Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Panarjedde (talk | contribs) at 18:09, 4 November 2006 (rv). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wikipedian filing request:

• Attilios (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Panarjedde (talk · contribs)

Misplaced Pages pages this pertains to:

• Rome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

• Answer:yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: user:Panarjedde, a notorius 3RR champion, is again and again reverting the use of standard (in the meaning it is used by ALL Italian communes articles in Misplaced Pages) infobox in Rome. The reason behind him is that the infobox is "UGLY".

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

• Answer: Talk page messaging.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: To make him conform to standard. If he does not like the infobox, he can change it in the devoted template.

  Note: his expectation looks quite different, in his own words: "maybe we'll be able to make him banned."--Panarjedde 12:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Summary:

I'm not the first user complaining for Panarjedde behaviour here. Please try to let him conform to common rules here. My opinion is that he gets extremily stuck with personal additions to entries, and tends to revert any attempt to improve or change them.

Discussion:

He (Panarjedde) truly is the king of reverting. I counted 13 reverts in a few hour period. My experience of his reverts are if he doesn't like an edit, then he'll revert it. Even if it has a reference. Iregardless of what 3 revert rule says, it a clear abuse of this rule. Kingjeff 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

These are the "13 reverts in a few hour period" Kingjeff is talking about (from a 3RR reporting Jeff made against me and that failed):

• 1st revert: 09:24, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
• 2nd revert: 09:26, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
• 3rd revert: 10:10, October 30, 2006 - rm unrelated template
• 4th revert: 10:11, October 30, 2006 - rv vandalism (!)
• 5th revert: 10:45, October 30, 2006
• 6th revert: 12:41, October 30, 2006 - reinserted deleted information
• 7th revert: 12:42, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
• 8th revert: 12:45, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
• 9th revert: 12:45, October 30, 2006 - reinserted deleted information
• 10th revert: 13:10, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
• 11th revert: 13:11, October 30, 2006 - reinserted deleted information (Kingjeff has been blocked for removing this content)
• 12th revert: 13:33, October 30, 2006 - rm POV pushing
• 13th revert: 13:34, October 30, 2006 - rv vandalism (!)

--Panarjedde 12:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Also refer to Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kwame Nkrumah... Addhoc 16:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The page from the previous comment shows Panarjedde is into sockpuppetry. Panarjedde may have npt technically broke the 3rr rule but it goes against the spirit of the rule.Kingjeff 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

• Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

• Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

• Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: Template:AMA case status

Advocate Status:

• Accept, Addhoc 16:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)