Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/84.59.112.101

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 18:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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[edit]

{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.}

Problems with WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL etc. User calls everything he disagrees with propaganda. User personally attacks anyone who disagrees with him. User does not show Good Faith. User is making a WP:POINT by filing above rfc. User continually deletes factual, verifiable information, and tries to lecture other users on wikiquette, while remaining anonymous. User under many different IP's, all starting with 84.59, has harassed anyone who disagrees with him on their talk pages. Swatjester 17:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User's conduct has also been disputed on 2003 Invasion of Iraq page by at least 2 other users, thus meeting the rule requirements for RFC. Swatjester 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(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.)


From the article itself:


From the Talk page

WIP Swatjester 20:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:POINT
  3. WP:NPA
  4. WP:3RR
  5. WP:CIVIL
  6. WP:V

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. See edit summary
  2. See edit summary
  3. see edit summary
These first 3 are Dawgknot telling the anon to assume good faith and discuss things on the talk page.
  1. see edit summary
Pookster11 telling the anon to discuss things on the talk page before reverting.
  1. Original request to break article up.
  2. request for consensus (degenerated into flaming)
  3. request for semi protection

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Dawgknot 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Swatjester 20:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Can this user be treated as a vandal? Robert McClenon 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In agreement and concur with editor McClenon that the user should be treated as a vandal. Gwyllgi 15:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

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[edit]

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.


Outside View by McClenon[edit]

First, this RfC was not written using the approved template. I would offer to help format it correctly, except that (as I note below) I think it is not needed because the user should be treated as a vandal. Robert McClenon 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure how to do that. Could you help me format it correctly? I'd greatly appreciate it. A properly formatted RfC would help in a WP:AIV request. Swatjester 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have inserted the template text above. Use it, and then delete the part down here. Robert McClenon 19:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the removing of verifiable information is generally considered vandalism, especially if it is done anonymously. I would suggest that this disruptive user should be blocked by administrative action for personal attacks and vandalism without the formality of the RfC process. Robert McClenon 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thor Malmjursson 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ComputerJoe 22:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by Get-back-world-respect[edit]

Given that it was an anonymous IP does it make sense to spend so much time on a request? Plus, the 3RR was broken by both sides and there were serious content disputes, that is why the article was blocked rather than the anon banned. I did not see which verifiable information the anon removed, but I saw he accused Pookster: *Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:pookster11: Three revert rule violation on 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Deleted whole sections from the article, made false claims material were moved somewhere else, deleted neutrality dispute tag [1] and even discussion about it from talk page [2] as well as warning on his user page [3]. Refuses to follow NPOV despite warnings of other users. [4] 84.59.112.101 14:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments on that? Get-back-world-respect 21:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.


Previous Unformatted Version of RfC[edit]

Problems with WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL etc. User calls everything he disagrees with propaganda. User personally attacks anyone who disagrees with him. User does not show Good Faith. User is making a WP:POINT by filing above rfc. User continually deletes factual, verifiable information, and tries to lecture other users on wikiquette, while remaining anonymous. User under many different IP's, all starting with 84.59, has harassed anyone who disagrees with him on their talk pages. Swatjester 17:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

User's conduct has also been disputed on 2003 Invasion of Iraq page by at least 2 other users, thus meeting the rule requirements for RFC. Swatjester 17:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this anon editor (who is either the same user with different IP addresses or 3 different anon editors) has serious concerns with this issue. We all do. Nonetheless, the hard work of consolidating this article fairly must be done and poookster has been willing to do it. He has worked very cooperatively with others and with a clear understanding of the task in a wiki-like way. I say let him do it and let's how it turns out. This anon editor has been very unwilling to just be patient and wait to see. Nor participate in the process. Intead, it has been a praetorian guard mentality with constant and unrelenting reverts that have just made a very tough job impossibly tougher. Nobody is trying to impose their ideological views on this article. It's just that the anon editor seems to want to use this article as a formum for debating this war. Well I get it! He has strong views. So does everyone else. But that editor has been steadfastly unwilling to discuss the technical-issues associated with shortening this article in conformance with wiki length and summary policies...which is all this effort is trying to accomplish here. This article is unwieldly.Dawgknot 18:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by McClenon[edit]

Moved to proper section Swatjester 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3rr Violation Report:USER:84.59.67.92 (and other IPs)[edit]

Three revert rule violation on 2003 Invasion of Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). From multiple IPs: mainly, 84.59.67.92

Reported by: Swatjester 19:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second 3rr report and block[edit]

This actually took place before the first 3rr one listed here, just noticed it now.

[5] - result, user was temporarily blocked.

Comments:This user continuously reverts anything he doesn't agree with. There is a significant effort underway to rewrite and restructure this overly-large, rambling article. Any edits made, this user reverts, with condescending remarks about proper use of Wikipedia. This user is currently under an RfC for harassment of other users, as well as a RfM has been placed for this article. (links can be found in the talk section of the article at the bottom) I'm requesting a significant length block on this user. Note, this user uses multiple IP addresses.

Formatting[edit]

I'm reformatting this to meet the format suggested by Robert. If you've posted here, I have deleted nothing, just moved it to the appropriate sections. Swatjester 20:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please move anything you see into the appropriate sections, thanks. Swatjester 20:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Notice of intent for RfA[edit]

Just putting it down, that due to this users conduct (2 major 3RR violations, at least 1 block, ban evasion, vandalism etc.), that I'm considering filing a RfA after due time to let this RfC take it's course. Swatjester 18:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/84.59.112.101&oldid=1064218127"