Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Where's the consensus

The chief claim in this RfC appears to be that the subject acted against consensus at United States v. LaRouche. As a participant in the talk page of that article I don't recall there ever being a consensus. Can the certifier(s) of this RfC point to where this consensus was established? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking at a representative slice of the article's edit history, I see four different editors routinely restoring the material being deleted by Dking, and one editor, Cberlet, occasionally supporting his deletions. By the way, I personally don't think consensus should be the issue here. The issue, to my mind, is that Dking never provided a basis in Wikipedia policy for his deletions. He just bluntly said that he didn't like the passage in question. And beyond that, the issue of these deletions is not the "core" of the RFC. It is just an example that illustrates a pattern of tendentious editing.

I also note that Dking makes no effort to defend his behavior. Instead, he produces an elaborate conspiracy theory about how this RFC is a plot to punish him for his actions off-Wiki.--MaplePorter 06:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the logic of your argument. On the one hand, you say that the reverts of a few editors are a sign of edit warring, but the reverts of a few others are the sign of consensus. As for your other point, that's ridiculous, we had many long discussions over the material. If deletion is a problem, then why were the certifiers of this RfC also busy deleting material they didn't like? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, if the certifiers of this RfC do agree that there was no consensus then that section should be struck through. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Dking's response

First, I will say that the wild and accusatory tone of Dking's response is sadly typical of his approach to editing at Wikipedia. I did not file this RFC in retaliation for anything Dking did off-Wiki -- I filed it because he is a tendentious editor who makes it very difficult and fatiguing to edit any article where he is involved. An admin suggested to me on July 3 that an RFC would be an appropriate response. It took me this long to go through the laborious process of compiling the diffs, plus I wanted to make sure that Dking had an opportunity to respond to the messages on his talk page. --Marvin Diode 14:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you answer my question above, asking for proof of a consensus regarding the Heydte quote? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just visited Wikipedia:Consensus and I agree that consensus was the wrong term to use. I was equating it in my mind with "majority viewpoint," and apparently a consensus must be pretty much unanimous. It would seem, under the circumstances, impossible for anyone to act "against consensus." Therefore, I will change the wording. However, I agree with MaplePorter that the issue of consensus on Dking's deletions is not the "core" issue of this RFC. --Marvin Diode 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a very narrow majority - why even mention it? What is the core issue of this RfC? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

A "pattern of tendentious editing and POV pushing." --Marvin Diode 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If we remove the editing dispute over the Heydte quote, which we now agree never had a conesnsus, what evidence of tendentious editing and POV pushing is left? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why would we "remove the editing dispute over the Heydte quote"? As I mentioned above, the issue of consensus is irrelevant. He deleted the quote over and over, with the rationale being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He was rude, his edit summaries were vile, the evidence of his tendentious editing and POV pushing is abundant, and it extends to many other articles. I'm not sure how this process works -- Marvin wrote the RFC, and I endorsed it. If I am permitted to add more evidence, I will. --MaplePorter 06:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There was plenty of tendentious editing on both sides, and POV too. Are you saying, MaplePorter, that you have never engaged in edit warring, and have never pushed any POV in your edits to Wikipedia? Dking and others wanted to remove the comparison to Dreyfus while others insisted on keeping it but wanted to omit any mention of Heydte's military career. It's hypocritical to participate in a mudfest and then point to someone else as being dirty. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the charge of violating WP:CIVIL, the only example given that is directed to an Wikipedia coincerns NathanDW, in which Dking states he thinks NathanDW has engaged in edit warring that should lead to a block.[1] The rest of the examples may say unkind things about Heydte, but he's not a Wikipedia editor so WP:CIVIL doesn't apply. Haev you guys actually read the policies you claim that Dking has violated? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfC deleted, delisted

I deleted and delisted this RfC; these efforts increasingly appear as an attempt to game the system. ^[2][3] El_C 08:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)