Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rau J

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: 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:59, 15 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.

This is mostly dealing with User:Rau J's massive trolling and stymying of consensus on Talk:Handlebars (song). First his antics manage to get the page protected, then he refuses to discuss the issue and throws out insults. JeanLatore (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (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.

  • We want him to stop being so bullheaded, apologise to those he has verbally snapped at, and work toward forging a consensus so we can get the block lifted.

[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.}

[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. see his comments generally
  2. here he calls my opinions "crap"

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:OR
  2. WP:CIVIL

[edit] Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. see talk page of Handlebars (song) generally,
  2. User_talk:JeanLatore, and his bullheaded comments on my talk page.

[edit] Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

[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.}

I agree with Parent. But I will not apologize, as I am not sorry. Rau's Speak Page 19:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that some of the comments on this page made by User:JeanLatore seem to be personal attacks. Rau's Speak Page 21:09, 20 May 2008 (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.

{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.}

  • The user's comments do reach above a certain limit that could be considered uncivil. The snide comments I found are "Who is we? It's you and a bunch of ip's." (which is not completely uncivil), "There is no consensus for your version either..." (which could be taken indirectly as uncivil, but still arguably civil), "The others were crap." (self-explanatory, uncivil), along with comments about "avoiding the discussion". Despite the clear lack of civility, I think the main source of such behavior was simply obtained from stress when failing to understand how literal WP:OR should be taken. As far as I can see, the users were arguing on how literal the term OR should be taken. Rau J was arguing that a paraphrase of the song they were arguing about is not OR. And I think that the constant lack of unambiguous communication between the disputing parties diminished the amount of tolerance each user had for one another. Eventually, comments began to describe how one user was "avoiding the issue at hand" while another failed to "properly rebut my [JeanLatore] assertions", until everything was out of control. Whether or not either of the users was right, I think this argument could have been solved a while back with a simple third opinion, or maybe even just either of the parties asking somebody else for assistance. Since the dispute was not handled properly from the beginning, Rau J was forced to act out of line (though some comment from other users might be considered uncivil also, but this is not their RFC). I think that the only real solution that could be provided is if both disputed parties bring their argument to some more experienced users to find out the real answer to their dispute, for just forcing Rau J to apologize and not make "bullheaded" comments in not going to help him at all. Somebody who is experienced in the terms of WP:OR needs to explain clearly where either of the disputing parties was wrong, and properly give everybody the answer they want, since Rau J will just continue to get more stressed as time goes on unless the argument ends. In conclusion, I believe the real solution would be to 1)Discover which disputing party was correct in relation to the argument and 2)Have both parties apologize to each other, since it was wrong for Rau J to act uncivil, but it was also wrong for the other users to constantly revert Rau J's edits to the point where the page had to be protected. Despite some of Rau J's comments, he was right in saying, "be glad they did not report us." — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I also have to add, it seems that the only user who tried to settle the dispute was User:JeanLatore. It just goes to show how this dispute should not even be at RFC yet. I suggest stopping the RFC and getting a 3O about the dispute. — Parent5446 (t n e l) 20:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Jailerdaemon (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Celarnor Talk to me 04:56, 21 May 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.