Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BenH

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: 00:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC).

BenH (talk · contribs · logs)

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.

Description

This user makes unsourced and low-quality edits to TV station and other miscellaneous articles. Some of the things he does are add unsourced and false dates to TV station foundings, and stubbing articles that are way past stub status. Has been told numerous times to stop, has even been blocked, and continues. A major problem editor that needs to be dealt with immediately. Also, never responds to messages on his talk page.

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.) Way too much too count, but here are a lot of his particularly bad ones.

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

azumanga 01:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hinto 21:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User is plainly edit-warring over things which are unverified by other editors and refusing to discuss on Talk. This is patently disruptive. Just zis Guy you know? 11:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Outside view (SB_Johnny)

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.

The fact that this user has not responded on the RfC (nevermind his talk) at first makes it pretty clear (to me) that he's not interested in joining a bunch of people who are interested in building an encyclopedia. However, he was also bitten as a newbie [25], and has (perhaps justifiably) brought out the worst in some users, so it's hard for me to tell which is the chicken and which is the egg on that topic.

If the dates, etc. are indeed false, he should simply be reported to WP:RFI. 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

SB Johnny 00:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
azumanga 03:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC): At least some of the dates are indeed false; according to Benny, WLTV signed on in 1960,and was indie for four years after SIN folded in 1984. (WLTV opened in 1967, and SIN simply became Univision in 1988). Count me in for an RFI referral for BenH.[reply]
CoolKatt number 99999 16:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RfC does seem to be going a bit far. I wonder if being bitten as a newbie has anything to do with his refusal to respond to his talk page... he may not even check it. Heck, he may think the "You have new messages" banner refers to something different and isn't even aware he has a talk page. Agree that any problems should be taken to RfI. Morgan Wick 20:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was getting ready to do an RFI myself. —Whomp [T]] [C] 21:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the stuff is incorrect a RFI is probably warranted. Charon X/talk 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Mhking 15:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Hipocrite

I am confused by this editors behavior. BenH, is your motive to improve the encyclopedia, or is it to have fun? If you want to have fun, let me reccomend using Uncyclopedia. If you would like to improve the encyclopedia, it is important that you not make things up. Thank you.

Users who endorse this summary:

Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CFIF (talk to me) 14:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
azumanga 16:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CoolKatt number 99999 17:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whomp [T] [C] 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rollosmokes 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes indeed. Just zis Guy you know? 07:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of Hipocrite2

This editor should be indefinetly blocked for damaging the encyclopedia, untill such a time as he responds to this RFC, or promises to stop it. He has edited since being informed. The edits were of the same quality and type.

Users who endorse this summary:

Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Whomp [T] [C] 21:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)~~ Sounds pretty uncivil to me. A proper investigation should be performed first. (Added on 21:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC).)[reply]
Agree 100% Whoever permablocks this guy will be the idol of WP:TVS. CFIF (talk to me) 22:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
azumanga 00:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CoolKatt number 99999 02:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has never communicated with others. Until he does, he needs to be blocked. Mango juice^talk 20:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view of CharonX

After looking at the diffs provided it seems to me that BenH is actively trying to improve the TV/Radio station articles in question, even though he acts quite clumsy and also is too fond of the "stub" tags, often tagging quite non-stub articles. Still all his edits seem to have attempted to improve the quality of the articles in one way or another (adding precise dates, changing 06 dates to 2006, adding additional information, and sometimes tagging a real stub article)[26]. The first "attempt to resolve" was, honestly said, a borderline violation of WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL. [27] I've noticed your additions and/or edits are sloppy, poorly worded, and in most cases, redundant and innacurate. This counts as vandalism. Following that the situation seems to have detoriated, with BenH making the edits as he feels they are right, and the other editors simply reverting them on sight and loudly venting their frustration on BenH's talk page.
Bottom line, BenH seems to wish to improve the articles he works on, though he needs to respond to the issues brough up and greatly improve his editing style. I would reccommed all involved to cool down (and remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), combined with a slighly longer block (up to a week?) for BenH, to be revoked once he starts talking with the other editors, and perhaps even escalating this RFC to mediation. Users who endorse this summary:

Charon X/talk 11:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One week sounds long enough for him to hopefully take notice. —Whomp [T] [C] 11:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds okay... not too sure about the block, though... hmmm... pretty good, block sounds reasonable. Morgan Wick 01:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least we can get a week off. CFIF (talk to me) 01:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A week may not be long enough, but it is a start. Rollosmokes 07:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I would like to hear from him for his side of the story, rather than him just making more edits to get our goat. -- azumanga 16:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by JzG

I assumed good faith with regard to Ben's edits, but several diffs were pointed out where the edits were either apparently wrong or at least questionable. I posted a comment to his Talk page stating that if he made further edits without engaging in discussion or replying to this RfC I would block him for disruption. Ben made this edit without replying to any of the Talk comments, or this RfC, or posting to the Talk page of the article. I have therefore blocked him for disruption. This is an indefinite block until such time as he shows willingness to engage in debate rather than simply pushing edits which other editors reject. Just zis Guy you know? 11:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! CFIF (talk to me) 13:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --Mhking 15:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. —Whomp [T] [C] 17:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; the next word I like to hear from Benny is his side of the story, not another useless edit. -- azumanga 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.