Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Classicjupiter2
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: 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC).
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
1. Abuse of reverts. The 3RR specifically states that 3 reverts are a maximum and not a privilege. 2. Open declaration of denying any form of consensus. The user has repeatedly said he will not seek consensus. 3. Lying on the talk page about the source of the dispute. User claims that documentation that surrealists call themselves revolutionary is, ipso facto proof that his means of stating this is correct. 4. Incivility and personal attacks over the course of months. 5. False accusations of violating the 3RR.
[edit] Description
The history of surrealism pages and Surrealism itself is very troubled, it has been the repository for self-promotion and POV pushing by individuals who take themselves to be the inheritors, and arbiters, of the Surrealist tradition. Because of the value of the term "surrealism" in the marketplace, there is incentive to do this.
User:Classicjupiter2 originally editted as an IP address, since creating an account his incivility and POV pushing have only continued. He openly runs revert wars, threatens to revert, and has made a false accusation of my violating the "three revert rule". The personal attacks against me have gone on for months on the talk page.
Attempts to deal with this problem run back months, the page was protected for a time, the user agreed, and then violated, good faith on the page. This recurrance indicates that further attempts to deal with the problem without invoking formal mechanisms will be ineffective at best.
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
In addition people can look at IP edits from the 24.168 block to see how this user simply cannot engage in meaningful and good faith editting going back to February of this year.
[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)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
-
- Stirling Newberry 16:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
- >>sparkit|TALK<< 00:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
-
- Robert McClenon 22:22, 22 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.
{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
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
