Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dicklyon

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: 19:04, 18 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
''User:Dicklyon's constant and unending violation of WP:COI. His disregard for agreements made with him by way of mediation. His inability to conduct discussions in accord with WP:CIVIL and in the process violating WP:DICK.''

Desired outcome
''The at least partial topic banning of Dicklyon from both the artilce namespace and talk namespace of the following articles. Due to his constant disregard for WP:COI. Which leads him to edit in a POV manner.



As well as his banning from editing the talk pages of myself and any other users who don't want to deal with his mess anymore.

Description
''Dicklyon has constantly insulted me and other users who dared to go against his POV pushing. Often he will lead off his remarks on a talk page with a little insult. What he has resorted to now is threating consequences for "insults". "Insults" such as my referring to him by his first name and suggesting that he chekc out WP:DICK. This is nothing but a ploy by him to gain the upper hand in an editing dispute. Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen. Right this minute I have only found diffs for two of the times he has done this. Give me time and I will hunt down the other insults of his towards me and other editors. He has also edited in a POV way and blatantly ingored WP:COI. On the talk page of the mediation at this point it is almost universally agreed that Dick needs to be at least partially banned. I personally have been no angel, one other user tried a similar maneuver, a self described "heterosexual crossdresser" more or less tried to say I was insulting "her" gender identity by describing her as a "heterosexual crossdresser" (which were her own self descriptive words). I also at one time was accused of Breaking and entering by another user and instinctively threated to sue for libel. Neither of these people was Dicklyon. Rather than wait for Dicklyon to file a RfCuser I decided to preempt him.''

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * "Feighned Feelings" and bad faith
 * "What a Jerk" said to a user who started an article he did not like
 * Pulling out of a non editing agreement which was mediated between him and JamesCantor.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:COI
 * [ [WP:DICK]] (not a policy but it ought to be)--Hfarmer (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 
 * 
 * Requests for mediation/The Man Who Would Be Queen

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
 * "Feighned Feelings" and bad faith
 * "What a Jerk" said to a user who started an article he did not like
 * By filing this complaint I am "Making a 'show' out of this". A homophobic and transphobic remark.

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


 * — James Cantor (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hfarmer (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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.''

{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.}

Outside view by BrownHornet21
I have no opinion on these subjects these editors are editing, but have dealt with many of these editors in mediation of the Lynn Conway dispute last summer. It is, in my personal opinion, inappropriate and very counterproductive to start a RFC like this when the parties are about to engage in a mediation. BrownHornet21 (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) BrownHornet21 (talk) 22:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) PaleAqua (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) DGG (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by DarlieB
John Cantor, WhatamIdoing and hfarmer are combative and uninterested in consensus unless it suits their version of events to support a work collaborater Dr Bailey. They constantly inject heresay and POV into the The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen article and if there is neutrality on it at all it is inspite of their presence, not because of it. Their harassment of both Dicklyon and myself is personal and unending.DarlieB (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by
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.