Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stilltim


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

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: 03:42, 13 May 2009 (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
Stilltim has forked dozens of articles relating to the US congress, apparently because he did not approve of the formatting of the main articles. He is continuing with this behavior, even after being advised by multiple editors that his actions were not constructive.

Cause of concern
Stated that he has "given up fighting" and plans to fork all the content of many articles:


 * 500 Contribs:

Example Fork:
 * 28th_United_States_Congress_-_summary
 * 28th_United_States_Congress
 * 

Here he claims that he is attempting to fix the "infection" of other editors contaminating his work through these forks:

He has been asked to stop by many editors, including User:Rrius, User:gordonrox24, User:Scapler, User:Fences and windows, User:Ironholds, and myself on the AfD discussion.

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * Content_forking
 * WP:OWN

Desired outcome

 * Stilltim should agree to cease creating content forks.
 * Stilltim should agree that his contributed work will be edited mercilessly by other editors.
 * Stilltim should agree that choices such as article formatting are done through consensus building.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.) He continues to create forked articles after seeing the AfD and the talk comments.


 * 
 * 

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


 * Ironholds (talk) 04:44, 13 May 2009
 * This is really getting out of hand. I have nominated many of that articles for deletion, and User:Stilltim's response is to make more articles. I tried to help him on his talk page, but he wants nothing to do with Consensus.--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have requested an explanation for the articles on his talk page, but he has not responded, instead undoing my edits when I redirected some of the articles back to the originals. I believe that, not only are these unacceptable content forks, but also copyright infringement, as copying a GFDL licensed article requires a link or listing of the five most contributing authors, which is eliminated when this user makes a copy for his editing only. Thus, these pages are not only against policy, but possibly illegal. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 11:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I offered to work with the user to reach a compromise (here), where in we could combine all forks into a single article. His response was that he didn't want one article, and that his only preferred option is to have multiple articles. His response (here) suggested his view that "individual accounts . . . seems easier to find & use," and that we let him "build a set as I am doing and when the corpus is done the picture may be clearer." I responded further (here) suggesting multiple articles with the same content, just different formats, were unnecessarily redudant, and that he should work with the community to come up with a different option. He has yet to respond to my additional query. Instead he has continued creating redundant articles after multiple Afds and requests to stop. His goal appears to retain ownership of the Ordinal Congress articles, because he disagrees with the standard format that was developed by consensus. While articles are always open to new edits and new ideas, he has opted to create his own preferred set, rather than working with the community to try to incorporate his suggestions through consensus. This is a long-standing editor who has contributed much to Wikipedia, and his expertise and knowledge in this area is unequaled. However, his overt ownership of a certain set of articles and his belief that other editors are "messing up" his work is a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. We need a resolution to this matter to both delete all redundant articles he has created and to stop this editor from continuing to disrupt the encycolpedia.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 13:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.


 * I have seen some of these articles at AfD, e.g., and it is clear that StillTim is continuing to create these series of articles as content forks against consensus, and despite several already having been deleted. I have just today left a message on his talk page about it. Fences and windows (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have encountered many of these articles through new page patrol and articles for deletion. It is my estimation that an RfC is necessary to reach a consensus on the necessity, or lack thereof, of these articles. I have no doubt as to the ability of this editor to contribute to articles on this subject; however, current actions appear to be disruptive and seem to ignore the need for consensus on this project. Also of concern is the likelihood that this forked content violates the GFDL, which I believe has been expressed, either directly to the editor or at one or more AfD discussions, but has yet to be acted upon. -- Kinu t /c  21:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response
''{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.''}

Response to concerns
I have repeated to several editors on several locations the thoughts and logic behind my actions. Anyone can read the quality of my presentation of the data and the professional explanation of why the work is done. Anyone has also easily seen the more responsible and attractive presentation of the data. Anyone can also see I have been working on this display for years and no one has ever disputed the quality of the presentation. What has been disputed is my desire to create a consistent, attractive and accurate presentation of some sort with for all accounts. With my work reversed the accounts return to their partial presentation, along with generally inconsistent presentation and content.

Regretably I do not have the understanding or time to engage in an endless debate about this issue. And none of the honorable editors have made any effort to respond to the problems, just take away my effort. And I am criticized for attempt to improve, when the critic doesn't even understand the content of their criticism. Nor does it seems I have the knowledge where to respond, or does there seem to be any particular interest in resolving to my thinking.

I have much to say, but think the effort is extraordinarily difficult and hardly worth it. stilltim (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 2:

I have done my level best, with complete sincerity, to address the concerns expressed about having this data on various accounts, etc, etc. I have almost built the 23rd United States Congress to display and will still finish it. However, it then took less than an hour for a user (Markles) to completely undo the work and restore the unattractive, confused and incomplete article proceeding. I really need some serious help by anyone that cares about getting this right because I honestly am feeling persecuted and will soon give up my efforts. stilltim (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


 * discussion relocated to the talk page. Gigs (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.



Users endorsing this response

 * stilltim (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions
''Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.''

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

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.

Outside view by Dennisthe2
What I see to be perfectly honest is a user who wishes to make changes, as per WP:BOLD. However, the changes he wishes to make do not coincide to the concensus, even if Stilltim sees them as the most logical means. These changes, in short, should accordingly not be made, in the spirit of the community at large.

Addendum - To explain, when somebody goes against the wishes of said community, and the community does not do something about them, then the community will be brought down if they are otherwise seen as negative. The only real option then is to eliminate the problem - again, just don't do that. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solutions
''This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties. ''

Stop the behavior
1) Stilltim should stop acting in this fashion. It's his responsibility to come to an understanding about what we are asking for.  Being bold is a good thing, but perhaps there is a little too bold. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 13:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Agreed. His articles are great, but introducing all these articles just to avoid a "Wikiwar" is not responsible or acceptable.--gordonrox24 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Yep. It doesn't matter how sure you are that you are right. If everyone around you thinks you're wrong, it's time to pack up. --causa sui talk 06:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Template
2)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.