Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wdl1961
- 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: 15:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Wdl1961 repeatedly removes legitimately warranted maintenance templates without any cogent explanation and without consensus. Makes spurious claim that "globalize" tag is insulting to other cultures, invokes seemingly random WP policies.
Desired outcome
[edit]Wdl1961 needs to engage in coherent discussion on talk pages and contribute coöperatively, in accord with consensus.
Description
[edit]{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
[edit]Applicable policies and guidelines
[edit]Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
[edit]Fruitless discussion (with two editors) here continues here.
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
[edit]Users certifying the basis for this dispute
[edit]{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
[edit]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 Talk:Ford FE engine 18 July 2009
| The text below this box was copied by Wdl1961 from User talk:LessHeard vanU. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi again, LHvU. Thanks much for your assistance with Vegavairbob. I'm having trouble effectively engaging with a user — Wdl1961 — with a long track record of disruptive edits accompanied by incoherent discussion (or none at all) on the relevant talk pages (see his user and talk pages, as well as the bizarre, incoherent edits he's made to my talk page [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. His present fixation is removal of valid maintenance templates from articles without correcting the problems the templates indicate, despite being asked, told, and warned to stop. Present targets of this behaviour include Bumper (automobile) and Engine control unit. I've filed for another WP:3O, reported his continued vandalism following final (level-4) warning at AIV, and co-certified an RFC/U (with plenty of diffs). Can you please assist and/or suggest what else I might try? Thanks. —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already blocked for 48 hours per your AIV report - I noted the similarities to Vegavairbob in not following consensus in my block message; do you think they might be the same editor attempting to harass you? It is a bit depressing to think someone may wish to irritate a stranger because of a dispute over an article, but it does happen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I can all but guarantee Wdl1961 won't change his behaviour one iota once the block expires. I'm not sure I think he's a VVB sock; his meatpuppetlike aping of VVB's edits appears to be opportunistically aimed at what he thinks will perturb me right now; I've been cleaning up after his strange, incoherent babbling and odd fixations for quite awhile. See Talk:Poppet valve, for example. I think there's something the matter with the guy; his behaviour is overall really strange. Take a look at how he carefully copies bits and scraps from talk pages (and [ sections of my contributions]...weird kind of stalking, eh?). Look at this, the least-incoherent comment I think I've ever seen him post. It's still pretty detached from reality, and appears to contain natural and artificial MPOV flavouring. This is more typical, and less coherent (but no less tendentious). Here is one of his more overt attempt to sic admins on me (for…um…for…uh…???). What's the best approach to someone like this, d'you figure? —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wikipedia is the "...encyclopedia anyone can edit" I think the best response would be to ignore everything accept obvious violations of the policies and then report them as you would any vandal/ill intended editor. Not raising to the bait is the best long term solution to anyone trying to get a reaction - although in the short term they may try harder. I would also suggest changing your mindset, so you simply consider the other party as a well meaning but wrong editor rather than an adversary. This may help you deal with the irritation factor better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is much in accord with my present approach. I don't see Wdl1961 as an adversary, though he seems to see me as such. As they say, it takes two to tango, and I'm not dancin'. I'll just carry on treating his disruptions, when they occur, the same as anyone else's. —Scheinwerfermann T·C14:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As Wikipedia is the "...encyclopedia anyone can edit" I think the best response would be to ignore everything accept obvious violations of the policies and then report them as you would any vandal/ill intended editor. Not raising to the bait is the best long term solution to anyone trying to get a reaction - although in the short term they may try harder. I would also suggest changing your mindset, so you simply consider the other party as a well meaning but wrong editor rather than an adversary. This may help you deal with the irritation factor better. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I can all but guarantee Wdl1961 won't change his behaviour one iota once the block expires. I'm not sure I think he's a VVB sock; his meatpuppetlike aping of VVB's edits appears to be opportunistically aimed at what he thinks will perturb me right now; I've been cleaning up after his strange, incoherent babbling and odd fixations for quite awhile. See Talk:Poppet valve, for example. I think there's something the matter with the guy; his behaviour is overall really strange. Take a look at how he carefully copies bits and scraps from talk pages (and [ sections of my contributions]...weird kind of stalking, eh?). Look at this, the least-incoherent comment I think I've ever seen him post. It's still pretty detached from reality, and appears to contain natural and artificial MPOV flavouring. This is more typical, and less coherent (but no less tendentious). Here is one of his more overt attempt to sic admins on me (for…um…for…uh…???). What's the best approach to someone like this, d'you figure? —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| The text above this box was copied by Wdl1961 from User talk:LessHeard vanU. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Users who endorse this summary:
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 Garycompugeek
[edit]It is difficult to understand Wdl1961 and that could be part of the problem. It may be a language issue. Either way communication seems difficult with said user and that needs to change. He was just blocked for 48 hours so maybe that will be a wakeup call. This editor needs to respect consensus and bring controversial changes to the article talk page to participate in debate.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Garycompugeek (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- RobinHood70 (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outside view by Abce2
[edit]Based on what Wdl1961 has put on the talk page of this RFC, user clearly doesn't not see any fault in his/her edits, which would be inncorrect. User has also gone to name calling, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Either the user learns that there are rules, or be blocked for a longer period.
Users who endorse this summary:
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]If Wdl1961 wishes to avoid being blocked, he needs to work on improving his communication and make greater efforts to participate in talk page discussion, particularly for controversial changes he makes.
- 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.