Wikipedia:Requests for comment/L0b0t

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 14:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:05, 21 July 2025 (UTC).

L0b0t (talk · contribs · logs)
Now editing as Homefill (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Desired outcome

I want L0b0t to stop calling my edits vandalism, and to engage in discussion on his talk page as opposed to hostile blanking.

Description

L0b0t is treating good faith edits as vandalism - reverting them with nothing more than "rvv." He also is uncivil on his talk page, deleting sections without response.

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.)

Treating good faith edits as vandalism

Talk page incivility

This is a pattern of behavior that dates back to L0b0t's first edit to his talk page.

[16]

After the filing of this RFC

Wikipedia as a battleground

[17]
[18]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

WP:CIVIL

WP:AGF

"There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project."

WP:TALK

"Archive — don't delete: When a talk page has become too large or a particular subject is no longer being discussed, don't delete the content — archive it."

WP:VAND

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

After the filing of this RFC

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground

"When a conflict continues to bother you or others, adhere to the procedures of dispute resolution."

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked him to be more careful, and he indicated that he thinks he's using the term only when applicable. However a purely casual glance at some of the diffs provided here show that he's incorrect in his belief. Friday (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this user to discontinue labeling good-faithed edits as vandalism but received no response other then an archiving 2 hours latter. This user strikes me as fairly aggressive in very unhelpful ways when confronted. Other then my general impressions I haven't had much dealings with this user. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Endorse Editor often edit wars, misrepresenting mere content disputes as "vandalism". --Milo H Minderbinder 14:24, 16 February 2007 (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.

User:Friday has no standing to certify this RfC as I have had no contact or interaction with that user until after the filing of this RfC. User:Friday is not involved in this dispute. Cheers. L0b0t 00:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the 1st 1000 or so contributions of User:Friday I have found that we have never even edited the same pages (with the exception the talk page of the user who brought this RfC against me, and some admin notice boards, and of course my talk page which User:Friday only posted on after the filing of this RfC.) Cheers. L0b0t 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Response by User:Codex Sinaiticus

User:Hipocrite who filed this rfc against L0b0t is himself rarely civil. He is also fond of citing 'pot v. kettle', but I think a more practical analogy is 'speck v. board' ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Semi-involved view from J.S

According to L0b0t's talk page he has retired from wikipedia... but in any event I think it's important to make these points for posterity.

Archiving...

Despite the fact that it's permitted, I find the archiving "style" of removing comments without a response to be highly incivil. If the comment was in violation of some policy (like WP:NPA etc) then I could understand... But thats not the case here. I don't want L0b0t to be forced into conforming into an archive style, but I think it's important to explain how some see it as rude and unnecessarily aggressive.

Edit Summaries...

Proper edit summaries are quite important for a number of reasons. Explaining your edits helps prevent conflicts, creates a permeate record, makes reading the page history/contributions list easier to read. Edit summarys like "rvv" provide almost no information and are not even recommended for clear-cut cases of vandalism reverts.

The difference between vandalism and good-faith but harmful edits...

I'm not going to address the particulars of the disputed edits here except to say that I don't think Hypocrite's removal of the blog links was a good idea in the case of the Barrington Hall article. That being said, a good faith edit is never vandalism. Vandalism requires the intent to cause harm. Just because an edit is damaging doesn't make it de-facto vandalism. When dealing with established editors we must be extra careful to satisfy our own guidelines.

---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC) except I'm a big fan of my removal of blog links.[reply]
Anchoress 21:56, 16 February 2007 (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.

{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

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.