Wikipedia:Requests for comment/El Gringo

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: 18:22, 6 September 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
''El Gringo has been engaging in personal attacks for a few months now on numerous talk pages realted to the United Kingdom and Ireland. Most of these personal attacks have invovled comments insulting British people in general, or particular users from the UK who have displeased him. In addition to this, he/she has violated WP:POINT on United Kingdom and British Isles (terminology). This is over a dispute as to whether or not Britain is a correct constriction/abbreviation of 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland''; El Gringo believes that it is inaccurate and has insisted that if such a 'misuse' is certified by Wikipedia, then it should include other misuses in the articles (by saying that the United Kingdom is often called England).

Furthermore, since he/she has been warned about his behaviour, he/she has repeatedly removed warnings from their user talk page.''

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.)
 * Personal attacks at - British Isles (terminology); United Kingdom; British Isles
 * Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point at - United Kingdom;
 * Removing legitimate warnings from talk -

Evidence of similar behavior historically

 * 19 August Referring to his British counterparts as "you people" and "your tribe"
 * 18 August More "you people"
 * 18 August "All you Brits need a slap"
 * 3 August Comparing British Empire to Nazi Germany
 * 2 August "...you people persist in making claims over us...The British state, and the people who have supported their policies, have impulses over their neighbours that has a history of being frighteningly fanatic."

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:CIVIL
 * Removing warnings (though this is admittedly unclear)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Comments on User talk:El Gringo
 * Ditto
 * WP:PAIN report (oldid page)

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


 * --Robdurbar 18:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * --Crimsone 19:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * --Gsd2000 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Addhoc 23:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Daniel.Bryant 09:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * EricR 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Konst.able 12:42, 30 September 2006 (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.}

Daniel.Bryant
I personally have had no input into this whole disagreement, I'm Australian (and not British; some people have alluded to the fact that this may be racial persecution on this RfC's discussion page, and that's why I added that statement) although I have watched it from a distance. El Gringo has made edits which are not only in violation of WP:NPA, but also could be considered detrimental to Wikipedia. He/she also breached WP:VAND by removing warnings, as well as calling Gsd2000's addition of these warnings "vandalism" on two separate occasions. 1 2 This, although possibly excused by a lack of knowledge of WP:VAND, should be taken very seriously in the light of the other examples of El Gringo acting in a way which is detrimental to Wikipedia. Also, this very recent edit shows El Gringo's attempts at trying to belittle individual editors who disagree with him/her by directly insulting them in response to their comments with examples of personal attacks, incivility and assumption of bad faith like "...not be such a wannabe intellectual yourself", "That honesty is clearly too much for you, and the rest of your cut", "...your fanatically imperialist...", "...your evidently abundant intellectual deficiency..." and, to cap it all off, "You are, like so many of your fellow countrymen, consumed in your own self-deceit...". Make up your own mind on the aforementioned quotes. Daniel.Bryant 09:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Addhoc 12:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) EricR 23:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Konst.able 12:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Pursey 20:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell Kinney
This is a very heated debate at the best of times. The participants in this dispute tend to have strong opinions about their POV and struggle to remain civil with each other. That said, most of the editors win that struggle and debate each other without rancor. While there are times that El Gringo has been deliberately provoked, this is no excuse for spewing invective in such a manner. "blinkered, xenophobic jingoists", "ahistorical revisionist drivel" and other such nonsense is completely unacceptable. If El Gringo cannot disagree without resorting to diatribe, he should find another area of Wikipedia to edit. Shell babelfish 21:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Addhoc 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Daniel.Bryant 06:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Crimsone
While I believe that El Gringo's assertion of over the use of Britain interchangeably with UK is correct, ther have been personal attacks made never the less. While I understand that there may indeed be a case to state that El_Gringo has recieved an undefined amount of provocation in the course of the dispute, it is equally clear that he/she has been making some strong personal attacks (for which there is no real excuse in my own personal opinion), has indeed been at least a little disruptive, and has quite evidently removed warnings for this conduct from his/her talk page, citing them as vandalism, even after being replaced with a message proving the legitimacy of them. Crimsone 19:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000
The provocation (if it was provocation - I suggested his abuse of British contributors and British people in general constituted racism, which I still strongly believe it does) happened long after his abuse began. In the real world, one cannot justify racist crimes on the basis that you were provoked into it because someone called you a racist. Returning to the world of WP, provocation for this particular contributor is simply having an opposing viewpoint, and he has stepped way outside of what is acceptable behaviour. It's just impossible to work or reason with him, and frankly I am very offended by his attacks on British people. The guy has never met me but has branded me a jingoist, a nationalist and a member of the far right. Gsd2000 01:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) EricR 23:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mal
Related Personal attacks  I'd like to add that User:El Gringo has also been very close to the limit regarding violating WP:NPA with me also. This is one example, and I believe his other comments for which this action is being taken against him, were also directed at me, as part of a larger group that he percieves I belong to. --Mal 02:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) EricR 23:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

User:MelForbes
I take my hat off to you El Gringo for your spirited repoists in what was often a rather bruising debate concerning the validity of the term "British Isles", and whether Ireland (being non-British), should or should not be included. On several occasions I have suffered as you have, with several of the 'British' editors trying to cause me grave offense. On 2 occasions I have been called a 'British hating Irish nationalist' for daring to speak against the British line, and that even though I was born and raised in Britain, and now live in Ireland. Another British editor gloated to me about Cromwells deeds in Ireland. There are several more, but I'll stop here. This "complaint page" is ill-conceived, and I see it as a threat to candid discourse. MelForbes 13:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a complaints page, it's an RfC. There's a big dfference. It's used for collecting comments, and thus guages concensus (and so really can not be a threat to anything). That of course, and it's the first step on the dispute resolution ladder on Wikipedia. If El Gringo would reply, he would be able to give his version of the story, and people that agreed with it would be able to endorse his view. Alternatively, they can do just what you just did. --Crimsone 00:03, 9 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.