Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-30 Stalker
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Status | closed |
| Request date | Unknown |
| Requesting party | Seicer |
| Mediator(s) | Xyrael |
| Comment | Mediation closed due to forceful action taken against involved IP. |
[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]
Mediation Case: 2006-08-30 Stalker[edit]
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
Request Information[edit]
- Where is the issue taking place?
- Throughout my user contribution list. 70.35.237.67 began by adding speculation and unsourced statements at Lexington, Kentucky which was removed several times by myself and another user. The IPUser argued and began digging through my user contributions, editing Louisville, Kentucky, Urban exploration, Big Dig, The Atlantic Paranormal Society, Waverly Hills Sanatorium, Parapsychology, and University of Kentucky.
- Who's involved?
- Myself; User:Stevietheman has reverted several attacks; user:Chris24 reverted Lexington, Kentucky. Within talk:Lexington, Kentucky, several others asked or requested the offending statement from the IPuser be removed.
- What's going on?
- The IPUser began adding statements to Lexington, Kentucky that provided no citations and constituted original research. I then asked for a citation, but that was removed. Numerous others asked for citations or for its removal (on here and at Urban Planet (where it was originally discussed) to which it was removed eventually. The IPUser made an ad homiem attack against my character and made references to prior edits I have done.
- Since then, the IPUSer has trolled through my user contributions and has made many needless edits, adding [citation needed] whereever the IPUser saw fit (in response to me asking for a citation for his statements on Lexington, Kentucky), vandalising pages, and making a circus out of the edit history of many pages. The user has also introduced weasel words and has blanked a section.
- What would you like to change about that?
- I have been more than patient with the IPUser. I have provided IPUser helpful links to why IPUser needs to cite his/her statements, what original research is, what weasel words are, and when all that failed, I provided IPUser with warning templates. IPUSer continued to ignore all of this and continues to play defense. I would like to see IPUser warned or banned from editing articles that I have created or worked on that are visible in my user contribution list for the interm.
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- That would be approperiate. My e-mail is [email protected].
Mediator response[edit]
- Due to the IP being blocked for what he was doing, I don't think mediation is appropriate for this issue. If the involved are okay with it, I will close this case soon, allowing time for views against this to be expressed. Thanks. —Xyrael / 11:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Compromise offers[edit]
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
Discussion[edit]
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
- As stated above, and will go into more detail here:
- User added uncited statement to Lexington, Kentucky. I placed a [citation needed] to warn the user that his statement was unsourced and constituted original research. The tag was removed by the IPUser and promptly reverted by myself. I placed a message on the IPUser's talk page with helpful links on official policy on Wikipedia, but the IPUser decided it would be better to readd in the uncited statement to the article. This was promptly delt with with a deletion of the said statement.
- User then replied with an ad-homiem attack:
- "People who likely have no lives and get off on a pitiful little "power trips" make me sad. The Lexington tower was cited twice before you erased it. Are you mad it's not in Louisville or something? Get over it, Louisville will have the tallest for at least 3 years with the muesum complex. Please contain your overzealous editing to your ghost hunting articles. You've been reported."
- Ever since then, IPUser has trolled through my user contribution list. IPUser has gone in and added [citation needed] whereever IPUser felt, or did senseless edits that did not contribute to the article as a whole on Louisville, Kentucky, Urban exploration, Big Dig, The Atlantic Paranormal Society, Waverly Hills Sanatorium, Parapsychology, and University of Kentucky. After IPUser was given a warning template, IPUser has done a handful of "constructive" edits - in the way of simple grammar corrections, such as going in and changing "is" to "are".
- Now IPUser has his heart set on Louisville, Kentucky, a featured article. The IPUser has continuously vandalised the page, adding in many needless [citation needed] statements, adding irrelevent text, and disputing long-accepted information on a featured article. This is leaving a black-eye for that page.
- Numerous warning templates were given as approperiate and per policy. One was removed and promptly replaced. A warning that removing warning templates was placed, but this was removed as well and promptly reverted.
- IPUser has begun to vandalise this page as well...
- User added uncited statement to Lexington, Kentucky. I placed a [citation needed] to warn the user that his statement was unsourced and constituted original research. The tag was removed by the IPUser and promptly reverted by myself. I placed a message on the IPUser's talk page with helpful links on official policy on Wikipedia, but the IPUser decided it would be better to readd in the uncited statement to the article. This was promptly delt with with a deletion of the said statement.
- Seicer (talk) (contribs) 11:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The anonymous user in question has also violated WP:NPA several times. And re: Louisville, Kentucky, was adding blatantly infactual information about two attractions being in Elizabethtown, Kentucky. Seicer covered this user's behavior so thoroughly that this is all I have to add. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)