Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KnowIG

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 09:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC).

---

• KnowIG (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

KnowIG (talk · contribs) is an editor who has repeatedly engaged in conduct which is unacceptable for Wikipedia, both in terms of content-building and general interaction with other editors. He has persistently failed to recognise and address the issue when such concerns have been raised, instead reverting to a defensive and often aggressive attitude.

This has been his behaviour style for a long time; the earlier examples below are not at all dissimilar to instances from just a few days ago. (I have been instructed not to notify him of this RfC, and I have followed that instruction.)

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Ideally, KnowIG will become familiar with our core content policies and with the Manual of Style and adhere to them, thus not creating un-necessary work for other editors. He will also take note that his interactions have, up to this point, been of a generally unconstructive nature, and will substantially alter his attitude.

It is always possible that his talents are simply not suited to Wikipedia; in this case, hopefully he will understand the importance attached to civility and appropriate encyclopedic skills and not continue to be the burden which, to be frank, he has been up to this point.

Description

(nothing further to add in this section, really)

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. Meaningless but insulting messages to numerous editors [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
2. Inserting self-identified "random numbers" into an article for no clear reason (another editor had to spend time clearing this up)
3. Poor spelling and grammar (and edit-warring to restore such material; and again on a different article; and again on yet another; and again on another)
4. Refusal to adopt a policy-compliant signature until blocking was threatened by an admin
5. Personal attacks (basted [sic] + Do not bully people cause I will bully you back)
6. "Is it explained prat get some glasses"
7. Deleting others' comments from talkpages (and again)
8. Edit-warring unsourced material into an article, along with gross rudeness: "It's called watching it something I suggest you do"
9. Lack of appreciation of encyclopedic style
10. Unexplained deletion of accurate information (later explained away as "vandalism" because up-to-the-minute information is "what the BBC is for"); somewhat similar to a previous incident
11. Edit-summary nastiness over trivial issue (and "are you blind or stupid?")
12. General OWNy unpleasantness [8] ("Stop editing for 2 reasons")
13. Unilaterally deleting content which appears to be adequately sourced (and again)
14. Decision that spoilers should be excluded from article ledes and also from picture-captions
15. Reverting non-vandalism edits (using the 'undo' tool) without any explanation as mandated by WP:FIES
16. Deleting without explanation an "unreferenced" tag from an unreferenced article
17. Unilateral deletion of a "notability" tag, combined with a classic ITSNOTABLE argument
18. Unilateral instructions with no clear basis in Wikipedia policy
19. Unexplained reversion
20. Unilateral decision as to what info is "needed"
21. Undoing a formatting correction with the edit-summary, "Who cares?" [9]
22. Deleting references pertaining to living people for a very unclear reason, and edit-warring to do so [10] [11] [12]
23. Referring to perfectly reasonable content as "twaddle"
24. "Christ can {sic} we have proper English?"
25. "Cheeky sod"
26. "TT is pathetic"

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:VAND
2. WP:DE
3. WP:CIV
4. WP:TPO
5. WP:NPA
6. WP:IDHT
7. WP:SPOILER
8. WP:BATTLE
9. WP:MOS
10. WP:OWN
11. WP:BRD
12. WP:EW
13. WP:FIES
14. WP:BLP

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(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.)

1. ANI thread on signature
2. ANI thread on general editing style
3. Polite enquiry as to actions

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. Aggressive response to points raised (and another)
2. Poor edits continuing after ANI threads and talkpage discussions
3. Even a block didn't make him get the point that the problem was not the fault of other editors
4. Polite enquiry as to actions deleted and insulting comment left on my talkpage (and after I removed it, it was then replaced twice and the 3RR warning was rudely rejected)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
2. -- Cirt (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
3. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 8:26pm • 10:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

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.}

This is rubbsh. Reason TT goes around intimidating and bullying other users. Mainly by swearing at them. He breaks all the things he listed me for as well. He also does a fair amount of winding up. Here are examples of him being uncival towards other users/when editing pages. Waserly bollocks, Oh get real, bollocks, real mature,who gives a shit, bollocks, unsourced crap why the fuck did you do thatOh, by "any definition" of companion he is? For fuck's sake, rm bollocks And also examples of him making unhelpful reasons for revising a page rm drivel meaningless good, User talk:Ckatz no, meaningless, so how about no, yeah, no, can't you read, oh good God almighty He does this when he doesn't agree with what someone writes which is often rather good, and doesn't have a great reason to. And thinks that he owns wikipedia, when someone warns him of breaking a rule he reverts it with lulz so when it is reverted he does it again, but IF I revert my own page guess who reverts it. Yep that's right TT. Example here.delation and his revert, just a copy and paste here's An example of another editor sayign its OK to revert my own talk page Most of what TT has cited has been when he has antagaonised a situation, in order to create a situation when he can get rid of me. He basically admited it once, See idea number 3, see the example no spelling errors

Response to all charges
1. .1 TT had engaged in an edit war with me, so sticks an edit war sign on my page and carries on to edit war himself as you can see he reverts 3 times I reverted twice then reverted once more for a link .5 I was rather peeved off with Armburst making pointless edits, I does a edit and nothing changes on every snooker article, I swear he thinks he owns wiki Snooker.
2. Inserting random number is bollocks. I had a source from the times newspaper as quoted at the beginnig of the table to illustrate how hard they had to work. Which is being called vandalism, being cited by this pathetic user. I said random number as i didn't think of misc numbers at the time.
3. Shocking just shocking citing poor spelling it's word perfect! Oh look the edit war is caused by TT, and it's nothing to do with spelling he doesn't agree with what was writen, as usual, the last 2 examples again perfect spelling, and 2) major plot details were missing.
4.No one told me how to do it and kept citing confusing wiki jargon pages until said editor warned and explained simpley how to do it
5. I told TT to turn his language down after witnessing his constent bad language. And this is how he responeded. bugger off Unfortunatly for me I jumped at that bate
6. This was after this undoing unexplained edits which were explained by me, as I felt the caption gave away too much. There fore not a valid reason to edit and TT did this to again antagonise me
7. TT was goading me to get me blocked
8.You can't source a TV show. So the unsourced reason is bollocks. Do you want the script sourced everytime one writes a comment on a piece of fiction, TT?
9.That was 2 editors sorting out minor grammer issues. The more serious thing and just shows how much bullying TT does towards me is what happens next, as TT immedatily undoes my edit as he doesn't agree and then comes up with the supurb near-meaningless and not as good as the alternative Which proves he doesn't have an issue with the edit, he undoes it as I did the edit. He then engaged in an edit war which he started with a blatent act of vandalism.
10.Wikipedia is not a place for live score so i removed it before we had endless updates. That's what the BBC is for and adding a live score is a form of vandalism although in a minor sense. Again live scores in the brackets confuses people as they think the set has finished. Snooker has a policy of no scores until the end of a session, tennis has a policy of no scores until a set is compelte so the removal was totally justified. TT just doesn't understand the tennis stuff hence why he thinks his right here.
11. Ambrust doesn't inform people why he does that it's very annoying for a user to see a change and no reason given in the feedback form
12.He wouldn't talk to me, and kept reverting things to poor grammer and lack of detail which other users had done and then that user did exactly what I had said. Example my first edit it then was reverted 5 times 4 by that user and once by someone else and look, it's a near exact copy of what I had stated first up Ratemouth was bang out of order on that one and look guess what I'm getting blamed WOW! That comment on ratemouths page was firm but fair, and no he wanted to own the River song article not me, so lets not cite me for that TT.
13. That is explained in my edit summery why it was removed. This getting tedious
14. Many other people removed that, TT engaged in an edit war and wanted to own the article and guess who's being blamed
15.Another user had already undone that. Therefore it is vandalism against consensus
16.Funny there are loads of biographical article which are not sourced. Most of them are sourced on the article's individual page either in the info box or on the page spill this is good enough.
17. other cricket users, had decided to list every ground which had hosted an A list match. Therefore Armbrust was wrong to put that tag on as the ground had indeed hosted a A list match
18. Well wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not have information on there which can easly wait until the event is over. Hence why i said wait until it's over
19. The link was wrong
20. Horrid English, no one else has a problem with it apart from TT
21. Armbrust on that ocassion did a unexplained edit for no apparent reason
22. Armbrust knew exactly what was wrong with it and was being very pendantic about it, hence on the talk page 'you didn't say it was the link' confirming that he was being pendantic, and since he reverted me, he should have gone to the talk page but didn't. He only went there after I went there.
23.A) see TT above for all the unhelpful comments his made to edits which he thinks is perfectly ok to do. B)Wrong tense and info box issue.|
24. User:PL Alvarez kept on changing perfect English in tennis article to shocking English and creating articles which are in poor English. What does one expect and since I've writen to him he writes properly. And again not nearly as bad as the person refering me, TT.
25. TT had started winding me up by posting rubbish on my talkpage, and then when i respond to him he deleted it and then reverted my page
26. Well he is.

Armbrust frequently doesn't explain his changes but i see his added himself to this and TT frequently writes cm meaning what when editing. TT is systmatically going out to target me hence some of the quiet remeadale comments thus far. Here's examples of edits which I've done which are good 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 7, 8, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15, 16, 17, 18, I could go on. Most the things listed here against me have been AFTER TT has gone and antagonised the situation or when TT USES it to twist to make out that I'm being unreasonable, see reason #9, or when others refuse to talk and antagonise the situation themselves and then TT has jumped in to make out that I'm some kind of devil.

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.

Outside view by Joe Gazz84

I feel that this summary given is extremely accurate and I have also looked at the evidence and agree that this user's actions are unacceptable. I would like to see the user correct the behavior. I would like to also point out that very soon after I posted this response I got this on my talkpage. My results of the data are:

1. Meaningless but insulting messages to numerous editors [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]-Guilty As Charged
2. Inserting self-identified "random numbers" into an article for no clear reason (another editor had to spend time clearing this up)-Guilty As Charged
3. Poor spelling and grammar (and edit-warring to restore such material; and again on a different article; and again on yet another; and again on another)-Guilty As Charged
4. Refusal to adopt a policy-compliant signature until blocking was threatened by an admin-Guilty As Charged
5. Personal attacks (basted [sic] + Do not bully people cause I will bully you back)-Guilty As Charged, mostly, the user at the end could have possibly provoked more unruly behavior.
6. "Is it explained prat get some glasses"-Guilty As Charged, very rude edit summary.
7. Deleting others' comments from talkpages (and again)-Guilty As Charged
8. Edit-warring unsourced material into an article, along with gross rudeness: "It's called watching it something I suggest you do"-Guilty As Charged
9. Lack of appreciation of encyclopedic style-Guilty As Charged
10. Unexplained deletion of accurate information (later explained away as "vandalism" because up-to-the-minute information is "what the BBC is for"); somewhat similar to a previous incident-Guilty As Charged
11. Edit-summary nastiness over trivial issue (and "are you blind or stupid?")-Guilty As Charged
12. General OWNy unpleasantness [20] ("Stop editing for 2 reasons")-Guilty As Charged
13. Unilaterally deleting content which appears to be adequately sourced (and again)-Guilty As Charged
14. Decision that spoilers should be excluded from article ledes and also from picture-captions-Guilty As Charged
15. Reverting non-vandalism edits (using the 'undo' tool) without any explanation as mandated by WP:FIES-Guilty As Charged
16. Deleting without explanation an "unreferenced" tag from an unreferenced article-Guilty As Charged
17. Unilateral deletion of a "notability" tag, combined with a classic ITSNOTABLE argument-Guilty As Charged
18. Unilateral instructions with no clear basis in Wikipedia policy-Guilty As Charged
19. Unexplained reversion
20. Unilateral decision as to what info is "needed"-Guilty As Charged
21. Undoing a formatting correction with the edit-summary, "Who cares?" [21]-Guilty As Charged
22. Deleting references pertaining to living people for a very unclear reason, and edit-warring to do so [22] [23] [24]-Guilty As Charged
23. Referring to perfectly reasonable content as "twaddle"-Guilty As Charged
24. "Christ can {sic} we have proper English?"-Guilty As Charged
25. "Cheeky sod"-Guilty As Charged
26. "TT is pathetic"-Guilty As Charged

I actually would like to see this user banned for a large amount of time for vandalizing, uncivil, and not following the Wikipedia guidelines. When the user would return they would need to prove themselves to the community and restore their reputation. This user should have been warned on countless vandalism offenses.

However, I do believe there could be a problem provoking this user and this behavior. If the user is not treated fairly on the wiki and I do not see that anyone has actually work this out with the user. I only see this RfC and the other issues that were posted. Maybe you should talk to each other and file a WP:3O and let a third person help you. This is more for comment on the behavior and will not help the discussion. I believe this behavior has been triggered by something the filer of this RfC could have done. Wikipedia believes in AGF edit. I think this user did not mean much harm in the article edits. On the talkpages was not necessary. I could also go on with a long list about the filer but I am not going to. Lets face it. You all have made mistakes and now is the time for someone else to tell you to start over and both of you can improve.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Joe Gazz84^user•_talk•^contribs•_{Editor Review} 12:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
2. -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by

{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:

Summary/Closed

KnowIG was blocked for a month. PhilKnight (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.