Wikipedia:Requests for comment/B9 hummingbird hovering

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct 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: 22:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Cause of concern[edit]

That B9 hummingbird hovering has shown a long term pattern of adding original research and extremely dense, verbose language to articles.[1][2][3][4] [5] (note that many of these diffs are provided simply to show the state of the article as edited by B9, rather than the exact problematic edits themselves) That these additions are harmful rather than helpful to Wikipedia because they make said articles more difficult to understand to a lay person, and much of it is based on B9's own opinions or interpretation rather than reflecting consensus, and B9 attempts to "own" articles.[6] That B9 hummingbird hovering has been dismissive of various attempts by numerous users to address these matters.[7][8]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

  1. Wikipedia has a manual of style that should be followed when writing articles
  2. No original research or synthesis in articles
  3. Wikipedia works by consensus
  4. All articles should be written from a neutral point of view
  5. Be civil when discussing matters with other users
  6. Nobody owns a Wikipedia article

Desired outcome[edit]

  • That B9 hummingbird hovering acknowledge that the style of writing they generally employ is unacceptable for an encyclopedia, and that he agree to adhere to the advice given in the manual of style, specifically "Writing should be clear and concise. Articles are supposed to introduce readers to topics, or remind them of what they had half-forgotten: it is not their purpose to dazzle readers with editors' learning or vocabulary. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, vague phrases, and unnecessary complexity."
  • That B9 hummingbird hovering agree not to add original research, poorly sourced information, or opinions of any kind to articles
  • That B9 hummingbird hovering be more open to criticism of their edits and be open to the idea that they are as human as any of us and make errors
  • That B9 hummingbird hovering seek consensus for their changes to articles or for new articles before posting them since those additions are contested so frequently, and avoid editing in any area where they have a conflict of interest
  • That B9 hummingbird hovering understand that RFC/U is usually the last opportunity to voluntarily change problematic behavior, and that if this process fails to produce the desired results the next step will be to ask either ArbCom or the community at large for formal editing restrictions, up to and including blocking or banning.
  • Finding a mentor or adopting user may be a way of bringing about these changes

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

  1. ANI thread
  2. talkpage discussion
  3. most recent ANI thread
  • These are just a few examples from the last two years

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

B9 has, without exception, responded by dismissing the concerns others have brought forth as can be seen from any conversation of his edits.

  1. This diff shows the version of a page as edited by B9 as it exists at the moment of this writing, showing that he continues with the same style. 17:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
  2. These edits from the most recent ANI thread about B9 show that he is not taking these concerns seriously.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

  1. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PlainJain, with edits under IP as noted on User_talk:PlainJain/PreviousEdits 21:08, 1 May 2010
  4. Mitsube (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

  1. I'll acknowledge this, having read some of those edits two or three times they are still basically incomprehensible. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I've had some experiences with the user that I thought were rather bizarre. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. B9 hummingbird hovering needs to clearly explain his/her behavior here. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I would like to see B9 hummingbird humming's Response section, but this is a fair assessment of my experiences with this user. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree that issues presented regarding this user, are indeed concerning. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I agree with the above, and I have listed some additional concerns about B9's habit of making circular citations below. Skinwalker (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. These concerns are all valid. B9 does bring some value to wikipedia, but he needs to take these very real problems seriously.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

The edits I have added have for the most part since stating that I would terminate editing have been linkages to primary resources and fixing spelling and grammatical errors that I have encountered in passing. Would Wikipedia have been better without these edits? I am not the problem. I have demonstrably improved this Project. Those Seventeen Tantras that I have gifted this Community are amongst the most sacred texts in the Himalayan Buddhist tradition. They are the most sacred texts in the nyingtik tradition of Nyingma Dzogchen. My name is Beauford Anton Stenberg and I will have you know that I am honourable and one of the few and you have represented me as otherwise. That is false. The bullying that is taking place here is an example of base human nature. I wrote most of the Mindstream article and I was its creator. I add citations. I have never been a bully, I have always been solitary. I have no interest in politics and that if anything will be the reason for the ban of the editing privileges of this username. I am a seasoned recipient of treatment like this from my human family. I don't curry any of your favour because none of you who have signed your name on this page have exhibited qualities that I admire and value. That appears to be mutual. The unbalanced misrepresentation that is taking place is unworthy of me and this Community. There is a precedent for this kind of vilification it is called a witchhunt.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. B9 hummingbird hovering (talk • contribs) 09:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

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.

Outside view by Boing! said Zebedee[edit]

This dispute is fairly new to me, but with an interest in Buddhism I've been having a look at the material in question. I think B9's insistence on obscure terminology and writing style is squarely in contradiction to the aim of the encyclopedia, which is to present information for an audience of non-experts. Also, the attempts at WP:OWN are strictly against Wikipedia policy. 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Boing! said Zebedee 17:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — KV5 • Talk • 16:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. PlainJain (talk) 15:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Cirt (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Skinwalker (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Skinwalker[edit]

I have noticed that B9 often cites articles that he himself wrote at wikisource. Here he cites this wikisource page, which he wrote. It seems to be his translation of a Tibetan tantra. This article has similarly circular citations, as does this one. IMO this is a serious violation of WP:NOR. It will require a Tibetan speaker to properly sort out. 21:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Skinwalker (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion[edit]

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[edit]

Matter proceeded to ANI; user blocked indef.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/B9_hummingbird_hovering&oldid=1088100902"