Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viogfernos

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: 00:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC).

---

• Example user (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

Repeated reverts of constructive editing by other users, citing vandalism, after warnings and explanation why this is inappropriate. Uncivil and abusive on discussion pages and in edit summaries; dismissive of attempts to restore peace or discuss articles rationally and civilly.

Description

User:Viogfernos has repeatedly reverted constructive edits to articles Alex Sanders (Wiccan) and Francis Barrett, giving the reason as "rv vandalism" in the edit summary. This includes several times following my request for him not to and User:Jkelly explaining why this is problematic in WP. Dispute seems to have arisen after a {{verify}} tag was added to an article, and he has since been uncivil and abusive, and dismissive of attempts to rationally discuss article contents or otherwise restore peace. Seems to be reverting obviously reasonable edits as "vandalism" simply for the sake of personal vendetta.

More recently has vandalised Fuzzypeg's user page and reinstated the vandalism multiple times using sock-puppets in violation of WP:3RR.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. "Closure statement - To prevent more boring silly bother from ABusers"
2. [1]
3. [2]
4. "n'er do well"
5. There are some other edits to Alex Sanders (Wiccan) that User:Jkelly reverted with a cloak of invisibility — I don't know how to retrieve diffs for these.
6. Recent vandalism to my user page which I didn't even notice until now: [3]. This vandalism has been repeatedly reinstated by obvious sock puppets User:62.128.179.4 [4], User:61.254.127.92 [5] and User:PenultimateBoris [6]. User:IVIagic seems to also be a sockpuppet, judging from this edit.

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:AGF
3. WP:VAND (Viogfernos' mislabelling bona-fide edits as vandalism, also outright vandalism of another's user page)
4. WP:SOCK
5. WP:3RR

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. My (User:Fuzzypeg's) request for him to not label my edits as vandalism.
2. User:Jkelly's request to not mislabel edits as vandalism. He continued to label others' edits as vandalism and spam.
3. User:Jkelly's explanation that Viogfernos' contributions are good, that he is not under attack and should adopt a more collaborative spirit.
4. Peace attempt by Fuzzypeg, response was dismissive.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Fuzzypeg☻ 00:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Durova 15:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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.