Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Duke53

Duke has continued his behavior since this RFC was begun:. What shall we do if he never fills in the response section? --Masamage ♫ 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Question
Since I don't quite understand the rules of this little 'courtroom' action I would be grateful if someone would explain the entire procedure to me. "Duke has continued his behavior ... " 'Duke' will continue to warn vandals about their behavior. HINT: take a look at all those 'one time editors' whose only edits are to delete material from lds related articles ... coincidence? I don't think so; seems like clear cut vandalism to me. Seems odd to me that they know enough to come here, delete material, and disappear, never to be seen again. Duke53 | Talk 15:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Duke53, please see Requests for comment/User conduct and its sub-section RfC guidelines for an explanation of the procedure. The RfC itself also has instructions throughout to help provide extra guidance: for example, "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse" or "This is a summary written by..." provide useful hints on how to contribute correctly to the RfC.  Hope this helps, alanyst /talk/ 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another tip: it appears that your comment above is largely a defense against the complaints of WP:BITE violations. You might want to copy it to your "Response" section in the RfC so it doesn't get overlooked. alanyst /talk/ 16:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alanyst has it. The next step is for you to make a defense against the various claims, using the section called 'Response'. Completing this will allow more outside, unaffiliated people to come in and see what they think of the situation. --Masamage ♫ 16:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * " ... it appears that your comment above is largely a defense against the complaints of WP:BITE violations." Well, this is where I am having a bit of a problem with the whole 'process' ... since all those folks who have participated so far have not mentioned any of the attacks on me and / or lies told about and to me, it doesn't seem like they really have the 'best interest of Wikipedia' as their priority. Rather, it seems as if they are using it as a means of stifling someone who does not buy into their personal agendas and POV. I have never lied here, but others have made false accusations against me numerous times; why haven't any of those incidents been detailed here. It puts me in mind of when my children were small: they told me the side of a dispute that put them in the best light, but conveniently 'forgot' to mention the other side at all. Very telling to me that most of those who made false allegations and personal attacks against me haven't taken part in this. Their silence is deafening. I would much prefer a 'case' where all the facts are aired, not one where the items are 'cherry picked' in any fashion.Duke53 | Talk 17:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The other side should be told, which is why there's a response section for you. That part is for your side of the story, although specifically relating to the accusations and evidence listed above it. You'll primarily want to discuss whether you feel you've broken the rules or done anything wrong (since that's the main point of this particular RFC), but if you want, you can also mention what other people have done that makes it unfair. Personally, though, I would recommend starting up one or more entirely separate RFCs against those users, so that their actions can receive full discussion rather than being lost in the shuffle. If you want, you'll find that there are many people willing to help set those up, since they're annoying as all heck to figure out. WP:ASSIST is a good place to start. --Masamage ♫ 17:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have the time (or ambition) to do the research to recount all those incidents; perhaps the participants who have laid out all the 'facts' so far should tell both sides of the story. Unless there are reasons that they don't want them told .. which goes back to my premise that maybe, just maybe this isn't about the 'good of Wikipedia', but rather an excercise in ridding WP of someone who won't accept censorship or <U>any</U> organization's POV. I do know that it seems that many editors here (<I>especially </U>the anonymous ones</I>) appear to have the intent of making this a '<I>ldswiki</I>', which I will always oppose, <I>just as I would oppose any religious group's attempt at the same</I>.<font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 17:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your call, but you had both the time and ambition to make all the edits that we've complained about in the RfC (and many more besides). If you don't think it's important to make your case as well as you can, then you have nobody to blame but yourself if it doesn't turn out how you'd like.  If you think this RfC is a bad-faith effort to oust you for your viewpoint (and I reject that insinuation, for what it's worth), then at the very least you ought to be able to make that argument with diffs pointing to your evidence. alanyst /talk/ 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Duke, this page exists because a substantial number of editors have noticed that your long-term conduct on Wikipedia has – rather often – fallen short of the standards established by the community. The concerns center mostly on a perception of incivility directed at other editors: good editors, bad editors, anonymous editors, established editors, editors with or without the admin bit.  To successfully operate a collaborative project, the participants must be able to – at an absolute minimum – interact civilly without making personal attacks on one another.


 * The Request for Comment process is part of Wikipedia's dispute resolution mechanisms. An RfC starts when less formal methods (usually in the form of requests on your talk page) fail.  The idea is to allow concerned parties to express their positions in a clear and organized way.  It is hoped that an open, evidence-based presentation will allow everyone to 'put their cards on the table' in a way that's more accessible and less acrimonious than back-and-forth bickering on a talk page or WP:AN/I might be.  It allows more time for thought and reflection.  Finally, it allows third parties to review the evidence and perspectives of the parties to the dispute.  Views and comments that are widely endorsed are likely to reflect the sentiments of the wider Wikipedia community.


 * If parties to an RfC can reach a meeting of the minds, the dispute is resolved. The RfC identifies areas where improvements in conduct are required, and also highlights potential problems for further attention and monitoring.  If the parties fail to reach an understanding, if one or more parties refuses to acknowledge the community's concerns, and if the problematic conduct continues, then other steps in the dispute resolution process – up to and including arbitration or a request for community sanctions – may follow. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There is <U><B>absolutely no doubt </B></U> in my mind that this RfC is a bad-faith effort by a coordinated group. Your 'rejection' of that belief has little or no meaning to me or others who have taken the time to contact me about it.
 * I shall continue to have the time to resist any attempts at censorship on the few articles that I keep on my watchlist. WP and its editors will never dictate when and how often I contribute to these pages.
 * Very telling that the participants so far haven't even noticed the personal attacks and false accusations made by their colleagues. Or are you denying that there is a group of highly visible and 'vocal' group of pro-lds editors? Oh, well .... :>) <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 18:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, there are lots of pro-LDS editors who edit Wikipedia inappropriately. I have reverted many of them myself, although I no longer have those articles on my watchlist. And yes, you have frequently been attacked and insulted by Mormons and refused to rise to their bait--I do have evidence of several of those those, and since you have requested it I will post them to this discussion in a few hours when I get home. However, this does not change the fact that you yourself have consistently behaved in a hostile manner, often without direct provocation. Since you mentioned having kids, I'm sure you'll understand that "he started it" isn't a valid defense, although it is useful knowledge. If, however, you would like to state categorically that you have never been inappropriately harsh, please do so now. --Masamage ♫ 18:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * <I>" ... I'm sure you'll understand that "he started it" isn't a valid defense"</i>. I prefer to think of it as '<I>giving as good as you get</I>'. At least I am not whining about it like some of the others. There is something wrong with a system where someone can start something, then feign indignation and hurt feelings when responses are handed back to them in the same fashion. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 19:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I disagree with your characterization, but that's not really important. Regardless of anything else, your next step should be to write something up for the 'Response' section--that is important, as it's the way your side of these events can be revealed. Not everybody is reading the talk page. If you want your actions defended, now is the time to get it started. --Masamage ♫ 20:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually, I'm not sure where to put these. This discussion is good evidence of Duke being picked on and not biting back, especially toward the bottom; so is this. But now I have process-confusion; do these links go in the Response section, or the (in)civility section, or where? Someone who knows what they're doing, please advise. --Masamage ♫ 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest putting it as "Mitigating evidence" or "Counterexamples" in the section for the applicable policy, so that people who read thru the evidence don't have to look elsewhere for the bigger picture. Seems the fairest way to do it, and Duke53 can always incorporate those in his Response section if he wants to. alanyst /talk/ 21:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving toward resolution
This RfC has been open for twelve days now. Duke53 has made it clear that he does not regard this RfC as a good-faith effort to resolve concerns about his behavior, so it's doubtful whether he will respond in any more depth than he already has. (Duke53, if you do plan on responding but need more time, please say so unequivocally and tell us how much time you think you'll need.) I propose that if he does not provide his response, in the Response section, by the time the RfC is two weeks old (two days from now), then we may safely assume that no such response will ever appear and we move forward with the next step. My question is, what should that next step be? Asking for community sanction would, I think, require getting more members of the community to examine the RfC and voice their opinions so that the sense of the community can be determined. At this point the participation has been too narrow to say that the general WP community feels a particular way. Alternatively, we could escalate this to arbitration. Thoughts? alanyst /talk/ 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Community sanctions should be in response to expected future problems, rather than some sort of punishment. Community sanctions (or just plain old blocks) should result from further incivility, attacks, or WP:BITEing, rather than just the fact that such things have happened in the past.  Whether Duke53 offers a formal response to this RfC or not, we can hope (open a fresh can of WP:AGF please, everyone) that he will take note that the community has expressed concerns about his prior conduct.  If he refrains from the type of conduct that led to this RfC, then no further action is required. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's already continued his WP:BITE violations since this RfC was opened:, and is clear that he has no intention to stop.  He also has not acknowledged the legitimacy of any of these concerns, but rather has attacked the motives of those of us expressing the concerns and expressed the belief that his incivility is justified.  In short, I have seen no hint of his acknowledging any wrong on his part, which means that he will continue his pattern of behavior if not checked.  The AGF policy recognizes that good faith need not be assumed in the face of an extensive pattern of problematic behavior.  An editor with such a long history of abusive behavior is sanctioned precisely to stop the abuse.  I would love to be able to assume good faith of Duke53, but to get to that point he would have to acknowledge that his behavior is wrong, commit himself to following the WP policies, invite scrutiny and feedback for his actions going forward, and demonstrate changed behavior for several months at least.  If he were to do that, I would be able to assume good faith of him going forward, and I would not feel that community- or arbcom-imposed sanctions were necessary.  alanyst /talk/ 17:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the talk page messages he left were a little bit terse, but I wouldn't call them WP:BITE. He would be wise to provide a link to WP:NOT and adjust his phrasing a bit in the future, but it is legitimate to warn an editor if that editor is removing legitimate content from an article.  I think if someone here would like to draft an appropriate, customized response that Duke could use in this particular situation, that might be helpful to him.


 * As far as the other concerns about his conduct go, has he been making further attacks on other editors, or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Has he gotten involved in any further edit wars?  If any of those things happen, or if he does some really drastic BITEing, then I would be willing to step in with an administrative intervention. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My reason for calling them WP:BITE violations is mainly his use of the term "vandalism" and the phrase "may be barred from editing Wikipedia". To a new editor unfamiliar with WP policy (which is the assumption one should make of such edits per AGF), such a message says "we don't want you here."  The  or  templates strike the right tone, and are what Duke53 ought to use instead of his more caustic version.  He's been approached about this in the past though, and ignored the request (see the "Efforts to resolve the dispute" section in this RfC).
 * As to his other behavior, he has kept a low profile since the AN/I complaint and then this RfC. The only other example of continued WP policy violation is his assertions that I and others are acting in bad faith and secretly collaborating on this RfC.  This is an AGF violation if he won't show evidence of it (and he cannot, for it's entirely untrue).  He simply hasn't been editing much elsewhere, so there's no evidence of a new attitude towards his fellow editors or WP policy&mdash;but also no evidence of other disruption than what I've already mentioned. alanyst /talk/ 19:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * <I>" he has kept a low profile since the AN/I complaint and then this RfC"</I>. Some of us have real lives outside of these pages. I do not have to come here and explain to <B><I><U>you</U></I></B> my posting pattern or habits. <font face="raphael" color="green">Duke53 | Talk 03:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure all of us do. Do you need extra time to make your formal response? Do you intend to respond at all? That would be useful information. --Masamage ♫ 04:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No? Yes? --Masamage ♫ 05:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's safe to assume there will be no response from Duke53 at all, considering this RfC has been open since 12 October 2007. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  15:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No editor is compelled to participate in a Request for Comment, and there's no need for us to badger him to do so. If he doesn't wish to contribute either an explanation for his behaviour or an acknowledgement of the past problems, he can choose not to.  Frankly, I would be happy if by his future actions he demonstrated that he had considered what was said here, whether or not he posts any further comment on this RfC.
 * That said, a failure to offer any mitigating explanation for his problematic conduct is something that I expect future admins (or the ArbCom, for that matter) will take into account. If Duke decides to continue to be incivil or to bite newbies, then I will warn and block fairly strictly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly, nobody can be forced to participate in a Request for Comment. It would be nice, however, to know if Duke53 intends to respond. If Duke would like to challenge the assertions within this RfC, I personally wouldn't care if he needed another 2-3 weeks; a late response is better than no response. That said, the ball remains in Duke's court. If he intends to respond, fine. If not, it'd be nice to know. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  21:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparent change
Duke53's contributions have slowed considerably since this RfC was initiated, but those contributions have become much more level-headed and constructive, with no recent personal attacks, edit warring, or disruptive behavior. He seems more inclined to calmly discuss his concerns with other editors and assume good faith; see and  for example. For that I sincerely compliment him and I am greatly encouraged. If he establishes this as a new pattern of behavior going forward in the next few weeks, I think this RfC could be closed and archived. Thoughts? alanyst /talk/ 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree on all counts. --Masamage ♫ 00:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Or not
I have new concerns. Duke53 is still showing an inclination to edit war:, , and all within 24 hours&mdash;not a technical 3RR violation, but still reverting after it's clear there's a dispute. Also, here he reverts an edit without any recent participation in the relevant discussion, and without discussing the change with the editor he reverted. This does not bode well. alanyst /talk/ 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)