In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
- 89.242.164.114 ( talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This editor has made a number of unproblematic edits, each of which includes extremely inflammatory language in histories. Two editors have requested the inflammatory language cease, but further edits have been made since and the editor has not responded to any queries.
Desired outcome
Editor should be instructed not to use inflammatory language in edit summaries; inflammatory language already present should be changed by admins; and the editor should be blocked if the abuse continues.
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.)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.242.164.114
- See all the edits on March 26.
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
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:
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.}
I appreciate this editor's adherence to the Manuel of Style. But in his edit summaries, he tends to use words to mock those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God. He refers to Him as a "sky-fairy," and uses statements such as "Removed POV capilatisation. You sky fairy is no more important than any other." Most of these capitalizations of pronouns were probably made by people who were unaware of the MoS's statement on the issue (as I was until today).
Users who endorse this summary:
- JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
User has made a number of edits, which are not themselves problematic, but all except the first couple are associated with inflammatory and un civil language. Two editors have asked the user in question to please stop the language, but the abuse has continued. 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC).
- 89.242.164.114 ( talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This editor has made a number of unproblematic edits, each of which includes extremely inflammatory language in histories. Two editors have requested the inflammatory language cease, but further edits have been made since and the editor has not responded to any queries.
Desired outcome
Editor should be instructed not to use inflammatory language in edit summaries; inflammatory language already present should be changed by admins; and the editor should be blocked if the abuse continues.
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.)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.242.164.114
- See all the edits on March 26.
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
Other users who endorse this summary
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:
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.}
I appreciate this editor's adherence to the Manuel of Style. But in his edit summaries, he tends to use words to mock those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God. He refers to Him as a "sky-fairy," and uses statements such as "Removed POV capilatisation. You sky fairy is no more important than any other." Most of these capitalizations of pronouns were probably made by people who were unaware of the MoS's statement on the issue (as I was until today).
Users who endorse this summary:
- JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
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.
User has made a number of edits, which are not themselves problematic, but all except the first couple are associated with inflammatory and un civil language. Two editors have asked the user in question to please stop the language, but the abuse has continued. 18:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)