User:Arbor8/testing

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
After extensive discussion on a number of Talk pages, I have come to a point where I no longer believe Corbridge (talk|contribs) is editing entirely in good faith. In talk page discussions on multiple articles s/he has repeatedly responded to content based questions by attacking the character and motivation of other editors, using examples of other articles that have problems to justify not fixing problems in the article under discussion, wikilawering, making accusations and generally showing a pattern of tendentious, borderline uncivil editing.

Additionally, Corbridge continues to push the limits of NPOV on Kristi Noem, adding voluminous amounts of glowing quotes about Noem and consistently reverting edits that could reflect poorly on her.

These discussions also will show that several editors, including Gamaliel, KeptSouth, Dayewalker, Frank, KillerChihuahua, Arglebargle, Bagumba and SnarfHerder have tried to engage in discussion with Corbridge, all with the same result.

Desired outcome
I would like to see an outcome where Corbridge is able to continue making valuable contributions to Wikipedia while also being able to handle disagreements in an appropriate way. Voluntarily adhering to a 1RR rule on BLPs would be an excellent show of good faith, as would taking a break from editing Kristi Noem.

Specific diffs & edit summaries

 * Responding to content-related concerns by questioning the motivation of editors:
 * Wikilawyering, citing examples of potential problems in other articles rather than discussing content:
 * Making accusations: ,
 * Unconstructive, again arguing about editors rather than content:
 * Issuing orders to other editors:
 * More insults and accusations, couched as "sarcasm":
 * Unwillingness to engage in discussion:
 * Discussing editors, not edits:
 * Accusations, mild threats ("I will be reviewing all your edits...":
 * Using potential problems in other articles to justify not fixing them in article under discussion:
 * Compares opposing viewpoints to believing in "Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny":
 * Combative:, , ,
 * Rejects opinions that differ from his/her own as baseless:
 * Mischaracterization of other editors' edits, generally combative:
 * Removing relevant, sourced info from Kristi Noem: ,
 * Stuffing Kristi Noem with glowing quotes and excess promotional info:, , , , , , ,

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:HEAR
 * WP:BEHAVE
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:AVOIDYOU
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:PROMO

Applicable essays

 * WP:TE

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
I don't want to bury you all under mountains of diffs, so I'm primarily going to link specific talk page discussions, which I believe all illustrate exhaustive (and exhausting) attempts by several editors encourage Corbridge to limit him/herself to content-related disagreements, all of which were unsuccessful:


 * Talk - Stephanie Herseth Sandlin - Lobbying
 * Talk - Scott Walker - Marquette alumnus
 * Talk - Scott Walker - Relevant discussion for the Scott Walker talk page
 * Talk - Kristi Noem - Alma mater dispute
 * Talk - Kristi Noem - Pro-life activists
 * Talk - Allen West - Notability of wife's degrees
 * Okay, one diff

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
See above as well as:


 * User talk:Corbridge
 * User talk:Corbridge
 * User talk:Corbridge
 * User talk:KeptSouth/Archive 1
 * User talk:Arbor8

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}



Response
Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
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.