (and I have, and I will): [34]

And it seems like that's going to work. But it dosent: [35]

I try to refocus on the change, not the liberals. [36]

But then the threat to go and mess up other pages is more obvious: [37]

I tell him to talk about changes to the article, and repeat my suggestion: [38]

This pattern continues (Hipocrite: What's wrong with the article? Suggest some changes please. BigDaddy777: Liberal bias is ruining wikipedia) for editor after editor, comment after comment. Eventually it's not "liberal bias," but "you, and your liberal editor friends." Some other example of others trying desperately to get BD777 to talk about edits, not editors and reporting people:

  • I'd also like to clear up another misunderstanding that I think you have. There are no "supervisors" on Wikipedia who "greenlight" content, and Wikipedia does not "give approval" for certain passages. We are all editors and contributors here who try to make the pages the best they can be. Not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." Instead, merely bring it up here with a concise, logical argument as to why it should be changed and what it should be changed to. Look at Paul Klenk, Mongo, Noitall (most of the time), they are conservative editors who try to discuss changes with those they disagree with rather than attack them. Don't inflame the situation here by turning it into a left/right war or claiming that conservative viewpoints are suppressed. There are several conservative editors here who are successful at getting their content inserted into articles because they politely discuss their changes through logical arguments rather than ad hominem attacks. - [39]
  • ...My point is not debatable. You must conduct yourself according to Wikipedia policy (and it is a very reasonable policy) of discussing, avoiding personal attacks, and assuming good faith. Like I said before, not everything is perfect on Wikipedia and surely there will be passages that are biased to the left or right. If you see one of these, the first step you shouldn't take is to either attack the passage as "retarded" or call the person who wrote it either a "brain surgeon" or "winner in the Special Olympics." If someone is harassing you, report them. Don't turn it into a justification to behave in an equal manner. - [40]
  • "That's not how it works. There are rules and guidelines here. You don't get to deride other people and their work and force the rest of us to wade through your posts consisting of 15% reason and 85% polemics... Assume good faith, No Personal Attacks, and until you adhere to these guidelines, you are the issue. I sound like a broken record at this point: Don't use other people's bad behavior to excuse yours. It's time you learned to be civil and discuss your arguments rather than encourage hostilities around here. You still have not defended your actions but have merely responded that I am picking on you. Nobody should make these attacks, be it liberal or conservative (and you are' making these attacks, I have previously documented it), but every word that comes out of your mouth seems to be deriding someone or assumg bad faith on the rest of us. Stop now. - [41]
  • "Seriously, unless you tone down the hostility in editing on Wikipedia, you are going to be subject to dispute resolution. I, along with several others, have pleaded for you to calm down and discuss changes without personally attacking or assuming bad faith on the part of your co-editors. Please for the love of all that is good and holy ASSUME GOOD FAITH and STOP PERSONALLY ATTACKING PEOPLE!! - [42]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

[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.

{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] 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 a vote or 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../../../h/i/p/User%7EHipocrite_BD7RFC_647f.html"