Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr

It is probably unusual to advance a RFC/U on someone with relatively few edits. However, Rtmcrrctr has not responded positively to any attempt to question his repeated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL issues, instead maintaining a pure WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude. In addition, the user's editing history shows clearly that he has no interest in anything other than political fights. I suggest that WP:POLD and WP:AGENDA are both highly relevant. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time I've used or been involved with RFC/U, so I'm honestly not aware of the norms. Why are people saying it's wrong to bring this up for a relatively new user? Given that the user has ignored repeated requests to tone it down, what else should I have done? Homunq (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U is generally used for long term problems with a user - you are inviting the entire community to scrutinise the user. It can create a terrible atmosphere and often causes users to retire. Generally it's considered a final step before taking a user with a history of problems to Arbitration. There are many better fora to sort this, specific to the offence. So, Dispute resolution noticeboard for a content dispute, Admin's Edit warring noticeboard for edit warring problems. There's also administrators noticeboard for incidents for a specific incident. You could recommend the person ask questions at the teahouse, or start a Request for comment on part of the article, without singling him out. Indeed, on the Paul Ryan article, you could have requested sanctions based due to the topic being under discretionary sanctions. All of which would have been better than an RfC/U. Worm^TT(talk) 15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But I did want to single out this user's behavior. The article is tense and battle lines are noticeable, but the rest of the editors mostly manage to keep things civil and productive. This user in particular makes the situation consistently worse with a constant failure to WP:AGF, persistent edit warring, and repeated argument from WP:TRUTH. So, of all of your suggestions, I guess ANI and suggesting sanctions are the only ones that seem to me to fit; and I feel that the latter would not help the atmosphere at the article itself.

So, I now understand that RFC/U can be a harsh place in some cases. But given the relative newness of this user, I think/hope that the outside voices who comment here will be relatively easy on Rtmcrrctr. As long as Rtmcrrctr is made to clearly understand AGF and TRUTH coming out of this, then, problem solved. I'm not convinced that there's really a better place for that to happen.

Should I clarify along those lines on the page, not just here in talk? Homunq (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe civility or lack of AGF is the issue, then WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to go for specific incidents, or WP:Administrators' noticeboard or WP:Wikiquette assistance for general patterns. For edit warring incidents, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Otherwise it should be dealt with on the talk page, which it is being. You have an admin there helping out, I see, TParis. Could you not have asked him for advice? As I say, this is the wrong place for this - as the comments on the RfC so far have shown. Worm^TT(talk) 07:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I came here at what I thought was TParis's advice: "The thing that helps me the most is, I look at my opponents and I say "That guy is trying to do the right thing and improve Wikipedia." If you cannot say that about someone, then it's time you start an WP:RFC/U about that person because they've consistently proven otherwise and it's time for the community to discuss. But an RFC/U takes an abundance of evidence about a person's intentions. You can't infer someone's intentions over a small (large in scale, small in scope) issue like this. So discuss, try dispute resolution, seek consensus. If there are behavior issues, WP:RFC/U." I realize that this suggestion was qualified, but I felt that this user met the bar. Certainly, TP suggested none of the other options you bring up. Homunq (talk) 13:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that so? I will have a word. Worm^TT(talk) 13:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: TP was not talking specifically about Rtmcrrctr. (Actually, this is the second time I'd heard the suggestion of RFC/U in relation to this article, when I don't recall having heard of it before in my years as a wikipedian. At the AN/I on this article, there was a discussion of SS247's behavior, and someone said that RFC/U was a better place for that sort of thing than AN/I. Again, this didn't relate to Rtmcrrctr, but it was a factor in my deciding to take this path.) Homunq (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right. That makes more sense - it would have helped to provide a diff of his comments. You will probably notice that TParis specifically said "consistently proven otherwise", in situations where the editor's comments can not be seen in good faith. Now, I refuse to look into this case in detail whilst the RfC/U is on, because I believe this is a "sledgehammer to crack an egg" situation and I want nothing to do with that, but if it were closed, I would willing to investigate further and offer real solutions, be they sanctions or nudges in the right direction. That's the best I can do. Worm^TT(talk) 14:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm considering that; see below (currently last section) Homunq (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, we have both been participants in these disputes. You have every right to comment, but I suggest you change your "outside view" to a "view". Homunq (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true of little green rosetta. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  16:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I will. My participation in this article is minuscule. I've never interacted with the accused. But when I saw someone being frog marched here in part by an editor who consistently mangles every policy and guideline he spews forth, I felt obligated to investigate.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I brought up WP:NPA, would you say I'm mangling that too? You're certainly haven't gone beyond any bright lines with that comment, but I still feel the venom is uncalled-for. Homunq (talk) 15:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the confusion. You are not the editor whom I'm referring to as "in part" and I did not mean to imply you are the mangler. That of course is ISS. Once again, I apologize for the confusion.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  16:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. However, I still think the original comment was unnecessarily harsh. ISS's conduct isn't the issue here, and even if it were, there are better ways to express your opinion on it. Homunq (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking it over, I don't think SS is the "primary instigator", and there's a third endorser who has a better reputation. If you were to asset that the third endorser also has a questionable reputation, with citations, then I might by reconsider removing my endorsement of your view. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Collect was referring to me as the "primary complainant"; and they're right, I started this RFC/U and I have been involved in these disputes as much as anyone. Still, I think bringing allegedly questionable activities by SS247 into this is a distraction. Also, Collect doesn't mention that they themselves have been a participant in this issue. (singular they - don't know gender) Homunq (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the term to "secondary". And where a person is alleging major disruption by a user with all of 74 edits, their own behaviour is absolutely germane. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This defense would be much more convincing if he weren't an WP:SPA. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know all to well about SPA I would say. --Mollskman (talk) 02:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With most editors, no matter how much harm they do to a particular article, they can point to a long record of positive edits, from reverting vandalism to fixing grammar. Rtmcrrctr doesn't have this going for him; most of his edits are to one article and they're primarily harmful. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pot. Kettle. Black. You have a long record of edits. The adjective needs verification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I have a variety of edits that have nothing to do with politics, or that unambiguously improve articles. With this guy, all we know is that he made a mess on Paul Ryan. We have no reason to believe there's anything more to him than that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bluelinking that essay StillStanding. Can I just ask you to point out where it suggests that an RfC/U is a good way to deal with an Single purpose account? I'm only curious, because all I can find that is relevant in the handling section is

Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time.

In otherwords, the essay completely disagrees with your position. Worm^TT(talk) 07:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm on record saying that RFC/U isn't a good way to deal with anything. Wikipedia lacks functional mechanisms to rehabilitate poor behavior or resolve content disputes, and this is no exception. There is no good way, just the way we have. I was asked to cosign this RFC/U and I did because I could only agree with the opening statement.

In my opinion, Rtmcrrctr is a spectacularly unpromising editor whose short career has been primarily destructive. If this can be fixed, great. If there's no cure but giving up on him, then that may still be better than letting him damage that one article that he's fixated upon. I'm also on record generally opposing blocks and bans, but there are exceptions. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with SS-247 on that. I would not have brought this up for RFC/U myself at this stage (mostly because I think RFC/U is completely useless), but there is no question that Rtm's behavior in his relatively short experience is terrible—on par with Belchfire—and he's completely fixated on one article. He should be encouraged to take a break and work on something more productive. —Kerfuffler  harass
stalk  08:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I created this RFC/U because I thought the community was capable of making certain standards of behavior clear without biting any newbies. I wasn't being disingenuous with my "desired outcome"; I'm not looking for a ban here, just a stern lecture. I imagined that more-experienced users from all "sides" — users like Collect — would be able to come together and tell Rtmcrrctr to shape up, without being cruel. After all, I've never bitten my daughter, yet with my guidance she's learned to tell — for herself, usually — when she's on the right track and when she's not. Yet Rtmcrrctr's statement makes it clear they're entirely unrepentant, and Collect's statements haven't a single stern word for them. I'm disappointed. Homunq (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not positive, but I think I read somewhere on these pages that this is your first foray in RFC/U? Do you now understand that an RFC/U on such a new user is not appropriate? If so, please withdraw your nomination. Nothing good will come of this.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to believe that this editor needs be told to cool it, in very clear terms, by someone (or ones) not involved in Paul Ryan (or at least by someone on "the pro-Ryan side" on that article). I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if I can see a clear path for that to happen. Otherwise, I fear they'd feel they "won" and were "vindicated", and that would not help. What do you advise? Homunq (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Worm (above) has indicated that he would be willing to step in and provide some guidance via "gentle nudges". Will that suffice?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. What do I do? I also want to hear the opinions of (at least one of) the other endorsers before I do anything definitive. Homunq (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ask TP or Worm when you are ready.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for how to close, RfCs are nicely bureaucratic, and the methods of closer are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing Worm^TT(talk) 14:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I move to close this RFC/U, as the originator, because it has become apparent to me that this is the wrong forum. I would ask another editor such as WormTT to write (propose) a closing statement, which I hope would not exculpate Rtmcrrctr. I would suggest that the record not be expunged, but on that matter I'm willing to defer to more-experienced users. Homunq (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I second this motion, and I particularly agree that the desired outcome -- regardless of closure -- is for this user to be given a stern talking to that motivates them to improve their behavior. As I fully expect them to ignore anyone who they see as an enemy, I suggest that experienced conservative editors reach out to your ideological sibling in the spirit of bipartisan love. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed closing statement

This RfC/U is closed as premature - Rtmcrrctr has less than 100 edits and so can be assumed to not yet be familiar with Wikipedia's methodology. In lieu of the RfC/U, uninvolved administrator Worm That Turned has agreed to assess the situation and issue any sanctions, warnings or guidance he sees fit to all editors involved

How's that? Worm^TT(talk) 08:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually RfC/Us are neither a place to seek nor to obtain direct admin actions, and results about individual editors are seen as voluntary at most - the aim is to have editors cease the behaviour seen as the cause of the RfC/U. There has been no complaint nor evidence that any misbehaviour is ongoing.

WP:RFC/U is an informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with specific editors who may have violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines

If anyone decides they wish formal action, the venue is AN/I, or AN/EW, not here. In the case at hand, the result should be "delisted by mutual consent" as that is the simplest and most accurate close I can think of in the case at hand. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Collect: What are they good for then? I do not consider your wording helpful, and am saddened that you have chosen not to give even one word's attention to this user's behavior in your entire response to this rfcu. That is not, for instance, the attitude I've taken with SS247.

WormTT: looks good to me. Homunq (talk) 12:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps in your zeal you missed:

Rtm has 9 edits - and if he is to be blocked for edit war - then so be it - this is not the place for such action.

Which as far as I can tell does mention Rtm, and does mention that he might be sactioned for edit war ... but that this was not the correct place.

So since I most certainly did mention the problem, I fail to see the utility of your aside here to me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that, and I didn't consider it to be giving attention to the editors behavior. But perhaps it would be clearer if I said: you did not have (and to my knowledge have not had) any words for Rtm. But if I'm missing something, I'd be zealously happy to be proved wrong :). Homunq (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems apparent that Collect feels that an RFC/U is the wrong venue and he makes a good case for this. While wikipedia is not a beuarcracy, an RFC/U apparently is somewhat beuracratic. If that is the case, then I would agree with Collect that this should just be de-listed with no such statement about admin monitoring. Hopefully you can AGF that Worm will still "nudge" rtm without such closing language. I urge you to AGF that he will do so. If it is your intent to have something "on the record", you can withdraw your nomination to close or take it to one of the notice boards suggested by Collecct.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask: have you ever nudged Rtm, as I have SS247 (on at least 4 occasions)? It's not a matter of good faith/good intentions, it's a matter of concrete action to resolve a real problem.

I stated the conditions under which I support closing this RFC/U. I've seen nothing to change my mind. Worm's statement is acceptable to me; unless I see concrete action from Rtm's "allies", Collect's is not. Homunq (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I support the closing statement. While RFC/U's are not supposed to be enforced by admins, in this case, the RFC/U is being closed because an admin has stepped up and agreed to help get this editor into a more productive state. This should be recorded as the reason for closure. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:21, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't. But then again I haven't interacted with him. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume there is a problem with his behavior. But you have other remedies to address this behavior, and I think everyone here can pretty much agree that this RfC/U should not have been started in the first place. That being said, the proper action would be as Collect said to have it be delisted by mutual consent, and then you can turn around and go to ANI or wherever and persue sanctions there. Or you could go to WTT's TP and start a conversation there about your concerns. From what he has said here, I'm certain he will do his own nudging. I find it somewhat objectionable that your reluctance to delist requires a term that Rtm's "allies" give him a smack on the rump. Feel free to take it up on their TP's as well, but don't use a malformed RFC/U as a cudgel.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  18:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who signed the RFC/U, I concur with SS247's assessment above. —Kerfuffler  squawk
hawk  19:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: I moved to close, and I support the first proposed closing statement. Some cudgel. Now 3 of the 4 certifiers have agreed to the same closing statement, which is the only proposal by a neutral third party, so I think we should be done here, right? Homunq (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the subject of the RFC also gets to weigh in. I'm not sure how formal this particular RFC requires, but I've asked them to weigh in.--v/r - TP 20:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inviting me to comment here:

As my closing comment, I would like to merely comment here on the “Magnificent Four” whom certified this RfC/U:

- SPECIFICO was conspicuously absent after certifying the motion. If he was that passionate about supporting it, maybe he should have stuck around a bit and support his fledgling side on this debate. He chose not to. So far, he couldn’t even be bothered showing up to add his voice to his other 3 co-certifiers in the closing statement. So maybe we won’t discuss him anymore in relation to this page, in light of his obvious disinterest in it.

- As to Homunq:

Sometimes I like to step back and appreciate the irony in things. Interesting that Homunq set up this page to discuss me allegedly acting inappropriately according to WP standards, yet it turns out that setting up this page is by itself highly inappropriate according to WP standards. Funny, no?

- As to Kerfuffler and I'm StillStanding (24/7):

I said in my opening Response earlier: “As for my editing record - I will leave it to others to comment on.” The above two users are the only participants in this discussion whom actually chose to do that (apart from commenting on my “newness”, which just about everyone did), namely, to comment on what my editing record says about me as an editor. Here is what these two said:

(Link is on my Talk page:) "As I commented on WP:ANI recently, Rtmcrrctr's entire history on and usage of WP is highly dubious, even racking up 6R in just above 24 hours at one point. —Kerfuffler 23:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)";

and:

(In this page:) "In my opinion, Rtmcrrctr is a spectacularly unpromising editor whose short career has been primarily destructive. If this can be fixed, great. If there's no cure but giving up on him, then that may still be better than letting him damage that one article that he's fixated upon. I'm also on record generally opposing blocks and bans, but there are exceptions." I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that both refer not just to my record in this article about Paul Ryan, but to my entire editing history. I submit here that their claims are nonsense: their negative comments on my editing record are not supported by the facts, and, again, I invite anyone to wade through my editing history and check if it supports their above comments.

The fact that they make what is - in my opinion, at least – such grossly malicious misrepresentation of my entire editing history – should be rather telling: these two – so I claim – have their own agenda here - as I believe they do in WP in general, and they put it above the interests of WP. I would advise WP admins to keep a close eye on these two in future.

These are my comments on the above “Magnificent Four”, and I would conclude it at that.

Ciao

Rtmcrrctr (talk) 01:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still support closing this RFC/U, the fact that you deny that there's a problem with your behavior suggests you're likely to repeat it. I hope that's not the case, but given the community probation that your favorite article is under, I expect you'd be quickly topic-banned if you tried to pull the same sort of 6RR shenanigans that got you here. How about you join us in editing together instead of fighting? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay

Things have become rather hectic for me, and so I'm unlikely to be able to assess this situation as I'd hoped. I'm not sure if you'll be able to find another admin or editor in my stead - or what should be done here, but I'm afraid I'm effectively on a wikibreak. Apologies to all. Worm^TT(talk) 12:34, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]