Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The strokes

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: 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

The strokes (talk • contribs • logs)

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

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view by Ramsquire
4 Discussion
- 4.1 Continued behavior
- 4.2 Proposed Closing

[edit] Statement of the dispute

User:The strokes has been continuously displaying behaviors of harassment, incivility, personal attacks, and general antagonism following a dispute over fair use image policies.

[edit] Desired outcome

This isn't the first time the strokes has attacked an editor in this matter, therefore I request a long term solution.

[edit] Description

After removing some logos at 2007 NHL Entry Draft I noticed User:68.149.135.29 was readding them. After a few reverts, the user edited my talk page as The strokes where his comments quickly stopped being a discussion of policy and instead became an incivil attack on my personal motivations. At that point I simply requested that he leave my talk page alone. His response was to come back my talk page with intensified attacks. I responded with a 2nd request to cease on both our talk pages. After which his behavior has further deteriorated by "awarding" sarcastic incivil barnstars, engaging in simple vandalism, and editing comments of others that attempted to intervene.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

I endorse the above summary, and yesterday posted one of the anti-vandalism template messages to the fellow's talk page. As linked here [1], User:The strokes promptly vandalized it. Despite User:The strokes' assertion that this is some multi-user dispute, the facts of the matter are plain, and he shows no signs of acting, or wishing to act, in a civil manner. I fully expect that stronger measures will be required. RGTraynor 13:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
My user page was vandalised by another editor and ccwaters reverted the vandalism, I then looked at ccwaters contributions and decided to give a barnstar. This 'provoked' The strokes into vandalising ccwater's user page and my talk page. RGTraynor reverted the vandalism, issued a warning and this message was also vandalised. Addhoc 14:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Original filer. ccwaters 18:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

Dcooper 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Addhoc and I have been disputing over his "bodyguarding" of Muero

RGTraynor has a history of "bodyguarding" the user who I'm currently in a dispute with - ccwaters; another user has suggested this on his talk page

no single dispute has involved all three of us (violating "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users" requirement stated at the top of this page). This page must be closed, as it violates the rules all of you are so fond of The strokes 02:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

{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 Ramsquire

A quick review of the diffs presented show that the strokes should read and understand WP:DBF, WP:TROLL, and WP:TE. In addition his trolling of userpages should warrant a community ban. This type of behavior is wholly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. I suggest a posting at WP:ANI. Further his argument that this RfC should be taken down is without merit. The single dispute is his trolling on user talk pages, and he is the single user. Community action seems warranted.

Users who endorse this summary:

Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 17:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Addhoc and I have been involved in a dispute for a while now. Ccwaters and I have recently been involved in a dispute. Addhoc saw this, and took it upon himself to present Ccwaters with a barnstar. Therefore, this page should be closed, as no single dispute has involved all three of us (violating "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users") The strokes 02:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an entirely turgid and weird argument. This RfC involves your repeated vandalism and incivility aimed at CCWaters. Whatever issue lies between Addhoc and yourself has nothing to do with it; no doubt Addhoc can file a RfC of his own should he choose. You'd be better advised to turn your attention to the rules governing vandalism and personal attacks, instead of claiming that the rules require this RfC to be closed because Addhoc agrees with CC's action. RGTraynor 19:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The rules are the rules buddy, no exceptions (according to Addhoc and Ccwaters). This rule is stated at the top of the page, very clearly. If this is kept open, chaos will ensue and wikipedia will implode (or so I've been led to believe). And if you notice, I've stated at least twice (once in my colorful redo of your warning, and another on Ccwaters' talk page in response to him/her opening this page) that I thought this was over and done with. I was ready to move on, unless either of them continued their "unneccessary aggrivation", and stalking of my edits The strokes 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, and good luck in finding anyone else who'll swallow your interpretation. That being said, you most certainly did not say anything about this being "over and done with" when you vandalized the warning I left. What is unnecessary is you continuing to flout civility and vandalism rules. When you cease to do so, no doubt this and any other actions mooted against you will likewise cease. RGTraynor 02:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_strokes&diff=prev&oldid=125980703 "I'm only going to keep doing it if he keeps antagonizing me though". Over and done with. In any case, go nuts, waste your time trying to villify me, because it's ultimately your loss. Life is short - hours spent creating a cyberreport to encourage cyberfriends to attack a cyberenemy is time well wasted imo (and I'm not faring any better wastimg my time responding to it, so I'm out after this comment). The strokes 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with a serial and unrepentant vandal is scarcely any loss. No doubt, should it come to it, Wikipedia's editors will soldier nobly on in your absence. RGTraynor 14:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't let this one fly by under the radar. Calling me a "Serial vandal" is a personal attack, and should be reprehensable (see Wikipedia:Civility). Look at my edit history, and you'll see that I've always edited with the intent of improving wikipedia, and have only "vandalized" recently out of complete frustration of a couple of users who have been stalking my edits and causing me unneccesary aggrivation. I have singlehandedly created the infobox for NHL players (Template:Infobox Ice Hockey Player), used on virtually every hockey player's page. Does that sound like something a "serial vandal" would do? The strokes 19:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrably. RGTraynor 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what that means, so I'll assume it means that you agree. This page should be closed in a couple hours, in any case. It clearly violates the requirements at the top of the page. The strokes 20:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continued behavior

User:The strokes . Since I have ignored him for a few days, his focus has moved to those that tried to intervene. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARGTraynor&diff=126532124&oldid=126531560 For over a week, his contribs have been exclusively for the purpose of prolonging this episode. ccwaters 14:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, beat me to it. He also continued to post to my talk page, ending as you see with insults and masked obscenities, after I requested that he cease to do so. RGTraynor 20:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Kind of like your "idjit" comment, huh? Your hypocrisy is amusing, and thoroughally noted (on your talk page). A gang mentality is what caused me to become involved with other editors, as these two watch, and have others watching their backs. See RGTraynor's talk page for his confession. The strokes 21:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Closing

It appears the last comment here is from nearly 2 months ago. I'm going to close this in 24 hours unless someone has a reason why it should stay open.--Isotope23 13:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen The strokes in quite a while. If he's hanging around using yet another username, he hasn't bothered me yet. ccwaters 13:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I retract that. For some reason, my comment expressing closure of the issue prompted him to resurface on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACcwaters&diff=139351304&oldid=137438377 ccwaters 11:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course... funny how that works. I warned the IP. Future comments of that nature can be dealt with by an WP:ANI report...--Isotope23 14:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)