Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Swainstonation

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: 04:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:09, 15 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

Swainstonation has repeatedly engaged in uncivil behaviour in his edits and edit summaries. My involvement with him started with comments on the controversial keratoconus featured article picture on the front page, where I disagreed with his position on it.

When it became clear he was not interested in polite discussion of the matter, I attempted to disengage, upon which he refused to disengage and told me I had 'lost' and didn't want to deal with him.

He received a short block from Raul654[1] to cool his heels, but it did not seem to make a difference (resulted in this edit, too).

[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. [2] - uncivil edit summary
  2. [3] - uncivil edit summary
  3. [4] - removal of warnings and uncivil edit summary
  4. [5] - user takes pro-vandalism stance
  5. [6]
  6. [7] - after being asked to sign his posts on talk pages, user spams signature
  7. [8] - personal attacks on admin who blocked him

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  3. Wikipedia:Vandalism
  4. Wikipedia:Three revert rule

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [9] - attempt to disengage peacably, upon which user made repeated further edits to talk page
  2. [10] - one hour block
  3. [11] - warned for violations of the 3RR

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. ceejayoz (talk · contribs)
  2. I did not plan to certify this RFC [12] because I thought this was a one time incident - a user who just happened to be having a bad day. However, Evil Saltine's comments below have made me realize that this user makes personal attacks as a matter of routine. For every subsequent personal attack I see him make, he can expect a lengthy block from me. Raul654 04:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Along with the evidence above, I found this troubling as well. Seems to think gaming the system, along with personal attacks is acceptable behavior: It's not. FeloniousMonk 03:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I honestly believe that and if you all believed that wikipedia is not supposed to be censored, than dont censor my thoughts--The Nation 04:16, 13 June 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.

(hes lying, only resolution was his own, no compromise) --The Nation 23:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

originally posted next to the 3RR policy link, moved by — ceejayoz talk: (how the fuck does that fit into this conflict, thats a past thing)--TheNation 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

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] Outside view by User:Evil saltine

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.

Swainstonation's comments on User talk:Ceejayoz do not seem particularly offensive, but the comments he made to Raul654 (before the block, after Raul had said he was being uncivil) were definitely over the top (see [13], [14]). Swainstonation seems to have a habit of making insults (see [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]). - Evil saltine 23:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. I endorse the first part, but the second part, I believe he was just being honest, brutal, but honest.--70.112.158.200 01:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Comments like those are never acceptable. Comments like those made to a member of the arbcomm are never wise. FeloniousMonk 04:22, 13 June 2006 (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.