User:ElijahBosley/Sandbox/Subpage1/Subpage2

This is Subpage 2.

Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

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.

Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs) has engaged in obscenity and repeated histrionics abusing and intimidating other editors, and though given time to cool down, refused to repent of the misbehavior and ~~strike-through~~ the profanities.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

As to the obscenity, that User:Dennis Bratland will follow the simple procedures for repudiating one's own uncivil comments, and (if appropriate) consider apologizing, with attention to more civil remarks in edit summaries and talk pages in future. If User:Dennis Bratland persists in refusing to make amends, then a block would be appropriate (given that it already is appropriate). The Wikipedia civility policy page says "[e]ven a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor."

Description

Obscenity:

"What the fuck? Who cares? Your opinions about this source don't belong here."

--and--

". . . now you are trying to undermine the source by implying that they are unreliable because they are academics or Scottish (really, what the fuck?)."

User:Dennis Bratland is an experienced editor who should know better. The editor on the receiving end was User:Arrivisto who by his own account: " . . .used to describe myself as a Wikipedia novice, but at last I'm starting to get the hang of things. However, I'm not complacent and am still keen to improve, and I do my best to avoid "editor skirmishes". This was not quite biting a newbie, but it comes close.

In addition to profanity editor User:Dennis Bratland is prone to abusive hyperbole, like "you're dead in the water at Wikipedia" and the triumphant "[a]ll you accomplished was getting the page protected from editing." (page protection User:Dennis Bratland had requested.) Rather than assisting in improving others' contributions, like providing the missing cites in cases of unfootnoted text, the editor instantly reverts any changes to a page over which he hovers, to which he contributed heavily, and which he seems to consider his own: Types of motorcycles.

In this instance the abuse and harassment achieved the objective (if that is what it was) of intimidating User:Arrivisto so he was no longer willing to contribute to an article involving User:Dennis Bratland because, in his words, "my relationship with User:Dennis Bratland has not been entirely happy." Another (newbie) editor editing under an IP address involved in the same exchange with User:Dennis Bratland said: "Sob. Losing faith in Wikipedia here." So the profanity and escalating incivility had at least two casualties, two editors intimidated.

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.)

(also see above)

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)

After passions had cooled I invited User:Dennis Bratland as gently as I could to reconsider the intemperate language here. The response was self-justification and attempting to revisit the dispute here. After 48 hours, I tried another nudge, here. The response was to dig in his heels, here, and suggest I take the issue to a noticeboard with the remark in the edit summary "we're done here."

Very well then. Here we are.ElijahBosley ^{(talk ☞)} 18:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Attempts by certifier C1

Attempts by certifier C2

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

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.