Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zarbon

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Zarbon (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
4 Discussion

[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

{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.}

User has no regard for community consensus or 3RR, uses sockpuppets to influence votes and get around blocks, removes maintenance tags and sockpuppet tags, uploads tremendous amounts of unsourced photos, and is extremely uncivil, on many pages but particularly those related to The Sopranos and Dragon Ball Z. Has been warned, has been blocked, but says in no uncertain terms that he will never change his behavior. Kafziel 04:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kafziel. Zarbon has no respect for the consensus opinion of others, does not heed warnings, posts when he is banned and seems to view things in such an unconventional way that he really "misses the forest by focusing on the trees". If he were writing a summary of the Wizard of Oz, he would devote half the article to the flying monkeys. I think it is great that people view things differently, but his ideas of importance are so eschewed he misrepresented the essence of The Sopranos. When you add that to the hostile way he responds to people who disagree with him (and there are many) and his total disregard for the rules, the result is incendiary. Wesleymullins 18:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Recently Zarbon has been pretty cooperative however in the past he has praised how great Brendan Filone and Bevilaqua & Sean Gismonte were. My main problem with Zarbon is that he constantly changes the guest starring roles in the episodes to whoever he believes should be at the top of the list e.g. for "Full Leather Jacket" I had Saundra Santiago as the lead person since she was the first in the credits to be billed. However Zarbon reverted this twice and put Brancato and Tardio ahead of her. Now I can agree that it was an important episode for those two characters but the list should be in order of how they were billed in the closing credits. Also I have asked him in the past to label photos instead of "Ep72 1.jpg" to "Sopranos ep608" since the images should be classified by the show. Those are my only criticisms about Zarbon. Sfufan2005 02:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Zarbon has largely been cooperative in my editing alongside him. However, my first contact with him was in a revert war while making a large change to the List of Characters in The Sopranos. I think he edits a little too fast, like me, and sometimes edits without considering why other people have put things in a certain way. He does seem to hold certain supporting characters from The Sopranos in a very high regard and a lot of his edits are aimed at promoting their role in the show, often with disregard for consensus matters and the work of others. Like Sfufan2005 I have also noticed him reverting my edits where I have placed characters in their credited order on episode guide page. He has been a little uncivil with me at times but I don't take any personal offence from it. He has made valuable contributions to The Sopranos sections as well as getting into arguments and revert wars about his favourite characters. --Opark 77 10:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[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.)

Re-creating an article removed by consensus (for which he had been blocked before).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
His talk page at the time of this posting, showing the gigantic amount of warnings for his behavior, for copyright violations, unsourced images (a tiny percentage of the actual amount), etc.[9]
Interiot's tool showing sheer amount of copyvio uploads: [10]
Removing merge tags, cleanup tags, and sockpuppet tags from "his" articles and user page:[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
In the midst of a revert war on a Dragon Ball Z article, here and here. (The IP address he was using was blocked following this exchange.)
Another revert war; note the first edit summary, where he discovered "rvv" (but at first thought it was "rw") and decided to try that out until an admin told him to stop. [23] [24] [25]
The talk page of one of his sockpuppet IPs, showing a warning from User:Nlu for using it to edit pages while Zarbon was blocked:[26]
Editing pages w/ IP addresses while blocked: [27] [28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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

(provide diffs and links)

Response to a "test4" warning: [38]
Kafziel's note to him after he had been blocked for the above response:[39]
Note from Woohookitty after he continued vandalizing pages: [40]
Note from Wesleymullins trying to explain the problem to him [41]
His most recent assertion that he will never change his behavior: [42]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Kafziel 04:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Wesleymullins 18:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

Orion Minor 20:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Sfufan2005 02:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
M vopni 03:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Opark 77 10:41, 4 May 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.}

I just want to say that I won't be editing the Brendan, Matt, and Sean profiles anymore. I will leave it to opark77 and sfufan to continue debating what's needed. I've grown weary of trying to convince kafziel and wesleymullins. I do however contribute heavily on the other pages, so it would be nice if this whole thing were forgotten. I don't want to lose my ability to edit just because of one page. - Zarbon

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.