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: 23:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This Rfc is a result of a post made at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by myself, User:Gazzster.
-- soulscanner ( talk) 05:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Rude and contemptuous comments, dismissive attitude, refusal to even consider reasonable points, ignoring complaints.
At Talk:Dominion there were a series of exchanges between myself and Quizimodo. He became rude. I went to his talk page concerning his rudeness. He was dismissive. I went to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. User:Soulscanner also posted a complaint. Quizimodo indicated to User:GoodDay at his talk page that he did not recognise the complaint and had no intention of participating. I then went to the Admin Noticeboard, and was advised to start an Rfc. The texts in question can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts under User:Quizimodo, and also at Talk:Dominion.
-- soulscanner ( talk) 05:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Accusations were made towards me. Some examples from Talk:Canada [8]:
-- soulscanner ( talk) 03:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Quizimodo displays repeated belligerence towards editors with opposing views, never giving up an opportunity to tell someone how wrong they are. He gives many opinions on personality traits, all the while avoiding any on the points made in legitimate cited sources. It is usually literate, not crude, and hence not obviously uncivil. One needs to observe and be at the end of several exchanges to truly understand the effects of this bullying. Insults and belligerence are basically embedded in these exchanges, and objectionable because of their frequency and because they are accompanied by an absence of reference to the cited materials. When cited materials are mentioned, it is to accuse the editor of misrepresentation, not to discuss their content. It is like dealing with an all-powerful alien in a 1960's Star Trek episode.
"No, you be specific" ---- "your hypocrisy is grating" ---- "Enough. I will comment next when there's reason to." ---- "Thus, your assumptions are erroneous." ---- "If you wish to engender good faith, edit as such, remain silent, or withdraw." ---- "Wikipedia isn't your mother." ---- "Minding you aside, I neither agree nor disagree with Heard -- it is what it is." ---- "your flagrant misinterpretation of source matter and incessant disruption." etc.
-- soulscanner ( talk) 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
(provide diffs and links)
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.
I have had limited correspondence with Quizimodo, but that has been enough to show his contempt for other editors. His "I am what I am" quote on his userpage seems to be the justification for his behaviour. Even when conceding a point, his reply lacks any tact: "Anyhow, there are far more things wrong with that article than not and I have better things to do than to quibble over minutiae". Quizimodo could make efforts to edit Wikipedia much more efficient and enjoyable by changing his approach to editors who disagree with his views. Silverchemist ( talk) 00:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I haven't seen evidence of any particularly egregious breaches of civility on the part of Quizimodo; in my opinion, he is exacerbating this process by being so obstinate in his refusal to participate in the various avenues of dispute resolution. I urge Quizimodo to rethink his refusal to accept the informal mediation offered by User:GoodDay. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 00:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
The presentation above is about the way of it. I have not looked into every nook and cranny of this business, but enough to see that the presentation is essentially correct. I have also seen alike trouble from Quizimodo in the past. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable, but Quizimodo has not done so in this case, and in others. This is the kind of thing that sours people on Wikipedia and poisons discussions. It must stop. -- Lonewolf BC ( talk) 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
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.