Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Handicapper

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: 13:29, 7 May 2010 (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
User:Handicapper refuses to follow the established CON at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. Also this user marks every edit as minor. Attempt by self to have user stop marking every edit as minor attempt by User:Rettetast  attempts by myself to have User:Handicapper follow the CON  and attempt by User:Cgoodwin

Desired outcome
User:Handicapper to follow the established CON at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(icons) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thoroughbred racing. Also for User:Handicapper only mark minor edits as minor

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.}''

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Icons
 * Minor edits

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:MOSICON
 * Help:Minor edit

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(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.)
 * Attempt by myself to have User:Handicapper follow the CON and attempt by User:Cgoodwin
 * Attempt by self to have user stop marking every edit as minor attempt by User:Rettetast

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * Icons
 * Minor edits

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * Gnevin (talk) 13:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Cgoodwin (talk) 07:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rettetast (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * --Smashvilletalk 15:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --John (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (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.''

Outside view by SarekOfVulcan
Gotta say, marking a as a minor edit is a bit mind-boggling.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Cirt (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --Smashvilletalk 19:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) --  Boing!   said Zebedee  17:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Smashville
While I participated in the discussion, I'm not entirely sure I was involved enough to consider myself involved, but, as a member of the Wikiproject, I'm definitely not a neutral party. My initial interactions with were polite and helpful. I'll admit, he was actually one of the people who helped me out when I first started posting here. After I became an admin, I started to realize that he has some very serious WP:OWN issues.

My only major interaction with him along these lines involved a merge based on consensus established here on May 22, 2009 after 20 days of discussion. He unmerged on July 30 without any reason other than "reverting". I reverted back to the consensus version. He then reverted me again saying there was "no consensus per WP rules" (whatever that means) and left me this lovely message telling me that my actions were "unwarranted and a violation of Wikipedia etiquette and policy". In addition, his messages concerning the matter here show that the WP:OWN problems have been going on for quite some time.

Finally, I noticed what was going on on the project talk page, so I left this warning reminding everyone that we work on consensus and that removing other people's comments was a blockable offense (mainly because he was removing comments and moving them around between "project members" and "non-project members"). He then proceeded to leave me a nice legal-threaty message on my talk page accusing me of libeling him when I said that he would be blocked for removing messages.

As for marking new pages as minor, I concur with the above. Simply mindboggling.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Smashvilletalk 21:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) The ownership problems are quite clear, in addition to the problems cited in the original RfC statement. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Rettetast (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Cgoodwin (talk) 09:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Gnevin (talk) 09:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) --  Boing!   said Zebedee  17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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.

Summary
Consensus that Handicapper has serious ownership issues, and is editing inappropriately - marking major edits as minor, and failing to abide by consensus. Should Handicapper fail to address these issues voluntarily, an administrator may impose blocks, or the issue may be escalated to an an appropriate noticeboard for community attention so that restrictions or a ban may be imposed. If necessary, a request for arbitration may also be filed if these methods do not resolve the issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)