Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chisinau

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This RfC is closed. Do not add more comments to it. Fred-Chess 03:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

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: {20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} A suspected sockpuppet of Bonaparte (talk · contribs · block log). Created on March 1st and dived headlong into vandalizing of Moldova-related articles, the favorite target of Bonaparte, with accusing everyone else in anti-Romanian discrimination annd with curious knowledge of wikipedia policies and places. Permanent ban requested. 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Newer socks are being collected at User:Chisinau/sockpuppetry. All socks are in category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Bonaparte. mikka (t) 20:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Short, but colourful edit history. mikka (t) 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. [1], [2], [3]. --Zserghei 22:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. [4], [5]. --Irpen 23:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:SOCK
  2. WP:CIVILITY

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

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. User talk page. mikka (t) 20:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. Edit summaries. --Irpen 23:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. I also suggest adding the WP:NPOV to the list of applicable policies. --Latinus 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  4. Bonaparte, please go away. Your behaviour is disruptive, as usual. --Ghirla -трёп- 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I suggest to wait until my request for checkuser is addressed before proceeding. If proven that he is a sock or an open proxy editor, he will be permabanned and we won't waste any more time here. --Irpen 23:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Robert McClenon 23:35, 4 March 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] Outside view by McClenon

I suggest adding Vandalism to the policies violated. The repeated deletion of several paragraphs of material, without explanation, is sufficiently bad faith as to have the nature of blanking vandalism. Other than that, I endorse this RfC. This user is disruptive.

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

  1. Robert McClenon 23:39, 4 March 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.