Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Deathrocker

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: 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

---

• Deathrocker (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

---

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

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside view 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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.

[edit] Description

First and foremost, I must apologise with calling Deathrocker a vandal. This is to highlight his extensive block log, and is not an attack.

I was first brought to this dispute 5 weeks ago while patrolling The 3RR noticeboard. Both users had violated WP:3RR, so it was a clear-cut case of a block. I extended the block to about 32 hours, listing my reason as 3RR, and to cool down.

On Tuesday (14 March 2006), I had recieved a message from Leyasu while just going to make a change to an article. This was then followed by Deathrocker with accusations of Leyasu "bullshitting" me. I later received diffs of this dispute. Deathrocker was not the only one attacking. Leyasu also made comments about him vandalising my talk page.

After two days, I blocked both users. Leyasu, for Arbcom breach, Deathrocker, for gross 3RR violation. I admit I may have been biased to Leyasu by asking if there was any chance of baiting by Deathrocker.

Deathrocker, however, was not happy with my block. He continually requested an unblock, stating I was abusing my admin powers for blocking him for more than a day. I've been backed by several prominent users, Essjay, who said the block was fair. Tawker said that he had an outburst on IRC, but Deathrocker denies this. Because of this disruption, he was blocked until Easter.

This case highlights his negative behaviour over the past 6 weeks.

[edit] 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. All diffs of disputed behaviour here

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Three Revert Rule
2. Don't be a dick (not a policy per se)
3. WP:POINT

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

(provide diffs and links)

1. The user's block log shows the amount of 3RR blocks he has had.
2. WP:ANI currently (as of 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)) has a discussion about his disruption.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

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.

Deathrocker refuses to respond, claiming in an email that he has "finished with this as far as [he] is concerned" ([1]) 217.33.207.195 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Outside view

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.}

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

[edit] Discussion

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.