Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keepscases: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:41, 9 August 2009

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC).

Keepscases (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Keepscases (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears not to be here to build an encyclopedia, in that the user appears to be excessively uncivil and continues to disrupt, soapbox, and bully candidate atheists at RfA, effectuating a chilling effect on atheistic potential candidates.

Desired outcome

The user should cease trying to disrupt, soapbox, and bully candidate atheists at RfA.

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

Here is a list of diffs that convince me us that this user ~~shall~~ should not be editing ~~Wikipedia, much less~~ RfA:

And I don't even need to provide my reasons for each diff, except in short that this user makes up nonsense reasons for supporting and opposing candidates and asking nonsense questions that don't help the RfA in any way. (quoted from section [1] by Mythdon)

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.)

Same threads as above

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

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.

Jeff G. is being entirely disingenuous here. I have nothing against atheists, and I have made this clear countless times. My issue is with intentionally disrespectful, offensive, and inflammatory userboxes. I do not feel any user who believes it is a good idea to display such userboxes is the sort of person who should serve as an administrator.

I have the right to vote based on whatever criteria I choose. I am often forced to defend myself against other users who attack me for my votes...but it is those users who are responsible for the drama, and it is they who tend to be the uncivil ones.

I don't know why Jeff G. links to questions I've asked, given that they have absolutely nothing to do with what he's disputing, but I have the right to ask whatever questions I wish at RfAs, and in plenty of instances they've been appreciated by the candidates and/or been quite helpful in their evaluation.

Users who endorse this summary:

Keepscases (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.