Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Naradasupreme

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: 20:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

---

• Naradasupreme (talk • contribs • logs)

---

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 and guidelines 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 by User:Warrens 4 Outside view 5 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Naradasupreme (talk • contribs) has been continually blanking talk pages and not responding my requests to explain his actions. He has been requested by administrators and general users a couple of times to explain why over the past few weeks, and even with my polite requests to explain himself, he refuses to do so. It also appears that he may have multiple accounts, as another individual got into the dispute at one point.

[edit] Description

List of user pages that are in dispute:

• User talk:Naradasupreme (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I and other administrators have made repeated requests for him to explain why he is doing this.
• User talk:24.148.67.72 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This was blanked recently by Naradasupreme (talk • contribs)
• User talk:24.148.67.72/Archive1 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The main disputed page that keeps getting blanked.

Suspected sock puppets (not including Naradasupreme):

• Oldschoolfreak (talk • contribs)
• Drmagic (talk • contribs)
• 24.148.67.72 (talk • contribs) - It is possible that he is or was this particular IP, but has failed to indicate as such.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Below will be listed my attempts to keep his pages reverted. The other part of the dispute will be two headers down.

1. [1] - Log showing that the anonymous page had been Semi-protected before.
2. [2] - Oldschoolfreak (talk • contribs) creates the page in dispute after Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs) Blnguyen (talk • contribs)[3] had protected the page.
3. [4] - Drmagic (talk • contribs) gets involved. He has a similarly blank user talk page to that of Naradasurpreme and Oldschoolfreak.
4. [5] - Naradasupreme gets his edits reverted by AmiDaniel (talk • contribs).
5. [6] - Naradasupreme reverts the page again.
6. [7] - Another IP gets involved in editing the archive page.
7. [8] - Naradasupreme's first blanking of the page.
8. [9] - Naradasupreme blank the page again, citing that the issue was solved a week prior.
9. [10] - 24.148.67.72 (talk • contribs) blanks the page.
10. [11] - Same IP blanks again, citing that nobody cares.
11. [12] - The same IP blanks again, but leaves an ironic revert comment that states that he finds it rude that nobody explains why the page is being reverted.
12. [13] - Naradasupreme blanks the page citing that the user is no longer active.
13. [14] - Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs) reverts the blank, but then the IP returns and reverts the page.
14. [15] - I discover the page and revert it, to which Naradasupreme reverts it back.
15. [16] - From hereon, Naradasupreme, myself, and Oldschoolfreak get involved in an edit war over this page. In certain instances, I am called a vandal.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:SOCK
2. WP:DISRUPT
3. WP:AGF

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

These are ordered from most recent to oldest.

1. [17] Most recent blank after me requesting that he comments to why he is blanking this page. This was after he had blanked my request for a comment again.
2. [18] Another blanking by him after I asked him to comment in WP:ANI.
3. [19] I take this to WP:ANI. Page gets archived after two days with no response. I made the realisation that this is the wrong place to take the dispute, however.
4. [20] Again he blanks the page, but makes a revert comment with "yes we know."
5. [21] Other individuals get involved and request that he stops. These individuals are Naconkantari (talk • contribs) and Ginkgo100 (talk • contribs).
6. [22] I report him to WP:AIV.
7. [23] Reverts the page calling it "nonsense" and I respond back in kind asking him why he is continuing.
8. [24] First revision by me.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. I tried once (a fair while ago), and failed. Although I recognise there isn't a set-in-stone policy on this, it is evident that these actions are problematic, and hence a RfC may benefit all involved in reaching a good solution. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
2. I, the submitter of the dispute have tried to correct this. I too would like to see if this RfC will lead to a good solution overall for WP. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 19:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[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.

{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:

[edit] Outside view by User:Warrens

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.

Pardon my bluntness, but... why was an RfC filed over a revert war on an anonymous IP's talk page? Isn't there something else all involved parties could focus on instead, like, say, writing the encyclopedia? I don't see any actual articles involved here. -/- Warren 13:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary: Ginkgo100 ^{talk · e@} 22:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[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:

[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.