Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Tezza1

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: 01:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC).

Tezza1 (talk · contribs · logs)

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.

The user has engaged in disruptive editing of Railpage Australia, POV pushing, reverting edits that remove non-notable people and links to unencycopedia sources.
Unilateral reverts to a non-consensus version.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

The user should cease or be forced to cease editing Railpage Australia.

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.}

The user has engaged in disruptive editing of Railpage Australia, POV pushing, reverting edits that remove non-notable people and links to unencycopedia sources.
Unilateral reverts to a non-consensus version.

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.)

Repeated reverts of edits removing non-notable people and unencyclopedia sources.

The user has openly stated he does not believe the article should exist and campaigned for its deletion in a recent AfD. The AfD decision having been keep the user has engaged in disruptive editing to devalue the content by adding unencyclopedia content, and "warning" that the article could be nominated for deletion again for containing unencyclopedia content.

Adding unencyclopedia content and sources and restoring edits of unencyclopedic content or unrelated links. [1]

[2] [3]

Threats to invoke WP:3RR for users removing unencyclopedic content he has added. [4]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

WP:DE, WP:TE, WP:N, WP:POINT, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPOV

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Demands not to remove unencyclopedic content. [5]

General lack of civility on Talk:Railpage_Australia.

Removing unfavorable comments from his talk page. [6] [7] [8]

[9]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Endorse. Blatant POV pushing and disruptive editing to devalue the article content, having failed to get it deleted. The Null Device 01:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[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.

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

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.