Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WebHamster

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: 00:05, 16 July 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
''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.''

WebHamster routinely tells other editors to "fuck off" or "go fuck yourself" and generally makes a lot of personal attacks. He reverts edits and then "explains" his position with personal attacks. This forces any editor seeking consensus to put up with personal abuse, which is not something any editor deserves. Noloop (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Desired outcome
Nobody should have to put up with personal abuse. He needs to stop it, and start following the policy regarding civility.

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.}''

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=User_talk%3AWebHamster&diff=301563155&oldid=301561128
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWebHamster&diff=301711045&oldid=301709669
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWebHamster&diff=301844482&oldid=301839442
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWebHamster&diff=302247249&oldid=302246411


 * There is more of this on his Talk page.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Civility

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.)
 * See his Talk page.
 * Also, the article discussion where my own conflict began, and references to "[my] stupid comments" etc.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anti-Americanism#Middle_East

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * See his Talk page.
 * Edit history of Anti-Americanism. He instantly reverts my edit. Either we don't communicate, in which case it is edit warring, or we do communicate, in which he is abusive. Something has to give: I am unwilling to engage someone who is just going to call my comments stupid and tell me to fuck off. I am also unwilling to be bullied off an article. Edit history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-Americanism&action=history

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


 * Noloop (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2009 (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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.}

Outside view by Writegeist
Oh grow up. You hang out at the zoo. You keep poking the tiger. The tiger snarls. You keep poking. The tiger bites you. Duh. (And being an unusually considerate tiger it gives you the benefit of an explanation.)

Now you complain the tiger bites?

It wasn't even a satisfying Manticore-style slash at the throat. Just a nip. How so? WH appears to be British. In Britspeak "fuck off" and "go fuck yourself" = "Go away, there's a good chap/chapess." Writegeist (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Malleus Fatuorum 13:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3)  NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Nev1 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Abce2
I'm a bit concered, if the user was new, why didn't Webhaster calm down to explain to him/her? And I've seen a user who extremly did not assume good faith. He ended up accusing everyone of being a sockpuppet. I am thinking we need to calm down. This comment by Webhamster concerns me, "Go fuck off troll". Abce2 | Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- The LegendarySky Attacker 03:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) — Ched : ?  17:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Friday
The view by Writegeist is fairly astounding. Telling fellow volunteers repeatedly to "fuck off" is not acceptable behavior. People who go out of their way to make Wikipedia an unpleasant environment should not be welcome here. Friday (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — Ched :  ?  18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Abce2 |  Aww nuts!  Wribbit!(Sign here)  16:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Yup. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by ChildofMidnight
Editors should not insist on posting comments on an editor's talk page after it's made clear that their opinions are unwelcome and unhelpful. Insisting on some right to push a dispute on a fellow editor is disruptive. Comments that aren't directly related to encyclopedia building and collaboration should be avoided once it's clear they aren't doing any good, this is common sense and basic courtesy. Continuing to post comments beyond anything that's actually needed or worthwhile is disruptive and uncivil. Show some respect. If someone doesn't want you around, move along and only post if there is something that actually needs to be communicated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added a link to the edit history of the article we're "editing." It's not merely a matter of banter on "his" Talk page. We are supposed to be working together on an article. Noloop (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most discussion related to an article should be done on the article's discussion page. Taking a dispute to another editor's talk page is rarely well received, especially when it's conducted in an atagonistic manner. The idea that your many comments on that editor's talk page were directly related to content building is as far fetched as the idea that this RfC is constructive and helpful in improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2009 (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.