User:Jakew/draft rfc r blair

In order to remain listed at 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, not different disputes. 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: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Robert Blair | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Robert Blair writes misleading edit summaries, often disguising a revert as 'inclusion of info' or similar. He reverts articles regularly, and has broken the 3RR on occasion. He refuses to use the discussion feature, except on very rare occasion.

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}''

Complaints about the behaviour were made on Robert Blair's talk page on 8th, 23rd and 28th of January '05, to no visible effect.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links) Examples of misleading edit summaries (revert links are to diffs between page and the version reverted to - an empty diff shows a pure revert):
 * Partial revert to old version (compare with previous version). Described as "add additional information from O'Hara"
 * Partial revert to old version (compare with previous version). Described as "add totallly disputed tag. Sorry about the omission."

Example of removal of a "TotallyDisputed" tag while the dispute was in progress:
 * 

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

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.

{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 (sign with ~ ):

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.

{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 (sign with ~ ):
 * oppose: In my view reality is just the opposite as stated in the summary above. I have been following a revert war on male cicumcision lately. User Robert Blair is improving NPOV statement and balance of the article. User Jakew keeps constantly reverting almost without comment. --Woodstone 21:10, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)
 * oppose: In my view reality is just the opposite as stated in the summary above. I have been following a revert war on male cicumcision lately. User Robert Blair is improving NPOV statement and balance of the article. User Jakew keeps constantly reverting almost without comment. --Woodstone 21:10, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.