User:Gamaliel/BrandonRFC

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: 18:30, 16 July 2013 (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
There is currently a widespread civility problem on articles concerning the JFK assassination. One outspoken user, User:BrandonTR, with a battleground mentality has spent the last two years openly insulting other editors, even those who agree with him on content matters. He apparently views these articles as a place for him to combat what he calls "Warren Commission supporters" instead of working with other editors. While BrandonTR sees this as a dispute over content and point of view, and while some of us may have POV concerns regarding some of his favored content, we view this dispute as entirely one of conduct. Attempts to get BrandonTR to curb this behavior and impress upon him the importance of adhering to Wikipedia policies and expectations of user conduct have been repeatedly futile. (In response to the latest attempt, he responded to an editor that he should not "whine" and just "take it".) Attempts to get outside assistance regarding BrandonTR's behavior have also been futile.

The undersigned editors do not pretend that they have been model editors or have not been uncivil on occasion. But BrandonTR's constant invective has created an atmosphere that inhibits collaborative editing and drives editors away from these articles.

Desired outcome
Ideally, other editors and/or administrators would monitor BrandonTR's conduct and alert him to violations of Wikipedia policies and norms regarding user conduct. If he persists in violating these policies and norms, he should be dealt with in an appropriate matter, up to and including 1RR restrictions, topic bans, or blocking. The undersigned editors are willing to adhere to any expectations of conduct placed upon BrandonTR.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:BATTLEGROUND

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

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



Other users who endorse this summary
''{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}''



Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:
''RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section''



Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

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.