Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Suemcp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

This request for comment was filed at 18:40, January 1, 2007. Having been endorsed within 48 hours it has met the threshold for consideration by the community.

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 dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Suemcp has been edit warring on École Polytechnique massacre and Marc Lepine and excessively argumentative and uncivil on the talk pages of those articles. Various tactics have been tried to change her editing style and her treatment of other editors and none have succeeded. Furthermore, her account appears to exist only to edit these articles and a very few others.

[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.}

User:Suemcp has a strong point of view that the École Polytechnique massacre and Marc Lepine has been misrepresented by the media and "feminists". She operates a website devoted to this belief. This belief has led her to alter the École Polytechnique massacre and Marc Lepine articles in ways inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies of WP:V, WP:RS WP:NPOV and WP:OR. When her edits are removed, altered or questioned she either attacks other editors, or claims that Wikipedia's policies do not apply in this "unique circumstance." After several attempts to reason with her, from a variety of editors, she is still at it. She herself has requested that "outside Wikipedia staff" look into what she perceives as very biased treatment of the subject and herself. However when other editors and admins do make an appearance on the talk page, she accuses them of being biased themselves.

[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. User:Suemcp's first series of edits to the page were the insertion of a link to her website [1][2][3] and edits to the articles that were essay-like in tone [4], [5]. Since these actions clearly demonstrated unfamiliarity with Wikipedia Dina welcomed her and placed a "talk in article" template on her talk page to direct her to the talkpage of the articles. [6].
  2. This led to a series of rants on the talk pages of École Polytechnique massacre and Marc Lepine
  3. says an editor must be insane
  4. calls editor privileged and therefore able to get way without discussion
  5. questions editor's mentality, knowledge, input potential and is generally insulting
  6. calls editor ignorant, rants about Lepine's unfair treatment by feminists
  7. an ALL CAPS rant
  8. calls an editor an "ignorant feminist"
  9. Demonstrates continual lack of understanding of what a reliable source is You have no right deleting my entries or keeping on asking for more sources when I have provided what most people would accept as valid.
  10. She also made a series of troubling edits to the article itself, for instance insisting on adding the phrase "for 17 years" into the first paragraph, [7][8][9]again, for not really clear reasons, until warned by Dina of 3RR.
  11. Her edits include deletions (of unsourced but easily sourceable material, as well as of sourced material) and additions (of unsourceable material) to push her point of view. An example has been to make unsourceable weasel words edits regarding Francine Pelletier, whom she apparently suspects of nefarious activities. [10], [11], She would like to see her labelled solely a "feminist" (a perjorative term for her) [12] despite evidence that she has also been a journalist for 20 years [13]
  12. She has been insulting and snide to various users who have attempted to explain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for example: here, when thanked for her contributions by Slp1: I DON'T BELIEVE ITS UP TO you to do the thanking around here.'
  13. and here, when asked politely not to post in all caps: THIS IS A NEW SPEAKER, AS INDICATED BY THE CAPS. oKAY?.
  14. Accuses Dina of misusing her admin powers with the comment: You are abusing your power. And you may well get away with it. You wouldn't be the first woman or the first feminist to do that.
  15. She is currently trying to assert that a comment made on her website, in reference to an essay she wrote on that website, be used as a "source" for the section on Lepine's motivations, instead of the text of his suicide note[14].
  16. She continues to add the same POV material without listening to any reasoning on the talk page and acting surprised, when after several days of this, she is simply reverted [15] [16] [17]
  17. She continues to remove sourced content and argue on the talk page [18]. Frankly, I have no idea how to get through to this person and need help.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:OR
  2. WP:V
  3. WP:RS
  4. WP:CIVIL
  5. WP:NPA
  6. WP:NPOV

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. WP:NPA is mentioned.
  2. Slp1 explainsWP:NPOV WP:V
  3. Dina tries to explain about sourcing
  4. Slp1 tries to explain about Verifiability, No Original Sources and Neutral point of view
  5. Slp1 advises against personal attacks and explains verifiability again
  6. Slp1 tries a "when in Rome" approach
  7. Chabuk warns her about NPA
  8. Dina suggests ignoring her on the talk page, since her behaviour is starting to have trolling affects
  9. Atlant suggests a wikibreak for Sue
  10. Chabuk gives it a try
  11. [19] Dina also posted a request for comment on the "content dispute", but editors who arrived at the article apparently because of this were accused of bias by Sue But I don't know what gives you the right - ot what makes you think you have the right to simply delete phrases and sentences simply because you don't understand them.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Dina 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Slp1 21:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Bobanny 22:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Bearcat 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC) I haven't gotten directly involved in this one except to offer a bit of input into the question of how the incident is named, but I've kept an eye on it and Suemcp's conduct has certainly been tendentious and POV. Her website is almost entirely devoted to the notion that the media concocted a politically correct "violence against women" narrative for an incident whose "real" story speaks to anti-male discrimination (i.e. the fact that Lépine didn't get into engineering school somehow entitled him to lash out at women, who after all shouldn't have been in engineering school to begin with, because that's a man's place) and/or the failure of immigration policy (i.e. the fact that Lépine — oh, horror of horrors! — was Algerian and Muslim.) Basically, she's made a determined effort to push her own interpretation of the incident over the actual documentable facts; she even tried to add Lépine to the section listing the victims of the incident. This is all pretty much unverifiable and POV original research.
  2. No margin of error here, pretty obviously POV warring. -Amarkov blahedits 00:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Absolutely agree. The summary above takes into account everything that I've seen over the past few days, though I would put more emphasis on Suemcp's lack of civility and borderline personal attacks -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 04:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. This is a pretty obvious case of a disruptive editor wasting everyone's time. I think she should just be banned from editing these articles for a couple of months. Too many editors have wasted way too much time already and anything less will lead to more edit warring. Pascal.Tesson 00:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. This seems straightforward. Jkelly 02:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. Samir धर्म 03:25, 9 January 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.

{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.

[edit] Cosing comments

The dispute stopped as Suemcp has been inactive since January 9 2007. --Muchness (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.