Wikipedia:Requests for comment/194x144x90x118

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/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: 19:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• 194x144x90x118 (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

User edits tendentiously on Talk:DreamHost (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) and elsewhere. His first edits to the talk page, as an IP, consisted of attempting to edit war a statement that the article had scared him away from using DreamHost's services. Since then, he has argued for the page not to be archived, or to be archived on a 90-day schedule, despite the almost-300K length of the page. He has also tried to get the article fully protected to prevent other editors from changing the content, called all users taking even a neutral position on the article "pro-DreamHost", and recently met attempts to discuss wording changes with "don't waste any more of our time with this".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Desired outcome

194x to stop obstructing discussion, and to no longer crusade against "advertising" in the article.

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.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Initial edits on talkpage:
   • first edit: reverted by Theserialcomma without comment.
   • second edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "BTW if anybody goes ahead and deletes this section of mine again then you'll have a new warrior stepping upto the plate to participate in this little discussion of yours.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
   • third edit, essentially the same as the first, plus "Feel free to remove this section and my remarks AGAIN which sparked this whole auto archiving discussion in the first place, I'll just put them right back up and then some.": reverted by Dayewalker as WP:SOAPBOXing.
   • next edit: included "archiving ... is an attempt to bury the evidence by the same people who have so far put a great deal of energy into making the entire article about Dreamhost seem like one big 'Ahhh all normal'."
   • next edit: included "Oh do not attempt to act like you're just being an honest wikipedian out to improve the online encyclopedia.", reverted by Scjessey for soapboxing
   • next edit: restored third edit, reverted by me for discussing subject rather than article.
   • next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted by Theserialcomma.
   • next edit: restored deleted comments, reverted in two chunks by Onorem for discussing subject and me for personal attacks. After a bit more of this, I semi-protected the talk page.
   • Later on, right after full protection on the article had expired: "This article is not protected so anyone is free to edit it at his own discretion.... I won't allow this article to be turned into a nice free biased advertisement for dreamhost." Shortly after this comment, PhilKnight re-protected the article.
2. Archive issues
   • Stated that there was consensus for the existing 90-day archive and that "Arguing about this matter isn't constructive in any way so I ask that you Please not bring the matter up again."[1]
   • MiszaBot archives over 200K of discussion over 45 days: 194x reverts claiming lack of consensus. After being reverted in turn, he threatens Sarek and Scjessey with "taking the matter further" should they ever change the archiving again, and that "if you Ever touch the bot settings again without first establishing a consensus then it WILL! have consequences."[2]
3. Frequent threats to take things further
   • "I attempted to discuss this matter with Scjessey only to have that effort met with hostility. I therefor intend to report his personal attacks elsewhere." (April 20, as IP)[3]
   • "so now we're going to head to rfc or something similarly appropriate within the next seven days, don't say that I didn't give you every opportunity to skip this unpleasantry." (June 10)[4]
   • "It is my honest opinion that this user should indeed not have access to any admin tools and I am going to have to file a review of conduct regarding this admin at a later time" (June 10)[5]
   • "I'm gonna do my damn best to try and guarantee that it leads to this user losing his access to the admin tools but the thing is that I've been sorta busy lately so I was wondering if you would care to help out a little bit?" (July 4)[6]
   • "I've had enough of your disruptive edits and time consuming pointless bs, if this continues then I'll take these matters elsewhere and that might have consequences for you here on wikipedia."(July 20)[7]
4. Personal attacks
   • "you are the two most incompetent and insane admins that I know of on this site"[8]
   • "I'm like engaged in this edit dispute with these total fucking morons over on the Bobby Fischer article and those fucking losers well they're obviously chess people and well how did they become this way? Perhaps Chess is dangerous and damaging"[9]
   • "[SarekOfVulcan] Is an incompetent wikipedia admin that needs to be desysoped, I shall do my very best to elaborate more on this as soon as possible but I've been swamped with work lately and unable to file the statement that I wanted to file."[10]
   • "Good faith can not be assumed from you." [11]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:CIVILITY
2. WP:NPA
3. WP:CONSENSUS

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. Dayewalker warns about personal attacks.
2. GTBacchus warns about personal attacks, and offers assistance if 194x is attacked himself.
3. Jehochman suggests starting with a clean slate.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. A week after Dayewalker's warning, he posted "An admin of dreamhosts wikipedia site has tried to recruit meat puppets to this wiki article to shower this company with praise and turn it into a big nice free advertisement."[12]
2. Instead of taking advantage of GTBacchus's offer, a couple of weeks later he posted to Dayewalker "Seeing as you have refused my request to stop viewing my contributions I too will be taking a greater interest in your contributions from now on."[13]
3. To Jehochman, he responded "Suggestion noted but then all that would remain would be my block log and I don't know that could give people a false impression regarding my participation here on wikipedia and I've never really deleted any material from this page and I don't somehow feel that doing so while it's of such a small size would be the correct thing to do. Regarding a friendly start well I stumbled into this Dreamhost article by accident where dreamhost customers and a would be employee were residing and well no soft starts can come from starting by editing that article."[14], and two days later stated on his talkpage that "I'm writing up this what do you call it statement for this arbitration that's ongoing for the Dreamhost article and it's going to be The end of Sarekofvulcan and Scjessey, I am so relieved to see them go, caused me so many problems in the past, funny thing is that guy Sarekofvulcan he started the very same Arbitration that's going to relief him of his admin powers, nice stuff aint it?" [15]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
2. -- Dayewalker (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
3. -- GTBacchus^(talk) 16:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

Lets take a good look at this, here we have the Dreamhost customer Sarekofvulcan who by the way obviously (see this diff) agrees with my last revert which incidentally happens to be the same revert that sparked this RFC. That somehow seems very normal.

As stated by Sarekofvulcan he cares very much about the Dreamhost article and personal attacks and such and it is therefor very understandable how he has ignored the following conduct which has taken place for the past 20 months by user Scjessey

11:06, 11 March 2009 Innapropriate sock claims "I believe the disgruntled drive-by tagger is probably a sock, since the account has a single purpose with a limited history, yet seems able to wikilawyer adeptly."

00:27, 3 April Personal attack by Scjessey "Have you no interested in edititing anything else on Wikipeda, other than this crusade of hate?"

16:31, 4 April 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Why don't you go and learn the rules and then come back and try to be a productive Wikipedian, rather than a disruptive SPA?"

20:31, 5 April 2009 "You are being deliberately obtuse and tendentious because you have a grudge against the company. It is a complete waste of time trying to discuss this with you, because you have the red mist of DreamHost rage in your eyes" Personal attack by Scjessey.

01:02, 7 April 2009 Scjessey personal attack "You don't make good faith edits. All your edits are in bad faith, because your sole reason for editing here is to discredit DreamHost"

01:58, 7 April 2009 "Wikipedia is not your personal playground of hate."

02:29, 9 April 2009 "Also, since you are just a DreamHost-hating SPA, your "challenge" is essentially meaningless."

02:04, 4 May 2009 Personal attack by Scjessey "Sometimes the senseless outnumber the sensible - that's probably how Bush managed to twice get elected."

02:30, 4 May 2009 "I regard you very much as part of a coalition of the foolish,"

03:59, 20 April 2009 Personal attacks "You are way off base here. Your edits have the sole effect of attacking the company, whereas my edits are for the benefit of the Wikipedia project. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who has the conflict of interest."

04:14, 20 April 2009 Threats and personal attacks "If this were any other article I edit on, you would have been blocked long ago for being a disruptive SPA. You have escaped this long only because this is a low-trafficked, low-importance article. Now please stop your misrepresentations."

21:01, 27 May 2009 Personal attacks "If the banhammer doesn't fall upon you, I will simply be ignoring you from now on."

I'd dig up the diffs and show them to you guys but I just don't have more time today and besides all of this can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:DreamHost&oldid=299280215

I agree that it's more important to keep me from removing personal attacks than it is from hindering user Scjessey from making them, that makes perfect sense.

In light of all of this one must ask himself "did the alleged personal attack where 194 stated that Sarek should be desysoped" have any merits"?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

View by Sjakkalle

Without having been involved in the dispute which motivated this RFC (i.e. DreamHost), the evidence regarding 194x144x90x118 is very consistent the behavior I have observed when it comes to chess articles. Fortunately, I have not had to take the brunt of the assault there (Users Krakatoa and Quale have sustained much heavier wounds, but have risen to the occasion by defending the articles in question.)

This behavior includes (and this is not exhaustive):

• Adding blatant POV pushing, if not outright misinformation, to an article by editing the World Chess Championship page to make Bobby Fischer world champion up until 2008 (when all reliable sources end his reign in 1975).[16]
• Further POV pushing by trying to "sanitze" the Bobby Fischer article from the coverage of Fischer's anti-semitic views. The dispute was over some paragraphs which described Fischer's anti-semitic literature. After some initial support for his view, the presentation of the the strength of the source clearly moved the consensus in support of retaining the paragraph.([[17]]
• Regardless of this discussion, claiming that the consensus is with him, and demanding that one of his opponents "withdraw your support for your own edit on the bobby fischer article and never show yourself anywhere near it again.", a clear example of intimidation.[18], further intimidation can be found at [19].
• Edit warring to remove the paragraph. [20] [21] [22] [23]
• Blatant breaches of the civility policy (calling other editors "fucking morons" and "fucking losers"). [24]

194x144x90x118's contributions made to article space is very scant [25], and even among these edits I see very little, if any, constructive encyclopedia writing.

Following this course of continually arguing with other editors in an uncivilized manner, refusing to accept consensus, edit warring, tendentiously advancing his own bias, and not doing anything to add anything of significant value to the article space, has made 194x144x90x118's edits a clear net negative to the project, and unless this changes, I see no other resolution down the line than a community ban at some point.

As a clearly involved editor, I will of course not be implenting any such ban; but his behavior is exactly the kind of which will exhaust the community's patience.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Voorlandt (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ('his behavior is exactly the kind of which will exhaust the community's patience' sums it up really well)
3. Krakatoa (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC) In addition, I would add that 194x144x90x118 seems to see Wikipedia editing not as a collaborative, consensus-building process, but as a fight to the death that he expects to end with his vanquished opponents (i.e. those who disagree with him) being banned from Wikipedia, de-sysopped, etc.
4. Philcha (talk) 07:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC) More pushing of the same POV (Fischer the only legitimate World Chess Champion until his death in 2008) in almost identical language at Talk:Anatoly_Karpov#Removal_of_undisputed_tags

Outside view by

{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:

Outside view by

{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:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

Summary

Proceeded to ArbCom.

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.