Wikipedia:Requests for comment/211.28.*.*

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, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

  • We, the undersigned, are seeking the opinion of the community in the case of an anonymous user who uses the IP range 211.28.*.* and has been named Time Cube Guy. His contributions consist exclusively of advocacy for a philosophy which does not seem to have any followers but himself. He has spent two years introducing his ideas into Gene Ray, Time cube, Greenwich Mean Time, Time, Cube, Cube (geometry), related talk pages, and other articles, and apparently none of his edits have ever survived the scrutiny of other Wikipedians. Furthermore, he has conducted revert wars over Gene Ray, Talk:Time_Cube/Proposed_trimmed_article and Time cube. Extensive discussion with Time Cube Guy has not resulted in any substantial progress towards more factual and neutral articles.

[edit] Description

  • Under NPOV and WP:WIN, Wikipedia grants no right to use Wikipedia as platform for the promotion of fringe philosophy. Specifically, it is consensus that Wikipedia articles are not: propaganda or advocacy of any kind, personal essays, primary research, self-promotion, or advertising.
  • Therefore, since all attempts at reasoning with Time Cube Guy have not resulted in any substantial progress, the page Time Cube has been locked, and an RfC has already been posted, we feel the only course of action is to unconditionally revert all of changes made by 211.28.*.* to Time Cube-related articles, that is, Time Cube Guy is effectively banned from editing these articles. If it becomes clear that Time Cube Guy has moved on to cause trouble at any other related pages, those changes will be unconditionally reverted as well.
  • We realize that the entire IP range cannot be banned, and do not condone reverting any other legitimate changes, especially in Australia-related articles.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. History of the Time Cube article
  2. History of the Proposed modified Time Cube article
  3. History of Talk:Time Cube


[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. History of the Time Cube article makes the case undeniably clear.
  2. History of the Proposed modified Time Cube article is very clear.
  3. History of Talk:Time Cube from early June 8th and before is also clear.
  4. Talk:Greenwich_Mean_Time#Time_Cube_discussion I tried to engage this user in a discussion about his/her activities, also tagging his/her contributions (and adding the note at the top about unattributed edits). It is clear that this failed to stop the problem and I support the dispute. --Vamp:Willow 12:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. brian0918™ 15:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bryan 23:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Mgw 02:49, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Kosebamse 13:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  6. Vamp:Willow 12:15, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. —Sean κ. + 16:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Anilocra - (hi!) 16:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Cheradenine 14:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Dave C. 21:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 16:52 (UTC)
  6. Salimfadhley 21:12, 16 July 2005 (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.

{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] 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.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I think it's safe to say the POV-pushing is a serious problem. With this RFC we can establish that the community disapproves of 211.'s editing and asks him to stop. If he persists after that a quick arbitration is probably the easiest way to get a proper ban. Community decisions to ban can be done ofcourse but need to achieve clear consensus to do so, blanket-reverting by just the co-contributors without wide community support is a bad thing. Let's just state clearly here that 211.'s behaviour is inappropriate. --W(t) 00:38, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)

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

  1. brian0918™ 02:34, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  2. Bryan 05:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  3. Cheradenine 14:05, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  4. Anilocra 17:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  5. Mgw 02:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
  6. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind June 28, 2005 16:52 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.