Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CltFn

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: 19:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

The user seems to be making bad faith edits.

[edit] Description

CltFn (talk · contribs) has been at Wikipedia for over one year, and one would expect such an editor to be familiar with the rules of conduct here. This user has used at least two sockpuppets during his time here, User:Amenra and User:Urchid, both of which have been blocked. Unfortunately, the editor continues to use deceptive practices in his edits. Many of his edits can also quite easily be taken as those of bad faith.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Wikipedia:Edit summary
  2. Wikipedia:Verifiability

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

See user's talk page

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. BhaiSaab talk 20:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. ITAQALLAH 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Zora 00:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. ITAQALLAH 17:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Aminz 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Feer 13:12, 23 January 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.}

Regarding the accuser: BhaiSaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is a Wikistalker and disruptive editor [1] who is actively engaged on a serious campaign of Wikipedia:Harassment and provocation towards editors that he disagrees with . User:BhaiSaab has gone as far as calling the real life environemnt of another Wikipedia editor to harass and intimidate him[2], which I would have to say is psychotic and dangerous behavior. Rather than engaging other editors he disagrees with User:BhaiSaab consistently stalks them in Wikipedia and tries to build some sort of case against them to try to get them blocked or worse. Quite franckly I am not surprised at User:BhaiSaab ' latest attempt to bring me down has he has done nothing but for months. For those who wish to read more about User Bhaisaab they can go here.

re: The sockpupptets accusation User:BhaiSaab brings up issues that have long since been resolved after he has been explicitely told by an admin that these issues are resolved. Thus User:BhaiSaab is clearly acting in bad faith. --CltFn 05:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

User:BhaiSaab request for comment on me is without merit but is simply a covert effort to harass me and stop me from editing:

Requests for comment for policy states:

RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. --CltFn 13:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the list of accusations: The list of accusations which amount to some instances of failing to use edit summaries and reverting some articles without supporting explanation, I can correct these quite easily , I must admit to having done these while frustrated by similar behavior by a clique of editors who nearly always dispute my edits and in many cases who try to blank them out. In my opinion, it is not unconmmon for editors who edit controversial articles to get pulled into the whirlpool of disputes and in some cases after observing vandalism or perceived bad faith editing by disputing editors to fail to appropriately make edit summaries or explain why a revert. I will make every effort to improve on my edit summaries and explain a revert on talk pages.

Note I have update my response on 12/03/2006--CltFn 17:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Karl Meier 18:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Arrow740 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Hkelkar 16:48, 4 December 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.

[edit] Outside view by User:Arrow740

Please take no notice of BhaiSaab's complaining. Please look at the discussion here, where it is demonstrated that BhaiSaab himself partakes in the kind of activity he is accusing CltFn of, to the point where it seems likely that BhaiSaab will be blocked for a year, at least from editing religion articles. BhaiSaab himself has provoked other users repeatedly, including myself and those listed in the Hkelkar arbitration page. CltFn's actions should be viewed more sympathetically. Arrow740 09:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Arrow740 09:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Both are at fault. Goodlief 05:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. BhaiSaab was banned for trolling.Bakaman 01:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by gren

I think this fundamentally misses the point. Does CltFn have (malicious) sock puppets? I don't know, but if that is proved there is a quick process and mandatory block. Is it vandalism? I don't know either. WP:VAND states, "[a]pparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia". Something needs to be done. CltFn commonly misrepresents sources, cherry-picks sources, and in general uses any method he deems viable to make Islam look bad. His methodology is a mix of make Islam-related things look bad and use very serious scholars to draw simplistic conclusions from their work. It's not that this is wrong in itself. A quote criticizing Arabs is perfectly okay. An assertion that Muslims misrepresent history is fine. The problem is it plays into the constant motif of portraying Arabs (read: Islam) of having savagely attacked civilization and possessing no good traits. He will switch from the Persian nationalism in the first diff to excerpts from scholars in the next. The common denominator is not consistency of scholarship or explaining competing theories--it is a demonization of Islam and Islam-related topics. This is not something that can be stopped based on vandalism or sock puppetry charges, and so far I haven't found a good way to deal with it (I am more apparition than real on wiki, anyways). One thing must be understood: this behavior makes it very difficult to write an encyclopedia and it needs to be stopped. Not only from CltFn and the anti-Muslim brigade but from Muslim editors (or, at least ones with apologetic tendencies) who can be similarly unreasonable. I would cite Striver, but his POV is more sectarian. In any case, something seriously need to be done. (more) gren グレン 10:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. PelleSmith 14:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. BhaiSaab talk 16:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Daniel J. Leivick 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. (→Netscott) 02:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. ITAQALLAH 02:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Zora 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Khoikhoi 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Aminz 21:38, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Ford MF 08:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by PelleSmith

While I support the outside view of gren strongly and have listed evidence of a possible consciously bad faith edit by CltFn in my discussion comment, I would like to express openly a viewpoint of this dispute that should not go overlooked. This dispute is devolving into a mirocosom of a larger problem between groups of editors who take radically different stances on Islam related articles, as gren has already alluded to. Their arguments seem all too frequently to devolve into personal accusations and counter-accusations, instead of productive discussion of facts, and this happens on the talk pages of entries, on user talk pages, as well as in dispute resolution and arbitration contexts. Anyone can readily see exactly this happening here with Arrow740's outside view and CltFn's inital response. I welcome all editors who read this dispute page to follow the links provided by both of those two editors, to the arbitration case of User:Hkelkar by clicking on their links or by clicking HERE. What you will see there is a much larger version of what has started to happen here--namely a host of editors slinging around accusations instead of dealing with the issues at hand. Even if what Arrow740 and CltFn have to say about BhaiSaab is true those comments have nothing to do with the evidence provided by BhaiSaab above, which is what this request for comment is about. This kind of behavior comes from both sides of the proverbial fence, but in terms of CltFn I've experienced it personally and mildly through an insinuation that I might be a sockpuppet on Talk:Islam in the United States. My view is that if unchecked this behavior will make this dispute into a circus similar to the above mentioned arbitration case, and if unchecked on Wikipedia will continue to create unproductive roadblocks to progress.PelleSmith 15:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. BhaiSaab talk 16:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. ITAQALLAH 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Daniel J. Leivick 01:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. (→Netscott) 02:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. NinaEliza 08:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Zora 19:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Khoikhoi 05:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Aminz 21:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Ford MF 08:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Feer 13:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Karl Meier

BhaiSaab is a known wiki-stalker, that as CltFn has mentioned and as evidence in an ongoing ArbCom case involving him prove, has stalked several users not just on Wikipedia, but also outside the project. BhaiSaabs stalking and harassment against several of the Wikipedians that he disagree with should at some point have serious consequences for him as a Wikipedia editor. His behavior makes Wikipedia a very unpleasant place for editors not sharing his strong personal views and opinions.

I have made a small collection of evidence that makes it obvious that BhaiSaab is continuously wiki-stalking CltFn, following him around in order to revert his edits to a large number of articles. It's just a few examples of this behavior, and much more evidence could of course be added when and if needed:

I don't know if the accusations of sock puppetry against CltFn is true or not, but being stalked and constantly reverted by BhaiSaab, I can understand why he might have been tempted to use such measures in order to escape this constant harassment.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Arrow740 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Bakaman 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Hkelkar 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Freedom skies 07:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Bharatveer 05:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:John Broughton

It is disappointing when specific edits are pointed to in the evidence section, and the responding editor fails to specifically either defend, explain, or apologize for those edits. I urge CltFn to revise the response section. John Broughton | Talk 20:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I note that CltFn has updated the response, acknowledging the accuracy of the specific edits that are listed and has stated I will make every effort to improve on my edit summaries and explain a revert on talk pages. I appreciate his willingness to expand on his response and to commit to improvements in the future. I also realize that the issue with this RfC involves a much larger context than just the 9 edits listed as "disputed behavior", so CltFn's statement, while helpful, does not resolve the matter. John Broughton | Talk 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. PelleSmith 20:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. (→Netscott) 18:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by User:NinaEliza

Now that diffs have been provided by both parties (or at least by BhaiSaab and a primary supporter of CltFn), I feel the evidence in this specific matter is as complete as it's going to get. I now feel somewhat qualified to post my full view.

The evidence provided by BhaiSaab appears to begin with an attempt at removing unsourced material from an article important to him. These additions also appear to be bordering on almost pure speculation. I feel Karl Meier's diffs to support Wikistalking on the part of BhaiSaab against CltFn to be extremely insufficient.

Furthermore, I personally feel the support of both Karl Meier's and ClfTn's statements actually hinders rather than helps ClfTn's counter-claims. Most (if not all) of the current support (as of December 4) is provided by editors who's own actions are highly suspect.

I assert that any editor with a modicum of experience could fill this page with diffs supporting this view. I refer to the summation of my own evidence in the extremely unfortunate case against editor Hkelkar:

"I think if I really wanted to, my submission of evidence would only be limited by my own fatigue, or general disgust."[[3]]

However, as an outside party, I'm stuck in a quandary between the desire to have the behavior of several editors examined and dealt with, and the need to keep focus on the matter at hand. In reference to editor PelleSmith's statement, I have no desire for the situation to take on the circus-like qualities of previous concerns.

On a (somewhat) side note, I have a bit of anxiety about the apparent absence of admins in this affair. I feel the one "wrong" that BhaiSaab made was in not contacting an admin at the beginning of this situation. When faced with behavior that upsets him, BhaiSaab simply must go to an admin and not attempt to handle it himself. I usually qualify my statements as my own opinion, but I stand by this one as a simple fact. Having said that, I simply don't understand why no admin (I'm assuming at least one had this article on their watchlist) intervened.NinaEliza 17:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) After some reflection, I will no way support my statements other than the analysis of the current (or rather, past) situation. Editors are responsible for their own behavior on Wikipedia, no matter what "the other guy" did. Any editor with a modicum of experience could fill this page with links supporting this view.

To clarfiy my point, Wikipedia has ethics and guidelines that can greatly assist the editors in question. In addition, there almost countless essays that support or illuminate these guidelines in a variety of ways. My personal favorite is WP:DICK. Though the title may be offensive, it really speaks to crux of this whole concern.

I specifically rescind my implication that an admin needed to be called. It's obvious that the accepted practice of working it out on one's own wasn't followed satisfactorily on either side.NinaEliza 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by User:Daniel J. Leivick

My experiences with user CltFn in regards the Brigitte Gabriel page have been interesting. At first it appeared to be blatant POV pushing without much discussion but eventually (After this RfC was opened, although this is not to say that it was the cause) CltFn came to the talk page and we had a civil and productive discussion regarding the content of the article. Other then that I strongly agree that the initial responses to this RfC by CltFn and others, attacking the the creator of this page are missing the point and are counter productive.Daniel J. Leivick 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Appears there shouldn't be any more major conflicts. Goodlief 05:50, 7 December 2006 (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.