Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr

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: 12:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This user has engaged in persistent edit warring on Paul Ryan and shows a problematic WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude on Talk:Paul Ryan.

Desired outcome

• User would cease all reversions, especially deletions, on Paul Ryan. Additions and first-time WP:BOLD wording changes which preserve content are fine.
• User would refrain from speculating on or characterizing the motives of others in talk.
• User would base their comments on WP:RS, not WP:TRUTH.
• Other editors commenting on this RFC/U would be respectful of user's status as relatively new; yet firm that the user must improve on the points above.

Description

Beginning with the discussion Talk:Paul_Ryan/Archive_2#False_claims_in_speech, this user began to treat the article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. User had the WP:TRUTH and seemed not to understand WP:RS ("If you really must - present the claim made by the politician and then present a WELL-SUBSTANTIATED PROOF that this claim is false. Do not call someone a "liar" just because someone else does." ... "Does it matter what someone else thinks about Paul Ryan? Certainly not in an encyclopedic article about Paul Ryan! The ONLY political commentary allowed in an article by Paul Ryan should be made by one person and one person alone: Paul Ryan himself. "). User edit-warred; 8 consecutive article-space edits removed the same basic claim, including 3 rapid-fire deletions of 3 separate users' restorations which (together with one more deletion/restoration by other users) resulted in an indefinite full-protection for the article. User stretched the bounds of WP:CIVIL ("Kapish?", "It is probably another violation of WP policies to tell you what you can do with your agenda...") and completely failed WP:AGF ("Clearly you have an agenda to push! Shame on you!", "Oh, silly me, you haven't mentioned those people because their opinions were not compatible to your own. Apparently, only people whom agree with you count, right?")

Though this user, after at least two separate warnings in no uncertain terms, eventually dropped that particular edit war, the battleground attitude has persisted. I was moved to open this RFC/U when, in rapid succession, user demanded a personal apology ("If you cannot defend it - apologize!"); then responded to an attempt to disengage ("This is not germane to the article. We cannot get sidetracked with these personal issues.") by pursuing the issue ("Notice a pattern of throwing around allegations without being able to back them up by someone?"); then, even after being cautioned about this behavior ("When another editor tries to end a personal argument, back off; don't pursue it."), pursued the user in question to another talk section ("Earlier I accused you of failing to give me the benefit of the doubt by not assuming good faith. I will now commit the same offence and myself accuse you of not acting in good faith here."), and evinced a battleground attitude with a separate user ("Thanks for proving in this new request of yours what I have said all along about the "Ryan is a liar"/"We cannot have the speech without the negative commentary it drew" camp: you guys clearly have a very unhealthy obsession with Paul Ryan, or, more simply: you are pushing a political agenda.... What a joke! You - not just you personally, but definitely including you personally - clearly are uncomfortable with Ryan's words. For a long time you tried to discredit him by adding dubious, non-NPOV criticism of him ... I say: this proves that you are very uncomfortable with the speech, for not-necessarily-the-right-reasons, and therefore try to obscure his words by any means. Caught out!")

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. [1] WP:TRUTH/WP:RS: "If you really must - present the claim made by the politician and then present a WELL-SUBSTANTIATED PROOF that this claim is false. Do not call someone a "liar" just because someone else does."
2. [2] WP:TRUTH/WP:RS: "Does it matter what someone else thinks about Paul Ryan? Certainly not in an encyclopedic article about Paul Ryan! The ONLY political commentary allowed in an article by Paul Ryan should be made by one person and one person alone: Paul Ryan himself."
3. [3] WP:AGF: "Clearly you have an agenda to push! Shame on you!"
4. [4] WP:CIVIL: "It is probably another violation of WP policies to tell you what you can do with your agenda,"
5. [5] WP:TRUTH/WP:RS: "this is an entry about Paul Ryan. Whatever Ryan thinks is relevant and what others do - is not relevant."
6. [6] WP:AGF: "Oh, silly me, you haven't mentioned those people because their opinions were not compatible to your own. Apparently, only people whom agree with you count, right?"
7. [7] WP:AGF: "This stubborn insistence by some to include criticism of his speech as dishonest is nothing more, nor less, than an attempt to tarnish the man's reputation and paint him as a dishonest man generally. There is no established significance of the inclusion of the (obvious) fact that some didn't like his speech. The contrast between the lack of an established significance on one hand and, on the other, the significant passion in which the "Include" camp fights here to include this "dishonest" criticism suggests - I believe - a hidden agenda: to paint Paul Ryan - and probably, by extension, the Republicans - as liars."
8. [8] more of the same: "Nah, sorry! Exclude the sentence. It is deliberate POV-pushing. It is meant to seems innocent and neutral, but it is deceitful like this. Notice it only describes the positive opinion as limited to the people inside the building where the speech was made and the negative response as being made by, after naming a few sources which criticized it, MANY other sources. Deliberate - and dishonest - attempt to create an impression whereby the positive reaction was far outweighted by the negative one. I would claim that it is not true and at the very least it is not established that it is so anywhere. POV-pushihg. Remove the sentence."
9. [9] WP:CANVAS
10. [10] WP:BATTLEGROUND, totally fails to understand WP:RS: "That a critical source could ever be regarded as "independent" is something very difficult to establish, if "independent criticism" is not downright an oxymoron."
11. [11] WP:AGF: "My bet is that when the editing in re-enabled, all those whom are now very minor participants in this discussion, will come out in force, with exactly the same arguments they always have, totally ingoring any opposing arguements including ones made in this discussion."
12. [12] What is the policy for not pursuing a personal argument after the other person has dropped it? ""We cannot get sidetracked with these personal issues." - Said TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) who introduced them here. Notice a pattern of throwing around allegations without being able to back them up by someone?"
13. [13] [[WP:AGF] ... wow.
14. [14] WP:ICANTHEARYOU "Anyway, if personal attacks are uncalled for, what about "malicious and deceitful personal attacks"?" WP:AGF too.
15. WP:EDITWAR: [15] [16] [17] [18], then in rapid-fire [19] [20] [21], then after multiple warnings and article is under probation still a final [22]
16. Yet more related wholesale deletion, and comment fails WP:AGF: [23] "Removed refs of insignificant praise, insincerely added to deceitfully make this sentence seem innocent and neutral."

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:BATTLEGROUND
2. WP:TRUTH
3. WP:3RR / WP:EDITWAR
4. WP:AGF
5. WP:CIVIL / WP:NPA

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)

Attempts by certifier Homunq

1. [24]
2. [25]

Other attempts

1. [26] User:Jojhutton
2. [27] User:The_Devil's_Advocate
3. [28] User:Black_Kite

Attempts by StillStanding-247

1. [29]
2. [30]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Homunq (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3. —Kerfuffler  talk
   stalk  15:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
4. SPECIFICO (talk)SPECIFICO 17:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

The legend goes that Galileo Galilei said, after standing trial for claiming that Earth moves around the sun, "And yet it moves".

To paraphrase the above saying, I would say, in relation the commentary about Paul Ryan's speech, which I have repeatedly tried to remove from the Paul Ryan Article: "And yet it s#cks".

As for my editing record - I will leave it to others to comment on.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rtmcrrctr (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Collect

The primary secondary complainant lacks "clean hands" and this process is premature. The accused has about 74 total edits on Wikipedia, and been on Wikipedia for well under a year now. WP:AN/EW is --> that-a-way.

Rtm has 9 edits - and if he is to be blocked for edit war - then so be it - this is not the place for such action.

StillStanding-247 has 13 edits on the article - fully as problematic in nature. He also has an edit war block under his belt from just last month, and multiple warnings from admins

1. [31] SarekofVulcan,
2. [32] EdJohnston,
3. [33] TCanens,
4. [34] Guy Macon,
5. [35] Orangemike,
6. [36] 2over0,
7. [37] KillerChihuahua,
8. [38] The ed 17,
9. [39] Worm that turned,
10. [40] Fluffernutter
11. [41] Dennis Brown
12. [42] Mark Arsten
13. [43] Arthur Rubin
14. [44] Eustress
15. [45] TParis

Which just might show a pattern for that user. Collect (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC) Corrected "primary" to "secondary" and noted this is about a user with 74 total edits at this point, a record low number for any RfC/U in the entire history of Wikipedia. . Additions are underlined. Collect (talk) 23:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Collect (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2.   little green rosetta(talk)
   central scrutinizer  15:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

   — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

3. With the first edit on 22 July 2012, the first admin warning came 39 hours after the first edit.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
4. Hot Stop (Edits) 03:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Worm That Turned

An RfC/U on a user who has less than 100 edits to the encyclopedia in total? This appears to be a clear case of biting the newcomers - or do the certifiers believe that this editor is completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia and entrenched in their disregard to said standards? I suggest the certifiers withdraw the request and take it to a more appropriate venue.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Worm^TT(talk) 14:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
2. Viewmont Viking (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
3. Collect (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
4.   little green rosetta(talk)
   central scrutinizer  15:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC) And I'm glad I saw this before wasting any time trying to make sense of the background.
5. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
6. --Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
7. This centers on the Paul Ryan article, which is under general sanctions. Seems to be the more appropriate venue if they want to address the core of the misconduct.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
8. Duh Hot Stop (Edits) 02:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion - and preferably read it before editing above

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.