Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbhiii
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: 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
User has, on multiple occasions, attempted to attack the credibility of other editors in debates in an attempt to have their opinions discredited or outright discounted. This has included directly calling in to question the religious affiliations and philosophical leanings, stated or otherwise, and implying that editors with stated affiliations are unsuitable for debate. User has also used offensive language and otherwise insulted editors during debates.
User has demonstrated an uwillingness to remain civil in debates and indicated that user feels entitled to ignore policy regarding civility and personal attacks to make a point. User has also made numerous attempts to circumvent procedures, and while in some instances may be good-faith attempts made without knowledge of procedure, has insisted upon doing so in spite of being advised otherwise.
[edit] Desired outcome
Mbhiii has made a number of good-faith edits to Wikipedia and as such is a valuable contributor in spite of an unwillingness to adhere to certain policies regarding policy. Mbhiii must adhere to these policies, especially regarding civility toward other editors. User should acknowledge that Wikipedia debates are about content and not contributers and cease discrediting, insulting or otherwise making negative commentary toward other editors in spite of the opinions he may hold. Mbhiii should continue to make valuable, good-faith contributions to the project and cooperate more constructively. If Mbhiii continues to refuse to abide by policy and continues to be incivil toward other editors, more stringent action should be considered against him.
[edit] Description
User became involved in the deletion debates for two articles he created, Unholy alliance and Southern mafia. User went to great efforts to argue against the deletion of these articles but was ultimately unsuccessful. User then contested the deletion of both articles on DRV, and was equally tenacious in attempts to overturn the deletion decisions. In multiple instances during these debates, user insisted on pointing out what he percieved to be either hidden agendas or biases on the part of the editors involved in the debates and attempted to have their opinions discredited or outright discarded based on this perception. User has gone from simply inferring a bias in the beginning of the debates, escalating to outright accusations of vandalism and disingenuous editing, refusing to assume good faith and growing more uncivil as the debates progressed.
[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.)
-
- diff uncivil language, questioning editors' religious affiliations
- diff Pointing out other users' religious and political affiliations
- diff Pointing out users' philosophical ideaologies as part of deletion debate
- diff Continued arguments for discrediting debates on basis of editor's beliefs
- diff Accusing other users of having a hidden agenda
- diff Uncivil language used in debate, explicit request to discount other editors' contributions to debate
- diff Continued personal attacks against editor in disagreement
- diff Refusal to abide by guidelines, refusal to assume good faith, accusing other users of vandalism without merit
- diff Refusal to acknowledge civility issues, statement of intent to continue behavior
- diff Continued refusal to assume good faith, warrantless accusations of vandalism
- diff Out of process attempt to dispute DRV closings, out of process attempt to seek comment or other action against other editors
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
[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:
- Even though my name has been used by both parties in this dispute, I am placing my statement here rather than above because I don't feel I am really involved in this dispute... The extent of my involvement is that I have disagreed with MBHiii in two AfD debates, and have tried to help him understand the problems those articles had with various wikipedia policies and guidelines, problems that led to the articles being deleted. Did he misinterpret my motives? Perhaps... but I never took offense at what he said. Actually, I think all of this comes about because MBHiii has a bit of a problem with WP:OWN, he gets very defensive about articles he cares about. My recommendation for all parties in this dispute... go edit other articles for a while, and let the current debate settle down. Blueboar 22:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- I almost feel that I was the one who touched off this whole debate. I came across the Unholy Alliance article after it was added as a See Also link to Kentucky. After removing the link because I felt it was only tangentially important to Kentucky (if at all), I read the article in question. I found it unnecessarily hostile toward Baptists, implicating them without citation in some kind of impropriety with local bootleggers. While cooperation no doubt exists in some (perhaps even many) instances between religious organizations and organizations of a more nefarious nature, I found it odd that the editor would target Baptists and Kentuckians in particular. The tone of the article was such that all Baptists were being implicated, and to the exclusion of all other denominations. Based on these observations, I tagged the article with both {{POV}} and {{Unreferenced}}. These were removed by an IP editor who appears to me to have been MBHiii operating anonymously. After a lengthy discussion on the article's talk page which included questioning of my motives based upon my self-identified religious affiliation, the editor agreed to properly source the article, and I agreed to allow a period of two months for this to take place. Subsequent edits indeed brought forth a number of citations, though the relevance of these citations was later called into question. More importantly, the article began to mushroom into a list of purported "unholy alliances", and became altogether unwieldy. Exasperated, and unable to untangle the resulting mess, I requested the help of more experienced editors at WP:VPA, whereupon Blueboar nominated the article for deletion. Beyond endorsing this nomination, I have since remained silent in the proceedings, but have watched them with interest, and, at times, frustration. I find the contents of this page to be an accurate recounting of the events, and endorse the recommendations above. Acdixon 21:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Follow up: It appears as though this user has returned to operating anonymously using the IP 63.98.135.196. Acdixon 21:21, 11 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.
