Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DorisH

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: 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC).

DorisH (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 are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. This editor has deleted comments I have left on the talk page for the article Attachment disorder [1] Warnings have been left on her talk page about blanking the article by several editors [2] [3] [4]. She is editing the talk page for the article in a disruptive manner by creating "new" sections by merely copying material from previous sections and copying those to the end to "bury" sections she does not like. [5] [6] DPeterson^talk 14:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, she now has begun making Personal attacks on users and making unfounded statements. See, for example, [7] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DPeterson (talk • contribs) 19:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC). sorry about not signing...DPeterson^talk 19:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by 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.

The "what's the point of this again?" bit. Half of the world is going to think it's precursor to arbcom, the other half are probably not going to look to closely since the _point_ isn't clear, and the other half are going to be going for the jugular no matter what.

So here if someone *cough* would write out a nice clear concise explanation of what they hoped would happen by raising this, all would be right with the world.

She should be directed to stop editing the comments of others on article talk pages. She should be directed to stop "vandalizing" article talk pages by copying and moving sections she likes to bury those she does not like. She should be directed to Assume good faith and avoid Personal attacks DPeterson^talk 14:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the comment was not readable, so I moved it here. JonesRD_talk 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The other editors who wish to collaborative and cooperative improve this article can get on with their work.

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.}

I agree that user DorisH has been disruptive in her editing of the Attachment disorder article and on the talk page. JonesRD_talk 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.)

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DPeterson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

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.

I have researched DorisH a little and she seems to have a genuine commitment to improving articles. DPeterson, JonesRD and JohnsonRon are single-purpose accounts. I'm very interested in how anything they say can be taken seriously, given this AN/I thread

harassment

3rr vio on an user talk page

This user has had a vendetta against me, and an RFC has been filed against him for his actions. [[17]]. In addition, he continues to blank other user's talk pages. See: [[18]] DPeterson^talk 01:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC) DPeterson^talk 12:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Mihai cartoaje 23:56, 18 April 2007 (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.