User:Tanthalas39/test

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey Balloonman / Keeper,

Something I threw together over an hour or so today, in the midst of frustration. I miss participating in the Rev. War task force but it's REALLY hard with this user. The part below could be used, in whole or in part, for a RfC, ANI, or just be deleted. Even if I shouldn't escalate this anywhere, it was very cathartic to get it all out of my system. Anyways, I was a little cryptic on the coaching page because I didn't want this to be really obvious - not trying to hide it, but didn't want to advertise it. I think you understand. Feel free to reply anywhere on this page. Tan | 39 02:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Evidence of bad faith edits, POV pushing, and incivility by user User:Trip Johnson 1.1 Uncited, unexplained edits of statistical information 1.2 Uncited additions of weasel words or non-neutral adjectives 1.3 Incivility 1.4 Egregious personal attacks

[edit] Evidence of bad faith edits, POV pushing, and incivility by user User:Trip Johnson

Virtually since he first started editing last year, Mr. Johnson has aggressively pursued his own agendas in the Military History field. The following is a non-inclusive list of uncited edits, POV pushing, non-neutrality, strategic talk page blanking (to hide warnings), edit warring, incivility, and a block.

[edit] Uncited, unexplained edits of statistical information

• Battle of Ia Drang: [1]
• Battle of Britain: [2]
• Utah Beach: [3]
• American Revolutionary War: [4], [5], [6], [7]
• War of 1812: [8], [9], [10]
• Battle of Bunker Hill: [11]

[edit] Uncited additions of weasel words or non-neutral adjectives

• Battle of Britain: [12]
• Battle of Sainte-Foy: [13]
• Battle of Gallipoli: [14], [15]
• Battle of Saint-Mihiel: [16]
• Vietnam War: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]
• Doolittle Raid: [22], [23]
• War of 1812: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]
• Battles of Lexington and Concord: [30]
• Battle of Germantown: [31], [32]
• Battle of Bunker Hill: [33], [34]
• American Revolutionary War: [35], [36], [37], [38]
• Battle of Ia Drang: [39]

[edit] Incivility

[40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]

[edit] Egregious personal attacks

[69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]

These are all just examples; there are literally hundreds more edits that I could fit into any of the above categories. Some of them could be argued to not quite fit into the category listed, but all of them serve in some way to show how disruptive Mr. Johnson has been. My initial interaction with him was in good faith, but it soon soured (see [77], [78] and [79]) Mr. Johnson has been very accusatory of other editors for pushing nationalism, but has done almost nothing but the same himself, while the entire time violating multiple Wikipedia policies - WP:V, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA being the most blatant. His constant disruption of positive project work is a troublesome negative for Wikipedia. A look at his talk page will show dozens of warnings, and many blankings by Mr. Johnson himself. He was recently briefly blocked for edit warring.

I do not mean to state that every single edit of his has been in bad faith. Indeed, as I just went through literally every edit of his, there were quite a few good ones. However, the ratio is skewed very heavily towards the above complaints, especially recently. Warnings have apparently not worked. Logical arguments have not, either (see Talk:Battle of Harlem Heights for a very, very long argument that is illustrative of the attitude usually shown). I also do not mean to say that other editors have always been in the right - it takes two to edit war. I, myself, probably could find an edit or two made in frustration that I am not proud of now.

As one of my main interests on Wikipedia is working on the Revolutionary War Task Force, and I find it almost impossible to handle this disruptive editor on my own, I felt the need to document this issue and bring it forward to be reviewed, discussed, and handled. Thank you for your time.

Wow. "He's right. Everyone else is wrong". On every page. For every battle. He's the only one that is NPOV? Ha. And then, when he's called on it, a break out swearfest. How very frustrating. Is he really leaving? Don't see any edits today. Has he "tiraded himself" off Wikipedia before, only to return? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope... Tan | 39 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If all he does is go around and fix his own spelling mistakes (oh, the irony, seeing as I think I saw at least 5 diffs where he blasted someone else for their "poor English".), then that's ok with me. I have his usertalk watchlisted to get to his contribs easily... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's going to go away, Keep. I don't mean to say I/we/anyone should take action - to do that, I would want both of your endorsements, at least on this page - but I'd bet a paycheck the problem continues. Tan | 39 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I do like paychecks...what's your coin? kidding. I'll watch his contribs. He's been blocked once for edit warring. If he goes at it again, I'll warn him, then block him. If upon returning, he starts up again, I'll warn him, topic ban him, and then if continues, block him longer. Then indef. They all get tired of the place soon enough when they get "I'm sooo serious, you all suck" attitudes. Eventually, one of his "wikipedia is evil, I'm leaving" will be the real one. Good riddance, he is a dime a dozen. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

All that to say, don't let him drag you down to his level of head pounding, fingernails-on-the-chalkboard lunacy. He's a POV pusher, one of the more persistent I've seen outside of science/fringe articles. Don't follow him, he'll eventually be shown the door without radical change in mindset towards collaborative, sourced writing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, it all continues. :-( Tan | 39 23:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been checking his contribs. I'm at a loss for words. Yet another editor trying to engage him, and yet another dismissal by TJ. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)