Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Telex

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: 05:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Telex has been engaging in edit wars removing repeatedly a dispute tag although the dispute has not been settled.--Mbuk 05:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Description

There is a content dispute on the article Ukrainization. The article may contain Original Research and is likely in variance with WP:NPOV. A dspute tag was placed on the top of the article to show that there are problems there.

Telex was removing repeatedly the dispute tag withoout doing anything to resolve the dispute. He did not participate in the discussion. Edit war was his only activity on the article. He removed the tag three times during 24 hrs period, while the policy forbids doing it even twice.

Previously, he was engaging in a similar tag-removal/tag-edit edit war on Russian architecture. Multiple warnings on his talk page were ignored.--Mbuk 05:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

{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. [1]
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
  9. [9]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:Vandalism (the subsection "Improper use of dispute tags " in the section Types_of_vandalism)
  2. WP:DR
  3. WP:Consensus

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]

Telex ignored this warnings and continued the edit warring.--Mbuk 06:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Mbuk 06:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. AndriyK 10:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[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.

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen

I first became acquainted with AndriyK and Mbuk at the article on Russian architecture. They were edit warring to maintain a custom "neutrality disputed" tag ({{POV-because}}), e.g. [13] and [14]. Personally, I find that tag a bad idea, as it gives a biased and selective version of the dispute, and the version of AnrdiyK and Mbuk certainly did. They argue that the architecture of Kievan Rus' does is not within the scope of an article entitled "Russian architecture", and continued adding the same tag even after I cited a source on the talk page which proved otherwise.

A few days later, I stopped following the developments on that article, although it should be noted that AndriyK persisted in adding the tag, and has been reverted by many users (Kuban kazak, Irpen, Mikkalai, etc), and has even been blocked for such edit warring [15]. Last Saturday, I noticed that a similar edit war was in progress at Ukrainization. AndriyK and Mbuk were both edit warring to add a tag ({{original research}} this time), despite the fact that a ton of references were provided on the talk page and had even been repeated for them. It later emerged that they thought the definition of Ukrainization was unsourced. The definition is one sentence long in the article, and could be marked by using either {{fact}}, {{or}}, or even {{dubious}}. These templates are widely known and feature in many articles - it seemed odd to me that they were so insistent in marking the entire article with {{original research}} when only the unsourced sentence could be marked. It gave the impression that the article contained many unsourced statements (which is not true - everything else was sourced; check the talk page), not just the one sentence definition. Personally, I think this is a deliberate attempt to sabotage an article which says something sourced about Ukraine that AndriyK and Mbuk (who both seem to be Ukrainians) don't like. I even expressed my concerns were these [16]. Mbuk and AndriyK both chose to ignore me though and add the {{original research}} tag again [17] [18]. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but the guideline does say this policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. I think that there is plenty evidence; the tag edit war at Russian architecture has been going on since 30 October 2005 despite opposition from many users! I once tried to see if I could help solve the dispute by discussing with AndriyK about the dispute and its history (here), although I don't know what he has done since then.

Finally, I'd like to say that I was acting on my opinion, and I am not infallible. While I do think I was justified in the said situation as the tags were improperly placed, if the Wikipedia community thinks otherwise, I shall of course accept their recommendations and act upon them. Thanks. --Tēlex 12:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Strong Support.--Aldux 13:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. While it may be true that Telex is sometimes rather quick with the revert buttons, I believe he was right in supporting other editors against disruptive and frivolous insertion of highly dubious POV-pushing "tags" here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support this one and will add my own outside view too this later. This whole thing is a frivolous harassment by two editors who, so far, did nothing but disrputed the articles that don't fit their POV. --Irpen 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support while it pains me to agree with Telex ;) — he seems to be in the right here. - FrancisTyers · 19:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Telex's reaction is a natural one to a highly disruptive activity lead by AndriyK and seconded by Mbuk. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support.   /FunkyFly.talk_  21:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support abakharev 05:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support as a matter of course. I have strong doubts about the validity of this RfC, as it needs to be ascertained whether AndriyK and Mbuk are not two accounts controlled by the same editor. --Ghirla -трёп- 16:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support per Irpen. 172 | Talk 08:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Jkelly 16:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Of course, as I supported Telex on Russian Architecture, agreeing that the use of the POV-because tag there was disruptive. I also think that the continual use of RfCs by AndriyK and Mbuk is contrary to WP:POINT.--Pan Gerwazy 15:09, 19 July 2006 (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.