Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikifan12345

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: 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * I have repeatedly asked him to stop making personal attacks but he has continued to do so

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

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.''

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * "all of his reverts revolved around Israel and Jews."..."The fact the FOTG edits were blatant vandalism and now he gets to dictate the rubric of terrorism is truly disturbing."


 * FOTG's wild deletion of every Jew/Israel incident under false summaries, and then refusing to concede after I copied and pasted the references that explicitly refer to the incidents as acts of terrorism. It was a gross abuse of editing privileges and to target all things Jewish is doubly offensive.


 * This is all totally irrelevant is avoiding the true fact that FOTG viciously and obsessively edited out ALL incidents on Israel and Jews with the same basic summary, 5 of which have proven to be false. The fact that he totally wiped out incidents because a source was dead instead of simply finding a new one proves this has little to do with terrorism and everything to do with his vendetta against Jews and Israel.


 * It is offensive that you targeted strictly Jewish-related incidents.


 * Whether you believe blowing up Jews is somehow consistent with legal conflict and not terrorism is your POV


 * Yes, you are manically obsessed with Israel and Jews.


 * FOTG aim was to remove everything Israel and Jewish, he doesn't give less of a #$#$@ about the terrorist rubric. Don't be an apologist for such a hateful user.


 * What FOTG has does defies logic


 * The discussion began because an obvious vandal decided to remove cited information and force a dispute.


 * So edit-warring out everything Jewish and Israel is totally cool and does not warrant administrator intervention. I guess antisemitism is protected then, sweet.


 * It is certainly that users can have a manic obsession with Israel and Jews, and unfortunately FOTG is one of those users.


 * Manically obsessed with Jews/Israel does not = antisemitism. Call a spade a spade. Viciously deleting everything Jewish/Israel with bogus summaries, then edit-warring to ensure that the content remains deleted, while continuing to deny wrong-doing in talk strikes me as a manic obsession that is not consistent with policy or reality


 * It is not a content dispute when an editor is clearly editing with a hateful and antisemitic agenda.


 * Second, this bandwagon, a bandwagon started by a certified-troll as demonstrated in his approach


 * He has a major issue with Jews and it is very, very offensive.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(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.)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying 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.'' ''

{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.}

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.