Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Law Lord

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: 04:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Law Lord (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

Law Lord is allowed to maintain this state of his user page.

Description

At 13:07, 8 November 2008 Law Lord changed his user page into a semi-retired template with the text: "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners." [1]

At 20:50, 16 December 2008 SheffieldSteel posted to Law Lord's user page stating that the text was a personal attack. [2]

At 02:28, 19 December 2008 Law Lord moved the warning to his talk page and replied. [3]

At 02:33, 19 December 2008 Law Lord posted on the talk page of Jaysweet and requested advice. [4]

At 01:58, 20 December 2008 Law Lord posted a request on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and requested that the actions of SheffieldSteel were stopped. [5]

The following users stated that there was no personal attack on Law Lord's talk page:

1. Dtobias [6] [7]
2. Cheers dude [8]
3. Ryulong [9]
4. Conti [10]

A few administrators disagreed.

At 04:10, 21 December 2008 Seicer wrote: "Sorry, there is no such thing as free speech on Wikipedia. Given the context of this incident, I feel that the snipe is uncalled for and will be removed. Further instances of insertion will result in the userpage being protected for a duration." [11]

04:11, 21 December 2008 Seicer removed Law Lord's statement from Law Lord's user page. [12]

06:03, 21 December 2008 Seicer changed write-protection of Law Lord's user page preventing Law Lord from editing it. [13]

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Law Lord's original statement of 13:07, 8 November 2008 [14]
2. SheffieldSteel's warning of 20:50, 16 December 2008 [15]
3. JzG's edit of 20:43, 20 December 2008 [16]
4. Law Lord's revert of 23:18, 20 December 2008 [17]
5. Seicer's edit of 04:11, 21 December 2008 [18]
6. Law Lord's statement of censorship of 05:34, 21 December 2008 [19]
7. Seicer's write protection of 06:03, 21 December 2008 [20]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:User_page

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_ask_your_admin_friend_to_stop_his_personal_attacks
2. [21]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

Administrator abuse: [22]

User certifying the basis for this dispute: Law Lord

[Self-filed RFC]

• I objected, and do still object, to the removal of my user page contents. I have great difficulty seeing the premise with being accused of drama. In that case, anybody who objects to absurd actions by administrators, would be guilty of drama. --Law Lord (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Cheers Dude

Despite community consensus seemingly going in one direction that SheffieldSteel's wasn't correct in his behavior which was the point of that discussion, admin Seicer kind of took it upon herself to mark the discussion as resolved and remove the user's comments here [23]. More than anything right now, I'm apalled by how that admin Seicer handled the issue so abrasively. This [24], this [25] (have no idea what Baseball Bugs was talking about), and eventual page protection here [26] was all uncalled-for. I'd also like to note that the ANI noticeboard discussion was to have a talk about SheffieldSteel's behavior, not remove these remarks. From what I saw, general consensus was the admin was making false accusation in considering this I have had enough of administrators who lack manners a personal attack about himself. I have no idea how successful LawLord will be in this issue, but I can say he is being treated incredibly shoddy and unfairly in my mind. Hope this helps! Cheers! Cheers dude (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I've struck out the part about admin Seicer closing the discussion. My apologies. Also, I'm not quite sure why the case related to Guido den Broeder was brought up. My basis for being here is to provide my honest opinion of this matter and nothing more. If you don't agree with it, I respect that. Cheers!

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cheers dude (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

I've been out of town for the past day, so I took this on as entirely uninvolved. There are certain instances that we do not allow on a userpage, and pointed characterizations, especially towards other editors and administrators, is simply not acceptable. I gave plenty of notice that further edit warring regarding this topic would lead to a page protection; would you have rather I doled out a block?

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would stop haunting my edits. I understand that you have disagreed with my handling of the Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) case at MFD/DRV, at ANI, and now at RFAR, but to make statements that I handled this "abrasively" and that I "took it upon herself" to mark the discussion as resolved is stretching the truth. I should add that my comment at ANI regarding this case was the only comment I made in regards to Law Lord; that I did not mark the case as resolved (please check your DIFFs; and that I am not a female.

In addition, thanks for not informing me of this RFC. seicer | talk | contribs 06:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As a note, the initiator of the RFC should inform all involved editors and administrators of the open RFC, as canvassing in this case is rather inappropriate; see also: [27].

Users who endorse this summary:

1. seicer | talk | contribs 06:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Baseball Bugs

As one who has been blocked in the past for personal attacks, and justifiably so, and hence not blocked recently, I take the subject seriously. The user wants to retain a sentence permanently that takes a verbal shot at other editors. The various policy violations for such retention include Disruption, Point-making, Personal Attack... and Wikilawyering that it's somehow not a personal attack just because he didn't specifically name someone. It's also a misuse of the User Page. The user page does not belong to the user. The purpose of the user page is to further the purpose of wikipedia, and the comment "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners" does not qualify. The user also makes a "free speech" and "censorship" claim that betrays that he does not understand the way wikipedia works, despite having been on it for nearly 2 years. He claims he's going to retire. He needs to either actually retire and stop this ongoing disruption; or become an active editor again, focusing on normal editing rather than on disruption. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that this supposedly "retired" editor Law Lord has been soliciting input from a variety of users, though apparently not all those who are actually involved in the dispute in some way. Law Lord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) One would hope that he's truly trying to get the right answer, as opposed to trying to canvass those he thinks will agree with him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The tone of his comments to at least some of the other editors sounds like canvassing. Also, it turns out he was actually banned from the Danish wikipedia, so evidently he has precedent for creating drama.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. seicer | talk | contribs 14:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Smashville^talk 20:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
4. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and statement by roux

• Clarification: I was the one who marked the ANI resolved, and would appreciate if the various statements were corrected to absolve seicer of that. Not that there was anything wrong with it, but the closure seems to be used as--for lack of a better word--ammunition against seicer, which is entirely misplaced. If there is any blame to be had for marking the discussion as resolved, it should fall on me and nobody else.

• Statement: I will simply quote what I said to Law Lord on my talkpage:

I don't see any admin abuse. I think your statement is probably (barely) within the rules, but is definitely skirting the edge, and probably isn't really all that necessary. Believe me, I understand the desire to flip the bird from time to time, and have only just stopped doing so myself. But I think seicer was well within discretion to say "Okay, this stops now." Keeping the statement there just keeps more drama. Removing it--especially if you remove it yourself--shows you to be the bigger person. You know how you feel, and by this point so does everybody else. So it's probably not necessary to keep it there, y'know? I think it's probably best for everyone involved to just let this matter quietly fade away.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. // roux   08:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. seicer | talk | contribs 14:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Smashville^talk 20:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
4. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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.}

Outside view by L'Aquatique

This seems pointless to me. I understand that tempers can flare over silly things, but we're talking about a short nonspecific comment on a userpage here. It's not really a big deal- admins shouldn't be getting upset and on the flip side the user in question really needs to get off his "it's my userpage, my right" trip. There are so many other things that need to be done- articles written, vandalism reverted... Seriously. This is just a continuation of the dramaz that was shut down over at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Please_ask_your_admin_friend_to_stop_his_personal_attacks).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. l'aquatique |✡| talk 06:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Well said. PhilKnight (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Is there really nothing more interesting to be fighting over? – iridescent 19:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
5. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
6. While I endorsed some of the above summaries...I believe this is merely drama for drama's sake. Smashville^talk 20:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Dtobias

The admins involved seem ridiculously thin-skinned. It's his own user page; let him be. Some of the old cliques I fought in the past have faded away or lost their power, but the general attitude on the part of some admins that they can be judge, jury, and executioner against anybody who hurts their feelings, and they don't have to care what anybody else thinks about it, will seemingly never go away.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtobias (talk • contribs) 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. No one, not even admins, are above criticism. MikeHobday (talk) 11:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
4. This over-reaction by ridiculously thin-skinned admins helps explain why Wikipedia lacks an article on the subject of Narcissistic Wounding. It is ironic that the world's largest 21st Century encyclopedia, purporting to comprise the sum of all human knowledge, doesn't even have an article on the most frequently occuring anti-social behavior that regularly appears within this astonishingly immature and dysfunctional culture. Moulton 15:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
5. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Everyking (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Agree. If anyone thinks this is "abuse", I dread to think what will happen when they get into an argument with JzG. – iridescent 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
8. --NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Cheers dude (talk) 20:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Personal attack my ass. لennavecia 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
12. It isn't a personal attack by a mile. I could see it as such, IF it had mentioned names, but as a generality no.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Fred Bauder

Discourtesy is an increasing problem on Wikipedia. Lack of courtesy has driven a number of editors away from Wikipedia. An assertion by an editor who has departed that the reason they left was lack of courtesy is acceptable. A personal attack would involve not only identifying the person, but an attack that is personal, not merely an assertion that Wikipedia policy was not followed. We should not create a situation where not only is the policy violation tolerated, but even mention of it is forbidden.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Fred Talk 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
4. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
5. This is really not problematic at all, and removing and protecting the user page(!) to remove that sentence is just plain absurd. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
6. PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Davewild (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
8. MikeHobday (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
9. --NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Cheers dude (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
12. Agree with Conti. لennavecia 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
13. The best defense again libel/slander is the truth. Are there rude admins? Yes. Are there abusive admins? Yes. Are there admins who should lose the bit? Hell yes. Is it possible that Law Lord is in fact tired of dealing with them? Yes. Case closed.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by VX

I don't really see how "having enough with admins who lack manners" is a personal attack. Law Lord after being told by SheffordSteel that that content was a personal attack came out of retirement. Then it exploded into this whole dramafest that wasn't really helpful at all. I could think of a bunch of things are worse than saying that admins have no manners. I also don't see why this WP:RfC/U was needed in the first place. So basically, just ignore it, don't give a fuck, or whatever you need to move on.

TLDR - Get over it, ignore, and lets do something that's actually productive.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. VX!^~~~ 17:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. l'aquatique |✡| talk 18:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
4.  – iridescent 19:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
5. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
6. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
7. --NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Smashville^talk 20:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
9. I'll go along with this, as long as I can say "some wikipedia editors are idiots" on my user page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by QuiteUnusual

One of the most pointless RfCs I've ever read; a total waste of editors' time, effort and storage on the Wikimedia servers. Me, I think the line should go from the userpage, but is it worth arguing about? No. Let's move on and get on with the real work of this project.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. l'aquatique |✡| talk 15:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Cla68

We need to name some names here. Seicer, SheffieldSteel, and Baseball Bugs need to get a grip or get a new hobby.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cla68 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Law Lord (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Cheers dude (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Incivility by Baseball Bugs on talk page is personally dirceted, relentless and inappropriate. MikeHobday (talk) 07:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
6. One could say that they lack manners. --NE2 14:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

   One could. Yet none of us has been banned from the Danish wikipedia. And all of us edit pages that don't necessarily have to do with defending a comment on our user pages. So just who is it that needs to get a grip or get a new hobby??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

7. Thin-skinned admins and hypocrisy abound. What's new? Nothing. I should perhaps point it out on my userpage. >_> لennavecia 15:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Smashville

Law Lord has made 71 edits in December. Six of the 71 were mainspace edits. That means less than ten percent of your edits this month have been in regards to building an encyclopedia. This RfC is pure drama. How about everyone focus on building an encyclopedia and real problems instead of this pure and utter drama? Quite honestly, at most this was a matter for WP:WQA. Taking it to RfC is overkill and pure and utter drama from the wording of the initial complaint to the RfC, it just appears that is all this was ever meant to be...

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --Smashville^talk 23:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Sums up my position nicely. VX!^~~~ 23:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Well said. This never needed an RfC, the matter was closed properly at ANI. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 00:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Cla68 should choose his words a bit more wisely, I might add. seicer | talk | contribs 06:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Aye. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
6. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
7. How many of those edits were to this rfc, I wonder? l'aquatique |✡| talk 15:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
8. The first 6 or 7 edits in December were pretty much normal edits. Everything after that has had to do with that baiting comment on his user page, one way or another. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Users who think this summary is not-well thought out:

1. He retired. Why would he be editing anything other than this page and those relating to it? Impolite admins (and those who aspire to be), like those who took offense and proved his point, are the ones who should be trout slapped for creating unnecessary drama. Check WP:CHIPSLAW, as it applies. And Baseball Bugs, baiting? Really? Are you serious? It's one sentence, and you want to call it baiting? One sentence that an admin felt compelled to remove and then protect for? Shameful, pathetic, ridiculous and dramatic. And Law Lord is being accused of stirring up drama? Please. Personal attack? My ass. لennavecia 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Jennavecia

There are plenty of editors who have left the project and dropped paragraphs of reasoning as to why they left on their user page. I would list examples, but some pointy admins who lack clue would go MFD them. Anyway, some have been MFD'd and survived, others have seen attempted alterations, which were reverted by WP:TPS's, but they remain. Why? Because they should remain. Just because some admins (and perhaps some non-admins with admin aspirations who are too uncivil to ever actually become admins) realized that they fall into the category of "admins with no manners" and felt personally attacked. Well, FYI, there's no policy that says you have a right to be unoffended. So get a Kleenex, blow your nose, and then suck it up when something here offends you. Wikipedia is not censored. That includes porn, profanity and any general statements that upset your delicate emotional state.

The page should not have been altered and surely not protected. Ridiculous. 16:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

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.