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

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

To remain listed atWikipedia: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 thesame dispute with asingle 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: 07:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:06:58, 17 February 2026 (UTC).

• Morriswa (talk ·contribs ·logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them.All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed tothis page's discussion page.

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.

That Morriswa would slow down and listen to concerns about his automated editing, and not continue with inappropriate automated and careless edits.

Morriswa has been making controversial gnomish edits for several months. Originally, it was using Advisor.js and making edits only adjusting whitespacing in articles. This has moved on to HotCat and controversial categorizations, where users have repeatedly criticized his classifications. Many of these were done incorrectly or on a controversial basis and users having to review all his categorizations to make sure that they are proper. At times, rollback was used improperly to restore these categorizations, andMorriswa revealed that he did not understand the rollback policy.

Finally, many editors have explained at great length things that Morriswa can help out in instead of the controversial gnomish edits, and he rejects them all as too hard to accomplish, and believes that everyone must drop everything and helphim accomplish whatever he wants to get done.

1. added a category that is factually incorrect
2. controversial category addition that was reverted
3. abuse of rollback to restore same addition
4. also incorrect
5. expecting more editors to help him accomplish his goals
6. [1][2] dumping a huge block of text on a project talk page and reverting after he was advised not to
7. adding said controversial designated in x year categories and adjusting whitespace using advisor.js
8. Insisting on fixing links to redirects that are not broken
9. Editing someone else's userpage with automated tools and thenthe following discussion
10. Editing someone else's userpage complaint from a month earlier - clearWP:IDHT

1. WP:CONSENSUS
2. WP:IDHT
3. WP:ROLLBACK
4. Not a policy per se, but also see precedent ofWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough, especiallyWikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Users_of_automation_tools

1. project discussion regarding Roads designated in x categories (which he did not participate in) andnotification of that discussion
2. Response to Imzadi1979's lengthy discussion of how to contribute (basically "I don't get it!" to several KB)
3. Wikipedia:Editor review/Morriswa

1. Attempt to offer suggestions on simple, and needed, housekeeping tasks for WP:USRD
2. See also above for attempts to discuss situations after edits to my user page. (Currently appears as number 9 in#Evidence of disputed behavior.)
3. Wikipedia:Editor review/Morriswa

1. Attempted to get Morriswa to suspend his categorization efforts and form a consensus with other interested parties regarding the scope of the categories:[3][4] Both of these requests were ignored.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Rschen775406:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Imzadi 1979 →07:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. —Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]11:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or other people's endorsements belongs on the talk page, not in this section.}

2. –Fredddie™12:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3.  VC 15:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. –TCN7JM03:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Dough487202:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

I apologize for not replying sooner. I quickly glanced at this page, and didn't know where to respond. I honestly didn't know that I was making really controversial edits. I never wanted to cause any trouble, but I thought I was making good edits, and making the pages better.

Now, I'm not stupid, but I think that I need people to explain things to me at a beginner level. Don't get me wrong. I know how to do basic editing, and I know some of the basic functions of scripts/tools. What I don't understand is more advanced levels.

Again, I want to iterate that Inever meant to mess anything up on Wikipedia. I never thought that it would come down to an RFC (which I never knew what that meant until a few weeks ago) against me. With my weird schedule, any "adopt-an-editor" doesn't really work. I work 10PM-10AM, 2-4 days a week. So I am usually awake from about 7:30PM-11:00AM.

RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it. Discussion of this view or comments made by people endorsing this view belong on the talk page, not in this section

1. Allen (Morriswa) (talk)01:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed tothis page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Having read through the various linked diffs and talk page sections, it looks like what Allen really needs to do is to stop editing with scripted tools altogether. In particular, the inappropriate use of rollback is troublesome. It would be wise for Allen to voluntarily give up rollback privileges since rollback has a very narrow window of usage and misuse of it can get one into a lot of hot water.

Allen, above you say that "I think that I need people to explain things to me at a beginner level". That statement alone sums up the problems you are having and causing. It is precisely your decision to jump in at the deep end and go scuba diving without knowing how to dog paddle which is causing you problems. A number of editorshave been explaining things but you've either got a much bigger estimation of your abilities or you're vastly underestimating the difficulties of doing the gnomish edits you are doing now.

Rather than bulling your way into the edits and dealing with the consequent criticism you're going to get later, ask for advice first andlisten to what others with experience have to say.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Blackmane (talk)00:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. –Fredddie™01:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Imzadi 1979 →01:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)note thathis rollback privileges were removed by Ironholds on January 2nd.[reply]
4. Rschen775402:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. Even after having rollback for several years, I use it sparingly. If allowed to retain the tool, I strongly suggest this editor take heed.Jusdafax23:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views. RFC/U does not accept "opposes" or "anti-endorsements"; the fact that you do not endorse a view indicates that you do not entirely agree with it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed tothis 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.

It appears that the justified concerns uttered here are not denied by Morriswa. Since rollback was already removed there is no need for that measure. What is needed here, if it hasn't been done in the last month or so, is a kind of mentoring scheme. Morriswa is not the only person on Wikipedia with an odd schedule--they could hook up with someone on the other side of the world, and mentoring doesn't often happen in real time anyway. Since Morriswa's good faith isn't doubted, there are no actions to be considered at this time. Whether they have slowed down, as was requested in this RfC/U, I cannot establish; I urge Morriswa to be responsive to editors' questions and inquiries: being incommunicado is in itself disruptive.Drmies (talk)02:04, 16 March 2013 (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.