Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:36, 30 May 2025 (UTC).

(Dabljuh | talk | contributions)

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

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Dabljuh (talk · contribs) made his first contribution to articles relating to circumcision on November the 13th, 2005. From the beginning, he demonstrated a strong anti-circumcision POV (to which he is entitled), and complained that the article did not endorse it.

From the beginning, Dabljuh's behaviour towards others was antagonistic, uncivil, and focused on picking fights rather than improving the article. He has made personal attacks against those who disagree with him. He has shown little interest in consensus, but instead he has first tried to rewrite the article to reflect his POV, then when this was rejected by several editors, he maintained his own version as a fork.

Such conduct is not productive nor appropriate for a collaborative working environment.

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.)

WP:CIV

WP:NPA

02:13, January 7, 2006: Describes user as a 'lunatic' (note - also demonstrates assumption of bad faith)
07:32, January 12, 2006: In response to (requested) criticism: "I'm not going to let me being filibustered by fringe view POV pushers."
21:33, January 8, 2006: (likens other editors to former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
02:09, January 11, 2006: "You have to be aware that you yourself may well be biased. On your user page, you describe yourself as jewish. ... User:Jakew is not jewish, but I have already attempted to explain to him where his incredible bias, that borders on lunacy, comes from."
02:47, January 11, 2006: (likens editor to Adolf Hitler)
09:35, January 11, 2006: "Didn't mean you. I was referring to the Jakew, Jayjg, Benami bunch mentioned in #consensus?. You're certainly all sane otherwise"
19:25, January 12, 2006: "Jake, seriously, stop worrying and take a wikibreak, you know why. This here is just distracting you from your real life problems"
00:49, January 11, 2006: (playground diagnoses)

WP:CON

Instead of trying to come to consensus with other editors, engages in massive rewrites, which are reverted by 3 different editors. Despite being discouraged from doing so, forges ahead with plan to completely rewrite article via a fork that matches his own view at Circumcision/Dabljuhs version, misidentifying consensus version at various times as "Jakew's version".

WP:VAND

This page [1][2]

Questionable contribs

Proposes lobotomizing so-called "Circumcision advocates" [3]
01:57, January 9, 2006: "I also ommitted the annoying "uncircumcised vs intact" part, because really, I couldn't give a shit." (arguably not the right attitude)
"WP:NOR. Not that I am particularly fond of that policy as it is too often used to prevent unpopular information from entering the Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. Everyone can edit and that policy necessarily compromises the integrity of the information in the "encyclopedia". It is by its very nature a place of public debate, an open forum, with the goal of collecting and structuring information in an easily accessible form. The policies of wikipedia however do not reflect this nature of the project, but attempt to force it into being an encyclopedia rather than a place for debate and truth finding." (emph. added. this is a fundamental problem)
(pretends to have been converted in his POV) See continuing discussion
Proposal to replace {{NPOV}} text with a picture of former Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf and the text "This is just in: There is no NPOV issue at all! Not within 200 miles of this article!".
02:58, December 17, 2005: "As a side note, just stating the obvious and concluding the not so obvious (which is what every good argument does) doesn't count as Original Research." (demonstrates misunderstanding)

Miscellaneous

Interestingly, for 6 months edited only related to his pet project Cheating in Counter-Strike until a week after User:Sirkumsize disappeared, after which he's been obsessed with circumcision-related articles. First contribution [4] on the subject is incivil, unproductive and overtly trollish. Circumcision-related edits have overwhelmingly dominated subsequent contributions (and the "Cheating in Counter-Strike" project all but abandoned).

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Four editors advise against rewrite in Talk:Circumcision#Title Change and Talk:Circumcision#Article Overhaul. Further commentary at Talk:Circumcision#Consensus?.
"Dabljuh, do you honestly believe that this confrontational and combative attitude serves your arguments? Please review WP:CIV" [5]
(in response to demands for debate) "Interesting though this may be, I honestly can't see what relevance it has to Wikipedia's article, Dabljuh. Can I suggest moving discussion elsewhere?" [6]
(in response to the Iraqi personal attack): "You're not being helpful, Dabljuh." [7] and "More than just being unhelpful, comparing those who disagree with him with former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf would seem to be a personal attack." [8]
"But there already was a longstanding consensus. Then you showed up, and decided it wasn't good enough for you alone. And your edits certainly didn't improve anything; on the contrary, how could they, when they were filled with unsourced POV? There's nothing wrong with you having an extremely strong anti-circumcision POV, and one could even say that your lengthy debates against it on various pages weren't terrible, but you cannot write articles that mirror that POV. If you're not willing to work with other editors in a collegial way (which is the Wikipedia paradigm), and respect Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR) how can you possibly hope to get anywhere here?" [9]
"Really, Dabljuh, I don't see how this discussion is going to reach any meaningful results if you adopt stances you don't really have. ... Your behavior here, as well as your comments about the Wikipedia editing process, strongly suggest that you're not at all interested in consensus - just getting your POV across." [10]
"Your allegation that a member's Jewishness is proof of an inability to write an NPOV article is, frankly, disgusting. (Oh, and you really should look up that word "bias," since I don't think it means what you think it means.)" [11]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Dabljuh 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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 (sign with ~~~~):

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

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.