Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Frater FiatLux

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: 17:29, 21 June 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:25, 9 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 member of Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of A+O), this user came to Wikipedia to intentionally wage a propaganda battle against all other Golden Dawn orders. He has done this through edit warring, revert warring, recruitment of meatpuppets to support him in revert warring, and continued edit warring after signing an agreement to mediation. He has exhausted the patience of all other editors of the articles he has been attacking. This is a request for a community ban.

[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. Note: user originally appeared using 84.71.159.105. Connection is shown by this diff.
  2. There are many examples of incivility and not assuming good faith throughout: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]
  3. May 28: His first edit adds an external link to his order's website in the body of the article, rearranges the links in the external links section to place his order at the top, and adds uncited derogatory information to the sections about all other orders.
  4. May 28: His next 11 edits are reverts to his original edit. He makes these 11 reverts in less than 1 hour, resulting in the article being protected. [10]
  5. June 9: attempts to insert his derogatory version of order descriptions from #3 into the article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn: [11], then reverts to it 5 times before being blocked: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]
  6. June 9: New user Zanoni666 (talk · contribs) seems to already know about the dispute? [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], and seems to know about WP:ANI: [24]
  7. June 10: replaces a fully cited article, The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. with his own uncited derogatory version, [25], then reverts to it twice: [26], [27] (note his incivil edit comment on the last revert)
  8. June 11: adds uncited material to Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, rearranging the alphabetically ordered links in the process: [28]
  9. June 12: reverts wars again on Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, reverting to his version 6 times and making incivil accusations of "political agendas" in the edit comments before being blocked: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]
  10. June 13: goes back to reverting both The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. ([35], [36], [37]) and continues reverting Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn ([38], [39], [40]). Again, note the incivil edit comments.
  11. June 14: continues to revert both articles until he is blocked: [41], [42], [43], [44]
  12. June 17: Files and signs an RfM: [45]
  13. June 21: reverts multiple articles under mediation to derogatory versions: [46], [47], [48], [49] (read first paragraphs carefully, placement of tag obscures changes; note accusations of Satanism added to one article)
  14. June 21: reverts fully cited article (which was previously tagged requesting citations) to previous uncited version: [50]
  15. Links to 3RR reports and blocks: [51], [52], [53]
  16. Retaliatory reports: after being blocked, Frater FiatLux made several false retaliatory reports against other editors: [54], [55], [56]
  17. Uploaded images by user that were deleted can be seen here:[57].

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:3RR
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:FAITH
  4. WP:NOR
  5. WP:COPY
  6. WP:OWN
  7. WP:VAN
  8. WP:IUP
  9. WP:NPOV

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Initial attempts by M1ss1ontomars2k4: attempt 1, attempt 2
  2. Attempts by Baba Louis: [58], [59], [60], [61]
  3. Consensus was attempted under headings "Survey" and "Consensus" of this talk page: Talk:Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn. Zos 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Consensus was attempted here: Talk:The_Hermetic_Order_of_the_Golden_Dawn,_Inc., beginning under the header called "Discussion of addition of inappropriate material + survey". Zos 21:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Attempts by 999: [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]
  6. Attempts by Ehheh: [71]
  7. Attempts by JMax555:[72], [73], [74], [75]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Baba Louis 17:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. 999 (Talk) 21:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. SynergeticMaggot Zos 21:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. JMax555 21:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 19:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Hanuman Das 04:49, 20 August 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:

[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:

[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.