Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Angel David

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Angel David has been repeatedly POV pushing towards his religous values in his edits and often tries to delete articles that he feels are not appropriate or un-moral. Also violates WP:UP and WP:NOT and WP:OWN regarding his userpages. He was just blocked for 2 days because of this. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desired outcome

That David stop editing with a religous POV, shape up, and stop causing trouble. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[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

POV pushing

Threatening to report someone who justly reverted his edit

Changes someone's comment and accuses him/her of blasphemy

Tagging good page for speedy deletion

Tagging a joke for speedy deletion

Doing it again

Wants to delete this page (after speedy was declined)

Votes to delete an article because itis about ethnic slurs

Tagging a category about profanity for speedy deletion because of its "hate"

Maxim's concerns

Vandalized with a link to Goatse.cx

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great - yet another misguided desire to delete a page he doesn't like.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NOT
  2. WP:NPOV
  3. WP:UP
  4. WP:EDIT WAR

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

  1. User talk:Angel David#Category:Ethnic slurs
  2. User talk:Angel David#Concerning your editing patterns
  3. User talk:Angel David#Please don't edit war

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. T Rex | talk 00:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Having been on the receiving end of one of Angel David's curious assaults, I endorse this summary. His behavour is strange to say the least, with ownership problems over the strangest things. He needs to be mentored (and monitored) at the least or just let go. Shot info 05:25, 22 October 2007 (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.

[edit] Outside view by Alanyst

This is my first encounter with this user and the disputes involved. From looking at the links provided, it seems that Angel David most needs a patient mentor to help him learn how to edit constructively here. If no such thing has been proposed to him before, I suggest that that should be the first avenue tried for resolving the problem.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. alanyst /talk/ 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oysterguitarist 14:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. His heart does appear to be in the right place, but he does need someone to hold his hand. — Coren (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-outside view by Yamakiri

As I've previously spoke with the editor before about another unrelated subject, I feel that this user is civil, but naïve. I feel a way to deal with the editing disproportion problem would be to protect his pages for a period of time to be decided. If the user remains active and contributes heavily enough to the mainspace whilst remaining NPOV, then, and only then should his pages be unprotected. He does seem to need a mentor, but someone whose been here just six months should do. The user does seem to relapse after making at least some attempt at compliance (as in a comment left on my talk page when I was discussing monobook files with him).
Also since the discussion section below confuses me, I'll add my opinion here aside my recommendations (this is NOT a suggestion, it is my opinion). I say this whilst trying to keep AGF, but I'm getting the feeling this user is getting the bad end of the deal from those who are atheist when they say "religion isn't healthy at his age". Since I was his age not too long ago, I know that it's perfectly fine to be deeply into religion and politics. Most of my friends along with myself had a full view of what politics encompassed, and we could clearly see the religious and political boundaries between Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Republicans, Democrats, etc. You seem to be speaking from personal experience rather than facts. From his pages I'm getting he has at least a grasp of Christianity, Judaism, etc. I agree not everyone was raised in my small town in Carolina, but why assume he can't make decisions for himself? If he's from Hampton Roads or New York, I'm on the count 'em out side, but here we're not discussing politics we're discussing editing procedure. YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 10-21-2007 • 21:12:51

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Semi-Outside view by Neranei

I've previously encountered this user, and he has always been kind and civil. I understand that it can be hard for young Wikipedians like him, I'm young as well. However, I agree with Alanyst that he needs a patient mentor in order to edit constructively, due to the fact that he has not really been contributing to the encyclopedia proper. I would be willing to do this for him. Neranei (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Neranei (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. alanyst /talk/ 01:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC) Glad to see Neranei readily offer assistance, and I hope Angel David accepts it.
  3. Cheers, Lights (♣ • ♦) 02:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Oysterguitarist 14:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Friday

This kid claims to be 11 years old. Is there any reasonable chance he can be a productive contributor anytime soon? I highly doubt it. Spending time trying to mentor him only reinforces his incorrect notion that Wikipedia is some kind of myspace. Leave him alone; he'll either sink or swim. Friday (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I'm 13 and consider myself a productive contributor. Heck, Anonymous Dissident is 12 (I think) and is a great admin. Age is not indicative of productivity. (copied to talk page) Neranei (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I as well. It all depends on the way one contributes. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There are exceptional kids here and there. However the essential problem so far is that Angel David acts like an 11 year old. If he didn't, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Friday (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
True, but I think he still has the potential to be a good contributor. He has been productive in the past, why not now? Love, Neranei (talk) 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
But he has been more disruptive than constructive. And he mainly edits user talk pages and treats Wikipedia like MySpace. In fact, doing his edit count, it sums up to:


Category talk: 2
Category: 14
Help talk: 1
Image talk: 20
Image: 2
Mainspace 382
Talk: 52
Template talk: 15
Template: 42
User talk: 650
User: 907
Wikipedia talk: 11
Wikipedia: 28
avg edits per page 5.22
earliest 00:08, 24 May 2007
number of unique pages 407
total 2126
Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he has spent way too much time in userspace. However, I feel that with mentoring, he could return to being a positive contributor. I firmly believe in second chances in a case like this. Love, Neranei (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Angel David has spent alot of time in userspace and hasn't been being a positive contributer, but, I agree with Neranei mentoring him could turn him into a positive contributer. Oysterguitarist 14:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Just to be clear, here, since this editor is continuing to have trouble.. I don't doubt his desire to contribute usefully, but I have grave reservations about his ability to do so. A bull in a china shop may have good intentions, but he's bad for business. Friday (talk) 23:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Me as well. There is desire, but I have serious concerns about his ability to do so. --Maxim(talk) (contributions) 12:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning the wisdom of trying to get him to edit actual articles

I would rather see him doing whatever he wants on his user page than messing with important content. He's unable to engage in rational discussion about content. In the interest of harm reduction, can we stop encouraging him to get out and edit important content? Why not have him edit his user space instead? It doesn't really hurt much of anything. Friday (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Arknascar44 (talk · contribs)

Angel David is a very passionate contributor. Are they young? Inexperienced? Yes, and yes. However, this alone is not cause for punishment, or lack of trust. What it is cause for is a firm —but soft— nudge in the right direction. Following is my assessment of the diffs provided as evidence of disputed behavior.

  • POV pushing
    • I somewhat agree. However, this appears to be an attempt from a user who believes this to be a fact. While this is indeed a strong (and not neutral) point of view, it is a common mistake of a new, well-intentioned user to add information such as this, rather than what is neutral and verifiable.
  • Threatening to report someone who justly reverted his edit
    • Once again I see an adamant belief in that which is not necessarily neutral. I also note that Angel David strongly values their contributions, which, if this problem were corrected, would be an excellent trait to have. Finally, I notice another common misconception of Wikipedia, that is that there is a sort of "police force" to report editors to. The closest I can think of is AIV, but, again, it is a case of an inexperienced user who values their contributions to the point of threats, which, through mentorship, can be toned down.
  • Changes someone's comment and accuses him/her of blasphemy
    • The change does not affect the user's comment very much, but it is the edit summary that could cause trouble. Once more, I see a very strong belief that needs to be altered, on Wikipedia anyway, to be more neutral, but, again, an easy mistake to make for a new contributor with little understanding of encyclopedic content. This problem is easily fixed, and not a substantial cause for worry.
  • Tagging good page for speedy deletion
  • Wants to delete this page (after speedy was declined)
    • This is yet another opinionated edit, and yet another easy mistake to make. Angel David, from this contribution, appears to appreciate the integrity and importance of Wikipedia here, and, while misguided, this contribution shows a potential to contribute constructively for a long time. The second edit shows a persistence in this passion.
  • Tagging a joke for speedy deletion
  • Doing it again
    • Misguided edits, but certainly not ones meant in bad faith (no pun intended =D) In addition to my assessment of the previous diff, I would also like to add that tagging a page meant in good fun as nonsense, without a full understanding of {{humor}} tags, seems a very likely thing to do if one were a new contributor.
  • Votes to delete an article because itis about ethnic slurs
  • Tagging a category about profanity for speedy deletion because of its "hate"
    • I'm not sure if I would agree with these assessments. Voting to delete an article because it is "full of hate", while not recommended, is not disruptive. Misguided and non-neutral, yes, but simply an expressed opinion that is not a valid argument for deletion made in good faith. As for the category tagging, it is fundamentally the same issue.
  • Maxim's concerns
    • I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. The user's userspace count needs to be limited, which is why I suggest mentorship.
  • Vandalized with a link to Goatse.cx
    • Looking further into the edit history of the page in question, I found that this edit was actually a revert, not an addition. The edit summary explains it clearly: oblivious to the fact that the page contained a spamlink, Angel David reverted it back after the page was blanked, wondering aloud why it was blanked.

Thus, I conclude that, while Angel David's edits are, at times, misguided, it is my belief that with mentorship and help from others, they will become a constructive contributor in the near future.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ( arky ) 21:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 21:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Neranei (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to this view

His misguided desire to delete pages he doesn't like continues, even today. What leads you to believe he's about to become less disruptive? What actions can be taken to ensure that this is the case? Friday (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I stated, mentorship, in this case, would be a very productive alternative :) With someone showing him the way, I am confident that his strong values can be "supressed" (for lack of a better word, sorry if it sounds a bit harsh) to a more encyclopedic level. Happy editing, ( arky ) 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
He's been mentored for a week or two now, right? Is it helping? Friday (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, to a degree. He has been editing articles about religion, welcoming new users, and doing some RC patrol. Neranei (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I do see that he's making useful edits. This is good. I asked him to not make deletion nominations and he said he'd try.. I know I've been skeptical but maybe he is improving. Friday (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that mentoring is helping him a bit, I feel that if it continues his editing will improve more. Also I agree with Friday, asking him not to make deletion nominations(at least for now). Oysterguitarist 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I also would agree with this. However, once Angel David has a full understanding of the deletion policy, CSD, XFD, etc., I see no problem with him nominating pages for deletion in the future. Cheers, ( arky ) 02:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Arky, he should be allowed to nominate things once he fully understands the policy. Neranei (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He's continuing to be disruptive. Mildly disruptive, I'd say, but he clearly needs more supervision than he's getting. I've asked him not to edit templates anymore- I guess we'll see if this helps. Friday (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion of indefinite block

Since this kid is still unable to contribute constructively, and since efforts to mentor him have failed, I suggest an indefinite block. He's not competent to be en effective editor here. He's wasting people's time without adding any real value. In the balance, having him as an editor does more harm than good. Friday (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There might be constructive edits I'm not aware of- at least one person thinks he's contributed usefully, so I may be overstating the case here. We may want to compare helpful with unhelpful edits before throwing in the towel. Looking at article space contributions, I'm willing to believe there have been useful ones in there. The question of whether on the balance he's doing more harm than good is still relevant, I think. Friday (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Friday, I am extremely worried that any administrator would suggest such a draconian and disproportionate measur. At this point, I recall your allegation on my RfA that I "make decisions based on emotion rather than reason" and that I am of a "personality type unsuited for adminship". I dispute such an accusation in any case, but even if it's true, I would rather be seen as too "emotional" in my responses than be the kind of person who would coldly threaten to block an 11-year-old kid who's only trying to help, just because he's a little confused. Of course, there is no "right" to edit Wikipedia. But blocking is not a simple cost-benefit equation; we should block only in cases where someone is intentionally and persistently damaging or disrupting the encyclopedia, not for simple mistakes. We should be very sparing in our use of the blocking tool. WaltonOne 12:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that it's draconian at all. It's about harm reduction. Wikipedia is not therapy- our decisions should be about cost and benefit - the encyclopedia is always more important than any individual editor. I'm not suggesting we pillory this editor, or boil him in oil. There are no actual "victims" here - let's not invent one. Friday (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia is not therapy, and we certainly should be prepared to indef-block genuinely disruptive editors even where it might be harmful to their feelings. However, Angel David is not a genuinely disruptive editor. He's young and he's made a lot of mistakes. But he genuinely wants to help - this is demonstrated by the fact that, despite the criticism he's received, he's carried on contributing. Willing volunteers are in short supply, and Wikipedia depends entirely on them. Let's not waste the enthusiasm of a potentially good editor just out of impatience. WaltonOne 16:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you have any ideas on how to turn his desire to contribute constructively into the ability to contribute constructively? So far, after several months, I don't see any promising possibilities there. So far he needs more supervision than we've managed to give him. Right now, the best I idea I can come up with is that he try again in 5 or 10 years. Are there better ideas? Do you agree that we should at least encourage him to stay out of article and template space? From looking more, his article contributions may be approximately evenly split between useful and non-useful edits. There are plenty of editors who can make small-but-useful edits, without requiring anyone to double-check all their work. We don't have to take the bad with the good. Friday (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I will try to help him to contribute constructively (I've already left a note to that effect on his talkpage). I hope to prove you wrong about this. (As a side point: 5 or 10 years? In 5 years he will be 16; in 10 years, 21. We have plenty of mature 12- or 13-year-old admins; I myself am only 18, and was 17 when I became an admin.) WaltonOne 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
If you prove me wrong, I'll be pleased. I can't say I'm optimistic though- your solution is the same thing people have already been doing for months, without particular success. But, certainly it's reasonable to be more lenient with someone who is trying to contribute constructively than with someone who isn't. This is why I'm at the point of suggesting a block rather than just doing it. Hypothetically, let's say I'm right about this, and the situation continues as it has been going for another month or two. At what point would you consider throwing in the towel? If we keep going until we run out of people saying "Wait, I'll try to help him also", we may be here for a while. It's going to become increasingly harder to convince me that the same plan that's been failing for 6 months will magically start working next week. Friday (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Walton, we're trying to prevent disruption. Good-faith contributor or not, he is no capable of contributing. He's only been disruptive, and we have tried to fix this. Obviously, it hasn't worked, and Friday does, and so do I, wish to prevent more of this. That involves a block. Maxim(talk) 20:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[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] I'll do anything

Please don't block me. I've made a lot of constructive edits and only some are unconstructive. Neranei had a right ot vanish and Yamakiri is taking a vacation. Could I at least a mentor or someone to help me please. I'll do better--Angel David (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can 1) stop editing actual articles and templates, and 2) find someone who's willing to review any edit you want to make, and make only the constructive ones, I see no problems with this approach. (Other than the difficulty in finding someone who's willing to spend their time this way, of course.) The problem is, you still demonstrate that you don't really have the slightest understanding of what Wikipedia is for. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to write your personal opinions. Why not make your own website, where you can do whatever you want? Nobody will complain at you for the things you do there. Friday (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I volenteared (yes, I spell worse than my parents) to help him, and I suppose I'll go behind his edits, BUT I have alot of homework and in such manor, I will do this in bulk chunks. Secondly, didn't this close months ago? Yamakiri TC § 01-14-2008 • 22:45:08
I'm not aware that RFCs get closed, particularly. At any rate, the problems identified here have not been resolved. Friday (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
David has said before that he "will do anything". This is clearly not the case. He is being disruptive, and I agree with Friday's assessment. The way to prevent more of these problems is by preventing Angel David from editing. Maxim(talk) 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
See my comments to Friday above. I'm sorry, but anyone who would even suggest such a needlessly draconian measure is fundamentally unfit to be an administrator. WaltonOne 12:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
You've been wikilawyering sometimes (in both sense, acting like a lawyer and following the letter of a policy) and refusing to exercise some common sense. You seem to be unfit to be an admin then, no? Maxim(talk) 20:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Wait, wait.. there's plenty of room for honest disagreements between reasonable people, right? We don't need to make this about anyone's fitness for adminship, and besides, if there are legitimate concerns there, they belong on the talk page of the editor in question, not here. Friday (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I apologise for questioning his fitness for adminship. I'll continue this discussion on his talk page, as it is moving off-topic. WaltonOne 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)