User:Scientizzle/RFA question
User:RandomWikiEditor posts on WP:AN/I the following:
Censorship on [[Topic X]]
[edit]I've been trying to add important information to [[Topic X]] but User:ExcitableScienceFanatic continues to revert my additions and has made several rude statements to me.[1][2][3] I want an administrator to block User:ExcitableScienceFanatic. -- User:RandomWikiEditor
You check out the 3 diff links provided and find that User:ExcitableScienceFanatic has made the following statements:
- [1] on [[Talk:Topic X]]:
| “ | RandomWikiEditor, you're clearly not understanding the point of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, so let me spell it out for you, dimwit--Topic X has an established scientific consensus and your additions give undue attention to a stupid conspiracy theory that is only given any attention in fringe whack-job publications. | ” |
- [2] also on [[Talk:Topic X]], occurring after the above comment:
| “ | The conspiracy theory that Topic X has been suppressed by the US government has been addressed by WP:RS sources and found to be lacking in any credence. POV-pushers like RandomWikiEditor need to realize this and follow WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. | ” |
- [3] on User talk:ExcitableScienceFanatic, after User:RandomWikiEditor complained about the prior two links, asking for a retraction of "dimwit" and "POV-pusher":
| “ | You [RandomWikiEditor] are a fringe POV-pusher. You and your ilk need to be blocked from Wikipedia if we're ever to reach WP:NPOV. Get over it and get the fuck off my userpage. | ” |
You then review the editing histories of the two editors and the article and find:
- The article has been undergoing a slow-burning edit war for the better part of a month. Two factions are apparent in the article history and talk page. One group (in which RandomWikiEditor is a major player) continually alters the article's wording to increase the prominence of a particular conspiracy theory and add sympathetic wording to such an explanation. The other group (ExcitableScienceFanatic and others) constantly pare down the conspiracy theory claims and add statements such as "several organizations refute any conspiracy theory about Topic X". The tenor of the dispute has gone steadily downhill.
- User:ExcitableScienceFanatic has been editing Wikipedia for two years, received multiple blocks for civility violations, and has a general editing track of battling with many different groups across hundreds of science and technology articles, always arguing that s/he is promoting the scientific consensus view on pages constantly targeted by POV-pushing fanatics. This user is often brusque and has a generally dismissive attitude towards administrators s/he terms "civility patrollers" that admonish him/her from time to time.
- User:RandomWikiEditor has been around for about 3 months, and almost all of his/her edits are to [[Topic X]] or related pages. RandomWikiEditor does not appear to have ever been obviously uncivil anywhere on the site. However, at [[Talk:Topic X]] there are common complaints that RandomWikiEditor edits tendentiously, wikilawyers, and relies on poor-quality sources to prop up claims.
You are not particularly familiar with Topic X, and can't currently determine whether either side has properly demonstrated all of its points. However, you do note that citations on [[Topic X]] seem to indicate that the mainstream scientific view is probably more closely represented by User:ExcitableScienceFanatic's additions.
What, if any, administrative action would you suggest at AN/I or perform yourself?