Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tatsuma

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: 03:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

---

• Tatsuma (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 3.1 Outside view concerning the username 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Tatsuma jumped into the middle of a content dispute about criticism in the Ars Technica article and began reverting the article during a mediation request to force his POV against any consensus. He continued the reverts after mediation ended.

[edit] Description

Editor continuously reinserts disputed criticism into the Ars Technica article without discussion and with no sign of willingness to compromise. He has never contributed anything to Wiki except to revert this one article. (See here.) He has been asked multiple times to please join the discussion on the Talk page, but refuses to respond. He has never once contributed to a Wiki article or to the discussion about the disputed content. Since it is a content dispute our hands have been tied about how exactly to deal with Tatsuma, so I posted this RfC.

To be clear, the disputed content he is reverting back begins around on line 33 of the diffs. He is removing an HTML comment to ask people to please discuss any additions to Criticism before adding them. Then, on line 39 he adds back four lines of contested content to the article. The other changes you see him removing are minor additions to the article that he has reverted out in an attempt to add back the contested criticism.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

For context, see Talk:Ars Technica.

1. Reversion on August 29: [1]
2. Reversion on August 28: [2]
3. Reversion on August 25: [3]
4. Reversion on August 25: [4]
5. Reversion on August 21: [5]
6. Reversion on August 14: [6]
7. Reversion on August 5: [7]
8. Reversion on August 2: [8]
9. Reversion on August 1: [9]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. WP:CONSENSUS
2. WP:POINT

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

See User talk:Tatsuma

1. Tsetna trying twice to coax Tatsuma to cease reverts and discuss the criticism beginning August 2, 2006: [10]
2. Me warning Tatsuma to discuss potentially controversial edits first on August 28, 2006: [11]
3. Me giving a final warning on August 29, 2006 to cease: [12]
4. The reverts have also been discussed on Talk: Ars Technica under suspicion of meat/sock puppetry.
5. Both internal and outside mediation was sought to try to deal with the criticism, and during that time everyone was encouraged to discuss criticism without removing it (during the internal mediation) or adding it back (during the outside mediation) (see Talk: Ars Technica).
6. The Criticism section of the page also contains a hidden HTML comment asking editors to discuss criticism first before changing that is visible when editing the page.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Debuskjt 01:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
2. Tsetna 16:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. Durova 14:26, 8 September 2006 (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.}

[edit] Outside view concerning the username

Via private email, the person whose personal details were originally posted as being Tatsuma's own has confirmed that this is not him, and that there's an impersonation attempt going on. It would be great if we could get this user moved to a different username and then blocked so that the "real" Tatsuma could assume his rightful name... but that may be a pipe dream. I am unfamiliar with which noticeboard anything related to this should be posted to; other editors here may know better. Captainktainer * Talk 03:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Captainktainer * Talk 03:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[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.