Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-3/University of South Carolina

Where is the dispute?
University of South Carolina and Talk:University of South Carolina

Who is involved?

 * User:ViperNerd
 * User:Fletch81

What is the dispute?
I am trying to address some of the issues in the article for the University of South Carolina. I have attempted a POV check tag only to have it removed by ViperNerd. Any attempt I have made at changing the article to remove WP:PEACOCK and to make the article more encyclopedic and less like a coatrack has been met by resistance and incivility by ViperNerd. I opened an RfC and NPOV check on the article itself, but the opinions of other editors have been largely ignored, and the participation is very minimal.

What would you like to change about this?
I'd like ViperNerd's behavior as it regards to WP:CIVIL to be examined, as he is blocking attempts to improve the article. It appears he has a history of contentious interaction with other editors when they have differing opinions on how to approach an article.
 * This is an absurd untruth, I'm not "blocking" anything. Besides one undo to remove an inaccurate edit, I haven't made a single revert to this article (and I've only made 3 edits total) since Fletch81 opened the RfC on an article that was being steadily improved and had somehow managed to work its way up to B-Class without his expert guidance. This can be easily verified by a check of the article history. This user has continually denigrated the work of the dozens of editors who have contributed to this article in its current form by constantly comparing it to his pet project, the UNC-CH article, with snarky negative comments. While I'm truly happy that this user's favorite article has acheived lofty GA status, that's no reason to constantly insult the work of many other well-intentioned editors by belittling what they have contributed and trying to strong-arm the editing process by whining to every admin committee he can find, instead of simply EDITING THE ARTICLE. For someone who claims their only agenda is to "improve the article" I find it highly suspect that this user has been unable to make a single substantive edit in content. I'd like to assume good faith, but this user's words and deeds just aren't adding up, and now it appears there is a personal agenda against another editor at work. How else should actions like this ridiculous cry for "mediation" be interpreted? All the time spent typing out these absurd "cases" could have been spent actually EDITING THE ARTICLE. Last I checked, that is the primary method by which articles on Wikipedia have been improved since Day One. Methinks this user doth protest too much. ViperNerd (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you think we can help?
I am not sure how you can help, that's why I turned to you! I've tried several other avenues to improve the article, yet have been met with resistance each and every time.
 * Again, this is patently UNTRUE. No resistance has been offered by any editor since this user opened his RfC. Now, if commentary by other editors is lacking or edits aren't being made fast enough for this user's taste, there is an easy fix for that...START EDITING THE ARTICLE HIMSELF. After all, that is the fundamental basis of Wikipedia, and indeed the only way in which articles can ever truly be improved. I'd suggest less whining in forums like this one, and more actual editing is what is required here. ViperNerd (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediator notes
This may be somewhat unhelpful, but this seems to be primarialy a user conduct issue. Perhaps a User conduct Request for Comment might what you're looking for? If not, please let us know. Best, Steve Crossin   Talk/Help us mediate! 00:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * An RFC/U has been filed. Regardless of the result, this is primarialy a user conduct issue, so mediation would be the wrong forum. Closing this case. Steve Crossin   Talk/Help us mediate! 08:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)