Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SNIyer12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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: 00:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User repeatedly restores his/her improper edits even when asked not to on in edit summaries and on Talk pages.

[edit] Description

This editor makes certain incorrect/unsourced/POV edits, primarily to pages relating to the video game Zelda II: The Adventure of Link, which are edited in an apparent attempt to create a parallel with Walt Disney’s Sleeping Beauty, seemingly an interest of the user’s (eg: "a red rose in her hand" and "Zelda is Sleeping Beauty is Zelda II"). When an edit of the user's is reverted, the user makes the same or similar edits. Even when asked to stop in edit summaries or on his/her talk page, the editor persists. Occasionally, there will be a period during which the editor does desist, but this is invariably short-lived.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Zelda II: The Adventure of Link

  1. 21:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC), reverted here
  2. 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC), reverted here
  3. 03:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC), reverted here
  4. 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC), reverted here
  5. 05:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. 04:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC), reverted here
  9. 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC), reverted here
  10. 04:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. 03:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC), reverted here
  12. 04:40, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. 03:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. 03:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. 02:01, June 5, 2006 (UTC)
  16. 00:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  17. 23:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  18. 01:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  19. 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  20. 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  21. 02:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  22. 00:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  23. 22:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  24. 13:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  25. 04:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  26. 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  27. 19:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  28. 03:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  29. 02:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  30. 19:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  31. 17:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  32. 02:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  33. 13:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  34. 04:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  35. 04:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  36. 22:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  37. 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  38. 21:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. 03:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. 17:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. 02:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. 14:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. 19:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. 04:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  47. 23:03, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  48. 19:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  49. 02:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  50. 14:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Zelda

  1. 16:51, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. 16:51-19:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. 00:26-29, 3 November 2005 SNIyer12 (UTC)
  4. 03:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. 19:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. 03:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. 03:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  9. 01:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC), reverted here
  10. 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC), reverted here
  11. 02:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. 04:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. 12:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  15. 12:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  16. 04:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  17. 22:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  18. 13:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  19. 13:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  20. 14:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Wikipedia:Verifiability
  2. Wikipedia:Resolving disputes( failure to respond to comments on his/her talk page)

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

  1. WikidSmaht’s attempt
  2. Setokaiba’s attempt

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. This editor has failed to stop adding this content, and never made any attempt to respond to my comments on his/her talk page, though s/he archived them and therefore must have seen them. I must admit I’ve lost my temper with the user, but his/her behavior is exceedingly frustrating. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. I have also attempted contact with this user to prevent them from continuing this behaviour, and am afraid to say that I never received a response. It is true that I was blunt on their talk page, but it does still not explain their refusal to explain or attempt to justify their actions. Setokaiba✌≝ 10:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. I agree with the summary, I too have reverted said vandalism. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. I agree with the summary, I too have reverted said vandalism. Mintchocolatebear 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the summary, and have spent a bit of time reverting his crap --Havermayer 17:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree with the summary. As the list here reflects, this is a pattern of willfully uncooperative and problematic edits by the user, who evidently recognises but refuses to respond to or address inquiry on the subject from any and all other editors. --Yst 00:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[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.}

I really can't speak for editing of the Zelda pages, but I have seen a similar pattern in the September 11 collection; specifically, on the pages Closings and cancellations following the September 11, 2001 attacks and, more recently discovered, Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. In both of these, this user has added unsourced editorial paragraphs and makes few to no changes to those edits each time it's added. When removed by someone else, he has simply added them back. When discussed on the talk pages, he makes no response there even if the consensus is to leave the material out. He doesn't re-add material quickly enough to invoke the three revert rule, but I have seen slow edit wars on both these pages.

Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks

  1. 07:48, 28 May 2005, reverted by User:82.133.79.7 14:24, 22 February 2006
  2. 82.133.79.7 first discusses this opening paragraph, 14:26, 22 February 2006
  3. AB-me agrees with the anonymous user's removal/editing of the paragraph, 11:45, 2 March 2006
  4. 09:34, 3 March 2006, reverted by User:Golbez 23:14, 21 March 2006
  5. Rhobite agrees with consensus, 14:59, 23 March 2006
  6. 17:04, 2 April 2006, reverted by User:WikidSmaht 13:05, 20 May 2006
  7. 17:54, 23 May 2006, reverted by User:Skybunny with stern suggestion to see talk page 22:09, 3 June 2006

Closings and cancellations following the September 11, 2001 attacks

Early edits of this article were made by User:SNIyer1, but given the wording of the paragraph in question, I'm pretty sure this is the same person. The 24.x.x.x anon user below is not me.

  1. 04:20, 24 September 2004, changed by User:205.118.9.14 08:18, 28 September 2004
  2. 08:48, 15 December 2004, changed by User:Moncrief 10:34, 3 February 2005
  3. 13:11, 6 February 2005, changed by User:Special-K 21:40, 5 July 2005
  4. 11:01, 4 August 2005, changed by User:Skybunny 04:52, 9 December 2005
  5. 19:22, 4 January 2006, changed by User:Skybunny 18:33, 18 January 2006
  6. 11:03, 23 January 2006, changed by User:24.218.198.104 11:44, 23 January 2006
  7. 13:24, 23 January 2006, changed by User:24.218.198.104 19:43, 23 January 2006
  8. Skybunny comment on talk page, asking edit war to stop, 19:54, 23 January 2006
  9. 10:36, 5 March 2006, changed by User:Skybunny 12:59, 5 March 2006
  10. Discussion directly to SNIyer12's talk page by Skybunny, 13:12, 5 March 2006

My suggestion is:

  1. This appears to be a larger pattern than two pages
  2. If an edit one makes is reverted more than once, the person should check edit summaries to see if there is an explanation for it, or, the article's talk page for same.
  3. Edit summaries are not acceptable discussion forums. A best practice (rather than simply re-adding material and explaining in the edit summary) should be discussion of that material on the talk page, and after collaboration, accepting the conclusion reached by our fellow editors.
  4. In a dispute, quoting sources is essential, to avoid matters of opinion.

Using an edit summary as a discussion forum, by definition, creates an edit war with countering edit summaries. I believe SNIyer12 should make more use of article talk pages, pose their point of view there, and ultimately accept the collaborative conclusions reached by the editors involved - even if contrary to their own. Quoting sources would go a long way to helping justify edits.

Skybunny 18:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Skybunny 18:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. WikidSmaht 21:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC) - I had noticed this behavior( as you can see from my recent involvement), and some examples were even included in the first draft of this RfC, demonstrating POV problems. They are still above, commented out.
  3. --InShaneee 03:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC) - Have dealt with this user a long time ago. Their editing habits were exactly the same then.

[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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_SNIyer12_4c84.html"