[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Next edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Carbonite (talk | contribs)
4,550 edits
intial version
(No difference)

Revision as of 23:36, 16 October 2005

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: {insert UTC timestamp with 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

FuelWagon is often hostile towards editors that disagree with him, which results in an unpleasant editing environment. He also has a tendency to make disputes personal rather than focus on the content.

Description

FuelWagon has been an editor on Wikipedia since April 2005. After reverting warring on Terri Schiavo for several months, he was eventually blocked on 12 July 2005 by User:Ed Poor for 40 hours "unrepentant personal attacks" block log. I first encountered him on Wikipedia:Words to avoid, where he was openly hostile to editors who disagreed with his opinion (he was seeking to eliminate the use of the phrase "conspiracy theory"). More recently he's displayed similar behavior at Terrorism and Wikipedia:Request for comment.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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] "Moron. Republican held senate majority for 6 of clinton's years. That is a simple fact. even if you whitewash it, the assert goes later. rewrote it."
  2. [2] Implies that a revert of his edit was due to "POV pushing"
  3. [3] After Slim Virgin provides a reason for the revert, FuelWagon's comment ends with "OK, that excuse didn't work, time to shift tactics and come up with a completely different one."
  4. [4] Carbonite questions the inclusion of the quote by asking why a notable activist such as Chomsky should be quoted, but not another such as Sean Penn. FuelWagon again ends his comment with the sarcastic "Would you care to try again? Perhaps you can compare Noam Chomsky to Paris Hilton."
  5. [5] Carbonite responds by saying "Once again, please tone down your hostility. I'd prefer that this discussion be a bit more civilized." FuelWagon response includes the statement "Hostility? Hey, man, you were the one who mentioned Sean Penn. Now that I come back with the same flippant attidute and mention Paris Hilton, you want to call it hostility. Sorry, it works both ways. If you can dish it out, be prepared to take some as well."
  6. [6] After continues to push the Chomsky quote into the article, FuelWagon questions the motives of Jayjg and Carbonite with "Hey, carbonite, jayjg, fancy meeting you here. Fancier still seeing back to back reverts by you two. Imagine that."
  7. [7] FuelWagon contimues to taunt Jayjg about the Chomsky quote. "Hey, Jayjg, the Chomsky quote is relevant and a bunch of POV pushers are trying to delete it. I found a verbatim quote, a URL, and sufficient justification for why Chomsky counts as a notable source. Now, I recall that during the "wikistalking" proposed policy, the great many people opposed the idea of making it policy because content wins out over someone's personal feelings. So, you wanna talk about how your feeling thinking I'm stalking you? Or you wanna talk about content?"
  8. [8] FuelWagon taunts Carbonite on Carbonite's talk page "Nice to see the admins sticking together. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside."
  9. [9] In response to a revert war he's engaged in on another page Wikipedia:Request for comment, FuelWagon tells Carbonite "As far as I'm concerned, you're all the same."
  10. [10] FuelWagon posts an "outside" view on Zephram Stark's RfC, which had been inactive for over three weeks. He uses this forum to attack the actions of "SlimVirgin, Jayjg, Carbonite, and Texture...", while barely touching on the action of Zephram Stark.
  11. [11] After Carbonite inquires as to why FuelWagon posted the hostile summary on Zephram's RfC, FuelWagon provides weak justification (a link to Zephram's ArbCom case had been posted on his talk page 9 days prior). FuelWagon also ignore Carbonite request "I'm asking you once again to be more civil and not create or exacerbate tension between editors.".
  12. [12] FuelWagon responds with yet another hostile comment, accusing Carbonite of threatening him with an RfC.
  13. [13] FuelWagon uses Zephram Stark's ArbCom evidence page to air his grievances about Carbonite, SlimVirgin and Jayjg.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Civility
  2. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [14] Carbonite replies to FuelWagon "FuelWagon, please try to tone down the hostility of your reponses (or at least the last sentences of them."
  2. [15] Carbonite tells FuelWagon "I'm finding your behavior to be rather disruptive and running counter to the goal of creating an encyclopedia."


Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Carbonite | Talk 23:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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 (sign with ~~~~):

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.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/FuelWagon_2&oldid=25695044"