Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/SPUI - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) at 09:36, 31 March 2006 (fixing time). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:36, 31 March 2006 by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) (fixing time)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:13, March 31, 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

User:SPUI has repeatedly disrupted and made provocative edits to hundreds of pages, in violation of the terms of his probation.

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.}

On February 11, SPUI was placed on probation for his role in the pedophilia userbox matter. The terms of his probation specify that "dministrators may ban him from any page he disrupts, and/or ban him from Misplaced Pages for up to a week for each provocative edit he makes. If, after two months, SPUI can demonstrate good behavior, he may appeal the probation." This remedy passed the ArbCom unanimously.

Since then, SPUI has engaged in engaged in massive disruption of pages related to WikiProject California State Highways, WikiProject U.S. Roads, WikiProject Washington State Highways, and related projects. A very abbreviated list of these disruptions follows:

  1. He has unilaterally attempted to impose a new naming convention for state highways without even attempting to seek consensus for the change, and has repeatedly moved hundreds of pages to new names consistent with his personal naming scheme.
  2. After a template he took to WP:TfD was retained following debate, he repeatedly blanked the template in violation of recorded consensus, then removed the template tags from all or nearly all of the article pages it was on.
  3. He has been asked repeatedly to delay his actions in order that they may be discussed for purposes of creating consensus, and has intentionally ignored these requests, complying only when forced to do so.
  4. When others have attempted to engage him on the subject, he has become hostile and abusive.
  5. He has repeatedly communicated his intention to disrupt other state projects in the same way as he has disrupted California, in a manner that can only be construed as threatening.
  6. He has received advice and warnings from several disinterested people about his behavior and has chosen to ignore them.

SPUI has been treated with extraordinary leniency during this matter. He has been repeatedly blocked by both User:Curps' page-move bot and by human administrators, and has then been routinely unblocked within, usually, a matter of minutes. No attempt has been made that I can see to hold him to the terms of his probation in any meaningful way, and the harshest response to his mass disruption of WP:CASH has been mediation. Despite this leniency, he has shown no sign of moderating his behavior, and I see no reason to expect him to stop being disruptive without intervention.

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.)

  1. Page moves: (too many to list individually); evidence of lack of consensus for moves: , ; intentional disruption of WP:CASH: , ,
  2. Template:Portal U.S. Roads kept: ; SPUI blanks template page: , ; de-links dozens of pages without consensus: (too many to list individually)
  3. Requests to seek consensus: , , ; ignored: , , ,
  4. Hostile response to reasonable requests: /; /
  5. Evidence of intent to continue disruptive behavior regardless of consensus or mediation outcome, and to expand it to other projects: /, , , /, , , , ,

Sockpuppets

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Misplaced Pages:Probation

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Mediation case
  2. try, fail

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. phh 02:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. Gateman1997 05:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who do not endorse this summary

  1. Oh for Christ's sake, stop harassing this person already. Silensor 04:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:17, 31 March 2006 (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.

"He has received advice and warnings from several disinterested people about his behavior and has chosen to ignore them." I have in fact received advice from others, most of which agrees with what I am doing, if not the details of my implementation. I am constantly opposed by what seems to me to be groupthink, in that I cannot understand any reason for the opposite position.

The bringing of the Arbcom probation into this is an attempt to game the system. The Arbcom's decision was not only misguided but applied to something totally different. If you have problems with my actions, discuss them, not the Arbcom probation.

According to policy, Curps's bot should not have blocking power. The only reason other admins allow it to is that it reports on WP:ANI and any false positives are unblocked.

Let me know if you want me to explain any specific actions I took (on the talk page? I never get exactly how these things work), and I will. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

  1. Very limited endorsement of the portion about how Curps's bot should not have blocking power. No comment on the rest. --Nlu (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair and balanced view

Kick this straight back to Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-12 U.S. Roads and slap everyone who edits this page with a trout. Including me. - brenneman 04:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Oppose this view. We tried that... it has gotten us nowhere. If this fails I suggest going to arbcom.Gateman1997 05:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Inside view

The main reason this RFC has been filed is not because of SPUI's edits. If it was, then this would be mediation instead. SPUI is an excellent contributor and I regret that it has come to this. However, SPUI's methods of edit warring and reverting until people give up just so he can get his way, regardless of consensus, has upset many contributors at state highway WikiProjects across the United States in California, Washington, and New York. This originally began with California State Route 15, which SPUI moved to State Route 15 (California) and removed {{routeboxca2}}. He was reverted. However, he chose to revert back. He then tried to majorly edit {{routeboxca2}} to suit himself, but he was soon reverted. And a revert war started there too. He then gave up and send to TFD the {{routeboxca2}}. This failed as well. Then he created his own {{Infobox CA Route}} and switched articles to that one, although he was reverted and asked not to several times. This accompanied the massive 300+ article page moves, many of which were reverted. This edit war spread to about 90% of the 200+ California State Route pages, and to New York as well. We filed reports at WP:ANI and a Mediation cabal, but SPUI still kept moving pages until he was threatened with a block if he continued. When finally he was told that if he continued to revert war in California, that he would be blocked, he moved to Washington and began the preparatory steps to start a massive edit war there of moving pages and changing infobox templates.

SPUI has shown intent to further his campaign and bring it to all fifty states and their state highways. There are roughly 1,000-2,000 state highway pages, and this edit war has the capability to reach all of them. Also, his methods have worried many of us road editors, even those who do agree with SPUI's opinions regarding the names and infoboxes. Today SPUI has decided of his own accord that {{Portal US Roads}} should not be used on state highway lists, and he blanked the template and orphaned it. This is ignoring the fact that he TFDed it before and it was given a consensus to keep. Also today he has spread his edit wars to Delaware (witness and and . Massachusetts, Florida, and New Jersey have also been page moved as well. What will happen next if we don't do something now? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Response to above: Why not a Med Cabal? This has gone beyond your ordinary article dispute here. SPUI has not responded to mediation well before and has ignored it (Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/29_12_2005_Interstate_76_(east). Also, it does not seem to be working as SPUI has showed us his intent to disregard whatever happens at Med Cabal unless it is in his favor. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Users endorsing this view

  1. I do endorse my own view. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

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.

I don't know if this is strictly an "outside view," since I ended up being involved in a wheel war over whether SPUI should be blocked over a number of edits that he considered joke edits, which I considered to be vandalism (e.g., declaring the goal of WP:CASH to be "for profit") and personal attacks (e.g., "your mother"), but this is my view: SPUI is over the line. I have insufficient knowledge of the events referred in the above statement of the dispute to endorse it, but what I do believe is that this is a serious encyclopedia where editors have to have minimal standard of civility and professionalism. SPUI has neither, and was directly inviting a wheel war when he got blocked. No apologies ever came from SPUI for his behavior. I am dismayed that there are admins who are apparently willing to unblock him whenever he gets blocked. Anonymous IPs would never be able to escape blocks if they behaved like SPUI.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. --Nlu (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC) (author of the above statement)

Response

If "anonymous IPs would never be able to escape blocks if they behaved like SPUI", that's a problem with the blocking admins, NOT with me. Your blocks were over-the-top, and you were called on it. Still you reblocked, after claiming you wanted to avoid wheel wars. If anyone was at fault there, it was you. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The block was put back into place because you went right back to the same behavior after the unblock. Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you? --Nlu (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
And the unblocking admins disputed that such behaviors warranted a block. Of course, you didn't want to mention that, did you? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I already did. Read my statement above. --Nlu (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
In any case, this is the edit that got me: Making such an edit when you had already been unblocked, with an edit summary like that, was a violation of WP:POINT, fully deserving of yet another block. --Nlu (talk) 08:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
EXCUSE ME? ASKING TO BE UNBLOCKED WAS A VIOLATION OF WP:POINT? WHAT THE FUCK? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
You were already unblocked at the time. The edit summary was a taunt. --Nlu (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Obviously I hadn't realized I was unblocked, as no one had let me know. Read WP:AGF until its meaning sinks in. I still don't get how it's a violation of WP:POINT. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Real demonstrative of your pattern behavior: User:MONGO's rather nicely worded request to you and your response . --Nlu (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I find it somewhat offensive when people are offended over silly things like usage of the word fuck. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 08:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)