Wikipedia:Requests for comment/70.182.219.158

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: {insert UTC timestamp with 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC).


Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This anonymous user has consistently violated Wikipedia's rules of conduct. In fact, a cursory perusal of the user's contributions will reveal that this misconduct composes the bulk of this user's activity on WP. This user continues to harass other users for their personal views, rather than the basis of their contributions to articles, and has continued to wikistalk several users on the basis of such views.


[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

These are only examples out of a whole myriads of behaviours.

Obstructing dispute resolution

  • Vandalized the vandalism in progress page three times by removing his/her name:
Wikipedia:Vandalism in Progress [1][2][3]
  • Vandalized the RFC page by removing his/her IP:
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct [4]

Personal attacks

  • Repeatedly made vicious and libelous attacks against users, harassing them:
User talk:Corax [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10][11]

Was blocked twice by two admins for them - [12]

User talk:Clayboy [13]
North American Man/Boy Love Association [14]

Vandalism and WP:POINT violations

  • Talk page vandalism
School massacre [15]
Pedophilia [16] [17]
User talk:195.93.21.2 [18]
North American Man/Boy Love Association - removed or removed tags out of spite with editors, clearly in bad faith [19] [20]

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Attack: This user has violated the WP policy on No Personal Attacks
  2. Harassment: This user has continued to wikistalk several users, in violation of Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikistalk.
  3. Revert warring: In violation of the three revert rule.
  4. Vandalism and disruption to prove a point: in violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism and WP:POINT.

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

  1. User talk:Corax - warned for the user to get off Corax's talk page, as well as reasoned with to when Corax defends his position, however the anonymous editor still persists in harassment [21]
  2. User talk:70.182.219.158 - attempted to try to set things straight with the user [22] but apparently the user does not react kindly [23]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Corax 23:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Natalinasmpf 01:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Clayboy 07:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 06:54, 5 February 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 (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. 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 (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

Is any real action going to come of this?

Since it seems you still haven't learned your lesson, and still insist on vandalizing people's talk pages with personal attacks, I really see no reason why you haven't been blocked indefinitely. Corax 23:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)