Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman

Since this RFC was re-opened a week ago there have been no substantive edits to either the RFC itself or the talk page. The only position added at all is in opposition to the RFC itself, and has an equal number of endorsements as the basis for the certification of the RFC does. I see little option other than to close this RFC as No consensus/lack of interest. If these perceived problems should re-surface in the future, a new RFC may be filed or other dispute resolution pursued as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: The user who is the subject of this discussion has elected to leave the project, making any sort of voluntary agreement on these matters both impossible and moot. Therefore this RFC is placed on indefinite hold, it may be re-opened should they return in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Now re-opened per request on talk page. Again, this is a purely procedural administrative action and is not an endorsement of any particular position. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: 18:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:35, 6 September 2024 (UTC).

• Shakehandsman (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.

Shakehandsman appears to be ignoring WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. It is possible that this is motivated by a particular political agenda.

The desired outcome of this RFC is a clear agreement from Shakehandsman that they will follow the core policies of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. (I suspect that a topic ban on any articles pertaining to feminism or women's issues is in order, but I'm not willing to put in the work to make that happen.)

I removed a section detailing minor driving offences from the biography of Yasmin Qureshi, who is British MP. Note that Qureshi is a Muslim female of Pakistani origin. I noticed that the editor who had restored that information to the article, Shakehandsman, had been working extensively on Murder of Ross Parker‎, an article about the racist murder of a white youth by a group of Pakisanti Muslim youths. I started a thread on the BLP noticeboard, asking users to have a look at the two articles. Shakehandsman replied to note that driving offences were also in the articles of Ed Balls (Labour) and Chris Huhne (Liberal Democrat). Shakehandsman has been involved in editing both of those sections ([1] & [2]), although I have not checked if they are the originator.

Deciding to take a closer look at Shakehandsman's contributions, I discovered that along with creating Murder of Ross Parker‎, they had also created Murder of Lakhvinder Cheema an article on a British man murdered by his female, Anglo-Indian lover. Shakehandsman also created Rekha Kumari-Baker, an article on an British woman of Indian origin who murdered her children. Many of Shakehandsman's recent contributions appear to be related to murders committed by females. It is worth noting the statement of his user talk page:"Please bear in mind that I really don't appreciate sexism or those with a record of anti-gender equality contributions (particularly if working together in organised groups). Regrettably, due to the present biases on Wikipedia, anyone with a gender feminist outlook or background is respectfully asked not to post here please. For the avoidance of doubt anyone involved in gender studies is included in this request unless there is evidence of neutral editing or they reject current prevailing gender studies ideologies."

More troubling is the creation of "coatrack" articles used to spread negative information:

• Laurence Westgaph is a black British historian with a particular interest in slavery. Shakehandsman created the article using sources relating to an assault conviction (for which Westgaph received a suspended sentence).
• Driving without due care and attention is an article created by Shakehandsman using sources about charges laid against a female Labour politician.
• Shakehandsman created Scottish Women's Aid, about a "feminist" domestic violence shelter (see also Eaves Housing for Women) then added negative information about a minor incident involving refusing a donation amounting to an estimated £1 000.
• Peter Jepson and Roger Dyas-Elliott were involved in a lawsuit against the Labour party. Shakehandsman created redirects for each to All-women shortlists and proceeded to add categories (such as "living person") to the redirects. Note that these men were excluded from being Labour candidates due to the use of all-women shortlists intended to increase the proportion of female candidates.

Although each of the issues could be dealt with separately, there appears to be a pattern of negative edits in reference to specific groups. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: - I have been attempting to sort out some BLP and NPOV issues with Murder of Ross Parker, an article created by Shakehandsman about the racially-motivated murder of a white youth. It has come to my attention that Shakehandsman created redirects to this article in the name of each of the convicted, with Category:British Muslims. This is a violation of WP:BLPCAT, which requires that subjects explicitly self-identify before categories identifying religious or sexual identities can be added. In addition to this, the redirects are also categorized as "hate crimes", which is clearly an invalid category for an article or redirect in a person's name. It appears that the same situation exists for redirects to Murder of Kriss Donald. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have long had concerns about Shakehandsman's BLP and POV editing. I first encountered SHM, I believe, on the All women shortlists article in October 2009 largely written by SHM, where I noted on the talkpage problems with neutrality and original research.observed on the talkpage.

Since then, I've run into the editor several times, often via noticeboard postings by other editors. I have also noted ongoing concerns expressed and warnings given by other editors and administrators, and intervened at several points, only to be banned by SHM until my conduct improved.[3] These problems often involve BLP and NPOV issues particularly in articles about Labour politicians (women in particular), feminists and feminism, and in the context of racial issues. There have also been problems with verifiability including use of poor sources, especially for BLPs such as using such as using Daily Mail, and even a Daily Mail headline as a source.[4][5]at RSN

For this RFC/U I have examined all Shakehandsman's article edits in the last two months, and all BLP articles in particular. The results can be found here: User:Slp1/2draft. As can be seen, there is indeed a focus on women, Labour politicians, journalists and feminists, and many of the major edits involve the addition of negative information about controversies of various sorts. There were also a great many WP:COATRACK edits about two murder cases where there was a white victim. There continue to be problems with sourcing and misquoting of sources, though I confess I only checked a few article for sourcing issues.

Otherwise, Shakehandsman edits prolifically, and often very helpfully. SHM is interested in sports and makes many good edits there. There are also many excellent non-contentious edits to other articles, including BLPs. Also on the plus side, SHM gracefully accepted the removal of material per UNDUE [6] on Diane Coyle, and on this talkpage correctly advised an IP to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry and attacks on living people when discussing Michael Flood [7]. --Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(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.)

1. Laurence Westgaph - article created using references pertaining to subject's criminal charges
2. Driving without due care and attention - article created using reference pertaining to charge against harriet Harman, UK politician
3. Peter Jepson - article created as a redirect to All-women shortlists. Categories added after creating redirect - "Living people", "People from Oldham", "University College London", "Alumni of Ruskin College", "Liberal Party (UK) politicians", "Labour Party (UK) councillors", and "Councillors in Greater Manchester". (Jepson was involved in a lawsuit pertaining to the Labour Party's use of all-women shortlists in the mid-90s.)
4. Roger Dyas-Elliott - same as Jepson above
5. Scottish Women's Aid - began life innocuously enough, but Shakehandsman soon added negative information about the organisation rejecting funds raised by the sale of a semi-nude calendar.
6. Addition of negative link ("The bearded Lib Dem Lothario, young Russian girls and his very long-suffering wife: MP at centre of spy game fits profile for 'honeytrap'") to source Labour MP's place of residence. (Note that the source is the Daily Mail which Shakehandsman has been warned about using as a source in BLPs).
7. Adding redundant reference to Ken Livingstone in order to add negative article ("Ken Livingstone fathered two children in weeks")
8. Added the category Category:British people convicted of theft to British Jamaican poet Benjamin Zephaniah (here) and mixed-race television presenter Ashley Blake (here), bringing the category's membership to a total of 11.
9. Patricia Hewitt [8][9]: note the editorializing to push a push of view, even when sources are present- a very old edit, one of many of a similar type, but one indicates the point of view being pushed.
10. Kathryn Smith - created an article about this non-notable politician, focussing mainly on drink-driving convictions: the article was deleted at AFD with multiple editors citing BLP concerns [10].
11. Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt- in September 2010 restores claims of pedophile links[11][12] determined to be clearly undue blp violations WP:BLPN [13] and his talkpage[14]. Despite this, adds similar coatrack information in September 2011 to another article. [15]
12. Harriet Harman- restores the category cat:British criminal and cat:English criminal to this article [16]. The topic was discussed on BLPN [17] with arbitrator Newyorkbrad saying that the edit was in his view a "blatant BLP and UNDUE violation" [18]
13. Warned for BLP concerns by administrator Cailil [19], administrator Sandstein [20] and myself [21][22] for saying (on talkpages) that certain scholars are "well known extreme feminist male misandrists", "the most sexist male feminist going" and alleging [23] and alleging (incorrectly) that one of these two had removed "last trace of criticism and controversy" in their wikipedia article.[24][25].
14. Helen Clark. Restores the material [26] which have been removed consequent to an OTRS complaint from the subject [27]discussion which is then removed yet again.[28]
15. In the last two months, edits 4 articles about Labour politicians, three of them women. Adds negative information to 3/4.[29][30][31] [32]
16. In the last two months edits 5 articles about BBC and Guardian journalists, 4/5 of them women. Negative information added to 4/5.[33][34][35][36][37] [38] (this last sourced to unreliable sources)
17. In November 2011, edits to Diane Coyle Vice Chairman of the BBC Trust receive multiple complaints from the subject,[39][40][41][42][43]. Section deleted by administrator User:TenOfAllTrades with the edit summary "removed horrible "Political views" section for WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE issues"[44]
18. In November and December 2011, coatracking about two cases with a white victim including creating Edwin Jowitt of Northampton_Crown_Court, and added text to[45][46][47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60].

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

1. WP:BLP
2. WP:NPOV

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Yasmin Qureshi
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Laurence Westgaph
• Warning and discussion on Shakehandsman's talk page about a similar incident in May 2011
• Discussion on talk page of Helen Clark (UK politician) (female, Labour) about OTRS request concerning negative edits
• another discussion on the same talk page

1. WP:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Yasmin_Qureshi
2. WP:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#Laurence Westgaph
3. Talk:Murder of Ross Parker#"Hunting party?"

I'd agree that Shakehandsman's contributions have show significant problems with BLP and NPOV over a very long period. Unfortunately, real-life constraints means that I won't be able to detail the evidence fully in the short-term, but I will add some of my reasons for concern above, and will add other issues at a later date, by Saturday evening at the latest. I have personally attempted to resolve the dispute on [61][62]. So has Off2riorob, repeatedly, but we have now been banned from Shakehandsman's talkpage for our efforts. see User:Shakehandsman .--Slp1 (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Keristrasza claims this is content dispute, and that it has not been appropriately certified because I was involved in a different content dispute with Shakehandsman. This is not the case. It is a dispute about the Shakehandsman's user conduct, namely BLP and NPOV compliance. In that dispute I have long been involved and concerned; as evidenced by Shakehandsman banning me from his talkpage for pointing out problematic edits. This is an editor who has warnings about BLP issues from multiple admins and editors over a long period of time (see above) and continues on the same path. Accusations of harassment and excess scrutiny cannot and should not be made to when editors have good faith, legitimate concerns. See WP:HARASS. And believe me, there are significant problems here.--Slp1 (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Slp1 (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I also have had, for the last two years, some of the same worries and objections to User:Shakehandsman's contributions in regards to BLP issues, especially in regards to female all women shortlist candidates and female labour party politicians in general and a focus on his adding what can be described as negative attacking content inflated beyond its actual NPOV importance. - Personally, although I have issues with his contributions I am not sure if the case above is well enough laid out or comprehensive enough as presented so far. As recent cases have shown us, a user that has a strong POV about an issue or a group of people that skirts the edges of policy can continue inserting the weight of his POV into articles for a long time before the community deals with them. I have to say, User:Shakehandsman is quite clever in advancing and using en wikipedia for propagation of his POV. I have seen similar actions before but much more developed and professional than his. - that user is now banned from BLP editing. I have seen him add to Harriet Harman (a feminist and according to his statements a living person whose views he is opposed to) undue weight to minor criminal charges and then to further push undue weight he has then created a crime category to add her to, and then created an article for the crime, and then linked to your article where he used a citation that named specifically her, was totally about about her, to cite the details of the crime in the crime article. Edits that result in the three dimensional use of the project against a living person that he is an opponent of, a feminist. His deliberate association of Harman in that crime article can be seen in the edit history here, as his contributions are currently under a bit of raised awareness, User:Drmies removed the citation in question this morning and as it appeared on my watchlist I added a NPOV non living person specific citation to replace the one added by Shakeshandman that Drmies quite correctly removed.Youreallycan (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. The pattern and focus of BLP violations is concerning. --JN466 17:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. WP:BLP is a brightline policy designed to protect this project. As the policy reads: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy." Adding material based mainly on negative tabloid material is a very serious matter. While it is appropriate to add well sourced negative information on public figures (where due and appropriate) wikipedia articles are not an excercise in "naming and shaming" - criticism (and praise) is to be handled conservatively and given only its due weight. Rob's evidence, as well as SLP1s and DC's, illustrates a pattern of behaviour not compatible with either the letter or the spirit of the BLP policy--Cailil ^talk 16:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Should it be required I'm happy to debunk the "evidence" and list of random accusations above. I would like to make it abundantly clear that given that almost all the "evidence" presented is either false, meaningless or actaully reflects well on me then I therefore come to the conclusion that this RFC constitutes harassment by those involved in creating and endorsing it and it is the the final straw in a pattern of harassment and incivility towards me by all three. Readers should please be aware of the behaviour of the three parties involved in starting this RFC. In particular the conduct of Delicious carbuncle over the last 48 hours and the long-standing incivility by Off2riorob/Youreallycan towards myself and the differing views on equality between myself and Slp1. There is no "ongoing issue" other than harassment of myself by all the parties involved and I would like that to cease.

I'll just quickly introduce myself in a more neutral tone to above for those who don't know me. I've been here for over five years now, I have an entirely clean block record in all that time, 9,000+ edits and I finally got round to creating my first good article this week.
My interests include the media, politics and equality issues and i also fight vandalism. I have no "agenda" and I spend my time here creating high quality articles relating to the topics that interest me fully in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I will address each item in turn, and add a sentence at the end of each summarising what occurred.

1. Laurence Westgaph - article is not simply sourced to "pertaining to subject's criminal charges". A wide variety of sources are used (ten) and therefore the accusation is false. DC did argue that the sourcing for the bankruptcy wasn't sufficiently reliable and I therefore immediately removed said information myself.[63] Minor issue existed, I resolved it myself volunterily.
   
2. Article was created in order to fill a red link elsewhere. It was primarily sourced to a UK government website. No other ref existed to support one particular item. I haven't disputed the removal of the ref. No issue exists.
   
3. I don't even understand what the problem is supposed to be here? All the information is true and the redirect is entirely appropriate. Commendable editing surely? "these men were excluded from being Labour candidates due to the use of all-women shortlists intended to increase the proportion of female candidates" So what??? Anyone writing and endorsing this as evidence either fails to understand Wikipedia rules completely or is simply harassing me and time wasting. No issue exists or ever did.
   
4. See no. 3. No issue exists or ever did.
   
5. A perfectly well sourced article which covers a notable controversy that occurred, all reference to reliable sources. DC and Slp1 seem to be taking the view that all articles should be one-sided and entirely positive affairs free from balance. No issue exists or ever did.
6. I have not been "warned" that the Daily Mail should not be used as a reference in articles. Off2riorob/Youreallycan suggested it should to be used for controversial claims I asked for proof of his claim and he promised to provide this but failed to do so. I then discovered he was consistently falsely referring to the publication as a "red-top", a violation of policy, despite being told not to do so. See here for more info.[64] I have since managed to find some discussion on the matter myself, but this isn't used for any sort of controversial claim anyway, as Slp1 and DC state, it is simply for sourcing his residence. That is not contorversial. No issue exists or ever did.
   
7. I made the perfectly appropriate addition of the fact the Mr Livingstone resides in North London.[65] The ref added was for supporting this fact and not remotely "redundant" whatsoever. I don't' recall finding any other reliable source for his residence. No issue exists or ever did.
   
8. "Mixed-race" (why is that even there?) BBC presenter Ashley Blake is both British and someone convicted of theft. He has no less than six such convictions and these facts are fully sourced. I therefore quite naturally added him to the category "British people convicted of theft". I'm not sure how many convictions Delicious carbuncle and Slp1 require for inclusion there. If the category has insufficient numbers of people for their liking I suggest they do further work populating it as i myself have already done. No issue exists or ever did.
   
9. An minor breach from 4 and a half years ago when I was a very inexperienced editor without anything like the knowledge, and abilities I have today (although i joined in 2006 I didn't really do much editing until the following year). The content still largely remains in place today, with much of the text the same. The fact editors are delving right back to the very beginning of my editing here for apparent evidence says it all really. Very minor issue once existed 4.5 years ago and has long since been resolved without any problems whatsoever.
   
10. An admin voted "weak keep" at the AFD, therefore suggesting although perhaps a borderline article , the need for deletion was not as clear cut as suggested above and some notability clearly existed. It's perhaps worth pointing out that I certainly got more support there than DC has received in any of his attempts to delete my contributions, though editors are of course free to both create and try to delete whatever articles they wish anyway as long as they do so within appropriate policies and guidelines.
    
11. Now this is a rather interesting case. Essentially there was a long standing dispute at the Harman and Hewitt articles with a number of parties arguing in favour of mentioning their controversial work at NCCL and almost as many editors opposed.[66][67] The disputes went on for some time with neither side willing to compromise in the slightest. Out of all the editors involved as was the only one to suggest and implement a compromise, which involved instead covering the issue at the NCCL and PIE articles rather than within BLPs. I would argue this shows mature and conscientious editing on my part , a willingness to find solutions and a willingness to compromise. Rather than me being the cause any problems it's an example of me putting significant effort and thought in to solve them. My ideas were later endorsed by admin User:Rich_Farmbrough. A significant disagreement existed between a number of parties and i was the only person able to resolve it. Also please note the troubling attempt to close the discussion through premature archiving by Off2riorob/Youreallycan
    
12. Even more interesting case than 11 but similar. Longstanding disputes featuring multiple editors existed regarding placing British politicians into various criminal categories and others removing them. I single handedly resolved this dispute by creating the category "British Politicians convicted of Crimes". 50 pages are now found in this category and most of the additions are my contributions. A process that took countless hours of editing and research. Contrary to the suggestions of political bias on my part, I added politicians from almost ever single British political party, such as the Conservatives [68], Labour [69], BNP [70], UKIP [71], Liberal [72]. My research went back hundreds of years [73] and I challenge any editor to find a more comprehensive, accurate and neutral list of such people. Issue existed, I resolved it single handedly, creating a high quality and comprehensive resource in the process.
    
13. Much of the warning I was given concerned making a comment about a person which was already to found in their Wikipedia article, and was fully sourced. The quote exists in the article to this day. As for the Flood article, I (along with many others) have abandoned all attempts to add balance to it, and I have previously stated as such.

Conduct of those bringing this case

This editor has engaged in a personal attack against me in the last 48 hours [74] which they refused to remove even after being asked to do so twice by an uninvolved admin[75][76]. They had Wikihounded me, deleting sourced material[77], and submitted two articles I created for deletion[78][79], neither of which has received any support by an editor whatsoever and the consensus being that one was "time-wasting"/ dubious" / "a waste of space". In a more recent interaction they stated "I am going to assume that your comment is facetious".[80] and they suggested I was a "lady" in an edit summary.[81] An ANI is currently open regarding this conduct. No apologies have been forthcoming for any of the more serious offences, although to be fair i did receive one for the more minor indiscretion of deletion of the sourced material.

Repeated incivility and false accusations about my conduct over a long time period. Generally jumps to conclusions about any issue involving me without checking evidence first. The editor was asked not to post on my talk page following a number of incidents but was then allowed to post again following a full apology which was great fully received. However he soon reverted back to old patterns and was therefore once again politely asked not to post there. Other habits include repeatedly misquoting my words. Evidence: [82][83][84][85][86][87] Also see below for further incivility and rule breaking.

In the above text Slp1 makes a big deal out of my decision to ask her not to post on her talk page. What she fails to mention is that she was the first to initiate such a request against me. I rigidly kept to this requirement but did not appreciate her continuing behaviour, nor the double standard so eventually made the same request in reverse.[88] That's not to criticise Slp1's initial request, I agree it was a good idea, I was just seeking some fairness. She also neglects my entirely reasonable conduct toward off2riorob/Youreallycan, whereby he was warmly welcomed back to my talk page [89] and the same option was open to Slp1 (though after this latest set-back I'll now have to withdraw that option I'm afraid). Anyway, contrary to Slp1's claim above, the bans were put in places not for their "efforts" but for their conduct. My concerns regarding her editing are perhaps best illustrated in the talk pages of the Fathers' rights movement page and her editing of that article.[90][91]. Perhaps most of all, it troubles me greatly that someone with administrative privileges has endorsed the so called evidence above and aligned themselves with these two other parties.

It would appear that the editors above have a tendency to seek out confrontation with me. I endeavour to be the opposite of this and my track record here shows I have the ability to remain calm and civil and to move on. I wish to have no contact from any of the 3 editors above and would like to be able to get back to creating Good articles rather than having my experience here ruined by a small minority.

I've said all i have to say on this matter now. I think this case highlights some of the more general problems in Wikipedia. In particular editors and admins really do need to be more aware of harassment issues please as it isn't a pleasant experience at all. Many thanks to User:Keristrasza for their comments and excellent analysis and also to User:Exok for their support. Please close this ridiculous case now.

1. --Shakehandsman (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Slp1 certifies this RfC on the basis of diffs relating to January 2011. The policy is quite clear: "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." On these grounds, the RfC has failed to receive the required certification that two users have attempted to resolve this dispute (which is basically DC alleging that Shakehandsman is creating "a series of articles about bad things done by brown people.") There are also many other disputes tagged on to this RfC, all of which would appear to have been resolved and so have no place here.

DC's complaint is also a shopping list of differences of opinion, which some might consider a case of "throwing enough mud." Take Harriet Harman, for example: DC draws attention to Newyorkbrad saying "blatant BLP and UNDUE violation" ... but when I just checked the page, I see Harman is in the category of 'British politicians convicted of crimes' - a sub-category of 'British criminals'! So all the hoo-ha at the time was merely a question of semantics which would appear now to be resolved.

This RfC should not have been raised. The guidelines clearly state: "Disputes over article content, including disputes over how best to follow the neutral point of view policy, follow a different process." Further, I am not entirely convinced that this RfC is not the result of a longstanding grudge between ALL parties "brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary." This lingering uncertainty is based on DC's simultaneous - completely unwarranted - AfD nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Lakhvinder Cheema which seems to have been made purely because Shakehandsman had created it (over a year ago).

This RfC should be closed as a formality due to failure to adhere to the guidelines. RfC is not the venue for content/NPOV disputes. Keristrasza (talk) 18:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Keristrasza (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Exok (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Shakehandsman (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Post-48 hours Slp1 adds an addendum. So shall I. It seems that these disputes dating back over 12 months are all resolved disputes. Raising them a year after they have been resolved is not cricket. Looking at the shopping list of complaints, the majority are resolved. In many cases Shakehandsman's edits that are being highlighted here as problematic are edits which still stand, implying that the original complaints about them were erroneous, rather than the edits themselves. And no, I didn't say this was solely a content issue, I said it was a content/npov issue. Which it clearly is. This RfC should be closed immediately. Keristrasza (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"is not cricket"? What does that mean? Kaldari (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{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:

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.