In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 00:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC).

• Dr1819 ( talk · contribs · logs)

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

Dr1819's behavior over men's fashion articles such as Male Unbifurcated Garment and Men's fashion freedom has been highly disruptive as he tries maintain ownership of these articles articles, frequently attacks others who disagree with his position and behaves in a generally uncivil manner.

Description

Unfortunately, Dr1819 has been unwilling to consider that his behavior in relation to these articles and the manner in which he interacts with other editors is disruptive and incivil. Attempts by many editors to discuss limiting the hostility have been met with complete denial. Dr1819 should consider returning to his incredibly productive and experienced contributions to technology related articles and avoid articles deal with men's fashion; the latter appear to provoke too personal a response.

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.)

1. Condescending posts [1], [2]
2. Refusal to appreciate concensus and assume good faith in others [3], [4], [5]
3. Accusations of rules violations or bias in others who disagree [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]
4. Misunderstanding of policy [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]
5. Personal attacks on contributors [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. No Personal Attacks
2. Article Ownership
3. Consensus
4. Civility
5. WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS in respect of disputed content

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Zora ( talk · contribs · logs) discusses the relevant articles and policies [27]
2. JzG ( talk · contribs · logs) discusses the relevant policies [28], [29], [30], [31]
3. Sandstein ( talk · contribs · logs) discusses civility concerns [32], [33]
4. FloNight ( talk · contribs · logs) discusses civility concerns [34]
5. Shell_Kinney ( talk · contribs · logs) discusses civility concerns [35]
6. Lar ( talk · contribs · logs) reports problem at WP:PAIN [36]
7. Response to request for 3rd opinion on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Male_Unbifurcated_Garment [37]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Shell ^babelfish 01:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2. I sincerely hope that Dr1819 will take to heart that he needs to consider gentler methods of working to reach consensus and that he needs to consider that our processes work, and need to be followed, as do our policies on what is notable and what is not. He cannot successfully continue as is. + + Lar: t/ c 01:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Well put. Sandstein 06:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
4. It's a pity - Dr1819 is an intelligent man with much expertise, but he seems incapable of acknowledging well-founded criticisms of these articles. The major problem for me is that he considers that evidence that men wear skirts is, in and of itself, evidence that an article called "male unbifurcated garment" must exist. But every piece of investigation I've done suggests that this is a neologistic usage restricted to a small group of people of unproven significance. His response below makes it plain that he still divides thw world into the "well-informed" and those who disagree with him. As to misinformation, the Google searches he poposed in the AfD for "MUG" are about as misleading as you get - IOW, the pot is calling the kettle black. And in fact refusing to acknowledge the possibility that anyone other than kettles may be black, or that pots have the capacity to be black. To strain the metaphor behyond breaking point.. Just zis Guy you know? 10:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

   Addendum: from Dr1819, I'd hoped that by now, more appropriate measures and controles to remove personal bias, both from editors as well as admins, would be present. It is precisely these procedures which Dr1819 has fallen foul of. His refusal to even contemplate the possibility that this might be the case, which si the source of the problem. Just zis Guy you know? 22:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

Many qualified and truthful comments have been made on the pages linked above, and by most of the users posting there, whether they agreed with me or not. I praise those users for taking the time to ensure their posts adhere to Wiki policy. Thank you.

The links provided above clearly detail my frustration, but only over the unqualified, misleading, and untruthfull comments made by a minority of users and admins, and only on pages concerning alternative men's fashions and my [ [38]] page. There have been many qualified statements that I have either left alone, commented "well said," or to which I simply responded in a normal fashion.

The only times I have defended my reputation is when it has been called into question. When others have made comments that are untrue, such as claiming the topics are neologism, or irrelevant, I have responded. When others make statements insinuating or directly assigning personal motives to me that are simply untrue, I have called that into question, as well (they're certainly not true or irrelevant to the tens of thousands of us who've been using these terms and participating in these events over the last decade. This remains the same as with many wiki pages).

Amazingly, the four worst offenders, all admins, have done exactly the same, generating highly antagonistic content, purportedly in an attempt to get me to "blow my stack." I certainly hope and pray the previous insinuation privately relayed to me isn't true. Nevertheless, if I can't follow the example of the admins, what example am I supposed to follow?

Fortunately, Wiki has seen fit to post it's policy, for review by all, and it's available, ironically, from the admin who created [ this RfC] via the referenced link in the section above, or the link immediately preceding.

Regrettably, one of the four admins who've posted rather demeaning comment has been extremely aggressive at attempting to undermine not just the validity of the article, but my personal reputation here on this board, as well. This partiular admin posts so many vitriolic comments on my own [User talk:Dr1819 talk] page, then gets upset when I defend the article's content or call into question their own behavior, whether on my own page or his. Sadly, three of the four admins have intimated rather slanderous, if not demeaning comments concerning my motivations, in violation of Wiki policy governing the behavior of the very few admins who've attacked me quite aggressively.

As the policy pages linked above attest, admins are not exampt from Wiki policy, and should be leading the way by example, not slamming users while behaving worse than the user their slamming. Some examples are even provided above, but the comments left on my talk page by some admins have been at the other end of the spectrums of politeness and civility, ironically often when chiding me about my own alleged lack in these areas.

Of particular note is the fact that this conflict is absent on the other articles to which I've created or edited, including Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, RAID, Cryptography, and Geostationary transfer orbit, despite my applying the same diligence to ensure accuracy and validity of the information there as well as on the two pages which seem to have attracted rather violent responses from just a few users and about four admins.

It is because of the gross dichotomy of their behavior that I called their behavior into question in the first place. Their conduct remains in question, including the creation of this RFC, not by me, but because of their own behavior, examples of which have been wonderfully provided in the links, above. Again, because of their own behavior, the validity of their endorsements are also highly suspect.

While the vast majority of Wikipedians appear to either accept or tolerate the valid content surrounding non-typical male apparel, a very few users and admins have not, and have attacked the very idea with reckless abandon, to the point of deleting content without qualification or comment, including the many references I've posted supporting it's prevalence throughout the world.

Wiki policy encourages informed debate, which has rarely occurred over of the topics concerning alternative men's fashion. I've been told I was being "uncivil" and exhibiting bad behavior, even at times when the only comment I had posted was a simple, polite disagreement with the statement of another. Wiki policy encourages admins to lead by example, which has clearly been lacking on my talk page. Wiki policy requires articles to be validated with external references, yet when I provide references, many have been deleted or moved to other pages.

The crux of this matter is that while most Wikipedians are fine with topics concerning alternative men's fashions, a handful have taken personal offense, have attacked me with reckless abandon, slandering my reputation, occasionally with such vehemence that they've committing the same errors in behavior (in one example, far worse) they call into question such things as "he seems incapable of acknowledging well-founded criticisms of these articles" which are coupled with both a complete lack of qualified support for such accusations, combined with a surprising history of agressive content deletion that I believe has been falsely, usupportably, and thus erroneously attributed to these claims.

Regardless, in order to avoid further conflict, I will leave any further discussion of men's fashion issues to others, who're apparently more well informed than those of us men who actually wear alternative men's fashion. I reserve the right to continue editing those articles, but will not conflict with the self-appointed guardians who so aggressively defend the Victorian POV on the discussion pages of the articles themselves, from which 97% of this RfC has been derived.

Addendum: When I began my endeavors hear at Wiki, I thought it was a terrific concept. Sadly, Wiki has mutch room to mature before content which some may find controversial can be accurately represented herein. I'd hoped that by now, more appropriate measures and controles to remove personal bias, both from editors as well as admins, would be present.

{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:

1. Dr1819 08:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply

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 DCAnderson

It seems that User:Dr1819 has a lot of interesting things to contribute to Wikipedia and a lot of insight into many subjects.

This however seems to be marred by a complete lack of civility. It seems that Dr1819 has on many occasions taken a tone in which he implies that he is somehow "better" than other users simply because of the number of countries he has visited, experience with the internet, time on Wikipedia, etc.

These are all great accomplishments, but the trouble arises when you attempt to "club people over the head" with how worldly you are. Assume Good Faith from other editors, and more importantly you should also not assume that other editors are just ignorant peasants because they have not traveled to as many countries as you or logged as much time on Usenet.

I would also highly recommend DR1819, that you learn to accept the possibility that you could be wrong about an issue if consensus is against you on it. Do not act like other editors are out to get you just because they do not agree with you. Many of the articles you have created are about neologisms, and the information could fit better in other articles.

I do believe despite all the incivility, Dr1819 is probably a very useful contributor, but the arrogance and incivility he is exuding at the time being is seriously outhweighing the good.-- DCAnderson 04:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- DCAnderson 04:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Yes, precisely. The problem is not with the content, which can be fixed by negotiation, but with his obstinate refusal to accept that any view other than his own might have any validity whatsoever. He characterises as uncivil the standard civility template warning left by FloNight, as an (I think )uninvolved admin. This is a job for the cluebat! Just zis Guy you know? 10:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Drool Rockworm

It seems like every time I look at the rfc page, which hasn't been too often, that Shell, or Jareth, or whatever name he/she is using this week, is throwing his/her weight around trying to get the "community" to tar and feather some poor user whose only crime is to stick to his own opinion in the face of "consensus". "Consensus" doesn't mean that all users have to agree with majority or go away. Shell needs to learn that "consensus" doesn't mean that minority views are erased from the Wikipedia record. Is he/she for real, or just a sockpuppet of one of Brandt's club, trying to create evidence of the "Wikipedia Hivemind"? Drool Rockworm 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

Sort of makes you wonder why we bother having policies, really, doesn't it? Just zis Guy you know? 21:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Good point. I agree that majority consensus does not equate with being correct, as history, even recent history, continues to prove. Mugaliens 18:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Churchh

In the latest broo-ha-ha over "Men's fashion freedom", Dr1819 was screeching all over the AfD page, but he very sensibly did not try to maintain "ownership" of the article page itself (after JzG took it in hand and severely truncated it). This contrasts with the earlier "Men's Unbifurcated Garment" affair, when Dr1819 maintained personal article "ownership" to the bitter end (something which probably played a large role in guaranteeing the deletion of an article about a subject which is actually somewhat worthy of a Wikipedia article). Given this relative improvement in his behavior, and his promise above to refrain from further efforts on the particular flashpoint topic, I see no need to take any concrete measures against Dr1819 at this time. Churchh 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Churchh 19:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Mugaliens

I read the above, the links to Wikipedia's policy, User:Dr1819's user page, the links to the major pages he's worked, and found (via Google) the two pages which were deleted. I found his comments on his own user page ranged from polite to rather acidic and, at times, arrogant. However, I found his comments on other users' pages to be generally much more polite, if still rather to the point. I found his edits to be quite good on all his entries.

I did some research on the two pages that were deleted, and there's little to support an entry of men's fashion freedom. However, there's a great deal of information about male unbifurcated garments published around the Internet and on more traditional publications, so it appears he was right about the widespread and long-term use of the acronym. Sadly, DR1819 failed to provide any proper references (he merely provided links to the resources). Had he provided such references, it might have saved the MUG entry from deletion. Properly formatting the article, mimicking one of the "very good articles," or even a "featured article" might have helped, too.

Over time, and particular in the above commentary, his politeness has improved markedly, demonstrating that he can take the high road, when he so chooses. This is good, as it might mean the difference between him staying, or being banned.

Lastly, I found some truth to his assertions, that two admins appear to have taken personal offense against him due to the content of his two controversial entries, as their numerous comments are absent in his less controversial entries. I strongly suspect he simply took offense at childishly antagonistic comments like "This is a job for the cluebat!" which have no place coming from anyone (admin or not). But DR1819 shows some serious technical writing skills and promise towards more polite interaction.

I recommend that he learn to ignore such comments and let them stand as they are for others to see. I recommend he be kept as a user, and I also recomend that the unwritten policy of "do as I say, not as I do" disappear from the admin staff, as it appears to have incited/inflamed matters a great deal, making them far worse than they would have been without such comments.

I would certainly hope none of the admin staff had been egging him on, as that would have been reprehensible. Leading by example is always the best policy. In fact, Wikipedia "co-founder Larry Sanger, who is no longer associated with the project, pleaded with the management to improve its content by befriending, and not alienating, established sources of expertise. (i.e., people who know what they're talking about)."

It appears that when it comes to the MUG, DR1819 knew what he was talking about.(quote source: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/) Mugaliens 19:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

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.