Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Go for it!

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:11, 7 June 2025 (UTC).

Go for it! (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

He is unwilling to take criticism seriously. Shows lack of respect for other's opinions. Mis-use of voting procedure. Keeps attempting to overhaul prominent page without community approval, and without sufficient experience to understand the confusion he is creating.

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.}

Go for it! keeps trying visual and navigational design experiments on prominent pages such as the Community Portal creating hundreds of aesthetic-tweak edits over a matter of days. He has been asked numerous times in the case of the Community Portal, to take his experimentation to a draft page until complete, this was ignored. He takes an attitude of ownership towards pages he has edited, or features he has added. He has conducted confusing design experiments just to prove a point. Most recently he started a straw poll for the stated purpose of getting feedback on redesign drafts, but then stated elsewhere that it was purely a political mechanism he was using to get his design reinstated, when the problems it was removed for had still not been changed.

These attitudes were also encountered at the Help talk:Contents page, during the Main Page redesign, and elsewhere.

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.)

edit warring at Community Portal on March 31 and April 1
edit warring at Help:Contents on March 31
edit warring at Community Portal/Redesign on April 3 - setting up the draft project, then the poll.
Talk page spamming

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Previously warned

Criticisms of his unilateral editing habits, and unprofessional visual design skills.

His talk page archive. The bottom third, particularly:

User talk page - February 8th
[1]
[2]
[3]

Most recent ignoring of criticism.

Wikipedia:Community_Portal/Redesign/Poll_archive#Let.27s_continue_the_discussion.__A_vote_is_premature_at_this_point
User_talk:Go_for_it!#Community_Portal_2
Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal#Stop_changing_the_community_portal_design (current community portal talk page)

Other relevant pages.

Community Portal at time of dispute filing.
Community Bulletin Board at time of dispute, with his notice at top implying redesign project leadership.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Quiddity 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) - regretfully, other means haven't worked.[reply]
--Barberio 09:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully. Kosebamse 09:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the wub "?!" 10:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Ambi 06:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added statement by Kmf164

Re: dispute with Go for it! on Monday (April 3) at Wikipedia:Community Portal/Redesign.

When an admin revert back to a stable version and protected Wikipedia:Community Portal, User:Go for it! finally came over to the Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft page to participate, only to blank it and insert his version of the design as "the draft". There had been another version that was being collaboratively worked on. I stepped in and made the draft "redesign" page into a project page, and moved both drafts to subpages (Draft1 and Draft2). He then shuffled the draft pages around, making his "Draft0" instead of "Draft2". I reverted that and set them up, with his as "Draft1a" and the other "Draft1b". He then blanked the project page and inserted a poll. He conceded to keep the project details there, but then I had to argue [4] [5] [6] with him over use of headings. The purpose of the poll was also a moving target, initially to decide what design style/direction the draft project should take. He changed that to make a referendum on getting his version restored to the current Community Portal page. He then went on to talk page spamming to solicit votes. When warned about this, he then left messages on several project pages: Help desk, Village pump (proposals), Village pump (technical), Community Bulletin Board. It was super annoying and frustrating to have to argue all this with him on Monday. Though, had I not been around to fight this, he would have just bulldozed through the Wikipedia:Community Portal/Draft page, completely overtaking the place and disregarding others. Since December when I met him here, I've seen his abundant enthusiasm for Wikipedia. And, while I dislike some of his design ideas, he does have some good ideas too. This dispute with him is not specifically over the aesthetics of the community portal, but the manner in which it was created (through iterative changes, constant shuffling things around, and treating it as a sandbox). His designs have some issues with their use of color, and the coding (accessibility issues, particularly for those using screenreaders). However, I was hesistant to go in and make these fixes, as he would likely see my edits and assistance as endorsement of his design and editing process. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 14:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

-Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 14:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Lethe

Go for it's editing technique leaves me rather frustrated. When there is a disagreement, he almost never replies on the talk page. First he brings it to my user talk page, scolding me for reverting him. Then he posts 4 (!) new sections in the help talk:contents page, having never responded to my original comment, nor any of my responses to his 4 new postings. Garg! It's like he only has write access only to talk pages. Dialogue is very difficult, though in the end, it can be forced. I have an unverifiable suspicion that he sometimes acts in a dishonest way: for example he claimed he was changing the page because it shouldn't use templates, but I believe he was using that as a backdoor to revert to his version after the template had gotten away from his control. Ditto for his arguments about dialup speeds, which he conveniently forgot when it was pointed out that his work is also download-heavy with all its icons.

On the whole, I don't agree with his vision for WP:HELP, and I don't appreciate his disruptive way of ignoring the voices of other editors.

Users who endorse this summary:

SIgning own endorsement (this is weird. Shouldn't I sign the statement above?) -lethe ^{talk +} 06:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.