Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InternetHero

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: 06:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• InternetHero (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

This user, who appears to believe in good faith that his edits are neutral, has engaged in personal attacks and vandalism. Many of his edits have been reverted due to undue weight or because the content was unsourced, resulting in slow edit wars that have caused protection of pages. An overlying theme to many of the edits is addition of unduely weighted content about Islamic scholars that he feels have been historically ignored - but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.

Desired outcome

Ideally, the desired outcome is that InternetHero reviews and accepts the policies and guideline of Wikipedia in general, and content standards and working with others in particular. In addition, it would be ideal if he was mentored, with all content additions being reviewed by the mentor for a period of time suggested by the RfC.

Description

Please see the summary above

Evidence of disputed behavior

WP:NPOV#Bias/WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE

• POV additions begin here: 18:28 18 July
• Statement that "...the great minds of these men should be recognized at all costs": 21:11 28 June
• Statement that a "passing mention" in a summary section is "overly narrow", in response to a note that 2 sentences about al-Haytham were added to the summary, when no sentences about him were in the lead of the daughter article 22:21 23 July
• Adding information about the book of optics as a "great Islamic achievement" 00:37 24 July
• Statement that WP:Summary_style overrules WP:UNDUE: 06:21 8 August
• Statement that he is "trying to work some angles to include Alhazan (Al-Haytham) to the article" (rather than follow the sources): 21:33 8 August
• Statement that "...Al-Haytham NEEDED to be included in the article..." 21:56 8 August

WP:CIV / WP:NPA / WP:ETIQUETTE

• Personal attack, acknowledgement of NPA-warning & subsequent apology, followed by reversion of edit marked minor—with edit summary alleging canvassing. 22:03 22 July

02:10 23 July & 02:11 23 July, 04:55 23 July

• Attribution of editor's intent as "to ruin my experience here on Wikipedia" 04:39 31 July
• Deleting other user's talk page comments 15:33 31 July
• Positing on beliefs of other editors, "I think they don't like Muslims": 19:05 31 July
• Changing other editors talk page comments: 19:42 31 July
• Labelling another editor a "child": 20:57 31 July refactored 21:57 31 July
• Telling another editor that they are in need of a job: 19:29 3 August
• Personal attacks: 16:32 6 August
• Attribution of other editors' motives as racist - 04:16 11 August
• Labelling an uninvolved editor from WP:3O as a potential meat-puppet: 17:02 11 August
• Misquoting other editor(s), personal attack: 17:18 11 August
• States that another editor "probably [doesn't] have anything better to do", and denies any breaches of WP:CIVIL stating "I recently always have been courteous". 15:08 13 August
• Personal attack stating that another editor "obviously has some issues" 18:31 13 August
• Personal attacks in response to WQA post (filed by Eldereft): 22:33 13 August

WP:CON

• Statement that he will "form [his] own concencus" 01:11 30 July
• After many editors disagreeing with his position, and a 3rd opinion failing to obtain the input he desired, he states "If it's a concensus you want, I will create one." 18:24 7 Aug

WP:V

• After an explanation that according to WP:V, everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable, InternetHero responds with "I don't understand: complete nonsense." 6 August
• Unsourced addition, marked as minor edit: 21:41 28 July
• Addition of material not in source, marked as minor edit: 22:00 28 July
• Addition of material not in source, marked as minor edit:22:07 28 July
• Re-adding material not in source, marked as minor edit 00:06 30 July
• Added material without a source 20:15 10 Aug
• Re-adding material not in source, stating that removal of unsourced information is vandalism, marked as minor edit: 19:40 30 July
• Adding material not in source, with edit described as "...grammar changes..." 21:45 30 July
• Addition of unsourced content 15:50 31 July
• Addition of material not in source: 18:54 31 July
• Addition of material without a source: 18:58 31 July
• Addition of material not in source, with edit described as "...grammar changes..." 21:16 31 July (line 17)
• Addition of material not in source, with edit summary that states "All easily verifiable without any further references" 20:02 10 August
• Addition of material not in source 16:18 11 August
• Removal of fact tag, without adding source 20:54 13 August

VANDAL

Adding deliberate errors: 00:24 2 August

EW

• Blocked for edit warring by User:Sandstein: 20 July
• Reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring post block by User:WolfKeeper (result:Stale):22 July
• Blocked for edit warring by User:Rudget: 24 July
• Re-adding material not in source after explained removal by other editors: 21:38 29 July
• Edit warring, while stating that he thinks the other editor is "just a kid": 15:04 31 July
• Continuing edit-warring 03:55 11 Aug & 05:40 11 Aug

CANVASS

• Mass Canvassing during edit war: over 40 canvassed users from 16:54 on 23 July to 17:45 on 23 July. I have not included all the diffs for brevity.
  • [1],
  • [2],
  • [3],
  • [4],
  • [5]
• More Canvassing
  • 07:12 8 Aug
  • 07:07 8 Aug
  • 05:52 8 Aug

Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:CON, WP:V, WP:VANDAL, WP:CANVASS, WP:EW

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

• NPOV warning and link to WP:NPOV by DigitalC: 20:46 30 July
• Reminder to stay civil by Chovain: 22:59 30 July
• Dispute resolution advice by Mavigogun: 05:48 31 July
• Suggestion by DigitalC to use either 3O or the neutrality noticeboard: 21:50 3 August
• NPA warning by DigitalC: 18:59 6 Aug
• Suggestion to get a third opinion: 19:48 31 July, Listing at WP:3O per InternetHero, and refusal to accept the third opinion by InternetHero 18:24 7 August
• Suggestion to see WP:CANVASS, by DigitalC: 7:52 8 August
• Unsourced content warning by DigitalC: 00:39 11 August
• Suggestion to try mentorship by Chovain: 04:08 11 August
• Reminder to discuss contested changes rather than reflexivly revert, by Maviogun: 06:04 11 August
• Post at Wikiquette alerts filed by Eldereft 09:39 12 August

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

Many of the diffs above (evidence of disputed behaviour) come after attempts to resolve the dispute.

• Statement by InternetHero that he has lost "patience in the Dispute Resolution process" 22:48 13 August

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. DigitalC (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Mark Chovain 07:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Endorse - Eldereft (cont.) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Who r these people. Am I the only what who has better things to do? I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to FoBM and DigitalC. I wasn't even talking to them; I was talking to User:Chovain. If you want to talk about etiquette:

I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).

I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here.

Let me ask you something: "How many times have I asked for a discussion before you 3 (not Eldereft) indiscriminately revert my edits?"

Other than following me around like a shadow, you just follow what everyone else is doing (probably to game the system). You talk about UNDUE weight, etiquette, and verifiability yet you have been here only this long, and you seem to use those words when the others use them. Absolutely no offence intended, but I noticed this from the start and thats why I don't really consider you part of this whole thing. Coming here to express your opinion shows you probably don't have anything better to do but trust me, you can find more enjoyable things then trying to outsmart/degrade people. Try finding another hobby to vent that frustration.

In conclusion, I know what I'm doing for the most part and I recently always have been courteous. You only have to look at the history of the talk-pages. anyway, I'm over this. The community has spoken and thats all that matters. InternetHero (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

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.

{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.}

Comment: I have commented here, which I hope was the correct place to do so. --Hordaland (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

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.