Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martin2000

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: 07:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Martin2000 is conducting a long lasting edit war on several pages associated with Bahá'u'lláh and the Bahá'í Faith. He has been several times blocked for 3RR violations, but continues despite in the same manner. The tone of edit summaries of several porxy/anonymous users is so close to his, that the suspicion is strong that he evades blocks by using proxies etc.

He is deliberately and continously uncivil and often abusive. People have been amazingly patient with him, have carefully avoided to exclude him and have largely avoided to make bad faith assumptions.

Following a page protect by user:violetriga he made a abusive and sexist comment leading to a block.

I believe he has been given now enough lenience and patience, resulting only in more rope to hang himself and his behaviour should be examined by a larger group of editors. Hence the RfC.

I have asked him to seek mediation with one of his current main opponents User:Geni (who behaves like civility personified), but I am less than hopeful. I believe though some community push might give this mediation request some impact. Refdoc 20:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[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.}

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Edit History of Bahá'u'lláh showing multiple occasions where he accuses others of "deceit", "lies" and of being "censors" etc and of editwarring
  2. Talk:Bahá'í Faith same
  3. abusive to admin protecting the page
  4. Sexist abuse of admin
  5. The most recent 3RR block
  6. Talk:Bahá'u'lláh, with abusive insults and accusations to anyone who disputes with his personal agenda.
  7. Edit history of Bahá'u'lláh's family same

Contributions by sockpuppets:

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. 3RR
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. one example of many, people trying to involve him, despite his bad behaviour

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. Refdoc 20:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. violet/riga (t) 22:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. PaulHammond 15:17, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Tomhab 19:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Achilles 11:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Rick Boatright 03:32, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Antyrael 15:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. RickK 23:45, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) User is now using a plethora of anon accounts to vandalize and to make offensive personal attacks in edit summaries.

[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.

This user seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the Bahai faith. This is not normally a problem, but his conduct has consistently fallen far below the minimum level of civility expected of a Wikipedia editor. There is enough evidence here to suggest that he should be referred to arbitration. He is clearly not interested in engaging with other editors on civil terms. He has used open proxies and sock puppets, and continued to issue a stream of foul-mouthed insults at all times, without the slightest provocation, and recently has developed the annoying habit of reverting the same article about six times a day.

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

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:22, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 04:33, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  3. Gamaliel 18:40, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  4. slambo 14:05, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
  5. khaosworks 17:31, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  6. metta, The Sunborn 19:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  7. AI 6 July 2005 23:44 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.