Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Debuskjt

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, 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: 05:21, 21 October 2006 (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 dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
User:TheGreenFaerae added a reference on the page Chloe Sullivan to a character in the game The Political Machine that has the same name, similar looks, and aan apparant similar personality. The reference was rallied against by Debuskjt, who reverted any attempts to add it. He only stopped when required to as rules for the Request for Mediation. He calims this was due to it not having proof. When evidence was supplied, he said it was not good enough, and quoted Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources in violation of said policy regarding works of popular culture and fiction. He said that to say the characters was the same was a NPOV violation. When GreenReaper, who agreed with this statement, as noted by his first comment on the talk page, revised it to remove the NPOV violation, as he ntoed in his second comment on the talk page, Debuskjt said that to say they were similar was a NPOV violation. While it is true he has not reverted these changes, it should be noted that he is not allowed to make any changes to the article, and neither can TheGreenFaerae due to the rules of a Mediation Request. It should be of note that the only comments on his talk page are with regard to the article Chloe Sullivan and the page's edit history is loaded with his name. His actions have been referred to as bullying by User:TheGreenFaerae, a charge which Debuskjt says is a wikipedia violation.

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.)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloe_Sullivan#Possible_spoofs
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chloe_Sullivan#Other_media
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Debuskjt

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:GF
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:OWNERSHIP OF ARTICLES
 * WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chloe_Sullivan#Other_media
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Chloe_Sullivan:Other_Media

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


 * User:TheGreenFaerae

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.''

I don't see why having several edits to Chloe Sullivan matters, but only two responses on my Talk page are related to that article. One of which was an anon editor who mistook my removal of a WP:OR edit as a bias to support the inclusion of the Chlois Theory in the article (a theory which was subsequently removed by other editors, a move which I supported), the other a RfM filed by User:TheGreenFaerae. I have an entire archive of my Talk page at User talk:Debuskjt/Archive which User:TheGreenFaerae apparently did not bother to read.

My dispute with his addition is well documented on Talk:Chloe Sullivan, and I stand by it. However, I can't have reverted any attempt to add it, since the edit still exists in the article under modified form, and I stopped reverting before the RfM was filed to discuss on Talk and would not have signed the RfM if my intent was to revert again. GreenReaper, replying to me, stated the following on the Chloe Sullivan Talk page: "My main point was that there was nothing in the game showing that it was definitely intended to be the same character. I was arguing for you, not against you." GreenReaper did not agree with the original edit placed into the article by TheGreenFaerae, which stated that the two Chloe Sullivans are one-and-the-same with only a bulletin board post as a source, and I have not removed GreenReaper's subsequent changes, simply stated that "I plan to pursue this discussion through mediation or an RfC if that fails" because I still feel like it is weasel word in its current form and feel a broader consensus is necessary.

Lastly, I'm baffled that I'm left to defend myself in an RfC that could result in disciplinary action over a content dispute where I was called a bully and a vandal, yet I haven't resorted to name calling.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Debuskjt 06:18, 21 October 2006 (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.''

{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.}

The original addition of the reference was noted to be the same by TheGreenFaerae, and it seems that he is sold on that opinion. The original addition was in clear violation of NPOV as noted by Debuskjt. However, the version as put forth by GreenReaper does appear to be simple stateent of facts. With his most recent complaints, Debuskjt does appear to have crossed the line and entered a NPOV standpoint. Thier request for mediation appears to be in flux, so I would not rely on that for proof. Also, while bully might be a strong word, Debuskjt does seem to be trying to exert some sort of control over the page. I would personally suggest that both of them remove themslves from editing this article at all, since it seems obvious that they both have too much of a personal investment in it. It appears that Debuskjt is appaantly making it his life's mission to stop this addition, and TheGreenFaerae is taking it too personally that his change is beign edited out, neither of them should edit the article, since it seems they can't follow simple ettiquette procedures.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) TheSonofSerenity 22:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

TheGreenFaerae is a new editor, and is incorrect in his or her attempts to insert a supposition into Wikipedia. However, Debuskjt is taking an overly aggressive tone with them. He may be editing in good faith, but in this case, to bad effect. I think the problem could be solved by both of them backing off a bit. TheGreenFaerae should read Verifiability and other core policies to better understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and why that prevents the insertion of the supposition. Debuskjt should read don't bite the newbies. Everyone should take a chill pill. Life is not going to end over this, after all. :-)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) GreenReaper 10:01, 21 October 2006 (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.