Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Islamist

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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, not different disputes. 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: 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC).

(Islamist | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Islamist has been inserting a pro-Arab POV in pages that are NPOV, and this user has also committed personal attacks against specific or a group of users.

Description

Islamist has only been on Wikipedia for a few days, but his activities are causing problems in pages that deal with Islam. The page that I am hvaing most trouble with him on is the Gallery of national flags (Talk). He always insists of adding the Palestine flag into the Gallery without a clear consensus from the other editors. And when we removed the flag, he always remove it back in with comments that we shoukd (stop denying reality) [1]. Also, his user page list people that he considers displaying "hostility, made biased edits and have reverted edits in an abusive way." He list people that usually reverted his edits (sometimes deemed as vandalism). This, to me, considers a personal attack, since these people that he list have a NPOV and will not let this user stick his pro-Arab POV in articles and galleries. In his first paragraph on his user page, he also mentioned that some of the pages that he looks after "bigoted edits by a small group of editors" and that he calls users to "delete and revert narrow-minded edits" and that pretty much deals with anything that does not fit his pro-Arab POV. - Zscout370 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See also his behaviour on Islamofascism, Judeofascism, and Religious imperialism. My attempts to get him to moderate his behaviour have been met with aggression and insult, both on my Talk page and by e-mail. It's not that his edits are always wrong, but they're accompanied by insulting and aggressive edit summaries and Talk-page comments. He clearly feels that everyone who disagrees with him does so out of bigotry and ill-intent. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:15, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Talk:Gallery of national flags
Islamist's User Page
[2], [3] (these were in reply to [4] and [5]).

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:No personal attacks ("Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.")
Wikipedia:Assume good faith ("semi policy")

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

I have placed a notice on his talk page to try asking Islamist to tone down his POV
On the Talk:Gallery of national flags, me and a few others are trying to debate wether the Palestine flag should be added, but this user always states that Palestine should be included and adds it without the consensus. Islamist always states that places like Scotland (who are nearly in the same situation as Palestine) should not be added, but Palestine should be, thus showing his pro-Arab POV. - Zscout370 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User talk:Islamist#Personal attacks in edit summaries
User talk:Islamist#List of "Hostile" editors on your User page

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Zscout370 14:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Mgm|^(talk) 09:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
Mrfixter 01:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Klonimus 03:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:05, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
UDoN't!wAn* 23:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Viriditas | Talk 10:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thryduulf 20:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) having been the subject of a personal attack on my talk page for reminding him that personal attacks in edit summaries are not a good thing (I'll find the diff later).

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.

{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 don't really know about his activities on other pages, but his behaviour on talk:Gallery of national flags is not that remarkable. He's obviously a hothead, but he's not doing anything that other people, including admins, don't regularly do: he insists on his version of the article and vehemently argues his political POV on the talk page. As for his userpage - I'm not a fan of enemy lists myself, but calling people's edits biased and hostile is again not that remarkable. And of course, it's in the user namespace and has no effect on the quality of the encyclopaedia - if you don't like it, don't look at it.

I think that the demonstration of community's power to revert POV edits is a much better deterent for hothead newbies than loud shouting and wikilawyering.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Zocky 14:49, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
LevelCheck 21:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Thryduulf 20:25, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) - this isn't about his POV edits, its about his personal attacks. Particularly in edit summaries.

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.

I think that this is a content dispute. I'm not sure that RFC is the appropriate forum. Firebug 18:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, no (indeed, I specifically said that I agree with some of his edits). The main issues are personal attacks and general PoV pushing, not the content of specific articles. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We can deal with content issues easily, but the main reason why I called for the RfC is because of his attacks against users (specific and groups of users). Zscout370 11:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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.