Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dabljuh

How does an RFC about a user work? Do we comment here, or on the user page that goes with this talk page? Benami 04:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Strangeness
Would anyone care to comment on this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ZimZum

Jakew 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ROFL. I like it, and I got a couple ideas about why and what and who. But won't say more :) Dabljuh 12:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Just as long as you're aware of WP:SOCK. Jakew 13:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you use this accusation as an example of WP:FAITH Dabljuh. Regardless, I wish Jakew good luck finding dirt on me. As to my defence, the political aspects of Wikipedia have recently started to intrigue me. --ZimZum 13:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No offense, but judging by your contribution history, "recent" is a pretty good description of your dealings with Wikipedia in general. Were you posting under a different name before today?Benami 21:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, 213.129.1.112 or something like that, I know, not very charismatic. --ZimZum 23:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the Dispute about exactly?
The page states: ''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.''

Now there aren't any links showing an indication that the users tried to resolve a dispute. All I see are one sided accusations, pointing the finger, as well as several different disputes: Civility, Consensus, Vandalism, and asuming bad faith, oftenly involving different users.

From what I see there has been little done by the accusing side to reach consensus, quite the opposite.

While Civility might be an issue I think this should include being respectful, and I don't see much respect from either side. The claim for Vandalism is slightly ridiculous and there hasn't been any discussion about it on the talk page. Like I mentioned before, fingers are pointed, but no effort is taken to resolve the dispute.

Asuming bad faith comes from both sides, and even exists on this talk page. No effort was taken to resolve the issue.

From what I can see a rather mangled image is created from several months of dispute. I think the real problem doesn't lie at the excentric behavior of Dabljuh but at a couple of disrespectful users who do not wish to reach consensus and use a small majority to succesfully engage in edit wars. The amount of efford by Dabljuh to communicate with these people should speak for itself. --ZimZum 16:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment (obviously) but I don't really see the need to prevent this RFC from happening. Maybe I could make it somewhat clearer for the casual reader though. Dabljuh 16:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Dabljuh has apparently certified that he has tried and failed to resolve a dispute with himself, and also appears to have endorsed McClenon's view. I thought at first that this was a mistake, but given his acknowledgement that he has indeed been uncivil, I am not so sure. Would he please clarify? Jakew 13:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You got that right. Dabljuh 17:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm still confused. Please explain: which explanation is right? Jakew 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just say, I know what I'm doing. Dabljuh 18:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but you're not being helpful. If you made a mistake, there's no need to be embarrassed - we're all human, after all. If not, explain. The community deserves that much. Jakew 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Remember, I RFC'd before you? Why not a second time? Why should I waste my time setting up an RFC if you do it for me? Remember, I was the first one who undersigned this. Dabljuh 09:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You requested comment on an article. There is a content dispute, certainly, and filing an RFC was an appropriate thing for you to do (though as I commented at the time, your choice of category was odd). This is a user conduct dispute. Jakew 11:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Can an RfC succeed in this situation?
Dabljuh's response to the RfC here seems to clearly illustrate that he has no intention of being civil or taking this in the way it is intended, which is to serve as constructive criticism. He goes as far as to cite his "favorite" personal attacks from the evidence above. In a case like this, I would recommend that the initial parties should probably escalate this to a request for arbitration which can have binding consequences for such a harmful editor. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You are a true credit to the species of tapioca. Dabljuh 09:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this comment made me go and double-check your stated age on your user page. I was pretty sure that I'd read 24, but thought maybe there was a birth year involved and I'd simply done my math badly.Benami 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Whoopsiedaisy?
Should the RFC be erased now? Dabljuh 10:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours.


 * Go ahead. The main part of the problem lies at the obstructive editting of others users anyways. --ZimZum 11:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Mmmh... Nah, I won't. Remember, I was the first one to undersign this sorry excuse of an RFC. Just wanted to point it out why! :diabolicgrin: Dabljuh 11:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

See the 'evidence' section for details. Most, if not all, of your disputed conduct was on Talk:Circumcision, so consequently that was where most people tried to persuade you to be more civil, etc. Jakew 11:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, see, you should have tried to resolve the dispute, rather than to shout at me. Dabljuh 19:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If I have ever shouted at you, I apologise, but I'm fairly sure I haven't. Jakew 19:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't hear you shouting... Tom e rtalk  21:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather the contrary: I've been very favorably impressed with Jakew's cool-headedness. Benami 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't exactly call it cool-headedness. It seems more like a form of mild autism making communication very difficult and one sided. While it's not exactly uncivil it's still rather troublesome and gives the impression of dealing with a machine that doesn't get tired and cannot be reasoned with. I can understand this attitude is very succesful to discourage new editors and combined with a small POV majority can lead to the full domination of an article. Take for example a ridiculous debate wether terminal phimosis exists or not.


 * It's obvious that Dabljuh is being trialed for having a sense of humor and not being willing to put up with Brazil like bureacratism. --ZimZum 19:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What an amazingly fortunate coincidence. We have not one but two people who are not only qualified to diagnose mental illnesses, but willing to do so at a distance and in public, without concern for the ethical dilemmas involved. Marvellous! Jakew 19:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

ZimZum, are you now taking up Dabljuh's habit of personal attacks? I can only assume so by your saying that Jakew exhibits "mild autism". Tom e rtalk 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If expressing that dealing with some individual makes you feel dealing with someone who has "mild autism" (I think ZimZum is thinking of Asperger's syndrome here) is a personal attack, then telling someone he has a habit of personal attacks certainly is, too. Dabljuh 21:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I really do wish y'all would get your story straight. Please decide if you'd rather accuse Jakew of being a screamer or of being an unfeeling automaton. Of course, sticking with the issues and laying off the gratuitous insults would probably be more productive. Benami 22:10, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please observe WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Dabljuh 22:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as we're playing wikilawyer, from WP:AGF: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring. From the outside, it would appear that you have (perhaps justifiably) lost the presumption of good faith from many in this community. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was a WP:POINT. I tried to illustrate to him how very constructive it is to talk to someone who never reacts to anything in any other way other than to randomly pull policies out of his ass. But thanks for noticing. Dabljuh 00:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Dabljuh still has a couple of lessons to learn when it comes to edit warring from a couple of people involved in this RfC. So much for good faith. --ZimZum 23:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

What?
Ugh. I'm trying to figure out where to put this...Talk:Rape. Tom e rtalk 14:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns regarding rape legislation that the article didn't answer. I raised them on the talk page and later, found some interesting material about it myself. Dabljuh 21:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my. Benami 22:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC) And to my surprise, if you scroll down there's even more, including the obligatory insult of someone who dared call you on your provocation. Two things stood out about the post. First, of course, is the outrageous content. Second is the level of English used, which is just not up to your usual standards either in grammar or construction. I'm probably skirting close to some WP infraction, but you're not wikiing under the influence, are you? Benami 22:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well the part where the grammar becomes really bad, below, isn't from me. And I have to suggest I was fairly tired when posting my part too, so... Dabljuh 00:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Whew, nice train wreck
This is one hell of an RfC. I had no idea things were so contentious over at circumcision, even though I have been involved in editing it a little bit. Might I just suggest that the "screw the prudes" civility "violation" be removed? At the time I thought it was a joke, and responded accordingly. Maybe Dabljuh is just blunt, but is that really being uncivil? It's just another way of saying "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors", which is established Wikipedia policy. -- Cyde Weys 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Taken on it's own, 'screw prudes' might indeed be seen as a joke, but I think it's important to see it in context. It's an example of lack of respect for other people's views that borders on contempt (and I should add that I actually agree with him on that particular issue), and his reluctance or inability to express himself politely. Jakew 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's goddamn fucking right, scumbag! Dabljuh 04:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Civility


The above does have some applicability Dabljuh, c'mon you should know that by now... Try to adhere more so that your message, whatever it may be, will get a fair hearing, otherwise you are on your way outa here, sorry to say. IZAK 06:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * /me makes a note: put WP:CIV on the list of wikipedia policies that need to be destroyed.
 * The thing is, I am "unintentionally" offended by people promoting infant genital mutilation. As do various other behaviours eagerly displayed by some of the very people that call me incivil. So I guess we have a deadlock there. Regardless of the level of offense however, I believe I am still capable of operating in a constructive manner. Sadly, this is something many people, even when they are trying hard not to be offensive at all, are not capable of, and is much less excuseable imho. So, my advice is, just deal with it. Because, I have to, as well. Dabljuh 11:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Could I just check whether I understand you correctly? You seem to be saying that other people are being incivil towards you by disagreeing with you (!!!) on the subject of circumcision, and this justifies violating WP:CIV. Seriously?
 * Incidentally, if you think policy should be changed, the appropriate thing to do is to raise the issue on that policy's talk page. Jakew 11:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You got it. To be a bit more accurate, though: I am not offended by people disagreeing with me. I am offended by people that are not capable or willing of convincing me of their POV, yet refuse to change their own POV, despite me having good and sensible arguments. This is in violation of all good manners and codes of conduct of debate, and makes the debate, per se, a waste of time. I am offended by spending this energy in good faith, when it later turns out all of that was essentially a waste of time.
 * Making you an example: Someone argues murder should be legalized. You tell him 1001 good reasons why murder should "stay" illegal. They don't convince him, however, because in his batshit inane religion, his GOD commands him to murder people. Wouldn't you think that you just wasted a huge load of time and the only way out would be to actually remove that individual from society, as he or she clearly proves to be a danger to it? I am not offended by argument, as you apparently try to make it look like, I am not offended by people disagreeing with me - if they can back it up with arguments. That is good, necessary to the way cultures and people learn. What I am offended by, is dogmatism and lunacy. When people are immune to arguments themselves. Further, a position that doesn't base on arguments that make sense and thus must resort to bullying and threats to get the point across, not orderly debate and argument. Dabljuh 04:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem, dear Dabljuh, to suffer from a severe failure to understand that Wikipedia is not a debate forum. Your adversarial and antagonistic attempts to turn it into one are probsibly what have caused your fellow editors to cease to be able to assume good faith in your article edits and talkpage contributions.  Given that Wikipedia is oiled by consensus and collaboration, your lapses in civility and your resorting to blatant personal attacks, in violation of WP policy, make trying to work with you feel like sticking one's head in a meat grinder.  Furthermore, the responses you've registered here on this RfC are mindboggling.  It appears you're trying as hard as you can to get permanently blocked.  If this is your goal, why not just stop editing?  If not, then what are you trying to accomplish with your continued abusiveness? Tom e rtalk  07:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's not a debate forum, but we do have to debate about the content of articles. In this debate, the existence of dogmatic people who persist in pushing their POV regardless of how much evidence is cited against them is a serious problem.  Unfortunately, these are the very people who filed this blatantly invalid RfC.  Al  21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, look, policies! JOY! I got something similiar for you too:

Sorry but no matter how you turn it, you've made an RFC about some very moderate and definitely not unilateral incivility in order to harass me and further bully me away from wikipedia as part of a very much legitimate content dispute. Shut the hell up, go in the corner, and be ashamed of yourself. And for the love of god: Consensus is reached by DEBATE, not by voting. Dabljuh 18:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. "This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus regarding proper application of policies and guidelines such as Neutral point of view." (emph added) --WP:CON
 * There is no evidence that the community frowns upon this RfC, highly or otherwise. Nor is there evidence that the community considers it meritless. Six people certified it, and 6 others endorsed it. Seven endorsed McClenon's outside view, which commented on your incivil behaviour. Only two signed your response, including yourself.
 * It is deeply troubling that you respond to discussion of your incivil behaviour by being so incivil. Jakew 18:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is more troubling that you ignore all the editors who frown upon this baseless RFC and then dare to accuse him of incivility in the face of abuse. Al  21:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's unclear to me where all these editors are. They certainly haven't added a 'view' to that effect on the project page. Dabljuh's response, in part, admitted that he was 'a dick', and had no intention of stopping. Since this in effect acknowledges that the complaint has merit, the three who endorsed it (including yourself) can't be included. Your own response explicitly avoided discussing his conduct (which is the central issue), so that can't count either. So who are these people who 'frown upon this baseless RfC'? Are there actually any members of this group? Jakew 21:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Odd, and here I was thinking that the central issue is that Dabljuh has a low regard for circumcision. Al 21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible Community Ban
This editor's flagrant abuses and continued disruption is so serious that I am considering the execution of an proposed community ban. -ZeroTalk 21:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which would be immediately opposed by a number of editors. For one thing, the poor guy was banned for imaginary crimes, and now that he's using random IP's to defend himself on talk pages, he's being threatened with bigger and bigger bans.  The right answer is not a community ban, it's an apology from Cohen, followed by the removal of his current block.  Al  21:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting, MZ. How would that work? Jakew 21:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, what are the pros and cons as compared with an RfAr? Jakew 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Depending on the continued discussion ongoing on the talkpage, I will purpose the ban on the appropriate section on WP:AN/I. Provided this meets with unproductive results, I will file a request to arbritration. -ZeroTalk 21:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever; he's been blocked indefitely proceeding the submission of the arbritration case. -ZeroTalk 18:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)