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).

• InternetHero ( talk · contribs · logs)

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.

Desired outcome

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.

Description

Please see the summary above

Evidence of disputed behavior

WP:NPOV#Bias/ WP:NPOV/ WP:UNDUE

• POV additions begin here: 18:28 18 July
• Statement that "...the great minds of these men should be recognized at all costs": 21:11 28 June
• Statement that a "passing mention" in a summary section is "overly narrow", in response to a note that 2 sentences about al-Haytham were added to the summary, when no sentences about him were in the lead of the daughter article 22:21 23 July
• Adding information about the book of optics as a "great Islamic achievement" 00:37 24 July
• Statement that WP:Summary_style overrules WP:UNDUE: 06:21 8 August
• Statement that he is "trying to work some angles to include Alhazan (Al-Haytham) to the article" (rather than follow the sources): 21:33 8 August
• Statement that "...Al-Haytham NEEDED to be included in the article..." 21:56 8 August

WP:CIV / WP:NPA / WP:ETIQUETTE

• Personal attack, acknowledgement of NPA-warning & subsequent apology, followed by reversion of edit marked minor—with edit summary alleging canvassing. 22:03 22 July

02:10 23 July & 02:11 23 July, 04:55 23 July

• Attribution of editor's intent as "to ruin my experience here on Wikipedia" 04:39 31 July
• Deleting other user's talk page comments 15:33 31 July
• Positing on beliefs of other editors, "I think they don't like Muslims": 19:05 31 July
• Changing other editors talk page comments: 19:42 31 July
• Labelling another editor a "child": 20:57 31 July refactored 21:57 31 July
• Telling another editor that they are in need of a job: 19:29 3 August
• Personal attacks: 16:32 6 August
• Attribution of other editors' motives as racist - 04:16 11 August
• Labelling an uninvolved editor from WP:3O as a potential meat-puppet: 17:02 11 August
• Misquoting other editor(s), personal attack: 17:18 11 August
• States that another editor "probably [doesn't] have anything better to do", and denies any breaches of WP:CIVIL stating "I recently always have been courteous". 15:08 13 August
• Personal attack stating that another editor "obviously has some issues" 18:31 13 August
• Personal attacks in response to WQA post (filed by Eldereft): 22:33 13 August
• essentially this user has all edits marked as minor, even when they're not, user has been asked to desist from this 2008-07-02T07:59:54, has not done so
• added unfunny sexual innuendo to user's talk 2008-06-30T05:12:40
• Personal attack in response to conflicting opinion, "users like you (who obviously has issues)" 17:35, 18 August 2008
• Attributed differing opinion to stupidity, hate and deception 18:55, 19 August 2008

WP:CON

• Statement that he will "form [his] own concencus" 01:11 30 July
• After many editors disagreeing with his position, and a 3rd opinion failing to obtain the input he desired, he states "If it's a concensus you want, I will create one." 18:24 7 Aug

WP:V

• After an explanation that according to WP:V, everything on Wikipedia should be verifiable, InternetHero responds with "I don't understand: complete nonsense." 6 August
• Unsourced addition, marked as minor edit: 21:41 28 July
• Addition of material not in source, marked as minor edit: 22:00 28 July
• Addition of material not in source, marked as minor edit: 22:07 28 July
• Re-adding material not in source, marked as minor edit 00:06 30 July
• Added material without a source 20:15 10 Aug
• Re-adding material not in source, stating that removal of unsourced information is vandalism, marked as minor edit: 19:40 30 July
• Adding material not in source, with edit described as "...grammar changes..." 21:45 30 July
• Addition of unsourced content 15:50 31 July
• Addition of material not in source: 18:54 31 July
• Addition of material without a source: 18:58 31 July
• Addition of material not in source, with edit described as "...grammar changes..." 21:16 31 July (line 17)
• Addition of material not in source, with edit summary that states "All easily verifiable without any further references" 20:02 10 August
• Addition of material not in source 16:18 11 August
• Removal of fact tag, without adding source 20:54 13 August
• When verifiability of edit is challenged, responds "LOL. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Lets all edit the same way people!! That way we can become like robots." 15 August

VANDAL

Adding deliberate errors: 00:24 2 August

EW

• Blocked for edit warring by User:Sandstein: 20 July
• Reported at WP:AN3 for edit warring post block by User:WolfKeeper (result:Stale): 22 July
• Blocked for edit warring by User:Rudget: 24 July
• Re-adding material not in source after explained removal by other editors: 21:38 29 July
• Edit warring, while stating that he thinks the other editor is "just a kid": 15:04 31 July
• Continuing edit-warring 03:55 11 Aug & 05:40 11 Aug

CANVASS

• Mass Canvassing during edit war: over 40 canvassed users from 16:54 on 23 July to 17:45 on 23 July. I have not included all the diffs for brevity.
  • [1],
  • [2],
  • [3],
  • [4],
  • [5]
• More Canvassing
  • 07:12 8 Aug
  • 07:07 8 Aug
  • 05:52 8 Aug

Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:ETIQUETTE, WP:CON, WP:V, WP:VANDAL, WP:CANVASS, WP:EW

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

• NPOV warning and link to WP:NPOV by DigitalC: 20:46 30 July
• Reminder to stay civil by Chovain: 22:59 30 July
• Dispute resolution advice by Mavigogun: 05:48 31 July
• Suggestion by DigitalC to use either 3O or the neutrality noticeboard: 21:50 3 August
• NPA warning by DigitalC: 18:59 6 Aug
• Suggestion to get a third opinion: 19:48 31 July, Listing at WP:3O per InternetHero, and refusal to accept the third opinion by InternetHero 18:24 7 August
• Suggestion to see WP:CANVASS, by DigitalC: 7:52 8 August
• Unsourced content warning by DigitalC: 00:39 11 August
• Suggestion to try mentorship by Chovain: 04:08 11 August
• Reminder to discuss contested changes rather than reflexivly revert, by Maviogun: 06:04 11 August
• Post at Wikiquette alerts filed by Eldereft 09:39 12 August

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

Many of the diffs above (evidence of disputed behaviour) come after attempts to resolve the dispute.

• Statement by InternetHero that he has lost "patience in the Dispute Resolution process" 22:48 13 August

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. DigitalC ( talk) 06:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Mark Chovain 07:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
3. -( User) WolfKeeper ( Talk) 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply
4. Mavigogun ( talk) 05:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Endorse - Eldereft ( cont.) 21:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
2. EdJohnston ( talk) 01:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Endorsing: See below. seicer | talk | contribs 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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.

Who r these people. Am I the only what who has better things to do? I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to FoBM and DigitalC. I wasn't even talking to them; I was talking to User:Chovain. If you want to talk about etiquette:

I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).

This coming from some1 who thinks that a consensus is overrided by verifiability... You're defending a person who probably has some psychological issues--- trust me. I ask you: "Who spends their time helping a troubled youth on Wikipedia"? Some1 who I am going to put on alert for stalking---thats who. He keeps ( 1, 2, and 3)following me and this DigitalC guy is starting to as well. This will probably be dubed as "a personal attack," but you guys need to find more constructive uses of your time. I'm only 23 and I go to school (not now) and work as a janitor...

This whole facade is just to try and think that the way I'm doing things is wrong, but that would leave out my integrity---something they probably hate seeing that the community has spoken against them. I tell you: "Please try and find another way to vent your frustration". I won't go as far as to say you need councelling or something, but you (DigitalC) should try and find a better way to vent other than trying to degrade ppl. Absolutely no offence, but you should try this website.

Anyway, the sandbox-edit prepared by DigitalC is completely out of context considering much of my "personal attacks" were in the confines of them having to stalk my history logs to even find it. In addition, the other "bad things" I did was probably in respect to deleting their editing on my user-page, and to a much more laughable extent: editing non-sourced material or "material not found in the source". My reply to this is: "Why in the heck would I need to source to verify that Al-Haytham was alive during the Middle Ages". Regardless, I can see the bit about canvassing.

In reply to the other stuff found in the next (very large and particularly misleading/indiscriminant) sandbox-edit: " this is where I lost my patience in the Dispute Resolution process and sought help from 2 admins ( who completely agreed with me)". Read at least half of it and you'll see what I'm dealing with here. I hate to spend so much time for this nonsense, but I don't want my account to be labeled as "compromised" in any way shape-or-form.

I've shown very good faith on many occasions (which were in turn overlooked many times) found: here, here, here, and here.

Let me ask you something: "How many times have I asked for a discussion before you 3 (not Eldereft) indiscriminately revert my edits?"

Other than following me around like a shadow, you just follow what everyone else is doing (probably to game the system). You talk about UNDUE weight, etiquette, and verifiability yet you have been here only this long, and you seem to use those words when the others use them. Absolutely no offence intended, but I noticed this from the start and thats why I don't really consider you part of this whole thing. Coming here to express your opinion shows you probably don't have anything better to do but trust me, you can find more enjoyable things then trying to outsmart/degrade people. Try finding another hobby to vent that frustration.

In conclusion, I know what I'm doing for the most part and I recently always have been courteous. You only have to look at the history of the talk-pages. anyway, I'm over this. The community has spoken and thats all that matters.

Can we just get an admin or something coz I find this pretty sad. LOL, Wolfkeeper. He's mad coz my friend put that on there when I was making oatmeal. I'm glad I have my friends, lol. Cheers. InternetHero ( talk) 19:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

One more thing: "I only put minor edit indicators on talk-pages. I have recently adopted the habit of describing the levels of my edits. This is how insignificant these arguements against me are; they're simply here to give me a bad name so I become less credible. Without the community, Wikipedia is useless. find some better accusations. You guys (just 3) have been way worse to me. I can end this here: "How many times have you guys INDISCRIMINATELY reverted my edits"??? Answer: a lot (shown above). How many times have I done that to any of you? Answer: none. People HATE it (I know this) when you revert edits without a reason (as you guys do all the time to me), yet I haven't done any of that. If I were truly trying to be disrespectful, I would have many times. Case-closed. Anything else said about me isn't in the latter context.

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) reply

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.}

Outside view by Hordaland

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":

"Those lack of proper estimations are generally attributed to the idea that the more neurotransmitters active in our brain, determines the ratio to which our conscious and sub-conscious selves can perceive perception in relation to time."

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) reply

The above comment has been revised twice by me. -- Hordaland ( talk) 14:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I copied this from /talk and formatted the quote. - Eldereft ( cont.) 21:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorse I was not present for this wing of the dispute, but this summary seems valid. - Eldereft ( cont.) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse While I was not involved in these articles, I have seen the edits that Hordland mentions above, and endorse this summary of events. - DigitalC ( talk) 22:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Seicer

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) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- Mark Chovain 01:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
2. -- DigitalC ( talk) 03:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
3. -- Mavigogun ( talk) 05:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply
4. -- Eldereft ( cont.) 16:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Outside view by

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.