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

• HiLo48 (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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.

User:HiLo48 has had an account since late 2006[1]. He has a clean block log[2], but I believe a few months ago he was topic banned from WP:ITN for incivility[3]. In August I raised a WQA concerning his intimidatory behaviour towards other editors, in particular User:Skyring, and more generally, his inappropriate use of profanity. After a brief respite, he returned to his aggressive behaviour, so I recently raised an ANI, where it was recommended that this RfC/U be raised. --Surturz (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of concern[edit]

For a year and a half, User:HiLo48 has been using aggressive and profane language on talkpages, frequently making personal attacks against editors with whom he disagrees.

After a recent ANI against him, HiLo made a commitment on his user page here, where he uses the word bullshit four times in a vow to end swearing. A short time later, he posted the following at User Talk:Djapa84:

I was recently taken to AN/I for being rude to Pete/Skyring. The outcome was that I am supposed to avoid communicating with him. That means that I really can't comment on what he has been posting at Talk:Alan Jones (radio broadcaster). You are under no such restrictions. I support all you have said there. Please don't take my silence as any sort of support for the bigot. What I can't understand is why he is still allowed to spout his ignorant garbage on Wikipedia, but I'm not allowed to say that publicly. Keep up the good work.[19]

In addition, he believes that his aggressive approach is successful, and intends to continue using it as a talkpage tactic:

• 5 April 2012 OK, it was disruptive, but in a sense, that was my goal. I wanted to stop people adding comments to a nonsensical, inappropriate poll.[20]
• 14 October 2012 No. Swearing at Pete works. Polite language makes no impact at all." (edit summary)[21]
• 14 October 2012 Yes, I have verbally attacked him. It actually worked to get his attention… Swearing at him today stopped him in his usual inappropriate tracks. No-one here can tell me it doesn't work, where politeness didn't.[22]

Various editors have lodged several complaints against him as detailed in the summary table below, but despite this, any improvements in HiLo48's behaviour have been temporary.

Date	Forum	Section heading (link)	Plaintiffs	Diffs
10 July 2011	WT:ITN	Hilo48	User:RxS (Administrator), User:Jusdafax	[23], [24]
25 August 2011	WT:ITN	Topic ban?	User:Strange Passerby (semi-retired), User:RxS (Administrator), User:Hot Stop, User:David Levy (Administrator), User:Tariqabjotu (Administrator)	[25] [26]
19 November 2011	ANI	HiLo and Pregnancy Ban Proposal	User:Balloonman (retired), User:Swarm (Administrator)	[27], several exchanges copy-pasted in the complaint.
3 February 2012	WT:ITN	And again... topic ban time?	User:Strange Passerby, User:Doktorbuk	[28], [29], [30]
10 March 2012	ANI	User:HiLo48	User:202.189.98.131 (temp blocked shared IP)
5 April 2012	ANI	Trayvon Martin Poll	User:Gaijin42	[31], [32]
8 June 2012	WQA	Continued harassment by other user after repeated requests to stop	User:Midcent (blocked user, possibly same user as User:202.189.98.131 above)	[33],[34]
22 July 2012	WT:ITN	HiLo48 civility	User:Khazar2	(resulted in HiLo48 topic banned from WP:ITN for six months from 29 July 2012)
24 August 2012	WQA	User:HiLo48	User:Surturz (certifying editor of this RfC/U)	[35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]
15 October 2012	ANI	User:HiLo48	User:Surturz (certifying editor of this RfC/U)	[44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:NPA
3. WP:TALKNO

Desired outcome[edit]

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.

Surturz' desired outcome[edit]

I would like HiLo48 to treat his fellow editors with respect, and be tolerant of different viewpoints. I would also like him to stop using profanity and insults against other editors. I have no problem with profanity in talk page chatter per se, but there is a big difference between (for example) "Seinfield is fucking hilarious!" and "It's fucking editors like fucking you"[50] --Surturz (talk) 03:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring's desired outcome[edit]

HiLo48's willing participation in the outcome is a must. I am heartened by his vow here, although concerned that it is broken in the very act of utterance. I cannot support a block or topic ban because he would see this as an attempt to muzzle him, and I personally place a high value on contributions from editors of all views. In order of achievability, I support:

1. No use of profanity in article talkspace.
2. Mentorship from an editor willing to provide friendly direction.
3. No personal attacks.
4. Dealing with his fellow editors as he would be dealt with by them.

I forgive HiLo48 all that has gone before. I do not seek punishment or sanction against him. I ask only that he order himself so that his passion is directed to the betterment of the Wikicommunity, and not against his peers.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(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. Surturz: Attempt[51] rebuff[52]
2. Skyring: Attempt[53] rebuff[54]
3. WQA[55]
4. ANI[56] which resulted in User:Kim_Dent-Brown (Administrator) closing as follows:

   HiLo48's tirades and expletives are unnecessary, tiresome and counterproductive. But no admin has shown any willingness to impose a block, despite the length of time this has been open. I will again ask HiLo to moderate their language. As has already been said, WP:RFC/U is the way forward[57]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

1. User:Surturz[edit]

As per RFCU minimum requirements, I certify this RfCU. I asked HiLo48 to curb his incivility here, and I received the reply

"You think my language is unhelpful to the project? It's far less of a problem than the creation of blatantly politically motivated bullshit articles like the AWU scandal. I don't add political crap to the project. You do. Don't threaten me, when your behaviour is so appalling. I don't bully and threaten people."[58].

I have additionally raised a WQA and an ANI to no avail. --Surturz (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. User:Skyring[edit]

As per RFCU minimum requirements, I co-certify this RfCU. I have requested HiLo48 to be more civil and coöperative several times:

• Here on a typical talk page:

Skyring: Thanks. Could I ask you to remove or reword your uncivil phrasing above? Please?

HiLo48: You could ask, but there's no fucking point.

• I have participated in the WQA and ANI discussions initiated by Surturz.

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions to certifiers[edit]

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.}

Response to concerns[edit]

{Add summary here.}

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response[edit]

Questions to named user[edit]

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.

Outside/Inside view by Andromedean[edit]

(To clarify - outside the dispute mentioned in the header and outside the example I give of a similar dispute for comparison purposes. However HiLo became involved in an article I was involved with here. I am not the only one who may be 'involved' in this sense though, I think a lot of editors have crossed swords with HiLo. At least one other editor on here has collaborated with him to try and 'vote off' articles because they 'don't like them' without attempting to provide a reason, which is of course against Wiki guidelines. I would hope that is what the reference was referring to below.

I'm not sure if this is the right section to add a comment but HiLo48 has acted inappropriately during a DRN here, here and here and was asked to leave.

However, my main objection against him against isn’t his language but his willingness to continually criticise a section of an article without being able to develop any coherent argument against it. Then to collaborate in closing off a discussion he doesn’t like which a volunteer has recommended we continue to discuss since there was a 50:50 dispute in a recent DRN. “It's closed. Piss off.”

I have little doubt HiLo48 has negative value to the Wikipedia project and will continue to dispute and attempt to remove articles he doesn't like.--Andromedean (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Same pattern that got him topic banned from ITN. Jusdafax 06:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. This is not a proportionate or representative view given. It is one sided and fails to give the context of the poor behaviour from the person making the "outside view" which led to the final comments. The user making the "outside view" unilaterally undid an Admin closure of a debate which they knew would be inflammatory. Sport and politics (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is not an outside view and it's deeply misleading to represent your opinion in this way. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from Collect[edit]

Civility is an endemic problem on Wikipedia. In fact, determining exactly what civility entails even seems to be a problem for the Arbitration Committee. In the case at hand, Hilo would be well-advised to follow Mark Twain's system - whenever he wishes to make a point strongly, he should write "damn" and then, when ready to post, simply delete all the "damns" - which would reduce his apparent incivility by a great deal quite quickly. I would be most grateful if Hilo would simply agree that he has a civility problem, and endeavour to avoid any repetition thereof. Collect (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pete (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. 134.241.58.251 (talk) 16:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I personally prefer thinking the profanity and mentally converting that into a pointed comment that I then post but each to their own. Blackmane (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I occasionally type them but don't save. It works. Unlike Andromedean, I've seen HiLo engage in good clear persuasive argument, but his bad language and persistent ad hominem ruin any chance of persuading. Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seems reasonable - in regards to the ban him forever screams from his conflicted opponents - Youreallycan
6. My exact feeling is in my opinion written below, but this is close and reasonable. North8000 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Good summation. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Very well put. John Carter (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Just admitting that there's a problem here would be a huge step. HiLo's been quite explicit about not liking Wikipedia community norms (if I recall, they refused to even read the AN/I thread that resulted in the topic ban from ITN), but somehow the user needs to learn to work within those norms. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Profanity can be a problem, that is true, but suggesting that avoiding profanity makes your edit civil is simplistic and wrong. One of the endorsers of this summary (Pete) provides many examples of incivil language without profanity. Sorry Pete, but you never swear but you still offend me and others regularly. By the way, how is this an 'outside' view when Collect has worked with Pete in his disputes with HiLo48[[59]]? Djapa Owen (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- many of my positions in article discussions have been opposed to Skyring's, as he will attest. My concerns on any BLP is WP:BLP and its requirements, no matter who is involved. My opinion here is totally unrelated to any personalities. Collect (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I so attest. We have had some epic disagreements, and may yet do so in future. Without attacking each other. --Pete (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen evidence of that Collect, true, but you have had previous arguments with HiLo48 as well. Wouldn't that make your opinion 'semi-outside' or some such? I must admit your suggestion of dropping the profanity is a good one - the result would be HiLo48's tone being more civil than some of his other critics. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And previous agreements with HiLo as well. Which means, frankly, nada other than that I do not make my positions on the basis of who anyone else in the discussion is at all. Ever. Period. Collect (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by North8000[edit]

I have crossed paths with HiLo48 many times over 3 years, and about 90% of the time we disagree. But I have a lot of respect for HiLo48's honesty and bluntness, the fact that they always say exactly what they think, and that they are always simply trying to do the right thing. And that they do not conduct warfare in the more clever and vicious ways that it is the norm to do (with immunity) in Wikipedia. Yes, they are awfully rough, and yes they do make strong statements pretty quickly, probably without listening and pondering enough to what others are saying. But I consider their overall style to be refreshingly direct and honest, and much less of a problem that the more vicious, clever wiki-legal ways that are commonly used as weapons in disagreements, and thus a comparatively small problem.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. North8000 (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. FiachraByrne (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes. But it is a problem. Not as toxic as lying, or whitewashing and bagging in BLPs, but a problem that needs addressing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Merbabu (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. --CMD (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Djapa Owen (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. John Carter (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC) - This comment looks very much like a repetition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The fact that there are other editors with seriously problematic behavior problems, of the kind described above, does not I believe constitute reason for saying that this problematic behavior is not a problem. Yes, there may be worse cases out there, but this RfC is about this particular case, not those others, and I believe it is in everyone's best interests if we try to address the behavior which brought this particular RfC/U about.[reply]
2. I think the problems go beyond this statement. --Rschen7754 21:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. His method of expression clearly is problematic, given the numerous WP:ANI appearances he has made of late.--WaltCip (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. We all admire directness and honesty, but it's possible to be direct and honest without condescension and insult, which this user does too often. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by GoodDay[edit]

This Rfc/U shouldn't have been placed by an editor (Skyring/Pete) who's had a past with HiLo48. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Blackmane[edit]

I crossed paths HiLo in one of the ANIs raised by Pete/Skyring. Apart from that I've only come across HiLo's posts through peering at their contribs. HiLo is like many people I know, myself included, who use profanity to really strike home the point they're trying to make. Unfortunately, excessive use of profanity also easily wanders off into ad hominem comments laced with even more profanity particularly in a faceless medium such as Wikipedia. It would be helpful all round if HiLo would keep in mind whether this is the sort of language they would use face to face to someone they're only mildly acquainted with. Yes, civil pov pushers and wikilawyers are the devil's own but falling prey to their baiting hurts no one's cause but your own.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Blackmane (talk) 22:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I love editors who speak from the heart. There is no subterfuge, no hiding. But there are limits; the welcoming instructions to newbies stress civility, not profanity. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. North8000 (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. I do think HiLo is trying to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia. It would be beneficial to everyone if he would stay midful of how aggressive he's being. CtP (t • c) 21:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Inks.LWC[edit]

I ran across HiLo while working on Hurricane Sandy. There was a lot of tension going on between editors of the article with regards to climate change, and my goal in helping out there was to make sure people stayed calm, and that he had civil discussions on the talk page to figure out the issues and how to resolve them instead of going back and forth edit warring. In one of the discussions, I had posted an archived link and the archive site went offline for a brief period. Instead of bringing this up civilly, he said the discussion was based on a "falsehood" and should be stopped.[60] This was unhelpful and uncivil, as 1) It wasn't a falsehood, since the site came back on shortly after, and 2) the information could have easily been verified with a Google search. I tried explaining to him that such actions were counterproductive on an article that already had a lot of hot-headed editors. It seems that my interactions were typical of interactions he has with people he has a disagreement of opinion with. He is helpful in editing the articles, and he brings good insight to talk page discussions, but I think he ends up getting too focused on proving himself right that he begins to get angry when people disagree with him. I think if he just realized that he needs to keep a cool head in discussions, these problems would end.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I was tangentially involved in that article. HiLo48 seemed to be pursuing a crusade. When shown to be mistaken on something, he simply cannot accept the facts, turning to ad hom. --Pete (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. The example you give is not uncivil. If the link was down at that time his criticism was true at that time (even if not for long) and while his response is passionate it is not hostile. He also raises other concerns and titles it as a caution. This is not a good example of incivility. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by Jusdafax[edit]

While I argued for HiLo48 to be indefinitely blocked in the discussion that resulted in his six-month topic ban from ITN, as the link shows my reasoning did not prevail. Since then I have stayed far away from his editing areas and have little idea what he has been up to, except what I read here, which is enough after years of exposure to him at ITN. I was notified on my talk page of this Rfc/U. I will simply say once again that I am not surprised to see this Rfc/U, because I felt in the aforementioned discussion that HiLo was intractable - that he is openly and extremely contemptuous of those he disagrees with, which is at odds with the goal of Wikipedia to collaboratively build an encyclopedia. How much time do we spend on a case like HiLo? Too much already, in my view, and I suggest instead of kicking the can down the road for others to deal with in the future, spending countless editor hours in the process, that we hereby indef block HiLo48 as a preventative measure to protect new and existing editors from his continuous over-the-top profane hostility. (If there isn't the stomach for that here, then block him for a year and see if that works.) Enough is enough. Jusdafax 06:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I am surprised at how many users have tolerated this person for so long. He is clearly setting a very bad example and encourages anarchy on the boards. --Andromedean (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Partial endorse. I don't think it's the time for an indefinite block yet, though it may come to that in the future. --Rschen7754 01:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I've seen how disruptive he has been at ITN in the past, and in other places as well. While he is a great editor, this is overshadowed by the fact that he seems to rub almost everyone the wrong way. How many ANIs will it take for people to realize he is not going to change this behavior. Telling him not to behave this way has been the outcome of each and every one of these discussions, and that has obviously done nothing. Why is there reason to believe after countless warnings that this will all of the sudden change? Indefinite block may be a bit much to start with, but definitely at least 6 months. After the ban, he can decide how he wants to behave from now on. If he doesn't get the message, then break out the indefinite block. -- Anc516 (Talk ▪ Contribs) 00:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who reject this summary:

1. @User:Jusdafax - strongly oppose Justafax's requested indefinite block and his second option of a one year block - your desire that we (whoever you think that is) "that we hereby indef block HiLo48 as a preventative measure to protect new and existing editors from his continuous over-the-top profane hostility. (If there isn't the stomach for that here, then block him for a year and see if that works.) Enough is enough. Jusdafax " - is totally excessive even in the faceless attacking En Wikiwedia world - Youreallycan 22:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I do not condone the incivility. However, to “hereby indefinitely block” is over the top, and ridiculously so. --Merbabu (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. An RFC/U cannot be used to raise sanctions of this sort. Blackmane (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. There is some merit in the summary of HiLo's behaviour, but that is in the past, he has had an opportunity to reflect, he is attempting to modify his behaviour (with some heartening success) and it would be very wrong to force him to leave. --Pete (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Nope. Collect (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. No. No on indefinite block idea....some of preface is accurate. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Completly over the top reaction and wholly disproportionate to what is being discussed. It is also white-knighting and vindictive. Sport and politics (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Excessive, vindictive and needlessly punitive. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. As stated above, lets not get carried away. HiLo48 does a lot of good editing despite being an Australian who swears at times.Djapa Owen(talk) 01:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you strike that last part of your comment, Djapa. That in itself is an uncivil remark and implies that the rest of the Australian editors, including myself, are unable to do good editing without swearing. Blackmane (talk) 11:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Seems excessive at this point. Despite the user's disruptions, there's also some quite good editing being done. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat inside view by Rschen7754[edit]

I first encountered this user at the civility enforcement RFC. The user left some condescending comments in response to mine, and I took notice. Then I noticed various comments by this user on the talk page of that RFC, that ranged from sarcastic to accusing Beeblebrox of bad faith to attempting to disrupt the RFC in its entirety.

I have noted the following statement on the user's page: "I also find it necessary to protect Wikipedia against, again, mostly American editors who want to impose conservative, middle American Christian values here. Apparently Conservapedia isn't enough for them. And I've never seen a naked nipple hurt anybody. Mind you, I love America, and many Americans. The country's and their image, however, is damaged severely in the eyes of the rest of the world by those whose values come from a very conservative interpretation of the Bible." As a conservative, middle American Christian, and also as a Wikipedia administrator, I'm particularly offended by this, for two reasons:

• I can count on one hand how many times over the last seven and a half years of contributing where I've gotten even close to standing up for "Christian" values that don't coincide with Wikipedia values. In fact, this is the third time I've brought up my religion at all. I think this is an unfair stereotype.
• Wikipedia needs to be a place where all can feel welcome to contribute, regardless of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, political beliefs, etc. This statement goes directly against that.

So from all of the above, it is clear to me that this user does not feel that adhering to civility is necessary while contributing to this site. Considering that civility is one of our five pillars, this is a serious problem. HiLo48 needs to adhere to our civility policy/guidelines, or be encouraged to contribute elsewhere. --Rschen7754 07:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Also noting that I've been called a "religious nutter" by HiLo48 after posting the above. Further note: in all fairness, he did later redact it but claimed that religious people don't live by logic, so take from that what you will. Rschen7754 10:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse - Indeed, HiLo48's ongoing violations of the civility pillar are indisputable, in my view. Perhaps those supporting that no action be taken against HiLo48 would like to start a movement to modify or remove the pillar altogether, to make Wikipedia easier for HiLo48 and others like him to operate in. Jusdafax 21:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. My concern is also consistency and fairness. Is it fair to condemn other editors who have exhibited similar behaviour, whilst continuing to make excuses for this one? I have placed one such example on the talk pages here which involved two of the concerned parties in this RFC. In view of the widely differing opinions, perhaps we need to bring in a more experienced independent 'moderator' ? --Andromedean (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse - it was anti-American sentiments like this that got him topic banned from ITN. It would appear it's still a problem. Hot Stop (Talk) 14:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Qualified support - My most problematic experience recent experience with this editor was along the same lines as the above. The recent Encyclopedia of Religion of 2005 contains some substantive content relating to the concept of Evolution, from I think a pretty much neutral academic view. HiLo rushed to accuse it of bias, and I believe me of being a "religious nutter" or similar, without having made any sort of effort to actually look it over. HiLo's own proud atheism is not a problem, but his apparent almost knee-jerk response to anything which he considers "religious" is. And his apparent fondness for inflammatory comments does nothing to help matters. If future actions indicate that he continues to have difficulty with civility and even AGF, as per the above, I think it is not unreasonable to perhaps ask him to consider developing content elsewhere, including other Wikimedia Foundation projects, where that behavior might not appear so often. Many of those projects get a lot less attention than this one, although I believe that if they are improved they could be both huge boons to this project, and to those who use the WF sites. John Carter (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Religious and political stereotypes are not civil. They hurt real people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary:

1. Without prejudice to the rest of the RFCU, I think this is of minor relevance. It's perfectly reasonable to state opposition to editors of any worldview who seek to impose that wordlview on the project. And, although you may not be one, Rschen, they do exist among American Christians. Incivility is, of course, another matter, and my logic here should not be extended to imply otherwise. "I guess religious folk don't live by logic anyway" is clearly not great interaction. Formerip (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Kim Dent-Brown[edit]

I was the admin who closed the AN/I case referred to above and who said that RFC was the way forward for the complainants. I meant by this that only an RFC could judge the matter; not that an RFC was likely to be successful. Following the ANI HiLo made a commitment to moderate the language which appears to have been kept. Yes, it was childish to include the word "bullshit" in a commitment to stop swearing but if we blocked or banned every user who has behaved childishly we would be short on editors. The voluntary commitment is holding, and no further action is necessary at the moment.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Largely endorse. Notwithstanding the fact that HiLo does have a civility issue it's clearly being used by some here as a stick. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. North8000 (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Fiachra. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. Civility is more than the sum of the words used. --Rschen7754 10:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree, however this is not just about childishness or incivility is about disrupting the encyclopaedia in the worst possible way. He has just called me an "Irrational, incompetent editor" today because I complained about him trying to vote an article off without discussion or supplying a reason. This Encyclopaedia is not a voting forum where we can remove articles we just don't like. Herein lies the route to its demise. Such editors don't belong on here. Let's not make this a popularity forum for HiLo, I'm sure he has made some contributions, but also think about the damage he causes and time he will waste.--Andromedean (talk) 13:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with Rschen and Andromedean regarding a disagreement with Kim's view. I urge editors to read the full Rfc that got HiLo48 topic banned, found in my own view above. There, a number of those at who had edited regularly at WP:ITN spoke out firmly, yet fairly, regarding HiLo's years of abusive editing at the Main page feature. His gratuitous use of profanity may have finally stopped for now, but his hostility and tendentious editing continues. I maintain that HiLo48 is a net negative to the project, and the best solution is a block to prevent a major waste of editing time and an unknown but arguably considerable loss of editors who will choose not to work with an editor who openly, per his User page, is proud of his prejudices and refuses to compromise, in a kind of self-important quest, in an ongoing effort to force Wikipedia to conform to his worldview. Jusdafax 21:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Being a contributor does not and should not give anyone immunity against Wikipedia's policies. They exist for a reason. They are not to be used merely as wedges against vandals and occasional IP editors.--WaltCip (talk) 16:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Medeis[edit]

This entire ad hoc inquisition rests on three things, HiLo's saying an editor (who has forgiven him and doesn't want to see him sanctioned) is being a prick and advising him to piss off, and calling someone a nutter, which he withdrew. (This was described as assault?!?!) That's it. Saying something is bullshit is simply not a personal attack, and plenty of things are bullshit, and worse. (I am not making a judgment of the merits of any specific past use of that term.) This whole thing needs to go away, not to arbcom. HiLo can be warned he'll be blocked with increasing severity if he directly calls someone a name or directly curses at them, i.e., tells them to fuck off. He would be wise to refrain from describing things as fucking stupid or calling arguments bullshit, but if he gives a good reason for such emphasis (e.g., that's bullshit because 2=2 does not equal five) we are all adults and we can all survive the word and pass our own judgment on the merits. Any admin can block HiLo at any time for real incivility if he's willing to stand by it. Cabals like this really disgust me. They remind me of pubescent children forming cliques and texting each other, "Did you hear what she said now!?!?" They make me wonder what the permanent value of contributing here is. μηδείς (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Largely endorse as it echoes what I said. It's the descent from profanity into ad hominems which is the problem not the use of profanity itself. Blackmane (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary:

1. The problem is a lot of admins have not blocked him; they have deferred, saying "Well, what he is doing is wrong, but he is one of our more experienced contributors. We should have a more open discussion about this." So basically we're saying you can be as incivil as you want as long as you're a good editor? If so, I'll have to fucking change my method of discourse.--WaltCip (talk) 12:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is with admins, not HiLo or any specific user. I'd like to see random 1-year adminships given out by lottery and a 3 year (no puppet) one term limit on elected admins. Admin-for-life means oligarchy and corruption. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.  

No profanity or personal attacks for 1 year, enforceable by block[edit]

1) Hilo48 seems receptive to the idea that he refrains from using profanity for a period.[61] As such I suggest he agree to refrain from using profanity on wikipedia for a period of 1 year, enforceable by escalating block. If Hilo48 needs company, I am happy to make the same commitment. --Surturz (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Support I'm happy to join you both in this commitment. I was impressed with HiLo48's vow on non-swearing and he has (mostly) stuck by it so far. Any block would have to be imposed by an admin, and I cannot see any admin blocking for low level profanity, such as talk page banter. --Pete (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

• Neutral This is wholly reasonable and proportionate and has been done with the user concerned. This makes it highly likely to be followed and the sanctions for not following and the circumstances for not following it are clear and well defined. Strongly endorse this as it is reasoned, measured and acts with a large dose of common sense. Sport and politics (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification It is though in need of a bright light definition. Sport and politics (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - refrain from using "profanity" for a year? - extreme and unneeded measure - Youreallycan 22:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. HiLo has already made a voluntary commitment to moderate the language, which as far as I can see has been kept to. Without a workable definition of "profanity" this is not a helpful sanction in any case. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Good idea, but unenforceable due to the complete lack of a bright line. Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Unworkable, he's already made a commitment to voluntarily curtail its use and profanity itself is not a problem. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking from articles which have already encountered disruption plus 1) above[edit]

2) The focus should be on his disruption, influence and accusations on editors and articles without supplying any evidence to back it up rather than mere swearing. (just to add this is a violation of Wikipedia policy and undermines the fundamental principles on which our encyclopaedia is based. Conversely allowing someone to influence article content without reason could well be personal, vindictive, or be for partisan reasons, and this is a far more serious concern than mere swearing.)

Comment by parties:

Oppose. It's not just the swearing, it is the attitude. However, this remedy would be impossible to administer with fairness and consistency. It would likely lead to more disputes and more tension and exacerbation of the problem. If imposed, it could be exploited by editors holding opposing views as a quick way to win any disagreement. I would feel very uncomfortable with such a prohibition, and I think any reasonable editor would feel the same. --Pete (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

OpposeUnworkable and unnecessary. It is also disproportionate to monitor. A block for continued disruption is fine. A retrospective action which is suggested above is vindictive. Also there is no attempt to define the woolly phrases "evidence to back it up" and "influence". Both of which are very subjective and each individual will have a differing threshold of what constitutes what. As such the above proposal is badly thought through, vindictive, unworkable and unclear. This proposal should be wholly ignored and not implemented. Sport and politics (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Ill conceived proposal that does not adequately define its own terms. Retrospective aspect is problematic and, as stated above, looks retributive in intent. FiachraByrne (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing retributive or exploitative in insisting people provide reasons before attempting to influence decisions, why can he not do this, are you condoning this? There may well be retributive or exploitative reasons in trying to remove articles without supplying reasons. Please try to support those who conform to policy. (I am not opposing this motion of course! --Andromedean (talk) 11:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Please take discussion on the views expressed to the talk page the main page is simply for stating the opinions not discussing them. Sport and politics (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm seeing some incivility from HiLo, but also a lot of allegations blown out of all proportion. Who gets to determine which articles "have already encountered disruption"? This appears unworkable unless HiLo is banned from articles where he has presented no genuine problem, which would be disproportionate and unfair. Formerip (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Refer the matter to ArbCom[edit]

3) Above we see a long list of examples of incivility and another long list of (mostly) fruitless noticeboard discussions. A glance at any random page of HiLo48's contributions over the past couple of years will reveal ongoing wrangles with editors from all over the project. Understandably, there are those who are frustrated with the process. While HiLo48 has committed himself to cease using profanity, that does not solve the underlying behaviour problem. Without some evidence of HiLo48 accepting that there is a problem and that he will work to correct it, rather than attacking those editors with contrary opinions, this discussion, like all the others before, is doomed to failure and the disruption and unhappiness will continue. This assault, delivered in response to an observation above, is unacceptable. No apology (though to be fair he did remove one offensive label), no acceptance that this is the very behaviour that we are talking about here. Unchecked now, in future there will eventually be an editor who is outraged enough by some fresh outburst to want action, they will look at all the failed attempts, and they will take the next step in the process, which is to take the matter to ArbCom.

Perhaps we should save time and do it now.

Comment by parties:

I will not take that step. I believe that HiLo48 should have a chance to reflect, to accept and to demonstrate a change in behaviour. --Pete (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This falls way short of the need forn ArbCom, It looks to me as if the likeliest consensus here is 'no consensus', given the few contributors and that those who have contributed are mostly those with a history with HiLo. Note: I'm not defending his editing style. But the diff above is so far short of an "assault" that it's ridiculous. Step away from the horse everyone and if HiLo goes back on his self-imposed bad language vow I'll block him myself. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is that comment not a personal attack? Having filed quite a few requests at ArbCom, I think there's a fair shot at the case getting accepted, should the behavior continue. ArbCom is for disputes that the community cannot resolve, and "no consensus" either way would definitely fall in that category. --Rschen7754 08:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Describing you as a religious nutter and then withdrawing the remark quickly was certainly rude adn does not paint HiLo in a good light. I wish HiLo and all editors for that matter could edit here without such gratuitous comments. But what I objected to was its characterisation as an "assault". That is silly hyperbole. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support taking it to Arbcom, it is ridiculous the number of times this guy has been in trouble as well as offending whilst we type. We need to be fair to others who are attempting to write bone-fide articles, and those who have been disciplined for far less. Let's be consistent. --Andromedean (talk) 11:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Request for Comment - and it looks from here like people have commented. I would state forthrightly that HiLo would be exceedingly well-advised to note the comments which appear to form a broad consensus at this point, and to amend behaviour in accord with them, and I would also note that the behaviour does not rise to ArbCom case levels. Collect (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wholly disproportionate response and not a good use of ArbCom. This RFC/U is enough for the time being. HiLo appears to be making sensible and rational steps and is heading the comments made. Going to ArbCom is a not needed and the threshold for going there would be no where near met. There is also no way that their behaviour can rationally be described as an "assault". Sport and politics (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And true to form HiLo picks at least three battles this morning, one in which an editor suggests he shouldn't be on the talk page because he deliberately refuses to discuss (this is similar to the point I made) and on a totally different subject, another editor notes: HiLo48 definetly needs to be blocked. This person is constantly vandalising this article, while accusing others to cover her own crime. Protect this page! Undid revision 524222559 by HiLo48 (talk) Now I can't say whether he is right or wrong with regard to the argument, but you would think he would have the sense to stay out of trouble for the time being. I think the people who are defending this bloke are undermining their own credibility as much as his!--Andromedean (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Andromedean, you need to read the context. The IP inserted a load of weasel words and turned the lede into sheer puffery. HiLo reverted and he was entirely right to do so. Blackmane (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blackmane, the anonymous user was just adding text which belongs in the school's advertising program and HiLo's reversion was entirely warranted. The quoted criticism of HiLo is just vitriol from someone who is not showing NPOV in their editing. Djapa Owen (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I would only support an ArbCom request should the behavior continue. --Rschen7754 19:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; there's no reason to take it there right now. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template 4[edit]

4)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

User entered into a voluntary restriction on language prior to the start of this RfC/U. This process cannot impose sanctions on users who refuse to participate. Participants of this RfC/U appear to have a need to persecute HiLo48, and as such have continued this RfC/U (and other forms of DR) looking for sanctions that will never be applied directly from here. Hasteur (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.