Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BrandonYusufToropov
- The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
This request for comment was filed at 20:24, December 21, 2006. Having been endorsed within 48 hours it has met the threshold for consideration by the community.
- BrandonYusufToropov (talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
BrandonYusufToropov has been making personal attacks, unacceptable insinuations and uncivil comments on talk pages, in edit summaries and on his personal user page.
Description
[edit]BrandonYusufToropov is obviously highly opinionated about the articles and topics that he chooses to work on here on Wikipedia. I believe that there should be nothing wrong with that, but it is also a fact that he again and again demonstrate that his strong feelings about the issues apparently makes him unable stay cool, and avoid uncivil comments and personal attacks. I have asked him again and again to avoid these things and end his attempts to make the discussions unreasonably and unpleasantly personal. On one occasion it should be mentioned that he actually did the right thing, and removed a clear personal attack on his user page, and apologized for it: [1]. Unfortunately that doesn't help much when he doesn't at the same time change his ways and improve his behavior.
Evidence of disputed behavior
[edit](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.)
- What are you, doing your George W. Bush imitation here? ("Reality will go away if I wait long enough ... reality will go away ... reality will go away."
- Alice in Wonderland time here...
- You're in a strange, double-sided world...
- Call an admin "Jayjg Who Certainly Does Not Own This Article" again, and again, and again.
- Use his edit summary to accuse "the Christians" of making unacceptable edits
- Use his edit summary to accuse unnamed editors of being "inclined to aggression" because of his conversion to Islam [2]
- Ask an administrator if he has "enough intellectual integrity to address that question directly"
- Edit summary: Nominee: Most ridiculous edit summary of December, 2006
Applicable policies and guidelines
[edit]{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
[edit](provide diffs and links)
- ...I invite you to read WP:NPA again. It's there. "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." And it's simply unnecessary. Please argue the merits of the article's content, nor your fellow editors' affiliations
- It was good that you did the right thing and removed it, but I have to say that in the long run it doesn't help much if you keep making similar disrespectful remarks and insinuations
- NPA Warning
- I believe you insinuation about "the Christians" making specific edits for improper reasons was directed towards among others me... there is no excuses why you shouldn't remain civil, especially in your edit summaries.
- BYT, you crack jokes about Karl and Bush and then ask him to not crack jokes. Maintain some integrity, please. Your insult today is well over the boundary of WP:CIVIL and treading close to WP:NPA. Cease.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
[edit]{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
[edit]- I'd say this is a bit fore serious than a misphrasing(endorsement #1, response), this user is overprotective of his editing and cannot show his opinion without attacking those who disagree. Endorse, ST47Talk 17:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Karl appears not to have mentioned here that the point at which he advised me that the note on my userpage satirizing another user's edit could violate WP policy was precisely the point at which I removed it from my userpage.
I'm really not sure what the rest of this is about, except perhaps the shifting standards for notability that appear to be guiding the Eric Robert Rudolph article. The George Bush thing was certainly out of line, and I am sorry for that, Karl.
It seems to me that there is no single, summarizable dispute over a particular article or point of fact here.
The implication that I violated WP:NPA dissolves, I think, on inspection. My references to "Christians" were not meant to apply to any individual, or even to any specific group of WP editors, but to the global community of Christians. I'll certainly refrain from describing WP editors in this way (don't think I ever have), and I will pause here only to note that descriptions of me and others as "Muslim editors" are not exactly rare around here.
My references to "Christians" certainly cannot apply to Karl, a self-described agnostic, despite his various objections. BYT 13:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:
- Not phasing things the nicest way doesn't constitute a personal attack, and two is not enough to be considered a problem. -Amarkov blahedits 06:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Outside view
[edit]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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Discussion
[edit]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.
Summary
[edit]BrandonYusufToropov appears to have got the message at or about the time this RfC was certified. There having been no further input for 14 days, and no evidence presented of a continuing problem, this incident may justly be considered closed.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.