Wikipedia:Requests for comment/69.121.221.174

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: 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 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 are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

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.''

User has shown complete disregard for policies setting forth Wikipedia's code of conduct. Recommend a one-week ban followed by close monitoring of the user's activities for subsequent compliance with Wikipedia's code of conduct. Since this anon is a relatively new user, mentoring may also prove helpful. Idag (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Description
This user has engaged in repeated edit warring, has refused to engage in any type of an effort to build a consensus (his attitude is "I'm always right and everyone who disagrees with me is a Randist"), and has repeatedly insulted other editors. In addition to being disruptive on Wikipedia articles, he has also edit warred and made disruptive edits on other users' talk pages.

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.)
 * Insulting other editors and refusing to engage in an effort to build a consensus:
 * Edit warring:
 * Disruptive edits on other users' talk pages and edit warring on other users' pages: (the commentary in this last one came about because I asked for my Talk page to be protected)
 * Posting insults on peoples user pages and talk pages

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:Civil
 * WP:Attack
 * WP:Good Faith
 * WP:3RR - This editor has technically not violated the letter of 3RR, but his repeated edit warring and complete disregard for consensus violate the spirit of the 3RR rule.

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

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
 * (this one is after I asked him to discuss this specific edit on the Talk page) Apart from this edit, this user appears to have stopped edit-warring only because both articles that he's interested in Ayn Rand and Objectivism (Ayn Rand) have been protected.
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

In addition, many of the edits provided in the "Evidence of Disputed Behavior" section as evidence were made after the first warnings were given to this user on his talk page. Since this user has repeatedly blanked his talk page after being given the warnings, one assumes that he has received them. 

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


 * Idag (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ethan a dawe (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * TallNapoleon (talk) 06:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 *   CWii ( Talk  21:42, 13 May 2008 (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:

Outside view by CWii
I agree that 69.121.221.174 has been incicvil, has not Assumed good faith, and attacked other editors. I would recommend that the user is given a final warning for all offenses by an outside user. If the IP continues to do so a 1 week block is given.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Endorsing myself   CWii ( Talk  21:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Idag (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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.

Incivility, Edit warring (both in articles and on other users' talk pages). 05:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)