Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Worldedixor

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: 12:08, 11 September 2014 (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
''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.''

The heart of this complaint is Worldedixor's problematic manner in handling disputes.

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.''


 * The editor will reform the conduct outlined in this RfC.
 * The editor will agree to provide high-quality sources whenever s/he adds potentially controversial information to articles on the Arab World.
 * The editor will use full and proper citations and refrain from inserting bare URLs.
 * The editor will agree to make a greater effort to comment on the content, not the contributor.
 * The editor will agree to stop accusing other users of WP:PA or other violations.
 * The editor will agree to stop removing other users' talk page messages from their user talk page. Removed user messages should be put in an archive.
 * All editors will voluntarily follow the Bold, revert, discuss system in Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant to reduce edit warring.
 * The editor will agree to stop Wikihounding and repeatedly making personal attacks on particular editors.
 * The editor will agree to stop airing personal grievances on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant talk page and distracting editors from their work.

Description
{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. Editors writing this section should not normally add additional views below.}

Recently there's been multiple issues with this user on Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, this user first edited 25 August 2014 and has made 302 comments in 5 weeks. He frequently attacks other users, and seems to be trying to exert ownership of the talk page. In this comment here, Technophant is both attacked, harassed, and told that he should not be allowed to be in the conversation because he wasn't "invited". This is unacceptable (WP:NOEDIT).

This user has also had unresolved disputes with and/or attacked many major recent contributors (to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant including (User:P123ct1, User:Dougweller, User:Gazkthul, User:Ericl and User:Technophant) and has made for this project to be a hostile work environment. He has also engaged in talk page issues in other articles related to ISIS (ie. James Foley (journalist)).

Since an edit by P123ct1 to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article here on 25 July 2014, this user has directed WP:HOUND and WP:PA behaviour at P123ct1 relentlessly on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Talk page (more than any other editor), despite many attempts by P123ct1 to resolve disagreements and reconcile differences on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Talk page and the user's Talk page (where P123ct1's messages are removed, usually instantly).

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.)

Article talk page abuses

 * Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4 Polite request, rude response, civility
 * Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 6 harassment, demanding that personal information be revealed.
 * not accepting criticism, countering with accusations
 * Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 9 User takes talk page use suggestion as personal attack
 * Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 4 warnings to other editors
 * Response by WE expressing ownership of talk page (you're not invited) and wrongful accusation of personal attack. WP:NOEDIT
 * Talk:James Foley (journalist)/Archive 1 warned about shouting on another page (and the Levant page)
 * Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 5 . Serious WP:PA where user called in an admin to resolve perceived rule infraction by editor, constituting abuse of Talk page
 * Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant/Archive 8 (.) Hostile attack, with boldface "shouting", against another editor for reverting an item that was not supported by the reference, on the basis that a clause in Israeli law, not mentioned in the reference or on the page, bridged the gap between the reference's text and the item. Claimed to base the attack on WP:Revert only when necessary, while invoking own ability to read non-English sources. See also exchange with P123ct1 at end of section (diff). WP:CIVIL
 * Removal of other user's talk page comments on Talk:James Foley (journalist) here, here, and here that were discussed at AN/I here.
 * Talk:List_of_Lebanese_people Old (Feb 2007) discussion leading to this uncivil remark ("WHAT DID I DO, JERK? Just go edit... and LEAVE ME ALONE... Stop talking to me and about me...").
 * Example of WP:HOUND behavior directed at second certifier here, although second certifier not present on talk page at the time
 * WP:HOUND and WP:PA directed at second certifier on an admin's talk page (several examples of this on same talk page re certifier and re other editors from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant page). Unwillingness to accept criticism.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL (obvious and repeated)
 * WP:NPA (frequent and inappropiate accusations of incompetence, ignorance, etc.)
 * WP:HARASSMENT (case building, insults, trying to get users to leave discussions)
 * WP:IDHT (not getting the point regarding repeated attempts to correct behavior)
 * WP:TALK (ownership of talk page, using talk page to attack editors or push POV)
 * WP:OTHERPARENT (going from one admin page to another looking for support)
 * WP:Wikilawyering (frequently inappropriate accusations of policy violations)
 * WP:HOUND (repeated harassment of an editor in retaliation for perceived slights)

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.)

Previous blocks

 * User:Worldedixor was blocked on 24 October 2013 by Mark Arsten with an expiry time of 24 hours for 3RR violation.
 * User:Worldedixor was blocked on 27 October 2013 by Bbb23 with an expiry time of 1 week for Disruptive editing: harassment, and WP:IDHT. AN/I discussion.

Failing to respond to other editors concerns on user talk page

 * Removed request by User:BullRangifer regarding MoS ref issues with no comment
 * Multiple attempts by multiple users at the end of his archived talk page here
 * more accusations
 * more warnings
 * Civil request to stop bad behavior removed from W-E's Talk page

Attempts by certifier Technophant

 * My first attempt to contact this user on his talk page was reverted without comment. I was confused, and also thought that the account was possibly hijacked, which led to me reposting the reverted comments. This led the user to escalate and make a complaint with an admin Adjwilley here.
 * My warning to stop disruptive behavior.
 * My most recent attempt to address this user regarding personal attacks on his talk page did get a reply. It can be seen here.

Attempts by certifier P123ct1

 * Attempt (one of many) to reconcile acknowledged by user, but removed by user from his user/talk page; WP:HOUND and WP:PA directed at P123ct1 continued despite this
 * [] Request on user's talk page to stop WP:PA and WP:HOUND directed at P123ct1 on ISIS talk page was removed by user without edit summary
 * Attempt to reconcile after a serious WP:PA on P123ct1 here, which had no response from user. An accusation of racism was levelled at P123ct1, at a time when P123ct1 had no idea of user's nationality.

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


 * Endorse~Technophant (talk) 07:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Endorse --P123ct1 (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.



Other users who endorse this summary
''{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}''


 * 1) Thnidu (talk) 22:41, 13 September 2014 (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.''

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

This Rfc was concocted in bad faith, as I will demonstrate, with one or more policy violations that renders it biased against me. It is currently used as a pretext to instigate, harass, badger and attack me on a daily basis. I move to dismiss the Rfc in its entirety, on many grounds, but the most damaging to me was the willful contamination of the editors pool by a vindictive Technophant's violating canvassing guidelines, and destroying the "objectivity" of the process, makimg it biased against me. Here is the mountain of verifiable evidence of Technophant's misconduct, in bad faith, and in the form of multiple canvassing edits WP:CANVASS with the express title "RFC/U for user problems" while arguing the case in his first sentence, which has already influenced and biased the outcome of this Rfc against me. , , , , ? }

One example of the many unfounded accusations and half-truths above says: In this comment here, Technophant is both attacked, harassed, and told that he should not be allowed to be in the conversation because he wasn't "invited".

The honest truth of the matter, that Technophant purposefully left out above in bad faith, thereby shattering his credibility and the credibility of this Rfc, was that it was Technophant who was following me around just to hound me and harass me in a matter that did not even involve him. It was Technophant who started attacking me and instigating me, uninvited and unprovoked, without even bothering to find out that it was not even me who made the edit he used as a pretext to badger me, and that I was discussing in a civil yet assertive manner with logical arguments. Ref this diff. Instead of acknowledging his mistake (assuming it was a mistake) and apologize in a civil manner, he found another pretext to continue instigating me relentlessly. He later conveniently "chose" to hide his initial instigation and attack from the talk page (please click on show to see his hidden initial attack).

Users who endorse this summary:
''RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section''



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

Q. @Worldedixor Why are you writing in the areas below? The instructions clearly say you should keep put your response in the section and keep other discussion on the talk page.~Technophant (talk) 03:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC) A. Because I am entitled to ask you questions. Please respond responsively and in a timely manner like I did when you asked this question. Also, this Rfc reeks of bad faith and flagrant bias especially after you contaminated the "objectivity" of the editors pool by violating canvassing guidelines. Also, you don't even care about my GREAT and well sourced "Article" contributions, you just follow me around, hound me, challenge my every edit and make it very unpleasant to edit Wikipedia even though I barely edit due to my limited time. Worldedixor (talk) 04:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Q. May I ask, Worldedixor, why from the end of July through to earlier this month you have apparently taken every opportunity to mount a personal attack on me on the ISIS Talk page, even once when I was absent from the discussion, and despite my numerous attempts to resolve our differences? I have found the harassment almost intolerable and have never personally been treated like this in Wikipedia before. WP:HOUND and WP:PA are the relevant policies here. --P123ct1 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

A.

I urgently need the help of an objective, knowledgeable, uninvolved and unbiased admin who truly cares about Wikipedia to look at this Rfc objectively and tell Technophant what he or she thinks of his actions, and whether his actions are consistent with policy or not. Also, judge whether this Rfc should be dismissed because Technophant already contaminated the "objectivity" of the editors pool by violating canvassing guidelines which prohibit notifying a chosen group of editors who may be biased. Equally important, this Rfc must involve the same single dispute. Unfortunately, Technophant is "digging and singling me out" and adding more accusations unrelated to the same dispute and that don't even involve him every time I make a well sourced contribution to Wikipedia and/or ask or respond to questions. He is conveniently not answering my questions on this Rfc, and seems to be getting away with repeated policy violations, that no on else, including me, have done or can get away with. He is using this Rfc, which credibility I have many reasons to question (please read below) as a pretext to discourage me from editing Wikipedia. If his actions are not investigated and controlled, I will absolutely no longer participate in Wikipedia. Worldedixor (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * , this is not the place to ask that the RfC be dismissed. RfCs have their own processes, and this isn't really one of them. I'm not addressing the merits of your complaint because of the procedural issues. I hope that makes sense to you. I would offer one piece of friendly advice, though, and that is not to get so upset about these things. Nothing's actually happened yet. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Bbb23: As I said earlier, unless this tragedy of justice is closed, with an apology, and the (very) small number of people who used it as a pretext to attack me mercilessly are sanctioned, I am no longer interested in contributing to Wikipedia. As a matter of fact, I have not edited in over a month!...Worldedixor (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Additional views
''This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.''

Outside view by MeropeRiddle
I have made some contributions to the topics and believe that Worldedixor, Technophant, and P123ct1 have all made some great contributions. That being said, the topic is very contentious, and I believe it is more productive to have civil discussion on the Talk page of the article, prior to any contentious changes or additions, and to also welcome and embrace all users to provide input. It is obvious that everybody is very passionate about the topic, and I hope the request for behavior modification is not misinterpreted by Worldedixor as not appreciating any of his or her good faith efforts to provide content to the encyclopedia. Sometimes it helps provide fresh perspective to just work on articles on a completely different topic for a few days. Constructive criticism is often provided to great users who have the ability to become even greater. MeropeRiddle (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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.