Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/MARMOT

< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Project2501a (talk | contribs) at 23:23, 19 June 2005 (→Other users who endorse this summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:23, 19 June 2005 by Project2501a (talk | contribs) (→Other users who endorse this summary)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 00:53, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:02, 29 December 2024 (UTC).

(MARMOT | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

MARMOT is accused of trollish behavior with Misplaced Pages; the specific charges include assuming bad faith, disregard for Misplaced Pages guidelines, userbaiting, manipulation of material, and disruption. There is also substantial evidence that this user is either a sockpuppet or a previous/current editor with an axe to grind.

Description

MARMOT joined Misplaced Pages on June 13. 2005, 11:15 UTC. His third edit, which happened at 16:57 UTC, was the creation of a user page at an IP address that has had a history of disruptive behavior. Nine minutes later, this user made an outside view at an old RFC. In the process of doing so, MARMOT placed his edit so that it appeared that User:Tony Sidaway had endorsed his (MARMOT's) outside view. Thus, a revert war between MARMOT and User:Weyes began, and it wasn't until Tony himself stepped in that the issue was resolved. MARMOT, in the following days, has actively participated against Weyes, including referring him to the Admin noticeboard as well as, for some unknown reason, alerting User:Paceyourself of Weyes's RFA (which MARMOT opposed, incidentally). After this issue, MARMOT created an RFC against User:Raul654, which was shot down in a short period of time. Shortly thereafter, MARMOT created Misplaced Pages:Administrators cannot vote. After a rather foolish and childish flame war, the proposed policy was listed for VFD. MARMOT, for the sole sake of continuation of the flame war, uploaded a picture from Animal Farm and placed it on the page.

From MARMOT's actions, it is reasonable to conclude that MARMOT did one of two things: he either a.) has discovered, studied, and identified how the inner workings of Misplaced Pages run, including Misplaced Pages:Request for comment, Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship, and most notably, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, or b.) is a previous/current editor with an agenda.

Several attempts at communication with MARMOT have ended in total disregard and disrespect, chiefly from MARMOT erasing the comments placed on his talk page with the edit summary of "vandalism" or "failure to reply - deleted". It was this second attempt at communication that has sparked the need for this RFC. As an editor, MARMOT is of course welcome to make edits to Misplaced Pages, but if he is here for the sole purpose of disruption, then those certifying the basis for this dispute would like it to be known that we are frankly weary of the trollish activity that MARMOT has taken part in. May it also be known that, in the event that this RFC fails to yield acceptable results, those certifying the basis for this RFC are completely willing and ready, and able to take this case to the Arbitration Committee, for we will not continue to put up with the behavior of this user.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Applicable policies

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 00:46, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
Taxman 06:52, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC). Within 2 hours of noticing this , MARMOT deleted it with this edit .
Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Bishonen | talk 09:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Project2501a 23:23, 19 Jun 2005 (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.

"I can't condone paedophilia." Unsigned by User:MARMOT 09:41 Jun 19, 2005

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

Don't feed the trolls.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
sɪzlæk 08:18, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) Yeah, in general I think Misplaced Pages would be a better place if we stopped feeding the trolls.
R adiant _>|< 09:03, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) Take this to RFAr if you must, RFC on him is pointless.

Discussion

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

Outside view would be great if true trolls could be simply pointed out and banned. The reality of the Wiki is not so simple. Luckily if the dispute resolution process is properly followed, this one should be relatively simple. - Taxman 08:37, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
"Don't feed the trolls" is a great slogan for Usenet; it doesn't make so much sense here. That's partly because Misplaced Pages trolls seem to be autophagous (actually, so do most Usenet trolls), but partly because we're not just engaged in conversation, but in doing something — creating an encyclopædia. Trolls can't just be ignored when they get very disruptive, and MARMOT is well on the way to becoming that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)