Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pnatt (post-block)

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:40, 11 August 2024 (UTC).

• Myspaceaddictaust (talk · contribs · logs)

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

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

The user has been constantly reverting the article MySpace to his or her version (for weeks before as a dynamic IP-anon). He/she requests that experienced editors clear edits with them. User floods article history with edits, making other peoples revisions less visible. Barely compromises at all. Two of us have tried and failed to make the article better because we were being reverted by this guy constantly. We had to resort to protecting the page so that he'd stop reverting and would be forced to follow his own advice: discuss changes.

{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 enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Myspaceaddictaust&action=editdorse them.}

(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.)

1. Talk Page discussion after protection of page
2. Flood of edits as an attempt to hide mine. Look back a few pages.
3. reverting non-vandalism to his version (something he does constantly)
4. Ju66l3r edits to remove WP:OR and extra {fact} tags
   1. 2 hours later, Australian IP: 58.163.147.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) simply reverts back without edit summary or comments on talk page
5. Diff of Talk:MySpace where User:zzuuzz is told to leave the article alone when fixing date style/format
6. Personal commentary
7. Myspaceaddict reverting my good faith edit without explanation!
8. MySpaceADdict is possibly a sock. Someone with his username on WikiSocial was indef-blocked. He is also known to have used this and here's another page here. Now, maybe we should skip the RfC and just indef block him for vio of WP:SOCK.
9. Here's a cat with his sockpuppets

I've provided further evidence on this RfC talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. See myspace history (above) for bereaking 3rr. -- Chris chat edits essays 16:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. My talk page, where he admits intention to break 3rr and dodge it with his IP address.
3. New Sockpuppet, watch out!

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

1. WP:OWN
2. WP:NOR
3. WP:3RR
4. WP:SOCK

(provide diffs and links)

1. See above-listed pages
2. User_talk:Ccool2ax

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. I have tried and failed to get them to stop owning the article. -- Chris chat edits essays 13:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I worked on the MySpace page prior to Myspaceaddictaust signing up for an account. I am certain (without requesting a checkuser) that they were also a dynamic IP user, editing from Australia, that I went back and forth with on a number of articles (including Windows Live Messenger, Deleting Online Predators Act of 2006, and MySpace) based on their edit style and changes in violation of WP:OWN, WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, including no discussion of proposed changes after multiple reverts from different IPs to avoid 3RR at the time. These same pages are now listed on Myspaceaddictaust's user page as being in their watchlist. Prior to this editor signing up for an account, I basically gave up in an attempt to avoid 3RR myself and moved on to other articles with less stress. ju66l3r 15:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have also tried and failed, and endorse the above summaries. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Also guilty of adding their own personal commentary to articles in contravention of WP:NPOV. Addhoc 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Delibaretly stating that he/she will avoid a 3RR block through the use of dyanmic IPs is pretty unaccepatable. --Robdurbar 16:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. szyslak (t, c, e) 19:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Also guilty of adding their own personal commentary to articles in contravention of WP:NPOV. Addhoc 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's the personal commentary? Myspaceaddictaust 21:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

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.

Looking through this dispute, I don't see either party looking particularily good. For the most part it seems that the allegations against Myspaceaddictaust are correct but I don't feel that that is the whole story.

Looking through the the talk pages and diffs provided in the complaint. I notice that at one point Chris refers to Myspaceaddictaust as an idiot [1]and threatens to block his entire ISP(far from standard procedure as far as I know) [2] which in my opinion is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

I feel that both parties need to cool down this issue and that blame can't entirely rest on one side.Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

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.