![]() | Seeing as the user who is the subject of this proceeding made their last edit six days before this was opened nearly two months ago, there is no chance of coming to a mutual agreement with them regarding these issues. I am therefore indefinitely suspending this RFC. If 30SW should return at some point in the future and these issues persist, this proceeding may be reopened by the certifiers or any other interested party. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC) |
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: 04:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:54, 12 June 2024 (UTC).
Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.
Around January, I ran across 30 SW (talk · contribs)'s edits on some military pages that I was reading, and noticed that there were some issues, including the use of incredibly technical terms in order to explain the material in an article. I marked down their pages for further investigation, and have since gone through their articles and cleaned up some of the material that was there, with many more pages left to go. In the meantime, I have performed more investigation on their rather sporadic edits and started to notice with subjects that I am more familiar with that they are taking obscure sources and naming articles based on one-liners from these sources or offline texts that people are unable to see immediately.
I have no problem with editors not being able to edit at first, but when confronted by multiple editors, myself included, they have not addressed to any of our concerns. Furthermore, they have also turned off their e-mail option, so no one can ask them offline what they are doing. In addition to this, their page is littered with talk page messages, including my request to stop adding categories that don't exist to the pages, and stop adding "Who?" "When?" and other tags that negate the text that they have added in their edits. I have talked with ((User link|Buckshot
{Add summary here, 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.}
What concerns me most is that this user has been potentially making things up for a number of years and introducing falsehoods into articles and presenting them as fact. One article that I have found this in was when they created Clear Springs Air Force Auxiliary Field under the name Clear Springs Air Force Base, even though there was no such installation and their only source for it came from a publication in the 1980s of questionable notability. After a discussion with Tdrss, I decided to file an Electronic Freedom of Information Act request with the Air Force to see if they would be able to help. They were able to send me a few useful links, none of which referred to the installation as Clear Springs Air Force Base. 30 SW also wrote into the article that it was open in 1983, but the source only said that there was a discussion to place some F-15 Eagles there to replace OA-37B Dragonfly aircraft that were stationed there (although, I have not seen anything stating that there was anything placed there to begin with, since it was closed sixteen years prior), but I am going to assume that that was the case. Regardless, 65.94.169.222 left a message on the MILHIST talk page a few days ago stating that the user created yet another mess when they moved some articles around, which Lineagegeek responded later on with this note which stated that there is no such thing as Fairfax Air Force Base, which 30 SW created as part of a renaming of the Fairfax Field article in this edit. Finally, Tdrss and I discussed Venice missile launch complex, which may or may not have existed as a launch complex (I suspect the name may be fake based on this press report and this one do not report on its name). I also suspect that "launch complex" has been added because the characterizations of the facility make it look more like a temporary test facility and not a permanent installation.
Another issue which I have noticed is that they have added a lot of categories to articles that are red links. This has included Category:USAF tenant facilities, which consists of one article, and Category:Formerly Used Defense Stes in Montana (which is a corruption of the correct term Category:Formerly Used Defense Sites in Montana). Granted, most of these would not be an issue, but they have never cleaned up after this or populated the categories beyond one article, which seems to show that they are careless in their edits and are unwilling to populate the relevant categories. Interestingly, they also have built categories with disambiguation pages contained within, such as Category:Former Air Force Stations of the United States, which can be a bit confusing to someone who isn't experienced, but they also left a template which instructs users to populate the category. Finally, they have also added duplicate categories to articles on occasion, including here, which was a duplicate of a category on Holloman Air Force Base.
In terms of the technical material that they add that reads very technical and might be confusing to some new users (although, there is nothing wrong with this, it tends to add up). One example with this is Thule Site J, which reads more technical than most articles, but is generally a very good. On the other hand, Ground Equipment Facility QRC has an unclear citation style, which is consistent amongst most of the citation work, which includes block quotes on many of them.
As mentioned above, they have created disambiguation pages on the categories, but they have also created disambiguation links on the top of articles that generally can be confusing and are very long-winded (although, I am willing to assume good faith on this). Another thing which I have noticed and can be seen in a cursory glance of their articles is that many of them have tags such as "Who?" "When?" "Where?", which is concerning because these are being inserted into articles by the user, and accompany text which often is incomplete and filled with internal notes that are useful to the user, but no one else. Furthermore, these are not cleaned up, which is just as concerning at the end of the day, just because the site should give some semblance of completeness, not filled with construction signs all over the article. Finally, their lack of any responses to any queries that we have sent their way are concerning, as I am going to assume good faith with them, but are concerned in their lack of competence in some of the policies on the site.
One final thing that I am going to look into further but will not present here just yet is their close paraphrasing. As I mentioned above, they often use quotes in their citations. While this is perfectly acceptable, some of the articles that they have made consist of a large portion of quotes when compared to other text. I will present more evidence as I get it, but a cursory look here concerns me.
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.
This summary of the dispute is written by the 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. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.
My goal is that they will be able to change their behavior and make it so that users don't have to clean up after them as often. While 30 SW does a lot of beneficial work for this site and their contributions cannot be overstated, I am concerned that they are sloppy in their work and they might become a net drag on the project in the end.
(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.)
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.
Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.
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.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section. 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.}
{Add summary here.}
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.
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.
Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.
30 SW has been contributing since 2012 and has added a significant amount of content.
It is not clear whether 30 SW has responded to any of the user:talk messages left him, either by addressing specific issues, or by changing his methods of writing. It is certain he is aware of his talk page, because he cleared it down.
He has edited in article talk pages only 21 timeslist, of these 9 were requested moves, adding archive boxes or banners.
Therefore this editor is not engaging in discussion, much. If he is, however, responding to concerns as above it not a problem.
It might, for example, be useful to supply him with a link to Duplication Detector, to help with avoiding close paraphrasing.
Otherwise the questions are
There are also people who would rather not engage in direct discussions, but might have an RL advocate.
Users who endorse this summary:
This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.
1) 30 SW works with experienced editors in order to ensure that their pages are free of errors before publication and are built in the draft or user space before they are moved to the mainspace. This includes fixing the errors mentioned above, as well as making sure that they know where to improve in the future, with the eventual goal of being able to work on their own without supervision.
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.