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: 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.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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)

Desired outcome[edit]

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)

Description[edit]

{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)

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(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. [1] [2] [3] — User:68.108.214.71 continually reverts User:JD554 over the presence of an ((unreferenced)) tag on The Quakes article.
  2. [4] [5] [6] [7] — Now editing with an account, User:Psychobillypolice attempts to add references to the bottom of The Quakes article. User:JD554 adds a ((nofootnotes)) tag to the article, and Psychobillypolice (sometimes still editing under his IP) engages in another revert war over this new tag.
  3. [8] — Psychobillypolice gets upset about a wrong date in the psychobilly article and the fact that it does not mention the band Batmobile. He tells User:IllaZilla "I would suggest that you do some REAL research on psychobilly or just stick with punk rock articles."
  4. [9] [10] — Psychobillypolice reverts IllaZilla over the ((nofootnotes)) tag in The Quakes article.
  5. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] — Psychobillypolice makes various statements of an uncivil, insulting, condescending, and mildly threatening nature (see "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and "Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute" below).

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

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

  1. Civility — The user has insulted and commented in an incivil manner towards other editors.
  2. No personal attacks — The user has tried to insult other editors and warned them to stay away from certain articles or there will be consequenses.
  3. 3-revert rule — The user has broken or come close to breaking this policy on The Quakes article.
  4. Verifiability — When asked to provide reliable sources or explained the importance of sources the user responds with hostility.
  5. Ownership of articles — The user has warned other editors to stay away from article subjects on which he considers himself a self-professed expert (or "police"), advising them to stick to other areas of Wikipedia.
  6. Reliable sources — One of the issues the user seems to have problems with.
  7. Citing sources — The user does not understand how to cite sources and does not accept advice on how to do so, responding instead with hostility.

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [17] [18] — JD554 leaves notices on both the IP and account talk pages, and leaves a message for Psychobillypolice explaining the purpose of the maintenance tags.
  2. [19] — JD554 provides Psychobillypolice with an explanation and some helpful links on how to properly cite sources.
  3. [20] [21] [22] — IllaZilla explains the importance of secondary sources and reminds Psychobillypolice that anyone acting in good faith can edit any Wikipedia article.
  4. [23] — IllaZilla leaves Psychobillypolice a message explaining the purpose of the maintenance tag and some notes on other sources that could be used.
  5. [24] — JD554 presents some possible new sources for the psychobilly article.
  6. [25] — IllaZilla asks Psychobillypolice not to make personal attacks, and again discusses the importance of reliable sources.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

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

  1. [26] [27] — Psychobilly police responds to JD455's notices with "dont you have anything else to do besides try to discredit The quakes page?" and "Dude...please just leave it alone will you? What is it to you anyway? why do you care?"
  2. [28] — Psychobillypolice responds with hostility to JD455's helpful comments on how to cite sources.
  3. [29] [30] — Psychobillypolice insults IllaZilla's ability to find sources and complains about the source used for most of the psychobilly article while failing to provide any new useable sources.
  4. [31] — Psychobillypolice accuses IllaZilla of "Stalinist tactics" and says "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."
  5. [32] — Psychobillypolice accuses JD455 of having "an axe to grind" and tells him and IllaZilla "Why dont you guys turn off your computer and go outside?"
  6. [33] — Psychobillypolice responds to IllaZilla's comments about personal attacks and reliable sources with "Dont you see that your whole article is full of opinions and not facts? Stick to punk rock Please! PsychobillyPolice- Now please report me or delete me or anything you can do to silence me because I have challenged you...right?"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. --IllaZilla (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --JD554 (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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:


Outside view[edit]

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:

View by Gordonofcartoon[edit]

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:

  1. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. IllaZilla (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.

Summary[edit]

Editor retired on 25 July 2008.

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.
More