Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: 06:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC).

(ExplorerCDT | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

The user repeatedly attempted to pre-empt attempts to reach consensus by way of the VfD process, and actively avoids communication on substantive issues relating to his conduct. The complainants feel that the user should either give an acceptable defence of his pre-emptive actions, or undertake not to pre-empt ongoing VfD discussions again.

Description

Early on December 6th, the user repeatedly blanked a number of pages that were the subject of an ongoing Votes for Deletion discussion, and inserted redirections to other pages which are not under VfD discussion. The complainants interpret this as an attempt to pre-empt the discussions on deletion. The complainants feel that the user may have acted out of a wish to provoke those who opposed the deletion of those pages.

Attempts to discuss this with him were rebuffed by a message to "shut up" in one instance and in the case of other users the comments were simply deleted from his talk page. This appears to be his normal way of dealing with disagreement. The complainants think that while this is fine on Usenet, it falls short of the commitment to communication to be expected of a Wikipedia editor.

While it would be wrong to second guess the result of the ongoing VfDs, the complaintants think that it was becoming clear by the morning of December 6th that no consensus for delete had begun to emerge. The user must therefore have acted knowing that he could not pretend to be anticipating a decision to delete, and the complainants think that the most likely motivation was that he anticipated that the decision would go against the proposal to delete, and that accordingly his action may have been an attempt to force the issue by provoking an overreaction by those who were editing the pages. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

06:42, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls - [1]
06:42, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression - [2]
06:43, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio - [3]
06:43, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, voting machines - [4]
06:45, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida - [5]
06:52, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, exit polls - [6]
06:54, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy, vote suppression [7]
06:55, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Ohio - [8]
06:58, 6 Dec 2004: Redirects page subject to ongoing VfD discussion, 2004 U.S. election voting controversies, Florida - [9]
See also "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section for user's problematic response to an attempt to resolve.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution, in particular Avoidance.
Wikipedia:Deletion_policy in particular blanking a page under active discussion on VfD.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

06:59, 6 Dec 2004, User:L33tminion writes to user's talk page: "Please do not redirect pages on VFD unless there is a clear consensus to do so." [10]
07:00, 6 Dec 2004, user replies to User:L33tminion on his talk page: "Wikipedia:Be_Bold. Simple. Shut up." [11]
07:01, 6 Dec 2004, user makes same post to User talk:L33tminion [12]
07:03, 5 Dec 2004, User:Leif writes to user's talk page, "You are mistaken. Please do not blank these pages again. There are active discussions on VfD about if each one should be kept, and to blank them right now without consensus is not remotely the type of bold editing that Wikipedia:Be_Bold is talking about." [13]
07:04, 6 Dec 2004, User blanks User:Leif's comment. [14]
07:07, 6 Dec 2004, user writes of User:Leif's page, Wikipedia:Be_Bold. You have your interpretation, I have my interpretation. it will continue to be done." [15]
07:10, 6 Dec 2004, [[User:Leif] replies on user's talk page, "Thank you for your prompt reply. You are still mistaken. What do you believe makes this different from any other VfD issue? You may vote delete, like anyone else. You may not remove the article before the time is up. I would be surprised if you continue to blank these pages and don't get blocked by a sysop. Good luck." [16]
07:15, 6 Dec 2004, User: L33tminion replies "Please note that I consider such blatant disregard for the vfd progress and repeated blanking of articles to be vandalism. "Be bold" means editors should not hesitate to improve articles, and this by no means excuses vandalism." [17]
07:24, 6 Dec 2004 User:jpgordon reacts to the redirects on user's talk page: "Warning: if you are so bold as to continue bypassing the VfD process (as well as vandalizing articles such as Microsoft), you will be blocked." [18]
07:33, 6 Dec 2004 User blanks comments from User:jpgordon, User:L33tminion and User:Leif) leaving the "shut up" comment on his talk page. [19]
16:01, 6 Dec 2004 User:jpgordon restores warning [20]
16:03, 6 Dec 2004 User blanks that warning, too, leaving the "shut up" comment on his talk page. No attempt is made to communicate with User:jpgordon [21]
21:10, 6 Dec 2004, User: Tony Sidaway writes to user's talk page: "While I applaud the boldness, I don't think that kind of boldness is really in keeping with the principle of consensus. Where you know (and you did know) that an edit will be contentious, and in particular when you are aware that the page is under VfD discussion, removing the link to the article's VfD page (which is one of the effects of your edit) is in my opinion not a good move. Telling someone you disagree with to "shut up" is, I'm sure you'll recognise, very poor wikikette. Please do not remove VfD notices, or redirect pages under VfD discussion to other pages." [22]
22:14, 6 Dec 2004, user removes User: Tony Sidaway's comment, leaving the "shut up" comment on his talk page. No attempt is made to communicate with User: Tony Sidaway. [23]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:38, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:17, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
L33tminion | (talk) 17:56, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Kevin Baas | talk 17:30, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Dr Zen 23:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 20:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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.

You all overreact and blow this out of proportion. I admit, I was overbold, out of line, and I have never been one for diplomacy. So what if I was ticked off two days ago? We all have our bad days. Don't make this out to be a crazily unnecessary crisis intervention as if I were addicted to Heroin and hurting people. Ban me, or send me back to editing with my tail between my legs and just leave me alone already. I learned my lesson. No need to string this along ad nauseam. —ExplorerCDT 18:24, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

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.

Do I understand correctly, based on the timeline of the evidence presented here, that ExplorerCDT in fact stopped the behavior being complained of once the complaints were brought to his attention? Granted, the response to these complaints could have been a little less hostile, and the practice of removing comments from his talk page with rude edit summaries and little or no answer does not leave a favorable impression with me. But this is not, strictly speaking, against policy, as users generally have wide latitude in how they maintain user talk pages.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Michael Snow 17:47, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:12, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Satisfaction

Now that ExplorerCDT has agreed his behaviour was out of line and inappropriate (in his response), I am satisfied that we can put the issue behind us. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re:Outside View

What the diffs don't show is that ExplorerCDT actually did this twice per page (except for one). Thus, he did not stop upon confrontation. When he stopped, he did not stop because he thinks what he did was wrong. He stopped because he thought that he couldn't get away with it, as his behavior in trying to resolve the dispute and his comments on his user talk page clearly show. The user has not demonstrated nor given any assurance, explicit or implicit, nor any indication, that he will not repeat this disturbing behavior in the future. Kevin Baas | talk 18:09, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

Well, that means he continued his edits after being reverted once. Does that count as "confrontation"? A revert is an edit, not a means of communication. Misunderstanding this principle, and misusing edit summaries as a means of conducting debate, has needlessly aggravated a good many edit wars. --Michael Snow 18:22, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response to outside view

Do I understand correctly, based on the timeline of the evidence presented here, that ExplorerCDT in fact stopped the behavior being complained of once the complaints were brought to his attention?
- Only now that the RfC has been raised, ExplorerCDT has undertaken not to do it again. In response to User:Leif, however, he said at 7:07, after the last redirect, "it will continue to be done." This was the last substantive statement on the subject by ExplorerCDT prior to our raising the RfC, despite repeated independent attempts to resolve the issue with ExplorerCDT. So I think you can see that it was by no means clear, because of his evident reluctance to respond to complaints, that he was about to change his mind. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Granted, the response to these complaints could have been a little less hostile, and the practice of removing comments from his talk page with rude edit summaries and little or no answer does not leave a favorable impression with me. But this is not, strictly speaking, against policy, as users generally have wide latitude in how they maintain user talk pages.
- It was and remains my position that the problem was caused by ExplorerCDT's failure to respond. Had he said then, as he says now: "I learned my lesson.", or more simply just said the he would no longer engage in such edits, then the RfC would not have been necessary. A RfC is more usually used to deal with legitimate disputes where neither party can reach agreement. Here I used it to force a user to respond when repeated attempts to engage him in dialog had resulted only in his statement of his determination to continue with the problematic behavior. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

misusing edit summaries as a means of conducting debate, has needlessly aggravated a good many edit wars.
- I hope you'll give us credit for not engaging in edit wars. Here at least three of us attempted to talk to ExplorerCDT and get his agreement not to pre-empt the vote. We did so by using the best means available, the talk page of the user in question. Only when he repeatedly ignored our attempts to engage him did we (Tony Sidaway, jpgordon and L33tminion) seek other means to resolve the problem. We're not involved in editing the disputed page. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:13, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that those certifying the RfC are engaging in edit wars. I'm not finding fault with them. This was a side comment in response to the implications of Kevin Baas's comment above, and has more to do with the problem of excessive reverting generally.
  - In general, I wasn't criticizing the use of RfC for this matter - in fact, it looks to me like RfC has brought us to a point where we can close the book on it - but I wanted to see if my understanding of the allegations was correct. Otherwise it might not have been clear that ExplorerCDT at least moderated his editing conduct, if not his attempts at diplomacy, during the course of the dispute. --Michael Snow 23:40, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - No problems. Sometimes a user refuses to communicate, and often it doesn't mean he's not listening,just not communicating his change of opinion. In our complaint, we said we thought ExplorerCDT should either defend his actions or undertake not to repeat them. I personally was prepared to be persuaded that sometimes a redirect, handled sensitively, may be appropriate response to a VfD, but if there is a justification for that I would need to see the argument. The point was that if a user does something that strikes several other people, independently, as prima facie poor conduct, he should justify that conduct and not just rudely ignore their complaints. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFAr discussion

The followind discussion is from WP:RFAr:

Well looking solely at the first three (after which I think I got the idea) it seems he's been a little, um, over-bold, by redirecting pages involved in an ongoing vfd, thus removing the notice that sends people who might be interested in the page's future to the appropriate deletion discussion. I daresay anybody concerned could quite easily revert, but it does seem to be rather against the principle of seeking consensus to pre-empt the discussion in this matter. Did you try contacting him on his talk page and asking him if he could hold off until a consensus is reached?

Please note that he systematically removes anything from his talk page that disturbs him - including the "notice on his talk page" mentioned in the voting section below. Arbitrators should remember to check the history of talk pages before casting votes. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- So I selectively delete messages I've already read and have no desire to keep up. I get the point. But don't think anything disturbs me more than you trying to read my mind. Heck, I can't even do that—and it's MY mind! —ExplorerCDT 17:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - User talk pages, like all talk pages, are there for everyone to read, not just you, and it is explicitly against policy to delete other people's comments on talk pages. Kevin Baas | talk 18:54, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
    - It is MY talk page. —ExplorerCDT 22:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      - I put my comment out of chronological order because I think Tony's communicates more effectively. We have a differnece in philosophy: I do not own my talk page, nor do I believe that anyone owns their talk page. The wikipedia community owns the talk pages, including the user talk pages. Each user owns their user page, and that is well sufficient for them to have their own unique voice, and to express themselves freely and without censor, without infringing on the rights of others to do the same. Kevin Baas | talk 08:39, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
      - So it is. But deleting entries other than for cleanup or archiving of old content is regarded as a faux pas. This is the wording:
        Deleting your user talk page or removing text from your user talk page. Talk pages are part of the historical record in Wikipedia, and your user talk page is the best way others have of communicating with you. It's OK to clean up or archive old content, but please be very careful before removing content from your talk page; it makes it look as though you're trying to hide criticism.
      - You may disagree with something someone has said on your talk page; that's okay, say so. Just don't delete it without acknowledging; that's very rude and might make people think you're trying to sweep criticism, legitimate or otherwise, "under the carpet." Incidentally I would normally make this point on a user's talk page, but your habit of deleting and ignoring such comments forces me to use a more general page in this instance. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:36, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the sake of diligence I looked at the last example you list; this seems to be a rather witty but decidedly POV comment on a famous computer operating system. Not good editing practice, but surely not banning material. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not banning, perhaps, but certainly vandalism; this is a knowledgeable user, familiar with the ways and standards of Wikipedia. However, other than subverting the VfD consensus process, most of his edits seem OK (albeit headstrong.) --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- I'm not the only one who thought redirecting that Golem of topics was necessary, I just had more audacity to do what should have been done long ago.—ExplorerCDT 17:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - What do you think the purpose of the word "Votes" in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion is? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:09, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    - I think we both know that they don't count for much. —ExplorerCDT 17:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)