Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EJ220
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: 18:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
This user has been warned repeatedly about not adding misinformation and bias to the Rudy Giuliani page in violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV yet he has continued.--Southern Texas 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Desired outcome
Restrictions of editing on Rudy Giuliani pages, and if he does not comply an immediate indef block.--Southern Texas 18:50, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Description
The user has continued to add unsourced, biased information to Rudy Giuliani pages despite numerous "last warnings". The user has been called "the most useless editor on wikipeida" but I do see some (although few) good edits from this user and I want to assume good faith. He has been contributing since August 28, 2006. What I would like to see is this user to agree to not edit articles relating to Rudy Giuliani. If he does not comply with this I think he should be indef blocked.--Southern Texas 20:04, 11 November 2007 (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.)
There are so many misstatements, opinion, and bias that it would take a long time to list every single one. Look at the user's contribs and see for yourself
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
So many "last warnings"
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
[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:
[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.
The diffs you provided look like outright vandalism to me. I would suggest reporting this to WP:AIV. User doesn't seem interested in constructively editing the article in question and seems rather bent on just posting nonsense. An admin should be able to assist.
Users who endorse this summary:
- Dgcopter 17:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
- CJ 10:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
- Nburden (T) 06:15, 16 November 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.
