Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1

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.


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: 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:31, 8 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.

  • The user has engaged in disruptive editing of Railpage Australia, POV pushing, reverting edits that remove non-notable people and links to unencycopedia sources.
  • Unilateral reverts to a non-consensus version.

[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.

[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.}

  • The user has engaged in disruptive editing of Railpage Australia, POV pushing, reverting edits that remove non-notable people and links to unencycopedia sources.
  • Unilateral reverts to a non-consensus version.

[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.)

  • Repeated reverts of edits removing non-notable people and unencyclopedia sources.
  • The user has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in a recent AfD. The AfD decision having been keep the user has engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedia content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedia content.
  • Adding unencyclopedia content and sources and restoring edits of unencyclopedic content or unrelated links. [1]

[2] [3]

  • Threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added. [4]
  • Continued unilateral reverts of collaborative edits to a non-consensus version.[5] [6]
  • Further agenda pushing, and WP:POINT, by listing an article for speedy deletion immediately after it was unprotected, despite the article surviving 3 AfD's (one in the last month). Also added a swathe of {advert} tags without reason (one section tagged was a collection of cited facts). Summarized the edit as 'refer to talk page', but didn't mention anything on there about what he'd done. [7] 59.167.77.190 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:N, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV, WP:COI

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

(provide diffs and links)

  • Demands not to remove unencyclopedic content. [8]
  • Removing unfavorable comments from his talk page. [9] [10] [11]

[12]

  • A section was added to Talk:Railpage_Australia to allow structured discussion of proposed changes - he outright refuses to discuss. 59.167.77.190 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Demands to have the Railpage_Australia article peer-reviewed or editor-reviewed, despite being told that the article was not yet in a state where it required it (still requiring major edits - and the other contributors also agree that peer review is needed, only not right now). 59.167.77.190 01:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Myself both as 203.28.90.133 and my logged in account have witnessed and had dispute with this user. It has been documented with evidence that he is strongly anti the subject of the article, which has resulted in a NPOV approach with negative results. He also seems to attract a number of IP socks for vandalism (see the history on this page and the Railpage Australia talk page). In my view, this user seems to reject anything that he feels may have the subject of the article viewed in a positive light, and is unwilling to compromise. RPWebslave 04:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Endorse. Blatant POV pushing and disruptive editing to devalue the article content, having failed to get it deleted. The Null Device 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorse. I am only an IP user (never got around to registering), but have kept a consistently civil tone on the article in question and am genuinely interested in improving the article, as seen in my contributions. I feel that it's time for Tezza1 to step back and let contributors who are interested in improving the article (as opposed to violating [WP:POINT]) do what they need to. 59.167.89.251 16:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. Endorse. Thin Arthur 05:31, 26 July 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:

Oh dear,

Is this what you get when you challenge a group of individuals associated with Railpage?

Could this be classified as Wiki Bullying?

I have not posted anything defamatory, I've always tried to debate the matter with no personal attacks on other Wiki users (although I have edured some), and I have refrained from making further edits about the "controversy" since the articles for deletion was to keep. I accepted the umpires decision.

The only edits (aside some from citation required[13]) made since the vote deletion was to keep was to add what I consider to be well known New South Wales based rail identity to the Railpage article.[14]

My last edits were to return the article back to what administrator Golden Wattle made on the 10th of March 2007. [15].

As for removing removing unfavorable comments from my talk page. Guilty, I wasn't aware that was a crime.

Stand by for the chant of the mob that will appear here in the following days by those associated with the opposing point of view with the Railage article and anonymous I.P address Wiki users.

Tezza1 09:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly a NPOV from RPWebslave and The null device [16].
When did you try to resolve this dispute with me? As another Wiki user has said on the Railpage, I was not the orginator of the orginal edit. I only put it back up (along :with some others] after it was deleted.
Anyway like I said before, I accepted the umpires decision regarding that matter.
Okay, the real reason for this Wikipedia Kangaroo Court, me editing the article with the notability of one Craig Dewick amongst Railfans in :NSW[17], I did the following quick search.
1. Column 8, Sydney Morning Herald[18], November 27 2002, Craig and his website get a :mention.[19]
2. Historic Electric Tracton, mentioned in links page, as "The famous (infamous??) Craig Dewick established
what was probably the very first NSW Railway bulletin board service waaaaaay back in 1991" [20]
3. Australian Model Railway Magazine, wrote an article titled "Rail on the Internet", AMRM Issue 196, February 1996. :[21] & [22]
4. He gets a mention on Neetys website, another well know Sydney (female) rail gunzel. [23]
I failed to mention in my first response, it would have been polite to inform me of this "Requests for comment" surely it is there is a Wiki guideline saying it is preferable to :inform the person concerned? WP:RFC
I only found out about it by a weak anonymous posing on aus.rail[24]. A concidence maybe? seems some people run with the fox and :hounds.

Tezza1 08:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


I would have thought the Fabian strategy was sucessfully used by the supporters who wish to retain that article.

The outcome of the whole episiode is as follows, if you want an wikipdeia article non matter how un-encyclopedic it is, get together 15 or so of your mates together as supporters and overide any opposition.

Tezza1 06:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

SHOCK HORROR!!! are some having another go? This is nothing more than a content dispute over one users[25] editing style [26], WP:COI and behavior [27].Tezza1 11:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Again? Why don't people convey their views to my on my talk page according to guidelines first? this is nothing more than a content dispute, I have always argued my point of view on the Railpage discussion page, based with online sources supporting my case.


This recent dispute is the result of myself calling the Railpage Forum, "Commercial". It clearly is, as the Forum in question is owned by a Australian registered corporate entity and not a non-profit organisation according to Australian Taxation Office guidelines[28]. I have even tried to accommodate people in dispute, editing the article "Commercial- Yes, free membership, voluntary payment for service"[29].

I suppose my complaint about the "flood" of editing by The_Null_Device has also contributed to this RFC becoming active again.

I really don't know why people involved in or supporting an organisation create an article and then expect it to remain subject to no scrutiny. When you create an article here it becomes PUBLIC PROPERTY!!!. If you don't want people to edit your article then don't create it!!!!! Tezza1 08:59, 26 July 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.}

[edit] Outside view by KieferSkunk

I am an uninvolved third party reading the article and Talk history on the affected page. We received a notification of Tezza1's behavior on Wikiquette Alerts, and I took it up and reviewed the recent edit history. Without knowing all of the history here, and going strictly on what is currently visible on the Talk page, I see evidence of several things that I believe warrant further investigation:

  • Violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POINT, and possibly WP:COI and WP:3RR.
  • Treading on thin ice with regard to WP:LEGAL.
  • Repeated rejections of community consensus.
  • Statements against other editors that attempt to intimidate them into changing their stances.
  • Suspected sockpuppetry involving the accounts User:DFC_Free_Oz and User:FailpageMustGo.
  • Repeated attempts to nominate the article for deletion during the dispute - nominations were rejected as being in bad faith.
    • Further analysis determined that sockpuppetry was unlikely between Tezza1 and the referenced accounts.
  • Statements of intent to continue disrupting the article.

I have advised other editors to remain civil during the content dispute, and to not engage in personal attacks. However, it is my belief that the majority of editors in this dispute do have a clear consensus on the article, and Tezza1's tactics have been disrupting and unnecessarily poisoning the atmosphere there. While I am not in any authoritative position, and I am not a content expert with respect to the article itself, these are my statements based on what I see from an outside perspective. Thank you.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. — The Null Device 00:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Golden Wattle

I have had limited involvement with the Railpage article. It strikes me that the editors most involved there are not involved with other areas of the Wikipedia. I suggest that raising this RfC is premature. There has been for example no attempt to discuss the issues with Tezza1 on his talk page, surely a basic entry point for dispute resolution. See history of the page where there is only one edit from the IP address claimed to be that of the user raising this dispute, ie User:RPWebslave.

I believe the users involved need to review the steps in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes including

1 Avoidance
2 First step: Talk to the other parties involved
3 Second step: Disengage for a while
4 Further dispute resolution
4.1 Informal mediation
4.2 Discuss with third parties

We seem to have jumped far too quickly to step 4.2. --Golden Wattle talk 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Golden Wattle talk 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by johnmc

Whilst I have had some involvment with the Railpage article, and debated Tezza1 on some talkpage points, I consider myself to be an outsider in this specific case. For the most part, I agree with Golden Wattle in that a RFC is premature, with some specific observations on my behalf. (If this is not the correct format for a page such as this, please advise me, and I will edit or remove them as required.):

  1. Whilst I am curious as to Tezza1's motives - I would be interested as to whether there is any Fabian strategy behind his edits, considering that he was strongly in favour of deleting the article - I don't see him as being particularly disruptive to the article. I would draw everyone's attention to the mysterious 208.113.160.21 (talk • contribs • logs), whose jihad style reversions precipitated the entire protected article/AfD affair. (Take note of the comments in the talk page - this is an individual who believed that they were completely justified in their actions, even to the point of requesting that wiki admins remove the word "defamatory" from their "reason for block" text. Also - of more recent vintage - is Anti Fundie (talk • contribs • logs) who apparently created their account for the main purpose (until finally receiving an indefinite block) of vandalising articles with contributions by David Bromage. These are examples of disruptive editors. As far as I can see, that while Tezza1 has been a thorn in the side, he has stuck by the rules. And as long as he sticks to those rules, he should be free to contribute to the Railpage article. As other editors have pointed out, Tezza1's article criticisms - whatever motive they were made for - have served to strengthen the article. As a real life Devil's advocate, Tezza1's contributions would help defray further accusions of pro-Railpage bias, and bolster the articles defences against the inevitable 3rd AfD.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. johnmc talk13:09, 19 March 2007 (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.


Do not comment below. Please read the instructions above.

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.