Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Quizimodo

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: 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This Rfc is a result of a post made at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by myself, User:Gazzster.


[edit] Desired outcome

  • I feel the discussion at Talk:Dominion is suffering. There are important questions to be discussed. But discussion is severely obstructed. There may be many reasons for this, and by all means let us discuss them here. I strongly feel however, that a major reason is Quizimodo's apparent inability to conduct himself civilly with users he disagrees with. He has assumed bad faith and collusion. He seems not to be able to see that others can genuinely see things differently. As a result discussion is often diverted from content to personalities. I do not want an apology. I do not want to shame him. I request an undertaking from him that he will conduct himself civilly.
  • 1RR revert rule be put into effect
  • Participation in requested mediation [1]

--soulscanner (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Description

Rude and contemptuous comments, dismissive attitude, refusal to even consider reasonable points, ignoring complaints.

[edit] History

At Talk:Dominion there were a series of exchanges between myself and Quizimodo. He became rude. I went to his talk page concerning his rudeness. He was dismissive. I went to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. User:Soulscanner also posted a complaint. Quizimodo indicated to User:GoodDay at his talk page that he did not recognise the complaint and had no intention of participating. I then went to the Admin Noticeboard, and was advised to start an Rfc. The texts in question can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts under User:Quizimodo, and also at Talk:Dominion.

[edit] Persistent edit warring

  • Persistent removal of neutrality tags on disputed items on Dominion page [2][3][4]
  • Persistent removal of neutrality tags on related item on Canada page despite acknowledgment of controversy and based on assumption of bad faith by this editor [5][6]
  • Dominion page: Removal of requested references; replacement with tag requesting references [7]

--soulscanner (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Accusations of bad faith on issue of neutrality tags on Canada page and Dominion debate in general

Accusations were made towards me. Some examples from Talk:Canada [8]:

  • "This request should be denied: if anything, this is proof-positive of this editor's indiscriminate addition of tags and ongoing disruption. The term may be contentious among a clutch of Wikipedians, particularly the instigating editor, but this debate is an artificial one of the offending editor's making"
  • "The debate is an artificial one. And please spare me your insinuations of good faith, which you have demonstrated little of."
  • "And the legitimacy of this debate is questionable, since it is one which has been manufactured by you and compatriots. I maintain that you are acting in bad faith and have been since the get-go,"

--soulscanner (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contempt for editors with opposing viewpoints

User:Quizimodo displays repeated belligerence towards editors with opposing views, never giving up an opportunity to tell someone how wrong they are. He gives many opinions on personality traits, all the while avoiding any on the points made in legitimate cited sources. It is usually literate, not crude, and hence not obviously uncivil. One needs to observe and be at the end of several exchanges to truly understand the effects of this bullying. Insults and belligerence are basically embedded in these exchanges, and objectionable because of their frequency and because they are accompanied by an absence of reference to the cited materials. When cited materials are mentioned, it is to accuse the editor of misrepresentation, not to discuss their content. It is like dealing with an all-powerful alien in a 1960's Star Trek episode.

Examples[9],[10]

"No, you be specific" ---- "your hypocrisy is grating" ---- "Enough. I will comment next when there's reason to." ---- "Thus, your assumptions are erroneous." ---- "If you wish to engender good faith, edit as such, remain silent, or withdraw." ---- "Wikipedia isn't your mother." ---- "Minding you aside, I neither agree nor disagree with Heard -- it is what it is." ---- "your flagrant misinterpretation of source matter and incessant disruption." etc.


Context
There is nothing to indicate from Forsey that those powers granted were more than the powers granted the preceding colonial assemblies. We need a reference to show they were, especially when Heard denies this this with very clear quotes. --soulscanner (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You are drawing conclusions from Forsey which are not stated. The Heard references are contradictory. The burden of proof is on you to prove the assertions made, which you have not done, not on me or others to stoke it. Quizimodo (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Which conclusions am I drawing? --soulscanner (talk) 03:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
As before, erroneous ones. Quizimodo (talk) 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Be specific. Which conclusion am I drawing from Forsey that is wrong? --soulscanner (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you be specific and provide clear and direct quotations as requested: the above is insufficient.
As well, your hypocrisy is grating, deferring to Forsey in this instance, yet rejecting his assertions when you don't agree with them regarding the legality of the title, etc. Enough. I will comment next when there's reason to. Quizimodo (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I have. The Heard quotes say that Canada remained subjugated to Britain. How does Forsey contradict that? What claims am I making about Forsey that are wrong? Please assume good faith and dispense with name calling. --soulscanner (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You have not. Heard indicates that Canada was granted powers of self-government while still remaining subjugated to Britain -- the two can coincide. Forsey makes no claim in the above passage regarding Canada's autonomy, only about the continuance of responsible government. Thus, your assumptions are erroneous.
And, coming from G2b's 'associate' (in your words), you reap what you sow. If you wish to engender good faith, edit as such, remain silent, or withdraw. Wikipedia isn't your mother. Quizimodo (talk) 04:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Lets stick to the subject. Heard clearly states that the new federation got no new powers or autonomy from Britain. Do you agree or disagree with that?
I disagree with your interpretation of the subject matter, including Heard's assertion. Quizimodo (talk) 04:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Never mind me. Do you agree or disagree with Heard? --soulscanner (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Minding you aside, I neither agree nor disagree with Heard -- it is what it is. Quizimodo (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
My problem with many editors here is not their monarchist views per se, but the fact that
* they do not provide specific references and quotes to back their claims
* they are unable to acknowledge when referenced sources here contradict their claims;
Silverchemist at least provides a reference and adds some meat to this discussion. --soulscanner (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
And my/our problem with you is your flagrant misinterpretation of source matter and incessant disruption. You have yet to demonstrate the validity of your claims, and a majority as yet seems not to agree with your interpretation of the above quotes; as well, you have not provided additional clear ones as requested. It is ironic you continue to push your viewpoint down our collective throats, while demonstrating clear references for instance, which challenging or deprecating reliable source which clearly confirm notions you disagree with, like the legality of 'Dominion' as Canada's title. Enough. I'll refrain from commenting additionally until sense is exhibited and good faith is reciprocated. Quizimodo (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of personal attacks, why not tell me what your take is on any of the three quotes given above. How have a misinterpreted these? --soulscanner (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
This section seems to serve little purpose. I may comment later. Quizimodo (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
It lists the ways in which Canada remained subservient to Britain in 1867. That goes to the heart of the matter. --soulscanner (talk) 01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly: this is a list which you've compiled, with no authority, and in furtherance of your disruption. I see in the section above that the majority of commentators have yet to agree with your interpretation, and so you have created an additional section to further your interests. Does this sound familiar? It should, because it is a repeat of your prior performance at the 'Canada' article. Quizimodo (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Instead of taunts about who you think is winning, why not address what the quotes say:
a) They are not my quotes. They are Heard's. The authority is his, not mine.
b) Compiling a list of statements that contradict your claims is not disruptive to wikipedia. It is good faith discussion.
c) Why not respond with a list of powers that were transfered to Canada from Britain? Is it because none exist? The information certainly does not exist here. --soulscanner (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, this is an original pastiche from which one shouldn't expect to base an argument. Can you provide a clear quotation which corroborates the assertion? The selections above from Heard skirt around the issue, while not really addressing it. Why the over-reliance on Heard? Until you can provide one, and until you revamp your approach, there's little to discuss. Quizimodo (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

--soulscanner (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. lack of civilty toward myself and Soulscanner at Talk:Dominion[11] [12]
  2. Treating my complaint against him with contempt, including deleting it with the comment 'deleting juvenile commentary' on his talk page. [13] [14][15][16]
  3. Refusing to acknowledge a complaint at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. [17]
  4. Deleting notification of this RFC on his talk page with the comment 'removing disruptive note'.[18]
  5. Provided above --soulscanner (talk) 05:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:Assume good faith
  3. WP:Edit warring
  4. WP:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. I went to his talk page [19]
  2. I went to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts [20]
  3. User:GoodDay offered to mediate [21] [22]
  4. Formal offers of mediation here and here were also rudely rejected here. --soulscanner (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Rejection of participation in this forum [23]--soulscanner (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. User:Gazzster
  2. User:GoodDay- For myself, I've had no problems with Quizimodo. However, other editors have & this can't be totally ignored. The apparent rift has made discussions among them heated. My hope is that this rift can be resolved here.
  3. User:soulscanner

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Stifle (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2008 (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.

[edit] Outside view from Silverchemist

I have had limited correspondence with Quizimodo, but that has been enough to show his contempt for other editors. His "I am what I am" quote on his userpage seems to be the justification for his behaviour. Even when conceding a point, his reply lacks any tact: "Anyhow, there are far more things wrong with that article than not and I have better things to do than to quibble over minutiae". Quizimodo could make efforts to edit Wikipedia much more efficient and enjoyable by changing his approach to editors who disagree with his views.Silverchemist (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --soulscanner (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. --User:Gazzster--Gazzster (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (Mostly) Outside view from Sarcasticidealist

I haven't seen evidence of any particularly egregious breaches of civility on the part of Quizimodo; in my opinion, he is exacerbating this process by being so obstinate in his refusal to participate in the various avenues of dispute resolution. I urge Quizimodo to rethink his refusal to accept the informal mediation offered by User:GoodDay. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I do note examples of incivility, as above. I've said in the discussion section that occasional ill-considered remarks will drop in passionate discussions. That's to be expected and we can all be adults about it. But to be consistent about it is another thing. But he has said he will have no contact with me. If that means I can edit Dominion and contribute to discussions without being insulted, that's fine with me.--Gazzster (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view from Lonewolf BC

The presentation above is about the way of it. I have not looked into every nook and cranny of this business, but enough to see that the presentation is essentially correct. I have also seen alike trouble from Quizimodo in the past. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, but Quizimodo has not done so in this case, and in others. This is the kind of thing that sours people on Wikipedia and poisons discussions. It must stop. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (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.