Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Glkanter

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: 03:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC).

Glkanter (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

User edits tendentiously on Monty Hall problem from his own POV, is apparently not here to help build an encyclopedia (6 article edits out of about 1000 talk page edits), disruptively edits including driving away productive contributors, and treats editing as a personal battle misusing his user and user talk pages to chronicle his fight and disparage other users.

Desired outcome

Glkanter should:

1. Delete the current content from his user and user talk pages chronicling his battle and disparaging other users.

2. Spend more time editing and less time arguing on talk pages.

3. Stop treating other editors as the enemy.

4. Strive to limit future talk page comments to article content, not editors.

Description

Virtually all of Glkanter's edits have been to talk:Monty Hall problem and the related subpage talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments. Rather than edit the article he has engaged in a long-standing campaign on the talk page to "simplify" the article, refusing to accept a peer reviewed academic source as legitimate. He has exhibited an extremely combative attitude on the talk page which has led to several productive editors leaving the discussion. He has declared he has no interest in any compromise regarding what he sees as a black and white issue, and interjects disruptive comments (disparaging other user's motivations) in what might otherwise be productive discussions. On the positive side, he has recently expressed an interest in formal mediation. To be clear, this RFC is not about the content dispute but about the user's behavior.

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.)

This is a small sample.

[1] 500 edits from February 14, 2009 through December 12, 2009, nearly all to talk:Monty Hall problem including only 5 article edits.
[2] attacks another user, ultimately leading to that editor leaving the discussion [3]
[4] [5] [6] [7] chronicles his "victory" on his talk page
[8] interjects a disruptive comment, interfering with a consensus building discussion
[9] creates a section on the talk page specifically disparaging another editor
[10] chronicles the "battle" on his talk page
[11] [12] [13] rejects a good faith compromise proposal out of hand, declares no interest in compromising, and disrupts consensus building

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(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.)

[14] [15] [16] [17] Dicklyon (talk · contribs) and Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs) both attempt to defuse a hostile situation, with Glkanter's reaction
[18] [19] User is advised to focus on specific changes
[20] User is reminded that discussions about the topic belong elsewhere.
[21] User is reminded to focus on article content not personal POV
[22] One last try after user became aware of a draft of this RFC

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Cirt (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inside view by Rick Block

The context of this RFC is Glkanter's long history of extremely argumentative editing at talk:Monty Hall problem. My initial interaction with him is archived here. Our second extended discussion is archived here, where I pointed him to WP:DR since we didn't seem to be reaching an agreement. IMO, Glkanter reaches the point of disruption in this series of edits where he flat out refuses to acknowledge the basic mathematical point he's been arguing about ever since, and where I refer him to other users he may be more willing to listen to as well as directly to relevant sources. He followed this up with his own retelling of our exchange here, which has become his style (he creates a "history" of sorts either on the talk page or his own talk page).

Since then, Glkanter has done little more than troll. He has accused me of violating WP:OWN (see here and here and here). He has interjected disruptive comments in discussions that might otherwise have led to compromise solutions ([27]). He has recently taken to accusing me of "filibustering" or obstructing changes to the article in other ways (e.g. [28]).

With very few exceptions (e.g. [29]), I try to simply ignore his disruptive comments and explain either relevant mathematical points (with pointers to sources) or relevant Wikipedia policies (with links). What prompted the filing of this RFC is the general pattern of disruption. Although it has been directed primarily at me, others have been targeted as well such as the incident with Dicklyon per the diffs above. This incident is extremely similar to an exchange he had with user:C S (archived here).

His voluminous, repetitive, pointless edits of the talk page make it nearly impossible to have a productive discussion - virtually the definition of disruption.

Users who endorse this summary:

Rick Block (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC) -- and I'd add that Glkaneter's explicit defense on the talk page of saying "Fuck you" to an editor does not speak well of his making any progress.[reply]
Cirt (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2010 (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.}

Since I started editing on the MHP talk page 14 months ago, Rick Block and I have seen things 180 degrees apart. Always. Every issue. I can't explain it. It just is.

Likewise with this RfC. It fails to satisfy the very first requirement: "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."

To the best of my knowledge, these severe edits of my talk page edits by Dicklyon Resp-1 Resp-2 Resp-3 were my only interaction with him. And he showed no remorse whatsoever Resp-4 Resp-5. Rick Block was not involved in any way. I thought his silence was curious.

I could sense this wasn't right. We were, and are, 'this close' to a consensus that will change the article, finally. I didn't need this gross distraction. Somebody vandalizing me, and calling me the vandal!? Here's where I turn the other cheek, 3 times, almost begging Dicklyon to leave me alone Resp-6 Resp-7 Resp-8, all coming before any response from Dicklyon.

Only Martin saw fit to comment, on my behalf actually: Resp-9. Resp-10 Resp-11. Rick, not a word. This is the section I had just created: Resp-12

As for editing the article, I only do that after discussion and agreement with other editors. The agreement part is rare. But, I did do this edit Resp-13. On my 2nd day as an editor, I removed the 1st sentence of the Solutions section: "The overall probability of winning by switching is determined by the location of the car." It was so erroneous, Rick agreed that I should remove it, despite that it had passed the various FARCs. I'll edit the article again, hopefully soon, when we can make more such meaningful improvements to the article.

The complainant's Desired Outcome is "1. Delete the current content from his user and user talk pages chronicling his battle and disparaging other users." More unintended irony from Dicklyon. This is from his user page: Resp-14. It's a section titled 'Wikidrama' which chronicles the most 'dramatic', but not all of the, "bizarre wikidramas that I have been involved in..." Well, I have a couple, too.

In summary, Rick paints an unsupportable complaint. I am, and do, none of the things he accuses me of doing on the talk page. And there is no valid second complainant on his behalf. Because Rick Block is not a part of the huge consensus, which is beyond the Informal Mediation stage, and is fighting against it tooth and nail. Like with this RfC, for example. Glkanter (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Martin Hogbin

I think this RfC in unnecessarily heavy handed and in many ways unjustified. Glkanter is not the only editor who wants change to this article, there are many others who do (including myself) , perhaps even a majority.

Out of respect for the FA status of this article those who want change have intentionally refrained from editing the article and have instead tried to gain a consensus of editors who agree to change. This has lead to much discussion on the talk page and on the arguments page, which was set up for this purpose. Several long-standing editors have steadfastly resisted suggestions of change and this has lead to frustration by those who would like to change things and, in some cases, frayed tempers.

The case Glkanter refers to above started when his comments were deleted from the talk page by Dick. This was replace at my suggestion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Glkanter (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Outside view by Eastshire

This seems to be a situation where all parties are at fault. Glkanter has at times not acted civilly. Comparing Dicklyons edit of Glkanter's timeline to Dick Cheney and Glkanter's frequent use of profanity apparently directed to other editors of the MH problem article are not civil additions to the project.

At the same time, the accusation that he was disrupting building a consensus is unsupported by the diffs provided. What the diffs show is that he was trying to change the consensus, which is what an editor should do before making significant changes to a Featured Article. This also makes disputed behavior 1 hard to understand. Working on consensus to make changes rather than changing the article out of hand should be applauded not reason to initiate a RfC/U.

Dicklyons knowingly[30] refactored Glkanter contribution to talk page despite it being an ongoing discussion and did not retain Glkanter's original meaning through the refactoring despite WP:RTP.

Both sides of this issue appear to be treating the article's talk page as a battleground and have acted in an uncivil manner.

Users who endorse this summary:

Eastshire (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by

{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:

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.