Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cebactokpatop

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: 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Statement of the dispute
We have encountered problems with this user on the John Zizioulas page. His conduct led to the page being informally mediated, but this hasn't worked. He has only gotten more abusive to other editors and the mediator. 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Preceding comment added by Allyne (talk), who created this page. 


 * I agree entirely. Cebactokpatop is a WP:SPA who is trying to disrupt constructive editing on the John Zizioulas page through tendentious edits, incivility and personal attacks, to promote his own anti-Zizioulas fringe theory, which he calls 'traditional Orthodoxy'. Cebactokpatop has already been blocked twice for disruptive editing with respect to an image that he added to the John Zizioulas page. Seminarist (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Support also signified on the talk-page by Fr Lev.

Desired outcome
Cebactokatop to be blocked, at least from editing the John Zizioulas page. 

Description
Cebactokpatop is a SPA promoting a religious fringe view (which he characterises as 'traditional Orthodoxy') on the John Zizioulas page, accusing Zizioulas (the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Pergamon) of being heterodox not Orthodox. His tendentious editing, violations of 3RR and repeated incivility and personal attacks have led to informal mediation. (Cebactokpatop has been blocked twice for violation of 3RR, and twice complains against him to wikiquette have been upheld.) Repeated reverts, disruptive edits and incivility of Cebactokpatop (including incivility towards the mediator) have led to breakdown of mediation twice. Three users have now expressed desire to cease mediation and to request comment on Cebactokpatop instead.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Promotion of religious fringe view, mixed with incivility, personal attacks and refusal to assume good faith.

* 
 * Further incivility, refusal to assume good faith and Personal Attacks.



Evidence of incivility is also found in the comments Cebactokpatop has added to this page.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:CIVILITY
 * WP:GOODFAITH
 * WP:NPOV
 * WP:BLP

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


 * Initial attempts of (mainly) Seminarist to resolve the dispute on Talk:John_Zizioulas page:
 * Discussion with a Third Party:
 * Further attempts of Seminarist to resolve the dispute on the Talk:John_Zizioulas page:
 * Attempt of Vassilis78 to resolve the dispute on the Talk:John_Zizioulas page:
 * Attempts of Allyne to resolve the dispute on the John Zizioulas page:
 * First mediation between Seminarist and Cebactokpatop to resolve the dispute on the John Zizioulas page:
 * Second Attempt at Mediation between Seminarist and User:Cebactokpatop on the John Zizioulas page:

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
 * The dispute has been ongoing, as is evident throughout the Talk:John_Zizioulas page and in the above diffs.
 * There have been attempts at informal mediation by medcab.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
 * Seminarist (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fr Lev (talk) 01:33, 19 April 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.''

Not true from start to the end. Appearance of user Seminarist and his butcher attitude led to the mediation. This user showed up several days ago and started throwing nonsense around, expecting me to comment on it. Besides, he/she appears to be an advocate of the informal mediator... Cebactokpatop (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

 Mark 15 (ASB)''
 * 1) And straightway in the morning the chief priests with the elders and scribes, and the whole council, held a consultation, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him up to Pilate.
 * 2) And Pilate asked him, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answering saith unto him, Thou sayest.
 * 3) And the chief priests accused him of many things.
 * 4) And Pilate again asked him, saying, Answerest thou nothing? behold how many things they accuse thee of.
 * 5) But Jesus no more answered anything...

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Cebactokpatop (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2008 (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.}

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.