Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Greengrounds

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: 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Statement of the dispute
I am concerned about the behaviour of Greengrounds. Greengrounds first started making edits on Wikipedia in 2011, however, there then came a long gap until earlier this year. At that time, Greengrounds became involved in an edit war over Religious views of Adolf Hitler with Ozhistory. Both were cautioned over their conduct by Deadbeef (see here). Greengrounds was subsequently further warned by Deadbeef for his abusive remarks towards other editors on the talk page. Although Deadbeef tried to mediate this dispute, he proved unable to reach a consensus. As a result, the matter has continued to escalate. Other editors, including Iron Maiden Rocks and Andy the Grump have also made attempts to reason with him, but with little success: a particular problem with IMR's comments on the talk page was that Greengrounds kept breaking them up, an action that could be considered vandalism.

Greengrounds is evidently determined to push his own point of view, which was that Hitler was a Christian and the crimes of Nazism were condoned or even encouraged by Christian doctrine. It began with the 'Religious Views' page, but now appears to be spreading, recently flagging a page on Catholic Church and Nazi Germany as BPOV. Whatever the merits of this position (speaking as a professional historian, it is at best a tenuous one) the way in which Greengrounds has gone about it is unsatisfactory, based on unreliable sources (see here and here and personal abuse of other editors who have disagreed with him. Some of the more egregious examples include referring to Ozhistory as 'truly retarded' and comparing me to a Holocaust Denier which unfortunately given my profession and my location within Europe is a remark that could easily be considered defamatory. Greengrounds has also apparently adopted a 'battleground' mentality on the subject of his views, switching abruptly to supporting me when I made a much milder criticism of Ozhistory and asking me to guide the dispute (by which he apparently meant, take his side against Ozhistory). I have informed him, courteously I hope, that I have no desire to take sides or guide disputes.Hcc01 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Desired outcome
The desired outcome would be: 1) For Greengrounds to modify his behaviour and to behave with more courtesy towards other editors 2) For Greengrounds to accept that there are points of view other than his own on this emotive topic, and especially to accept that the historical consensus, which is what Wikipedia should reflect, does not support his view; if he can find reliable sources to contradict it, that would be different; 3) For an apology for past behaviour. If that cannot be achieved, it is difficult to see how a referral to the administrators with a possible ban can be avoided.Hcc01 (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

-->

Description
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

Evidence of disputed behavior
Edit war over Religious views of Adolf Hitler with Ozhistory. Both were cautioned over their conduct by Deadbeef (see here).

Greengrounds was subsequently further warned by Deadbeef for his abusive remarks towards other editors on the talk page.

Other editors, including Iron Maiden Rocks and Andy the Grump have also made attempts to reason with him, but with little success.

A particular problem with IMR's comments on the talk page was that Greengrounds kept breaking them up, an action that could be considered vandalism.

NPOV: both the Religious views of Adolf Hitler and Catholic Church and Nazi Germany.

Use of unreliable sources (see here and here).

Personal abuse of other editors who have disagreed with him; calling Ozhistory as 'truly retarded' and comparing me to a Holocaust Denier which unfortunately given my profession and my location within Europe is a remark that could be considered defamatory.

Applicable policies and guidelines
WP: NPOV

WP: Battleground

WP: No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Greengrounds' entire talk page is awash with attempts to resolve this.

Attempts by certifier Hcc01
Section on my talk page



Attempts by certifier Ozhistory

 * Multiple: see existing and deleted comments on User talk:Greengrounds and discussion threads involving Greengrounds on Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler and Talk:Catholic Church and Nazi Germany.
 * On Greengrounds talk page see my request to adhere to wikipedia policies at 29 May 2013 (subsequently deleted by greengrounds as "vandalism")
 * For examples of failed attempts to engage in respectful discourse with reference to academic sources, see exchanges around 27 May (which includes reference to previous cautions from myself and AndyThe Grump noting that Greengrounds had misquoted sources, and from Deadbeef to assume good faith and not make personal attacks.
 * My entry on 30 May on User:Deadbeef's talk page responds to various allegations by Greengrounds, and notes that Hcc01; AndyThe Grump,IronMaidenRocks, Farsight001, User:BarrelProof and User:PinkAmpersand had had faced similar troubles with Greengrounds.

Other attempts
Working through page of Talk:Religious views of Adolf Hitler, the following exchanges take place:


 * 13:46, 27 May 2013 : user:Farsight001 advises Greengrounds of WP:RS
 * IP 86.167.1.30 does similar in talk beginning 16:51, 21 April 2013
 * IP 62.30.228.103 does similar at 16:55, 22 April 2013
 * IP 66.216.235.202 does similar at 21:59, 22 April 2013;
 * IP 86.149.32.170 does similar at 10:56, 27 April 2013;
 * user:IronMaidenRocks does similar from 09:58, 18 May 2013;
 * user:AndyTheGrump notes a misquotation and sub-par source from 05:31, 26 May 2013.
 * Hcc01 addresses similar issues + abusive responses from 17:14, 28 May 2013
 * IP 97.91.100.34 also notes sub-par sourcing and personal attacks 23:10, 28 May 2013
 * user:Taigei advises at 05:40, 31 May 2013 that article talk page is not a forum for vitriolic discussions of personal convictions etc.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Hcc01 (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ozhistory (talk) 01:36, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
''{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}''



Response
First off Ozhistory is a known liar. He tried to deny his involvement in the edit war right to the person who gave him the warning, writing "Deadbeef, the above comments from Greengrounds are not accurate. To his specific accusations: I have not had much involvement with the Adolf Hitler article at all, let alone been "warned" of "edit warring" in it." When in fact he did receive that warning Here is the warning for edit warring

He then goes to his own page and erases the edit warring citation he received.

Second off, I believe, guys, that it would be customary to notify the user if he is being brouht up in a requests for comment article, a courtesy that the two of you neglected to provide.

Third, I have prepared a response:

I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. If you look at the talk page on Religious views of Adolf Hitler as well as mediator User:Deadbeef, we had reached a consensus on talk, whereby Deadbeef had finally asked whoever does NOT agree with the lead as written, please speak up. Neither of us spoke up, inferring an agreement. When I checked back a few weeks later, Oz had totally bit by bit rewritten the lead to suit his POV, without a single time referring to the talk page. Note, I have been using the talk, though I may have come across as aggressive at times, which could be construed as personal attacks. But at least I was willing to talk, and willing to stick with initial mediation rulings. Oz was not, and he is as a part of this ongoing dispute as well, despite his desire to paint himself as an innocent victim. Here is basically my complaint against him, plus the previously mentioned bypassing the mediation process we had already gone through, should be considered quite unethical.

Ozhistory (talk)In your edits on Adolf Hitler you have received a citation for edit warring, HERE and I see you are currently involved again on the The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany in reverting other user's edits. Many of your recent edits, specifically on the latter article violate the policy of Citing sources. Proper citations should be used, and other users should be respected when they ask for citations. On both of the articles in question you have been accused by multiple users of Violating Wikipedia's Point of View Policies. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a community, and you do not own the articles, nor do you have the right to impose your POV on Wikipedia articles. Specifically, Avoid stating opinions as facts. Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Please pay close attention to article structure and Due and Undue Weight, Balance, Impartial tone, and Words to watch. Also you have completely ignored previous mediation agreements in whichUser:Deadbeef was the mediator, and even tried to lie on Deadbeef's talk page denying that he was even involved in the initial edit war. Furthermore, though others will paint themselves as victims of personal attacks I too have been victim of that repeatedly by Ozhistory including slander, false accusations of vandalism and anonymous editing, abuse of my talk page, etc. Again, I am I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions, though I hope to see just application of Wikipedia standards for both parties involved in this dispute. In light of these issues, I volunteer to stay away from the two articles as long as Ozhistory stays away. This could be for a specified amount of time or indefinitely. Clearly with the POV disputes involved and the history of the two editors, this is a rational option, and one that was even recommended by Hcc01. I was willing to accept this. Ironically Ozhistory was not been willing to accept this and has even recently continued to make edits on the lede of the Adolf Hitler Religious views wiki which other editors have had to revert, given the current situation. Greengrounds (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
''RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section''



Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

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.