Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ariobarza, CreazySuit, Larno Man

Procedural fault
RFCs area against an individual, not a group of individuals.  MBisanz  talk 13:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. In this case we have three individuals tag-teaming and supporting each others' disruption. All of them have been disruptive, in many cases in the same way. The disruption affects multiple articles. It will complicate things enormously to have to run three simultaneous RfCs when these editors are acting as a group and will only result in needless duplication, as well as obscuring the links between them. There is no actual rule against a multi-editor RfC - I'd urge people to be pragmatic here and go with what works best in the circumstances. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * it would be pointless to create three individual RfCs on three users who collaborate in the same pov-pushing campaign. Be reasonable. --dab (𒁳) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If there has been collusion to disrupt, then the three accounts are treated as one for the purposes of Wikipedia policy, including conduct of this RFC. Jehochman Talk 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The project page is very explicit. The process is not for multiple users. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why isn't this at suspected sock puppets? Could that resolve the matter?  If not resolved, a finding at SSP could mean that only one user needs to be named on the RFC, because the others will be considered as alter-egos, if there is evidence of improper collusion. Jehochman Talk 03:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They don't appear to be sockpuppets. CreazySuit and Ariobarza in particular have very different styles (the latter's English is much worse than the former's, for instance). -- ChrisO (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Scope
This is part of the larger problem complex of "Iranians against mainstream historiography". I guess there are a few precedent arbitration cases, such as Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik, Requests for arbitration/Aucaman. This is a recurring issue. We need some general approach to this, no point in going through the same movements every time a new account pops up. The article we should build up as we research the background of this is Iranian nationalism. In my experience, the pov-pushing due to a certain movement tends to die down once the movement has received solid coverage in its own article. I.e., once we have a solid documentation of the more notable Iranian nationalist historiographical publications, future attempts to present them as the WP:TRUTH can be met by pointing to that discussion. This works well for e.g. Hindutva, meaning, since we have the VoI and PN Oak articles, people presenting VoI or Oak stuff as "recent groundbreaking research" can be dealt with much more efficiently. --dab (𒁳) 13:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow
To say the least, I'm very offended at this labeling of three users (which includes me of course) that just recently got of the deep end because ANOTHER three users (which includes ChrisO) are taking a simple issue to the extremes. which in turn, is making me think of making a page with all the misconduct of lets say... Chris/Dbachmann/Dweller stored on ONE PAGE, and accusing them of being nationalists, and using sources from ignorant or not recently informed historians (who say propaganda all the time) and also add them as users that should be taken off Wikipedia for getting a little mad that (me and others) are accusing them of violating their own agreement. As you know like not showing a neutral point of view and driving CrazySuit into so much madness, that he decides to put a protective label on the Battle of Opis, thus not letting other users edit it to make the grammer better.

I hope you guys understood that paragraph above.

But, of course if you did not understand what ANOTHER three users means (it is ChrisO/Dbachmann/Dweller), which have violated their own agreement because they refuse to discuss the matter straight forwardly, and come up with a consensus, and as you look on the talk page of Opis, I AM CERTAINLY OPEN TO TALKS. But you have taken this WAY TO FAR, and certainly please do not think that I am unable to make such page about you, citing all your mistakes on ONE PAGE, and letting the world see it. But I assure you (the certian users) if you continue to take this too far, I will have talk to administraters, and as of now I am not willing to take ALL of options of the table. You have been warned. Please do not think that I want to personally offend you, (which you have done to me, and others I suspect) I want you (mostly ChrisO) to not go back on your own word, and comment on my page on a real solution to this problem, me being goofy at times with my caps lock, does not mean I am a raving mad man with ferver, I am short on time, and when I want to make certian points, I do it swiftly. So all the original research that I was in the middle of fixing when you deleted it, was an attempt to solve this mystery, as I like mysteries. (INSTRUCTIONS) I politly ask you to go to the Opis talk page, and click on the link in my most recent message, when you get to the 'nationlistic' site that is supported by verifiable histiography, scroll to the near end of the page, and read the WHITE PAPER PART, and which is titled Assyriologio Antiquetes Lingiusti... I don't remember what it is exactly called, but you will know what I mean, and that paper explains the mix up of texts, and letter by letter translation that proves the older one was WRONG. Before you ignore me, I hope that you might have some wisdom still in you to do this task, which If you do not, I will lose all hope in your integrity as an Wikipedian user, thank you very much for reading, and goodbye.--Ariobarza (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza


 * you are not being very coherent. If you do realize your behaviour is dodgy, why don't you just accept the criticism with some good grace and try to improve upon it? Incoherent rants along the lines of "oh yeah? well, you're a nationalist too" don't make you look any better. Detached citation of actual academic references is the only thing that will. Every time you go on an allcaps rampage will only drive the point of this RfC home further. dab (𒁳) 12:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised at you, dab, don't you know that IF IT'S IN CAPITALS IT MUST BE TRUE? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The point of my message was to show how pointless your name calling and labeling is. A-n-d how am I going to accept my criticim when you cant even see yours? Again the point is this makes Wikipidia look bad by making me mad (notice the rhym). Anyways if you have something to tell me, please go directly to my talk page, so I don't have to go all over the place to message one back. Finally, if its in capitals it does not mean its true, but means its importanto.--Ariobarza (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

Boring, boring
Every thirdparty editor who looks at Battle of Opis, Cyrus Cylinder and Kaveh Farrokh will see how contributions of ChrisO and dab on resulted political essays? Are your intentions for the betterment of the project, or proving your political agenda? Look how I am discussing the problem and how you do (Comment on Battle of Opis) Funny, we are nationalist and you are NPOV lovers?

You are talking about main stream historiography? Which one? Your cherry picking in Battle of Opis or showing Cyrus the Great as a tyrant in Cyrus Cylinder--Larno (talk) 05:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is the certification valid?
Well obviously we didn't get past step #1, which is the issue of multiple users. Step #2, if one were indeed to use the process for multiple users, it wouldn't be properly certified. This RfC is supposed to be certified to show that efforts were made to "resolve the dispute" with diffs and links. The certification process says that the attempt to resolve the dispute must happen for each individual, and thus individual efforts to resolve the dispute would be expected to show specific diffs aimed at Ariobarza, CreazySuit, and Larno Man. The one link given at the talk page only shows ChrisO engaging with Larno Man. There is no evidence of any attempts at conflict resolution at all, that I can see, and none that involve Ariobarza or CreazySuit or even the second certifier. I suggest this RfC has passed its 48 hours without proper or appropriate certification and should be made to vanish.Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the evidence here should be copied over to WP:ANI and a request made to have all three editors blocked for disruptive editing. If the discussion at WP:ANI fails to achieve a consensus, take the matter to WP:RFAR.  That's the best way to deal with complex disputes that can't be resolved by other means. Running three parallel RfC's would be a waste of effort, and frankly, it does not seem that these users will be receptive to feedback. Jehochman Talk 03:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have started an administrators noticeboard/incidents thread in hopes of resolving this dispute. Another administrator can decide whether this RFC should be deleted as improper due to the multiple parties. Jehochman Talk 04:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is nothing here. This is a made-up issue. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

you are right, these users aren't receptive to feedback. They should just enter the warn-block cycle. If there is any political noise about it, we'll need to take it to the arbcom. The above comments make abundantly clear that this RFC is a waste of time, "multiple parties" or not. --dab (𒁳) 07:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've never been convinced that Ariobarza should be lumped in with the other two editors. I've been working on articles by him for a long time. He started editing far too hastily, producing a lot of articles that were little more than unreferenced one-liners, many of which would have worked together in one article. He has a problem with OR, a love for George Rawlinson that is misplaced I think (he needs to use much more recent references), he is, to put it mildly, overly verbose on talk pages and needs to learn to control his caps lock (which he acknowledges). He's an enthusiastic editor and if he could just learn to edit properly might be a decent one, maybe. If he'd agree to adoption, who knows? But he does ask for help at times and tries to listen, even if he then gets carried away at times and writes articles that aren't really acceptable. Doug Weller (talk) 07:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why this matter clearly needs arbitration. An RFC could give one of the three editors the "bums' rush" by lumping them in with the others.  Each needs to be evaluated independently, but we should avoid three redundant RfC's over the same issue.  Admin Alex Bakharev has already opposed any blocks at ANI.  I don't think there is a clear consensus to block them.  I suggest you take this to arbitration and get appropriate admonishments, topic bans, or general sanctions to resolve the matter.  Jehochman Talk 12:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll take your word for it, Doug - clearly you've had more experience of him than I. Having thought about it, I think the central problem here is CreazySuit, whose conduct has been particularly egregious, particularly regarding his edit-warring and blanking of sourced text because he has a POV disagreement with it. He should really have been blocked for what he did on Battle of Opis, and I agree with dab that warning and blocking is probably the best way to deal with this sort of egregious misconduct in future. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you post a selection of diffs to WP:ANI, and perhaps strike your certification here so this page can be deleted? If the one editor with the most egregious behavior is removed from the locus of dispute, perhaps the others will change their ways for the better. Jehochman Talk 12:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Would a better approach be to split off CreazySuit into a separate RfC and leave out the other two editors for now? I should add that I don't have any problem with posting diffs to AN/I, but are you arguing that the RfC should be abandoned altogether? I would prefer not to do that, as the ArbCom will likely ask whether an RfC has been conducted if this does go to arbitration. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose of an RfC is not to set somebody up for arbitration. We are trying to avoid arbitration by solving the matter directly.  I think if you post diffs to ANI showing disruptive editing, then the user can be warned or blocked.  If that fails due to an irreconcilable split between the community, I do not see how an RfC could help.  Things can move right from WP:ANI to arbitration.  The current RfC is deficient because it names three parties, and that has never been done before.  I don't like conducting novel experiments on user.  It seems like the three are not at equal levels of fault.  This process risks treating somebody unfairly. Jehochman Talk 13:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I take your point. I'll post some diffs to AN/I shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted
I've deleted this RfC as uncertified. There are a few reasons for this, the major one being there is no evidence of attempting to resolve the dispute. There were five items listed as evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, Talk:Battle of Opis was one and this was a content related issue, it does not attempt to resolve user conduct issues with the three users at all. A content RfC should have been filed if that discussion didn't resolve things. With respect to user conduct, three reverts were posted - this isn't evidence of trying to solve the dispute prior to RfC - you need to show where you gone and discussed canvassing and tag team concerns with them and the best place for that is on the users talk pages. Simply pointing to reverts isn't evidence of solving anything. Quite simply, there is no evidence of trying to resolve users conduct issues by any of the parties certifying the dispute prior to coming to RfC.

On a different note, user conduct RfC's are for one user and these should have been filed individually, but I guess it doesn't matter too much.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The ongoing discussion at ANI would serve as an attempt to resolve conduct disputes, I think, should there be a desire to refile the RfC against a single editor at some point in the future. I notice ChrisO has temporarily restored the RfC project page so he can harvest diffs to use in the ANI thread. He has promised to redelete the page when he is done. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've notified Ryan of that as well. I've posted the relevant diffs and explanatory text at WP:AN/I. The input of both of you would be very welcome. I'll see if there's anything else I can harvest and delete the RfC again shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)