Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ave Caesar

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: 15:47, 24 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
User is continually reverting an edit made to article C. Everett Koop on the basis of various WP policies, essentially giving the WP:Policy runaround to further a blatantly NPOV revert based on language that implicitly infers who is the subject of the sentence in question. See diff here.

User is also making personal attacks (See here, where he tries to fall back on edit frequency) on the same basis both in the article and in my own talk, editing questions away without comment, and other blatant behaviors inconsistent with the overall intent of WP. Ender78 (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: Citation supplied for disputed reference, (diff) which was already cited in the article, and which can be reproduced with a simple five-second Google search. (In other words, simple legwork would've been sufficient to prove my edit was consistent with the policies Ave Caesar tried to abuse.)

User is now gloating about how this RfC "won't go far". (See here).

Let it also be noted that user's own userpage references the fact that he had to switch usernames; perhaps it'd be useful to see that username's edit history, and why that username was retired?

Desired outcome
Original cause of RfC has been negated by providing more than one instance of the same reference that was already in the article. Nonetheless, user Ave Caesar should be reprimanded for bad-faith abuses of WP policy.

Evidence of disputed behavior
First edit, Second attempt at edit Edit by second editor, Sbierwagen

Applicable policies and guidelines
WP:NPOV, WP:3RR, WP:NPA

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
See above diffs, and also the talk page here.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
See above diffs and talk of article in question.

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



I reinstated Ender's edits, and was reverted, with no further justification than Ave's previously stated, and spurious claims. Sbierwagen (talk) 16:38, 24 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:

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.