Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kris45

"adding statements not commonly agreed on" is not in itself a problem. That's part of being a wiki.

I wasn't sure how to phrase "lies which might be true to a negligible proportion of the population". It's not impossible that to someone, "sideburns" signifies "redneck", but that's certainly not true in general; the stereotypical haircut of rednecks is most certainly a mullet.

Adding statements that are not widely accepted is not a problem though, unless the editor who is adding them is trying to disrupt the editing process. Given how poor the page already was, perhaps he felt that it was anything goes.

You don't provide any evidence of trying to resolve the dispute. You just give talk pages. On Xlogold's talk page, I see several editors' ordering Xlogold to do this or that; none at all trying to resolve a dispute. I can't see anything on Talk: Sideburns that even begins to be an attempt to resolve a dispute. I see someone making an accusation of vandalism.

It's hard to resolve a dispute when the other party never responds.

Frankly, I wouldn't have responded to curt demands like that. They're what I call "polite attacks". You are not opening a dialogue by making peremptory orders to another editor.

The mullet article is terrible. Mullets are famous for belonging to hockey players? Associated with central Europeans in Britain? The first is shockingly Americocentric; the second is just wrong. Some chavs have mullets but central Europeans? What are you on? And since when was the description of Ian Botham as a rural thug NPOV, even if it is true? The Beastie Boys coined it? What, when they were in nappies? It's been around since the '70s at least. Suggesting that this editor has fallen foul of "check your facts" is amusing at least. But the article is a joke. You can hardly blame a relative newcomer for mistaking it for something not serious.Dr Zen 06:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Well, if you find something wrong with the article, fix it...)

Which is what the editor in question arguably began by doing.

Yes, the article isn't very good, but that's no reason to let someone make it worse. I have no interest in mullets, i was just trying to deal with what i saw as vandalism on the part of the user. I think if you'll examine the "user contributions" of these users you'll find that their contributions fall more into vandalism than not.

I daresay. I'm simply trying to help you see that there is a much broader process than you think. You don't simply tittletattle to RfC if you're not getting your way. You should genuinely try dialogue. Be kind not confrontational, if you can. And when you do make an RfC, you should put a lot more effort into making a good case, not just for onlookers such as me, but for the person you are wanting comment on. Let them see the detail of the problem. That gives them a good chance to reform if they want to; and, having been given the chance, if they spurn it, then your case for further action is very much stronger.

I will admit i might have been too harsh dealing initially with this user, which might have given him a bad attitude towards our site. My dealings with the user began when he stuck two images of Coke cans awkwardly into middle of the Coca-Cola article, and i removed them until we could figure out somewhere it would make sense to put them, and he became offended. It degraded from there. That's no excuse on his part, though. -℘yrop (talk) 20:02, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

No. I agree. But understanding and sympathy go a long way, Pyrop. Give the guy the chance. Let him have a bit more of the cuddle and a bit less of the slap. I do agree with you that he needs slapping, but it doesn't hurt to give it that little bit extra, does it? in italicsDr Zen 00:10, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)