Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ian Snowball

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: 16:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User engages in edit wars, 3RR and when questioned responds with accusations of harassment and inflammatory (for want of a better word) statements. Howie ☎ 16:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Desired outcome

I would like the user to be made aware that their behavior is disruptive and that they are made to take account for their actions. They should also be made to understand that throwing about phrases related to harassment and being anti-disabled are totally unacceptable without proof. Howie ☎ 16:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Description

User has engaged in continually reverting/editing the A1018 road article to include non-sourced information. User has also had a similar edit/revert issue with the article Chris Mullin (politician). Both of these issues also involved the editor MapsMan. I was brought into this issue through the Request for Editor Assistance page, where Ian Snowball requested help in what he called and "edit war" and "harassment" caused by MapsMan. Looking over the articles I found that MapsMan had acted correctly and it is actually Ian Snowball's actions that are questionable.

Informing both of them of my point of view, by contributing a response to the request, Ian Snowball then continued to revert edits on one of the disputed pages. I left him a message on his talk page, informing him that he should not engage in such behavior and that he should follow through his request for help by leaving a reply to me - indicating his point of view on my response. Instead he replied to me on his talk page, attacking me for being anti-disabled people and accusing me of not acknowledging his "last reply" - which was impossible as he had not replied to me at all.

I would very much like this editor's behavior looked into as I feel he is incapable of understanding a perspective other than his own, and is quite willing to accuse others of harassment, being bigoted and anti-disabled in the process. Howie ☎ 16:07, 16 April 2008 (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. User talk for Ian Snowball re: his edits to A1018 road article
  2. [1]
  3. Ian Snowball's continued reverting of unsourced information on the A1081 road article

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:3RR
  2. WP:EQ

[edit] Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Editing war resolvement I attempted to resolve this issue as per Ian Snowball's original request, only to find he was in the wrong.
  2. [2] I attempted to contact Ian Snowball to get him to stop acting in a negative manner and he continued to call me names.

[edit] Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Howard Berry

[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.

{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:

  1. Endorse with comment: As this user already thinks we're discriminating against him - even if no mention of specific discrimination has been made - I think that my endorsement will probably only inflame the matter further. I'm not sure if he's being serious or not in some of his comments, but at any rate he has not fully taken on board the constructive criticism he'd received both from myself or Howie. I do not think he's being deliberately malicious at all, and at least he's acting in the right spirit (i.e. not just a typical vandal or 3rr-violator) but I think he needs to work on his civility. — MapsMan [ talk | cont ] — 18:39, 16 April 2008 (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.