Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User conduct/Dking

message: First, I will say that the wild and accusatory tone of Dking's response is sadly typical of his approach to editing at Wikipedia. I did not file this RFC in retaliation for anything Dking did off-Wiki -- I filed it because he is a tendentious editor who makes it very difficult and fatiguing to edit any article where he is involved. An admin suggested to me on July 3 that an RFC would be an appropriate response. It took me this long to go through the laborious process of compiling the diffs, plus I wanted to make sure that Dking had an opportunity to respond to the messages on his talk page. --Marvin Diode 14:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you answer my question above, asking for proof of a consensus regarding the Heydte quote?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just visited Wikipedia:Consensus and I agree that consensus was the wrong term to use. I was equating it in my mind with "majority viewpoint," and apparently a consensus must be pretty much unanimous. It would seem, under the circumstances, impossible for anyone to act "against consensus." Therefore, I will change the wording. However, I agree with MaplePorter that the issue of consensus on Dking's deletions is not the "core" issue of this RFC. --Marvin Diode 21:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a very narrow majority - why even mention it? What is the core issue of this RfC?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A "pattern of tendentious editing and POV pushing." --Marvin Diode 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we remove the editing dispute over the Heydte quote, which we now agree never had a conesnsus, what evidence of tendentious editing and POV pushing is left?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would we "remove the editing dispute over the Heydte quote"? As I mentioned above, the issue of consensus is irrelevant. He deleted the quote over and over, with the rationale being WP:IDONTLIKEIT. He was rude, his edit summaries were vile, the evidence of his tendentious editing and POV pushing is abundant, and it extends to many other articles. I'm not sure how this process works -- Marvin wrote the RFC, and I endorsed it. If I am permitted to add more evidence, I will. --MaplePorter 06:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was plenty of tendentious editing on both sides, and POV too. Are you saying, MaplePorter, that you have never engaged in edit warring, and have never pushed any POV in your edits to Wikipedia? Dking and others wanted to remove the comparison to Dreyfus while others insisted on keeping it but wanted to omit any mention of Heydte's military career. It's hypocritical to participate in a mudfest and then point to someone else as being dirty.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As for the charge of violating WP:CIVIL, the only example given that is directed to an Wikipedia coincerns NathanDW, in which Dking states he thinks NathanDW has engaged in edit warring that should lead to a block. The rest of the examples may say unkind things about Heydte, but he's not a Wikipedia editor so WP:CIVIL doesn't apply. Haev you guys actually read the policies you claim that Dking has violated?  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Dking's response

message: I deleted and delisted this RfC; these efforts increasingly appear as an attempt to game the system.  El_C 08:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC deleted, delisted