Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bobsmith319

In order 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:07, 17 May 2024 (UTC).

• Bobsmith319 (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Bobsmith319 has continually been attempting to censor pregnancy due to his personal dislike of the nude photo, despite consensus against him and being pointed repeatedly to the anti-censorship policy. He had finally stopped editing the article for some time, but the other day he returned and once more, ignoring the talk page and consensus, removed the photo, without reason or warning. He continually assumes bad faith when someone points out his actions, and has tried to claim that those that do not agree with him are in violation of WP:CIVIL.

Desired outcome

Ideally, he would agree to stop trying to censer wikipedia due to his own personal distaste of the naked human body, and learn to embrace the fact that people are, by necessity, occasionally photographed naked; however, it's far more likely that he will stop disrupting pregnancy, at the least.

Description

He has continually removed the nude image from pregnancy against consensus, and become hostile when approached about this.

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.)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pregnancy&diff=140097395&oldid=140013931
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pregnancy&diff=prev&oldid=78026180
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pregnancy&diff=prev&oldid=78024603

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CENSOR#Wikipedia_is_not_censored
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CON

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pregnancy The entire section "NUDE IMAGES"
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABobsmith319&diff=86407718&oldid=82954842 WhereamI attempted to discuss on his talk page
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABobsmith319&diff=79093869&oldid=79078957 Bobsmith claims the 3-revert rule is "bossing people around"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Kuronue 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Honeymane 05:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

1. I have observed Bobsmith319 behaviour for sometime and it disappoints me that despite editors pointing out politely that WP is not censored and that in an article about human reproduction and birth, a naked human is more informative than a clothed human, he continually uses his personal views to attempt to censor WP. He also is quick to attack anyone who points out WP policies. I would appreciate it if this editor would (a) leave pregnancy alone (b) follow WP policies and (c) attempt to work collaboratively with other users. Gillyweed 00:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there Sir, I now see your point very clearly. I will leave the article alone and do other edity. I sincerly apologize for my actions which I know realize were quite uncivil. --bobsmith319 03:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, I would like to say that I have thoroghly read this article and I agree that my conduct isn't acceptable. From now on, I promise to leave pregnancy alone act more civil towards fellow wikipedians. I feel that Wikipedia is a great place and would greatly desire to positively work with other users on improving Wikipedia. I hope that by leaving pregnancy alone, working with other users in a positive way and working to edit additional articles will help to improve my sullied reputationon Wikipedia. Thank you and good luck to all of you on future endevors with Wikipedia- the free encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. bobsmith319 03:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. I look forward to working constructively with you User:Bobsmith319 Gillyweed 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Good work; I think we can close this RfC on this note. Haemo 04:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

I guess what I don't understand is what does the picture add to the article? Does it make it a better article? There is another picture on the same article of a partially dressed pregnant woman. What does this picture do that the previous one doesn't?

Yes, wikipedia is not censored. However, when possible, we should try and avoid images that would normally be censored. If there is an equivelant image that can provide the same result, without nude images, it would be ideal.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Michaelcox 04:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs)

(Bot) 23:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. --bobsmith319 03:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, this page is not for discussing whether or not the nude picture is appropriate -- that's what the talk page for the article is about. However, if you read the linked discussion, it becomes clear that consensus on that page is pretty clear in favor of inclusion. Bobsmith319's conduct has been hostile, despite continual assumptions of good faith all around -- and the edit warring on his part needs to stop. His objections are based in personal tastes about what is, and is not, acceptable and he does not seem to care about, or show any interest in abiding by, the guidelines and policies surrounding images like this. Bob -- sometimes, consensus is against you; it's happened to me. When that happens, you need to just move on and let it drop. Go do some other editing instead -- it will help you. --Haemo 06:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Haemo 23:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Addhoc 20:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am pretty busy and I just made my own section. Keep the picture, ban bobsmith319 for breaking the revert rules. I will be gone July 1-8, until then this is the basis of my opinion, I will write it correctly when I am back.--WhereAmI 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strangers who endorse this summary"

1. --WhereAmI 01:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.