| Revision as of 00:27, 16 July 2009 editNoloop (talk | contribs)2,974 edits →Evidence of disputed behavior← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:22, 16 July 2009 edit undoWritegeist (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,187 edits →Outside view by: injured pride as grounds for an RfC/U?Next edit → | ||
| Line 67: | Line 67: | ||
| {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.} | {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=== | ===Outside view by Writegeist=== | ||
| Oh grow up. You hang out at the zoo. You keep poking the tiger. The tiger snarls. You keep poking. The tiger bites you. Duh. (And being an unusually considerate tiger it gives you the benefit of an explanation.) | |||
| Now you complain the tiger bites? | |||
| It wasn't even a satisfying Manticore-style slash at the throat. Just a nip. How so? WH appears to be British. In Britspeak "fuck off" and "go fuck yourself" = "Go away, there's a good chap/chapess." ] (]) 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Users who endorse this summary: | Users who endorse this summary: | ||
Revision as of 01:22, 16 July 2009
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
WebHamster routinely tells other editors to "fuck off" or "go fuck yourself" and generally makes a lot of personal attacks. He reverts edits and then "explains" his position with personal attacks. This forces any editor seeking consensus to put up with personal abuse, which is not something any editor deserves. Noloop (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Desired outcome
Nobody should have to put up with personal abuse. He needs to stop it, and start following the policy regarding civility.
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
(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.)
There is more of this on his Talk page.
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
- Civility
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.)
- See his Talk page.
- Aslo, the discussion where my own conflict began, and references to " stupid comments" etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Anti-Americanism#Middle_East
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
- See his Talk page.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
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.
{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:
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 Writegeist
Oh grow up. You hang out at the zoo. You keep poking the tiger. The tiger snarls. You keep poking. The tiger bites you. Duh. (And being an unusually considerate tiger it gives you the benefit of an explanation.)
Now you complain the tiger bites?
It wasn't even a satisfying Manticore-style slash at the throat. Just a nip. How so? WH appears to be British. In Britspeak "fuck off" and "go fuck yourself" = "Go away, there's a good chap/chapess." Writegeist (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
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.