Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rrfayette

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: 13:01, 15 November 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.

Description
has been exhausting the community's patience since his account became active a few days ago with a consistent unwillingness to listen to other editor's advice, uncivil behaviour, multiple violations of WP:POINT, edit warring on WP:WEB. As detailed in the diffs below, his erratic behaviour has wasted the time of many and has been mostly unproductive.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)


 * Extensive tagging sprees   throwing  and  tags indiscriminately to what seem to be random articles (since he's tagging one per minute) and despite other editor's advice that this was counterproductive   . In his most recent tagging binge, tagged articles included articles that were referenced (e.g. ICMP Router Discovery Protocol, Cadman Plaza, Alpheopsis, Jimmy Dean among others) or where the tag was clearly useless (e.g. Island Transit (disambiguation)).
 * The user's edit warring on WP:WEB lasted a couple of days. It began with this edit and quickly became a 3RR problem . The user was defiant on the ensuing discussion on the talk page     . Note that specific diffs are a bit tricky to find since the user typically edits his own comments a few times. The next day, he returned with a number of sweeping changes (despite other's advice that overhauls on guidelines should first be discussed on the talk page. This resulted in loooong discussions on the talk page, marred by more incivility and stubborness. Diffs would not do it justice but the relevant sections of the talk page should be a pretty good indicator of what happened. . After all that,  who has been quite active in following the evolution of the various notability guidelines concluded that all these changes had been detrimental overall.
 * The user has been very active in deleting from his talk page all comments that were critical of his actions, despite many editors' request to leave a trace of these     . In the process he/she has reverted some edits with uncivil edit summaries   His talk page now lists a series of rules that should be followed to talk to him.
 * User has disingenuously stated on his talk page that he's on a wikibreak despite obvious evidence that he's still very active and has used this to avoid discussion with others.
 * Has been blatantly uncivil to pretty much every user who's been critical. For a sample of the more serious ones, see       . At least one has been deleted as a personnal attack.
 * Rrfayette believes that he is the target of harassment from (who filed this RfC) and in turn has decided to revert some of his hardly controversial edits  (note the edit summary refering to the other user as "that thing") and getting involved in disputes he's not part of.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:POINT
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:STALK
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:TROLL (I know this is not a policy or a guideline but it sure seems very relevant here)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * A number of users have tried unsuccessfully to resolve various disputes and to ask him to change his conduct. They have all been ignored. And these are the ones that I'm aware of...
 * (asked Rrfayette to use a more transparent signature and to leave critical comments on his user talk page. This was ignored.)
 * (Tried to resolve one of the edit wars on WP:WEB, received one of those "who are you?" replies.)
 * (asked him to change the way he manages his talk page and criticized the tagging sprees. Was not listened to.)
 * (Tried to explain why editing of notability guidelines needed to be done carefully. Was ignored.)
 * (Presented Rrfayette evidence that a majority did not support the proposed edits to WP:WEB, was treated with disdain.)
 * (Tried to persuade him to change his attitude with regards to his talk page. Was ignored and got uncivil replies.)
 * (Tried a number of times to ask Rrfayette to become a more positive force. Failed, obviously)

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


 * (Filed this RfC) Pascal.Tesson 14:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Srleffler 07:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Francis Schonken 07:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the comments above. In addition, Rrfayette has edited the comments of other users on talk pages  and copied comments of other users from article talk pages to user talk pages .  When he was asked not to do this, he simply reverted to his version.  This user has a signature that is completely different from his username, which is confusing and potentially misleading per [WP:SIG] - one previous signature was the same as the name of another user  (this doesn't seem to be the case with the current one).  User has attempted to stifle discussions (often about Rrfayette) with comments like "that solves it"  or "Issue is resolved. It will be left by all as it is" .  User demands an explanation for any change to his edits and considers lack of adequate explanation (by his standards) grounds for reversion .  User seems unable to find a happy medium between radical rewrites (without consensus, in his first 20 edits at wikipedia) of guideline pages in a single edit  (this one tagged "Minor revision to improve page readability") and making dozens of consecutive edits to a page.  User seems to interpret wikipedia guidelines as being completely optional based on "not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception" .  User often takes a hostile attitude when third parties enter discussions on article or policy pages with "I don't know you" or "who are you" . --Milo H Minderbinder 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * 1) I only had minor interaction with the user on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines which then spilled over onto my talkpage. The user appears to have his own understanding of how talkpages on wikipedia work which seems to be the root of most of his problems with other users. Removing a reply on Pascal's talkpage with an editsummary of "This was not posted on this talk page. NOT ALLOW! Even I don't do this per request of someone." underscores this lack of understanding of current talkpage practises. I do believe though that if the communication problem could be solved the content related issues would fall into place. Agathoclea 23:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I have reviewed a good number of the diffs and this summary appears to be accurate. ---J.S (t|c) 19:02, 16 November 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.'' ''

{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.}

Observations on disputed behavior
I am not directly involved with the dispute but would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

This RfC cites posts of Rrfayette on articles. I looked over many of Rrfayette's rapid, voluminous posts. Just about all of them dealt with posting Unsourced and Verify templates on articles that did not sufficiently cite their references or sources and thus contained information that could not reasonably be verified. The Unsourced templates postings largely appear to be technically correct and supported by Wikipedia policy. The Verify template appears to require both that the contained information be unverified AND showing some sign of not being reliable. Information that is unverified does not necessarily mean that is also is unreliable. Rrfayette's posting of the Verify template may have been overkill. Any violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines based on his Unsourced and Verify template posts appear to have been done unintentionally. Other than informing him of this overkill, there seems to be no reason to take RfC action based on this alone. My impression is that he largely is helping improve Wikipedia articles.

This RfC cites posts of Rrfayette on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I reviewed a few of his policy and guidelines posts. Rrfayette makes changes directly to policy and guidelines rather than post the proposed change in on the talk page and wait for a consensus to develop. Others editors come along and revert his changes without first posting the proposed reverson on the talk page and waiting for a consensus to develop on the proposed reversion. The justifications for the reversions apparently show no consideration for the merits of Rrfayette's changes. Rrfayette reverts back because the initial reversion failed to satisfy the same standards with which Rrfayette is expected to comply. A reversion war develops.

Rrfayette's actions appear to be symptomatic of a larger problem on Wikipedia regarding changing policy and guidelines. Proper procedure generally requires editors to post proposed changes on the talk page and wait for a consensus to develop on the proposed reversion. Reversion of a policy or guideline back to a prior state is a change to that policy or guideline. Only administrators should have the authority to revert policy and guidelines without first posting the proposed change on the talk page. Giving editors this same authority creates an imbalance that often results in confusion and reversion wars as in Rrfayette's situation.

This RfC also cites responses of Rrfayette to other posters. From the history of Rrfayette's contributions, it likely is that Rrfayette was a sleeper sock puppet created on 15 June 2006, activated on 9 November 2006, and retired seven days later on 15 November 2006. I'm guessing that something posted very near the time this RfC was posted caused Rrfayette to move onto a next sleeper sock puppet to continue his work. Having sleeper sock puppets available may account for his responses to other editors.

My opinion Rrfayette appears to have a strong, legitimate desire to improve Wikipedia articles. His edits of policy and guidelines in the same way he edits articles may be the result confusion caused by editors having the authority to directly revert a policy/guideline change. He does respond to others and those responses initially appear to be civil and designed to engage the editor in a discussion of the change. When the reply from others evidences that they have not properly considered his proposed change, some of Rrfayette's responses to others and actions (e.g., changing talk pages) appear to become less civil. A reason for these less than civil responses may be that, as long as he has sleeper sock puppets available, he can move on to a different name and continue his work to improve Wikipedia articles without a need to always comply with Wikipedia's civility requirements.

-- Jreferee 19:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Jreferee 19:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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.