Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LahoreKid

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: 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute
I have encountered problems with this user on the page List of Marjas. He disruptively edited the page without discussion, and when asked for discussion, started using rude language then personally attacked me by calling me an "idiot" on my talkpage User talk:Syed.Nedian. When asked by other users User_talk:Smsarmad to remedy his behaviour, he refused and fell harshly on them. He often threatens people of banning them from wikipedia, see for example User_talk:WWGB. NEDian (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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.''


 * 1) User:LahoreKid to adopt a civil tone in edit summaries and communication with other editors.
 * 2) Observance of WP:BLP in not making unsubstantiated claims about a living person.
 * 3) Acceptance of reliable, independent sources that support a position different to his own. WWGB (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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.}''

User:LahoreKid adopts an uncivil manner with other editors. He is dogmatic in his approach to editing, and rejects, criticises and ridicules all edits with which he does not agree. He refuses to accept edits supported by independent academic referencing. He also makes a claim about a living person that is not supported by independent reference, in particular, that Bilawal Bhutto Zardari is a follower of Shia Islam. There is no reliable source to confirm that conjecture. WWGB (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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.)

These are my concerns over behaviour directed towards me. WWGB (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Incivility:
 * WP:BLP:

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVILITY
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:REF

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
 * See diffs listed under Evidence of disputed behavior.

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


 * NEDian (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * WWGB (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 *   CWii ( Talk  23:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * S M S  Talk 18:05, 21 May 2008 (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.'' ''

I was civil the whole time we were discussing the article, as every editor can witness from our talkpages and the article talkpages, until you, unprovoked, decided to say: By deleting Zanjani, you have showed your ignorance and hasty nature. It is pretty clear who was uncivil and who should be reprimanded accordingly, for being uncivil in the first place and for having the nerve to claim that I was the one who was uncivil. LahoreKid (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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 CWii
Okay, there has been bickering from both sides so the solution isn't clear cut. I think that a good solution would be:
 * Both users are reminded to remain civil at all times.
 * Both users are asked not to edit Benazir Bhutto and to stay away from it for a few days, and then not to edit it until all users can agree on a solution.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)   CWii ( Talk  23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Ncmvocalist
I am of the opinion that it was inappropriate to come here at this stage, and feel that there is not enough for a case here. I am only able to accept a couple of diffs provided as evidence of questionable behaviour.

Re: incivility, I find both sides have engaged in incivility and disruptive editing. As noted by Sbowers3 in a different Rfc, the "...attempts to resolve the dispute look more like a continuation of the dispute than an attempt to resolve it."

The remainder of issues should be taken up through another form of dispute resolution. As it is on a particular article/subject, either an Rfc on article content (- not user conduct!) would be fitting, or mediation may be appropriate. Perhaps more negotiation is necessary.

Other than that, my view is therefore to dismiss this Rfc and remind both editors of the following principle. Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2008 (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.