Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Vision Thing

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: 15:27, 20 March 2012 (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
Vision Thing is an unabashed edit warrior, who powers his biased viewpoint into articles by frequent, but slo-mo reversion, misrepresentation of consensus, and overall biased editing.

Desired outcome
Vision Thing will cease all reverting, and will either leave the judging of consensus for others, or accept that he might be wrong.

Description
Vision Thing is strongly conservative when it comes to all things economic - I doubt he would disagree with this statement.

His MO when in a dispute is to continually make the same revert over and over - but spread over a long period of time - with the intent of wearing down his opposition - see, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , - and that's just one article.

Sometimes, he attempts to get outside input to support his edits - but his attempts in getting such input are confusing (see:Talk:Paul_Krugman), misrepresent the positions of his adversaries (see:). When the results turn out adverse to his interests, he misreads consensus, or only applies the parts he likes the results of (see:Talk:History_of_the_United_States_public_debt, which he uses to make this revert over and over).

Added by Lawrencekhoo
I have for some time now, made known my opinion that one should edit in a balanced fashion, and apply the same standards to both views that one agrees with and views that one opposes. Vision thing is unabashedly and tendentiously partisan. He demands the highest standards of support for views he doesn't like, and is amazing liberal with evidence for views that agree with his. LK (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
Detailed above.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CON
 * WP:EW

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.)

Attempts by certifier Hipocrite

 * 
 * Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive134

Attempts by certifier Lawrencekhoo
See talk pages of
 * Paul Krugman
 * History of the United States public debt
 * Great Depression

LK (talk) 08:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

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




 * 1) --LK (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Hipocrite (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

I find it reveling that Hipocrite thinks that making two comments on two separate occasions is a proof of attempt to resolve a dispute. Moreover, one of those comments was a borderline personal attack and other objection to formulation of RfC without any proposal for improvement or any other actionable suggestion. Still, enough other editors commented to make it clear that preferred course of action is to remove all disputed content in both cases involving Paul Krugman. After that was done no other objections emerged and both issues were resolved.

As of today, all of Hipocrite's edits to History of the United States public debt are reverts of my edits. He didn't make one constructive edit to the article. His first edit to the article was revert to 2 months earlier version, which was btw preferred by LK at that time. That and following reverts were not followed by any discussion on talk about what his concerns actually are. His first comment on talk came two weeks and 6 reverts later. I suggested a compromise version of the lead which was accepted, but no other objections were made so it seems to me that he started reverting out of support for LK (who also didn't explain his removals on talk) or this is the best case of "I don't like it" that I have seen in a while.

On History of the United States public debt there was a dispute whether Bruce Bartlett's views were properly represented. LK started a Rfc on it and since only other editor who commented beside LK and me didn't support LK's view mention of Bartlett's views was drooped from the article in October 2011. However, after 2 months have passed LK reinserted disputed views without any discussion on talk. In fact, he reinserted it in a middle of series of edits without even making an edit summary. In attempt to keep it in he made a number of mass reverts that also included reverts of other changes. ,, , , , , , , , , LK's reverts ignored RfC, previous consensus and fact that he was making a possible violation of WP:BLP by misinterpreting views of a living person. Also, LK in reverting uses terms like "undo censorship" (even though in this instance he is removing content on net basis, including significant part of content that comes from History section of the main article), "Bordering on vandalism", and he posted talk page comment indirectly accusing me of being "heartless propaganda-pushing right-wing baby killer". I think that such behavior is inappropriate and not conductive for constructive editing.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Vision  Thing -- 18:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.