Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Ril-

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: 10:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[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.

--Feel free to correct my paragraph numbering.

[edit] Description

~~~~ or User:-Ril- stated on the revenge RfC he filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany that the extensive discussions of his conduct on that page were appropriate for an RfC against him, and he noted none had been filed yet.

-Ril- has engaged in a series of disruptive behavior on Wikipedia. He has:

  • Engaged in personal attacks through stalking and revenge reverts and edits against other users
  • Engaged in RfC certification fraud
  • Engaged in article vandalism by deleting (multiple times) an editor's statements
  • Engaged in disruption of Wiki
  • Used misleading and deceptive edit summaries
  • Attacked other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions
  • Attacked users who questioned his claims
  • Vandalism
  • Sockpuppetry

A large number of his edits are for the purpose of harassing/attacking other users or otherwise disrupting Wikipedia.

I don't know if it is necessary to continue updating all the things -Ril- continues to do since it appears that his actions would only reinforce opinions, but since -Ril- continues to do them, perhaps it is appropriate to continue until an appropriate decision is made.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Engaged in personal attacks through stalking and revenge reverts and edits against other users
  2. Engaged in RfC certification fraud
  3. Engaged in article vandalism by deleting (multiple times) an editor's statements
  4. Engaged in disruption of Wiki - what more could be said?
  5. Used misleading and deceptive edit summaries
  6. Attacked other users, particularly admins, who have corrected his actions
    • stating that 1 3RR was because the admin involved was "high on codeine"
    • including deleting this: -Ril- erased responses to his own requests to Admins and accused 6 Admins of trolling [9] Ril's reason: (→Administrators contacted by -Ril- who have declined to unblock - r.v. UninvitedCompany. This is my talk page. Stop trolling.):
      • Administrators contacted by -Ril- who have declined to unblock:
    1. Hello. I have no interest in trying to be a part in the conflict about your recent reversions. It is certainly not reasonable for me to unblock you just because I had another opinion than the blocking admin. As I'm not part of the story and don't know about it's full extents I prefer to stay out of the discussion too. — Sverdrup 01:03, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    2. As do I. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    3. Ditto (correction: I had no opinion or for that matter knowledge of it, I simply can't spare the time to involve myself in the dispute). El_C 05:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    4. Since the block is not indefinite, I don't think it's appropriate to intervene, jimfbleak 05:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    5. On a related note, I have received your email. I would prefer not to get involved in this matter at all due to the complexity of the case. There is a message about this block from Noitall at WP:AN/I - RedWordSmith 03:38, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
    6. I'm not interested in being a part of this either. I'm on vacation, anyway. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. Attacked users who questioned his claims
    • Everyone
  8. Vandalism and Sockpuppetry
  9. Major disruption: -Ril- has gotten in the following major disputes:
    • 3RR on Religious conflict and Islam where he reverted User:Germen, given a 24 hour block
    • 3RR on The Bible and history where he reverted User:Noitall, User:Mel Etitis, User:Jayjg and was given a 72 hour block for 14 reverts, emailed lots of Admins to release the block, the day after releasing the block, he reverted 3 times before page was protected.
    • 3RR on George W. Bush where he stalked User:Noitall onto the page, then altered his tactic, replacing a conclusion statement by User:Noitall with an opposite comment not germane to the issue, then went into revert mode with User:MONGO and Voice of All(MTG).
    • It Continues - Ril- back from 3RR and finding this RfC, immediately back to same deletion/insertion that caused the 3RR against him (reverts 2, or 3, more times). [13][14][15]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct} Failure to follow:

  1. Wikipedia:Consensus
  2. Wikipedia:Negotiation
  3. Wikipedia:Third opinion
  4. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes
  5. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule For considering the three-revert rule as an entitlement. For gaming the system to use the 3RR to continue edit wars. For assuming that he has an inalienable right to three reverts every 24 hours and to endorse reverts as an editing technique. For persistent reversion. For failure to work properly with others.
  6. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point- For ignoring questions. For not providing good reasons why he thinks it's appropriate. For not removing or summarizing disputes that he initiated. For not giving good edit summaries, so his actions are clear and transparent.
  7. Wikipedia:Blocking policy for seeking to evade the 72 hour block
  8. Numerous behavior issues
  9. Vandalism
  10. Sockpuppetry

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. See User talk:-Ril- entire talk page for many attempts[16].
  2. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany for an entire page of attempts.
  3. prior instance of attempts at mediation with -Ril-: [17]
    • Wesley, please be my guest. Two other editors have tried to intercede to no avail. The problem is that -Ril- does not have an edit dispute, he has targeted me. He has done so on about 40 pages so far as he trolls my edits. I keep threatening to do an RfC, but it seems like such a waste of time and effort when I would prefer to be editing. Bottom line, ignoring for the moment his personal vendetta against me, he says "POV" about 100 times without ever once stating what is POV. Jayjg suggested a change to the edit and made it and it was fine. -Ril- even reverted that thinking that I made the edit. Wesley, if you want to stroll into -Ril-world, you are welcome to try. Note his stuborness and crazy disputes on his talk page, as we speak. In fact, I will follow whatever recommendation you make. --Noitall 05:38, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Attempt by SlimVirgin [18][19]
  5. -Ril- claims he can do anything he wants since an RfC has not been filed against him yet, [20], and justifies his actions by his numbers of edits

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Noitall 09:37, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  2. --MONGO 09:51, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I agree with this overall and do believe that there is a serious problem, though Noitall may have overstated certain aspects of the situation. In particular, I do not believe that "stalking" is neccesarily problematic as such, and I am unconcerned over the possible certification problems at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany for reasons I have stated elsewhere. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Agree with this assesment, Ril's going to end up on ArbCom if he doesn't cool down. Klonimus 20:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Calton | Talk 02:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC). That he hasn't (as he claims) pursued vendettas against other admins that have blocked him says nothing about whether he's pursuing one now.
  6. Changing my endorsement to certification. User:-Ril- has seen fit to bring me into the fray, and I feel full certification is called for. I would also endorse and support a call for Arbcomm action on User:-Ril-. This RfC has only served to prove he is a purposefully disruptive element with no desire to change his ways, listen to constructive criticism of his behavior, or become a positive member of Wikipedia. Agriculture 02:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. He is disruptive and uncivil, and seems to be completely uninterested in collaboration or Wikipedia guidelines and customs. He has, it is true, been up against some Islamophobe PoV-pushers and disruptors (at least one of whom has certified this RfC), but that doesn't justify his behaviour, which is in any case general.
    A word on stalking: if an editor sees a poor edit, it's perfectly acceptable to check the User's contributions to see if that type of mistake has been made elsewhere (link-spamming, misspellings, PoV additions, etc.); what's not acceptable is to go through someone's contributions on spec, hoping to find something to tinker with. My impression is that -Ril- has done the latter. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
    • both Mel Etitis and The Uninvited have discussed stalking and I recognize there is a sliding scale here and hope we can continue the discussion on another page. In this case, it was a combination of shadowing on more than 40 pages, reverts and comments intended to stir up trouble, and reverts and comments only targeting one editor rather than the article itself, and reverts and comments taken by that editor contrary to positions taken before or on other similar pages (noting, for example, getting in edit wars for pages for Csd while deleting mine in an edit war). --Noitall 13:55, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd like to say that I agree with User:Noitall and think User:-Ril- has been stalking him purposefully to disrupt his activities on the Wikipedia. Reviewing User:-Ril-'s edit history makes this very clear, IMHO. Agriculture 18:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. Any of the interested parties here should probably see -Ril-'s current arbitration case, where I have apparently become an involved party, and add your evidence. Dmcdevit·t 07:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Agriculture 12:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Is it more appropriate for me to certify or endorse? Agriculture 20:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Karl Meier 22:00, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. -Ril- is a serious threat to Wikipedia. Factitious 02:24, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
  4. -Ril-'s behaviour in this regard is indicative of his general lack of respect for other editors and the project. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:00, 2005 August 13 (UTC)
  5. -Splash 00:06, 14 August 2005 (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.

First, the RFC against Uninvited company is not down to "revenge"
  • you will note that of the other people who have blocked me (all but 1 block subsequently being lifted), I have filed no RFCs against
  • I filed it because an admin with an explicitely stated self-admitted extreme bias ("extremely anti-Islamic") blocked a user who opposes said bias being pushed, for a block duration of over 24 hours (72), for a violation of 3RR that didn't exist (it wasn't even a violation of a hypothetical 2RR)
  • I would have filed it against any admin who behaved in such an inappropriate manner against anyone else as well. That I happen to be the subject of the behaviour is really not that connected to my filing the RFC, simply only to my awareness of the behaviour.
Reverts
  • Linda Lovelace - restoring a well explained change by User:Hayford Peirce that Noitall reverted to his own version. It should be noted that Noitall stalked my edit and reverted back
  • George W. Bush - de-POVing what is basically a lie written by Noitall - implying that the UK re-elected Blair BECAUSE he supported Bush, when the opposite is the case - Blair was re-elected DESPITE the support of Bush, and even Blair admitted the 7% swing AGAINST him in the election constituted an angry reaction by the country to his support for Bush. It should be noted that Noitall stalked my edit and reverted back.
  • Image:Genitaltattoo.jpg - CSD does not apply to images that are pornographic, there is no "no porn" clause, and other pornographic images are accepted as suitable in articles and have survived deletion attempts. I don't like the image either, but it doesn't qualify for CSD. Removing the CSD tag was entirely appropriate. I repeatedly, in my edit summary for doing so, pointed out that this was the case, and WP:IFD should be used instead. Noitall ignored this pointing out of procedure and blindly reverted.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Porn stars - Noitall added a censorship clause: I stated my objections to it - it is a Wikiproject; people are allowed to comment. Noitall's speedy delete suggestion was subsequently removed as inappropriate by another user.
"Responses by other admins to my request"
  • These were not placed there by other admins, they were added in that manner by User:UninvitedCompany [21]
  • I clearly accused UninvitedCompany of trolling - the edit summary clearly says "UninvitedCompany", and it was clearly him (see above link) that put the comments there
  • My talk page is part of my user space, and in accordance with user space policy, I can do what the hell I like with other people's comments there, especially reverting people who are trolling it.
  • You will note that the comments are of the form "I do not want to get involved", rather than of the form "UninvitedCompany is quite correct", indeed at least one of the comments is of the form "I disagree with UninvitedCompany, but I'm not going to do anything". No-one expressed agreement with UninvitedCompany.
  • Evil is what happens when good men do nothing
  • I was eventually unblocked [22], as the block was inappropriate.
Fraud
  • Fraud requires me to feign someone else's signature, or someone else's other attributes; I did no such thing.
  • Irishpunktom is clearly indicated in the edit history as the user who signed as Irishpunktom
  • My certification of the RFC against Noitall is clearly marked as being by me
Deleting statements
  • Trolling is not appropriate in Wikipedia
  • The RFC concerns prior instance of "abuse of adminship" not "oh look what has -Ril- done now"
  • At least one other user (an admin - Dmcdevit) has already admonished Noitall to stop trolling
  • Personal attacks (which such off-topic and anti-me statements as Noitall's constitute) are allowed to be deleted by the WP:NPA policy.
Other admins
  • User:El C stated himself that his behaviour was due to being "high on codeine", this is not a personal attack, but a repetition of his own statement [23] (also note edit summary)
  • his being high on codeine was due to recent dentistry [24]
  • note also the civility of the interaction between me and El C -[25]
  • I believe we have discussed my reasoning for UninvitedCompany's RFC before
  • I provide diff's for UninvitedCompany's admittance of extreme POV and admittance of violating blocking policy at that RFC
"Attacked users who questioned his claims"
  • The single word "Everyone" is not even remotely able to be considered evidence
Vandalism/Sockpuppets
  • I am not nor have I been 81.77.0.25 who is someone apparantly (from Noitall's own investigations on his talk page) from Preston
  • I have been continuously editing from the IP 81.156.176.160 for some time, it is not possible to swap to the other IP and swap back with my internet provider (BT openworld)
  • If I was going to vandalise a page, I'd do something more sophisticated than making a minor comment about carly simon (nor do I have an idea who he/she is). Also, my grammar is significantly better than 81.156.176.160's.
  • When I made the edit from 81.156.176.160 I was apparantly logged out - this happens from time to time, particularly when I haven't edited for 6 hours. This isn't a sockpuppet, it's my IP address.
  • It was only when I logged in to fix my signature (which had clearly come out as 81.156.176.160 rather than ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * )), that I discovered I was blocked - I still have no idea why my IP wasn't blocked - supposedly the IP gets blocked as well as the Username, but it didn't happen for some reason in this case - probably due to some bug in the software.
  • If I change IPs in any way, it is not possible for me to obtain the same IP back again - due to the way my IP provider (BT - the largest in the UK) distributes IPs
  • As a developer (e.g. User:David Gerard) can see, I (User:-Ril-) held that IP before, during, and after, the block - it was the normal IP I edit with not some "fake" extra "sockpuppet" one.
Disputes
  • Religious conflict and Islam - Germen is currently the subject of an RFAR, a large RFC (co-signed by 3 editors, co-supported by some 10 other people), and mediation, due to extreme anti-Islamic POV pushing on a large number of articles (including several re-creations of VFD'd content). I was reverting such POV pushing.
  • The Bible and history - I reverted POV pushing by Noitall. Noitall reverted back with the edit summary "YOU SHALL NOT PUSH ME OFF THIS PAGE", a summary that made me think "oh great, another POV warrior", so I reverted back. Noitall insisted his edits were "a consensus edit from other pages", but I challenged this (on the article talk page) and asked for evidence that there was consensus for the change. Noitall then backtracked claiming that the edits were copy+paste wording from a collection of other articles, so I pointed out that this isn't the same as consensus, and copy+paste can be used to make any pov whatsoever. Noitall also claimed that the change wasn't controversial, I pointed out that at least one other editor thought it was, and there was no evidence that any other editor supported the change. Noitall then responded that Noitall wasn't going to bother discussing things any more, and just started revert warring.
  • The Bible and history - Mel Etitis got involved purely because of a long term grudge against me (due to erroneously believing me to be a sockpuppet of User:Lir, which David Gerard has stated is unlikely, particularly as Lir's grammar isn't so good, and she lives in Ohio), as Mel Etitis has on other edit wars against POV pushers I have been involved
  • The Bible and history - User:Jayjg is not involved in the revert war, and made an edit actually adjusting Noitall's change not mine.
  • The Bible and history - User:UninvitedCompany protected the page. As you may already realise, UninvitedCompany was already in a dispute involving this page, me, and Noitall, siding with Noitall. UninvitedCompany didn't protect during the 1.5 hours between my edit and Noitall's, but did so 5 minutes after Noitall's edit. Protecting a page you are involved in a dispute over is a violation of the page protection policy.
  • George W. Bush - we have discussed the edits about Dubya before.
Policies
  • Wikipedia:Consensus isn't a policy, and doesn't apply anyway, 1 person (Noitall) is not a consensus on their own
  • Wikipedia:Negotiation isn't a policy, and isn't even a guideline, and Noitall clearly broke it by deciding not to continue discussion of the edits on the The Bible and history talk page.
  • Wikipedia:Third opinion isn't a policy, and I can't break it as I'm not the 3rd party
  • Wikipedia:Resolving disputes - I haven't broken this any more than Noitall
  • Wikipedia:Three-revert rule states that 3 reverts is not an entitlement, which begs the question "Why did Noitall keep reverting"?
  • Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point does not apply, no "point" is being illustrated here.
  • Wikipedia:Blocking policy - I didn't seek to evade this, my IP simply wasn't blocked, and I wasn't aware of the block until I logged in.
  • Numerous behavior issues isn't a policy neither is it a guideline. Indeed it could be considered a personal attack. DO NOT MAKE PERSONAL ATTACKS.
  • Vandalism - There is a policy here, but that isn't it, that isn't even a link. Besides, I haven't committed vandalism - see the policy.
  • Sockpuppetry - There is a policy here, but that isn't it, that isn't even a link. Besides, editing when you have not noticed you are logged out isn't considered sockpuppetry.
"Evidence" of prior dispute resolution attempts
Certification
  • I dispute Mongo's claim to be involved in all of the above issues
  • Mongo's claim is weaker than my certification of the RFC against Noitall which was discounted and the RFC deleted
  • The same applies to Klonimus and DmcDevit
  • Whilst UninvitedCompany is clearly involved in a large part of this, UninvitedCompany is also not involved in a large part of this.
  • If only having a dispute with a user which is partially covered in an RFC is enough to allow certification, then my certification of the RFC against Noitall is valid, and should be undeleted
Factitious's comment
Recommendation
  • Care should be taken when putting together an RFC so that it actually includes mostly valid claims and accusations

{Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.} Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 10:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Agriculture

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 signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" 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.}

While I will endorse User:Noitall's summary, and agree that it appears that User:-Ril- has a VERY serious problem, I think it is important to note that User:Noitall has acted occasionally in a very antagonistic manner. For instance, calling users like User:-Ril- a vandal for commenting on his talk page, and removing comments from his talk page which he doesn't think reflect well on him. He also seems to be quite fond of personal attacks, so I won't doubt that he has done that in this situation as well. While this does not excuse User:-Ril-'s behavior in the slightest, I think it should be taken into consideration that User:Noitall's conduct has exacerbated the situation. In all likelyhood the best way to deal with this situation would be to sit both users down, explain that both of their behaviors have been bad, and try and find a solution to the situation through mediation.
Again let me stress though that I think User:-Ril- has the larger problem, as despite any problems I have had with User:Noitall in the past, those problems have stayed in the past, and he knows how to let an issue drop. User:-Ril- does not seem to have this capability, and I fully believe and agree with User:Noitall that User:-Ril- appears to be stalking, targeting and harassing him. Agriculture 12:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Agriculture 16:08, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Robert McClenon 16:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

I have signed Agriculture's summary. There is a long pattern of incivility and personal attacks by User:-Ril-. On the other hand, I have serious questions about some of the allegations made by User:Noitall, especially the argument of RfC fraud involving the signature by User:Irishpunktom. It appears to me to be a valid second signature. This appears to be a vendetta between two editors, both of whom have engaged in personal attacks and failed to be civil, one of whom has done this much more often. I see that this dispute is on its way into arbitration. I note that in many previous arbitration cases, the arbitrators have imposed penalties on one disputant and cautioned another. Robert McClenon 17:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Robert McClenon 17:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Klonimus 13:17, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by FuelWagon

1) How is this a personal attack? 123456

Someone thinking ril is stalking them is not evidence of stalking or evidence of a personal attack. 7 8

2) RFC fraud. No diff. Since I have no personal experience with the situation, I cannot comment either way.

3) deleting another editor's comments can qualify as vandalism. Since the accusation is of 5 violations, a diff should be possible. Without a diff, I can't comment as I have no personal experience.

4) "Engaged in disruption of Wiki." highly subjective charge. No diffs. can't comment.

5) [26] an extensive edit with no reason given. Not sure that's something to block someone over.

6) 'self-admittedly) "high on codeine"' [27] Don't know. Did the admin admit this? or is this a blatant lie?

[28] 'erased responses to his own requests to Admins' The text erased didn't look like it was asking for a response. Ril didn't appear to be calling the admins a troll, but rather calling UninvitedCompany a troll for posting the responses to his page. Whether it was relevant or not, UninvitedCompany didn't appear to be engaging in a conversation but was posting information to Ril's page. If someoen posts to my page and isn't looking for some sort of response, I'll generally delete it without response.

[29] "explicitely stated extreme bias" Well, if RIL can provide a diff where Uninvited explicitely states this bias, then stating the truth is not a personal attack. If not, I'll assume it is.

[30] This is a red flag. Ril did 4 reverts in 24 hours and 19 minutes and was blocked for 3RR. Looking at the RFC, it would seem he was gaming the system, reverting just far enough apart to avoid the rules. Ril should have found another way to write whatever it was that he was writing so that other editors would leave it in, rather than engaging in a slow-burn revert war.

7) "Attacked users who questioned his claims: everyone." Please supply diffs. if it is really this common, it shouldn't be hard to come up with a few.

8) This is a red flag. Vandalizing another user's page because he got blocked for 3RR is not good.

"Deleted my own comments 5 times on this page" please provide diffs.

9) big red flag. 3RR doesn't appear to affect Ril.


It would seem that some editors may have been antagonistic towards -Ril-, and at least some of this could have been avoided if they hadn't. However, it appears that the same (and more) could be said of -Ril-. His long list of 3RR blocks against him, the fact that he vandalized another user's page after getting blocked, and his two-signature-RFC would seem to indicate that he is doing a good job of "lowering the bar" all on his own.

It appears that -Ril- is completely unaffected by 3RR policy or being blocked as a result of violating it. This is highly problematic. I would think that he should be able to find a way to word whatever it is he's trying to say in a way that other editors will accept. Either that or he's pushing POV or the others are pushing POV, in which case, diff's of those edits should be provided by one side or the other. lacking any diffs, I'll assume his edits were POV. Given that, continued 3RR violations may need week-long blocks to get his attention and convince him to follow policy, work with other editors, and find wording that others agree with.

My solution would be to blow the whistle, tell both sides that they've contributed something to this, and warn -Ril- that any future 3RR violation (or near violation) will receive a week-long block. Then ring the bell, and see who comes out swinging and who is willing to work with editors who have different POV's. FuelWagon 18:28, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. FuelWagon 19:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Robert McClenon 15:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by llywrch

Discussing edits with Ril is, at best, a difficult task; at worst, it can be unpleasant.

For example, look at this section from his uniquely structured talk page: DreamGuy asks for cites for what Ril has added, explaining why lecture notes are unsatisfactory; to this Ril responds "No, I definitely wrote them down during lectures, rather than just think I did. I have the notes in front of me. They are very definitely material and existant"? While all I know about their dispute is what is written on that page, I find it hard to read that response & not side with DreamGuy.

My own experience with Ril can be seen here. Note: I have been an editor on Wikipedia since 2003, & this was the first time I have ever been taken to task about a VfD vote. I replied on his talk page here, giving my reasons for my vote, which evolved into an argument where he demonstrated his lack of understanding that other people may hold opinions at variance with his own, & which may be equally legitimate -- which is the intent of the NPOV doctrine. (My point was that the article reported an opinion of Jerome; he kept restating the irrelevant objection that Jerome was wrong. FWIW, he could have easily convinced me to change my vote by omitting that argument & drawn my attention to other evidence like the lack of links to this article -- but by the time I noticed this for myself, I was annoyed by his obtuseness & wouldn't have changed my vote for anything. Besides, it's one article, one VfD episode, & it's possible that the article could be much improved in a month or so.) It was acts like this that repeatedly sabatoged the VfD action on Authentic Matthew -- & delayed useful action being taken on it. -- llywrch 19:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. llywrch 19:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Agriculture 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. D. J. Bracey (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Doc (?)

-Ril- is a good contributor, knowledgeable and obviously intelligent. He has strong ideas - but that's pretty normal here. Unfortunately, he is either unable or unwilling to operate as part of a community. He deliberately tries to be provocative, goes looking for trouble, and responds either with self-righteous paranoia ('they all hate me') or wikilawyering when challenged or rebuked (see the whole Wikipedia:Requests for comment/UninvitedCompany discourse). I've tried to point this out to him, but to no avail [31] and [32]. Unfortunately, I think he intends to push the community to its limits.

He repeatedly tries to unilaterally take control of debates e.g. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (inconcluded) - even when he's shooting himself in the foot. He seeks out controversy and tries to provoke it further - making it personal - a matter about him. See, just today, the whole Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency thing: offering his view is not enough, he has to provoke to the point to being blocked. [33]. (Warning: don't use this link if you are easily offended).

I'm not going to comment further on the specifics of the RfA. I've not investigated them all, there are too many. -Ril- will no doubt be able to offer a more or less plausible defence for every accusation. In fairness, sometimes, he has provoked users whose behaviour has been little better (e.g. the socks on the Authentic Matthew debate). Sometimes, those who have dealt with him have perhaps, technically, not followed the exact letter of the 'law' (see the Uninvited Company RfA). But, and here is what -Ril- can't get, this is not about technicalities, not even about right and wrong, it is about whether he can function within the community. WP is broad and tolerant, but there are limits: we have to get along. And, regrettably, I just don't think that -Ril- wants to do that! If WP was a crystal ball, I’ll predict he’ll push it 'till he’s banned over something.


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

  1. --Doc (?) 12:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. --MONGO 13:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. llywrch 20:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Wynler 21:45:54, 2005-08-18 (UTC)
  5. Tomer TALK 22:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC) I offered to mentor -Ril- for up to a year3 months (here), and he wouldn't even agree to the simple terms I laid out. He seems, unfortunately, to prefer to push others around until he gets pushed back, and then to cry "foul!" — Without an enforceable commitment to change from -Ril-, something to which he is not currently apparently willing to agree to, I don't see how this situation can possibly be resolved in any other way. Tomer TALK 22:34, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[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.