Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WAREL

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: 22:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

WAREL has, under that name and under the account name DYLAN LENNON, for the last few months been editing several mathematical articles to include statements not supported by the community, and has been unwilling to respect the community consensus. This user was apparently banned (both accounts) from ja: for this sort of thing as well (see User talk:WAREL#A genuine suggestion, User talk:DYLAN LENNON#You will be banned from ja.wp).

Two revert crusades that I have been aware of which WAREL has undertaken have been to attribute the proof of the elementary fact that 0.999... = 1 to Koji Yokogawa, and to include the notion in all relevant pages that fields can fail to be commutative (normally commutativity is part of the definition of a field).

WAREL usually stays technically within the bounds. One edit which is reverted, then three reversions to his version, and then stops for the day, only to come back another day.

[edit] Description

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Petition on WAREL's talk page.

On March 20th, Dmharvey tabulated a list of reversions of WAREL's edits. They amounted to 36%.

Since then, some administators have taken to giving him short blocks. Nevertheless, the edits continue.

[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. At perfect number:
    1. [1]
    2. [2]
    3. [3]
    4. and many more. I count about 33 edits by WAREL that got reverted by 8 different editors. See history
  2. At Twin prime conjecture:
    1. [4]
    2. [5]
    3. [6]
    4. many many more examples there. I count 12 edits by WAREL that were reverted by 5 different editors.
  3. at real number:
    1. [7]
    2. [8]
    3. [9]
  4. I'm getting tired of digging up diffs. There are as many as you want at the three articles mentioned above, as well as Decimal representation, Zeta constants, Finite field, Proof that 0.999... equals 1, Decidability (logic), Riemann hypothesis, Field (mathematics), Division ring

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Consensus

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. A petition to get him to behave: User talk:WAREL#Petition
  2. I know you'd prefer diffs, but User talk:WAREL and User talk:DYLAN LENNON have pretty much nothing but attempts at resolution.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

I guess I just listed people here whom I had seen trying to resolve, when I should have waited for any people to voluntarily list their own involvement. I'll remove those people (User:Oleg Alexandrov User:Elroch User:Arthur Rubin User:Dmharvey) who haven't personally edited this list. Please add yourself back if you certify your own involvement. -lethe talk + 01:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. User:JoshuaZ Also, note that in the case of the Perfect Number article, he also added a comment, and went into a three revert war over how to phrase it and then put in a source for the comment that in fact turned out not to have the claimed result.
  2. User:Jitse Niesen. Some attempts to resolve: [10], [11], [12], [13].
  3. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Some attempts to find accurate parts of his contributions, rather than merely reverting, particularly in Zeta constants, where (I believe) a small remnant of his edits still remain and are accepted by the community.

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Isopropyl 00:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Lethe (I haven't really been involved in the dispute against WAREL, even though I'm the guy who filed this RfC, except for two or three reversions. And I banned him this morning.) 01:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. CSTAR
  4. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Dmharvey 02:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC). I don't think I can claim to have "tried to resolve the dispute", apart from engaging in some chit-chat with WAREL to try to understand what makes him/her tick. I did spend some time (see conversation) trying to explain to WAREL why certain contributions were inappropriate. Certainly I have reverted WAREL many times.
  6. Trovatore 02:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC). There seem to be enough certifiers, so I don't need to worry about whether I can represent myself as a peacemaker here; the truth is that I found him so irritating from the start that I didn't have much interest in trying to turn him into a productive contributor. I do have some questions about the formal basis for the dispute if it's supposed to be one dispute with one editor, but the summary appears representative of the problem.
    This is my first one of these, so I'm not too sure how things work (and so correct me please if I'm wrong), but I think the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct means that this RfC can be about the user's conduct in general, rather than just about a single dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lethe (talk • contribs) 02:54, April 4, 2006
  7. Fropuff 04:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC). I've followed this users disruptive behavior for some time and have reverted him more than once.
  8. LambiamTalk 19:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Elroch 19:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC). I have on several occasions been shocked by the boorish behaviour of DYLAN LENNON/WAREL, which has been, in my experience, uniquely counterproductive. WAREL gives the impression that his/her edits, regardless of their quality, are a battle of egos rather than an attempt to improve an article. WAREL appears to take it as an axiom that there is nothing to be learnt from the mathematicians who correct his/her inappropriate edits, hence sidestepping any risk of improving WAREL's own understanding of the topics. The thing I am most concerned about is that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that WAREL has made deceptive edits in a way which could damage the integrity of articles.
  10. I've reverted WAREL a few times. One could consider this edit to be vandalism. I fixed it and he restored his edit. Paul August ☎ 20:29, 4 April 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.

{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.}

[edit] Outside view by Isopropyl

I have been following this situation at a distance for some time now. To be honest, I am somewhat incredulous that the filing of an RFC was not done earlier. WAREL engages in nonconstructive edit wars and refuses to abide by consensus. I believe that in addition to the statements above, WAREL is in grave danger of exhausting the community's patience. -Isopropyl 00:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. FloNight talk 18:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC) I think he has already tried the patience of the community and that is why he is here. Editing Wikipedia is suppose to be an enjoyable pleasure activity. WAREL is making it an unenjoyable experience for his/her fellow editors. WAREL needs to change his/her behavior immediately or a very long block should be given.
  2. LambiamTalk 19:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Based on past behaviour, I believe a finite-time block will only offer relief while it lasts. This user has learned nothing from being banned from the Japanese Wikipedia, and even tried falsely to suggest that it was for unrelated issues.[14] His/her deceit was noted,[15] whereupon WAREL attempted to blank the evidence.[16] Maybe we should set aside a Warelpedia all his/hers...
  3. JoshuaZ 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC) Although I would not object to possibly giving Warel as mentor and seeing how that works out. JoshuaZ 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. C S (Talk) 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Yup. Basically as Isopropyl said.

[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.