Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kerr avon

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: 02:05, 13 December 2006 (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 dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
After repeated attempts to maintain WP:NPOV and gain consensus on a couple of arguably biased pieces to be included in the Derek Smart article, and despite warnings that Kerr Avon was reverting unnecessarily and vandalizing the page, Kerr Avon decided to act unilaterally and edit how he saw fit, ignoring all warnings and without regard to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. He continues to revert and edit war with anyone who attempts to challenge his view on what is neutral and what is right. He doesn't participate in discussion, he merely delivers his edict and proceeds to edit. Per SwatJester's advice, I am bringing this incident to the attention of the admins.

Swatjester's statement
Uh my advice? I don't recall ever saying to bring an RFC against someone. Only thing I've said is that there is a lot of edit warring going on, on all sides, both pro-inclusion and pro-deletionism. Neither side is acting in good faith. Everyone just needs to calm down. This case is ripe for either mediation or arbitration, because I don't think a lot of the editors here actually understand the rules regarding what are Reliable Sources, BLP and Libelous statements, and NPOV. The sheer number of single purpose accounts and sockpuppetry going on here tells me there is like an organized off-wiki attempt to manipulate this article, though in what direction I'm not entirely sure. '''Let me be perfectly clear: I neither oppose nor endorse this RFC. I'm just here to say I did not advise it's creation, and I believe this case ripe for arbitration or binding mediation.''' &rArr;   SWAT Jester    On Belay!  02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for misinterpreting your message. Now that I reread it on my talk page (please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary.) it is mentioned more in passing, and nothing specific is described or recommended.  I assumed by reading the advice for resolving disputes that I was going about it by way of seeking the "mildest" form of administrative action.  You may be correct in saying that I am going about this the wrong way.  I will ask your advice on your talk page. Mael-Num 04:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WarhawkSP statement
Kerr Avon has a habit of not only insulting other editors but also making WP:NPA attacks on editors who do not agree with him. He regularly accuses such editors of being sock puppets, works in concert with other editors (some of whom are now blocked or departed) to trap such editors in 3RR violations. He makes legal threats, continues to harrass editors, had an RFC filed against him by a prominent and respected Wiki editor and his sole purpose (judging by the number of his edits which have been disallowed) on the Derek Smart Wiki is to inject derogatory information and that which clearly violates the stringent WP:BLP rules. WarHawkSP 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Commander statement
Kerr Avon since appearing on this Wiki has solely been involved in not only being uncivil to other editors, but also accusing them of being sock puppets. He has been warned several times to no avail. All he is interested in is injecting derogatory and unsourced material into the Derek Smart Wiki in an attempt to push his pov. I fully endorse this RFcSupreme_Cmdr(talk) 14:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
   

Applicable policies and guidelines
WP:BLP WP:NPOV WP:VANDAL WP:NPA

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
  

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



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.'' ''

Please permit me aproxinamtely two days to file a response, I am a doctor in the peripheries of Sri Lanka, and I will hopefully be returning tomorrow, I will respond tomorrow.Kerr avon 07:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is probably the only RFC, which is filed by a SPA, which is endorsed by the two confirmed SPA's  and  who have repeatedly been banned and repeatedly been warned for incivility, who have done nothing but contribute to the rampant edit war on the Derek Smart article which has run in to a astonishing 25,000 edits and is currently being arbitrated via arbcom. As such there statements are not even probably worth the time and energy spent refuting there baseless alegations however I will try my best to respond.

WarHawkSP mentions regarding me -: had an RFC filed against him by a prominent and respected Wiki editor.

As anyone can see there was no RFC filed against me as JBKramer had confused me with LordKazan who had a RFC filed against him at that time. JBKramer said -: "Apologies, confused you and Lord Kazzan.". This again shows the reliability of the SPA's concerned.

Regarding the SPA he appears to have vanished from the wiki universe after filing this RFC and contributing to the edit warring on Derek Smart. That i think is good evidence of his credibility. Mael-Num and WarhawkSP, and Supreme_Cmdr are all strongly suspected to be sock puppets of Derek Smart himself.

Regarding the reverts in questions which have caused considereable pain to Mael-num I wish to state that I opened a discussion in the talk page, however it was Mael-num who needlessly reverted all my cited edits claiming violations of [WP:BLP], however he failed to demonstrate under which clause it violates BLP.

As such I wish to restate that this RFC was created by a SPA on blatantly false premises (see swatjesters statement) endorsed by two SPA's, and that I completely deny the allegations.

{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: Kerr avon 05:00, 24 December 2006 (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.