Wikipedia:Requests for comment/V-Dash

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

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: 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC).

• V-Dash (talk · contribs · logs)

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

The dispute largely stems from V-Dash (talk · contribs)'s behavior. Without attacking him, his attitude towards other users is appalling bordering disgraceful.

The desired outcome is to make V-Dash realize that continuing in the matter he has been going is only going to end up getting him blocked for disruption and/or trolling, and thus cause him to change his behavior accordingly to be less confrontational.

Since he appeared here, V-Dash has been little more than disruptive at worst and blatantly incivil at best. He has a tendency to flat-out disregard what other users say with respect to his behavior and does not abide by consensus; only by what he deems is "right" (which, according to his userpage, is anything he says). He has a very confrontational attitude, and has sparred with IPs who are apparantly users from the forums at GameFAQs, where his behavior has won him no fans and one impersonator, Dash Jr (talk · contribs) (PolluxFrost over there). He has also taken to assuming ill faith on my (Jéské Couriano (talk · contribs)) part. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(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. [1]
2. [2] (Referring to an IP, apparently from the GFAQs forums)
3. [3] (Again, referring to an IP whom uses that moniker)
4. [4]
5. [5] (Dismissing the warning as it is aimed directly at his behavior)
6. [6] (Stemmed from a personal attack warning I placed in error on his talk page based on this edit)
7. [7] (Stems from my deletion of Wikipedia:Flying Pig, a troll page he created in Wikipedia: space)
8. [8] (Example of user's typical attitude in a reasoned discussion)
9. [9] (Note the edit summary)

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

1. Wikipedia:Civility
2. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
3. Wikipedia:Consensus
4. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (Specifically, WP:BATTLE)
5. Wikipedia:Assume good faith

(provide diffs and links)

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]
6. [15]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, I agree his behavior has been a problem and have advised him to tone it back a couple notches. My only caveat is that I don't know for sure yet whether I have failed. We'll see. Friday (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. I became involved in the disputes involving V-Dah fairly early on in his edit career, earlier than Jéské I believe. He has broken more Wikipedia policies than I have read, including WP:SOCK and WP:NPA, ignored consensus, accused Jéské of Wikistalking, and has edited his user page specifically to antagonize whoever he is in conflict with the most at the time. He seems to delight in causing conflict, and when people choose not to respond anymore he typically begins to attack both other editors, and people who have never even been on Wikipedia. MelicansMatkin (talk) 21:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. I have also been involved with V-Dash's situation for quite some time. I find his behavior to be entirely intolerable. He refuses to calmly discuss matters and simply goes along with whatever he wants. I wish I could say more, but I am unfamiliar with the intricate details of the situation that go back farther than I have been involved. -Sukecchi (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nn123645 (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. RegalStar (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Slimeknight (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an outrage. The only reason why Jeske's is doing this is because he couldn't accuse me of that edit that happened during Christmas. he then threatens me with a very vague warning, and took forever to answer my question on why. Not only that, but he's supposedly an admin, yet he's the one who's always causing commotion. He is the one who tried to bait me to go to the DnD Discussion page. Quite frankily, his behavior is questionable as well.V-Dash (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. V-Dash (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as V-Dash's behavior was questionable, the admin by the name of Jeske is also at speculation as he didn't do much to keep the arguments between himself and Dash at bay. DeathMark (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: DeathMark's and V-Dash's edit summaries are incredibly similar to each other, as are their talk page edits and editing habits. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

1. I have been watching Dash's debates ever sicne someone linked this into GameFAQs, where he exhibits the same behavior. He more often than not accuses others of things he does himself, his discussions are one sided in his favor despite any amount of arguments and proof brought against him, derailing of subjects for no reason than trying to divert attention from his failing arguments, and frequent deletions of his own messages (often after being copy-pasted for quoting purposes) after being pointed out for his mistakes, to then claim for purposely modified quote to make him a victim of the debate. His reasoning and logic only works in his personal favor at all times, and the same logic used against him becomes fallacy to his eyes. Celedh (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Celedh (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Slimeknight (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. MelicansMatkin (talk) 05:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. HalfShadow (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. RegalStar (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Dusti^talk 19:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest everyone just ignore him. This would save time. Friday (talk) 22:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was the result of Jeske coming onto my talk page and posting a vague warning until someone warned him to give me an explanation.V-Dash (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As V-Dash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked, this RFC is now moot. --Muchness (talk) 08:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]