Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bruce1333

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Desired outcome

The desired outcome is for the user to stop disrupting the Antichrist article and heed the advice of at least five other Wikipedia editors.

[edit] Description

The user originally added a highly POV essay to the Antichrist article. He ignored my original warning and went on to readd it a dozen times, ignoring the advice of myself and five other editors, constructive analysis by myself, and even personally attacked me. He then proceeded to continue inserting his edit into the Antichrist article, even after he had read this RfC and replied to it.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

These are all links to the same edit applied at different times. As an IP:

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3

As Bruce1333:

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5 added after user's reply to this RfC.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:3RR
  2. WP:PA
  3. WP:OR
  4. WP:RS
  5. WP:NPOV

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

  1. User:Master of Puppets warns the editor about his violation of WP:POV [1]; editor responds saying that it is he who has the neutral point of view, and Master of Puppets who is biased.
  2. Master of Puppets tries to show the user what is wrong with the essay he is adding, and also tries to clear up some misconceptions that the user has (such as Master of Puppets controlling other users).[2]
  3. Editor makes personal attack on Master of Puppets, calling him an idiot.[3] User:Scarian warns him.[4]
  4. Master of Puppets gives the user a step-by-step analysis of the essay he keeps submitting to the article.[5]
  5. User continues to readd personal essay.[6]
  6. User registers name, now edits as User:Bruce1333.[7]; [8]
  7. User:Kablammo warns Bruce1333 about his violation of 3RR.[9].
  8. Philip Trueman adds substantive comment to Bruce’s talk page on reason content was not appropriate.[10]
  9. User makes no edits for about five days.
  10. User deletes the analysis Master of Puppets has written for him,[11] and readds the text.[12]
  11. User replies to this RfC [13], then continues disputed behaviour on the Antichrist article. [14]
  12. User edit wars with Master of Puppets over simple format changes on this RfC. 1, 2, 3
  13. User has dispute with Black Butterfly on talk page ([15], indicates does not understand or refuses to abide by original research policy

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Master of Puppets Care to share? 18:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I was drawn into this when I removed the first edit that the user made to the Antichrist article, due to it being a personal essay, which therefore violated WP:POV. Even after being warned by multiple editors and having the edit repeatedly taken down, he persisted, even readding the disputed text after reading this RfC. I have no problem with the editor; while he seems to think that this is a personal issue for me and that I'm pushing my agenda, I'm just trying to keep that article NPOV. So far everything I have said to him has apparently been ignored. Master of Puppets Care to share? 05:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Kablammo (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC).
Comment: My participation consisted of comments on on my talk page,[16] and on the user's two talk pages.[17]; [18] Master of Puppets is the one who worked directly with the user to try to come up with acceptable text. Kablammo (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
3. ScarianTalk 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I attempted to ease the situation by calming down the said user (when he was logged out as an I.P.) to prevent any further escalation. On my talk page: [19] and on the I.P.'s talk page: [20]. ScarianTalk 03:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Black Butterfly (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Attempted to resolve conflict both on user and article talk pages. had to remove POV essay several times both as Bruce and as IP.
5. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment: As stated above, I reverted Bruce1333's edits to Antichrist [21], and when he asked me for my reasons [22] I gave them [23], asking him to substantiate an accusation of his own (see the edit summary of his revert of my revert [24]). So far, he has made no attempt to do so.

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. I agree with this version of events after carefully reading the summary above and the user's (on one IP and one registered account) contributions. Auroranorth (!) 12:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. It doesn't get much more straightforward than this. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Please note the difference in edits, as well as the descending order. Every attempt has been made to comply with wikipedia atandards. Since the Article is in dispute, I see nothing wrong with it's contents. I consider what is up there now as nothing but POV, I further cite the discussion page as evidence of consensus, of a FORMED and logical arguement. The first part of the text in question is the consensus of the people in discussion, the second part of the text is the supporting arguements for the same. Give me a couple of hours and I will be all to happy to cite within Wikipedia verifiable evidence to the same. As I take it that there must be a searchable version of the Bible within Wikipedia, or Puppet Master himself could not support his own arguement concerning the Article.

I have read the guidelines and have made every attempt to comply with them. WP 3RR was fully complied with. as I only made one revert within a 24 hour period since being informed by the editor. WP POV was complied with since the article is disputed and my arguements supported, as well as the general consensus of the discussion on the discussion page, I do not see where it can be considered POV. WP PA has been fully complied with as NO Personal attack has been made since review by the editors. As a matter of fact The following statement was recently added by me to the discussion page and no names were even mentioned in the text. It was meant to be informative and not critical of any one person. As a result it can not be considered a "personal attack". After all it's a discussion page.

"Many of the Users on Wikipedia are here with an agenda. If you need any help, Wiki has been fair and unbaised. They are trying thier best to make Wiki Encyclopediac. Of course that means sticking to a fundamental set of rules to do so.

Best of Luck with the learning curve..

Simply check the logs and backups of any Editor that has been called into dispute, and you will find Puppet Masters claims above as either false or ignorant.[25]

Yes that is correct Scarian, and you told me to ignor Puppet Master and concentrate on improving Wikipedia, I replied that "I could not agree with you more", and I have been doing so ever since.

Please check your logs, There was absolutely NO attempt at discussion made by PuppertMaster. Puppet Master meerly made his assertions and left. I DID discuss it with Kablammo and complied with his requests. Yes I have edited it every time requested, the last revert was due to the 3RR rule and has since been out of date for 5 days.

Furthermore NO attempt was made by Puppet Master to challenge the discussion on the discussion page. Puppet Master is the one who is NOT complying to wikipedia guidelines, not me! The General consensus on the discussion page is that the Antichrist is one man, and any man the rest of the text I have presented meerly supports the point and case. As a matter of fact it's even presented in the article concerning the same. All I did was add supporting arguement to the same.

Cheers..

I'd like to draw up a complaint about Puppet Master,[26] as he is taking this whole thing entirely to personally, he is no longer being objective he is being vindictive.[27]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Bruce1333 (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Who is in Charge here, PuppetMaster or Wickipedia? I would like to know? He is just a user like I am, where is the Arbitrator? I have fully complied with wickipedia and am getting railroaded. What is this all about? My arguement is stronger than his, he has proven absolutely NOTHING!!!

Bruce1333 (talk) 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


This Master of Puppets has got ya'll by the balls. Ya'll are nothing but puppets that he is controlling. Ohh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If ya'll wanna be led around on a string there is nothing that I can do about it. My opinion of wikipedia just hit rock bottom.

Cheers..

Bruce1333 (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[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 by user:Seicer

The continued inclusion of this edit into Antichrist is wholly unbalanced, considering that he rails against Jews and uses comparisons to Hitler and other horrific incidents. This is non-negotiable. It's also original research, the essay being nothing more than personal thoughts by Bruce. He fails to provide burden of proof, given that it is not sourced at all. Per Jimbo, if it is that controversial or speculative, then it is best to remove it and move on. I highly doubt a reliable source could be found for that at any rate.

Given that Bruce has resorted to using personal attacks in edit summaries and on talk pages, a good course of action is to continue to warn/notify using the standard template, report to WP:AIV, and if it continues to escalate, take it to WP:ANI. Any violations of WP:3RR should be reported immediately. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment I already posted a notice at ANI; WP:ANI#User:Bruce1333 edit warring. Master of Puppets Care to share? 07:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:


This Master of Puppets has got ya'll by the balls. Ya'll are nothing but puppets that he is controlling. Ohh well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If ya'll wanna be led around on a string there is nothing that I can do about it. My opinion of wikipedia just hit rock bottom.

Cheers..

Bruce1333 (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Sxeptomaniac

This really isn't a difficult case to follow. Guidelines such as Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, and Wikipedia:Don't be a fanatic were written due to editors like Bruce1333. The text he's been pushing shows that he clearly has no comprehension of Neutral Point of View, no original research, or even what an encyclopedia article should look like. His comments on talk pages show he also has no understanding of consensus.

Those who have brought this RfC have been abundantly patient with Bruce1333, as I was unable to find even a momentary slip-up on their parts. I commend them for not falling into incivility, even when it probably was tempting.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:49, 10 December 2007 (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.