Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Invalid user name specified

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: 23:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Invalid user name specified | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
Disruptive behavior on behalf of Invalid user name specified.

Description
This dispute began with the creation of a deliberately disruptive user name and deliberately disruptive edits to the relevant User: and Talk: page associated with it. Subsequent to this, attempts to resolve the dispute and inform the new user of Wikipedia policy have been improperly labeled as vandalism.

Evidence of disputed behavior
Entire edit history of Invalid user name specified is submitted as relevant evidence.

Applicable policies

 * 1) Username
 * 2) Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

 * 1)
 * 2)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * 1) Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:39, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) ugen 64 00:29, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Well, with an edit history that small, I can see why the creator didn't feel the need to use (diff)s. The proficency with the wikipedia's syntax and coding tools (like tables) and the general knolwedge look like a bad faith sock puppet, which Neutrality has banned, in a sense.  I agree with complaint, but the responce that the of you took was a little hasty to assume bad faith.  Ah well.  hfool/Wazzup? 02:50, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * --Irishpunktom\talk 12:26, Jan 26, 2005 (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.

{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 (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.

The current evidence is severely lacking. Although the username item is obvious, one cannot just point to the "entire edit history" to show a problem - specific examples in the form of edit diffs are needed. Also, the certifiers need to show that their efforts with respect to the other accusations have failed (as in, the user continues to perform the disputed actions). Simply pointing to two Talk page edits is insufficient since it doesn't show user's actions post-contact. Lastly, one of the contacts to the user in particular seems too indirect and obscure "Please don't persist in your disruptive tactics".

I can't see any sign at all of "trying to resolve the dispute". I see a couple of editors ordering a newbie around. Anyway, this is moot now Neutrality has banned the user instead of talking to him.(Dr Zen's addition)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Netoholic @ 02:31, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)
 * 2) Dr Zen 10:03, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The creation of the user and the insertion of the initial text into the user page signifies a joke account. Blocking the account was the only appropriate measure. No attempt at dispute resolution was necessary; it should have been dealt with as a test or minor vandalism--with a boilerplate message inviting the user to adopt a more appropriate method of participation. This case should not have followed the usual dispute resolution path (ie, this RfC is unnecessary and indeed inappropriate). Do not feed the trolls, folks.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Jayjg  |  (Talk)  22:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutralitytalk 23:08, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Noel (talk) 21:27, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) David Gerard 05:52, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Zscout370 17:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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