Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Corbridge

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 17:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC).

---

• Corbridge (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

After extensive discussion on a number of Talk pages, I have come to a point where I no longer believe Corbridge (talk|contribs) is editing entirely in good faith. In talk page discussions on multiple articles s/he has repeatedly responded to content based questions by attacking the character and motivation of other editors, using examples of other articles that have problems to justify not fixing problems in the article under discussion, wikilawering, making accusations and generally showing a pattern of tendentious, borderline uncivil editing.

Additionally, Corbridge continues to push the limits of NPOV on Kristi Noem, adding voluminous amounts of glowing quotes about Noem and consistently reverting edits that could reflect poorly on her.

These discussions also will show that several editors, including Gamaliel, KeptSouth, Dayewalker, Frank, KillerChihuahua, Arglebargle, Bagumba and SnarfHerder have tried to engage in discussion with Corbridge, all with the same result.

Desired outcome

I would like to see an outcome where Corbridge is able to continue making valuable contributions to Wikipedia while also being able to handle disagreements in an appropriate way. Voluntarily adhering to a 1RR rule on BLPs would be an excellent show of good faith, as would taking a break from editing Kristi Noem.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Specific diffs & edit summaries

1. Responding to content-related concerns by questioning the motivation of editors: [1]
2. Wikilawyering, citing examples of potential problems in other articles rather than discussing content: [2]
3. Making accusations: [3], [4]
4. Unconstructive, again arguing about editors rather than content: [5]
5. Issuing orders to other editors: [6]
6. More insults and accusations, couched as "sarcasm": [7]
7. Unwillingness to engage in discussion: [8]
8. Discussing editors, not edits: [9]
9. Accusations, mild threats ("I will be reviewing all your edits...": [10]
10. Using potential problems in other articles to justify not fixing them in article under discussion: [11]
11. Compares opposing viewpoints to believing in "Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny": [12]
12. Combative: [13], [14], [15], [16]
13. Rejects opinions that differ from his/her own as baseless: [17]
14. Mischaracterization of other editors' edits, generally combative: [18]
15. Removing relevant, sourced info from Kristi Noem: [19], [20]
16. Stuffing Kristi Noem with glowing quotes and excess promotional info: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:OTHERSTUFF
2. WP:CIVIL
3. WP:HEAR
4. WP:BEHAVE
5. WP:AGF
6. WP:AVOIDYOU
7. WP:NPOV
8. WP:PROMO

Applicable essays

1. WP:TE

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts by Arbor8

1. User talk:Arbor8#Civility
2. User talk:Corbridge#Civility
3. User talk:Corbridge/Archive 1#Pro-life activists

Attempts by Frank

1. User talk:Corbridge/Archive 1#Reference formatting

Attempts by KeptSouth

1. User talk:KeptSouth/Archive 1#Herseth Sandlin
2. User talk:Corbridge#Scott Walker article - a series of edits which do not improve the article

Other attempts

I don't want to bury you all under mountains of diffs, so I'm primarily going to link specific talk page discussions, which I believe all illustrate exhaustive (and exhausting) attempts by several editors encourage Corbridge to limit him/herself to content-related disagreements, all of which were unsuccessful:

1. Talk - Stephanie Herseth Sandlin - Lobbying
   
2. Talk - Scott Walker - Marquette alumnus
   
3. Talk - Scott Walker - Relevant discussion for the Scott Walker talk page
   
4. Talk - Kristi Noem - Alma mater dispute
   
5. Talk - Kristi Noem - Pro-life activists
   
6. Talk - Allen West - Notability of wife's degrees
7. Okay, one diff

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbor8 (talk • contribs)

   Comment There is actually only one user certifying the basis for this dispute - Arbor8 is the originator. Frank certified it, and I did too, but I withdrew after further examining the diffs. Therefore this RfC should be deleted. KeptSouth (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

2. While I haven't checked all the diffs and have no comment on "pushing the limits of NPOV", I can certify Corbridge was quite combative in this exchange I initiated, and made a number of accusations that did not seem in good faith.  Frank  |  talk  22:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

   I would like to point out that my certification was only that the dispute I was involved in was accurately portrayed and was really a dispute. That's a weak basis on which to certify an entire RfC, and if that's all we've got, closure is probably appropriate. I'm not sure of protocol regarding deletion.  Frank  |  talk  17:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

   I agree with presenter's summary, 100%. Corbridge has been one of the most, if the the most tendentious POV editor I have come across; many of her/his edits can only be explained by concluding s/he is charged with a political agenda. I have given this person every benefit of the doubt, and feel Corbridge should be topic banned from all U.S. politics-related articles.KeptSouth (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have now taken some time to read Arbor's summary and the diffs, and wish to amend my comment above. I really do not understand the exceedingly mild sanction that Arbor8 is seeking or why it would be effective at all. I do not see where Corbridge has engaged in multiple, easily detectable reverts of the same material, so limiting Corbridge to 1R would not help with Corbridge's behavior issues. Also, as to Kristi Noem article - Corbridge's edits there have added a bit of mild puffery but have not truly violated WP:BLP policy - he/she has violated BLP policy on multiple other articles, however. In addition, I strongly feel the long list of diffs above does not adequately show the behavior, and the ones that have been listed where I have been involved are especially poor examples of the tendentious biased editing by Corbridge. For example, two of the diffs where I was a participant were actually talk page contributions by me that were modified by Corbridge-contrary to WP policy and guidelines-but that is beside the point. My point is that the modifications by Corbridge make his or her responses seem a bit more reasonable than they were - and so those diffs they do not fully reflect the dispute or the behaviors.

To conclude - this RfC is inadequate, and I believe it should be dismissed without any action taken. However, I believe that any determination about this RfC should not be considered conclusive for a future RfC regarding same or similar behaviors by Corbridge. In other words, Corbridge can be extremely problematic, he/she violates numerous policies and guidelines frequently in pursuit of a strong political agenda - but this RfC barely hints at it, and appears to be pointless because of the "desired outcome" that is stated. Therefore, a no cause or a mild rebuke here should not be considered an actual judgment on Corbridge's behavior because the case has been presented very poorly. --KeptSouth (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC) KeptSouth (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dlabtot below - the accusations in the RfC are not supported by the diffs, and I think this matter should be closed. I would not have certified the RfC if I had examined the diffs more carefully. I simply assumed, based on my negative experience with Corbridge, and edits that I had observed Corbridge making that the RfC was well supported. My mistake, sorry. Again, I would like to point out this does not mean that sanctions against Corbridge cannot be supported, it only means that the case here is has been poorly framed by Arbor8. KeptSouth (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Response

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside views

Outside view by dlabtot

Looking at the diffs, I just don't agree with the characterizations given by the accusers here. Rather I see a lot of charges that are not actually supported by the accompanying diffs. Dlabtot (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I checked out the diff (#5) where it's claimed that Corbridge gives orders to other editors. Whoever put that in the list has reading comprehension problems or worse. Corbridge was sarcastically comparing that article with Obama's biography here, which may or may not be a good argument, but to read that as giving orders to other editors is ludicrous. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

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.