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: 04:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
This user has been disruptive and uncivil in his comments on article talk pages as well as his own talk page. He has violated 3RR over a minor issue, a maintenance tag, even though the purpose of the tag has been explained to him several times. He has also made personal attacks and told other editors to "stay away" from article topics on which he considers himself the expert. 06:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
The user should act in a more civil manner towards other editors who are acting in good faith towards him as well as towards improving articles. He should cease his uncivil comments and personal attacks immediately and accept the fact that he does not own articles, and instead endeavor to work with others in a spirit of collaboration. He should cease trying to tear down source material that he does not agree with while professing himself to be the expert (or "police", as his username declares) in the subject area he edits (namely the psychobilly genre of music and related bands), and instead try to follow the tips and advice that others have given him about how to cite reliable sources. 06:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
User:Psychobillypolice is a recently registered user, having previously edited under his IP 68.108.214.71 (talk · contribs · logs), which he still uses occasionally in tandem with his account. He began editing The Quakes article, in which (alternately under his IP and his account) he engaged in a revert war with User:JD554 over the addition of ((unreferenced)) and ((nofootnotes)) tags. He has continued to revert these tags placed by JD554 and User:IllaZilla, totalling about 8 reverts in the last 5 days. JD554 left notices on the talk pages of both his IP and account, as well as an explanation and helpful links on how to use references. Psychobillypolice's response was to tell JD544 "just leave it alone will you? What is it to you anyway? why do you care?" When IllaZilla left a message on his talk page explaining the purpose of the maintenance tag, Psychobillypolice accused him of "Stalinist tactics" and threatened that "If you do not leave this page alone you will be opening up a huge can of worms. Just forget this page exists and leave it alone."
At around the same time he began editing the psychobilly article under his new account "Psychobillypolice", making some changes which IllaZilla tweaked or corrected. On the article's talk page he got rather upset about a minor date error and the fact that a particular band (Batmobile) was not mentioned in the article. He told IllaZilla, the article's major contributor of late: "I would suggest that you do some REAL research on psychobilly or just stick with punk rock articles." IllaZilla explained that none of the references used in the article mentioned the band Batmobile, which is why they were not mentioned in the article, and explained that anyone has the freedom to edit any article on Wikipedia. Psychobillypolice has continued to accuse IllaZilla of not knowing anything about psychobilly and therefore being unfit to edit the article. He does not like the magazine article which is used as the source for most of the article, since it does not mention a few of his favorite bands and instead focuses on a few he is not fond of, and therefore he keeps challenging the accuracy of the source without providing any reliable sources of his own. JD554 showed up on the talk page with links to some books on the subject which could be used as sources, and Psychobillypolice's response was to accuse him of having an "axe to grind" and to tell both other editors "Why dont you guys turn off your computer and go outside?" IllaZilla asked him not to make personal attacks and he again responded to stay away from the article and "Now please report me or delete me or anything you can do to silence me because I have challenged you...right?"
In short, this rather new editor has responded to tips and advice with hostility and mild threats, and seems to have an elitist and condescending attitude rather than one of collaboration. He is really off to a bad start but does not seem to respond well to nudges in the right direction. Advice and, if necessary, action from a greater part of the community might benefit him. 06:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(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.)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary:
Yep; thoroughly agreed with the statement. This is appears to be a user who has started off very much on the wrong foot, and (apart from general incivility) appears not to understand some fundamentals of how Wikipedia sourcing works (particularly the need for third-party sourcing, and the inadmissability of unsubstantiated personal knowledge). "If it's not in a book or a magazine then it didn't happen", however counterintuitive that may be, isn't far off the reality of Wikipedia's core verifiability policy. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly material on an official band site - which might well spin its history in promotional ways - isn't automatically definitive. This is often a problem with bands that don't have a high enough profile to get significant third-party analysis. However, if anyone has access to NewsBank, The Buffalo News has regular coverage.
Reading WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR would be good advice.
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.
Editor retired on 25 July 2008.