Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lovelight

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: 15:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Lovelight has many, many times attempted to change established, sourced events on September 11, 2001 attacks and associated articles. He constantly attempts to insert conspiracy theory language and dull down sourced statements as to what happened that day, and it is always reverted. He's broken 3RR four times, but that doesn't keep him from coming back. It's getting annoying - I cannot find one change he has made to the main article (the only one I routinely monitor) that has actually stuck. Do we have to continue reverting this person, who can add nothing? All he does is make changes which are reverted by the wider community, and then bring up extended, often contentious, discussion on the talk page that changes nothing. It's time we stopped having to wade around his changes that are not and will not get in to the article. --Golbez 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional statement: Lovelight has just been blocked for two weeks for violating 3RR his fifth time in 2007, and his second time in April. This does go a long way towards justifying this RfC, it also makes him unable to respond to it directly. --Golbez 17:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

  • I would like the user to simply cease this disruptive activity. If he wants these changes made that he knows aren't met by consensus, he should bring it up on the talk page, first and only. If that will not happen, then I would have to ask for ...
  • I would like either an article ban, or at the very least a 1RR limit on related articles. There's no reason whatsoever that editors to these articles should have to go through the motions of reverting Lovelight for his three reverts daily.
  • If this RfC fails to provide any remedy, I will move towards arbitration. The status quo cannot be allowed to continue.

[edit] Description

Lovelight has a habit of making a change that he knows will be reverted, commonly marking it minor, then reverting it a few times, again often marking as minor. He then makes a loud case on the talk page, but nothing ever changes - Consensus is not even tilting towards his changes, let alone changing completely.

I should point out that as I post this, there is a notice on WP:AN3, as he has made five reverts in the last 24 hours on 9/11.

[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. Repeated blocks for violating 3RR and personal attacks: [1]
  2. Marking a revert of widely-agreed consensus material as minor: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] (and that's just a sample from the last fortnight; I could go wider if you like)
  3. Touching on that last diff, repeatedly attempting to insert a POV template into an article that, at the time (and so far as I know, ever since) has not justified the inclusion of the template.[10]
  4. Turning the talk pages into a discussion forum on the subject of the article, rather than the article itself (a good example being [11], this has nothing to do with the article, and at best a tangential relation to the subject - but it gets people riled up).

Again - these diffs are only from this month, but this pattern of aggressive, anti-consensus editing has been going on for months.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:3RR
  2. WP:NPOV
  3. WP:MINOR
  4. WP:NPA

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Multiple, multiple attempts on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and User talk:Lovelight. A small sampling:[12][13][14]


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Golbez 15:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. StuffOfInterest 16:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) [15]
  3. I tried to resolve a similar dispute in regard {{911ct}} and {{911tm}} previously, but I can't say I've been involved in this 9/11 dispute. However, as {{911ct}} is involved, I guess it qualifies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. While I'm not involved in the content dispute, I did speak to Lovelight during the previous 3RR block, and tried to direct to more productive dispute resolution methods than edit-warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Dcooper 16:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Lovelight seems to have come to regard 3rr blocks as a cost of doing business, and is currently starting a two-week block. Tom Harrison Talk 23:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Edit warring is not an acceptable way to resolve things. Not now, not ever. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Tbeatty 06:39, 25 April 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.

User Golbez's personal attacks, lies and outrageous insults formulated at this RfC are not acceptable, I demand apology! Lovelight 18:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC) (As Lovelight is currently on 3RR block, this is his response copied from his talk page.[16][17] --StuffOfInterest 19:02, 25 April 2007 (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.

[edit] Almost outside view of MONGO

Lovelight has gone from being only mildly disruptive, to edit warring and down right offensive. If this pattern continues he should be listed at the Community sanction noticeboard so the community can decide if his continued involvement in Wikipedia is likely to be beneficial to our efforts to write an encyclopedia.MONGO 04:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Tbeatty 06:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Addendum: This Rfc is a waste of time...I have requested community sanction here--MONGO 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  1. Haemo 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not quite outside view of User:StuffOfInterest

Lovelight seems to have a distorted view of Wikipedia and Wikipedians. First, he removes a comment claiming in the edit summary it is an insult[18]. Next, he places a comment with a clear name calling insult[19]. A look at his edit summaries shows a clear pattern of disrespect of other editors and assuming bad faith[20][21]. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are in short supply. Including his latest, he has racked up five blocks since late last year with one for disruption and four in a row for 3RR[22]. With at least the latest 3RR, he can't seem to understand that when multiple people are reverting his work that perhaps he needs to take another track and talk the issue through instead of trying to bully his version in. Lovelight's obsession with 9/11 related topics make him pretty close to being a single purpose account, which is always dangerous for objectivity. Perhaps he needs to branch out into other, unrelated topics and give everything related to 9/11 a rest for a couple of months. --StuffOfInterest 17:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. StuffOfInterest 17:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. MONGO 20:03, 24 April 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.