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: 06:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This user, who appears to believe in good faith that his edits are neutral, has engaged in personal attacks and vandalism. Many of his edits have been reverted due to undue weight or because the content was unsourced, resulting in slow edit wars that have caused protection of pages. An overlying theme to many of the edits is addition of unduely weighted content about Islamic scholars that he feels have been historically ignored - but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.
Ideally, the desired outcome is that InternetHero reviews and accepts the policies and guideline of Wikipedia in general, and content standards and working with others in particular. In addition, it would be ideal if he was mentored, with all content additions being reviewed by the mentor for a period of time suggested by the RfC.
02:10 23 July & 02:11 23 July, 04:55 23 July
Adding deliberate errors: 00:24 2 August
WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:CON, WP:V, WP:VANDAL, WP:CANVASS, WP:EW
Many of the diffs above (evidence of disputed behaviour) come after attempts to resolve the dispute.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.
I will however, put a 'watch' on this page to stop these childish tactics. I will answer no more accusations: ttt. TTT = to the top. InternetHero ( talk) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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.}
I've never before been involved in a process like this, so I hope I do it right and in the right place. I gather from the project page that comments there should have to do only with the al-Haytham/telescope questions, and I've not been involved in exactly that situation.
My involvement with InternetHero has been at the article Sense of time and the following sections of that article's talk page: Reference instead and Two threads moved here, where they belong for context, from Hordaland's user talk page.
The "slow edit war", as I'd call it, involved (mostly) the grammar, syntax and content in InternetHero's "sentence":
I made little headway in my efforts to improve the grammar and received unacceptable (to me) explanations about what this sentence is supposed to mean or whether the source supports it in any way. Another editor came in and, after some discussion, managed to get the grammar cleaned up. Knowing that editor to be concerned about good grammar and interested in medical articles, I had asked him/her to take a look.
This explanation of the reasoning behind InternetHero's wording in the "sentence" quoted above was particularly mystifying: "This page was pretty laid back so I suggested an easily readable version of the article."
I was also accused of copyvio, but after an explanation of what is not copyvio, InternetHero gave up that discussion.
I believe my first work on the article, including the first time I removed the offending sentence, was here on the 14th of July.
The difficulty in communicating with InternetHero has been primarily getting long, repetitive answers which do not answer the questions posed. I was feeling that a sort of "playing dumb" was intended to make me give up and go away. That feeling was enhanced when InternetHero wrote on my talk page:
Hello (discussion over?) Hello. I take it by this edit that you agree with discussion? If I don't hear anything, I will revert to my version once the weekend is over. Happy drinking. InternetHero ( talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
InternetHero did once accuse me of being disruptive, here, but quickly revised that comment her/himself.
I hope that this is an appropriate comment here, and I am, of course, willing to answer any questions. -- Hordaland ( talk) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up re activity on another article
(InternetHero feels that my account of the copyvio item above is phrased as though I was out to "get" him, and says that he hadn't known that short, verbatim, attributed quotes are allowed. I have assured him that any appearance of lack of neutrality was not intentional. AFAIK such quotes have been allowable in writing since long before Wikipedia was established.)
On the 8th of August I made my first edits to Norse colonization of the Americas. InternetHero had and has been very active editing that article. It is difficult to follow the rapid changes, but it appears that he has copy/pasted in his previous versions of some paragraphs, re-introducing some obvious spelling errors (sttlers for settlers, bannished for banished, arguement for argument, track for tract) as well as some previously corrected punctuation here on the 15th of August. Many small and well-considered edits are removed in this same diff: I consider it (at least) unnecessary to characterize Erik the Red as a "heathen", as Christianity was hardly more than a rumor in his time/place, and story of the bartering of "nine inches of red cloth" seems both unlikely and insignificant. (Another editor has since removed "heathen" again, calling it pov; it was again added by InternetHero. I haven't checked whether any of these revisions qualify for 3RR.)
According to InternetHero, I "might be racist".
Other editors have been involved on Norse colonization in recent days. One added several {POV-section|date=August 2008} and {Cleanup-section|date=August 2008} tags which were removed by InternetHero. They (at least some of them) were replaced and again removed by InternetHero. They've been added again with the edit summary: restore tag - noting editor's mis-use of "minor" to remove a dispute tag. The tags were once more removed by InternetHero with this edit summary: m (I recieved info from a book. How can that be POV?? Do it one more time and I'm going to put you on the admins' noticeboard.) They've been replaced, again, with edit summary: (rv - see for example Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero) Note: I personally have not been involved in the changes described in this paragraph.
FYI, InternetHero has reported another editor for 3RR on the Norse colonization article.
Throughout, InternetHero marks and labels edits as "minor edit:" for changes which many others wouldn't consider to be minor. For example here, where 3000 settlers is changed to 400-700 settlers. -- Hordaland ( talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I was wholly unfamiliar with the case, but after spotting two bad faith ANI reports, here and here, I am inclined to believe that InternetHero has no concept of what he has done wrong in this instance, and is only continuing his disruptive practices by extending this to bad faith ANI reports. These frivolous reports only waste administrators' time and only lead to less credibility for the reporter, and the two cases cited is only an extension of what was described above.
It should be noted the two users InternetHero commented on have also commented here at this RfC.
These bad faith reports should be treated as such -- bad faith reports, and further abuse of this should lead to sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs 01:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
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: 06:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This user, who appears to believe in good faith that his edits are neutral, has engaged in personal attacks and vandalism. Many of his edits have been reverted due to undue weight or because the content was unsourced, resulting in slow edit wars that have caused protection of pages. An overlying theme to many of the edits is addition of unduely weighted content about Islamic scholars that he feels have been historically ignored - but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.
Ideally, the desired outcome is that InternetHero reviews and accepts the policies and guideline of Wikipedia in general, and content standards and working with others in particular. In addition, it would be ideal if he was mentored, with all content additions being reviewed by the mentor for a period of time suggested by the RfC.
02:10 23 July & 02:11 23 July, 04:55 23 July
Adding deliberate errors: 00:24 2 August
WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:CON, WP:V, WP:VANDAL, WP:CANVASS, WP:EW
Many of the diffs above (evidence of disputed behaviour) come after attempts to resolve the dispute.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.
I will however, put a 'watch' on this page to stop these childish tactics. I will answer no more accusations: ttt. TTT = to the top. InternetHero ( talk) 04:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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.}
I've never before been involved in a process like this, so I hope I do it right and in the right place. I gather from the project page that comments there should have to do only with the al-Haytham/telescope questions, and I've not been involved in exactly that situation.
My involvement with InternetHero has been at the article Sense of time and the following sections of that article's talk page: Reference instead and Two threads moved here, where they belong for context, from Hordaland's user talk page.
The "slow edit war", as I'd call it, involved (mostly) the grammar, syntax and content in InternetHero's "sentence":
I made little headway in my efforts to improve the grammar and received unacceptable (to me) explanations about what this sentence is supposed to mean or whether the source supports it in any way. Another editor came in and, after some discussion, managed to get the grammar cleaned up. Knowing that editor to be concerned about good grammar and interested in medical articles, I had asked him/her to take a look.
This explanation of the reasoning behind InternetHero's wording in the "sentence" quoted above was particularly mystifying: "This page was pretty laid back so I suggested an easily readable version of the article."
I was also accused of copyvio, but after an explanation of what is not copyvio, InternetHero gave up that discussion.
I believe my first work on the article, including the first time I removed the offending sentence, was here on the 14th of July.
The difficulty in communicating with InternetHero has been primarily getting long, repetitive answers which do not answer the questions posed. I was feeling that a sort of "playing dumb" was intended to make me give up and go away. That feeling was enhanced when InternetHero wrote on my talk page:
Hello (discussion over?) Hello. I take it by this edit that you agree with discussion? If I don't hear anything, I will revert to my version once the weekend is over. Happy drinking. InternetHero ( talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
InternetHero did once accuse me of being disruptive, here, but quickly revised that comment her/himself.
I hope that this is an appropriate comment here, and I am, of course, willing to answer any questions. -- Hordaland ( talk) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up re activity on another article
(InternetHero feels that my account of the copyvio item above is phrased as though I was out to "get" him, and says that he hadn't known that short, verbatim, attributed quotes are allowed. I have assured him that any appearance of lack of neutrality was not intentional. AFAIK such quotes have been allowable in writing since long before Wikipedia was established.)
On the 8th of August I made my first edits to Norse colonization of the Americas. InternetHero had and has been very active editing that article. It is difficult to follow the rapid changes, but it appears that he has copy/pasted in his previous versions of some paragraphs, re-introducing some obvious spelling errors (sttlers for settlers, bannished for banished, arguement for argument, track for tract) as well as some previously corrected punctuation here on the 15th of August. Many small and well-considered edits are removed in this same diff: I consider it (at least) unnecessary to characterize Erik the Red as a "heathen", as Christianity was hardly more than a rumor in his time/place, and story of the bartering of "nine inches of red cloth" seems both unlikely and insignificant. (Another editor has since removed "heathen" again, calling it pov; it was again added by InternetHero. I haven't checked whether any of these revisions qualify for 3RR.)
According to InternetHero, I "might be racist".
Other editors have been involved on Norse colonization in recent days. One added several {POV-section|date=August 2008} and {Cleanup-section|date=August 2008} tags which were removed by InternetHero. They (at least some of them) were replaced and again removed by InternetHero. They've been added again with the edit summary: restore tag - noting editor's mis-use of "minor" to remove a dispute tag. The tags were once more removed by InternetHero with this edit summary: m (I recieved info from a book. How can that be POV?? Do it one more time and I'm going to put you on the admins' noticeboard.) They've been replaced, again, with edit summary: (rv - see for example Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InternetHero) Note: I personally have not been involved in the changes described in this paragraph.
FYI, InternetHero has reported another editor for 3RR on the Norse colonization article.
Throughout, InternetHero marks and labels edits as "minor edit:" for changes which many others wouldn't consider to be minor. For example here, where 3000 settlers is changed to 400-700 settlers. -- Hordaland ( talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I was wholly unfamiliar with the case, but after spotting two bad faith ANI reports, here and here, I am inclined to believe that InternetHero has no concept of what he has done wrong in this instance, and is only continuing his disruptive practices by extending this to bad faith ANI reports. These frivolous reports only waste administrators' time and only lead to less credibility for the reporter, and the two cases cited is only an extension of what was described above.
It should be noted the two users InternetHero commented on have also commented here at this RfC.
These bad faith reports should be treated as such -- bad faith reports, and further abuse of this should lead to sanctions. seicer | talk | contribs 01:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
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.