Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Italiavivi

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: 18:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of disputed behavior

Related IP's similar/edits/articles within range 206.255.0.0-255.255 (most have recieved warnings)

Italiavivi's Disruptive editing behavioral and policy violations has been an ongoing issue and requires comment and assesement by the community. Also Italiavivi's motivations needs to be examined wether he is here to contribute and make the project better or for other reasons.

[edit] Desired outcome

Desired outcome recomended should be achieved in the form of consesus. (to be determined)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  • Removal or editing of others comments on talk pages

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]


  • Incivility

[31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95]

  • NPA

[96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]People who are participating on AfD's need to be force fed[106] [107] [108] [109] [110]if you are unable to make any arguments with actual merit, you take a break [111] [112] [113]attack, I now see why so many respectable editors opposed your RfA.[114]threats [115]I will edit your comments[116] [117]attack on country[118]attack [119]political bias[120] [121] [122]ethnic bias[123] [124] [125]shove them straight up your asses[126]you could at least learn how to spell[127] [128] [129] [130]DICK [131] [132]another editor accused of espousing "sensationalism,"[133]sysop [134] [135] [136]quit being a dick[137]If you don't like being "attacked" for acting a dick, quit acting one[138]snarky dick[139]Quit being a dick[140] [141]You're off your rocker[142] [143]sysop called a DICK[144]

  • Possible abuse of process
  1. Suspected sockpuppet no block/violation
  2. Suspected sockpuppeteer no block/violation
  3. 3RR (Result: No action )
  4. 3RR (Result: No violation)
  • Disruptive edits

[145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153], What I learned about lying on Wikipedia[154], 'harassment' of user by repeadidly reposting same comment[155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161], edit warring re Talk:Fred Thompson[162] [163] [164] [165] [166], How to make personal attacks on Wikipedia and get away with it[167], edit warring on Obama[168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175] [176], adding 5 identical post per point[177], unecessary refactor[178], edit warring[179], False tagging a user for sock puppetry see above #1[180] [181] [182], False tagging an unrelated IP for sock puppetry see above #2[183], edit warring[184] [185] [186], Posting 5 times inside an archived section on AN/I [187] [188] [189] [190] [191]Attempting to remove content 6 times from this RFC[192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197]

  • Accusations/harrassment directed at administrators/sysop's

[198] [199] [200] [201] [202] [203] [204] [205] [206] [207] [208] [209] [210] [211] [212] [213] [214] [215] [216] [217] [218] [219] [220] [221] [222] [223] [224] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Obama_%28disambiguation%29&diff=prev&oldid=150858919] [225] [226] [227] [228] [229] [230] [231] [232] [233] [234] [235] [236] [237] [238] [239] [240] [241] [242] [243] [244] [245] [246] [247] [248] [249] [250] [251] [252] [253]

[254] [255] [256] [257] [258] [259] [260] [261] [262] [263] [264] [265]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT)
  2. Gaming the system (WP:POINT)
  3. No personal attacks (WP:NPA)
  4. Civility (WP:CIVIL)
  5. Wikipedia is not a battleground (WP:BATTLE)
  6. Vandalism (WP:VANDAL) - Modifying users' comments
  7. WP:CANVASS Sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to influence a community discussion.

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

Evidence of removal indicates that notices were read by this user.
[266] [267] [268] [269] [270] [271] [272] [273] [274] [275] [276] [277] [278] [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Hu12 19:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Zsero 21:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. With great regret, I have previously warned Italiavivi about his lack of civility as documented in one of the diffs above. It is my opinion that if this user does not change his ways, he is heading for a ban off either ArbCom or the community. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] View by Zsero

When Italiavivi called me a liar I went over the history of the dispute and documented it User talk:Zsero/Fred Thompson; this was an attempt to resolve the dispute by showing Italiavivi that his/her recollection of events was faulty, and that I had in fact told nothing but the truth in this matter. Despite uncovering indisputable proof of Italiavivi misstating facts, I carefully refrained from using the L-word, since at the time I was still Assuming Good Faith, and was hoping for a retraction, or at least for Italiavivi to lie low for a while and then pretend the whole episode had not happened (I'd have been perfectly happy to go along with such face-saving, having been there myself once or twice...). I have since stopped AGF since Italiavivi continues to claim, incorrectly, 1) that I misstated the truth, and 2) that it was a deliberate lie.

As evidence of my own good faith, I offer this; in the middle of a furious dispute in which Italiavivi had clearly been misbehaving, another editor filed a 3RR report. I did not think that Italiavivi's actions were properly a violation of 3RR, so I posted in his/her defense. (Less than 30 hours later Italiavivi filed a 3RR report against me, over an error that I had made two days previously. I don't know how to characterise that. Note the bad faith in the claim that "Editor is not a new user, but was warned regardless", when this "warning" came 7 hours after the last revert complained of.)

Remember that we are not required to continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I have come to believe that Italiavivi has given us sufficient evidence to drop AGF. And that is precisely the issue here, so it's no good calling for AGF in discussing it! That said I can't see anything on this page that is uncivil. The complaints against Italiavivi seem to be worded firmly but civilly. I don't know what more can be expected. -- Zsero 21:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

From WP:RFC: "The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

First: This RfC isn't valid. RfCs require two editors from a same dispute to be certified; this RfC is simply a broad mish-mash of three disgruntled editors from three different content disputes (one of which occurred six months ago and has long since been resolved).

Second: Those complaining here haven't posted diffs of them trying to actually resolve their past disputes with me, they have simply posted diffs of themselves participating in various disputes. These are not the types of actions (attempts by the certifying users at resolution, not attempts at further arguing) which satisfy RfC requirements. Hu is falsely attributing wide ranges of IP addresses to me here, some years old, despite that the range in question has made over 7,000 edits to the English Wikipedia. Despite my contesting this false attribution, he is issuing warnings on my User_talk page when I attempt to remove IPs which contain no edits from myself whatsoever.

This isn't a proper RfC at all, and should be removed (its deadline for satisfying RfC requirements having already expired on September 2nd). They are welcome to contact me through User space or private communication if they truly wish to resolve their assorted disputes with me, but I have nothing more to say to any of them unless and until those complaining against me acknowledge and apologize for their own hostility, battleground mentalities, incivility and personal attacks. I am open to resolution but it must be mutual and undertaken explicitly in good faith, not preceded with "we don't assume good faith anymore."

An RfC where users insinuate a desire to block me isn't a good-faith attempt at conflict resolution. I question whether many of those participating here are genuinely seeking resolution or if they are simply using an RfC as a further implement for conflict.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Italiavivi 22:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum to Response

Many of the editors here complaining about their interactions with Italiavivi have also engaged in incivility or hostility toward him. Some have made outright personal attacks.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Italiavivi 19:45, 9 September 2007 (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.

{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.}

[edit] View by Coppertwig

I looked at some of the links given above and they did not look very bad. Removal of comments from talk pages was often (arguably) removal of personal attacks. Some supposedly uncivil comments did not look uncivil to me. Apparently Italiavivi has some concerns; it may help to listen to the user and disprove or correct those problems. Perhaps if the user wants to remove a personal attack the user could ask a third party to do it.

I note that several instances of incivility have been directed against Italiavivi on this very page. Perhaps if all users tried actually being polite and AGF then this whole thing could die down. Note that several polite messages are not likely to calm a user down if there is also at least one uncivil one around the same time.

These remarks are directed to people on both sides of this dispute. What I see here are complaints about complaints about complaints about complaints. Someone has to break the pattern by catching the ball rather than batting it back. Rather than responding to a complaint with another similar complaint, how about either (a) ignoring it as recommended at WP:NPA, or (b) actually listening to it, (ignoring any incivility in the way it's expressed,) showing that you understand it and take it seriously and seriously considering actually changing your behaviour or politely explaining why you won't, or (c) respond with a complaint/request expressed in the politest possible terms (based on heavy editing, sleeping on it and maybe consulting someone about the wording; see the test template for an example), in such a way that there's a significant chance the person might actually respond positively to it, or maybe even (d) apologizing.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Coppertwig 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Tiamut 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Italiavivi 17:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. --PalestineRemembered 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. -- Verklempt 21:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. — George [talk] 07:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. -- (Comment: I see questionable behavior on both sides of this RFC.) /Blaxthos 09:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. — R. Baley 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. -- ColdmachineTalk 11:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by Ryan Postlethwaite

Wikipedia is a collaborative project - most users here seem to understand that point. We all have to work together in a civil manner to take the encyclopedia to new levels. Communication is very important, if a user raises a concern, all editors should make an active effort to enter into discussion as to the problems with their editing. Italiavivi does not seem to want to work in a collaborative manner - as the many diffs above show, he either removes good faith attempts to bring problematic behaviour to his attention, or hits back with a personal attack. Italiavivi is very keen to accuse just about any other user he comes into contact with of making attacks, when in fact the problem is more often than not his complete lack of a civil approach. Italiavivi, as documented by his userpage has quite a strong discontent with the project - putting it bluntly, maybe this isn't the place for him.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Neier 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Except for the very last part of the last sentence, I agree with this assessment. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Endroit 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Hu12 16:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kyaa the Catlord 13:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. With last sentence caveat per 日本穣. Let's see if he can improve. <<-armon->> 11:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC) His recent behaviour is not promising. <<-armon->> 09:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. John Smith's 17:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Avruch 18:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Reasonable points. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. Editors can either abide by the community's expectations of civil behavior, or they can go away. Friday (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  12. Beit Or 21:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  13. --Shamir1 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by Nihonjoe

I think Italiavivi's comments on his userpage are pushing the envelope to see how far he can go. I've had experiences in the past with this user where no amount of politeness or explanation can convince them of good intentions. Once Italiavivi has made up his mind, no amount of discussion can get him to change it, even if his conclusions are proven to be incorrect. It is very frustrating dealing with someone like this. In the conclusion of our one and only series of interactions, and in response of his accusing me of disregarding WP:CIVIL, I told him that, "No, just open with my disregard and lack of respect for you. You haven't been civil with me since the first moment you started in on me, despite my trying to be civil with you. I've given up trying to be polite when you keep spitting in my face."[286] A little harsh, I admit, but I had reached the end of my rope with him.

I tried very hard to be civil and assume good faith during our dispute. I bent over backward to show I was acting in good faith, but to no avail. From my observation of interactions with me and other editors, Italiavivi is very aggressive and belligerent, especially when he finds someone who disagrees with him. I find it very disruptive trying to work with someone who doesn't seem to even want to "play well with others", and apparently I'm not the only one who feels this way. Looking through Italiavivi's encyclopedia edits, I can see that he is a very good contributor, and has a lot of valuable input and insight, but I think some effort needs to be put into being more civil and assuming good faith on the part of editors with whom he disagrees.

I should note that I hold no ill will toward Italiavivi, and I hope he will take these comments as constructive critique rather than criticism, and then work to improve how he interacts with others.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Hu12 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kyaa the Catlord 13:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. <<-armon->> 11:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by Sbowers3

I am disappointed by Italiavivi's continued incivility - in particular his use of the word "lie". He invited me to participate in his dispute with Zsero. After reading the discussion, I advised him that it was uncivil to call someone a liar. Later I suggested that he would be more successful in convincing other editors, if he avoided use of the word "liar".

Since then, I have seen him repeatedly use the word "lie" and to justify his incivility by the incivility of others. He doesn't seem to realize that he weakens his own case by being incivil. When he decides he is right about something him - whether it is an article's content or the way he interacts with others - apparently no amount of constructive feedback will change his mind.

I echo Nihonjoe's comment: "I should note that I hold no ill will toward Italiavivi, and I hope he will take these comments as constructive critique rather than criticism, and then work to improve how he interacts with others."

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sbowers3 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by Endroit

Speaking of WP:AGF: Is Italiavivi willing to show good faith by appologizing and retracting all (or a portion) of his statements listed above by Hu12? (If so, which ones?) A lot of them are unfounded accusations and/or name calling towards others. A clear pattern has emerged, where Italiavivi consistently attacks whoever gets in his way or disagrees.

For example I've been falsely accused by Italiavivi of "canvassing", WP:STALK, and being a Republican. (Even if I were Republican, that's clearly irrelevant, and I consider it to be a personal attack.) And Italiavivi does this kind of thing to everybody, even towards admins (falsely accusing and calling people names).

I suggest if Italiavivi cannot back up his various accusations toward others with sound proof, he ought to reconcile for his past wrongdoings immediately.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Endroit 20:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. I generally agree with this statement. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. This isn't acceptable, per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL or WP:BATTLE. If he can't bring himself to apologize, he needs to stop this behaviour going forward. <<-armon->> 11:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. John Smith's 17:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Shamir1 02:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] View by Blaxthos

After reviewing this RFC, I had no real endorsement either way... I was leaning towards the View by Coppertwig (a lot of this stuff seems blown out of proportion), but then I noticed that that one of the parties certifying the action (USER:Ryan Postlethwaite)and who had previously been involved in some sort of dispute with the "defendant" had acted as if he were an uninvolved party, posting an Outside View (complete with endorsements). When I made a comment questioning the appropriateness of an "Outside View" from an editor previously involved with the situation, the editor removed my comment. I restored my question, and USER:Ryan Postlethwaite again removed it. Because of one of the editors certifying the validity of this action has gone out of his way to act in a way that appears blatantly dishonest, and has repeatedly removed comments that note said behavior, I do not believe that there is a prima facie case and I do not believe that the defendantrespondant will receive a fair evaluation. Disclosure: I have no previous involvement with USER:Ryan Postlethwaite, and have only seen USER:Italiavivi (defendantrespondant) around a few articles I haunt (no prior relationship). /Blaxthos 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Blaxthos 15:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. That I was not going to receive a fair evaluation here (due to Hu12's selective canvassing) has been plain from the start. Italiavivi 19:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- ColdmachineTalk 11:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC) (It would help if involved editors were to take a step back and allow the community to provide input, as requested).

[edit] View by Shamir1

Because of disruptive behavior, a mediation that had little to do with Italiavivi was completely ruined. The user had constantly, non-stop, distracted far away from the point, as he was continuing a grudge that no other user thought was necessary or wanted to participate in, including the mediator. He offered no progress to the contribution, and because of his actions--and only his--the mediation failed. This confusing and very annoying behavior was a pity. A great dispute was on its way to be solved. --Shamir1 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I saw a similar thing happen in two separate discussions over the status of Obama and Obama (disambiguation). Neier 23:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. After reading the RfM, I have to agree with this view. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. I just read it too. <<-armon->> 11:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. He has instigated deliberate Disruptive editing on other articles also. in which after Italiavivi states "Absolutely proud of and unapologetic of my actions"[287] --Hu12 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Addendum of View by Blaxthos

I have been watching this RFC progress over the last week, and I have tried to keep a completely open mind and assume good faith regardning complaintants and the respondant, including pointing out what I believe to be inappropriate behavior on the part of some of the complaintants. Many of the diffs given as evidence seem to be taken out of context or have been made out to be more than they are. However (as another editor pointed out), the parties involved refused to sit back and let the RFC process take its course and instead used it as a vehicle to continue to snipe at one another.

Italiaviv, your conduct on this RFC has done nothing but seemingly validate the concerns of those who initiated it. Though the RFC may have suffered some prima facie defects, edit warring on the RFC itself (to remove SSP IP addresses) is exactly the disruptive behavior that loses you any chance of exoneration by RFC or the respect of those not previously involved in disputes with you. No one can defend your actions elsewhere because of how you behaved here.

At the start, I noted that the RFC looked an awful lot like you might be victim of being railroaded... However, at this point I believe that you've validated the concerns of those driving the train. As a very wise editor once told me, being right is no excuse for poor behavior.

I note that this morning that you have deleted your userpage and pledged not to return to Wikipedia. I believe that, for a while at least, that is probably for the best. Should you decide to return (not too quickly, might I add) I suggest being a little more open to community mores and norms and a little less likely to react from the gut. When things get tense, make yourself wait an hour or two before replying -- You might be surprised at how much differently things look when you're calm.

As for the others who have participated in the sniping contest... this RFC isn't about you, so I will keep my comment brief. I have no doubt that much of the efforts made were intended to bait Italiaviv into questionable behavior to demonstrate your concerns to the community writ large -- given your past practice you guys certainly know which of his buttons to push to evoke such a reaction. In that goal you have succeded. However, I believe that you guys pretty much brought yourselves down to his level. Just as Italiaviv should have stepped back and let the RFC work, so should you. You certainly didn't make yourselves look any better than he now does. /Blaxthos 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. /Blaxthos 16:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. ColdmachineTalk 23:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Neier 00:13, 12 September 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.