User:TehGrauniad/Sandbox1

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: ~ ), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute
This is a Request for Comments on the user conduct of User:TreasuryTag. In the recently closed Articles for Deletion (AFD) nomination Articles for deletion/Terry (Fawlty Towers) TreasuryTag was uncivil. Through bullying and wikilawyery TreasuryTag made the AFD process a hostile environment.

Similar behaviour occurred previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silence (Doctor Who) and was discussed at Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive690 in late April 2011. On that page, TreasuryTag reached a total of 60 edits.

Desired outcome

 * TreasuryTag to be civil to other editors, and not view their viewpoints with obvious contempt.
 * TreasuryTag not to confront and bullying users in the Articles for Deletion Process (and indeed elsewhere), rather TreasuryTag should leave it to the closing editor to decide the merits of each vote.
 * Not to leave hostile messages on the talk pages of other users.
 * TreasuryTag to remove the passive-aggressive statement on his/her discussion page. This message advising users to be polite and positive is off-putting for editors who wish to point out any shortcomings in TreasuryTag’s behaviour. For the benefit of editors reading this with screen-reading software the picture reads: “Please use general common-sense when posting on my talkpage. Sign all messages (by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ). Be polite, positive and constructive. Don’t leave impersonal, standard templates. Then we’ll make the whole site more pleasant and productive. If your message made it look like you ignored, or didn’t read, the above plea for reasonable common sense, be aware that whatever you wrote may be deleted, and probably won’t receive any response.”

Description and evidence of disputed behavior
The following are three examples of TreasuryTag’s incivility:

1. TreasuryTag was uncivil: examples of this behaviour can be seen throughout the AFD in question, and especially well where TreasuryTag demanded that one editor answer his/her questions and suggested that if they did not answer these questions their opinion would be dismissed by the closing administrator ((diff link). 2. TreasuryTag’s berating of editors didn’t stop in the AFD discussion. TreasuryTag chased two editors across Wikipedia, placing unfriendly messages on their discussion pages. The first of these was on User:Casliber’s wall. After chastising Casiliber’s viewpoint on the AFD TreasuryTag wrote the following threat of creating a Wikiquette alert on User:Casliber’s wall (difflink).

The second editor to have an unfriendly message posted on their wall as a result of their interaction with the AFD process was User:Newyorkbrad (see this diff link). Here the message left was to let them know that they had not, in TreasuryTag’s opinion, followed correct procedure. What was particularly inflammatory here was that TreasuryTag opened his/her complaint with a ‘Welcome to Wikipedia’ message: an antagonistic manoeuvre as this editor was not new to Wikipedia.

3. Wikilawyering was used to bully editors. Although wikilawyery is useful on the AFD process (as editors are encouraged to indicate Wikipedia policy in their decision making) TreasuryTag used wikilawyery to harangue and bully other users in an uncivil manner. TreasuryTag presented parts of an essay as policy (WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:NOREASON) (for example). Wikilawyery when used in these ways is intimidatory, especially to newer editors.

Examples can be seen throughout this AFD. Some select difflinks are: [1], [2] [3] [4]

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * Civility
 * Wikilawyering as a method of intimidating and bullying other editors in the AFD process.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Meeting the requirements of the Requests for Comments process: The following are two attempts to contact the user on their talk page regarding their civility, the outcome of which failed to alleviate the problem.

Attempts by certifier TehGrauniad

 * A message to Teasury Tag (diff link) outlining the 3 points listed above, suggesting that in future TreasuryTag should leave it to the closing editor/administrator of the AFD process to decide upon the merits of votes/comments rather than berate them with wikilawyery and chase them across Wikipedia with hostile messages. This comment was deleted and not replied to.

Other attempts

 * In commenting as to the inappropriateness of placing a hostile 'Welcome to Wikipedia' (diff link) message on an established Wikipedia editor's talk page (see the above section) Juliancolton wrote this on TreasuryTag's discussion page (diff link). As with the majority of posts on TreasuryTag's page this comment was deleted/blanked, and no resolution was made in the following correspondence.
 * was advised by to calm down
 * advised by to change tone of banter.

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


 * Chris (aka TehGrauniad) TehGrauniad (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

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:

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. 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.}

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.}

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.