Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rydel

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 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:29, 22 September 2024 (UTC).

(Example user | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. In mid December I came across the article and gave it a massive overhaul, NPOV, improvement and conscised the facts together, only to be reverted within hours. Of course I offered Rydel to take discussion and he simply ignored me. The article remained a warzone since it was reverted over 30 times, locked twice. Yet in all occuraces Rydel's response was [1]. Recentely Rydel on about 10 pages inserted this [2] trying to descredit everything that is Russian and Belarusian yet against his POVed convictionsKuban Cossack 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} Belarusian language, a few month revert war, AND personal insults against me. --Kuban Cossack 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Belarusian language revert war since December 2005. first revert, most recent revert
Orsha came across the article, NPOVed it, and was immediately reverted [3], then insulted on the talk page [4]. Dispute was settled eventually after the large wiki community came.
Offensive edit summaries: [5], [6].
Rydel has a habit of representing content disputes as "vandalism", especially on talk pages of other editors (example).
Recruiting supporters for his political agenda on totally unrelated talk pages, see here or here.
Revert warring over unsourced fringe theories he introduced to Wikipedia, such as that Belarusian language, one of East Slavic languages, is closer to Polish, a West Slavic language, than to Russian language (example).

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

User talk: 1, 2 3, 4,
Talk: Belarusian Language Preatty much all that comes after this edit. I'll just add that the article was locked twice as a result.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

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 (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view by Mir Harven

Having carefully read a few "hot" topics like the Belarusian language and Orsha pages, I have no doubts: the user Kuban Cossack is just an ordinary Russian chauvinist; as regards wiki, he's a vandal whose "activity" with regard to the Belarus-related pages can be best described as mainly destructive and trolling abuse geared in promotion of Russian chauvinist propaganda. User Rydel is hot tempered, but constructive & well-informed. This whole case has something kafkaesque about it: a troll in the role of a "prosecutor". Distasteful, to say the least. Mir Harven 20:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Outside view by abakharev

The RfC is very poorely written, it is often unclear even what article the plaintiffs are talking about. If possible, could you consider rewriting the Statement of the dispute and the Description sections. Anyway it is clear that User:Rydel sometimes violated WP:NPA policy. E.g. it is absolutely unexcusable to deliberately distort somebodies user-names so to allege participation of the user in Nazy organization. WP:VAND is also a reasonably clear policy, having a special section WP:VAND#What vandalism is not. We all spend a significant amount of our time protecting Wikipedia from Vandals, it is very bad taste to accuse people of been vandals without providing the diffs of the vandalous edits. Even if you feel very strongly about a particular edit you still could argue your case in a civil matter. BTW, this is true to all participants of the arguments, not only to Rydel.

The content dispute over the articles Belarusian language and Orsha are clearily beyond the scope of this RfC. It seems that on some points Kuban Cossack is most probably right (e.g. we should use the interwiki to the main articles, not to the redirects), on some points Rydel is most probably right, on some points somebody should just invent a compromise and some points are just not worth to argue about. Maybe we should have a separate RfC on the articles or find a mediator. Overall I think that the attitude "I was born there so my point of view is right and all other points of view are vandalism" is wrong. The whole idea behind Wiki is to find a Neutral wordings for all the relevant facts and opinions, suitable for people with different points of view. abakharev 10:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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.