User:Sławomir Biały/RHB100

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: 12:28, 21 March 2010 (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
User:RHB100 persists in being very rude on the talk page Talk:Gravitational potential over the course of several weeks, and despite efforts to resolve this conduct issue through other Wikipedia channels (conversation with the user, WP:WQA, and WP:ANI). His behavior conduct is well outside of what is ordinarily tolerated from Wikipedia editors. He persistently characterizes those with whom he disagrees as "incompetent", "unprofessional", and "stupid". He comments on the lack of professional qualifications of other individual editors (in his opinion), asserting that he is a licensed professional engineer with a masters degree, and by implication the only one qualified to edit the article.

In addition to the civility issue, his editing patterns on Gravitational potential have been disruptive, including editwarring and apparent article ownership issues. Discussion with him on the talk page is nearly impossible, because he seems not to read the responses of other editors. He persists in rendering large portions of his posts in bold (despite being told to stop), does not indent his replies and often inserts them in the midst of other conversations.

A longish discussion on the user's behavior covering some of these issues is in Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive603. There was also a very short Wikiquette alert here.

Desired outcome
We would like to see User:RHB100 be able to work collaboratively with other editors. This of course means that he will need to refrain from personal attacks in the future. This includes refraining from all commentary on the professional qualifications of other editors in the future. It might work best if, in addition, the user would refrain from mentioning his own qualifications in content disputes. Also, User:RHB100 needs to allow others to edit, including those with whom he disagrees.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

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.)


 * Personal attacks and incivility


 * The following diffs were presented in User:Ozob's initial ANI post.


 * During the course of the ANI discussion, the behavior continued over the course of several days:    (at AN/I),         (at Talk:Gravitational potential)


 * After the closing of the ANI discussion, the behavior showed no signs of having changed:.


 * Continuing personal attacks directed at User:Woodstone:,  ,  , ,
 * Edit warring


 * 19 March:, , , . And then shortly after being warned, a sequence of edits (, [,   ) constituting the better part of a fifth revert.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL
 * WP:OWN
 * WP:DE (especially WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)
 * WP:3rr

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(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.)


 * Wikiquette thread (notification of user)
 * ANI thread (notification of user)
 * Miscellaneous attempts by various editors to tell the user to cease the personal attacks: ,.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

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



Response
''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.'' ''

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''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.''

Outside view by
{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
{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.}

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.