Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ernham

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:37, 18 December 2025 (UTC).

• Ernham (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

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.

{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.}

This user has made numerous personal attacks and has received both npa2 and npa3 warnings and has been banned for incivility. A major problem is calling honest edits vandalism. However the user sees nothing wrong with their behaviour and has not heeded any warnings. 15:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User is often verbally abusive, seems unable to assume good faith (calling obvious good faith edits "vandalism"),and adopts a systematic "I'm right and you're wrong, no matter what" attitude which is not conducive to the kind of cooperation that is needed to collaboratively write Wikpedia articles. Moreover, he has shown to be derisive of evidence brought by other editors to debate points in an article (see here for a prime example). This is in addition to the personal attacks mentioned in the preceding paragraph.--Ramdrake 17:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

(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. "I'm not dancing around the truth just to save the egos of some jingoist bigots, sorry."
2. "You sound like a little child." and accusing another user of dishonest behaviour.
3. Edit summary: "massive vandalism/total lies/complete NPOV non-sense
4. Edit summary: "Reverted vandalism. You are clipping out huge chucks for no reason. You lie, calling Shanghai "sunny" and speculate all over. Change the tense, nothing else. Use the talk page"
5. Calling honest editors vandals
6. Calling other users stupid etc.
7. Replacing personal attacks even after warnings
8. Personal abuse of admin who blocked the user for incivility and 3RR violation.
9. Despite other users challenging the user's description of honest edits as "vandalism" the user continues to call them such.
10. Attempts at rational discussion and requests to stop using the word vandalism for honest edits are described as stalking.
11. Calling another user a stalker and telling them to "find a new hobby".
12. Accusing an admin of abuse of powers and gross negligence.
13. "he has a history of similar vandal-like shenanigans"
14. List of edits from user Ernham which shows a pattern of his being often verbally abusive, dismissive an taunting.
15. User is inappropriately posting a personal attack on Talk:Race Differences in Intelligence, calling me disruptive and argumentative. He is actively encouraging another editor to keep reversing my edits.
16. accuses Jpgordon of vandalism.

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
2. Wikipedia:Civility
3. Wikipedia:AGF

(provide diffs and links)

1. Warnings about incivility and personal attacks.
2. Blocked and warned to stop personal attacks. However the user continues personal attacks in response to the block .
3. npa2 warning.
4. npa3 warning.
5. General NPA warning
6. Serious warning (NPA/3RR)
7. Request to stop personal attacks and withdraw "vandal" label.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Mark83 16:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Ramdrake 17:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Ian Dalziel 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Ernham should seriously consider his comments and try to avoid referring to other editors - instead refer to the article content. Shell ^babelfish 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Ernham needs to grow up and realize that attacking others doesn't fix articles --In ur base, killing ur dorfs 18:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Another quote "there is no speaking in a civil manner with people that have no understanding of basic logic and proceed to repeatedly lie and be bigots", possibly not the consensus interpretation of WP:AGF... Addhoc 12:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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:

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.}

While it appears that this user is combative, and not yet in tune with the Wiki way, it is a little worrying that we still seem to take personal attacks personally - although good to see that no-one "fed the troll" directly. I would urge editors to wherever possible ignore personal attacks, and respond only to substantive points. This focuses the discussion.

Secondly, all editors need to remember, reverts are reverts, even when they contain other edits.

Ernham need to be encouraged to understand that Wikipedia works by cooperation, not by conflict, and if Ernham concertrates on this modus operandi then Ernham's contributions will be that much better, as will other editors. Most of those editors who have chosen conflict have either ended up banned, or left on their own, which is arguably a loss,

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rich Farmbrough, 20:57 14 October 2006 (GMT).

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.