Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Attilios

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer:yes

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: user:Panarjedde, a notorius 3RR champion, is again and again reverting the use of standard (in the meaning it is used by ALL Italian communes articles in Wikipedia) infobox in Rome. The reason behind him is that the infobox is "UGLY".

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: Talk page messaging.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: To make him conform to standard. If he does not like the infobox, he can change it in the devoted template.

Summary:
I'm not the first user complaining for Panarjedde behaviour here. Please try to let him conform to common rules here. My opinion is that he gets extremily stuck with personal additions to entries, and tends to revert any attempt to improve or change them.

Discussion:
He (Panarjedde) truly is the king of reverting. I counted 13 reverts in a few hour period. My experience of his reverts are if he doesn't like an edit, then he'll revert it. Even if it has a reference. Iregardless of what 3 revert rule says, it a clear abuse of this rule. Kingjeff 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * These are the "13 reverts in a few hour period" Kingjeff is talking about (from a 3RR reporting Jeff made against me and that failed):
 * 1st revert: 09:24, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
 * 2nd revert: 09:26, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
 * 3rd revert: 10:10, October 30, 2006 - rm unrelated template
 * 4th revert: 10:11, October 30, 2006 - rv vandalism (!)
 * 5th revert: 10:45, October 30, 2006
 * 6th revert: 12:41, October 30, 2006 - reinserted deleted information
 * 7th revert: 12:42, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
 * 8th revert: 12:45, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
 * 9th revert: 12:45, October 30, 2006 - reinserted deleted information
 * 10th revert: 13:10, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
 * 11th revert: 13:11, October 30, 2006 - reinserted deleted information (Kingjeff has been blocked for removing this content)
 * 12th revert: 13:33, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
 * 13th revert: 13:34, October 30, 2006 - rv vandalism (!)
 * --Panarjedde 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also refer to Requests for checkuser/Case/Kwame Nkrumah... Addhoc 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The page from the previous comment shows Panarjedde is into sockpuppetry. Panarjedde may have npt technically broke the 3rr rule but it goes against the spirit of the rule.Kingjeff 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Panarjedde keeps on following my every edit. Take a look at this edit. If you take a look at all the articles he's reverted on me, he has no immediate history before the revert and probably no history at all before the reverts. Is this not harassment? Kingjeff 18:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Check better, I have contributed to that page, and in general I have a long history of contributions to football pages.--Panarjedde 18:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that he responded to my comment here shows he's following my every edit. Kingjeff 18:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So what? In this case, I was looking for other images uploaded in copyright violation, but it is not a crime to take a look to another user's history.--Panarjedde 18:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

It is when it's harassment like what you're doing Panarjedde. Kingjeff 18:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

True reasons behind this nomination

 * What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: To make him conform to standard. If he does not like the infobox, he can change it in the devoted template.
 * Note: his expectation looks quite different, in his own words: "maybe we'll be able to make him banned."--Panarjedde 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Panarjedde, are you aware of the concept of irony? This case page has been initiated, because of concerns that you over use the revert function and your response is to immediately start an edit war... Addhoc 13:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * People like you and your fellow Kingjeff are removing (not "moving around") my contributions. This is vandalism, and, as you should know, vandalism restoration does not count as "reverts" or "edit wars".--Panarjedde 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On the subject of irony, thats a 'no' then... Addhoc 13:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I've nothing against Panarjedde as himself. Some of his edits are useful, other don't. The main problems is that he looks too prone to quarrelsome behaviours, is known for uncorrect procedures (sockpuppeting, 3RRs, disruption, etc.). If he promises to give a read to Wikilove and have a more relaxed behaviour with other users, there's no problem for me. --Attilios 14:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should I promise something to someone whose aim is to "make [me] banned"?--Panarjedde 14:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that I had read of people accusing you of so many "Wikicrimes" that I thought it was directly that the only solution. I've recently lookd at your edits, and you are mixing positive things with other childish ones. Last example (this is for Addhoc): Panarjedde was involved into a debate about moving or not Syracuse, Italy to Syracuse, Sicily. When his proposal went loser, he added a "POV" mark to the article (which is otherwise very good and has no POV language or matters) with the excuse that the move to , Sicily could have something to do with "allegation of Sicilian independence", which looks totally ridiculous for anybody with a minimal knowledge of the situation (let's figure out, even, if this can have any influence on a Wikipedia article's name!!!!). You gives the idea of one who gets too' stuck with personal ideas about articles. If you continue this way, what other can we do? So, again, please refrain and stay cooler. Personally, I've lost the debate over the Rome infobox, but not for this I'm still warring against the entire world... --Attilios 14:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As already written, the relationship between losing a RM and the POV tag is your opinion. The fact that you do not agree with me does not mean that I am forbidden to do what I think is best. As regards the banning, you are free to do whatever you want, but it is hypocrisy to write here that you want me to behave and in a talk page that you want me banned, don't you think?--Panarjedde 14:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Possibly Attilios thought your conduct had improved, so banning you was no longer necessary. Have a look at WP:AGF... Addhoc 14:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is possible Attilios changed his mind in the 3 (three) minutes that passed between filling this request and telling he wants me banned . It is unlikely, but it is possible.--Panarjedde 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * Accept, Addhoc 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)