Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The Number

Statement of the dispute

Uses account only to harass users who have edited the Sollog article and its talk page.

Description

Of this editor's 205 edits, only one was to an article, and that was merely to add an external link to Sollog. The rest were all to talk pages, the vast majority of which are either Talk:Sollog or the user talk pages of editors who have contributed to the Sollog article. This user does not use talk pages productively, but instead to troll, harass, and insult other editors. S/he complains loudly and frequently about the behavior of others, including the breaking of "rules" that only exist in his/her mind, such as demanding for days that User:Wyss be punished for deleting a message from her own talk page posted there by User:The Number. S/he rudely assumes and proclaims that everyone is prejudiced and acts against him/her due to some imaginary Wikicabal. At the same time, s/he does not hesitate to insult others or attempt to provoke hostility, including in matters which do not involve him/her in any way.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

This user's contribution history speaks for itself. Note also the number of contributions to the article name space as of March 20, 2005.
The edit history of Talk:Sollog.
The most recent example: [1]. When asked to provide a source for one of his/her assertions about article content by several different editors, User:The Number refused to answer a simple question, choosing to argue about it for days and insult other editors. The Number never did provide or describe the requested source.
Some examples of User:The Number's habit of deliberately attempting to stir up trouble on user talk pages in matters which do not involve The Number at all: [2] [3] [4]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

This user's contribution history speaks for itself
Pointing out that personal attacks and identity issues are not constructive: [5], getting a lengthy response on why he/she was the victim in these tangential debates: [6]
User talk:217.43.103.220 (The Number before s/he chose his/her current username) shows several editors patiently trying to explain Wikipedia policies and attempting to get The Number to act appropriately.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Wyss 13:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel 15:56, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
JRM 16:46, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Saxifrage 22:10, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC) — though the entire contribution history of The Number is uninterrupted evidence against the user, I have collected some notable diffs at User:Saxifrage/Userwatch that I can elaborate upon if needed.

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Fire Star 15:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
ExplorerCDT 16:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ashley Pomeroy 18:16, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
MarkSweep 20:04, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
dbenbenn | talk 14:29, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Slac speak up! 03:48, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Glaurung 07:28, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sollogfan 12:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Identified as a sockpuppet of the Number... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response

The Statement: *Uses account only to harass users who have edited the Sollog article and its talk page. is fundamentally flawed. Often I use my account to repel the false accusations levied against me by Wyss who is obsessed with the idea that I am Sollog and then uses that obsession to (by calling me Ennis) insinuate I am a pornographer. She persistently calls me a liar because obviously if I am in the UK I cannot be Sollog (unless Sollog lives in the UK - which he doesn't). By labelling me as Sollog when she insults Sollog she insults me. To compound this uncivil behaviour Wyss then interrogated me when I said the 'Sollog in jail' posts were a publicity stunt and asked me (even though in Wyss's mind I am in Sollog) to source the comment that Sollog is not in jail. These continual accusations that I am lying and the total illogicality of Wyss's behaviour makes me concerned about her mental health - this concern is then seen as an attack. Wyss's behaviour in referring me here is merely indicative of her obsession; the support from others is an indication as to how she has corrupted others.

If Wyss had not repeatedly referred to me as John Ennis none of this would have happened.

Wyss is supported by Gamaliel who has openly said he wants me banned for life. Gamaliel is an Administrator who when asked by me for help in understanding Editorial Conflicts replied: "I am not your fucking monkey" thus proving that Civility does not apply to all.

False evidence:

The most recent example: [7]. When asked to provide a source for one of his/her assertions about article content, User:The Number refused to answer a simple question, choosing to argue about it for days and insult other editors (and never did provide or describe the requested source).

This is deliberately included by me in my defence as an example of the dishonest way the case is presented. The correct text should be User: The Number refused to ansewer a simple question from Wyss - on the grounds that Wyss believed User: The Number to be Sollog so why ask (Sollog) for a source.

More false evidence:

Pointing out that personal attacks and identity issues are not constructive: [8], getting a lengthy response on why he/she was the victim in these tangential debates: [9]

In fact if you bother to follow the link there is a deleted (of course!) post from me moaning about how I have been treated. By following the link you'll see:

It's hard to prove a negative. How can you provide a source for something that hasn't happened? Be fair! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course as this Editor had the temerity to support me the post had to be deleted - that's how Wyss and cronies work.

More false evidence:

The 'description of the Statement of the Dispute includes:

"S/he complains loudly and frequently about the behavior of others, including the breaking of "rules" that only exist in his/her mind, "

The most often repeated complaint of mine against Wyss was that she broke the Wiki rules of :

These are listed by my accusers and are thus evidence that such policies exist and therefore are furtehr evidence as to how the accusation is false. Wyss, by continually referring to me as John Enis (a.k.a. Sollog) was therefore continually calling me a liar

and a pornorgrapher

and so on.

Wyss posted on my Talk Page I am Sollog. Wyss continues even here to refer to me as Sollog or Ennis or a sockpuppet of Sollog (i.e. I am Sollog).

Every reference is a

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

and she thus calls me a liar.The Number 20:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Part of the 'case' against me is that I apparently insult editors. That point was made by an Administrator who, when I politely asked him a question (several weeks ago) replied: "I am not your fucking monkey!". Look within Wikis. Oh yes of course no-one censured himThe Number 23:26, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It must also be remembered that new users should not ask for help as later it may be used against them. This too is indicative of Editors (or in this case an Administrator) retrospectively seeing conflict where at the time there was none. The following is cited by the Administrator as 'evidence':

User talk:217.43.103.220 (The Number before s/he chose his/her current username) shows several editors patiently trying to explain Wikipedia policies and attempting to get The Number to act appropriately.

What the Administrator failed to show is that at no time did I ever swear at the Administrator and in fact my polit requests were later met with the helpful comment: "I am not your fucking monkey". What the Administrator deliberately forgets also is that, many of my comments were explained by me as I was having 'computer problems' in being logged of Wiki suddenly then when i relogged in I would often forget my user name. To fit the case of course the Administrator who has explained he is not my 'fucking monkey' omits to say this. Perhaps there should be a warning that new users who exhibit naivety may a) be sworn at by Administrators who then receive no censure and b) their requests for help will later be held against them. Yes, in the wonderful world of Wiki that would make sense! The Number 06:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll give another example as to how Editors are deliberately fabricating a case against me, they are working as a team so it is difficult to be awake 24/7 (one of them is in England) so I'll not bother anymore.

This is what Mark Sweep wrote:

Are you implying that you're not responsible for your own behavior, because it is exclusively the product of this harsh and unfriendly (sarcasm!) environment we have here? --MarkSweep 02:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I responded:

Another twist. I wonder when my own comments will be changed to fit Mark's comments? I'll repeat what I said and see if people can tell the difference:

I submit that this behaviour has largely (though not entirely) been because of Wyss's continuous abuse. +

Then Mark wrote:

"because it is exclusively"

It's so much easier to criticise someone when you misrepresent them as Mark has done. The Number 07:02, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Now, Mark didn't like that because I showed him where he was wrong. He then changed his original text but, as it is important not to show that what I write is correct, rather than leave my comments in which of course would give substance to my claims that what I write is often correct, he deleted them. Thus it now appears his 'reasonable' question (now modified) is going unanswered and I am thus portrayed in a bad light.

That's how they're working and there is simply no point in me answering anymore. For example Gamaliel could post: "Is it true that you said to me you were not a fucking monkey?" and when I post that in fact he said that, my post could be removed by 'the team' (preferably with a 'reason that I was trolling' statement) and so it would appear that the question was unanswered.

That's how they're doing it and I won't play anymore.

There may be some Editors, responsible people, who have bothered to read through my 'response' and you'll realise they (the accusers and Wyss in particular) have a case to answer. It is therefore up to you how you deal with it. (But then maybe the team will simply delete this - who knows?)

My case that I have responded, sometimes with restraint and sometimes without to continued provocation, mainly by Wyss, is clearly made. My accusation about uneven treatment is proven virtually everytime an Editor posts. My rebuttal of Pomeroy's accusations is clear. My own accusation that I have been abused by Gamaliel and others is usually deleted, but it's been made nonetheless.

I have now conclusively proven how anything that detracts from the 'team's case is deleted with the extract above.

My case is thus made - whatever others decide. The Number 08:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since I wrote this I have been asked two (three really) questions:

1. Why are you here? What do you hope to accomplish by participating in Wikipedia? 2. In what way have you positively contributed to the goal of constructing an encyclopedia?

I have said I will answer, politely, IF I get an unequivocal guarantee that my response will not be deleted (as that is what usually happens). So far when I have corrected people (as with Mark) the correction is made but my post is deleted as it puts me in a good light. So, we'll see. if at the end of the day (UK time) there's been a guarantee, value free (i.e without the usual telling off and claims that I am solely to blame etc etc) then I'll post.Calmness increases efficiency. Silence increases effectiveness. The Number 10:29, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Proposed resolution

Following up on JRM's call for peace on the talk page, I propose the following resolution to this dispute:

This is not a forum for the airing of grievances. In the interest of peace and productivity, all past grievances, accusations, threats, etc. shall be forgotten and never brought up again.
Failure to comply – broadly construed and including posting complaints about grievances aired here, on Talk:Sollog and on user talk pages of involved parties prior to this point in time – shall be treated as vandalism and reverted accordingly.
To bypass any lingering after-taste of past occurrences, it is strongly recommended that The Number relinquish his/her current account. (This could be indicated on the user page, at which time an admin could issue an indefinite block.) The person who posted here as "The Number" is free to start contributing under a new account. This should not be construed as a ban of any sort; it is merely a suggestion for improving the climate of future interactions, which would hopefully go smoother if the person now posting as "The Number" were to post under a substantially different user name.

Anyway, just my suggestions for a constructive way out. In the spirit of this proposal, I shall revert any further airing of past misgivings etc. in this subsection. --MarkSweep 00:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alternative proposed resolution

I wish my fellow editors luck in their attempts to forge some sort of truce with The Number and will of course abide by any such truce forged by consensus, but in my judgement The Number should be banned from Wikipedia. I don't propose this as a punishment or a punative measure, but a preventative one. It appears from The Number's rambling statements that his/her purpose here is not to edit articles or participate in building an encyclopedia, but to critique other users. Wikipedia should not allow such a counterproductive distraction. Given that the Number apparently has no interest in editing, this is not a conflict between editors, but merely a problem involving an unusual sort of vandalism. Gamaliel 06:55, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You stop lying about me, attacking me and I'll stop defending me and thus have time for editing (which as per previous performance, your colleagues will ridicule) The Number

Considering the proposals

I find MarkSweep's proposal fair, it is acceptable to me, and I am also sympathetic to Gamaliel's and will vote that way if the opportunity presents itself. Perhaps in the spirit of MarkSweep's proposal, The Number has said they are leaving us, possibly permanently. We'll see. Fire Star 18:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)