Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/HiLo48

Response to Andromedan

I would like to add there is an awful lot more to the situation described above by Andromedean. The topic and dispute referred to by Andromedean was closed after Andromedean had failed to gain any consensus for proposed changes they wanted to make. A user who was not HiLo48 shut down the discussion as it was not producing anything productive and it was clear there was no consensus for the suggested changes proposed by Andromedean. Andromedean then unilaterally re-opened the discussion. This was despite Andromedean being fully aware that it would be an inflammatory action. It was only after a very exhausting discussion, with inflammatory actions and a very entrenched attitude of trying to impose and force changes through by Andromedean, that HiLo48 posted their comments referred to by Andromedean. I am not defending HiLo48 or placing any positive or negative opinion. I am simply giving the context behind the comments posted by Andromedean. Sport and politics (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I have little doubt HiLo48 has negative value to the Wikipedia project and will continue to dispute and attempt to remove articles he doesn't like. I wish there was a "Disendorse" list so I could heartily object to this. HiLo48, by recognising that incivility is disruptive and vowing to cease profanity, has taken the first steps on the road to redemption and I applaud his acceptance. The fact that he has used very mild "rude words" - "Piss off" was the only example I could find - since his vow is extremely encouraging and says a lot to his fortitude. We are here to help him, not hate him. I hope that he continues to work towards fitting in with community standards of behaviour, and I have every optimistic hope for this. --Pete (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

By not putting a name under the endorse, it's basically an unendorsed view. Blackmane (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There should in my opinion be an ability to show outright opposition to a view expressed. As opposed to only being able to show active endorsement for a proposal. Sport and politics (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As I say, my main problem is his attempt to sway opinion by force of numbers rather than attempting to provide any reason for his opinion (valid or not). This behaviour is far more disruptive than mere incivility, the ability to bypass evidence is what invites outside criticism of Wikipedia. However there is plenty of incivility if that what you are offended by. Are you endorsing this Pete, or have you just not looked through the links I provided?

unwarranted criticisms of editors for trivial reasons.I don't believe this. Not just the claims about WADA, but the seeming incompetence of editors here, combined with an unbelievable arrogance. Of course we use fucking citations, but that's not what they should look like. HiLo48 (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

What? That is no response to my question and point at all. A Section and an Article are quite different things. Are the people I'm communicating with here truly competent editors? HiLo48 (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Insulting editors and implying they are biased even when they are using articles which criticise their own country! "Why should I calm down? It's being driven by a very small number of mostly far too inexperienced, narrow focus editors. Why? Because they want to keep whinging and whining after their country got beaten in some event at the Olympic Games. This is Wikipedia at its worst." HiLo48 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks as if he already started to hound and accuse me of 'shopping' today, when I am merely attempting to suggest practical ways how editors can get a fair hearing and assessment at DRN.--Andromedean (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean, the dispute you refer to (and which you and another are apparently revisiting here) is outside my knowledge apart from one mild vulgarity which I have quoted. What I disagree with is the sentence claiming HiLo48 as a negative influence and unlikely to improve. He has already made progress, and I trust that he will continue to do so if he recognises his own problems and does not imagine that criticism is somehow unfair or unjust. The quotes used to illustrate incivility are not fabricated, and they were chosen as good examples of unacceptable conduct. If HiLo48 can find ways to modify his behaviour, then he will be as valued as any of the odd fish here in the wikipool. --Pete (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

But he was still causing disruption whilst this very process is going on! Imagine how bad it will be after it has finished if he is allowed to continue. The main problem isn't bad language, especially if incited or based around true accusations, and can be ignored. The problem is that he tries to impose a view and influence the opinion of a group without evidence to back it up. There are a number of editors who are looking for the green light on this principle so they can 'Soapbox' and politicise discussions, so articles conform (or not) to their world view. We just can't set a bad example. Here is another case of his, which he has collaborated in hiding from view. (I do investigate and provide evidence before collaborating in a disciplinary process which is not taken lightly, his problem is far more serious than mere swearing).

One reason I detest reporting people is because the process allows every bigot to throw lies and garbage around without consequence. If you want to check what I have really done wrong, do your own investigations, but don't believe others' bullshit allegations. I have been known to swear when people annoy the crap out of me. I do highlight ignorant bigotry and outrageous, stupid generalisations, like yours. It upsets some of the bigots. If you want to experience the appalling processes here, just keep up the irrational abuse, and I will oblige. HiLo48 (talk) 09:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC) --Andromedean (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean is referring to a response to their behaviour which is very disruptive and is laced with continued personal attacks and unceasing attempts to push the same issue and POV over and over again, despite having no ongoing support and being told multiple times that their changes are not going to be implemented, by those involved and uninvolved. Andromedean fails to see that they have directly caused that reaction by their low behaviour standard they them-self participate in. Andromedean is also a user who is causing a large degree of disruption on the controversies at the 2012 Olympics article and by forum shopping to push their POV and desired changes to that article, including here by going after one user who disagreed with them. They have also reported me in the past and complained about the admin in DRN, when things didn't to go their own way. There is also very little truth if any to the wild and sweeping accusation Andromedean continually makes towards those who oppose Andromedean on issues. Sport and politics (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I know what you plan is, to follow me round and create another personal argument to distract from HiLos case which is what we should be discussing here. If HiLo (or yourself for that matter) made any attempt at all to discuss that article as requested by the volunteer at DRN, I will remove everything on here. People who expect removal of articles without discussion are disruptive. You and HiLo have both collaborated in a crusade to remove as many Controversies in the Summer Olympics articles as possible without any sensible reasons and infuriated everyone. Now please desist. --Andromedean (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean, to take your own words please stick to the case at hand. Andromedean there is no "crusade" as you are claiming, there is no "removal of articles without discussion" and as for "without any sensible reasons and infuriated everyone" that is a description of you on Wikipedia. You have made numerous baseless personal attacks over a prolonged period, engaged in forum shopping and filed bad faith complaints which were without merit. I have stated I believe you should be investigated for your bad faith and disruptive behaviour and forum shopping. Please cease and desist in your attempts to have every single individual who has ever disagreed with you discredited by making bad faith and baseless claims and forum shopping to try and find sympathetic individuals to support you. So far very few if any actually support you claims where as you have found those who have told you that you are without foundation in your claims.

HiLo48 does not intend to participate

As per [1], User:HiLo48 does not intend to participate in this RfC/U. What is the next step? Arbitration? --Surturz (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that this is a strategy to avoid stress and the temptation to attack others. Fair enough. When other editors are making personal comments it must ratchet up the tension and tear at the nerves for the subject of one of these things. A meltdown here would be disastrous. An alternate strategy for participation at arm's length may be to have a fellow editor work with him to advise on wording. Perhaps some kind soul will step up to help? --Pete (talk) 04:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo's choice not to take part is fine. However, I hope that he does have a read through what others say and at least get some idea what (mostly) uninvolved editors have to say. Blackmane (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A request for comment is just that - one is supposed to be seeking opinion from other editors. So why does HiLo need to answer that? It is not a trial that he must answer in an appropriate manner lest he be subject to some particular fate.

To ask of "the next step" might suggest, to some at least, that you're on some kind of campaign. --Merbabu (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a place in the template and process for the subject to respond. This gives the opportunity for balance. However, he has indicated that he does not wish to participate unless forced to, and we should respect that. I am glad to see that he is earning a few supportive comments here from editors who have worked well with him in the past, so the thing isn't entirely one-sided. --Pete (talk) 02:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

He is wise not to contribute. You've mentioned repeatedly that it's all very gratifying for you, but it is not giving me quite the same warm and fuzzy feeling. While it's a legitimate complaint on the surface (I too wish he'd tone it down and I've just commented to that effect), but dig but a little deeper and the RFC is indeed very "one-sided". Your counselling and seemingly sage words come across to me as more like baiting. There are many types of incivilty, some are harder to manage but often more toxic. But that's just my opinion, and only based on a position of jaded ignorance based my long experience with the issues and editors, and as you probably recall I have already been quite forthright with this earlier this year. --Merbabu (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

My concern is to move forward, and the only way I see of doing this is to have HiLo48 feel that he is part of the process, whether by actively participating or by heeding the views of his fellow editors. If he rejects the process entirely, or feels that all criticism is somehow biased or malicious or without any reasonable basis, then there is no real change, and we will be revisiting this. The profanity doesn't bother me too much; it's the attitude that is disturbing. No, I don't specifically recall your earlier comments - I tend to leave things in the past nowadays - but if you feel there is any value in restating your views or providing a link, feel free. --Pete (talk) 02:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you can only state what your concern might be, and I can only state that I don't buy it. Others might though. As for attitudes, there are all types on wikipedia, some very toxic. My response is not to swear (take note HiLo) and try to resist getting involved (not doing well on this one now though) and leave the toxic areas alone. regards --Merbabu (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

You are free to hold your own opinions. As for mine, they are plain, transparent, and straightforward. The golden rule is to treat others as you would be treated by them, and there are few better or more enduring pieces of wisdom. As for change, and I think we all desire a change here, it must come from the heart. --Pete (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, kindly words of advise and chicken-soup-for-the-soul style homilys are easily made. My scepticism over the credibility and usefulness of the RFC, and the apparently altruistic “concerns” expressed, are based on your and Surturz’s long standing feuding with HiLo, which are largely based on strongly held and opposing political POVs. I’m just calling as I see it from my experience and observations over the years – which others at this RFC may not have had. But I've made my point. I can't force it upon you. --Merbabu (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

One homily is the basis of Christianity, the other is the essence of Buddhism. Enduring wisdom, in my view. As for political stances, differences in opinion are welcomed. Wikipedia would be flat and dull if we all shared a one-eyed view on everything. I think we all have a right to express our opinions here. What we do not have is a right to abuse our fellow editors. I came to this RFC/U - my first ever - following repeated advice to do so and my own desire to see things become a little less toxic. --Pete (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Merbabu, I am happy to discuss my behaviour as well, and although inexperienced at RfC/U's I'm vaguely aware of WP:BOOMERANG and that it is not only the named editor whose behaviour is scrutinised in an RfC/U. Please put any criticisms of my behaviour in the section entitled "Questions to certifiers" and - this is important - please provide diffs of any problematic behaviour. I've made a big effort to be much more civil here at WP in the last six months and I would appreciate the feedback. --Surturz (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Surturz, my response was to your apparent eagerness for "the next step" should HiLo not respond here - that was the gist of this section you started, right? To repeat what has been said above, he is under no obligation to respond. I'm guessing you'd like people to take this RFC at face value (and not just a new chapter in your ongoing feuds with HiLo over your differeing POVs). Hence, I presume you'd like people to provide their additional comment on the poor form HiLo as exhibited, rather than seek HiLo's input - if you're really keen for it, perhaps you could link to his comments on his talk page re this RFC. Nowadays, I largely avoid articles on current Australian events, politics, etc, due the well-known toxicity (and to wikipedia's detrement, I can confirm I'm but one of many feeling that way) so I haven't come across you and thus I cannot comment on your editing in the past 6 months.

My suggestion is, if as it appears you don't get HiLo to respond, that any future personal attacks or out of line incivility be reported to admins. Makes more sense than marathon RFC's or arbitration (and all of Pete's hours in preparation). If it's so blatant and clear cut, there won't be an issue. You can even come to me to make that request if you feel others might think you are too involved. --Merbabu (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

That's OK. I like research. Putting the big picture together helps everyone. It's all up to HiLo48, really. It's not just the rude words, it's the attitude, and some of his comments are "clean" but intentionally offensive. If he can change that's good. I'm not going to hold him to a higher standard than I do myself, and while the occasional hasty word is par for the course around here, sustained verbal assaults are going to result in a flip up to higher authority. As it should be for any editor, self included. --Pete (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

If the behavior continues after the RFC has gone on for a while and has come to a consensus, or if the RFC gets closed with no consensus, you could make a case for ArbCom. --Rschen7754 03:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo is not required to engage. RFC/U is a voluntary dispute resolution process. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2#Certified RfC/U: Failure to participate is officially permissible, but will likely be held against HiLo in all future dispute resolution processes, especially ArbCom (which is where non-participating RFC/Us often end up). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

comparison with another case of incivility for consistency and fairness

I notice another user FerrerFour was banned for incivility back in August here. Perhaps in the interests of consistency and fairness we should this case as a comparison especially as two interested parties here actually participated in it.

Is there a good reason why FerrerFour has been permitted to call another editor directly as "incompetent" and "an incompetent" at least a half-dozen times right here on ANI, and yet still no block? They clearly have no concern for the WP:5P, or others. dangerouspanda 08:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The difference is HiLos case it was mainly directed at a range of editors including the volunteer in the DRN. In FerrerFour's case he was being incited and made far more valid claims in his defence than the attacks by HiLo48 which were cool, calculated and ideological, not that I approve of eithers continuing incivility --Andromedean (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Andromedean, FerrerFour was banned as an aggressive and highly abusive individual, FerrerFour was more than passingly uncivil they were actively harassing, openly offensive and attacking. They singled out specific users and called them everything under the sun and claimed things which didn't exist. This is similar to you referring to all users you who oppose you as having "agenda's of censorship" and being "partisan", all the claims you make are baseless and without foundation in the same way as they were in the case of FerrerFour. FerrerFour was also revealed to be abusively using more than one account and was banned for that as well. It is assumed there are more accounts of FerrerFour out there still which have not yet been identified. HiLo48 is not acting anything like in the same way as FerrerFour, from what i can ascertain all HiLo48 has done is sworn. HiLo48 has also made active steps to change this behaviour. Andromedean be careful continuing down this track it is looking like you are pursuing an obsession and a vendetta in relation to the Tack cycling section of the Controversies article and are trying to discredit each and every user who disagreed with you. Andromedean you are acting in a very bad faith way and have acted far worse than HiLo48 and in my opinion you should be investigated. Sport and politics (talk) 12:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of Rfc

If HiLo48 is improving, concerning civility issues, then why was this Rfc/U put forward? GoodDay (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

His behaviour also improved during the WQA, but the problems resurfaced once the scrutiny finished, as detailed in the ANI. The result of the ANI was a recommendation that an RfC/U be raised, so here we are. Rather than constructive engagement here, HiLo48 is currently making unsubstantiated personal attacks against myself and Skyring from his user page.[2][3] I am happy (keen!) to discuss any concerns he may have about my behaviour as long as diffs are provided. --Surturz (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

it may be that he cannot help himself. He's keeping his head down, staying away from fights, biding his tongue while his behaviour is examined, and he does this! As noted, he later retracted the "nutter" claim, but his response, under advice, is to consider laying even lower. For the time being, until this thing runs its course? Or is he going to come out swinging, bad-mouthing you, me, entire nations of people, the wikiprocess of dispute resolution, admins and arbitrators? I think it is clear to all, that after this, if the pattern continues, there is only one wikiprocess option. We cannot keep going round and round, pretending that WP:CIVIL does not mean what it says.

If there is anybody with a genuine interest in HiLo48 staying here as an active editor AND they have an ability to communicate with him, then they should be discussing strategies to let HiLo48 cope with disagreements. If I differ in opinion, then I pass on the problem to a noticeboard, where I can get more eyes on it. I might not agree with the outcome, but it's something I can live with. I don't let these things chew me up inside. I don't give away my happiness so easily.

The change has got to come from within. It is one thing to observe the speed limit, knowing that if you break it you may get caught and raging inside against the stupidity of whoever set it so low and the turpitude of the police and so on, or accepting that that is the way things are, putting on your favorite playlist and enjoying the drive. Wikipedia is always going to have people with contrary opinions, people with strongly-held opinions, people of deep faith, intense patriotism, political affiliations and whatever. Living your life as a series of bitter engagements with disagreeable people is no recipe for happiness and low blood pressure.

On that note, I am happy to report that yesterday's reading was a personal first for me. At least in recent years. The blood pressure device flashed in the deep green zone. I am happy. --Pete (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

HiLo48's anti-Christian talk page comment

I'm opening up this section to discuss the personal attack HiLo48 made on his talk page. (The specific comment is the first para in the added text, I've included the subsequent discussion and stopped one short of the massive purge which is at this stage the final edit.)

The RfC looks to be in danger of turning into a discussion board, rather than the more structured template-driven affair it is supposed to be. Let's talk about this incident here instead.

I'd like to respond to a few points made. First of all, it was a personal attack, and that's an assault against another editor. I've seen worse and I've seen better in my time here, but let's not quibble about the threshold. I think the fact that Rschen7754 felt compelled to respond later demonstrates that he was offended. Now, by itself, this sort of thing is neither here nor there. Wikipedia is full of minor spats, and I don't think it's possible to eliminate heated comments over religion, sex, politics and so on. It would be a different world. My concern is that it is one more in a long list for this editor, it was delivered at a time when he should really be on his best behaviour, and there was no expression of remorse or acceptance of the injury done. To be fair, he changed one word a minute later, but I felt that this was done because it might offend "the puritans", not because he felt the attack was in any way wrong.

How often can I stress that this isn't about the words. Using the occasional four letter word is so common as not to warrant comment in my world, though I do draw the line somewhere well short of swearing in front of my mother. It's the attitude that is the problem, and I see a long long history of pretty offensive remarks aimed at other editors.

I've been a frequent target, and that gives me an incentive to see them end, I guess. I honestly don't mind if we have political - or religious or any other - differences of opinion, but I do mind when the discussion turns from the message to the messenger. And, judging by the long list of reports to noticeboards HiLo48 has racked up by other editors - none of them me, I might point out, save for my participation here as advised after the last ANI - this is a pretty widespread feeling.

But is this RfC/U going to join that long list as yet another example of "same old, same old"? Does Wikipedia's official eye remain blind to a long history of ignoring what is supposed to be one of the five pillars of our society here?

To my mind, if we ignore it for some, we ignore it for all. There are enough ArbCom cases, and a vast number of cases that never got even that far, where editors have been banned, blocked, topic-banned, forced to accept mentors etc. that I feel confident that if this behaviour continues, then it can be taken to ArbCom, and we can get the considered opinions of our most senior magistrates.

Personally, I will not take that step. My own feeling has been that HiLo48 either needs to change his behaviour toward others, or dig his own wikigrave with his keyboard. But with the two existing solutions apparently seeming to fall short of consensus, then where are those editors who feel that stronger measures are needed to turn? We just shrug our shoulders, throw our hands up, ignore the mess? Or do we address the problem? Look back, this has been going on for years. It has to end. Or we admit that some of our fundamental rules for behaviour are just window-dressing.

I appreciate that this is difficult for HiLo48, and I feel uneasy at adding to his difficulty. He is a good editor otherwise, and I welcome his contributions. I think we are a good deal closer on political matters than he thinks - I was delighted to see Obama re-elected, and I think the best person in Australian politics to be Prime Minister is a Labor man - but I disagree on other things.

There is more to this community than two editors. If I ignore HILo48's attacks on other editors, then I am, in effect, endorsing them. I don't want to do that. I want everybody here to be as happy and comfortable and relaxed about their participation in Wikipedia, and that includes me, HiLo48, and everyone else, including those who may become involved in the future by innocently expressing their opinions in a discussion where HiLo48 is involved. If they differ and they are personally attacked, then how will they feel about this community that tolerates such behaviour for years and years?

One last thing. I'm not a Christian, and I feel as appalled as HiLo48 by the behaviour of fundamentalists. I reject much of the supernatural aspect of Christianity and other major religions. But I do feel that Christ as a person provided some excellent advice for living, and one of the best was to treat others as you would like to be treated. I appeal to HiLo48 to consider that piece of wisdom, to read over some of his own comments directed at others, and ask himself how he would feel within himself if those exact same comments had been aimed at him. --Pete (talk) 15:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pete, please stop posting walls of 'very opinionated sounding text - also - the link you provided wasn't at all clear- please clearly provide the diff, or diffs you are wanting to bring attention to - Clearly the whole wiki process of this editor type process is very hard for editors and I can say from experience they can/do get upset about it all - such pressure on a user need to be more understood / accepted than punished - simply put - focus on the original issues and expect/accept/understand a little venting - a failed rfc user is not a reason to rush to arbcom and such a request will in my experience be rejected - better focus here for a resolution - regards - Youreallycan 16:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I could work on brevity. Thanks. I'm not in favour of punishment. I don't mind the occasional vent. But when it goes on for years, editors express their unhappiness, and we do nothing about it, then where is the incentive for change? It's going to keep on happening. That's wrong. --Pete (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia - This is an anonymous anyone could be place - bigoted and involved and conflicted POV contributors is the order of the day - you and I have our biases- I choose not to edit content I am conflicted in - do you? take Hilo off your watchlist would be my advice - or have a laf with him - I want this place to be more honest and less conflicted but its never happening - Youreallycan 17:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

• I npoved this section header diff - but Skyring Pete reverted to the imo attacking header - I have asked him to provide the "anti Christian comment" but he has failed to do so yet - Youreallycan 17:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
• Sorry to butt in, just a passing male bird. Not sure what is going on here, but I do know that Hilo's comment at the top of this section is not helpfull and I would take offense if it was directed at me. Admin action required? Doubtful and wouldn't help the situation. Can't we all just get along and tone it down a notch? I hate cock fights :). Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Skyring Pete's COI (COI?)

User:Skyring  (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have met Skyring Pete in editing Australian Political articles and have found him to be a very conflicted user/contributor - he has the opposite bias of Hilo and that is all this is about - vote - delete -0 Youreallycan 17:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. I welcome the contributions of editors with different views. What i don't welcome is behaviour that offends the wikicommunity standards that have arisen over the years. Let me be very clear: I want HiLo48 to remain in the project. I want him to keep his own deeply-held beliefs. I want him to contribute. He is a good editor. I want him to stop attacking other editors. --Pete (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

You "welcome the contributions of editors with different views"? By making offensive attacks against them, trying to twist their words in the most ridiculously lame ways? Be serious Pete. Your POV is clear and extreme and you are hostile towards anyone who disagrees. I have copped it, HiLo48 has copped it and so have many others. Your avoidance of profanity is admirable, but your sarcastic attacks are not. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan and Djapa, please support your allegations with diffs. --Surturz (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Surturz. These are serious allegations that require diffs. Jusdafax 21:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A fair comment. HiLo48's defence, so far as he enunciates it, is that he is defending Wikipedia from vandals and this end justifies any means. Another way of looking at his behaviour is that he has been deliberately goaded into inappropriate behaviour. Considering his decision to refrain from comment here, it is up to others to defend him, and the easiest way of doing that is to go on the attack, diverting attention from HiLo48. I like to think that I've been polite and respectful and understanding, but others may differ in their views. Another point to note is that there seems to be a great many editors goading HiLo48 into unacceptable behaviour across a wide range of subjects. If there is any evidence of conspiracy or deliberately plotting to destroy another editor, it should be brought out. As with HiLo48, it is the diffs which tell the story. --Pete (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And, just to forestall any exploration into the distant past or to unrelated matters, let's keep the scope limited to interactions with HiLo48. Using the Editor Interaction Analyzer, I can pinpoint our first actual interaction to 8 October 2010. --Pete (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Just from looking at all of the HiLo48 user page and RFC/U posts I've seen Pete/Skyring to be very reasonable and positively oriented, so lets not start a second witch-hunt. However, it's also clear that it rubs HiLo48 the wrong way and so it isn't working. North8000 (talk) 22:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Djapa84 and Youreallycan to back up their allegations with diffs, or to withdraw them. --Surturz (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

My observation over a number of years (and I'm sure probably that of many others who have hung around Australian articles) is that Surturz, Skyring and Hilo have had long, protracted and at times uncivil disputes based around strongly held but conflicting POV's. I'm not going to waste my time collecting diffs, on the other hand, I don't go around saying these things lightly. "unsubstantiated"? maybe, so take it or leave it. --Merbabu (talk) 07:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Another breaking story

Looking at HiLo48's talk page here, I'm seeing some very poor responses to sage advice. The guts of it is that HiLo48 does not view calling other editors "nutters", "bigots", "shallow" and "stupid" as making personal attacks against them. He goes so far as to name his specific target. I see this behaviour, especially in the face of an ongoing RfC/U, as being very discouraging. I'm not seeing any acceptance that this sort of activity is wrong or contrary to Wikipolicy. Instead I'm seeing statements defending it. He's happy to keep on doing this. Offending other editors and justifying the disruption as being for the good of all. Thanks to those offering excellent advice, but at what point do we accept that there's a fundamental problem here? --Pete (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Pete, knock it off and close this thing up. This is not a "breaking story", whatever one of those is. Has HiLo actually done anything objectionable or block or ban worthy today? No. I'm not defending his position which I think is silly and self-defeating. But I do wish you'd just take his talk page off your watchlist and then you need not get so offended by what he says to me and others there. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 19:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Kim, again I must disagree strongly with you. Pete is correctly pointing out substantial and willful violations of the Civility Pillar. Wikipedia is based on it and four others. This is a core value, and HiLo, a consistent violator, is out of line. Calling someone a "bigot", for example, is hardly conducive to collaborative editing. Now if you want to start a crusade against civility, fine, but until the day that the Civility Pillar is removed, you are directly or indirectly supporting a user who has already been quite rightly topic banned from ITN for his abusive behavior. Ordering Pete to close this Rfc, as you have done, is way out of line, and I am warning you here and now to cease and desist. Jusdafax 19:51, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nowhere in the above statement by Kim do I see anything remotely resembling an order to close this RfC. The comment I see above by Kim seems to be more about closing this thread, not the RfC itself. If the above accusation against Kim is based upon what is I believe a rather clear misinterpretation of Kim's last comment above. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can't, obviously, order anyone to do anything can I? If you look at my comments to HiLo on his talk page you'll see whether or not I want to start a crusade against civility. You might also want to look at some of the blocks I've made for disruption on civility grounds. On the other hand, your 'cease and desist' warning doesn't really carry any weight either, does it? This talk page thread serves no useful purpose and should, in my opinion, be closed up. The RfC itself is showing little activity and no consensus and will, I predict, end in no consensus for action. I strongly suggest we all go and write some articles or revert some vandalism, instead of continuing this process-over-content distraction. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

"Knock it off and close this thing up" is indisputably phrased as an order. Now if you want to quibble about meaning the thread or the Rfc itself, fine. Either way, it is borderline bullying. And Kim, you were the one who came to my talk page, not the other way around. I find your sudden interest in content over process quite a turnaround. Frankly, I think we need more eyes on this matter. HiLo48 is a proven problematic editor, as his current topic ban demonstrates, and his ongoing disruption of Wikipedia is, in my view, quite arguably actionable. Jusdafax 20:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't been seeing much activity. Or consensus. This thing has run its course. What I have seen is HiLo48 sticking to his self-imposed vow of avoiding profanity, and that is excellent. I've seen people step up with kind and helpful words, and again, that is excellent. But I'm still seeing the same personal attacks on other editors and no sign of any desire to cease. If you put forward a contrary view, you get abused, and what's more it's righteous abuse and it's not going to stop.

I say it must stop, or we are just pretending that the way we interact with other editors is a pillar of our society here? I'm not going to take this matter further, but this RFC/U is another example of a failure to resolve a problem, and somebody with less restraint than I is one day going to get HiLo48's righteous boot fair in their mouth, and they are not going to let it go until they drop it at ArbCom's feet. The only person who can avoid more stress and unhappiness is HiLo48 himself. --Pete (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Pete, I have posted a notice regarding this Rfc at ITN's talk page, so those who edited with him for years can take the opportunity to comment here, should any of them choose to. I'd give it at least a few more days. Rfc's typically last up to a month. Jusdafax 21:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to listen to repeated advice and keep out of this from now on. I've said my piece, and unless anybody comes up with specific claims against me - as noted above - I'll let others describe their views. Getting more voices involved is always good. --Pete (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2012 (UTC)