Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mines45

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: 19:59, 21 June 2006, 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
Mines45 has repeatedly made controversial edits to a small number of pages, and has continually reinstated these edits in the face of factual evidence to the contrary. In over seven months of editing, he/she has yet to use a single edit summary, or respond to a single discussion page posting. In fact, all posts made on Mines45's talk page are quickly removed. In addition, he/she has made two personal attacks on a Wikipedia administrator. McPhail 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
Mines45 has not actively vandalised any pages. However, he/she has dogmatically continued to restore his or her edits over the course of seven months. The pages concerned are principally articles on professional wrestlers, with the disputes concerning the precise phrasing of certain paragraphs, or the correct names of certain proper nouns. In the course of these edits, he/she hhas failed to provide a single source, even when sources proving him/her wrong have been cited.
 * Edit to the Amy Dumas article (13th June 2006)
 * Edit to the Amy Dumas article (12th June 2006)
 * Edit to the Amy Dumas article (9th June 2006)
 * The edit history of Mines45, without a single edit summary
 * The history of Mines45's talk page, showing the repeated removal of warnings and other messages

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Resolving disputes - no use of edit summaries or talk pages; no attempt at compromise whatsoever.
 * Verifiability - Mines45 does not use sources.
 * No personal attacks - Mines45 has twice sent belligerent e-mails to an administrator.
 * Sock puppetry - Suspiciously, several anonymous editors have made exactly the same edits as Mines45, , ,

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * McPhail's first request for edit summaries and sources
 * McPhail's second request for edit summaries and sources
 * Related posts from Petros471:  . There are others, available via the history of Mines45 talk page.

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


 * McPhail 20:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A week block didn't seem to have much impact, nor numerious requests to discuss edits. Petros471 20:08, 21 June 2006 (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.'' ''

What is this? A court trial against me? Well anyway, do whatever you want. This unsigned contrib was by 16:27, 22 June 2006 Mines45

Users who endorse this summary:

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.''

Outside view by gtabary
Hello. Total outsider view. The subject of this RFC replied: ''What is this? A court trial against me? Well anyway, do whatever you want.'' ( 16:27, 22 June 2006 - Mines45 ) The explanation is available here. A short answer is: no, this is not a court trial. There is no such a thing as a court in WP nor trial. In WP there is mainly talk. When a user seems to be talk-proof it is a major problem because WP relies fundamentaly on user's ability to collaborate. The subject of this RFC is confused regarding what user's do or do not : No one here "do whatever he/she wants". Ever. There are rules, there are road maps, there is a goal : producing encyclopaedic quality content. The relative freedom of contributions, comes with the duty of interracting fairly with the community. The subject of this RFC must abid by those rules, as any other user, and must interact fairly. Ignoring one's comment, given it is a fair one, is not acceptable. Gtabary 10:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by ...
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.