Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Glkanter

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: 03:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• Glkanter (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

User edits tendentiously on Monty Hall problem from his own POV, is apparently not here to help build an encyclopedia (6 article edits out of about 1000 talk page edits), disruptively edits including driving away productive contributors, and treats editing as a personal battle misusing his user and user talk pages to chronicle his fight and disparage other users.

Desired outcome

Glkanter should:

1. Delete the current content from his user and user talk pages chronicling his battle and disparaging other users.

2. Spend more time editing and less time arguing on talk pages.

3. Stop treating other editors as the enemy.

4. Strive to limit future talk page comments to article content, not editors.

Description

Virtually all of Glkanter's edits have been to talk:Monty Hall problem and the related subpage talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments. Rather than edit the article he has engaged in a long-standing campaign on the talk page to "simplify" the article, refusing to accept a peer reviewed academic source as legitimate. He has exhibited an extremely combative attitude on the talk page which has led to several productive editors leaving the discussion. He has declared he has no interest in any compromise regarding what he sees as a black and white issue, and interjects disruptive comments (disparaging other user's motivations) in what might otherwise be productive discussions. On the positive side, he has recently expressed an interest in formal mediation. To be clear, this RFC is not about the content dispute but about the user's behavior.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. 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.)

This is a small sample.

1. [1] 500 edits from February 14, 2009 through December 12, 2009, nearly all to talk:Monty Hall problem including only 5 article edits.
2. [2] attacks another user, ultimately leading to that editor leaving the discussion [3]
3. [4] [5] [6] [7] chronicles his "victory" on his talk page
4. [8] interjects a disruptive comment, interfering with a consensus building discussion
5. [9] creates a section on the talk page specifically disparaging another editor
6. [10] chronicles the "battle" on his talk page
7. [11] [12] [13] rejects a good faith compromise proposal out of hand, declares no interest in compromising, and disrupts consensus building

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Civility
2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
3. Wikipedia:Consensus
4. Wikipedia:Editing policy
5. WP:NOT#FORUM
6. WP:BATTLE

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. 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.)

1. [14] [15] [16] [17] Dicklyon (talk · contribs) and Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) both attempt to defuse a hostile situation, with Glkanter's reaction
2. [18] [19] User is advised to focus on specific changes
3. [20] User is reminded that discussions about the topic belong elsewhere.
4. [21] User is reminded to focus on article content not personal POV
5. [22] One last try after user became aware of a draft of this RFC

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Rick Block (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
2. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2009 (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.

{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.}

Since I started editing on the MHP talk page 14 months ago, Rick Block and I have seen things 180 degrees apart. Always. Every issue. I can't explain it. It just is.

Likewise with this RfC. It fails to satisfy the very first requirement: "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."

To the best of my knowledge, these severe edits of my talk page edits by Dicklyon Resp-1 Resp-2 Resp-3 were my only interaction with him. And he showed no remorse whatsoever Resp-4 Resp-5. Rick Block was not involved in any way. I thought his silence was curious. Only Martin saw fit to comment, on my behalf actually: Resp-6. Resp-7 Resp-8. Rick, not a word. This is the section I had just created: Resp-9 Glkanter (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

In summary, Rick paints an unsupportable complaint. I am, and do, none of the things he accuses me of. And there is no valid second complainant on his behalf. Because Rick Block is not a part of the huge consensus, which is beyond the Informal Mediation stage, and is fighting against it tooth and nail. Like with this RfC, for example.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Glkanter (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (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.

Outside view by

{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:

Outside view by

{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:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.