Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Voice of Britain

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, 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: 12:57, 6 May 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
''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.'' User:Voice of Britain has violated the WP:3RR rule at least twice and has engage in disruptive editing, pushing his POV, being disrespectful to other editors, ignoring Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, and ignoring other editor's work by wantonly deleting it.

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.'' Best would be if this user had a change of heart and edited in a collaborative cooperative manner and attempted to build consensus by, for example, first proposing changes on the talk page with explainations and then abiding by the group consensus.

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:Voice of Britain has engaged in disruptive editing and ignores the larger group's consensus. He has a specific POV and (this is the problem) pushes this relentlessly, regardless of this not being the consensus view. He disruptively edits the 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.)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=127912926&oldid=127797040
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&limit=250&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&limit=250&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=128022926&oldid=128022504
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=128078133&oldid=128050342
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=128403036&oldid=128100540

MANY OTHER INTERVENING SIMILIAR EDITS, WHICH LED TO HIS BEING BLOCKED FOR A SECOND TIME.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=128496166&oldid=128495560

FALSE VANDALISM CLAIMS EVEN AFTER WARNING AND FURTHER EDIT WARRING AGAINST MULTIPLE EDITORS
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=129550500
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=129551968
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=129551968&oldid=129551439
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voice_of_Britain&diff=prev&oldid=129552337
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voice_of_Britain&diff=prev&oldid=129553965

CLAIMS THAT OTHER EDITORS ARE POSSIBLY ENGAGING IN ILLEGAL EDIT SUMMARIES
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVoice_of_Britain&diff=129563855&oldid=129561299

BAD FAITH ACCUSATIONS AGAINST OTHER EDITORS
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVoice_of_Britain&diff=129598243&oldid=129596153

ACCUSES ANOTHER USER OF ACTING LIKE A CHILD FOR DISAGREEING WITH HIM
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChild_sexual_abuse&diff=132037087&oldid=132036486

FOCUS ON EDITORS NOT CONTENT
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=132038124

ANOTHER LEGAL THREAT
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChild_sexual_abuse&diff=132126450&oldid=132126073

CONTINUING EDIT WARRING
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=132121661&oldid=132110995
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=132131399&oldid=132130732

AND PIQUE AT FAILURE LEADING TO INEXPLICABLE BLANKING

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Child_sexual_abuse&diff=132133630&oldid=132132351 SWEARING
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChild_sexual_abuse&diff=132136345&oldid=132136041

INSULTS
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChild_sexual_abuse&diff=132146915&oldid=132146626

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Assume good faith
 * WP:3RR
 * WP:LTA
 * WP:Civil
 * No legal threats
 * WP:NPA

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Child_sexual_abuse#Note_to_User:Voice_of_Britain
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVoice_of_Britain&diff=128509350&oldid=128501449
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voice_of_Britain&diff=128054719&oldid=128045413
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Voice_of_Britain&diff=128061823&oldid=128056639

MEDIATION REQUESTED
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Child_sexual_abuse&diff=prev&oldid=132139925

REFUSED MEDIATION
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChild_sexual_abuse&diff=132142375&oldid=132142112
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChild_sexual_abuse&diff=132141705&oldid=132141519
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChild_sexual_abuse&diff=132146297&oldid=132146207

RETURNTING AS ANOTHER USER It appears that User:Nandaba Naota is User:Voice of Britain. DPeterson talk 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) He is now blocked. DPeterson talk 02:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

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


 * DPeterson talk 13:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Will Beback · † · 06:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * SamDavidson 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I see that he keeps a "hit list" and I am on it and I find that offensive and intimidating. SamDavidson 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * His user page hit-list plus revert-warring are unacceptable. Addhoc 11:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Unhelpful editing in a fraught area. Herostratus 19:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * re Herostratus, SqueakBox 19:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Michael Linnear   21:29, 20 May 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.'' ''

Response by user:Voice of Britain
My goal has been to protect wikipedia against disruptive editing. A clear cut example of this can be seen here:  (He added negative effects which are not supported by the source which is a clear case for misrepresenting reliable sources.) DPeterson also falsely claim that there where consensus against me, however this is not the case:  And as has been pointed out elswhere, DPeterson and others have been removing well sourced material without edit comments or discussion, reverting such edits is not disruptive. The basis for conflicts lie in the problem that some have been removing or changing without proper edit comments or discussion. We may all have had some faults there but it has progressively become better since. Voice of Britain 19:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Voice of Britain 10:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) -Jillium 21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ   10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Response by user:Jillium
DPeterson's summary is misleading. User:Voice of Britain removed some text at first because he disputed the sources' validity, but he stopped this after he was reverted several times. His last two reversions undid unexplained deletions or distortions of sourced and accurate material by DPeterson and RalphLender. These users have repeatedly removed material without discussing their changes (eg. )

Voice of Britain has not continued to remove material as DPeterson implies. DPeterson and RalphLender have. -Jillium 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -Jillium 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Voice of Britain 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)   βѺ ►◄ ṮỸ   10:39, 20 May 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.''

(I'm not a party to this dispute, at least until today when I noticed that the article Child sexual abuse showed a marked deterioration coincident with User:Voice of Britain's work on the article, so I reverted it. If that makes me now a party to the dispute I guess this section should be moved, or ignored, or something.) Herostratus

I haven't followed the dispute and don't know who did what to whom, but I think that a key precipitating factor was User:Voice of Britain's violation of giving WP:Undue weight to ah fringe theories of child sexual abuse. We don't need a weatherman to know that child sexual abuse is prima facie harmful and that a blizzard of cites to the contrary is basically sophisticated trolling. Some of User:Voice of Britain's material may be OK but not in the wholesale bulk provided. Herostratus 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) SqueakBox 20:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Addhoc 21:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) SamDavidson 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Lordwow 03:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes. &mdash;  Michael Linnear   02:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) -Jmh123 02:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 7)  DPeterson talk 02:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) -  Æon  Insanity Now!  04:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Outside view of Dcooper
In looking over the talk page and edit history of Child sexual abuse, I am not convinced that there is a consensus against Voice of Britain's edits. However, he has repeatedly violated the 3RR as well as come close to violating it (for which he was blocked), he falsely characterizes others' edits as vandalism, and he created a hit list against other users. Voice of Britain needs to seek consensus before making controversial changes to the article in order to stop edit warring. The other editors should do the same. Voice of Britain should stop the incivility, the legal threats, and the false assumptions of bad faith.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Dcooper 16:10, 11 May 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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.