Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JD UK

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: 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

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

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.

[edit] Description

JD_UK argues about any changes I make to any articles. I have heard that he doesn't accept things, even though he admits they're good, because I did it. He constantly argues all the time with me, and it's causing unneeded wikistress. He has often demanded I stay off his talkpage, and made personal attacks towards me. -- 9cds(talk) 01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[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. User_talk:9cds/archive#Excuse_me.3F
  2. User_talk:9cds/archive#Do_you_not_understand.3F
  3. [1]
  4. Talk:Big_Brother_UK_series_7/archive1#Length
  5. Most of Talk:Big_Brother_Australia_series_6/A2
  6. refusing to answer, discuss, or comply with policy Section: Definitions
  7. refusing to answer, discuss, or comply with policy Section: Five Points
  8. Severe reverting regardless of consensus.
  9. Blatant refusal to heed warnings about edit warring
  10. Personal attacks
  11. Personal attack Insisting on referring to an editor's gender incorrectly even after being warned. - 1 2 3 4 5 5 6
  12. Assuming bad faith in IFD
  13. Arguing over use of the word "alleged"
  14. Unable to compromise
  15. Moving template without clear reason
  16. Reverting changes using popups, no reason given
  17. Some more personal attacks
  18. Reerted removal of unsourced information

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:3RR
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:AGF

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-06-01_JD_UK_and_9cds
  2. editor would neither participate nor cooperate with consensus
  3. Purposeful denial and evasion in conversation to justify "owning" an article even after Administrative intervention

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. -- 9cds(talk)
  2. Ste4k 05:57, 2 July 2006 (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.

{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.}

I don't agree with everything 9cds has said. I have made ample attempt to try and resolve issues on Wikipedia, and any personal problems that have occurred between myself and 9cds. A lot of 9cds's actions, mostly leaving warnings on my talk page due to edit wars that are caused by editing problems to which a general decision has not been reached, often provoke what I would consider borderline-incivillity towards 9cds.

I opened a mediation case to try and get a third perspective on the situation, but I did not feel that a reasonable solution had been reached. I have also tried to speak with 9cds on the IRC channels, and I was immediately met with hostility; 9cds said that I was "wikistalking" her. 9cds often says that I am unable to compromise, but I feel that the same can be said of her - edits she has made to some articles were not necessary, and 9cds often leaves no room for compromise on her part, always insisting that the edit previous to hers was of inferior quality. Some changes are not necessary, and leaving pages as they are to avoid conflict is not something 9cds is able to do. I am not the only person that has had conflicts with 9cds, but for some reason I seem to be the biggest influence on her "stress levels".

As for Ste4k, I initially did not feel there was any conflict, but her decision to change an entire article so that it was in past tense was not a change that I felt was good. A vote was started on the talk page of this article, by 9cds, and I made a comment; on the advice of 9cds. I do not see this as not participating, as I did make my views clear. After the vote was closed, and a decision to have content that referred to current events, such as relationships, written in present tense, was made, Ste4k still changed everything back into past tense, and I was still made out to look as though I was in the wrong.

I've been told quite a few times by 9cds and Ste4k that I do not listen to what other people have to say, but I do not see anything that would suggest that I have ignored anybody - I read all comments that are relevant to anything I am, or have been, involved in. I am willing to listen to any and all advice in regards to this situation, and will be more than ready to try to help the situation, as I did earlier today on IRC (9cds chose not to speak to me).

It should also be noted that 9cds and Ste4k are the only editors on Wikipedia that I have had major ongoing conflicts with. --JD[don't talk|email] 20:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

I believe this dispute may be resolved. To my eye the disputants need to cool it and try and see things from a more dispassionate viewpoint (and from the others perspective) It's surely best to let this matter wither and die, but it now seems lessons still need to be learnt.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. luke 14:33, 11 July 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.