Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Husker007

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, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Husker007 | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Husker007 has vandalized and intentionally disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point.

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}''

Husker007 has been warned several times to stop their disruptive behavior. The user has not complied with requests to cease their disruption.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * ,, , , - Repeatedly using tags inappropriately.


 * ,, - Telling lies in their edit summaries.


 * ,, , - Inserting bias into articles


 * ,, , - Deleting information with no discussion on the article's talk page.


 * ,, , , , , - Defacing articles


 * - Creating useless substubs

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * List_of_controversial_issues
 * Edit summary
 * WP:CSD
 * NPOV
 * How_to_spot_vandalism
 * User_talk:B-Movie_Bandit

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * First warning; worded very diplomatically
 * Second warning; worded very diplomatically; no response as of 02:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Third warning; worded very diplomatically; no response as of 02:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC); entire talk page blanked by user
 * User talk:Husker007 and Vandalism_in_progress Continued to ignore additional warnings and advice with no acknowledgement of wrongdoing.
 * User talk:Raul654

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Chessphoon 22:13, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * &bull; Benc &bull; 01:59, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Warned the user twice; both warnings ignored

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Guanaco 00:47, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) I've blocked this vandal for 24 hours.
 * RickK 05:49, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC) (hard to believe Guanaco and I agree on anything).

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.

{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}

I was told that my first page was trash, not knowning how things worked I removed the deletion tags because I disagreed. I was told that I need to leave them there, so I listened and left them there. Trying to help I went through and cleaned up what I thought was pornography by removing, I was told not to do so, and that I needed to start using text in the summary of changes, I stopped adding tags and started using summary text.

Next I started making small grammatical edits (usually -> typically), these were removed by Users who seem to have a personal vendetta against me and considered it "vandalism". These same users removed valid content by me, even though I cited my sources and provided links, calling it "vandalism".

I've repeadedly been the subject of attacks on this site because I am a new user learning the ropes. I've done nothing but do what I am told and stop doing things I've been told not to, but users (specifically Chessphoon) have continued to HAZE me, in direct violation of stated policy on Wikipedia. CUT IT OUT! I'm trying to learn how it works, and have had each of my significant contributions removed for no reason other than the fact that I am a known newbie. I'm getting sick and fucking tired of this, and would like you all to LAY OFF!

Husker007 00:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

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.

{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}

I know "significant contributions" is subjective, but I am forced to question your motives when you edit the Human entry to mark us "extinct," or editing the Republican page to include the following diatribe against the current administration:


 * Once the Republicans seized power through manipulation of the Florida vote in 2000, the party drastically changed it's stated goals with the introduction of the Patriot Act, and other neofacist legislation.

These changes are irrelevant at best and (attention-grabbing/POV) vandalism at worst.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ): --Feitclub 02:19, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * This new user would be well served to not use vulgar language in defending himself. Such an approach undercuts his defense, which in large measure rests on others assuming good faith about his mistakes. That's harder to do, when harsh language is used. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 [[Image:Happyjoe.jpg]] ]] 04:51, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you are willing to "learn the ropes" because the tags you removed from your first posts clearly state what to do, so if you had read the tag-text beyond the canditate for deletion part you could have known. I am myself quite new and I have made mistakes in the time I've been here, but when my Nature One article-stub was deleted I discussed the point with the user putting the tag into my article (and now the article is there in (almost) full glory) and did not simply remove the tag or started to remove other people's content without explanation. On another occasion you complained about lack of respect, well let me say, you have to respect other people's work, too, which you seemingly did not (otherwise we would not have this RfC) --Deelkar 21:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.