వికీపీడియా:Requests for comment/Direktor

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:00, 23 డిసెంబరు 2024 (UTC).

Example user (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

The discussion at Talk:Istrian exodus has degenerated and not for lack of competence from both sides. We cannot reach consensus, despite similarity in our views. The discussion has more specifically degenerated in the request from both parties to find sources citing exactly what is reported in the edit. I must confess that I dislike the manners of User:Direktor. All users disagreeing with his/her views are immediately qualified with not "egregious" qualifications. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

However, the tone of debate (even in this RfC/U) used by User:Direktor speaks by itself. I have major respect for the skills and experience of User:Direktor but his seniority should not be - at any moment - a ground giving him right to speak in the terms he does with anyone disagreeing with him. This is a collaborative project. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Desired outcome

The desired outcome is very simple: User:Direktor should have a more polite approach when dealing with other users and stop qualifying them with wording such as lier, nationalist, fascist, ignorant, faker and similar adjectives. Additionally I would like to understand why User:Direktor believes his/her sources are always more representative than the ones of the other users. Indeed, the most desired outcome for me it's to return to work on the article and close this issue once for all. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Description

There is major difficulty in reaching consensus over the lede of the article Istrian Exodus. Major disagreement exist on the sources to use and about the actual misrepresentation of aforementioned sources. A 3O and a DRN have not proven useful to clear the issue. User:Direktor also restrict the use of scholars based on their alleged nationality rather than on the Institution publishing, reviewing and editing the source. Full discussion can be seen at Talk:Istrian exodus, but indeed the discussion is now so torn out that it is difficult to realise where is the knot of the question. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

An additional difficulty (and IMHO the main one) resides in the fact the User:Direktor concentrates enormously on the lede. This creates per se the potential for conflicts. Many times I insisted in the necessity to have in the lede only absolutely non-contested matter, my objective being to give to the article stability in the future. Indeed, my suggestion was at some point to leave things as they are, perhaps adding some numbers about the entity of the exodus. Later in the article, there is room to develop the arguments contained in all available reputable (albeit sometime in disagreement) sources. Trying to summarise in the lede any conclusion about the reasons about the exodus makes the discussion falling unavoidably in a trap. Unless, the intention is not to report in the lede opposite views, but for some reasons User:Direktor disagreed with this solution.

The Istrian Exodus has been an event of large size, perhaps the exodus alterating the most the ethnic structure, amongst all movements of population in Western and Central Europe after WWII. Difficult - if not impossible - to arrive to make a summary in the lead about the reasons. For such articles we should avoid this temptation like the plague. --Silvio1973 (talk) 09:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

Applicable policies and guidelines

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.
WP:SYNTHESIS
WP:CHERRYPICKED
WP:DISRUPTIVE

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

I have requested a 3O and obtained an asnwer on the 1st July 2013. The outcome was in principe favourable to my edit but consensus did not materialised. The subsequent discussion on the DRN was at some point abandoned by Direktor. The discussion continued (over 200 edits in total!) on the Talk Page of Istrian Exodus but we could not reach consensus. We were close to it but it did not work. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC) All work has been now rolled back, as the two parties have not reached consensus. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Attempts by certifier Vituzzu

Attempts by certifier The Historian

I attempted to offer a 3O. However, Direktor refused to even heed my presence, let alone the eventual opinion I expressed.

Other attempts

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

I, for myself, can certify that I attempted to resolve the dispute via the Wikipedia:3O mechanism. From what I can recall, the subject of these incidental procedings acted as if I had never intervened.

--The Historian (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

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.

First of all, this is Silvio's attempt to solve a content dispute. He has invited User:Vituzzu here simply because he knows he doesn't like me :). This is also what is known as a "pre-emptive report": I have just warned Silvio1973 on his talk that he may be reported for disruption in violation of WP:ARBMAC. The entire exposition here is of course riddled with exaggerations, fabrications and manifestly dishonest claims (e.g. that of my supposedly abandoning this DRN thread). If I was less than polite, it was due to my outrage and frustration at the consistent academic dishonesty with which Silvio1973 bears himself, which the scientist in me can scarce believe. At no point did he acknowledge his behavior was improper or cease attempting to pull the same stunts. Indeed - he reported me :) essentially for objecting to them

As regards the Istrian exodus business, its a huge mess to read, but I believe any who take the time may well be surprised anyone has invested so much painstaking effort to unravel Silvio1973's fraudulent referencing and misrepresentation to try and arrive at a source-based lede. The user has no understanding of WP:SYNTH, has trouble with complex English forms, quotes references that have nothing to do with his text, those sources he does read he misrepresents in an incredibly biased manner (taking fragments from various sentences and piecing them together in such a way that entirely distorts the position of the author). He cherry-picks sentences without regard to their context; he attributes text to authors who did not write it; when I add text that is actually based directly on the ref, he demands the right to modify it in accordance with his personal views or else forbids its entry, he outright lies (for lack of a better term) and claims sources support him when, upon investigation, - they do not. He enters into these long monologues where he attempts to convince me of the validity of his own personal theories regarding these events, etc. All this is just childishly obvious and easily-demonstrable.

I could go on and on. Frankly its incredible. A nightmare for any Wikipedian. I probably should just have reverted and ignored the user after discovering the deception(s), or reported him for all this disruption, but I honestly thought we were slowly getting somewhere and decided to invest the time. My mistake.-- Director (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you) do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

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. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. 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 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. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

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.