Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Particleman24


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

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: 15:07, August 30, 2008(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
User:Particleman24 shows a lack of understanding of core policies and guidelines, and appears either unwilling or unable to abide with those policies and guidelines. The user is communicative to some degree, but attempts at instilling an understanding of policy have not been successful. Attempts at discussion end with no resolution, only to re-open at a later date, revolving around the same basic misunderstandings.

Desired outcome
''This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.''

Someone needs to have a heart-to-heart talk with User:Particleman24 and explain to him what the policies are, why the majority of his contributions are unsuitable, how to positively contribute, and how to constructively face disagreement. A clear understanding of WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and other core policies and guidelines need to be demonstrated by the user.

Description
Most of User:Particleman24 contributions are unsuitable under the core policies of neutral point of view and verifiability, and reliable source guidelines. When reverted, edit wars are the usual result, and discussion ends with no resolution.

Evidence of disputed behavior
There are a series of inter-related issues, all are based around the same misunderstanding of policy, and these diffs define the same basic dispute. This is outlined as close to chronological as possible. Both the dispute and the attempts at resolution are included in the outline.

The first series begins with the dispute for a sixth season of Ed, Edd n Eddy where the article in question here is redirected to the main list of episodes on Feb 8, 2008. The redirect stood fine until April 6 of that year, when a revert war broke out.. These reversions were against consensus, and  were involved with reverting to consenus. User:Particleman24 performs an undo from the redirect and subsequently adds disputed material to a related template and articles which were then reverted. After this, User:Particleman24 reintroduces the contentious material and links to the articles. requesting that his contributions remain, but still does not have corroborating evidence to support the claims. These edits are again reverted       but reintroduced after Particleman24 posts a  message on the season episode list's talkpage, providing links from a fan forum as "evidence" for the disputed episodes/series. . Once again the versions of the articles agreed by consensus are reinstated    and protection is requested on this article due to consensus agreeing to no sourcing for the sixth season of the show or a feature length episode standing as proof that neither exist and should not be inferred as doing so. User:Particleman24 had no choice but to cease, since the article in question went into full protection for a month. When the protection expired, Particleman24 contributed anonymously and once more added the material. During the full-protection period, User:Particleman24 offered no discussion to attempt to either gain consensus or to acknowledge why this particular dispute erupted. User:Particleman24 appeared to have given up on fighting against consensus, and started to focus on a non-notable phenomena termed "YouTube Poops", which appears to be basically fan-edited clips of various cartoons and which he had a part in the creation of. Wherever a television series had been used in a "poop", the following was added to the articles regarding the show in question: "Clips of (show name) have been used in many YouTube Poops", usually added anonymously.

User:Particleman24 attempted to create articles regarding YouTube Poop which failed notability guidelines and had the articles put forward for speedy deletion, all of which were accepted. Two days after the CSD series above, User:Particleman24 re-adds the same promotional phrase, this time without links  and  announces his retirement from Wikipedia. Given his notice of retirement, his name was removed from the WP:TOON project participant list under the Right to Vanish guideline. 

Several days later, he returns to continue the Ed, Edd & Eddy dispute again using unreliable sources and pushing the opinion that the fan forum is reliable. In addition, Particleman24 attempted to re-add his name to the membership list at WP:TOON repeatedly after being assumed to have left the project forever   and was denied membership to the list given his misconduct upon leaving and contentious editing style.

After an apparent wikibreak, User:Particleman24 retured to push his POV regarding Ed, Edd n Eddy but this time to criticise Cartoon Network for apparent "mistreatment" of the show and still using the fan forum as sourcing for this opinion. This was reverted and added again less the links on the grounds that "I'll get blocked if I do". In addition, a groundless statement regarding Cartoon Network protecting intellectual property, sourced by the text of YouTube stating "The material has been removed at the request of the copyright owner, Cartoon Network" was made and afterwards removed as tendentious and tenuous reasoning for enforcement of protecting copyrights on intellectual properties they own.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:NPOV - material which does not comply with the neutral tone of voice
 * WP:V - material which is not verifiable under reliable source guidelines
 * WP:OR - material which is considered original research based on subjective observation
 * WP:DE - repeated addition of material and opinion pushing which are perceived as tendentious and non-constructive.

Ed, Edd n Eddy future episode dispute

 * Non-templated message is placed on User:Particleman24 requesting that he not add this material. This message remains unanswered for five days, at which point:
 * . User:Particleman24 posts a message on the talk page explaining the reason, but doesn't provide suitable evidence to confirm the material.
 * . A message is posted to User Talk:Particleman24 requesting to refrain from adding unsourced material.
 * Another user posts a non-templated message to User Talk:Particleman24 further explaining why this material is in dispute.
 * User:Particleman24 posts a message onto a users talk page, insisting that the episodes and the seasons are as User:Particleman24 insists.
 * User:Particleman24 offers unreliable proof that the disputed episodes / seasons exist.

YouTube Poop dispute

 * User:Particleman24 questioned the reason why these articles were deleted
 * Understandably, User:Particleman24 is still confused, given the policy stick
 * a clear and plain language explanation was offered
 * a template message is placed on User talk:Particleman24 asking him to please reconsider his actions.
 * having exhausted attempts at discussion, a warning that future contributions of this nature will now be marked as vandalism
 * ,, , and.

Refusal of acceptance as a WP:TOON contributor due to past conduct
a message is posted to User talk:Particleman24 asking for him to open discussion on WT:TOON, the talk page for the project.
 * Unsure of this request, User:Particleman24 asking why?
 * responding to see if User:Particleman24 understood why the conflict arose in the first place.
 * this response is a little unsatisfactory, as it still shows no understanding of the dispute.
 * further questioning to User:Particleman24 to please explain his dispute.
 * a rather generic answer to the question

POV pushing re: Cartoon Network and treatment of Ed, Edd n Eddy

 * Warned against improper usage of talk pages.
 * Still trying to "get thru" to the editor, a non-templated message is placed on the user talk page.
 * Questioning User:Particleman24 on the additions of above
 * User:Particleman24 admits he is not sure why he even added that text in the first place.
 * a suggestion to User:Particleman24 to back up his claims with verifiable evidence.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
Each attempt to resolve the disputes has failed, preventative action to articles by administrators has been effective but did not resolve the editor's issues with the editing policies.

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


 * Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * treelo radda  15:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * -- Elaich   talk 15:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC) Comment - I believe this person is a juvenile with a limited understanding of what Wikipedia is. However, he has demonstrated a remarkably stubborn streak when presented with the facts, and now presents as a low level vandal who is determined that Wikipedia will bend to his will, not vice versa.
 * Paper Luigi Talk • Contributions 15:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironholds 07:58, 1 September 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.'' ''

{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:

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.

Summary
Editor retired on 27 August 2008.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.