From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement of the dispute

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Dan56 has a history of problematic editing and user conduct issues on Wikipedia that are inconsistent with the project's goal of being "an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." He is frequently hostile to new editors and IPs, and he demonstrates an unwillingness to assume good faith on the part of those he disagrees with. Dan56 has also demonstrated an ongoing inability to avoid close paraphrasing and/or outright copyright violations. Further, Dan56 routinely invites editors to content disputes and featured content discussions of which he is a party. A large number of Dan56's edits involve reverting the work of others. While many of these reverts are helpful and appropriate, a good deal of them are not, and are instead designed to return an article to his preferred version, demonstrating an issue with WP:OWN.

Dan56 frequently demonstrates a poor understanding of several important policies, including Wikipedia:No original research, which he regularly misuses to justify the reversion of others, WP:Edit warring, WP:Consensus, and WP:Neutral point of view.

Desired outcome

I am seeking input from the community about the validity and remediation of these user conduct issues.

It is hoped that Dan56 can continue to contribute to the project, specifically music related articles, by agreeing to refrain from the problematic behaviors that inhibit his ability to work in a collaborative online social environment. Specific goals include:

  • Per Wikipedia:Copyright violations, Dan56 will commit to an increased effort to avoid close-paraphrases and copyright violations. He will agree to be mentored by someone who is willing and able to educate him regarding the legal necessity of proper paraphrasing and the editorial nuances involved therein.
  • Per Wikipedia:Canvassing, Dan56 will refrain from excessive cross-posting ("spamming") editors to join discussions relating to a) content disputes he is involved in, and b) featured content discussions of which he is a party.
  • Per Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, Dan56 will refrain from hostility towards new editors and IPs, and instead "treat newcomers with kindness and patience".
  • Per Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Dan56 will refrain from making repeated accusations about the intentions of those who disagree with him.
  • Per Wikipedia:Edit warring, Dan56 will refrain from reverting to restore his preferred version without good cause and discussion, especially reverts that restore only those music genres that he agrees with.
  • Per Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Dan56 will refrain from arbitrarily reverting good faith contributions made to articles that he is the primary editor of, particularly those that he has nominated at GAN and FAC.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Attempts by certifier Harmelodix

Attempts by certifier Drmies

As a writer of prose I must do this in narrative style.

  • An earlier run-in with Dan56 was at Talk:Are_You_Experienced/Archive_1#Unexplained_removal, April 2014; I jumped into an edit war, and John also played a mediating role. While I more or less agreed with Dan's initial position (he later painted me firmly in his camp, twice), I was surprised at his intransigence, his difficulty to seek and find compromise. This particular exchange involved GabeMc and Dan, and the matter of contention was a Christgau review--Dan's seems very fond of quoting those reviews (see Talk:Master_of_Reality#Dubious_removal) and fought to keep it in--in my opinion, both went to excess in their fight, and only the presence of a couple of other editors helped to find a middle road (I doubt Dan would have found it on his own).
  • Please note that I came into this conflict fairly neutral; see my criticism of Harmelodix's word choice in the aforementioned Talk:Master_of_Reality#Dubious_removal. I saw cause to change my mind afterward.
  • My most recent interaction with Dan56 was on Talk:Black Sabbath (album), and I refer to the discussion there, particularly the RfC on "blues rock"--this RfC was an attempt to settle a content dispute.

    Dan does not agree with my interpretation of his actions, but I considered his edits/reverts and commentary as disruptive and claiming ownership. The claim of "cherry picking" (leveled at Harmelodix) is easily made in every article, but here it is used as another stick to beat Harmelodix with. What bothered me particularly is Dan's real lack of contribution to the genre RfC ( here is one of his many reverts--but note that the section consensus [wording changed after Dan's valid comment] he's pointing at does not exist; there is no section anywhere on the talk pages where "blues rock" is agreed on); he was so adamant in the edit war, but produced not a shred of evidence. (The RfC concluded in Harmelodix's favor, if you will, with a few editors changing their minds, and no one supporting Dan's position.)

Attempts by certifier Malik Shabazz

Evidence of disputed behavior

WP:COPYVIO

Concern
Dan56 has a history of close paraphrasing and copyright violations.

Even after admonishments from FAC delegate Ian Rose here and here, Dan56 continues to refuse to take paraphrasing and copyrights seriously. His most recent FAC, which is also the subject of his latest spamming campaign, indicates a significant concern regarding Dan56's understanding and respect for the copyrights of source material. Dan56's third and fourth attempts at FAC for this same article were closed by the delegates with extreme prejudice against his disrespect for copyright laws. He continues to refuse to correct the problem. It is only by the virtue of an editor, User:BananaLanguage, going above and beyond that the copyright violations were eventually identified. Dan56 refuses to, or is incapable of identifying these issue on his own.

WP:CANVASS

Concern
Dan56 recently spammed 112 users to join in a featured content discussion for an article that he nominated. What's worse is that he has inconvenienced these users to review an article that is riddled with copyright violations, issues that FAC delegate Ian Rose first expressed concern about on January 11, 2014. He reiterated this concern on February 1.
Dan56 solicited 55 users to review Of Human Feelings from June 15 to July 4

Kokoro20, Flyer22, Werldwayd, Bencherlite, Tjarrett, Hyperborée, Night Time, Mr Stephen, Semitransgenic, DISEman, Wikiklrsc, TJRC, Johnny338, BrunoMacDonald, Divine618, Friginator, Redrose64, GentlemanGhost, Jinkinson, Jedi94, Freshacconci, Synthwave.94, Radiopathy, Dylanbud, Froglich, Mlpearc, Favonian, Calidum, Werieth, ?uest, Ortolan88, Adabow, Koavf, Kencf0618, SNUGGUMS, IndianBio, Beatleswhobeachboys, Noboyo, JayJasper, Victor Lopes, Widefox, LemonCrumpet, Livelikemusic, Magioladitis, SilkTork, DepressedPer, Aoidh, LindsayH, Montanabw, Makyen, Ericorbit, Sufur222, SNAAAAKE!!, ChakaKong, Mayast.

Dan56 solicited 57 users to review Of Human Feelings from July 7 to July 28

TLSuda, Bender235, Chris the speller, DragonflySixtyseven, ZoharN, (CA)Giacobbe, IPadPerson, Awu1996, R'n'B, Sdornan, Stemoc, WikiRedactor, Hiddenstranger, Rhododendrites, Jhsounds, FrB.TG, Armbrust, Mean as custard, Froid, Rigadoun, Stereorock, T. Anthony, Dispenser, Purplebackpack89, Matharvest, Lady Lotus, In ictu oculi, Acalamari, Jimthing, B14709, Magiciandude, Frietjes, Belovedfreak, WonderBoy1998, Froodiantherapy, Dl2000, WFinch, Musdan, RevMSWIE500, Jpgordon, Robman94, Sojs, Mudwater, Mauri96, Aristophanes68, Jac16888, Mick gold, Esanchez7587, CutOffTies, Coldcreation, Doctorhawkes, Carmaker1, AndrewOne, MayorOfIacon, Flow Ridian, Ebyabe, Maikel

Concern
Dan56 frequently invites users to join in discussions relating to content disputes of which he is a party.

WP:BITE

Concern
Dan56 is routinely hostile to newly registered editors and IPs.

Within 5 hours of my registration, on June 8, 2014, Dan56 gave me this notice on my talk page, which was accusing me of some kind of dubious content removal. However, the edit in question, which Dan56's subsequently reverted, was basic copyediting that reduced the verbosity of the prose. It was nothing that should have been reverted and nothing that justified one of those template warnings. Again, I had registered my account just 5 hours earlier. What's especially bothersome about this particular example, is that not only was Dan56's reverting a perfectly good contribution, he did so at an article that he had never edited before.

That was my first interaction with Dan56, and things got worse afterwards. In fact, Dan56 reverted me 4 times at different 4 pages within 30 hours of my registration. 1, 2, 3, 4. Dan56 accused me of socking on my third day of editing, and even though Coren check-usered me and the other accused accounts, and based on our respective geo-locations cleared of us socking, Dan56 continued to accuse me.

On June 27, 2014, Malik Shabazz warned Dan56, stating: "Hi Dan56. Please take care not to WP:BITE User:Harmelodix so much. Some of your recent behavior comes across as ownership which, as you know, is not the way things are done here. Thank you." Dan56 responded by asking, "which part came across that way?"; Malik Shabazz replied, "It looks to me, as an outsider who hasn't reviewed every diff, like you revert almost every change Harmelodix makes." Dan56's response to this was to accuse me of being a sock who was only here to follow him around, once again attempting to discredit me even though Coren had checked me two weeks earlier and told him that I wasn't a sock of anyone.

WP:AGF

Concern
Dan56 frequently demonstrates an inability and/or unwillingness to assume good faith when dealing with new users, IPs, and editors with whom he has had a disagreement.
  • Dan56 regularly tags edits as "dubious", casting doubt on the intentions of editors who disagree with him. I'm sure that many of these edits are in fact dubious, but the frequency with which Dan56 uses the term makes me think that it is being misapplied in a hostile way often enough to cause concern.
  • Dan56 reverts a perfectly good-faith edit and accuses me in the edit summary of hounding him.
  • Dan56 reverts my improvement to the prose and brevity, retaining some off-topic excess and justifying his reversion of my copyedit with "'citing', 'giving' are present participles". He seems to think that this is a misuse of these words, but it's obviously not. The disagreement is not the issue so much that again, he labeled my good-faith edit as hounding.
  • Dan56 reverted me at another article for the same reason, with the edit summary, "Reverted 1 edit Harmelodix; present participle, unnecessary change to begin with ( WP:TEDIOUS)". I believe that my good-faith edit was/is an improvement, but Dan56 apparently won't allow the alteration or removal of any material related to Robert Christgau, which is further evidenced by this recent disagreement with Flow Ridian, who Dan56 "invited" to review his FAC. Earlier this year, User:JG66 had this to say about Dan56's apparent obsession with Robert Christgau.
  • Dan56 reverts my good-faith edit, with the edit summary, "An extra comma has nothing to do with the flow of this sentence. Please stop making tedious changes to prove a point ( WP:POINTY))"
  • Dan56 reverts me here, but says in the edit summary, " WP:TEDIOUS → what's the difference?" So it's not only an AGF fail, but if there is no difference then why revert me?

WP:EW

Concern
Dan56 frequently and flippantly accuses people of genre warring, as evidenced by this edit summary search.
Slow edit warring at Black Sabbath (album)
58 minutes later, Dan reverts the IP and accuses them of genre warring.
12 hours later User:MrMoustacheMM reverts ChakaKong
ChakaKong and MrMoustacheMM go back and forth for four days before Dan56 reverts ChakaKong to MrMoustacheMM's preferred version.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. Harmelodix. Harmelodix ( talk) 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Blocked per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino— Kww( talk) 18:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  2. Drmies. Note that Drmies wants to note that Harmelodix is responsible for the data gathered and presented here. I have not clicked and followed every single diff, but I share, in general, Harmelodix's concerns--particularly the suggestions of ownership, the bitey remarks, the unwillingness to compromise, and a less-than-perfect acceptance of good faith. Drmies ( talk) 19:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  3. Malik Shabazz. Like Drmies, I share Harmelodix's concerns in general concerning ownership and unwillingness to compromise. My experience with Dan56 is limited, though, and I cannot say that I've personally witnessed all the behaviors described above. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 03:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  4. Redrose64. I did wonder why Dan56 posted to my talk page when AFAIK we've never interacted before. To save you checking, I didn't get a reply. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 18:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this statement

  1. Mendaliv. While I'm not comfortable certifying the basis of the dispute, I agree that what I've seen of Dan56's behavior concerns me. While I don't think Harmelodix's hands are sparkly clean, that doesn't make Dan's behavior justified. —/ Mendaliv/ 2¢/ Δ's/ 12:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  2. See my view below. Just because sockpuppets disagree with this editor does not mean that he shouldn't listen to other registered editors. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Response

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

I've made attempts recently to diligently correct the paraphrasing issues at the FAC in question and have refrained from soliciting reviews since; FTR, I did not try to approach the review process in a non-neutral way or w.e., and after hearing this from Maunus and this from Simon Burchell, I continued with the intention to solicit random editors I find on my watchlist of music-related articles, with whom I've no previous interaction/relationship, with the expectation that most will likely ignore the message. As far as the other claims, Harmelodix is telling half-truths and revisionist history with his other concerns, which were previously addressed in large part at the ANI regarding me that he opened some time ago, where he was cautioned about his boomerang-esque accusations and conveniently forgetting to mention who rubbed who wrong to begin with before the both of us continued to find it difficult to assume good faith; FTR, I did not interpret "respective geolocation of the two accounts (and Jazzerino's) make them unrelated on a technical basis as "I check-usered him". I never "imagined" a consensus either; the edit summary Harmelodix and Drmies are referring had me saying "discussed at #Genres" because #Genres is where it was discussed, it exists/existed → #Genres (13 July 2013).
We found a bit of understanding (I assumed) when we compromised at an article--Unapologetic--regarding a genre dispute: Harmelodix: "no wonder you paranoid about socks, they is everywhere you go! ... a valid indication that you agree that its not unsourced or undue to add R&B." Dan56: "Agreed! Figures that at least two of those users were socks considering their edit histories. Fine with the change! Cheers" After some time away from each other, Harmelodix found his way (randomly?) to an FAC talk page discussion I was involved in to make a personal attack. I wont make as great an effort to how much of boomerang applies here (I don't have the time to indulge this, just only to realize it was totally not worth personalizing edits between the two of us when I did). The best solution was, as the ANI he opened said in its closing/conclusion, to stay away from each other, but Harmelodix again went to a discussion involving me on 26 July and left me suspicious again as to why he did: I found his explanation questionable, and he left it unanswered. I'm assuming that led to this. Harmelodix's bad experience with me has made him understate and overlook my usual behavior and conduct; I level-1-template (the friendly, welcoming template) IPs and new users as required and articulate my concerns and rationales perfectly well, so this one-sided observation of selected diffs must have been well motivated. I find some his suggestions bogus, of "making repeated accusations about the intentions of those who disagree with him", or "reverting to restore his preferred version without good cause and discussion, especially reverts that restore only those music genres that he agrees with." By taking the diffs/examples he linked at face value, you're overlooking the numerous inadequate edit summaries and responses to the discussion at London Calling, including one where he said the source discussed the album's music as being a certain genre, after having written the quoted discussion from the source which mentioned no genre at all, thus an untruthful explanation.
I don't bow out just because another editor is not being the most civil or understanding of a position I truly believe is right and I can backup, but my recent interactions with content I disagreed on a fundamental/guideline basis include User_talk:Spesh531#Recent_additions.3B_reissue_infobox and Talk:The_Beatles_(album)#Summary_of_reviews, where I articulated my position in length and compromised. I don't see what Harmelodix is trying to prove with this; I'm not perfect and have my share of disputes with certain editors who provoked one way or another, but my relationship with Harmelodix and interactions with him are not indicative of what I usual strive and prove to be. Since the positive interaction on 8 July 2014 (when we last interacted in an article we had both been editing--Unapologetic), I deliberately avoided the two articles he had started to become a significant contributor to--Black Sabbath (album) and Masters of Reality--where we had our disagreements; his recent involvement to discussions seemingly unrelated to him looked to provoke; I was ready to assume good faith again if we happen to interact again, but I don't see much of a chance of that again. I was able to reconcile and compromise with GabeMc after a relationship I considered was far worse than this one at one point, but this much effort in an RfC is disconcerting and I don't appreciate being painted as the type of editor Harmelodix described in his opening remarks. Harmelodix, sorry for the rude remarks I've made, really, but this RfC suggests more than a few inappropriate words by me, suggestions I don't agree with and feel they are being made out of spite rather than a genuine concern for Wikipedia. Dan56 ( talk) 05:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

Outside views

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add their views of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Flow Ridian

  • On July 23, 2014, Dan56 invited me to review his FAC for Of Human Feelings. Although I had never reviewed at FAC before, I thought I would give it a shot, as it seemed fun, and I like to help out where I can. Things went relatively well until near the end, when I identified Dan56's misrepresentation of a source in an attempt to assert that an A+ grade from Robert Christgau was the "ultimate accolade" in all of music journalism and criticism. Not to mention the fact that the section in question contained what I judged to be excessive information about Christgau and his rating system. Dan56 seemed incapable of compromise on this point, and our subsequent back-and-forth left me exhausted and demoralized about the FAC process in general. I had never before interacted with Dan56, nor had I commented at FAC, so I'm not sure why he picked me. Regardless, I felt like I went above the call of duty and tried to help him out. He demonstrated an inability to accurately paraphrase source material and an extreme reluctance to compromise. He eventually removed most of the questionable material, but not until Dcs002 joined a talk page discussion and agreed with my position that the source was being misinterpreted and misrepresented by Dan56. In my opinion, Dan56 has a severe issue with paraphrasing and with pushing a POV regarding Christgau. He is also insistent on specific versions of prose, where there is little or no room for suggestions from others. Most alarming to me was his willingness to resort to accusations of bias on my part immediately after I raised the concern about the Christgau material, and as Harmolodix pointed out at the talk page, Dan56 twice accused me of "hating" jazz music and Robert Christgau: here and here, even though I explicitly told him that I have a deep respect for both, which relates to Dan56's issue with WP:AGF. I hope that Dan56 is willing to change some, if not most, of these behaviors so that he can continue to collaborate on Wikipedia articles. Flow Ridian ( talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Blocked per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino— Kww( talk) 18:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Ritchie333

  • I've come across Dan56 numerous times on WP:ALBUMS related articles, but I've never personally had an issue with him. The only time I can remember banging heads with him is on Talk:Live at Leeds/Archive 1#Next Album, and even there Dan eventually went with consensus under his own steam without too much back and forth. He is consistent with views, paying particular diligence to infoboxes and review boxes and if he says an infobox should only have "Rock" as a genre - that's fine with me.
To be perfectly honest, the reverts that have gone on with Dan and others are not that important to the layman reader. Nobody really cares if Abbey Road is progressive rock or not or whether Robert Christgau gave it 4 or 5 stars - they want to know about the songs, the production, and maybe the cover. If that's a criticism against Dan, it's a criticism against everyone who's butted heads with him - you can't make an edit war with just one editor. All I can suggest is for all of us to follow the usual dispute resolution process and if somebody doesn't play ball - WP:ANEW is thataway. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Outside view by BananaLanguage

It is good to see Dan56 taking steps to address the copyright and paraphrasing issues in the Of Human Feelings article, but Dan56 also does not seem to find it necessary to perform due-dilligence on their own contributions [12].
In conclusion, and to offer a concrete suggestion, I think Dan56 can learn more about copyright violation and close-paraphrasing if the community were to require a re-review of all of the articles he has helped promote to GA and FA status because I think we will likely find further examples of copyright violation in those articles. BananaLanguage ( talk) 10:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

View by Robert McClenon

I haven’t reviewed Dan56’s contributions for close paraphrases or other violations of copyright. I have reviewed the diffs provided by the certifiers, and I agree that there are very significant ownership problems, and a massive canvassing effort. Many of the reverts that he has made to relatively minor textual corrections are either just silly or petty, or just possessive. In one case he made a grammatical objection to a correction that was just grammatically wrong (about use of a present participle, which was correct). There have been too many allegations of genre-warring. On the one hand, genre-warring is undesirable. On the other hand, not every disagreement as to genre is a genre war (unless one has asserted ownership of the categorization of genre). There has been too much arguing over the details of the wording of reviews.

There was a massive canvassing effort by Dan56 on behalf of a candidate article. That was improper, and will not succeed in bringing “his” articles forward.

Dan56’s response is too long, difficult to read. However, it appears to contain an indirect or back-handed apology to Harmelodix. If so, good. Some progress may have been made; more needs to be made.

A common sanction for possessive or “ownership” editing is a topic-ban. For that reason, Dan56 should learn a possibly counter-intuitive rule. Too much involvement in an article may lead to being denied any involvement in the article. He needs to learn to edit “his” articles collaboratively, rather than defensively and possessively.

Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this statement

  1. I also haven't looked for copyvio issues (I've not reviewed any of their FA or GA nominations, as far as I am aware), and I agree with the substance of this comment. Drmies ( talk) 14:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  2. Especially re ownership and canvassing; I now tend to avoid articles Dan56 is editing for these reasons. Middle 8 ( leave me alone • talk to me • COI?) 08:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

View by User:RTG

I have been looking over little bits and pieces of this. I get more of a feeling of semantics than protection. I know that's not quite it. Dan56 edit summaries can be difficult to read. The thing about classic on its release, the definition you left said classic couldn't be initial. I would want to see something that shows why a large number of editors are contacted, of course. I don't see any 3RR and as the percentage of any talk page issues would make it so long to find,. Seems to be a tireless contributor. I am tending to feel supportive of Dan56. I am writing so much because I have been looking at it and am open to giving an opinion if he is disruptive or damaging but I don't see any of that. Maybe I will come back and read the rest later but I don't see any real reprimands. I have only come across this discussion at random. I was reading about the requests for comment process. Well that's it. I'd be interested to go through it but most of the prose changes Dan56 was in the right and the harrassing thing, well I didn't think it was. This is an argument about who picks what journalists are quoted. You should be trying to remove ALL of the quotes unless they are historic quotes like, "One small step for man...". I think the guideline has been badly edited at some stage. ~ R. T. G 08:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC) reply

As I read further into this there are some more significant issues. But they mainly seem to revolve around edit warring over prose which, on the surface, does not reveal particularly damaging or disruptive intention by Dan56, and may stem from disaproval at the failed Good Article attempt, and a difference in appreciation of journalistic critique. I have clicked several dozen of the diffs provided. Most of the prose issues seem to be one way or the other, but generally constructive and undamaging.
Most of the beginning of this RfC, for quite some length, suggests minor issues and reveals, mostly, diffs that aren't even issues, and toolserver lists that do not appear to be issues. I do not see anything on the edit warring, about warnings from admins or other dispute resolution procedures, and yet 100s of edits are referenced, through the toolserver, as unchecked warring. These editors could be working together with concession and good faith.
    • Insist that quotations that lack unique notability, such as journalistic critique, are intended to be reduced altogether from the main text (this is the guideline principle if you care to read it closely).
    • Insist that genre is based on reference and citation without deviation and there will be no dispute.
    • The edit warring is difficult because it has grown outside easy review. Dan56 intention seems to be in good faith and generally constructive. Some seem to be inconsequential. I did not note any, though I only looked through a random couple of dozen, to be particularly damaging, but I would suggest referring to the relevant wikiproject for dispute guidance. The bickering about single commas. Stop it.
    • The issue of personal attacks based on a single word in an edit summary is cautionable, but it is not an issue after that. You know the rules. Stop it.
    • The issue of copyright infringement is significant only in the Good Article attempt. If you assume good faith, these are test edits. it is not unfair to have a failed attempt at that and guidance is more appropriate than reprimand. The numerosity of these attempts ought to have been resolved with the help of the Good Article Project, and you might have had a Good Article instead of an argument.
    • I have no opinion at the moment if this editors contribution is overall constructive or disruptive. My impression is that this situation has spiralled from minor clashing, exacerbated through differing support of journalistic critique. If the contrary can be shown, fair enough, but I see no motivational issues and a load of bickering around good faith issues. I mean, there are no tests on this editors good faith while there are countless tests on their willingness to dispute, and the conclusion on that one obviates itself.
    • It is unfair to review the interaction of Dan56 and Harmodelix on its own. In a court of law, the entire relevant text would likely be removed from this page.
    • I am agreeable to the views of users Ritchie333 and BananaLanguage and somewhat unopinionated towards that of Robert McClenon who claims to have reviewed the full RfC except the defensive response, lacks any objective reasoning, and calls for following respect of sockpuppets. ~ R. T. G 20:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

Summary

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dan56&oldid=1125691732"