Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BWCNY

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: 23:17, 1 February 2007 (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.''


 * User has violated WP:NOR by inserting information without citing its sources. When user received a user warning on this issue, he blanked his talk page, edited his User page to include masked vulgarity and instead of citing sources for subject articles violating WP:CIVIL, user simply added the fact tag. User has violated WP:NPA in some of his edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs) Rob110178


 * After an altercation with user:NE2, I attempted to help simmer down the heated attacks by user:BWCNY. I placed an appropriate warning on BWCNY's page per standard for violating several policies, to which it was blanked with an edit summary that was purely a personal attack. The user seems to have an understanding of editing procedures, and has been warned enough to have gotten the point. There isn't a lot of good faith left, so more immediate resolution will be needed.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like he is taking a "leave" due to these incidents. While I value his contributions if they are constructive and in good faith, he has proceeded with edit warring too many times, is hostile to other users and lodges personal attacks. For that, I'm fairly happy to see him taking a break or leaving for good - one editor is not critical to Wikipedia, and a smooth process is better than one that is mishapped with attack after attack.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 08:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User is still around. He appears to be working on his user page at this time. I will advise if user does any edits external to his User page. Rob110178 01:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

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.''

I would like to be able to see this user become a productive member of the Wikipedia community. This user has a wealth of knowledge but his knowledge is overshadowed by his reaction to criticism.

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 user violates WP:NOR by not citing various transportation articles. When user makes changes to articles, and someone else makes other changes that he does not necessarially agree with, he will make abusive edit summaries, violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

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.) Violations of WP:NOR
 * 
 * 
 * 

Violations of WP:CIVIL
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Violations of WP:NPA
 * (Edit Summary)
 * 
 * (Edit Summary)

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NOR
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:NPA

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * (User blanked page and continued actions)
 * (Attempt at mediation with another page blanking as a response)
 * (User being informed about citing sources)
 * (User being informed about citing sources again)
 * (User being informed about abusive edit summaries)

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


 * Rob110178 00:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 *  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * -Amark moo! 00:55, 2 February 2007 (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 by uninvolved GRBerry
''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.''

Requests for checkuser/Case/BWCNY reveals that User:BWCNY and User:Rob110078a are likely the same user. The latter username is completely inappropriate, and has been indefinitely blocked. Use of sockpuppets with a username designed to look like a user with whom one is in dispute is completely unacceptable and must stop immediately. Use of sock puppets in a dispute is also unacceptable. This sort of behavior, if the situation continues, is likely to lead to sanctions. GRBerry 18:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) KazakhPol 04:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Miskwito 22:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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.}

Outside view by KazakhPol
The supposed incivility and personal attacks this user has made are nowhere to be found in the diffs provided. Did you think that we would just take your word for it when you posted "WP:CIVIL," "WP:NPA?" The sockpuppetry, if it is indeed the case, merits a ban. The incivility has yet to be shown. KazakhPol 04:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? They show plenty of personal attacks and incivility. How is this not incivil ("Foolish person making my page more shitty....ass"), for example? Some of the diffs appear to be one too high, so that, for example, this edit ("screw orphanbot") is shown with this diff, and this edit ("remove the shit/garbage from my talk page") is shown with this diff. --Miskwito 22:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

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.