User:The Four Deuces/RfC

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 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. 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:, 30 July 2024 (UTC).



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

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.''

This editor continually advocates changes to articles to support his view that nazism and fascism are forms of socialism and continues to argue for them, setting up multiple discussion threads, edit-warring and arguing long after other editors have shown no support for them. Often these discussions begin, "Is x a reliable source"?

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

This editor should drop discussions when they appear to have no prospect of success. Also, when he proposes changes to articles, he should be clear on what they are, not begin with vague questions, and should not set up multiple discussion threads.

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.}''

This editor has persisted in WP:IDHT over a range of articles related to nazism, fascism and socialism.

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.)

Darkstar1st added to Nazism, without a source, "In 1936 price and wage controls were introduced, soon after came shortages and rationing." (07:45, 7 November 2012) Over the next several days, his edits were reverted by myself, RolandR, RJFF, DD2K, Kierzek, and Escape Orbit. Darkstar1st was then blocked 48 hours for edit-warring. He then opened a discussion thread Talk:Nazism, saying, "I would like to includes a few words about such in the economics section, without objection. (09:36, 10 November 2012)  The talk page discussion as of 15:12, 19 November 2012  can be found here.  Here other editors (Snowded, Dolescum, Bryon Morrigan) opposed his edit.  Yet Darkstar1st set up numerous discussion threads and is still arguing his point 12 days after his initial edit.

After a trolling IP began a discussion thread, Talk:Socialism (03:37, 13 September 2012), Darkstar1st argued in its favor for 5 days despite opposition from R-41, AnieHall and others. (Talk page as of 05:43, 15 November 2012 here.)

Darkstar1st has also tenaciously argued this point, despite opposition, at Talk:National Socialism (disambiguation), Talk:State socialism, Talk:State Socialism (Germany) and various other articles and notice boards.

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

Failure or refusal to "get the point": "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia."

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * "...Neither the IP nor yourself have brought any sources, yet continue to argue your views which is trolling and stops editors from spending their time productively." The Four Deuces (TFD) 03:05, 15 September 2012
 * "Time wasting Darkstar1st, you are in a minority of one on this and you are either refusing to, or are incapable of understanding the points which are being put to you.  If you don't stop then I think the only option left is to seek a topic ban." Snowded 06:59, 12 November 2012
 * "And by now this has become tediously tendentious, and classic IDHT behaviour. Some 5000 words over the past three days, with one editor battling against at least seven others who are telling him the same thing. This has to stop." RolandR 19:02, 12 November 2012

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * TFD (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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:

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:

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.