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.
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: 15:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC).
Since the edits by User:Thunderbird2 on the surface do not appear to be obvious vandalism (even though the claims of the user are untrue this is only demonstrated after reading the talk archives) the normal administrators vandalism forum doesn't seem to be the right choice. Repeatedly misrepresenting other editors with false claims of harassment is actually a violation of WP:NPA. The user has been asked to stop quite a few times by multiple editors but this has had little effect. The user is repeatedly making false claims in violation of WP:POINT and WP:PARENT. Therefore this RfC/U is being posted.
Refuses to engage in constructive discussion by refusing to answer valid questions. (See [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]] amongst others)
Repeatedly posting content from his talk page onto a guideline talk page, making it appear on the surface they are posting a new argument when actually his point of view has already been discussed and rejected many times on the same talk page. See [11], [12], [13], ...
Repeatedly claiming consensus doesn't exist when there is a large talk archive demonstrating the consensus which the user is well aware of, having been told where the link is multiple times and the link being included in the guideline text. When asked to provide substantive arguments the user refuses to do so then goes quiet for a few weeks only to repeat the whole process again. This is demonstrative of forum shopping the same issue repeatedly on the same talk page. See [14], [15], [16], [17][18], [19], [20], [21], [22][23][24] ...
Using their talk page to make false accusations of harassment, especially using misrepresentative and personal attack edit summaries and page titles, when actually the user has been reported and blocked for edit warring on this subject. The user then misrepresents the comments of the admins on the same "harassment" talk page.[25]. Despite the RfC specifically mentioning this behaviour the user still misrepresents "harassment"[26].
The user tried to get mediation [27], by again posting the same refuted point of view from his talk page, but this was rejected by the mediator when it became apparent there was nothing to mediate.
The user is also demonstrating obsessive behaviour related to certain editors by his talk page to archive the edits of other editors and then misrepresenting the edits of other editors. [28]
Tries to weasel his way out of things (For example, see [29], which got him stern responses ([[30]]), encouraging him to quit this fanatical behaviour . See also the whole discussion).
Editing RfC case pages after they have been moved to the archive (i.e. attempting to present a false view of what really happened after the fact). The RfC in question was moved to the archive at 13:29, 15 September 2008 but Thunderbird2 then tried to add extra text in November, two months after the RfC was moved to the archive. Despite Thunderbird2 being shown [31][32] the case is closed and archived the user continues to edit the case talk page instead.[33][34]. This can also be seen as an example of WP:DEADHORSE violation and deliberate disruptive editing.
Stop being disruptive. An objective reading of Thunderbird2’s contributions shows that his edits bear all the hallmarks of a tendentious, single-purpose editor. His benefits (zero as of late) to Wikipedia are wildly offset by the disruption he causes.
Stop trying to use ad hominem, this means Thunderbird2 will only tackle the substance of arguments and not refer to how Thunderbird2 thinks other editors are "bad people" or "bullies" or other such irrelevant personal issues.
Stop repeating the claims there there is no consensus because the consensus is demonstrated in the talk archive.
Remove (i.e. get the pages permanently deleted) all user talk and user sand box material related to other editors, especially those pages with false claims of harassment.
Thunderbird2 is a single-purpose account ( {contributions}{home page} ) that is dedicated to promoting the adoption of IEC prefixes. This is a discredited practice that Wikipedia, via WP:MOSNUM, abandoned. We now have project-wide consistency in using the same, familiar terminology observed by the rest of the computing world when communicating to a general-interest audience. T-bird refuses to get the point, won’t let it go, continually brings the issue up again and again (in what appears like a vain hope of catching WT:MOSNUM when they’re sleeping), and is making a thorough pest of himself. The disruption he inflicts upon Wikipedia (significant) far outweighs the value of his contributions (zero, since he is a single-purpose account). If he doesn’t do a 180° turn in his conduct, he needs to be banned. Greg L (talk)15:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in time, I don't have much to add, other than I pretty much agree with everything said so far, since I wrote a good chunk of the initial text. My personal reaction would be to flat-out ban Thunderbird from editing Wikipedia or perhaps to a lesser extent, ban him from editing anything IEC prefix related, as from my various attempts to find common ground with Thunderbird, I do not feel he's even capable of reasonable discourse. However, I'm open to less extreme solutions if Thunderbird will cease his inane forumshopping and starts editing productively. But considering he spend well over 95% of his time pushing for the adoption of IEC prefixes, taking wikilawyering to new extremes, I'm not holding my breath. Good faith was assumed, good faith was not found.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.}
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.}
This drama might seem like a tragedy, except that once the word "farce" has entered one's consciousness, no other term quite satisfies.
It seems unlikely that the underlying dispute can be resolved given the current state of affairs and the conduct of the various parties. For example, consider the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/IEC. See if you can find, from any party, a proposal to change the guideline. Conversely, you can easily find endless verbose repetitions of past arguments, claims that consensus has/has not been reached, counterclaims that an earlier, different consensus should/should not apply, and of course accusations of every sort of improper conduct.
None of this moves the debate forward. More to the point, none of this is relevant to the question of whether Wikipedia should be a venue for such a debate.
I freely admit that I haven't helped resolve this. I've made clear my personal opinion that I feel the current wording of the guideline to be quite balanced and in keeping with our cornerstone policies. As such, Thunderbird2 is perhaps unlikely to take any advice I may offer. Be that as it may, I think they should make an effort only to discuss guidelines and only at the relevant talk pages, and avoid making arguments based on past consensus, since consensus can change.
With regard to the part where SheffieldSteel wrote “As such, Thunderbird2 is perhaps unlikely to take any advice I may offer”, I agree wholeheartedly. Greg L (talk)00:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A small comment, this RfC is not about wheter or not IEC prefixes should be allowed or not, or that the debate was done according to Mary Poppins' standard of debating, it's about wheter or not Thunderbird's behaviour is refusal to get the point, beating a deadhorse, misrepresenting the situation, forum shopping etc... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
