Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:22, 22 February 2007

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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 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: 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:35, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

• Jimmuldrow (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Pages involved are Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, Alexander v. Sandoval, Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, and United States v. Morrison. Refusal to engage in productive discussion, hostile reaction to civil, good faith criticism, reversion without discussion, and now using a sockpuppet, 68.83.248.130, to revert these pages without discussion. Hydriotaphia 19:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Desired outcome

I'd like Jimmuldrow to engage in discussion so that we can gain consensus on these articles. Good-faith, understandable discussion – as opposed to snarky, hard to understand comments – would also be helpful. Hydriotaphia 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Description

I and other users have attempted to engage Jimmuldrow in productive discussion regarding his edits to certain articles on recent Supreme Court cases. He has generally reacted with hostility to well-meant, good faith criticism, and his responses tend to be, well, nonresponsive (and extremely difficult to understand).

Jimmuldrow's edits tend to be unencyclopedic in tone, express original research or opinions synthesized from several different sources, and are often POV. When this is pointed out in a civil way, Jimmuldrow tends to become irate and to lose the ability to communicate effectively and straightforwardly. I am a practicing attorney with experience in the areas which these articles discuss. I point this out not because I think I should be deferred to, but rather to emphasize that my concerns about the content of these articles are not baseless. From my experience, Jimmuldrow either does not understand these concerns or does not take the time to understand these concerns. In any case, the editors working on these articles need outside help, because I don't know what to do. Hydriotaphia 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

The following are diffs from talk pages. The best way to get a sense of how Jimmuldrow engages in discussion, however, is to look at Talk:Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett and Talk:United States v. Morrison.
(note accusation of "Relentless, hysterical, repetitive denial"), , , , , , , , (comment left on Hydriotaphia's talk page), and (a good example of "ownership" of an article).

The following are recent diffs showing wholesale reversion without discussion:
, , (note the edit summary, which accuses others of "stalk"), , , , , , and .

The history page for United States v. Morrison shows violation of the three revert rule, keeping in mind the plurality of user names/IDs employed by a single user.

In addition, from looking at the contributions of 68.83.248.130, it would appear that this user has aliases. These aliases include FoggyNotion, ArmyAnt, and BirdShark. While neither ArmyAnt nor BirdShark appear to have edited any of the articles which are the subject of this dispute, FoggyNotion has. See this and this.

Applicable policies and guidelines

No original research, Assume good faith, Consensus, Sock puppetry, No personal attacks, Civility, Ownership of articles, Three revert rule, and Neutral point of view.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts both by myself and another editor, Ferrylodge:
, , (long and respectfully expressed list of problems with the article), , , , , , , , , , , , .

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

I have tried and failed to resolve this dispute. Signed, Hydriotaphia 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I too have tried and failed to resolve this dispute, as can be seen at the "discussion" and "history" pages for three of the four articles at issue. I was not involved in the dispute regarding Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, but I was involved regarding the other three articles, and I fully subscribe to the description provided by Hydriotaphia regarding the dispute about those three articles (Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, Alexander v. Sandoval, and United States v. Morrison).Ferrylodge 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

I did create extra accounts, not to get away with anything but because I was very closely monitored by Hydriotaphia and FerryLodge. They were like my shadow, following me everywhere I went. Also, Hydriotaphia made comments that indicated he was more interested in me than I would like.

As to who is more right or wrong, anyone interested in finding out can look at the edits and discussion pages for the four articles in question. Some comments made about their complaints can be found on the discussion pages for Hydriotaphia and FerryLodge.

I personally think the following Misplaced Pages guidelines apply:

• RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.
• An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

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.}

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.