Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duke53

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: 20:48, 12 October 2007 (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.''

This dispute, sparked by an edit war at Marion Jones, has been moved from the administrators' incident noticeboard at the request of User:Llywrch because of its growing complexity. It primarily concerns the editing behavior of User:Duke53 but also encompasses the behavior of some of those with whom he has interacted.

In short, the problem is Duke53's recent and chronic acts of incivility, edit warring, POV pushing, and other intolerable behavior.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

Duke53 needs to treat others with respect, even if he disagrees with them. He needs to assume that other editors are acting in good faith per WP policy and engage them in discussion to understand where they're coming from if he has concerns about their edits. He needs to discuss changes and edits that he dislikes on the appropriate talk pages first, before reverting. He needs to stop biting the newcomers. He needs to stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox to advocate for things he's in favor of, and to denigrate those things he disfavors.

If Duke53 rejects these requirements, he should leave Wikipedia since he cannot abide by its policies. If he refuses to leave, he should be banned. If, however, he accepts these requirements, he should be on a strict civility and revert parole for enough time to demonstrate that he is willing and capable of changing his ways.

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Duke53 is a recent and chronic violator of core Wikipedia policies. He is routinely uncivil, assumes bad faith, instigates and participates in edit wars, disrupts Wikipedia to make a point, and in general treats those he disagrees with with contempt, aggression, and retaliation. He rejects good-faith attempts to reason with him and to encourage him to edit constructively.

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.)

Edit war, incivility, WP:POINT at Marion Jones etc.
Duke53 initiated an edit war at Marion Jones which has now turned into disruption to make a point at Michael Jordan, along with WP:CIVIL violations along the way.
 * Edit war at Marion Jones:
 * Duke53 adds info about Jones's alma mater to lead paragraph of article (Duke53 is a strident fan of Duke University, so highlighting Jones's affiliation with UNC-Chapel Hill makes UNC, Duke's arch-rival, look bad by association.)
 * ,, , , , , Edit war ensues between Duke53 and three different editors; Duke53 reaches but does not exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours
 * Discussion at Talk:Marion Jones follows.
 * WP:POINT violations at Michael Jordan and incivility at User talk:Zodiiak
 * Duke53 removes Jordan's college affiliation from lead: "See the Marion Jones talk page; apparently this is the accepted format." User:Zodiiak reverts: "rv; the article achieved Feature Article Status as is; an incredible amount of effort was made in doing this"
 * Discussion at User talk:Zodiiak follows.
 * Duke53 says "apparently many editors feel that the mention of a person's university affiliation has no business being in the lead of an article. Just trying for some consistency here." &mdash;clear WP:POINT vio.
 * Incivility at and : "Monitor anything as closely as you choose, but don't pretend I altered any other data on that page, because that just isn't true."  Then: "Yeah, leave your phony allegations though."
 * Further edit warring and WP:POINT vio at Michael Jordan: "deleted university mention in lead, per discussion on this and other talk pages. His university affiliation is mentioned later in the article."  Note no discussion occurred at Talk:Michael Jordan.  Reverted at  by User:Chensiyuan.

Past incivility

 * Aggression, accusations of generalized bad faith, personal attacks
 * An obvious standalone. Accusations of bias, deceit, censorship, etc. etc. made based on religion: "nice try" "cut the crap", plus rejection of WP:BITE. Quotes CIV, breaks it in his PS. And wow.

Mitigating evidence
Duke has frequently been provoked and insulted by other editors, even without returning the attack, as in the following discussions:
 * Especially toward the bottom
 * Protests, is ignored

Past edit warring

 * Ford Mustang - Inclusion of Image:1987 Mustang GT.jpg
 * 
 * Beth Smith - Inclusion of court cases
 * 
 * Beth Smith - Inclusion of South Park image
 * 
 * Mountain Meadows massacre‎ - Inclusion of "kidnapped" or "abducted"
 * 
 * Mountain Meadows massacre - Inclusion of "Friday"
 * 
 * 2006 Duke University lacrosse case - Inclusion of deleted image and "false/falsely accused"
 * 

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

 * In the midst of a discussion at Talk:George W. Bush an editor with whom Duke53 had a disagreement used the word "unencyclopaedic". Duke53 makes a big issue of this word choice, even uploading a screenshot of an online dictionary and putting it on his user page
 * User talk:Duke53 - Duke53 uploads a screenshot of a Wikipedia page (image has since been deleted) as evidence against another editor in a dispute with him: "The image was (is) useful in this encyclopedia, for me to prove the point that 2nd Piston Honda lied about deleting my posts." The admin explains about linking to a diff instead (which would be this diff, incidentally).
 * User talk:Duke53 - When his screenshot "Confused again.png" is deleted he complains and makes another screenshot "The truth hurts?.jpg". It gets deleted so he uploads a third screenshot that also gets deleted.  Discussion follows at User talk:Duke53.
 * Duke53 uploads two more versions of the 'unencyclopedic' screenshot: and.
 * Another screenshot making a point, and one more.
 * "If they insist on keeping their silly nicknames in articles, then I will insist on the other items being kept in them, too."

WP:BITE
Duke53 routinely leaves vandalism warnings on talk pages of anons and newbies who make edits that are often arguably POV but not obviously malicious vandalism. He also accuses established editors of vandalism for edits that are not clearly so. Frequently his warnings threaten the user that they may be banned from editing Wikipedia.
 * POV edit by anon gets this reaction by Duke53
 * Anon changes "cowboy" to "cwboy" and Duke53 responds
 * POV deletion of image, Duke53's response and similar responses to similar edits:
 * Anon removes "fact" tags and gets a vandalism warning
 * This entire exchange resulting from the anon's removal of article content for POV reasons, and a similar exchange for another anon
 * This anon's edit replaces one phrase with a slightly less encyclopedic one and gets this warning from Duke53
 * Duke53 gives this warning to a brand-new user whose first edit didn't occur until two months later: Special:Contributions/Boquiabierta
 * A one-time removal of the garment photo by a user with an extensive and diverse history gets a level 3 warning from Duke53
 * Level 3 vandalism warning for a first-time edit which added nonsense to an article
 * "You will be blocked from editing" to an anon account created the day before
 * Accusing anon of vandalism and threatening a ban for this edit
 * Threatens anon with a block for adding link to an online petition to two articles
 * Possibly legitimate content deletion receives this threat

As a contrast, note this edit, which shows that Duke53 knows how and when to use the appropriate template, but very seldom chooses to.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:BITE

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Most recently, at WP:AN/I. In case the link stops working, here are the diffs:
 * 
 * Talk:Marion Jones
 * User talk:Duke53 - multiple attempts by multiple editors
 * An earlier attempt (December 2006) to resolve a dispute with Duke53, on the subject of assuming good faith:
 * Another earlier attempt to resolve a dispute over talk page etiquette:   and the rest at User talk:Alanyst/Archive 1
 * Effort to resolve WP:BITE concerns: Alanyst expresses concern, Duke53 responds (but mistakenly on another editor's talk page) and no lasting change of behavior occurs (see, e.g.,, , and more recently )

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


 * alanyst /talk/ 21:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Masamage ♫ 21:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * - auburn pilot  talk  23:26, 12 October 2007 (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.'' ''

Individual replies:
 * "Duke53 reaches but does not exceed 3 reverts in 24 hours but Duke53 is nonetheless accused of making FIVE (5) reverts in that time period, by Alanyst. Duke53 | Talk 23:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Essjay got all the respect he deserved: NONE ! The editors who rose to his defense only revealed their true feelings about Wikipedia: an editor can blatantly lie about anything, abuse admin's powers, and generally do whatever they choose, as long as they are part of the 'inner circle' at WP. As far as I can see this clique's privileges outweigh the stated purpose of WP in some editors eyes. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 13:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Full summary response: {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.''

Outside view by TenOfAllTrades
I was the admin who blocked Duke53 for gross incivility back in March, in the followup to the Essjay controversy. At the time, Duke53 was in the process of kicking Essjay while he was down. Various personal attacks on User talk:Essjay led to his first (24-hour) block. Duke53 doesn't seem particularly inclined to heed warnings, either:. Immediately after returning from that block, he decided to use his own user page – User:Duke53 – for further attacks:, ; this led to a second (48-hour) block.

I am disappointed – but unsurprised – to see that his ability to handle disputes in a civil manner has not improved.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) alanyst /talk/ 17:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) User pages shouldn't be used for personal attacks. Addhoc 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) The last line sums it up well. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  00:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Outside view by tehjustice
After reading through the links above, I have come to the following conclusions:

Concerning Duke53's treatment of newcomers and frequent vandalism warnings:
 * 1) Duke53 does not appropriately address possible vandalism by demonstrating good faith for edits that were probably not purposeful vandalism
 * 2) Duke53 has issued warnings to users who have not vandalised, leading us to further question the validity of other warnings he has given
 * 3) Duke53's lack of template use or general lack of good faith when addressing new users is probably harmful because it discourages new users from contributing based on the fear of banning for mistakes

Concerning Duke53's disagreements on the editing of various articles:
 * 1) Duke53 appears to take personal offense when others disagree with his opinions
 * 2) Duke53 continually uses agressive language when others are attempting to work with him for a compromise
 * 3) Duke53 consistently refuses to compromise with others

Concerning Duke53's interactions with others:
 * 1) Duke53 responds rudely to people who make object to his vandalism warnings, agressive language, etc. even when they are polite
 * 2) Duke53 refuses to respect other people's opinions and habitually pursues arguments even when the 'opposition' does not respond
 * 3) Duke53 responds negatively to administrators who warn him, even when they have not overstepped their boundaries, making unreasonable statements about censorship, etc.

Concerning other users' efforts to work with Duke53:
 * 1) Other users rarely responded uncivily to Duke53's aggressiveness
 * 2) Duke53 has been repeatedly asked not to threaten users, to assume good faith, to go through mediation, etc, and this repetition leads to the conclusion that he refuses to change
 * 3) Other users have tried a variety of methods to work with Duke53, including mediation, contacting admins, leaving messages on his talk page, etc.

Based on these statements, I believe the desired outcome above seems reasonable, and other users have valid complaints against Duke53, supported by a large bulk of evidence. justice 20:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Masamage ♫
 * 2) alanyst /talk/ 17:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  00:00, 18 October 2007 (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.