Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lihaas

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: 16:45, 27 January 2011 (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
''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.''

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.''

Lihaas to abide by content policies and stop wasting time repeating the same rejected arguments on talk pages.

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.}''

This is largely similar to Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick, which Lihaas is aware of. For a considerable Lihaas has labelled incidents as "terrorism" based on his own opinions or original research, and has refused to bring his editing inline with policy, and in discussions continually advocates that policies do not apply and rejects the input of other editors.

The disruption is most evident in the second incident in this diff. The source does not mention terrorism, and the quotes from Staff Sgt. Rob Marks ("At this point, it seems like a one-off situation . . . It could be related to New Year's (celebrations). . . . At this point I don't think there's any reason for concern." suggest the authorities certainly do not consider it terrorism. Yet in a masterpiece of original research, Lihaas justtifies the inclusion as it "could qualify as terrorism (last year and before there were suspected leftist/indigenous groups who blew up pipelines)". Anyone who has read the source will know the pipeline bombings were not even mentioned. The move to the current title hasn't solved things either, since Lihaas continues to label the entire article as "terrorism" using a category.

All discussions follow the same tired formula. He continually proposed criteria that ignore policy with repeated use of "consensus can change" and when that fails "ignore all rules" and "common sense". Input from other editors who do not agree with him is rejected completely. Simply because I refuse to take part in his pointless "let's come up with a definition of terrorism and apply it to events (there is no agreed definitions of terrorism and to apply one to events is original research, both points he has been told) I am accused of failing to discuss. Consensus can change, but there will never be a consensus that Verifiability, Neutral point of view and No original research do not apply to the edits Lihaas wants to make, and neither is "ignore all rules" a magic "get out of jail free" card that enables you to ignore content policies whenever you feel like. Any and all requests for Lihaas to respect policies are ignored, I have even been told to "put your money where your mouth is!!!!!!!!" instead of him agreeing to respect policies. Lihass understands the original research policy when it suits him, so it would seem there is some other motivation for his failure to comply with it and other policies on this article.

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.)


 * Adds incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Bizarrely adds incidents unsourced as terrorism at the same time as adding a hidden note that says not to do just that
 * Adds incidents (,, , link for fourth incident is now dead) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident ( and ) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incidents ( and ) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incidents (, and ) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incidents (, and ) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incidents ( and ) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incidents (first incident link is now dead but see the two diffs below regarding it,, , , , and the last incident's link is now dead) unsourced as terrorism
 * Incident link is now dead, but that specific incident was discussed at Talk:List of terrorist_incidents, 2010 and the sub-section below it
 * Incident link is now dead, but that specific incident was discussed at Talk:List of terrorist_incidents, 2010 and the sub-section below it
 * Adds incidents (see diffs above regarding the first incidents, link is now dead,, , , and  unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident ( and ) unsourced as terrorism, making a spurious accusation of vandalism in the process
 * Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2010 Discussion where Lihaas continually argues he should be permitted to label incidents as "terrorist" based on his own opinion of whether the incidents meets largely unspecified criteria, an argument which is absurd obviously
 * Talk:List of terrorist incidents, 2010 More of the same as the above discussion

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Verifiability
 * Neutral point of view
 * No original research
 * Consensus
 * IDIDNOTHEARTHAT

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.)


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

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


 * Adds incidents ( and ) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds back the second incident from the diff above, saying it "quasntifies as so -- listed as such". It is either original research or Lihaas's own opinion that the act is terrorism, since it is unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds back the same incident bizarrely citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a reason for adding an incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incidents ( and ) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incidents (, and  - the first and third are from the diffs above) unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds incident unsourced as terrorism
 * Adds unsourced claims that the assassination of Salman Taseer and the 2011 Tucson shooting were acts of lone-wolf terrorism
 * Adds unsourced claims that the assassination of Salman Taseer and the 2011 Tucson shooting were acts of lone-wolf terrorism, claiming they are that "by definition". Applying definition A to event B and using that to come up with unsourced conclusion C (it was an act of terrorism) is the very definition of original research by synthesis
 * Labels the entire article as "terrorist incidents", when only a small majority of the incidents in the article are sourced as "terrorism"
 * Same as the above diff
 * Proposes that the list include 'Acts with political intent (as adjudged by the RS even without the specific term "terrorist"'. This of course is best summed up by the witch burning sketch in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, or simplifying the Raven paradox. "All ravens are black" being true does not make "All black things are ravens" true, in exactly the same way that "All terrorist attacks are politically motivated violence" does not make "All politically motivated violence is terrorism" true.
 * Even when this discussion is ongoing, he proposes that "One thing we discussed here was that all attacks (even attributed to recognised groups) are not going to explicitly mention the word terrorism. thats why we also need a criteria, based on cited definitions NOT just OR". That is the same rejected argument he has tried many times before, it is original research by synthesis to apply a definition (and which definition at Definitions of terrorism should be used?) to an event and draw an unsourced conclusion that the event is an act of terrorism.

Since it is not entirely obvious in the diffs, some of the above edits occured prior to the page being moved from List of terrorist incidents, 2011 to its current title. Despite the title and scope of the article being radically expanded, Lihaas still believes it to be a successor article to List of terrorist incidents, 2010 and believes it should be placed in Category:Terrorist incidents in 2011.

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


 * O Fenian (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * While not editing at the minute, I have been watching this issue. -- Domer48 'fenian'  09:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the wider basis of the dispute, I do agree on the point that Lihaas should take greater care when adding content to articles and labeling it as "terrorism", especially if the source doesn't support it. I live in the Metro Vancouver area and I remember when that incident in Burnaby happened, it was all over the news, and not once was there mention of the word "terrorism", in fact it was downplayed by the police. To include it in a "List of terrorist incidents" because one thinks it "could qualify" is indeed pushing the boundaries of original research. -- &oelig; &trade; 06:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 21:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as List of terrorist incidents, 2011 go, Lihaas needs to consult WP:Verifiability or WP:OR more often. I spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain why List of terrorist incidents, 2011 should be a unique article solely about terrorist incidents consistent with all 30+ articles at List of terrorist incidents. Some editors shared this point of view, Lihaas and others did not. The diffs show an indisputable pattern of behavior, but outside of List of terrorist incidents I can't say Lihaas is somehow guilty of anything other than petty OR issues. I submitted a report at 17#List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks.2C_2011 the appropriate noticeboard but nothing fruitful yet. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * --Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2011 (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.'' ''


 * Firstly, there have been mutliple such discussions regarding OFenian on various avenues, where he previously asserted his will to avenge me with collation of such data. Numerous other editors have also had a complaint with him to no avail. and Wikiquette_alerts involving more editors.
 * But its about wikipedia to decide its course of action where it wants one user to have his way or not when others didnt. Although id like to know the reason for RepublicanJacobite and Domer'' comments to at least improve to future.


 * Then he has again accused me of being aware to something else when there was notificationg thereof. I've merely suggested that WP:Consensus can change and suggested discussion from a move others made after a page lock down that did not involve me. (a discussion HE refuses to comment on other that warn)


 * One then noted that another editor agreed with me vs. only him on lone wolf terrorism (something that wikipedia's consensus is built on). again i restored his unilateral revert that he didnt like which per should then be discussed.
 * The greatest boomerang and pot calling the kettle black that i "Input from other editors who do not agree with him is rejected completely." Please see who was having a discussion with wikifan, and who was not having any discussion. Another editor also suggested a criteria to come with SOMETHING as opposed to NOTHING that he wants for reasons we duly mention on the talk page (no need to bring here), he also suggested a couple of wikipedia definitions that we can work on together. If that is not okay then what is consensus? (which wikipedia claims can change)
 * Furthermore, OFenian has not partaken in direct WP:NPA (Lihass understands the original research...) and should be sanctioned as such.
 * Also note his vengeance mongering stems from the conflict that started over the 2011 page with 2 other complaints and now he resorts to an ancient 2010 page that shows no dispute resolution


 * Conversely, on numerous pages have i resorted to discussion before editing and even reverting my own bad edits as acknowledged by adming HJMItchell.


 * It seems Fenian has a knack for not discussing any content, and turns on me because i had the gall to fight back to dictatorial norms.

Response to his edits from my side: what does this prove? that commented on something? that i used an edit summary? --> or that i finally DID refrain from the page WITHOUT any sanction AND attempt to discuss. And that most of the edits were not mine but pending a consensus as opposed to his whim (something other editors have also suggested). Furthermore the 2010 list was almost a year ago 'which i left off my own volition and one can note issues there involved numerous editors. Still then Fenian doesnt suggest anything ABOUT the edits that were off. (as in the last 2 wikilinks above, all he shows is that there was a discussion)
 * As for his "evidence of resolving dispute" the only thing he shows is my additions? Where has tried even once to resolve dispute? I think youll find he hasn't. One can note every edit of his on the talk page as citing some guideline and saying X will not happen. He also then shows that I created a comment to attempt to resolve dispute (note, more than once) and that he has done nothing. He seems to inflicting himself damage per WP:BOOMERANG. Then he lists the moot case of a 9 month old incident (that admin HJ Mitchell said was moot in less time) of attempting to resolve dispute on a current crisis that OTHERS reported him for at first.
 * Please note: Requests_for_comment: "Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on the user's talk page, or the talk page(s) involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. " + "RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. " Solely to harass = vengeance (Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents)
 * id also like to ask how RepublicanJacobite has attempted to resolve the dispute that he signed above?(Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC));


 * one the contrary please note: my concurrent good faith and rexognised edits as to to ITN articles that are ongoing and in need of constant improvement. Such as to the level that the current Tunisia uprising article is on the verge of GA (only rejected ont he grounds that it is ongoing), and other mopping up on contemperaneous ongoing articles like numerous election related articles.Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Lihaas (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

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 Ltcb2412
After extensive review of this user's edits in question, this user's talk page and this user's user page, It seems to be prevalent that he has continually had issues of this nature in one fashion or another, including administrative action being taken on those issues in the past. This user uses Wikipedia Policy and guidelines where it fits him. I informed this user here that his RfC listed on that page was highly ambigious, and I suggested that he restate the purpose of the RfC and what consensus is trying to be reached. As of 16:00 27 January 2011 (EST), I have not seen a reply by any editors, particularly this user on the matter.

It is further evidenced that this user is in a war (edit by User:ltcb2412) in heated debate with another user on that talk page, arbitrarily citing irrelevant policies, and appearing to disrupt the general operations and workings of several process on the Wiki.

I would recommend that this user be brought for arbitration, as negotation, informal mediation, and 3rd opinions seem to be ineffective here, and the fact that this user appears to have had problems with other users in the past with similar users.

I would also like to see the original filer review the desired outcomes, and make improvement as to not be ambiguous and offering a Non-Neutral POV ("Lihaas to abide by content policies and stop wasting time repeating the same rejected arguments on talk pages."). The original filer should also add a brief description of the problem and remove the template guidance text where applicable, as at the moment, this appears to be created from a template without the proper sections replaced.
 * WHAT? i have on MULTIPLE occasions requested comment, i moved the RFC to a newly created section so its not confusing and long winded to accomodate other users (though it eventually got subsections). im not at war with anyone on that page, im having a discussion on the talk page, as is another user. See the edit history of the main page to suggest where the "war" is.
 * Additionally, i also commented that the move was premature? (why isnt that noted?) It was also me who asked for another opinion, NOT others. Nor was i at any place disrupting another opinion. I would suggest you show the evidence for your assertions here.
 * If there is anything I have not done on that page it is to war. please read the other user that LIKED my suggested addition. please also see the refusal to discuss criteria that was suggested BY ME ''again and again.Lihaas (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am recanting the war portion of my statement, as I could not now reasonably justify that. At the time I wrote this original statement, I was slightly tired, and also focusing on another personal unreleated project. However, you apparently have not read my comment, my exact quote was: "... If you can edit your original statement, or remove the pol template and create a new section with a proper RfC template, you may be substantially more successful with your request....". I offered multiple suggestions on what to do in this situation. Ltcb2412 (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ltcb2412 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Domer48 'fenian'  15:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I haven't run into Lihaas much, but the one time I did he was pushing his POV pretty hard. I've seen him bouncing around other parts of WP doing the same, but didn't get involved.  My original run-in with him can be reviewed at Talk:25 August 2010 Iraq bombings as well as the subsequent 3rd opinion that was required in order to allow a few words to be changed in a new article.  Snotty Wong   spill the beans 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   01:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Another outside view by Ltcb2412
I endorse the second summary provided by Kiefer.Wolfowitz, in regards that this complaint should be terminated/withdrawn as the scope of the complaint is too broad, and if the original complainant or another involved user wishes to refile an RfC/U with the a more defined scope, that would be their prerogative. At this time however, as I previously stated in my original statement, "I would also like to see the original filer review the desired outcomes, and make improvement as to not be ambiguous and offering a Non-Neutral POV ("Lihaas to abide by content policies and stop wasting time repeating the same rejected arguments on talk pages."). The original filer should also add a brief description of the problem and remove the template guidance text where applicable, as at the moment, this appears to be created from a template without the proper sections replaced."

I'd move that this be brought to an admin for closure and notice to the filer to re-file in the correct fashion.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Furthermore I'll be notifing an admin to take a look at this RfC/U to see if indeed this can be closed and be properly refiled.Ltcb2412 (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)   Kiefer.Wolfowitz   23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
The above complaints make wide-ranging criticisms of Lihaas, while providing links to a dispute about terrorism.

Lihaas has been a productive & wide-ranging editor who has remained cool while receiving numerous personal attacks, for example, regarding Swedish general election 2010. Therefore, the above complaint needs to be revised, so that it be limited to any (alleged) problems on pages supported by diffs, rather than being a wide and unsubstantiated attack on Lihaas.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) hydrox (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Egg Centric (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) There is no general criteria of what constitutes terrorism, and as such it is open to numerous different interpretations. While I do not necessarily consider this RfC unjustified and would advice Lihaas to be more conscious of what verifiability entails, the evidence provided does not appear to substantiate a particularly disruptive pattern of contributions.  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 10:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Another outside view by Kiefer.Wolfowitz
I would ask that all parties take a break from editing the list of terrorist incidents, for a period of 3-7 days, during which time they avoid any comments about one another. I would ask that the complainants temporarily withdraw the complaint, either to improve it or to withdraw it permanently. I would ask that all parties consider asking for mediation in another forum.
 * Already refraining from the article for past 2 days, i can do so for more. While contributing construcively to enhancing it. Talk:List_of_armed_conflicts_and_attacks,_2011 (which i dont think is destructive by anyone wouldnt you agree?)(Lihaas (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)).

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Ltcb2412 (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by The Egyptian Liberal
Lihaas has been a productive & wide-ranging editor. I have been working with him on different articles and he has been always understanding and helped whenever he could. He believes in NPOV no matter how difficult sometimes to write from a NPOV. Therefore, the above complaint needs to be revised

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Egg Centric
I endorse Kiefer.Wolfowitz's summary (the first one) but also want to put it on the record that I suspect this complaint is motivated not by O'Fenian's desire to improve the encyclopaedia, but by his desire to have his own way and generally act in a sinister manner. In particular, the counter on his talk page is rather scary when one considers his obsession with Irish Terrorism and his assertion that to reveal its true purpose would lead to his being sanctioned.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Egg Centric (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Without endorsing all points, there was no need to file a RFC. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Another outside view by Egg Centric - move to close
This is obviously going nowhere. How about we close it?

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) Egg Centric (talk) 23:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Feyd Huxtable
To be fair, WP:NOR does seem to support the filers. If someone challenges whether an incident counts as terrorism, it shouldn't be presented as such even indirectly, unless there is an reliable source explicitly saying it was the work of terrorists. For the Burnaby bombing there doesnt seem to be even a IAR case as that seems to be common arson.

That said like others I wholeheartedly disagree with any suggestion Lihaas is a disruptive editor. We're currently working together to get Currency war to GA status and Ive found him to be most collaborative even though we seem to have different views on economics and a very different perspective on geopolitics. Currency war is an especially challenging article as there are thousands of sources to sift through, and multi-dimensional POV concerns: the simplest being on whether 'war' is an apt characterisation, a more subtle one being the underlying economics used to contextualise the situation, the most difficult one being the need to fairly reflect the various views on which nations are culpable. I can think of several professional economists who likely be less helpful than Lihaas.

@ the filers. Going by your diffs to show attempted resolution, you guys don't seem to be respectfully discussing the issues. Instead youve just been aggressively saying the other editor is wrong. Few people with strong character respond well to being browbeaten or talked down to, collegial discussion is a much better way to help others see the sense of what you're saying.

@Lihaas, they do seem to have a point about OR which I hope you take on board. And fair play to you for standing your ground. Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)   Kiefer.Wolfowitz   23:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) [Endorse all sections excluding paragraph 2, as I wish to retain any comment as to wheater or not to label Lihass as a disruptive editor]  LTC b2412 Units under my Command  (Leave a message) 02:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Trelane
Sadly it's my opinion that the filer is the problem here, not Lihaas. OFenian's continued gaming, and abuse of the wikipedia system has resulted in my drastically reducing my participation. Apparently if you can rule lawyer on the internet you can do whatever you want to on wikipedia. I've got better things to do than to put up with that for a hobby. Keep Lihaas, dump OFenian, regardless I'm done here

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Trelane (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Egg Centric 14:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) There is a case. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Nick-D
Without engaging with the Wikidrama above, the above diffs provided by are troubling as they seem to be going beyond what the sources say, and I'd strongly suggest that Lihaas take greater care with editing. I don't see any grounds to take this further, however, and I hope that Lihaas takes the feedback which is being provided here on board as his or her contributions are generally valuable.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 19:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Outside view by Tryptofish
At this moment, the RfC/U appears to be certified, so I'm going to comment, having watched it for a while. Maybe this will help, or maybe not. I haven't been involved in the edits discussed in the complaint here, but I have crossed paths with Lihaas, and I think I have a feel for these issues about his conduct.

There were some bad feelings associated with edits Lihaas tried to make at Suicide of Tyler Clementi. As discussed at Talk:Suicide of Tyler Clementi, the overall consensus was against Lihaas' edits, but not entirely so. Lihaas discussed this situation with me at my user talk, at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 10. I was able to work constructively with Lihaas, and I think that he has some trust in me, based on what he said at my user talk. Some of his edits to that page proved to be improvements, but he also displayed unfair antagonism towards some of the other editors who were involved. There was also further discussion of these edits at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators, where one can see further indications of concern about Lihaas' editing style.

Here is what I think. A significant part of the problem appears to arise from Lihaas using English as a second language. Other editors misunderstand him, and he misunderstands other editors. He gets into disputes starting from a position of good faith, but he over-estimates his own abilities to get complex editing decisions right. When he over-reaches, not out of bad intent, but out of bad judgment, drama ensues. Wikipedia doesn't really have a conduct policy about too much pride, but in a way, that is what the problem is here. It boils down to WP:Competence is required, and whether Lihaas has sufficient competence.

As for outcome, I, like some others who have commented above, would at least like to see Lihaas acknowledge these concerns. I suppose that, if he does, he can still be a productive editor. But if not, and if he continues to get into disputes like these, he may end up facing arbitration or a community ban discussion.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) - This is what I'm seeing as well. — V = IR  (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) This view provides a good explanation for what I have observed of Lihaas over a period of time. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2011 (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.