Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Threeafterthree

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: 08:59, 15 December 2007 (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
User:Threeafterthree who goes by Tom has been uncivil to other editors, specifically in Talk:Death_of_Emily_Sander. He also removed a post on his talk page that specifically said it was an attempt to resolve a dispute.

Desired outcome
That this user be barred from editing Wikipedia, at least for an extended period of time.

Description
The user has put down other editors, called a person's tribute to her recently deceased friend "junk;" refused to apologize; and when I posted an uncivil behavior note on his user page, he didn't respond but removed it, essentially eliminating any chance of a civil disposition.

Evidence of disputed behavior
In addition to being generally rude, he referred a tribute page that was made by a friend of the recently deceased Emily Sander and the entire site that contained it as "junk, period". User:Adam Newton asked "Tom is calling something junk and insulting those who wrote it, especially someone who's grieving the loss of a friend, considered civil?" . Threeafterthree replied "Yes."  When I posted a comment about concerns about NPOV, he responded with "yawn." 

When I posted "Uncivil Behavior" about this behavior, he did not respond but removed my message

User:Threeafterthree has been warned and even blocked before. He received a last warning of a block on August 17, 2007 for being uncivil ; was blocked for a month in November 21 2006 User_talk:Threeafterthree/Archive_4 and, got an informal NPA warning on April 27, 2007 User_talk:Threeafterthree/Archive_5.

Applicable policies and guidelines
Edit_war which after a notice from User:Will381796 I realize I may have been guilty of too. I also believe this user has violated Civility and No_personal_attacks. But perhaps the greatest is Vandalism for deleting my concerns from his talk page so that there wouldn't be evidence of user's complaints against him.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
He refused any attempt at resolution by removing the attempt His user page says he's made more than 7,000 edits--should an experienced editor be allowed to do this?

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Toyalla (talk) 08:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Binky The WonderSkull (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted
There seems to be a perception among some editors that, "Because we are Wikipedia, we can insult the world." I do not agree. It is my impression that Wikipedia policy also does not agree. I try to be civil, and have not purposely insulted anyone. If I am at fault anywhere, I will listen to anyone's comments about my behavior. When I saw that an editor called a tribute page made by a grieving friend "junk," I saw this as heartless. When someone asked is this civil, the editor in question responded with "yes," as linked to above. When I addressed this on that editor's member page in an attempt to help, the editor deleted my comment. He clearly showed he had no intent of trying to resolve this. Thus I began this here.

But now I see that the editor has apologized. I hope this is a beginning of more consideration for the feelings of others. Wikipedia might be an encyclopedia, but it is still edited and read by people with feelings. And is an encyclopedia a forum for insults? I think it is not. But as this editor has apologized, I am willing to withdraw this request. I hope this does not offend the editor who signed this with me, but she has told me that it will not.

I will be leaving Wikipedia for a time to consider all this, and to give myself some distance. I hope that everyone involved in this, and that means me as well, has learned something valuable. Toyalla (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2007 (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.}


 * I am not the editor in question, but believe that Threeafterthree has been editing in good faith and that this RfC is unjustified. A discussion section was created in the article's talk page whereby the inclusion of the links could be discussed.  My understanding of WP protocol is that if an addition is controversial or not supported by consensus, then the addition should be removed from the article and discussion should ensue regarding why the addition should be made.  Several editors including User:Toyalla would give their "2 cents" in the discussion and then re-add the disputed link before consensus for its inclusion could be garnered.  This, I feel, is inappropriate behavior.  I personally removed the disputed link as well as the link to the source that cited the disputed link for two reasons: first, I felt that the inclusion of a link to a tribute website would be turning this article into a memorial for Emily Sanders, which is what it should NOT become.  I also believed that the link violates WP:EL as its inclusion would cause "undue weight on particular points of view" regarding the deceased.  A tribute only shows the point of view of the individual that  created it.  Secondly, I believe the mention of a tribute being created by a "friend" of Emily is not a detail worthy of inclusion in the article and thus removed the point from the article and the one source that cited it.  I believe that the tribute site qualifies as a "self-published source" and therefore fails WP:SOURCES policy on acceptable sources as the tribute website appeared to be hosted on a website "whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight".  Anyone can go and make a tribute website for anybody and many dead people have memorial websites created for them. Its inclusion added nothing of value to the article.

To the points of why this RfC was created:
 * Expressing your opinion on a source is not being uncivil. If you think that a source is "junk" even if it is a tribute to a dead person, that is your opinion and does not qualify as being uncivil.  Who cares what the authors of the source are "going through?"  That's not the question to be asked when analyzing the validity of a source.
 * I witnessed no personal attacks against User:Toyalla by User:Threeafterthree. I would have made a comment to User:Threeafterthree had I observed this.
 * What a user does on his talk page is his own business. I delete user comments from my talk page after I read them or after an extended period of time. It is his choice to respond to your concerns or not.
 * I fail to see a second user bringing his concerns to this RfC. As an RfC requires two users to certify the complaints, this RfC should most likely be dismissed.

will381796 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) WWGB (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not intending to make a problem, but WWGB please read the above "Users signing other sections ('Statement of the dispute' and 'Outside Views') should not edit the 'Response' section.''" MRN (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point out where I "edited" the Response section. I signed the endorsement; since when does that constitute editing? WWGB (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia, any change to a page is considered an edit. If you'll notice, you can't change anything on a page without clicking on "edit". MRN (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the second paragraph under the above Response heading you will see the statement "Users who edit or endorse this summary". Clearly, those who wrote the guideline did not consider an endorsement to be the same as an edit. WWGB (talk) 06:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Gosgood (talk) 21:13, 16 December 2007 (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.''

{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.}


 * It is my understanding that the core of this dispute is whether the website Emily Sander: Over the Rainbow should be referenced in the Wikipedia article Death of Emily Sander. There is now the suggestion of bad blood between the principal editors involved in this skirmish. It is unfortunate that the matter has been brought here. There are other ways of resolving editorial differences, and they should have been explored. Nobody should be "banned" here. Rather, the matter should be resolved by discussion, voting or administrator intervention. I have opinions on the merit of the reference article, but that is not relevant here. The escalation of this matter is preposterous and should be laid to rest promptly. WWGB (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have had one disagreement with Threeafterthree, concerning the use of 'See also' sections and rich media references, details here. I've found that he is reasonable when one takes the time to reason with him. He's terse. He will use profanity. He won't explain himself fully, but I feel one has to wear a pretty thick skin to play in the Wikipedia sandbox, have patience, and take the time to understand people who don't quite express themselves in ways to suit one's convenience. I think this RFC is premature, in that the disputants on both sides of the discussion would have served the project better by hitting the 'edit' link less and walking the dog, doing the dishes, drinking beer, or watching football more. It is through such indirection that one realizes the relative importance of one's various affairs and activities. The discussion of the applicability of WP:EL to one particular link, to my mind, does not rise very high on the scale of importance and does not deserve a passionate manning of barricades. And if dog walking, dish washing, the destruction of one's liver, or watching two squads of grown men agitate a bag of wind collectively fails to adjust one sense of proportion, there is the reading of reams and reams of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, designed primarily to quell the hearts of passionate editors by putting them to sleep. In those tomes, one learns that removing warnings from one's own user page is neither encouraged nor discouraged; that if an editor removes a warning from his or her page, it merely signifies that the warning can be regarded as having been read. The warning still remains in the page history. I would advise all parties to read up on Wikistress, or maybe the lamest edit wars, then work on articles other than the Death of Emily Sander for a month or so. If, after that time, anyone can remember what the dispute was about, then try a more informal venue such as editor assistance before escalating here. Thank you! Gosgood (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not know about the editor assistance option and would have used it if I did. The Wikipedia policies are an endless maze and it's easy to get lost in them. If you do not object, I will ask you for help in the future. Thank you. Toyalla (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Just a quick mention, users kinda have the right to remove anything (including warnings) they want on their talk page, here is the policy. Also please don't respond to this opinion, I make a point of not watching or checking back on RFC's in order to avoid wikistress. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) WWGB (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2007 (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.