Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/WikiUser

Frivolous RfAr
WikiUser's RfAr took place at the same time as at least two major RfArs ("Lyndon LaRouche I" and "Lir"), and it's hard to follow what happened with it. Could someone post a diff for where the RfAr was formally rejected? --Carnildo 09:40, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * That would be this one: 20:09, 6 Aug 2004 Raul654 (&#8594;WikiUser and Fred Bauder - - speedily delete following legal threat)  -- ChrisO 13:38, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Something I wrote earlier
This is something that I wrote a week or so ago about my dealings with WikiUser. I am not sure about procedure for others adding evidence to a RfC so I've posted it here:

I first came to the attention of WikiUser when I edited Claire Weekes. Now I will admit that maybe my edits were a little too severe but did take offense to the fact that my edit was reverted without any comment. So I edited the page again with an edit summary of "don't revert without comment; Manual of Style (biographies)". This change was also reverted without comment by WikiUser. That was when I got my first message from WikiUser, which included "stop sabotaging that article and changing it so it's stating things that aren't true". I made this reply on WikiUser's talk page and got this reply. And then made my final two edits to Claire Weekes so that the article at the very least it conformed with the Manual of Style.

After this I looked through WikiUser's contributions to find if any other articles needed things like categorising and corrections to conform to the manual of style. Some days later I received another message where I was accused of sabotaging [articles] by putting in spelling and grammar mistakes and other stuff to make them worse.

I was upset by this accusation and replied User talk:WikiUser with this post which listed all the diffs to the articles asking where him to show me the spelling and grammar mistakes that I had added. WikiUser then told me that it wasn't his job to "do all your wiki editing for you now". He also accused me of removing critical posts on my talk page (I had merely gone through and removed old posts which included both praise and criticism). I had a look back through the history of his talk page and found that he had removed at removing criticisim from his talk page often declaring it to be 'vandalism' or 'hassle by nazi stalkers'.         

A large amount of material was also copied from WikiUser's talk page to my own including material that wasn't even related to me (which I subsequently removed . He also did this to ChrisO  and Violetriga.

He accuses the three of us of targeting him as "he's disabled and has said typing is physically painful for him". This fact I did not know until I read it in this message. It was at this point that I decided to stop replying to WikiUser.

Evil Monkey&#8756;Hello? 10:04, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Re project page
I have not yet decided whether it is right that I make a response to the project page which I think is invalid. (If I do it will need to run into many, many pages if I am to answer all the claims made about me.) However I must note that there are a great many factual inaccuracies on the page. Among others in the three revert claims. Could a responsible admin please look into these and remove the blatant factual inaccuracies. As I say on my talk page; for example a three revert violation is listed, where I, (and chriso), never edited that page more than twice on any day. It is not possible to 3 revert a page in that case. Also my post history is a factual matter, so claims that my first post was such and such, when it wasn't, must clearly be removed. Also as I have said on my talk page, v.riga, and now chriso, are posting in both the endorse and comments sections. According to everything I have seen on the wiki this is against the rules for a RFC page. Also according to everything I have seen on the wiki it is not possible, i.e. against the rules, for someone to agree to Mediation and then break Mediation by launching a complaint project. She should have withdrawn from Mediation before launching the complaint project. It is likewise against the rules for chriso to both pursue Mediation and this complaint project. He should have said whether he has refused to go to mediation or not. He is not above the rules. Also he has broken the rules by adding comments to the mediation 'special page' that are not allowed. The [RFMediation] page says at the top: "Please do not edit this page directly if you are not a participant in a case. Also, please do not remove content or move sections to separate pages if you are not a member of the Mediation Committee. Relevant comments may be left on the Talk page, and will be read in full." I have left at least 3 messages formally requesting that his breach of rules editing of the RFMediation page is removed but the page appears to have been abandoned by the Mediation committee. So will a responsible admin please put that right? They cannot both be pursuing Mediation, and this project complaint. It's against the wiki rules. And it also says on the [Mediation page]: "Any disputant may refuse or withdraw from the mediation process at will, though this is considered bad form."WikiUser 20:35, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Any parts of the RfC that you dispute should be noted explicitly in your response. Any problems you have with those bringing the RfC against you (primarily myself and ChrisO) should also be noted along with any breaches of rules or guidelines.  As for mediation I think you'll find that you had no grounds to take me there considering there was no dispute (it was therefore the incorrect place for your complaint).  violet/riga (t) 21:06, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not refusing mediation, I merely believe it to be a waste of time and a further example of your unbalanced behaviour. As for mentioning this RfC on the mediation page, I agree that in a normal case it wouldn't be appropriate - but in this case it is more than justified, given your record of misconduct and your frequent threats of arbitration, mediation and legal action against individual editors and Wikipedia as a whole. Your request for mediation needs to be considered in its proper context. Personally, if I was a mediator, I wouldn't touch your request with a bargepole. -- ChrisO 00:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Users should note the formal refusal of a manager of this complaint project to remove, or even consider, the false information on the page. It obviously means that she is willing to pursue, in fact is admitting that she is pursuing, a false formal complaint against me, by her willingness to submit a formal RFC complaint on the basis of false information contained in it. Even a 3 revert violation on a page that was only ever edited twice in one day! Such is the level and nature of this mendacious, and unjustified by the wiki rules, complaint against me. Also it is not true that, as she claims, formal complaints can be made on the wikipedia against people with false information, providing I do not write in the response section of the project page. Whether I write in it or not has nothing to do with such a matter. That would mean, for example, that I could submit an arbitration complaint that someone had broken the 3 revert rule on a page they'd never edited, and win, as long as the person complained of did not post a response on the arbitration page. Her claim is bizzare. Note that she and chriso cannot break the wikipedia rules by both being in Mediation, and not being in Mediation, by pursuing a formal complaint against me. Also: "As for mediation I think you'll find that you had no grounds to take me there considering there was no dispute (it was therefore the incorrect place for your complaint)." Then she shouldn't have agreed to Mediation. And if she and changed her mind she should have withdrawn from the Mediation process and then started this formal complaint. She is in breach of and has shown contempt for the Mediation process rules. Again par for the course evidence that she, like chriso, believe they are above the wikipedia rules. The only question is why does The Wikipedia Foundation let them be above the rules that apply to everyone else?WikiUser 21:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) Also Mediation is for people who are not getting on, on the wiki, to come to an agreement with the help of a Mediator. Her claim that me going to Mediation had "no grounds" is absurd. I go to mediation, which most people would say is the responsible thing to do, (and she agrees to!), and she even claims that is an offence on my part.WikiUser 21:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Many of the problems stem from your inability to understand what people are saying. At no point do I even hint that anything on this RfC are false and was merely pointing out that if you think them to be false then you should do something about it - specifically, pointing out exactly which one(s) you think are incorrect. As for the mediation I said to you that you could do what you wanted and did not post on the page to support the request. Considering that there was not an article content dispute, merely me pointing out your mistake in breaking the 3RR, I still fail to see the requirement to go that route.  Next I would like you to point out the wording of the rules you suggest that I have broken. violet/riga (t) 21:50, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I too would like to know the specific grounds for your complaint - all we've had so far is sound and fury. -- ChrisO 00:23, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further breaking of rules by endorsers on project page
I forgot to mention the claims made by Ashley Pomeroy and Phil Boswell should of course be removed. It is wrong for them to make false statements about me using computers I've never heard of to attack Ahsley Pomeroy. I've never heard of him, or Phil Boswell, and it is not my fault if he is in dispute with vandals. They cannot accuse me of being every user in Britain in this way. It is absurd, although very reflective of the nature of this 'kangaroo court' RFC project against me. (So perhaps their claims should be left on as they perhaps support my case well about the hate and discrinination I am targetted for on the wikipedia.) If I am to be held responsible for every vandalism edit made by every user in Britain then The Wikipedia Foundation will need to produce some evidence of this bizzare claim. Also deathpheonix's claims that I am mentally ill are against the personal abuse rules and no one else would be expected to tolerate such insults: "I wouldn't presume to put a label on this behaviour because I don't have any medical experience either." Also as he is now endorsing this formal RFC complaint against me his endoresment should be moved to the correct section. He can not have it both ways. RE "Also as I have said on my talk page, v.riga, and now chriso, are posting in both the endorse and comments sections. According to everything I have seen on the wiki this is against the rules for a RFC page. "-Therefore by the rules their entries in one section or another must be deleted.WikiUser 21:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC) I also add that Ashley Pomeroy's statement that he finds this Wikipedia formal complaint procedure against me a form of entertainment, even though I have said it causes me distress, offensive. Have some people no morals? (He said: ["Entertaining dispute"].)WikiUser 21:33, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * As per request, I have un-levelled the accusation of turpitude. It seemed odd that my very first defacement from someone in the UK should come so soon after wading into this hilarious dispute. I read the 'problem users' page for entertainment's sake - although this is not to say that I don't take the process seriously - and this is the most dramatic dispute in the current crop; the appellant's self-pitying paranoia, mock outrage ("Have some people no morals?") and excessively prolix justifications remind me of the Sollog affair. Back in the day I used to work as an audio typist for the Immigration Appellate Authority, typing up the appeals of refugees; tales of torture, murder, rape, injustice and casual violence, most of them fabricated by people who would climb up a pile of drowing babies to reach dry land. If you find this "offensive", then your baseline is lower than mine. As for "hate and discrimination", it's good to hate bad things, and to discriminate against them. -Ashley Pomeroy 01:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I never made any allegations that WikiUser is mentally ill. In fact, my very lack of medical experience forbids me from making such allegations. Since WikiUser seems to favour making demands, I shall make one of my own: that WikiUser retract his statement that I am going against the rules of personal abuse, since I explicitly made no such accusations as to WikiUser's mental illness. Failure to do so only shows me that WikiUser loves to be the victim without admitting any wrong doing. --Deathphoenix 03:51, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The above two posts prove the points I've made very well.WikiUser 17:58, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR violations?
Could someone provide specific sets of diffs showing the 3RR violations by WikiUser? Simply linking to the histories of articles is insufficient, since the articles are being actively edited, and the edits you are trying to link to are scrolling off the linked pages. --Carnildo 22:28, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. violet/riga (t) 23:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Carnildo 23:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's nice to see that at least one person is interested in actually checking the 'evidence' Carnildo. As far as I know, as I've often stated on the site, I have never broken the 3 revert rule. And if I ever did it would just be a mistake. At least they make it clear (above), they're not interested/don't care if their 'evidence' is genuine or not. So people can draw the obvious conclusions from that. Notice above that v.riga even says it's my job to prepare the 'evidence' against me and see it's correct!WikiUser 18:15, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You have broken the three revert rule once and escaped a second infringement by 3 minutes. Proof, as copied from the main page:
 * Edit history at Secondary modern school (4 reverts in under 24 hours, warned not blocked):
 * Revision as of 18:07, 25 Jan 2005 - reverted linking Labour Party and two years, changed quotemarks to single quotes
 * Revision as of 20:49, 25 Jan 2005 - reverted linking of Labour Party and changed quotemarks to single quotes
 * Revision as of 21:12, 25 Jan 2005 - reverted quotemarks to single quotes
 * Revision as of 21:57, 25 Jan 2005 - reverted slight rewording and linking of Labour Party
 * If you deny this then I suggest you reread the definition of a revert. Indeed, it is me warning you about this that first introduced me to you.  violet/riga (t) 18:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "You have broken the three revert rule once and escaped a second infringement by 3 minutes. Proof, as copied from the main page:"
 * I already said to her on my talk page, from memory very soon after my edits, that as far as I knew I only reverted once or twice. I tend to edit not revert. Also that if I did break the 3 revert rule it was a mistake. However if you check all the edits on the sec. mod. page you'll see that all the edits are different. Except:


 * 18:07, 25 Jan 2005; 20:49, 25 Jan 2005 and 21:12, 25 Jan 2005.


 * Even if I had reverted on these occasions that would be two reverts at most; as the first of these can not be a revert (it is different to all previous versions of the page).


 * The only other edits I did on that day (or ever again as I gave up/they drove me from editing the page) are: 21:57, 25 Jan 2005   and  21:54, 25 Jan 2005. Both these are different from each other and both are different from all previous versions of the page.


 * As far as I can make out anyway, no breach of 3 revert rule. "and escaped a second infringement by 3 minutes. Proof," if that was true then I didn't break the 3 revert rule.WikiUser 21:43, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You created the article. The edits shown above are reverts back (in part) to the original version.  That includes the first one, so yes, you have broken the 3RR.  For the last of you comments, well do note that I never said it was a 3RR violation, merely pointing it out as an indication of your edit war style. violet/riga (t) 21:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Yet again support for what I've always said along. I haven't broken the 3 rev rule-BUT they've got a grudge against me, so I've broken the 3 rev rule. I'm only editing same as anyone else, BUT they've got a grudge against me, so it's how dare I!, I'm breaking the rules by editing. I go to mediation and put a great deal of effort into doing so, BUT they've got a grudge against me, so it's a false "frivolous" attempt at mediation, it's against the rules to abuse people to the point of depressing them, BUT they've got a grudge against me, so I must be banned "long term" for saying they have done so and telling them to stop. etc., etc.,..... I think people are going to be surprised at v.riga's new version of the 3 rev rule! As I've said for months they've got a grudge against me, and so misuse the wiki to indulge it. "That includes the first one, so yes, you have broken the 3RR." this is a clear lie about and me is clear personal abuse so will some responsible admin, if there are any, please take the appropriate action against v.riga. "I never said it was a 3RR violation, merely pointing it out as an indication of your edit war style." Not true of course. The reality is, as I've said all along, I don't usually revert, I tend to edit not revert.WikiUser 17:17, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this diatribe proves a lot of what we've been saying all along. violet/riga (t) 17:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * No it proves perfectly what I say is true. You can answer. But when I answer, it's "diatribe". (And answer disproving your point totally, and in this case going to great trouble to do so, when it's your job to see your 'evidence' for this crazy scheme you've got to "ban" me "long term" is correct, not mine.) I answer some time later or the next day. You people answer almost immediately, you're obsessed with me -as I've said. You follow me everywhere I go, including to where you couldn't know I was posting unless you were monitoring my history. I'm not interested in looking at your histories. Just one example is where I asked an admin to stop chriso vandalising the mediation page and you plastered the page with so much stuff that when I came to look at it the next day I couldn't make out his answer and had to ask him to repost it for me. Your epic obsessive complaint against me is mendacious and false and an abuse of the wiki rules, there's no grounds for blocking me. Time after time you prove beautifully that everything I have said is true. You've got a grudge against me and are obsessed with me. I could've been doing what I was doing, editing and creating articles, informing people of things of interest on the v.pump pages, helping new people with their questions etc., but you prevent me from doing so with your harrassment, and some responsible admin should take actions to stop you all. I went to mediation, you abuse the mediation process, etc., etc., ....WikiUser 17:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I am indeed monitoring your contributions because I am looking to prevent you from edit-warring at another article and abusing another user. Thankfully, as you say, you've been busy here rather than doing either of those two things.  I have proven conclusively that you have broken the 3RR but you have difficulties understanding what a revert actually is. violet/riga (t) 18:04, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More evidence
So what's the deal here? I've never contributed evidence for one of these before (never had to) however having just been at the sharp end of this guy's temper with accusations of a misuse of my admin powers and being a vandal I now have evidence from my user talk page. Do I just add it myself? In what format? If someone else would like to read my user talk page and add it themselves please feel free, I'll not archive it until it's been done. -- Francs2000 | Talk 23:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You may wish to add to "Uncategorized false accusations against other users" but that is already quite a lot of evidence. Perhaps just supporting (adding your vote onto "Other users who endorse this summary") the RfC would be acceptable.  That is if you agree with the other aspects of the RfC. violet/riga (t) 23:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I have read through it and it is fairly well written. I'll just add my sig. -- Francs2000 | Talk  23:56, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quiet
It would seem that the WikiUser account, along with his IP address, have gone quiet of late - no edits in two days. Hopefully this break will go towards clearing up the situation. violet/riga (t) 19:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)