Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mooseguy

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: 23:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• Mooseguy (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 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Mooseguy has shown uncivil conduct, performing rude and extremely innapropriate vandalism and comments to user pages. He has done vandalism to pages as well, replacing true facts with Original research and plain nonsense. Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 23:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description

{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.}

[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. This is what started it all. Mooseguy replaced a picture of a kitten to a nude Playboy woman (which is now deleted). ([1])
2. Replaced userbox section with "This user is a dumbass" ([2])
3. Replacing true facts with pure nonsense and original research on Might Guy ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8])
4. Vandalized this page, and recieved a final warning for it, even after block and many warnings.[9]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:VANDAL
2. WP:OR
3. WP:NONSENSE

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

(provide diffs and links)

1. I did not approach the user directly regarding this issue, however, when I noticed Tohru Honda13 give them repeat serious warning for blatant vandalism [10], I took the issue to WP:AIV.[11] The result of the AIV listing was this message on my talk page, suggesting this needed to go through some form of dispute resolution. I personally don't see why a repeat vandal wouldn't cop a block for vandalising a user page. Chovain 11:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
2. It's worth noting that Someguy0830 also warned[12] Mooseguy about his behaviour, specifically for this one, which was blatant vandalism. Chovain 11:27, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
3. This is the first vandalism warning I gave him when he placed a nude picture of a woman on my user page [13]. I attempted to make peace with him. However, five days later, he vandalized my user page once again [14], once again, and I gave him another warning [15]. Attempted to make peace again, but no response. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
4. His vandalism has been given a last warning by User:NeoChaosX for the article Might Guy. This was on the 22nd of December. On December 25, he ignored the warning and replaced true facts with original research, the same reason he was given a last warning for [16]. He has many warnings for that same reason on that same article here. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Mooseguy asked NeoChaosX why his Might Guy contribution was reverted, explaining that he ransomed a roll of toilet paper to the series creator for the information.[17] While highly unlikely, I made a great assumption of good faith and explained that this would make his contribution original research instead, and thus not much more acceptable.[18] –Gunslinger47 09:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 04:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
2. --Tohru Honda13^{Sign here!} 05:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
3. –Gunslinger47 09:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Chovain 12:30, 27 December 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

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.