Wikipedia:Requests for comment/G2bambino

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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.

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: 15:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC).

Formerly Gbambino (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
and Gbambino06 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

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

Statement of the dispute

Disputes with G2bambino are wide-ranging, involve multiple users, and have been ongoing since 2005. This was already posted at WP:AN, and the response from multiple administrators was to create an RfC/U. The scope of this RfC/U is necessarily broad, as it concerns a pattern of behaviour over three years, and not a single specific dispute.

Desired outcome

G2bambino needs to become a cooperative editor. Preferred outcome:

Agrees to the following voluntary restrictions for a period of six months, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the 6-month limit.

  • Strict civility restriction, across all of Wikipedia. This includes edit summaries and userspace. Civility to be very broadly construed.
  • 1RR on all articles related to Canada and any Commonwealth monarchies (vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed
  • When engaged in conversation, is required to stick solely to content
  • When engaged in conversation, is required to respond to direct questions
  • Is required to abide by third-party neutral opinions

I would prefer that G2bambino voluntarily agree to restrictions, rather than having them imposed upon him via ArbCom. There is an overwhelming consensus that constant patterns of incivility and refusal to cooperate are poisonous to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, it is true that when G2bambino is not engaging in edit wars, POV pushing, or generally tendentious editing, he does contribute valuable content.

Description

G2bambino's behaviour boils down to the following:

  • Incivil and abusive behaviour, on both talk pages and in edit summaries
  • POV pushing on multiple articles
  • Refusal to cooperate in discussion
  • Repeated focusing of conversation away from content and on to users
  • Refusal to abide by third opinions and results of mediation

Evidence of disputed behavior

Diffs and explanation are below; in many cases I have linked simply to sections of talk pages to allow commenters to read for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Edit-warring

G2bambino's block log (please note: first block is actually here, for contentious POV page moves, followed by this not long after, as the first of many blocks for edit-warring) speaks largely for itself; this editor has a long history of edit-warring, and multiple blocks have not changed that.

For some current context: We are both currently under a 1RR restriction when it comes to 1) reverting anything I have done, 2) issues related to Canadian monarchy in general. He has violated this at least three occasions: here and here on Commonwealth realm on 2 October, and here and here at Coat of Arms of Canada on 1 October, and then here. Another editor makes a revision in between, and G2bambino revertshere. I reverted here then G2bambino reverts for the second time in violation of his restriction [1]. He then requires that I abide by the restrictions. This led to me being blocked, though the block was eventually lifted when Tiptoety realised it was not appropriate to block one person who had (mistakenly) violated restrictions while allowing the other person to get off.

Similar edit-warring can be found on multiple other pages.

Problematic edit-summaries

G2bambino frequently uses unproductive and uncivil edit summaries. He was first warned about doing so back in 2005, and has done nothing to change his ways since. Direct insults in edit summaries are not productive. Suggestions (in edit-summaries) that warnings or concerns will only be legitimate if others are admins are again unhelpful. [2] Hurling accusations of personal campaigns is again unhelpful. Persistently referring to these image allignments as unsightly in edit summaries were not helpful, [3] [4] [5], nor was hurling accusations of personal campaigns [6]. Then furthering it with assumptions of bad faith/incivility/implied personal attacks that others have problems with their eye-sight is another troubling issue [7].

Tendentious editor

Recently, there was a dispute on an article. If it had gone through an article RFC, the question would have been "Is the term 'personal union' an accurate descriptor of the relationships between the monarchies of the Commonwealth?" G2bambino believed that it was, but multiple reliable sources proved otherwise. I repeatedly requested G2bambino to provide sources to support the assertion - 23 requests later (each request and response can be found below), G2bambino finally came up with 1 source. Not only is it unreasonable to expect an editor to ask 23 times for a source, but both the manner of responding, as well as the substance of the responses, show clear problems of G2bambino engaging in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, distraction fallacies, tendentious argument etc., and the clear conflict with our content policies of verifiability and NPOV clearly was not a priority for G2bambino.

This was enough for Ncmvocalist to consider that G2bambino is a root problem to the ongoing conflict in the area, which spurred this post to AN. The diffs of the 23 requests for a source are below.

The conduct problems of this user seem to have begun very early on User_talk:Gbambino/archive1 and continued to be a problem today. Even more recent implied personal attacks/incivility/strong assumptions of bad faith [8].

Talk:Canada/Archive_17 shows multiple instances of questionable behaviour.

Talk:Autumn Phillips#Date format; especially responses to User:UpDown, User:Tony1, and User:JavierMC, amongst others (related MOS discussion by G2 here, containing the same attitude). Further examples of poor behaviour lower down on the page.

Talk:Monarchy of Australia, particularly this, particularly responses to lawe), as well as demonstrative of his general attitude that other users must justify edits, but he is exempt.

this, from 2007, which is towards the end of a long discussion, showing yet another user's observation that "...there is a difference between a thing's being unsatisfactory to you and its not being a compromise," and that G2's replies tend to be "unresponsive."

This edit, alluded to by Franamax, from 2005, which was more POV-pushing under a previous version of his username.

Talk:Republicanism in Australia, with the comment here, where he belittles lawe by asking if it's his nap time, and then complains in his next comment about lawe's ad hominems, or here, where he tells the same user "Don't be frightened, it isn't rocket science." The same attitude prevails here, where he prefers personal attacks to engaging the substance of lawe's points, including a sidelong attack at me, referring to me as "obsinant and uncooperative."

Talk:List of Canadian monarchs#Kingdom vs. Dominion, from 2007, showing more evasion/refusal to provide sources as well as alluding just above to yet another long-term conflict G2 was involved in (this time with TharkunColl.

This is an excellent example of general incivility problems.

This was a discussion I started with G2 in response to his edits after I did this, ensuring conformity of images with WP:ACCESS. He centred all images in the section (something I have seen nowhere else on WP), admitted that his edits were unnecessary (though, apparently, 'superior') and characterized my edits as a 'mess' on the talk page.

G2bambino started a MedCab case with me over the an image placement issue, and then stalled it because--his words--I didn't give up enough in the mediator's proposal to end the dispute.

G2bambino has explicitly said that discussing WP:CIVIL with him is pointless.

Here [9] we see someone's edit removed with the comment "unsourced; please provide citations". Not only is the request for sources tag is bypassed, the edit is accurately quoted and cited (6-Oct-2008).

Bad faith

More recently, G2bambino has engaged in bad-faith and pointy editing and refusal to cooperate on four separate articles, contravening WP:BRD. I will grant that on two of them he eventually relented, but has steadfastly refused to do so on two others. Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Images, again. - refusing to abide by BRD Talk:Prince William of Wales#Image - refusing to abide by BRD Talk:Prince Henry of Wales#Images here, now. - Eventually agreed, after initially refusing to cooperate. Template talk:British Royal Family#Latest edit - Eventually agreed

G2bambino had also maintained a section in his sandbox regarding me. He had removed it by agreement here as a display of good faith. He restored it a day later; the content is still in the page, 'hidden' by commenting it out.

Baiting/attacking of other editors --Lawe (talk) 1432h 17 October 2008 (UTC)

G2bambino will bait and accuse other editors - often quite overtly. Sometimes the editor will respond in a similar way, sometimes they remain cool. In either case, its unpleasant and compounds the difficulty in resolving minor issues. Nobody wants to reward this sort of behaviour.

Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:CIVIL
WP:CONSENSUS
WP:3RR
WP:BRD
WP:POINT
WP:EDIT WAR
WP:DISRUPT
WP:TE
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT
WP:NPOV

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. MedCab case that he started, and stalled.
  2. Attempts by several users to end the dispute at the Autumn Phillips page.
  3. Talk:Royal Burial Ground

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

See diffs above.
[[10]] -- users who felt they reached consenus find themselves back in debate again

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. — [ roux ] [x] 15:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mayalld (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tiptoety talk 16:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hersfold (t/a/c) 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lawe (talk) 12:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 07:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 03:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --UpDown (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JavierMC 00:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --soulscanner (talk) 05:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Franamax (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2008 (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.}

  • The majority of the above summary – including all its truths, misrepresentations, and errors – was already dealt with at WP:AN on October 9 of this year.
  • Bullets 2 and 3 of the proposed sanctions above were was also put forward at WP:AN, and did not gain majority support.
  • I (along with Roux (talk · contribs) am already on 1RR restrictions on all Canadian monarchy related articles.
  • What I took from the WP:AN discussion has already been made clear.
  • There have been no breaches on my part of any civility or revert policies since the WP:AN discussion.
  • Given the above, this request for comment and sanction might be construed as forum shopping.
  • Though the notion was turned down by Roux (talk · contribs), I have been, and continue to be, open to a joint RfC/U (or some other form of mediation) if it will lead to an end to this conflict between us.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --G2bambino (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Gavin (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Cameron* 12:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC) With the exception of the second last bullet.[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.}

Outside view by User:Msa1701

Disagreements in the Past

We have had a few disagreements in the past about the SS France and some of his fuel consumption equasions in comparission to the SS Normandie which resulted in another Wikipedian intervening over changing articles back to his favor. there is no littery proof in the statements and his statements are still in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Msa1701 (talk • contribs)


I left the statement above last night - Friday 17th October 2008 about the SS France article and i received an Wikipedia message from G2bambino and hour later stating he had forgotten to add more of his info to the article. I have no idea if he is trying to be helpfull to the website or being childish.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. msa1701 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse first statement, no comment on second statement. [ roux ] [x] 17:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Mayalld

Having interacted with this user in a Medcab case (mentioned above), I intend to offer a view, but this will not be until next week Mayalld (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My only involvement with G2Bambino was as a MEDCAB mediator on a recent dispute between him and User:PrinceOfCanada (now User:Roux).

Without recounting the entire case, its focus was on image placement. G2Bambino was seeking to place images in a way that optimised articles for higher resolution displays, without regard for the difficulty in reading that this presented to users of low resolution displays. PrinceOfCanada was seeking to optimise for low-resolution displays, without regard for the unreasonable amounts of white space that would be introduced on higher resolution displays. There were also a number of civility issues to be tackled.

The case sought to find a middle way, which (of necessity) would mean that neither would write to suit their favourite screen size, but both would have to accept that pages needed to suit middle sized screens, and that it would not be possible to get perfect display on extreme screens whilst keeping an acceptable display at the other extreme.

PrinceOfCanada accepted the compromise, but G2Bambino refused, claiming that ploicy supported him. In truth his position depended on a very personal and slanted reading of what policy said on the matter.

It appeared that G2Bambino had brought the MEDCAB case convinced that he was right, and looking to be vindicated 100%, and that absent that, he wasn't going to accept the outcome.

The case also involved a lack of civility on both sides, and both sides tendered apologies, and removed content from their user pages that could be construed as an attack on the other.

Regrettably, G2Bambino restored the disputed content pretty soon afterwards (although it was commented out in the page source), which I cannot accept as the actions of somebody who is trying, in good faith to resolve a dispute. In particular, the fact that one of the first actions taken by G2Bambino upon being notified of the RFC was to uncomment the offending text, and restore the attack page, strikes me as particularly poor behaviour, and lacking in good faith.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Mayalld (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. [ roux ] [x] 13:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Lawe (talk) 10:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by Neurologic

I'll keep this short, I've gone through the diffs, and history, and while there are significant positive contributions, it seems there is an overwhelming negative output here on part of User:G2bambino. Dogmatism in his editing isn't really helpful to the project "I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion." attitudes push us back not forward, in my opinion. Clearly this isn't a one sided issue, however I see more negativity and WP:CIVIL violations on part of this user than others involved in the dispute. Just my .02¢

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Neuro√Logic 16:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. [ roux ] [x] 16:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mayalld (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --soulscanner (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Gazzster

My experience of G2Bambino is that he is passionate about his topic. Sometimes he skimps on referencing, and sometimes avoids facing the conclusions of a particular argument. He can be dogmatic. But by the gods, aren't we all guilty of that? We have had lengthy and mostly enjoyable discussions. Sometimes they become acrimonious, but I would say these occasions were just as might my fault as his (or hers - why do we assume Wikiusers r always gentlemen?) However, when we both persevere with each other we do end up in a good place. I respect him (yes, you r probably a man!) I don't think you will cure any foibles he or she may have by this process. The rules already in place: re 3RR, referencing, etc, are strong enough to judge any editorial action. If there are serious and repeated violations an admin can deal with individual infringements case by case. But if anyone throws a stone, mind it doesn't come back and hit them. Cheers.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Gazzster (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by GoodDay

I wish this RFC/U wouldn't have occured, as I was hoping for a RFC. Anyways, passions & personality conflicts is how I see the disputing between G2bambino & those who are frustrated with G2's approach to discussions. IMHO, a 1-month wiki-break from the Commonwealth monarchies related articles would do all combatants a world of good.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Cameron* 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC) I'm taking a break myself. It's just not a nice working atmosphere. --Cameron* 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Gavin (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View of soulscanner

I would request that a committee of unbiased administrators carefully examine the disputes that G2 has been involved in. No one is truely innocent in any of these disputes, but I strongly suspect that G2 is pushing the envelope in terms of pushing his personal POV. It's low level incivility, no doubt, put it's persistence and tenaciousness makes it worth researching.

I have reserved a certain amount of judgement until now, but the summary above rings true in my dealings with G2. His edit warring, tendentious editing, and difficult-to-trace flouting of Wiki conventions leave the good-faith editor infuriated and questioning his own good faith. He has even driven low-level administrators crazy with labyrinths of stealthy and tendentious edits that are impossible to trace without lengthy research.

I and many other editors have given up on Wikipedia largely because of G2's bullish POV pushing of a legitimate but mostly marginal monarchist position. Seeing this behavior go unchecked is demoralizing, and has contributed to the departure of many fine editors, who, while strongly committed to the populist ideals of Wikipedia, valued their marriages, jobs, sleep, and sanity far more. Despite G2's contributions in filling up pages with text, the departure of these fine editors has likely, on the balance, hurt Wikipedia more than G2's contributions have helped it.

G2 is the type of editor that gives Wikipedia its undeserved reputation as a place where you can write anything, and given enough determination, get away with it. By inserting a strongly biased position in the articles he edits and hawkishly maintaining them solely by the virtue that he has more time to spend editing than others, he is decreasing the quality of wikipedia. His belligerence and outright refusal to acknowledge legtitimate, scholarly, verifiable sources (he deletes sources, buries the deletions in a strings of unrelated edits, misrepresents their meaning) adds to a toxic environment that makes it impossible to reasonably discuss good-faith edits.

The most recent exchanges can be documented Canada#Government_and_politics section. The edits happened between May 13 and May 22[11].

There have been extensive discussions on the subject on the discussion page[12][13]. Despite various pleadings, the references disappear, the quotes are altered, or the statements they support are deleted. I've once again restored balanced references to the article[14]. It will be interesting to see if they stick.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --soulscanner (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mayalld (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. [ roux ] [x] 15:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tiptoety talk 14:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ThePointblank (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — neuro(talk) 20:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This stuff seems to keep happening. Franamax (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ... and will continue to happen --Lawe (talk) 10:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Lonewolf BC (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Gavin Scott

How many times has Roux tried to take someform of action against G2 now? This is a crusade I feel and the fact of the matter is both users are equally at fault. A dispute between one user and another CANNOT become a basis for RfC's over and over, an enforced wikibreak from all Canadian, Monarchy (British) and Commonwealth articles on both Roux and G2 could perhaps help stem this unending flow of reports by Roux.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Gavin (talk) 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

Per a discussion on WP:AN here, G2bambino has agreed to self-imposed restrictions for a period of six months, as an act of good faith. The specific restrictions are:

  • The restrictions are to last for 6 months for G2bambino and 2 months for roux, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the six month limit. The starting time of these restrictions will be as of this time stamp 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
  • 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.
  • Both editors when editing, are required to stick solely to guidelines and gain consensus for any unique interpretations of existing guidelines and/or implementation of new ones, again to be broadly construed.
  • Both editors when editing are required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator.
  • Both editors on article talk pages are required to stick solely to content.

All of these things here are things that good editors should do by default. I know I'm the one that started this proposal, but as both parties have agreed to the restrictions and the majority of community members posting here have agreed with the modified proposal) it is a fairly obvious close. Please direct comments below. —— nixeagle 04:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment or input is necessary on this RfC/U. I have agreed to the same restrictions. [ roux ] [x] 03:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/G2bambino&oldid=1147942295"