User:WLRoss/Sandbox3

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 10:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



''Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.''

Desired outcome
I would like steps taken to ensure Phoenix and Winslow discontinues the disputed behaviour.

Description
Despite frequent requests to stop such behaviour, Phoenix and Winslow has been continually referring to and misrepresenting a past dispute with me on another article, and making false claims regarding my editing of 911 articles despite his having never edited 911 related articles, as a means to discredit not only my own comments but those of other editors who support me on the unrelated Ugg boots article Talk page and in the recent noticeboard discussion regarding that article.

Evidence of disputed behavior
This section contains only sample posts, not all instances of problematic posts. Quote: six people with a cultural bias, who are owning the article, and have adopted as their new de facto spokesman a person with a long history of fringe theory advocacy and POV pushing, particularly evident where admins stubbed a lengthy article that was loaded with his misrepresentations. Despite Phoenix and Winslow taking the edits to three different boards none of my edits were found to contain misrepresentations. My long history of edits is open to admins to check and they will find nothing to support Phoenix and Winslow's claim. But how many editors reading his false claims will check? He is also making tendentious claims to support his edits: Quote: At one point, Johnuniq supported my removal of certain POV-pushing on behalf of the Australian manufacturers: In fact this was over a year ago, it was removed as trivia not POV and none of the Australian editors objected. But how many editors will check? Quote: At another point, User:MONGO supported the version of the article I've proposed, and has previously remarked on the advocacy of fringe theories by the opposing de facto spokesman on other articles. Mongo, an editor canvassed by Phoenix and Winslow, actually supported the version of the article he "thought" Phoenix and Winslow had proposed. He made a mistake, he didn't realise it was the version after Phoenix and Winslow's edits had been reverted that he was commenting on. Phoenix and Winslow also brings up my 911 editing again despite no evidence I have ever been an "advocate" of anything...but it still sticks because editors will not bother to check whether the claim is true or not. He has several times referred to me as a "spokesman" for all the editors opposing him although I have never assumed that role which makes his attacks on me reflect negatively on other editors.
 * ,, , , , , and.
 * This post on an admins Talk page on November 27, was particularly inappropriate.
 * Following the closure of this case after being refered to the Wikiquette assistance board and posting this case on the incident board twice, Phoenix and Winslow again continued the personal attacks here and is now attacking me in replies to other editors and by extention attacking them as well.
 * I let it slide for a while but Phoenix and Winslow has today brought up my past editing on another editors page again to discredit me after I had posted on that editors page a FYI noting that Phoenix and Winslow had deleted all the behaviour warnings from his Talk page.

Phoenix and Winslow has active accounts on the Spanish, German, Norwegian, Polish, Romanian and Swedish  language Wikipedia's. None of these accounts have made any edits outside of their respective Ugg Boot related articles and all edits are heavily promotional in favour of Deckers. Considering the time and effort that P&W has put into filibustering (the last NPOVN he brought [to make Deckers the focus of all ugg articles] ran to 93 pages despite P&W being the only supporting editor), canvassing, forum shopping and editing against consensus in ugg related topics over the last three years, I must question his connection to Deckers.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Disruptive editing
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility

Attempts by certifier WLRoss

 * Here where Phoenix and Winslow replied simply “LOL”
 * 
 * 

Other attempts

 * Apostle12 made a request here that Phoenix and Winslow delete an offensive post that made accusations against both himself and me. He refused.
 * Bilby took the matter to the Wikiquette assistance board on October 11, where Phoenix and Winslow was advised to strike out the comments and refrain from further mention of the previous dispute. Phoenix and Winslow declined to post in reply but a SPA anon who always supports Phoenix and Winslow’s edits did and not only repeated the accusations but made further accusations that had previously been discredited on another board.
 * Daveosaurus has posted asking Phoenix and Winslow to refrain from making these personal attacks on the article Talk page. On Phoenix and Winslow’s Talk page. And again on the article talk page.
 * I previously posted this case on the incident board on 27 November. The case was archived without being resolved due to the 24h rule.
 * I posted the case again on 3 December. Despite receiving notification, Phoenix and Winslow declined to reply and the case was archived without being resolved due to the 24h rule. I was however, advised to take the dispute to this board.

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


 * WLRoss (Wayne)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.''

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ExampleUsername
{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.