Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Scipo

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: 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:29, 12 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 are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Editor is engaging in edit wars regarding genres on various band articles, refusing to discuss on Talk pages, and is leaving harassing messages on User talk pages.

[edit] Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Editor needs to learn Wikipedia policy regarding edit wars and personal attacks. Since others have attempted to inform/remind/warn him before, this will probably require Administrator invervention.

[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.}

Editor is consistently reverting genre changes on band articles. A look through his contributions shows that this is essentially all that he does. Other editors have requested that he discuss these (disputed) changes on the individual band Talk pages, but he has thus far refused to do so. In the one time that he did respond, it was to harass, not to build consensus.

[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.)

Genre Reverting

  1. On Propagandhi (the page where I first noticed the edit war): [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]The history of the article shows the extent of the edit war
  2. Other band articles where he also engages in edit wars: History of Hypocrisy (band), History of Kamelot, History of King Crimson, History of Wolfmother, History of Converge (band), History of Biohazard (band), etc.
  3. One Particular example of Amon Amarth:
  1. Other Examples:

Harassment

  1. [18]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. Wikipedia:Edit war
  2. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule (does not appear to have broken, but comes close)
  3. Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  4. Wikipedia:Consensus
  5. WP:MUSTARD

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21][22]
  4. [23]
  5. [24]
  6. [25]
  7. [26], his reply was: [27]
  8. [28]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Wyatt Riot 23:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 13:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. PhilB ~ T/C 21:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. 216.21.150.44 04:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) (Have alerted an admin to recent activity of continued edit warring including blanking warnings for 3RR violation.)

[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.

Editor is engaging in edit wars regarding genres on various band articles, refusing to discuss on Talk pages, and is leaving harassing messages on User talk pages. 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • User acts in complete disregard of all discussions that have come up and brought a consensus, and changes things to whatever he personally thinks is appropriate. Trying to contact the user failed, instead, all fixed and reverts have just been re-reverted. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 14:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure but is User:Navnløs a Sockpuppet of Scipo? PhilB ~ T/C 22:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Nvm on second thoughts he's not he just has similar 'belifs' PhilB ~ T/C 12:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)