Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cambios


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

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: 17:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Desired outcome
Cambios will cease his incivility and personal attacks and contribute constructivly to the encyclopedia. Cambios, Mendaliv and other involved parties will learn to adhere to the bold, revert, discuss cycle.

Description
Cambios, who in real life is the creater of an online game called threshold, wrote the article about his game on wikipedia. The article wasn't very good and contained long lists of characters, cities and other trivia from the game, so Mendaliv came along and removed a lot of the content and turned the article into a stub. An edit war soon followed, with both users reverting to their preffered version and Cambios using incivil edit summaries. Along with a number of socks Cambios engaged in incivility on the talk page. Cambios accused Mendaliv of being a disgruntled banned Threshold player with a conflict of interest; it is in fact true that mendaliv played the game 10 years ago. Since then he has been making personal attacks against Mendaliv.

In the subsequent AFD large numbers of users with no previous edits turned up and said they thought the article should be kept. He also accused Seicer, the closing admin, of corruption.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * The threshold article and its associated talk page has since been deleted so I am unable to link to the huge number of instances of incivility there.
 * Cambios's incivil edit summaries during the edit war 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 * Original ANI thread discussing the issue, with links to deleted diffs viewable by admins
 * ANI complaint by Cambios accusing KoshVorlon of outing
 * Cambios accuses Seicer of corruption
 * Cambios harrasing Mendaliv "Get a life and a job"
 * Cambios standing by his above comment after warning by Mendaliv and Protonk
 * Cambios blocked indef for sockpuppetry and attempts to get unblocked

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * Civility – Cambios has engaged in repeated incivility and personal attacks against Mendaliv.
 * No personal attacks – Cambios has made repeated personal attacks against Mendaliv.
 * Wikipedia is not a battleground – Cambios has accused anyone who takes Mendaliv's side in the dispute of some vice, including accusing Seicer of corruption and attempting to KoshVorlon blocked for outing another user.
 * Sockpuppetry – Cambios has used two confirmed sockpuppets and there are a large number of users who also appear to be socks of Cambios.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Original ANI thread
 * Very long discussion on talk page of the article which is now deleted. I cannot link to this however admins can view it.

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


 * Patton t / c 18:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur as well. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See below. Themfromspace (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  23:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur --Crossmr (talk) 07:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can hardly disagree, having just blocked the editor for a week for his continuing disruptive behaviour in respect of the deletion review discussion for Threshold. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As also have been involved (and attacked) in the 1st AFD. Reeks of "Help! Help! I'm being repressed!" and "Don't tase me, bro!" MuZemike 06:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I fully endorse this summary, as I was present at the AfD where most of this occured. Furthermore, I myself left Cambios a message at his talk page asking him to be more civil.  He responded to me saying that he was being "extremely civil and polite" while also accusing me of "retaliatory editing".  Note that blanked his talkpage after this discussion with the edit summary "Clean up from vandals and abusive, gangster administrators".  Themfromspace (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Response

 * At first I wrote up a very detailed response, but upon reflection that may not be the best way to go. Briefly, I want to apologize for any disruptive actions, and assure anyone reading this that it was never my intent to disrupt or act negatively. I have resolved to avoid such actions in the future, and I have even tried to remove some of my inflammatory or aggressive comments where discussions are still active. In the beginning, my mistakes were wholly from a lack of experience in using Wikipedia (in particular, a total lack of understanding of the point and purpose of Talk pages). My account is a few years old, but my actual experience here is minimal at best. I think a lot of things snowballed from there. While I feel I have some very accurate and serious concerns about the way many things have been handled here, I imagine there are better ways to go about addressing them.


 * Regarding the RfC itself, and some of the certifying users: I am not aware of any attempts by most of them to resolve any situation with me, much less the same one. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the point of an RfC, but the header says: "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." Maybe I do not understand the purpose of the RfC, but it doesn't seem like what is happening here conforms to the stated purpose.


 * There are a few things I'd like to say just to clear the air, perhaps once and for all. I do not have any sockpuppets here. Anyone who has posted under any account other than Cambios is a unique individual. I did not canvass for the AfD. The posts you can read on Top Mud Sites were made when I thought I was banned forever, and it appeared there was absolutely no recourse here for anything. If Wikipedia admins had not visited the site, posted, and PMed me, I never would have been unbanned. In fact, at that time, my wife and I had edited our Windows host files to block wikipedia entirely. We had washed our hands of the whole situation at the time. Our hope was to move forward and see if the MUD community could work to preserve its history in a more verifiable form to prevent problems like this one, or worse than this one, from happening.


 * Well, much for being brief. Thanks for reading.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cambios (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I think this is reasonable. Protonk (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed. I think there may be some stuff at the DrV that needs to be stricken also.Hobit (talk) 15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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.''

View by Seicer
I am not for sure if I should be considered an "outsider" at this point, but here is my brief statement. I closed Articles for deletion/Threshold (online game), and it was taken to DRV. Throughout the process, it has been lobbed with,
 * Accusations of rogue admins banning every supporter of the MFD article. In reality, no user has been banned; some were blocked for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry and/or disruptive editing. This continued prior with this comment.
 * This comment to Fred Bauder is very incivil. "You'll complain about ANYTHING positive someone says about Threshold, won't you? Perhaps if you get a job or a life you'll be able to do something more productive with your time, Mendaliv. You realize admin status on Wikipedia is not going to help you with your unemployed status, right?"


 * (Not sure how to post a correction). That was a comment to Mendaliv, not Fred Bauder. Cambios (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Complete misinterpretation of my closure of an AFD.
 * Complete lack of good faith. Yes, I have deleted a lot of articles (thanks for the count), as I frequently patrol CAT:CSD and WP:AFD. Very, very few have ever been taken to Deletion Review (I believe only 10 to 15 times at most), and only a handful have been overturned -- none, I might add, because of my supposed bad faith deletion.
 * Complete lack of good faith with a poor edit summary.
 * I don't know what my "personal preference" is, since I do not play video games or "MUDs." It's not in my interest, and I really could care less about what your personal opinions are of my interest or of my supposed interest.
 * A related thread that I commented in post AFD is at WP:ANI.

has been given plenty of notices and warnings about incivility and personal attacks in the past, along with edit warring. He has been given a block for edit warring in the past, and has been indefinitely blocked for suspected meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. Outside of the AFD, I have had no prior interactions with this user.

I don't know why an RFC at this stage is required, as all options to communicate and deal with this user has not been exhausted.

Addendum
It should be noted that Cambios has been removing or striking comments that may be inflammatory or incivil, as noted here and here. I don't see a huge need to press this further if Cambios recognizes that certain comments may be inflammatory or rude, and is willing to reform. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  01:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  19:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) (including the addendum) &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree broadly, with some points of dispute. Protonk (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Wikipedia has a very steep learning curve and too many policies.-- Patton t / c 23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Should have been blocked long ago. I don't know why we're wasting our time. This user got his fucking article, already; what more does this user want? MuZemike 06:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

View by Protonk
I'm not an outsider, but I'll comment here. I think that the dispute and behavior are causes for concern. I also think that this RfC is unlikely to resolve the underlying issue. Cambios is furious about the Treshold deletion and he is lashing out inappropriately. He is either going to temper his behavior or he will be blocked. A 30 day RfC will allow us to speak about this but the principle function (to come to a conclusion in concert with the subject) won't be satisfied. Lastly, we should be careful in our apparent escalation of the issue. The right answer is to (apologies for the gendered noun) be the bigger man: ignore personal attacks, demand civility and minimize drama.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Protonk (talk)
 * 2) Endorse. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Any more Wikidrama as there already is does not help any. I will note that the user has already been blocked for such behavior before the fruition of this RFC. If the user has already refused to understand basic Wikipedia policies and guidelines and still does now, how do we expect the user to understand them anytime soon, especially with the blockable conduct given? I call for a formal ban of the user if not from Wikipedia as a whole, then at least a topic-ban from any MMO-type article. MuZemike 07:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by SheffieldSteel
I see one problem that wasn't mentioned in the initial description above. Reading through the DRV in particular, there were many times where Cambios failed to assume good faith of other editors, yet he also cited the guideline himself on numerous occasions. I think that Cambios needs to read that policy thoroughly and ensure that in future he treats other editors and admins accordingly.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2)  Agent Blightsoot 01:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree Hobit (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.