Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Camptown

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: 11:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC).

Camptown (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Knowingly insering false information in article citing a bogus reason for doing so. // Liftarn 11:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowingly citing a bogus reason and removing sourced text from reliable sources to push a POV. –panda 16:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

That the user brings it to debate and gives a valid reason for his/her actions instead of pointlessly reverting.
That the user accepts the reality as it is and cease to revert corrections to articles and templates.
That the user stops removing sourced text from reliable sources.

Description

Knowingly inserting false ifnormation is a violation of WP:HOAX.
Calling other users vandals, i.e. WP:UNCIVIL
Refusal to get the point, i.e., WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Although comments had already been left on Camptown's talk page and one of the templates about how there is no consensus about using "Nobel Prize in Economics", Camptown continued to claim that "a rather broad majority has repeatedly found the short form correct".

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

15:05, 15 October 2007 [1] - cited bogus reason
15:07, 15 October 2007 [2] - cited bogus reason
15:08, 15 October 2007 [3] - cited bogus reason
10:34, 16 October 2007 [4] - cited bogus reason
10:35, 16 October 2007 [5] - cited bogus reason
10:36, 16 October 2007 [6] - cited bogus reason
10:36, 16 October 2007 [7] - cited bogus reason
10:37, 16 October 2007 [8] - cited bogus reason
10:38, 16 October 2007 [9] - cited bogus reason
10:38, 16 October 2007 [10] - cited bogus reason
10:39, 16 October 2007 [11] - cited bogus reason
10:39, 16 October 2007 [12] - cited bogus reason
10:42, 16 October 2007 [13] - cited bogus reason
10:42, 16 October 2007 [14] - cited bogus reason
10:43, 16 October 2007 [15] - cited bogus reason
10:43, 16 October 2007 [16] - cited bogus reason
10:45, 16 October 2007 [17] - cited bogus reason
08:24, 17 October 2007 [18] - claimed vandalism
09:27, 18 October 2007 [19] - claimed vandalism
09:27, 18 October 2007 [20] - claimed vandalism
09:26, 18 October 2007 [21] - claimed vandalism
09:31, 18 October 2007 [22] - no explanation
11:38, 18 October 2007 [23] - removal of sourced text, no explanation for why
11:43, 18 October 2007 [24] - removal of sourced text, no explanation for why
16:25, 18 October 2007 [25] - cited bogus reason
16:27, 18 October 2007 [26] - cited bogus reason
16:28, 18 October 2007 [27] - cited bogus reason
16:29, 18 October 2007 [28] - cited bogus reason
17:01, 18 October 2007 [29] - cited bogus reason

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

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

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.}

I'm completely uninvolved in this dispute, but I happened to be wandering by and read through most of the diffs and such, so I'll offer my $0.02...

I think user:Liftarn is over-reacting a bit. It looks like there has been a fairly sustained edit war between this user and user:Camptown over what name to use when referencing the Nobel Prize in Economics (or whatever you want to call it). Both users seem to be pretty opinionated on this issue. I think user:Liftarn's accusations of WP:HOAX are unfounded; user:Camptown has offered a pretty reasonable rationale for his preference of "Nobel Prize in Economics", namely that it's the name the prize is commonly known by, and the community (and non-Wikipedians) generally use this name to refer to the prize. I'm not saying Wikipedia shouldn't also include Liftarn's preferred name, but I don't believe Camptown is "knowingly spreading false information" or "lying" or any of the other things Liftarn has accused him of. I think this is just a simple content dispute that has gotten out of hand.

(withdraws back into the shadows)

Dgcopter 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Sxeptomaniac

This is a content dispute, not WP:HOAX. The edit summaries sometimes reflect badly on Camptown, but more often show bad behavior by Liftarn.

All involved should be reminded to not be dicks. Specifically, remember that "Dicks can be right — but they're still dicks; if there's something in what they say that is worth hearing, it goes unheard, because no one likes listening to dicks. It doesn't matter how right they are."

Trying to portray the opposition in a simple content dispute as maliciously trying to undermine Wikipedia is extremely dickish, and does not assume good faith.

Users who endorse this summary:

Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12.43.92.140 16:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC) For saying what I said, but much more succinctly. _{(oops, that was me) Dgcopter 16:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)}[reply]
Joe 02:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AdamSmithee 09:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Crassic

Liftarn seems to be highly overreacting overreacting, in my opinion. I see nothing that requires a big dispute or cause for alarm. The user might have flaws, as does everybody. Camptown generally has done a good job, as I have run across him several times during my time here. Liftarn seems to be a bit over reacting and seems to forget he should really assume good faith more often.

Users who endorse this summary:

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.