Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MarkThomas

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: 14:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Repeated POV accusations, general incivility, accusations of deleting references, etc by editor MarkThomas

Over the past several months editor MarkThomas has repeatedly accused me of POV editing, engaging in uncivil comments, personal attacks and lying to portray my edits in an unfavourble light.

He has also combined accusations of POV editing with deletion of solid references, references which supported facts that he subsequently described as being something "no-one denies" (or simiar).

He has also deleted my requests for apologies from his talk page.

I believe that this and more has also been happening to other users, but I haven't gathered the diffs to demonstrate yet.


[edit] Desired outcome

I'd like MarkThomas to be civil, to not continually make POV accusations, to not delete references, to not mischaracterise references, to bring some references to support his statements instead of just casting accusations around. I'd like to be able to help edit WP without having to be in a conflict all the time.

[edit] Description

Sufficiently described above and below

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

In my case, this incivility, etc, has been happening on the Cromwell page and (further ago) on the British Isles page. Here are a few examples;

Cromwell

We can start with [1] where he is saying refs are POV, or [2] where he is deleting references to dislike of Cromwell in Ireland because it's POV or [3] where he is deleting the same ref a second time using another spurious reason. (Have a look at the ref. It's from the UK National Archive and he deletes it on the grounds that it's an unfair use of a British Govt Source to support Republican POV. (or maybe it's a good reference he doesn't like). Then we have [4] where he deletes another ref on the same point (i.e. dislike of Cromwell in Ireland) from an 1900 Biography of Cromwell as being POV.

During this time I added many references from serious sources (e.g. volumes from Oxford and Cambridge University Press), which seemed to make things quieter. However, after a gap, we again has an attempt to characterise references given as being "Irish" (a typical MarkThomas accusation is that someone is using "Republican POV"), despite the fact that the refs are from several countries, primarily British. [5]

At the same time, on the Cromwell talk page, there were repeated accusations of POV and the beginnings of creating history that never happened (I'm unaware that one of my references was "discredited" in Cromwell, but it's not the first or only time that MarkThomas says things like this on talk pages). We have [6] and [7] , which are both accusations of POV, [8] where we have more POV accusations, plus accusations of snowjobbing references, which is interesting since he'd previous been deleting references and reverting the page as being unsupported.

Then we have [9], which is an interesting diff, since here he says that "nobody contests" a point where he had deleted several supporting refs as being POV, which I've listed above too.

This one is comparatively mild, but I feel that is shows a manipulative tendency. [10] He's apparently attempting to portray a ref as unsourced, despite the fact that he knows the source and had used it himself only a few days previously.

Here again we have [11], which is more description of references as "Republican" and [12] which is characterisation of the references as "Republican folklore".

Then, after a mostly good debate between greycap, sony-youth, koncorde and others, MarkThomas comes back with [13], which accuses me of deleting references, and [14] which says something along the lines that an obsessive opponent of reference destroyers (I guess I plead guilty). Then we have [15] where he accuses me again of deleting references and apparently of gathering support outside the page by posting on "Irish noticeboards" - whatever they are. Once more we have [16] , another repeated accusation of deleting references and making false accusations.


Meantime, on the British Isles page, we have everything from basic POV accusations, [17], to deletion of key references during a protracted discussion on how to write an intro to the article - where the references were vital in trying to agree on the text. First he deletes some of the references [18], then comes back to delete some more of them, [19], and again continues, all the time suggesting that these references are POV [20] even though they're from serious reputable sources.

Again, more accusations of POV editing [21], and again, [22]

Meantime, in all of this, and despite the fact that he says he will provide references [23] MarkThomas almost never actually provides any references to support his own point of view (note, i don't call it POV, since we all have a point of view). However, he very frequently asserts that others are POV too., e.g. [24], although I don't understand how it's POV to say where someone is from.

Other editors (whom i don't know and haven't followed their edits) have also apparently had a problem [25], [26], [27], [28]

(Note, these other editors have had their own disputes between each other and couldn't been seen as a group)

Then we have some more examples of characterising my edits or talk page contributions as being something other than I'd said. We can start with [29], even though I had repeatedly said the view was far from universal, and [30] where he makes and assertion that I'd been warned by an admin for apparently putting something on his talk page..which is a mystery to me.

Then there was also an accusation of collusion, [31], which was also rejected by the other editor [32].

Followed by assertions that I was blocked for 3rr (i wasn't, and it't pretty minor anyway) [33]

We also have an example of changing the argument to confuse the issue, for a reason that is entirely beyond me. [34] In this diff he proposes "Often" as a suitable word in a long disputed piece of text. Read back through the page to see how often MarkThomas had opposed using the word "often", whereas now suddenly he proposes it.

Also we have accusations of bullying and agression, [35].

And accusations of deliberate misquoting of references [36], even though I've repeatedly told MarkThomas I never made the edits he says i made and can't comment on their accuracy.

In all, I guess my question was well expressed already several months ago in this diff [37] .

Dealing with MarkThomas is just highly unpleasant. This has been a pattern now for months and it's tiresome. I've tried to ask him to stop and to apologise and he'll deny that he makes accusations, apologises for one thing then repeats it, puts conditional apologies on my talk page but wraps them in get out clauses, deletes my requests for civility on his talk pages, responds to them with "threats" that he'll get me blocked and banned, etc.

I've tried to stick to citation as much as possible but MarkThomas doesn't care and doesn't provide any refs to support his accusations of POV, just repeats them and edits the pages apparently using his own personal knowledge as the ultimate reference. Hughsheehy 14:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:Civil
  2. WP:NPA
  3. WP:Vandalism

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [38] is an archive of his talk page. I asked for references and civility on various occasions.
  2. [39] another archive of his talk page. Again, I asked for civillity. Other editors are on the same page asking for no personal attacks,etc.
  3. Recently we have a whole series of interactions [40] and [41].

It's apparent that I'm getting nowhere.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Hughsheehy
  2. I asked Mark to watch the inflammatory and uncivil comments on Oliver Cromwell's talk page, and then on an unrelated matter, blocked MarkThomas for 24 hours for violations of WP:CIVIL, and trolling. So far, the block's been endorsed by three seperate administrators. SirFozzie 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Domer48 20:44, 26 July 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.

{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.}


Users who endorse this summary:

[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.