User:G2bambino/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Desired outcome

TharkunColl should edit in conformance to Wikipedia policies, namely WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:CON. Editing should not be driven by verifiable and cited facts, as opposed to a paranoia over percieved slights to the United Kingdom.

[edit] Description

While User:TharkunColl initially seems to have been a productive editor in his first few weeks contributing to Wikipedia, when he focused on solely on pre-Commonwealth English monarchs, his actions became disruptive after coming to articles focusing on the more modern situation with the Commonwealth monarchy, wherein the Crown is shared internationally.

Often urged to take his dispute to a related talk page, TharkunColl does not cooperate well in discussions, repeatedly putting forward the same assertions, yet without proper supporting references, thus making his claims indemonstrable. However, because of this, these commonly reached decisions will often not be favourable to TharkunColl. Frequently ignoring these common decisions, the user will then continue to instigate conflicts in editing articles by removing that which he deems inappropriate, sometimes breaching set guidelines, either at the same article, or by moving on to another one to start the same dispute again. This then spreads the same essential argument across a number of articles, consuming othe users' time and resulting in recurrent page locks. As the conflict heats up, talk page comments and edit summarties become abbrasive and demeaning, offending and frustrating a number of other users. Despite not having sufficient supporting evidence for his claims, users who do edit according to verifiability guidelines are labelled by TharkunColl as promoters of an anti-UK agenda, thereby implying these contributors are editing for less than honourable reasons.

His talk page and block log show a long list of warnings and requests pertaining to civility and edit warring, as well as a number of blocks for violating 3RR. A Wikiquette alert further illustrated that others, not involved in any disputes with TharkunColl, were concerned with his behaviour and tendencies.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Talk pages show evidence of the tendenitious behaviour, incivility, flaunting of consensus, etc.:

Removal of cited material with no or irrational commentary:

Dismissal of consensus and/or cited and/or NPOV material in order to promote/protect pro-British POV:

Uncivil reactions to user's tending of own talk page:

Accusations of others' enforcement of consensus and/or cited material as being POV and/or against the UK:

Threatening to dismiss discussion/due process and/or revert war:

Strange accusation of G2bambino as being IRA, anti-British: [55]

Uncivil edit summary:

Dismissal of request that he take his accusations of POV and bad faith editing to ArbCom; promise to continue editing in his own fashion:

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. User talk:Kmweber/Archive5#Self-noms at RfA
  2. User talk:Kmweber/Archive5#AGF (re your oppose votes)
  3. User talk:Kmweber

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Diez2 05:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC) (note:I left a note on his talk page, I'm guessing that qualifies me for this section)
  2. Jaranda wat's sup 06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Agree. The behavior of the editor is disruptive to the community by assuming -- "prima facie" -- bad faith and merely trying to make a point. Bearian 00:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

[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] Outside view by XXX

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.

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.

[edit] Links

  1. Antigua and Barbuda
  2. Australia
  3. The Bahamas
  4. Barbados
  5. Belize
  6. Canada
  7. Ceylon
  8. Fiji
  9. Gambia
  10. Ghana
  11. Grenada
  12. Guyana
  13. Jamaica
  14. Kenya
  15. Malawi
  16. Malta
  17. Mauritius
  18. New Zealand
  19. Nigeria
  20. Pakistan
  21. Papua New Guinea
  22. Rhodesia
  23. Saint Kitts and Nevis
  24. Saint Lucia
  25. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
  26. Sierra Leone
  27. Solomon Islands
  28. South Africa
  29. Tanganyika
  30. Trinidad and Tobago
  31. Tuvalu
  32. Uganda
  33. United Kingdom

[edit] Links