Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noloop

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: 20:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC).

Noloop (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Noloop has continualy accused multiple users of trolling, stalking, and possible socking. I think that this has gone far enough. Noloops behavoir is completely unnessecary. Either Noloop get his/her act together, or be blocked. He/she has now started stalking WebHamster.

Desired outcome

For Noloop to be able to work with editors who disagree with him/her peacefully.

Description

Noloop (talk · contribs) has a propensity for being a tendentious and inflexible editor. He has total faith in his being right at whatever he is arguing for. Anyone disagreeing with him is almost immediately accused of going against consensus and being "trollish" and "antagonistic". He has demonstrated that he does not understand how consensus works in that he firmly believes that not only should his opinion be listened to (which of course is correct) but because he is right anyone that disagrees is actually going against consensus. He does not, or won't, understand that consensus on Wikipedia is, in effect, about majorities. For example when he and I alone were 'discussing' the deletion by him of long-standing sourced materials his response that I reverted his edits was that I was going against consensus yet only he and I were then involved. He also has difficulty understanding the rules of NPOV. It is his opinion that an article that is effectively a point of view, such as the frequently mentioned anti-Americanism article must be supported by neutral PoV references. He fails to understand that NPOV rules only effect the way we editors write the article, not about how the article is supported by 3rd party references. Likewise he has a similar misunderstanding of the use of weasel and peacock words. It is his viewpoint (and therefore should be ours) that these should not be used under any circumstances even when they have a reference that directly supports them. Which again is a continuation of his understanding of NPOV.

But ultimately his main problem is total and unwavering belief that he is correct and what he says goes. As a result he generates high levels of frustration in the editors he is dealing with which invariably results in uncivil behaviour being directed at him. In blunt terms he has an unenviable ability to piss off everyone he works with, very quickly.

This is further exacerbated by his frequent use of bureaucratic gaming to get his own way. He frequently complains to other editors and admins about people who disagree with him, invariably referring to them as trolls and sockpuppets. Several times he has complained at ANI about other editors' behaviour towards himself. But he really doesn't see that it was he himself that catalysed the very situation that he is complaining about. --Web Hamster 12:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noloop has started stalking WebHamster.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Making threats to carry out vandalism if he does not get his way.Slatersteven (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[10]Noloop canvassing another edit to an ANI he/she started.
[11]Noloop stating that he/she isn't canvassing, even when he/she is.
[12]
[13]More canvassing
[14]
[15]
[16]More troll accusations.
[17]Deletes about half the article, stating that, "There's no consensus."
[18]Refuses to come to RFC, stating that this is just a troll potluck.
[19]More accusations of trolling.
[20]
[21]
[22]Accuasing a user of stalking, but user had page on watchlist before
[23]
[24]Has started stalking Webhamster.

Applicable policies and guidelines

Assume Good faith
Don't template the regulars
Incivility with regard to making unsubstantiated accusations
No Personal Attacks with regard to name calling with no evidence to support same.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

[29]
[30]
[31]
[32] "Read the definition of consensus. It is not majority. A majority seems to be harmful to it, since the majority can use its advantage in an edit war to blow off the consensus process."
[33] Absolute corker of a quote from Noloop "There doesn't need to be consensus to remove them, there needs to be consensus to add them"
[34]
[35] Name calling. Calls Wikipedia full of "fuckwits" and admins useless.
[[36]] another block for edit waring (is first act on being unblocked). Using the same excuses he used before.Slatersteven (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Web Hamster 12:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I no longer have any choice, given the above threat, and the virtual admision he does not read souorces, just objects to them.[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 21:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.

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.