Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kolins

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct 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.

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: 20:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC).

Kolins (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

Long story short - I believe that consensus has been established on a matter, at both WP:ANI and WT:FOOTBALL - and Kolins refuses to accept that, and constantly edits against said consensus.

Desired outcome

For Kolins, who is a decent editor normally, to acknowledge the community consensus relating to this, and edit accordingly. For him to start using talk pages.

Description

I am bringing this here as a last resort, following advice at ANI. I have raised it at ANI twice before (inNovember 2011 and December 2011) - as well as a number of discussions over at WT:FOOTBALL (links can be found in previous ANIs) I believe that a consensus has been established regarding the nationality categories of footballers, and that Kolins should not be removing categories from articles. However, he is still up to his old tricks, and refuses to discuss the matter - I have invited him to ANI, WT:FOOTBALL, and have posted on his talk page numerous times - all with no response. Apologies if this is in the wrong place or not quite up-to-scratch, but this is my first attempt at anything like this.

Evidence of disputed behavior

This is the most recent example I have been made aware of, and came after the two ANI discussions above. Further diffs can be found in the ANI discussions.

Evidence by Drmies

I submit two items:

The edit count for Kolins shows a remarkable lack of talk page contributions, despite many of their edits being possibly controversial--nationality in BLPs, which often have a lack of sourcing.
The edit summary count for the last 150 edits (if I understand this correctly). I left a note on their talk page a few days ago; I cite, "in your last 500 edits I saw 14 edit summaries". I'm not going to go through any more lists of contributions--the pattern is clear.

Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and communication, on user and article talk pages and in edit summaries, is simply a mandatory part of the game. Not ever communicating, not on talk pages, not in edit summaries, not in response to ANI threads, is not an option, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs of the comments. As with anywhere else on this RfC/U, 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.) We had a discussion in August 2011 about this on his talk page; that was the last time he communicated. I also posted on his talk page on 11 September 2011 and 12 October 2011, before starting the two ANI threads.

Attempts by certifier GiantSnowman

[1]
[2]

Attempts by certifier Drmies

[3]
[4]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

I agree with the guys above me. The user keeps going against the flow, removing categories without any word in summaries. Not vandalism per se in any way, but a gross oversight of teamwork and/or possible community consensus. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. 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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Livitup

First, I looked over the previous discussions on the nationality question at ANI and the FOOTY talk page. Unfortunately I don't see a very clear consensus resulting from any of those discussions. The closest was probably over at FOOTY, where agreement was 75% reached, and a few editors suggested trying to write a project guideline, and then... nothing happened. On the other hand, there does seem to be a clear consensus that what User: Kolins is doing is the one thing that everyone agrees shouldn't be done. In other words, while there isn't clear consensus on what should be done, 100% of the people involved in the discussion agree that it isn't what Kolins is doing. So, in that respect, he is quite clearly editing against consensus.

I think it's fair for a project to say "We don't know what we want to do for sure yet, but whatever it is that we end up doing, 'X' is not it." And then if another editor comes along and starts doing 'X', that's clearly against consensus. And even more to the point, when there is discussion going on, the default should be to do nothing until the discussion is concluded.

User: Kolins has been contacted and notified and begged to participate in discussion enough times that I have to believe that his silence is intentional. I believe his behavior is disruptive (as evidenced by the multiple discussions his actions have initiated). I am certain that any kind of offers for mediation, mentoring, or anything else will be totally ignored, so I think an escalating series of blocks is the only likely solution to this. The block should be removed and escalation cancelled/reset if and when User: Kolins agrees to discuss the issue and help form consensus. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Well said. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good summary indeed. Giant Snowman 16:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I subscribe the former two inputs. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to endorse my own summary... :) Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. Edinburgh Wanderer 01:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

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.

Summary

No interaction between parties. No compromise was able to be hammered out after multiple requests for Kolins to come and respond to the complaints Hasteur (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.