Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiRoo

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: 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC).

WikiRoo (talk · contribs · logs)

Statement of the dispute

Description

The user has made edits as WikiDoo, WikiRoo, and 216.154.134.91. Over the last two weeks, the user has made over 60 edits requiring reversion on the basis of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NOT, and WP:VAND. In 51 cases (and counting), the user added a single 200-to-300-word personal essay to nine different entries. The edits were reverted by at least six different editors. The user continues to make these edits and has responded with personal attacks and harassment of editors who revert his edits, and has vandalized unrelated pages to which those editors have contributed.

Evidence of disputed behavior

The list of all 51 incidents where the user added his essay to Wikipedia entries is provided at User talk:WikiRoo. These are some sample diffs:

Vandalism:

Sample personal attacks, harrassment, assuming bad faith:

Sock puppetry:

User:WikiDoo (contribs) (Talk)
User:216.154.134.91 (contribs) (Talk)

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Gary Will 15:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oz Lawyer 15:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

--Elkman - (Elkspeak) 15:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC) The edits being discussed here border on disruption, which can result in a block. I would also like to remind all involved not to break the three-revert rule.[reply]
--Ideogram 05:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Kedi the tramp (talk • contribs • count) (Respond to me on my Talk.) 19:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--JChap (Talk) 19:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC) User's only purpose at the wiki is to spread conspiracycruft about that evil facist dictatorship, the Ontario system of regional governments.[reply]
--David Mestel^(Talk) 14:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Especially per JChap2007.[reply]

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.

WikiRoo 23:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)The above was in responce to the storming gangsterlike efforts of a group working together to delete the entirety of good work without attempting to edit or discuss which was the case of the irritated response. These individuals began deleting and continued deleting over my objections. They vandalized my work and then complained (and were taken seriously) that it was me doing the vandalizing. I was merely contributing good content.

Sock puppetry: WikiRooI activated WikiRoo because I lost the password and counld not retrieve it. These slanderers and vandals can interpret things as they like. But it's not Sock Puppetry. I would like to have their IP addresses posted so I can follow up on who they are and see what personal connections they have with these issues that causes them to be so adamant to vandalize relevant work with such insistance.

{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.