Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Zeuspitar
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: 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
[edit] Statement of User:Wikidas
The above use appears to engage in uncivilly, disruptive editing and WP:BATTLEFIELD and continuously acting against WP:NPA.
10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as 'main rules' he seems to be constantly breaking the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit rules. [1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
Here he is calling for legal action against me: [7]
Here is statement he put on his front page that was removed by a wellwisher: [8] He was advised on a number of occasions by other editors to stop his behavior and personal attacks: [9] [10] [11]
[edit] Desired outcome
To be agreed.
[edit] Description
Behavior of this user severely inhibits free editing of pages, creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community, attempts to resolve disputes using an informal depute resolution did not produce results.
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
[edit] Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
[edit] Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
-
- ATG - agreed. Simon Ives (talk | contribs) 11:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Agree per ATG. Wikidas has in the past, and continues to, offer dialogue and constructive conversations. He has good intentions and has been a highly valuable editor. At times I have disagreed with Wikidas, but we have always been able to discuss our disagreement. I appreciate his leadership. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Users who attempted to resolve the dispute
[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.
Pure bogus Rfc. This is a typical case of a user trying to create political noise in order to dodge the actual issue, or bona fide WP:DR. "Behavior of this user severely inhibits free editing of pages, creates bad feelings and a lack of trust amongst the community" -- give me a break. I should hope "free editing of pages" in the spirit of Wikidas is "inhibited", per WP:ENC. dab (𒁳) 09:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
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.
