Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Henchman 2000

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: 21:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Henchman has attacked several users that don't agree with him about mini-games. He has also threatened to re-add content that people clearly don't want. RobJ1981 21:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desired outcome

Henchman needs to respect other's opinions, instead of attacking/threatening them. Not everyone should have to agree with him, just to make him stop attacking. RobJ1981 21:26, 21 February 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

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [7]
  2. [8]
  3. [9]
  4. [10]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Geoff B 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[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.

I have only attacked you, RobJ, so "Several Users" is not true. I treatened to re add the content because I could see no clear evidence of a consensus against one sentence of examples, I knew there was a consensus against the list so I didn't re add it. I hope you don't call saying "shut up" a personal attack. Also, you appear to call saying one harsh word about you a personal attack, well it isn't. I don't think you fully understand the no personal attacks policy.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Henchman 2000 11:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Isotope23

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.

Based on what I saw on the talkpage here I wanted to clarify something. There was a sockpuppet case which I closed with the finding that they were probably not puppets. Henchman 2000 (talk · contribs) and Bowsy (talk · contribs) are free to participate in the same AfD's and talkpage discussions. If they want to have the same position on something, that is fine. As I said in my closing notes, they need to be careful because "soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community". That was an opinion on my part that such actions may induce a closing admin to ignore one of their !votes at discretion. It was not permission to harass them for participating in the same AfDs. Unless they are actively working in tandem to circumvent WP:3RR though, I don't think the accusations of puppetry are warrented.--Isotope23 20:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Bowsy (review me!) 14:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. I especially second Isotope's statement that soliciting a person sharing your computer to show up to articles for deletion debates or content conflicts on articles and support your position is probably not going to be looked upon very favorably by the community. Admins closing debates are free to ignore such input. That is not, however, the core problem with this dispute, I think. Henchman has been very aggressive and immature, although undoubtedly aggravated by RobJ. All sides need to take a deep breath and address issues, not personalities. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Fully concur with JzG. RobJ: Just because they are participating in some like XfDs, that doesn't mean they are meatpuppets. Henchman: Please always stay civil, no matter what. I understand that some things RobJ is doing are frustrating you quite a lot, but you still must remain civil. –Llama mantalkcontribs 22:24, 6 March 2007 (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.