Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sm565

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: 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Sm565  (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)

Sm565 is a Single purpose account used for editing the Homeopathy article exclusively. This editor has a tendency to edit war and ignore warnings or attempts to discuss disputes on talk pages.

[edit] Desired outcome

The desired outcome of this RFC is Sm565 understand that edit warring is not the way to solve disputes and that friendly notices left by other editors should be taken seriously, as opposed to ignored.

[edit] Description

Sm565 has a tendency to edit war and has ignored previous attempts to reach a consensus, instead opting to reverting content that he does not agree with, often without even an edit summary. The user first appeared on the talk page of the Homeopathy article on the 28th of September of this year and at first was not causing any problems.This changed on October 1st when this user added a POV tag to the Homeopathy article, and upon the tag being reverted, the user immediately began to edit war to have the tag replaced. The user was subsequently blocked for the first time on October 1st. The user then attempted to gather support for his actions on the talk pages of several editors, including myself. The user also posted a complaint to the Admin noticeboard concerning the admin who blocked him. After about 2 weeks of attempting to corral several editors to his side, on October 11th, the user added the POV tag back to the article agian. When the POV tag was reverted, due to lack of consensus for it on the talk page, this editor once again added it back, twice. Due to a 1 revert policy on edit warring on the talk page, this user was blocked once again on October 11th. On the 15th of October this user added the POV tag back to the article, causing it to be protected. Soon after the article was unprotected, the editor added the POV tag back again, and again, and again when it was reverted. This caused the user to be blocked for a third time this month on October 15th for edit warring.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

First edit war
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. blocked for the first time on October 1st
Second edit war
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
Third edit war
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3

Incivility and personal attacks

  1. user calls other editors "immoral" and situation "pathological"

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:3RR
  2. WP:DISRUPT
  3. WP:EW
  4. WP:NPA

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

  1. first warning on edit warring
  2. second warning on personal attacks
  3. third warning on edit warring
  4. fourth warning on edit warring

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Skinwalker 16:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Kenosis 17:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Tim Vickers 18:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Adam Cuerden talk 18:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Filll 17:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. Skinwalker 17:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. Endorse with two caveats. First, regarding [1], while the editor did call other editors immoral he called the situation pathological not the editors. Second, I think we may need to keep in mind that it appears that English may not be Sm565's native language and that may be contributing to some of these issues. JoshuaZ 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
    Fixed. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. Adam Cuerden talk 18:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. dave souza, talk 19:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Tim Vickers 19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. •Jim62sch• 20:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. DIEGO talk 21:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. -- Fyslee / talk 04:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Wanderer57

This is a summary written by a user who thinks the above summary is somewhat biased.

One charge against Sm565 is "incivility and personal attacks". The example given is in a message from Sm565 to another editor on that other editor's talk page. The reference is to "the immorality of most of the other editors" in the discussion.

I want to point out that:

  • This was on a user talk page, in a message which was part of a conversation between two editors.
  • It did not name any other editor.
  • I can point to examples of stronger language than this used by other editors involved in this RfC. I'm not going to do this unless specifically asked to do so because I expect anyone reading this could find similiar examples.

I object to the double standard that is applied when someone is named in an RfC. Behaviour that would normally be ignored is suddenly a major issue.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Wanderer57 03:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. docboat 04:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:48, 17 October 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.

This is a form of censorship.

I argued responsibly according to the rules; I am blocked because I disagree with the article ‘s point of view.

An objective administrator will see it immediately if s/he goes through the talk page and the history. I rephrased my sentence before : I wrote the immorality of ideas and called the atmosphere pathological meaning that some editors refuse to accept that there is a different opinion in the discussion. (Comparing the conduct of some of the editors with mine will be quite interesting ).

(The first time I put a under dispute tag and blocked, I posted a complain explaining what happened. [2] No rule was followed again even the editor who opened the RFC about me had a problem and complained. Again censorship; and this time even another administrator Samir admitted it and restored my edits after my complain. [3]

We put the under dispute POV sign on the article giving reasons and at least twice the POV under dispute was protected by administrators who suggested we should try to reach a consensus. No consensus was reached therefore I restored it . [4] The one revert policy concerned only my account. (Count OrangeMarlin ‘s edits.) [5] . Some of the other users below were allowed more reverts like the last time and if blocked, they were unblocked upon request.) [6]

I cannot actually participate in this discussion because I m indefinitely blocked from editing everywhere in wikipedia. Another paradox in my case : to open a RFC and not give to the person the right to properly participate in this. It speaks for itself. --Sm565 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sm565 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[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.