Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ludovicapipa

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: 20:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:27, 11 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 are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

First of all, an apology for the length of this, but this has been a protracted dispute, which perhaps I should have brought here earlier.

Ludovicapipa and myself, Dalillama (talk · contribs), have been, for the past three weeks, engaged in legitimate content disputes centering around the pages Fernando Collor de Mello, Zélia Cardoso de Mello, Telebrás, 1964 Brazilian coup d'état and Plano Collor. This has been a two-way content dispute with no other editors actively involved, with the exception of third opinions and other good samaritans.

She has issued several personal attacks against me, threatened me with "blocking", accused of violating WP:AGF and outright insulted the initiator. Ludovica has stated to having a "goal" of pushing a POV related to Fernando Collor de Mello, and most attacks originate when she tries to defend that POV.

It is important to point out that she has already been blocked for one year at the Portuguese Wikipedia under the username Filomeninha by community sanction (seen here) for the same types of offenses on many of the same articles. User created her account on the EN Wikipedia within a few hours of being blocked on the PT Wikipedia. She is not a "new user", as she has 4000 edits over 12 months at the PT wikipedia.

It should also be noted that Ludovica's first language is Portuguese, and not English. She has been generally able to express herself in English, and in the few instances where I have sensed a language problem in a particular issue, I've made sure to communicate to her in both English and Portuguese (I speak both natively), removing any room for misinterpretation.

Dali-Llama 03:43, 7 September 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.

1) An apology and recognition of fault by Ludovica over the issues mentioned here

2) A correction in Ludovica's behavior, including immediately ceasing to violate the policies listed below

3) Community feedback on Ludovica's personal and editorial conducts.

4) Community consensus on referring the matter to Arbcom, considering both her current conduct here and one-year PT Wikipedia block for the same offenses only three months ago.

[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.}

Note: Diffs and others will be placed below, but maintaining the outline shown here.

1) Personal Attacks

Ludovica has consistently belittled, used irony and sarcasm, and outright insulted me in our content disputes. Ludovica has questioned my good faith, slandered me with other users, and alternated between petitioning administrators to block me and openly questioning other administrator's decisions in the matter.

2) Individual content editing conduct

Our disputes are valid, centering around issues such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV/WP:FRINGE, WP:RS and WP:V and I've strived to address them citing policy and separating the issues at hand. Many of Ludovica's contributions are valid and improve the article, while others I believed ran afoul of the aforementioned policies. Ludovica does not demonstrate knowledge of Wikipedia policy, which would generally be fine, but she has rarely shown a willingness to learn or ask for clarification of what may be unclear to her, instead resorting to a combination of personal attacks and "source spamming".

a)When synthesis and reliable sources issues came up in the article 1964 Brazilian coup d'état, she repeatedly questioned my motivations, claiming through several underhanded comments that I was a "communist sympathizer", not only on the article talk page but on another user's talk page as well.
b)She has demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the verifiability policy and the use of reliable sources, where in response to my objections on 1964 Brazilian coup d'état and Fernando Collor de Mello that she was misquoting the sources she provided, she asked for "negative" proof of her interpretation from those sources.
c)Ludovica has consistently reverted my edits even when not affecting the disputed content, be they manual of style corrections, proper referencing formatting of both mine and her sources and even grammar or spelling corrections I have made to these articles. Even after I've mentioned to her that these reverts were not necessary, and my attempt to solve the problem by segregating my content edits from my grammar/spelling edits as a gesture of good will if she decided to revert the content edits via "(undo)", she continued to revert all my edits, regardless of what they actually changed.
d)Throughout her entire edit history, Ludovica has written almost no edit summaries, despite being asked to do so as a courtesy to facilitate the resolution of the content dispute.
e)Finally, in discussing content disputes centering around WP:RS, she has "spammed" sources at a particular objection, with no regard for readability, making it incredibly hard for third opinions or other potential editors to join the discussion "in progress"

3) Conduct when interacting with 3rd-party editors and administrators

a) Ludovica has constantly accused me of acting in "bad faith" on multiple user's talk pages.
b) When speaking to administrators, she has twice asked for me to be blocked for content edits, outside of the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]. She was rejected on both occasions. While I'm partially inclined to credit this to a lack of understanding of policy, she has gone through the DR process in the PT Wikipedia which closely mirrors our own, so I'm sure she knew what she was doing.
c)She has rejected three separate third-opinions in content disputes, either ignoring, side-stepping or categorically rejecting their opinion.

4)POV

I'm hesitant to mention this, only because the obvious response is that I have a POV as well, but it may very well serve as a rationale to her actions and "territoriality", so to speak.

Ludovica edits relatively few articles. A good chunk of them (4 or 5), are all related to Fernando Collor de Mello, a Brazilian president impeached for corruption in 1992. Her edits, in both the PT and EN Wikipedias speak overwhelmingly positive of Collor, mostly focusing on his economic programs than his political troubles. Regardless of what my personal views of the man may be, I've tried to adopt a NPOV when questioning her edits and assumed that her edits were a genuine attempt to improve the article by adding a part of his presidency which is historically overshadowed by political events surrounding his impeachment.

I have not openly criticized her for her viewpoints, even when she explicitly stated that her goal was to paint a positive picture of Collor. I responded by saying that the intentions don't concern me as long as the end product doesn't violate policy, which I felt they did. I intentionally tried to stay away from polarizing viewpoint rules such as WP:NPOV and WP:PEACOCK trying to accommodate her viewpoints as best I could as WP:FRINGE, and addressing issues through WP:OR, WP:SYN, WP:V and WP:RS.

But as always, when an editor has a "pet" POV, compromise edits, NPOV and NPA are always hard issues to resolve. I believe this case is a textbook example of that.


Ammendment: 21:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

5) Following comments from KieferSkunk, I should also point out Ludovica has violated the 3RR several times. During edit wars, I would attempt to create a compromise edit, incorporating her content (some times in whole and unadulterated) to my edits, which she reverted, many times without explanation. As she would not respond on the talk page to the reasons for my edit, I progressively "toned down" my content in favor of hers, hoping to gain any traction towards a compromise. She continued to revert in whole until it progressed to the point where she reverted even spelling or referencing corrections (as I've pointed to above). I filed two separate 3RR notices to WP:AN3, but withdrew them before they were ruled on: In both cases I felt she would interpret a 3RR block as a "personal attack", further inflaming her remarks towards me. I resorted to requesting page protection (which was granted three times on two separate pages), in order to "force" Ludovica to the talk page (and not away from the article as a whole). Unfortunately, this did not help the situation and her remarks became progressively more vitriolic. (evidence follows in the next section)

[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.)

Note: Many pieces of evidence are in Portuguese. Translation has been provided by myself, with interpretation kept to a minimum. If translation by an uninvolved user is requested, Fvasconcellos has offered to help.


1) Personal Attacks

I've already added my comments on the talk page [of the article]. The "assume good faith" which you've placed on my page is not adequate. I understand you're new to Wikipedia and may now know all the policies and the famous wiki-etiquette, but a notice isn't necessary when you disagree with a user's edits.--Dali-Llama 20:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: At the time I made this comment, I did not know she had some 4000 edits over 12 months on the PT wikipedia under the Filomeninha username, so I tried not to "bite" the newcomer and clearly explain why I felt the use of the warning was incorrect. She ackowledged she wasn't new immediately afterwards. This was our first non-amicable instance (though still somewhat respectful).

  • User talk:Dalillama: Ludovica threatens me with a block: "If you insist, I will ask and administrator to block you, so you can refresh yr mind."
  • User Talk: João Felipe C.S: After I make a spelling mistake in Portuguese, she states: "Por aí nota-se que nível temos aqui" (Translation: "that shows the level we have have here"), which is semi-colloquial Portuguese questioning what I'm assuming is my educational level.
  • Fernando Collor de Mello - " I dont´know how old are you..." Is it really necessary to insult me by questioning my age?
  • Fernando Henrique Cardoso - Ludovica, responding to my previous comment, names her section heading "Pathetic", in what I'm assuming is a characterization of my comments.
  • User talk:Ludovicapipa- User belittles my comments as "little argument of "NO importance" (her emphasis) followed by: "Hahahahahaha"

And most recently:

  • Talk:Telebrás- In discussing appropriate use of a particular source, she stated: "VERY UGLY: MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (her emphasis) and "hAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA 15:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC) YOU ARE THE ONE WHODOESN´T READE SOURCES."

2) Individual content editing conduct

a)User talk:Dalillama- Ludovica accuses me of editing an entire article according to a communist viewpoint.
User talk:Ryan Postlethwaite- Accuses me of "editions which are cleary driven by personal views (antiliberals, antirightwing, antidemocratic).]
b)Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello - During a dispute over synthesis of sources, she says: "If you don´t agree with that you must prove the contrary, you must offer link that deny that " (her emphasis) and "3. Once you provide link, citations, quotations, then we can start talking;, asking for "negative proof" that something didn't happen.
c)1964 Brazilian coup d'état- After I remove a paragraph citing WP:OR based on sources, Ludovica reverts in whole, after I specifically stated and if she chose to revert, to leave the portion sourced with a broken link out.
Fernando Collor de Mello- Diff showing Ludovica removed references in the course of a wholesale revert.
Fernando Collor de Mello- Ludovica removed WP:SYN tag with no justification after two different editors (myself and Coren) had agreed this was an open issue on the talk page.
d)A quick look at her contribs page will show little-to-no use of edit summaries. I pleaded with her] to do so, and to this day she rarely fills it out, making dispute resolution unnecessarily difficult.
e)Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello - A quick glance at the page will show how she usually deals with an objection by me: I say "Source A isn't saying A+B=C--He's just saying B. That's WP:SYN" and then she literally spams the page with source after source, without connection or proper formatting. This can similarly be seen in Talk:1964 Brazilian coup d'état, where she copies and pastes the same Yes it is section not once, not twice, but three separate times.

3) Conduct when interacting with 3rd-party editors and administrators

a)User talk:Carioca-accuses me of vandalism and "MUCH BEYOND BAD FAITH" (her emphasis)
b)João Felipe, Ground Zero and [1] - Ludovica asks João Felipe C.S, Ground Zero and Carioca to block me over what is clearly a content-related issue.
c)User talk:Dalillama- In response to a third opinion request, Coren issues an opinion which contradicts Ludovica. Ludovica seems to accept Coren's conclusions, but when he leaves, citing a lack of good faith, she reverts all changes suggested by Coren.
Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello- Carioca, as a third opinion, disagrees with Ludovica on one of the same paragraphs Coren had objected to. Ludovica proceeds to ignore him, and to this day reverts any attempt to remove said paragraph.
Talk:Fernando Collor de Mello-Carioca disagrees with Ludovica again this time over the placement of retrospective opinion text, which both he and I feel should be placed towards the bottom of the section. Ludovica blatantly proceeds to skirt the consensus by re-arranging the entire section, placing opinion in the middle of the section and literally saying Since I´ve changed the structure of the paragraph --it´s a new one. it´s a new edition. Nor mine, nor yrs, nor hisis valid --it´s new one

4)POV

  • User talk:Ludovica - In response to my comment that she was being selective about quoting the same source in defense of the results of the Plano Collor economic program, her reply was the following (translated):
I've already said that the Plano Collor's result don't matter to me (they're the result of politics, not incompetence). I said that several times. I know all this. About WP rules, this thing you cite (instead of researching, citing and presenting sources), this disfigured little monster, which YOU disfigure,(...) My "goal" is to show that [Collor's] legacy is highly positive. Not just Bresser, but hundred of other links only criticize him. Hundreds. What resulted from Collor, FHC and Lula consume and don't say "thank you"--just imitate.


Ammendment: 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

5)3RR violations

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Personal Conduct

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

Editorial Conduct

  1. WP:3RR
  2. WP:V
  3. WP:RS
  4. WP:NPOV
  5. WP:OR
  6. WP:SYN
  7. WP:SOAP
  8. WP:FRINGE

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. WP:3O- mentioned in section 3c above. Three separate attempts at a 3O DR which resulted in failure by Ludovica to accept outside opinion.
  2. WP:MEDCABAL- I approached User:Kim Bruning on IRC for help. He accepted my request and asked for Ludovica's participation and help. He worked in his talk page, but as one sees, there has been no result.
  3. Wikiquette Alert- Admirably conducted by KieferSkunk, but to no avail.
  4. Requests for a reply to this RfC: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. Full text available on Talk page.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Dali-Llama 03:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 05:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Isaac Pankonin 09:23, 16 September 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.}

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.

{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] Outside view by User:KieferSkunk

I became indirectly involved in this dispute when User:Dalillama posted a Wikiquette Alert regarding User:Ludovicapipa's behavior in the above referenced articles. He posted enough diffs and links to discussions in the WQA to show clear evidence that not only was Ludovicapipa acting uncivilly toward Dalillama (including violations of WP:SKILL), but that Dali's own behavior was in fact very civil (though in later portions of the discussion, I did detect that Dali's patience was wearing thin). I attempted to help by offering some advice to both parties.

In the process, Ludovicapipa started posting large numbers of new sections to my Talk page (see the current discussion) showing "evidence" that Dalillama was in fact treating her uncivilly and unfairly. She only gave me general links to article talk pages and/or references to conversations that had occurred, but did not give me any diffs to refer to for specific examples, even after I asked her to do so and gave clear instructions on how to post a diff link. In the research I was able to do into what she linked me to, I did not see any evidence of uncivil behavior on Dalillama's part.

I informed Ludovicapipa that I could not (and would not) comment on article content issues - I was only able and willing to comment on behavioral issues and matters of WP policy. She repeatedly accused me of not reading her messages (even after I told her I had read them thoroughly), and she continued to ask me about the content dispute after I told her I had no knowledge about the content and could not comment on it. I eventually commented specifically on a 3RR warning that Dalillama left on her talk page (she apparently took deep offense to this warning), and I also tried to point her several times to WP:CIVIL, WP:SKILL and WP:NPA, as well as WP:V and WP:NPOV. I later informed both parties that I was recusing myself from the WQA because I could no longer be of any help.

In my opinion, Ludovicapipa:

  1. Does not feel that she did anything wrong in the dispute;
  2. Feels that Dalillama's behavior is out of line and is worthy of threats (expressed or implied) of admin blocks;
  3. Does not understand or refuses to follow Wikipedia civility policies;
  4. Refuses to or does not understand how to separate her behavior from the content dispute at hand;
  5. Is not willing to mediate.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 07:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. — Coren (talk) 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    I figured I should elaborate a little: I've been shortly involved in the content dispute underlying this when I provided a third opinion at Dali's request. Dali was unfailingly polite and genuinely attempted to work with Ludovicapipa. I had to step back when Ludovicapipa became aggressive— I did not want to stoke the fires of a dispute. From what I have seen Ludovicapipa intends to push his POV into the articles by bullying opposition and willfully misrepresenting sources and makes no attempt to reach concensus. This is perfectly consistent with KieferSkunk's experience above. — Coren (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. I was watching this dispute from the outside a little, having protected the Fernando Collor de Mello article and interacted with Dalillama via e-mail a little. I found that Dali was very polite throughout the dispute, and when I asked him whether he thought it appropriate to block Ludovicapipa for a short time for tendentious editing, he recommended I should not, saying that he wanted to attempt to work through the problems. I found no indication in my investigations or my interactions with Dali that he was anything but polite, and though his patience was slowly being worn down by Ludo's actions, he remained willing to enter into mediation. I endorse Kiefer's summary above - Ludovicapipa has been banned for similar behaviour on other WPs and should attempt to understand our policies here, should she wish to be a long-term editor. ~ Riana ⁂ 04:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Carioca 19:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. Isaac Pankonin 09:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Isaac Pankonin

From what I read, I got the impression of a belligerant character on the part of Ludoviapipa. My opinion doesn't differ from Dali's or Kiefer's, but I also wanted to mention the language issue. For the most part, I'm relying on Dali's interpretations, and I'm forced to choose between putting my trust entirely in Dali on one hand, or ignoring those diffs that I can't understand on the other. It's also hard to judge context when I'm trying to look into it independently, looking at diffs that haven't been translated. So on top of all the other policy/guideline violations listed, I'm going to add WP:TPG for not using English in talk pages. Since TPG is not a policy that's widely cited, I think Dali and Ludovica should both be warned. I think there are enough readable diffs to endorse both of the sections above, however.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Isaac Pankonin 09:19, 16 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.