Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irate

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Issues about the user in question were escalated to Arbitration, and the arbitration case has been closed.

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, not different disputes. 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: 22:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Makes abusive and unnecessary personal attacks, in direct violation to and having disregard for Wikipedia policy.

Description[edit]

Irate has been making vicious and highly insulting personal attacks, quite unnecessarily. He has made these against numerous other users, some for no less reason than their asking him (politely) not to make personal attacks. For instance, he labelled both Smoddy and Matt Crypto as having "Shit for brains." The user refuses to respond to requests not to continue making these personal attacks, and solely makes more in return. I will say, though, that, barring his personal attacks, Irate does not appear an inherently bad user.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

  1. [1] Irate's talk page history, with multiple personal attacks (e.g. "parternalistic morons" (sic) and "So far up your own arse you can't see the real world"
  2. [2] Matt Crypto's talk page, personal attack
  3. [3] Smoddy's talk page, personal attack
  4. [4] making a personal attack on User:Juppiter then, when Juppiter removes it, [5] reinserting it, calling Juppiter a vandal.
  5. [6] To a proposal by Juppiter that he disagreed with, which, while perhaps not itself a personal attack, sets the scene for the remainder.
  6. This revision of Template talk:In the news shows the discussions between violet/riga and User:Irate including personal attacks ("Vile Riga") after the edit war at template:in the news including a blanking of that main page article.
  7. This revision of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (section: "3RR at the troubled Clitoris article") shows further conflict with violet/riga and personal insults.
  8. Calls User:198 a "pompous oaf" [7] and an "idiot" [8]
  9. Calls User:Jayjg "racist", "ignorant", "arrogant", [9] "snide little gob shite", "manipulative", "without any value", "spoilt brat", [10] "dishonest", [11] "dishonest and manipulative", [12] "unpleasant toerag", [13] "self-righteous prig", [14].
  10. Yet another personal attack: "cretins like you" [15]
  11. Personal attacks in a dispute with a user making edits in good faith considered to be "vandalism" by Irate, no attempt to engage in dialogue. [16], [17].
  12. Personal attacks on users who ask Irate to engage in dialogue, stay calm and not attack users [18], [19], [20].

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers (to a certain extent, referring to Juppiter)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [21] & [22] by Smoddy
  2. [23], [24] , [25] & [26] by Matt Crypto

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Smoddy (tgeck) 22:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. — Matt Crypto 22:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. violet/riga (t) 23:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  4. ugen64 06:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Jeff Q 00:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. —Korath (Talk) 02:14, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Curps 04:20, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Vile Trigger was quite funny. Most of the above insults seem to come from one heated exchange, which suggests that user is prone to isolated bouts of red mist. Actually, he seems to be a constant pest, especially given his recent spate of silly RfCs. Judging by edit history, seems to be from Liverpool; I'm just sayin'.-Ashley Pomeroy 12:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 01:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. I think "Irate" is a good editor who gets too carried away with personal attacks at times. Samboy 08:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. The username gives fair warning at least. Rad Racer 22:56, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. This user seem to have (at least on occasion) no self-control, self-awareness, or self-respect (much less respect for others). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  10. no vestiges of self-control, it seems dab (ᛏ) 15:15, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  11. True to her username, indeed. jni 15:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  12. — Dan | Talk 17:04, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  13. Joe D (t) 20:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  14. Jeremiah Cook 23:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Seems like a total troublemaker. Does the same stuff on IRC, I have no sympathy for him/her whatsoever.
  15. Edit histories of Irate/Jirate's user page, correspondents' user pages, and some RfC and RfAr pages indicate that his or her temper overrides respect for WP policies and sensible collaboration. I'm not sure every bit of Snowspinner's acts in edit/revert wars (for example, removing all of my comments in the RfC originally titled "Snowspinner2005" now "Snowspinner 2", comments which got caught up in the revert war between these users) has been quite up to spec, but clearly many (most?) of Irate's edits and userpage messages have been hostile and distribute vandalism accusations. Barno 23:21, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  16. I've reverted some bad-faith/vandalism edits (including unilaterally revoking ArbCom's injunction on himself), for which I've been attacked as a "vandal", threatened with an RfC, AND listed for deletion Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Calton. This user seems, at present, to lack even the minimal level of self-control necessary to contribute to Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 04:54, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC).

Response[edit]

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view[edit]

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

I stumbled into this when following up on some Crypto research. Ending up on Matt Crypto's User then talk page. I see comments that he's a good editor, but that doesn't IMO justify allowing of personal attacks. My logic for this is that, if he/she is doing as much or more vandalism, then what good is proper edits, when it's not forward progress. Edit: Doh, wrong section and w/o a sig --ORBIT 23:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Arbitration[edit]

This has been escalated to WP:RFAr after further problems with this user. violet/riga (t) 14:59, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Irate&oldid=1112714359"