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: 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC).

• Muscovite99 (talk · contribs · logs)

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

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Muscovite99 has repeatedly engaged in blatant personal attacks, and shows no sign of stopping. He has also been engaged in edit warring.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

Muscovite99 should stop engaging in disrupting editing and personal attacks. He should be blocked, if he refuses to stop.

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.}

On the talk page for the article on Vladimir Putin, Muscovite99 has repeatedly engaged in name calling and ad hominem arguments.

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.)

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=185930647

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=186180794

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin&diff=177028272&oldid=177012894

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Patriarch_Alexius_II&diff=next&oldid=186636033

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=187241003

1. He has been repeated reverting an admin who is attempting to resolve a WP:BLP dispute:

First example (not the first time): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriarch_Alexius_II&diff=prev&oldid=187241885

Second example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriarch_Alexius_II&diff=next&oldid=187274956

Third example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patriarch_Alexius_II&diff=prev&oldid=189528280

This was all after an Admin removed this comment the first time. And after extensive discussion by the same admin and another admin. This is not the only article in which he has been engaged in such behavior. He has been doing the same thing of late in the Vladimir Putin article. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:3RR

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin&diff=next&oldid=185985304 (attempt to resolve)
   • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin&diff=186181156&oldid=185994490 (evidence of failure to resolve)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Miyokan (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Cfeet77 (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

Please remember about Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers rule. This user has only ~600 edits in English WP. Did anyone of the people who filed this RfC try to discuss WP policies at this user talk page? No. No any steps to resovle this conflict (if there is any conflict) has been made in my opinion. Punishing someone for activities outside the English WP and not related to English WP (that is in Russina WP) is hardly appropriate.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Biophys (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into the issue, this appears to be only one aspect of a fairly wide-ranging content dispute that has repeatedly gotten personal (e.g., here and here). Certainly User:Muscovite99 has made some inappropriate personal statements as presented in the diffs, and these should not continue. Overall, though, his role seems more suited to a lower level of dispute resolution, such as WP:WQA.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC) rewritten 03:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to note that dispute the fact that this request for comment has been generated, and despite the fact that I have not been responding to his comments, Moscovite99 has posted at least two additional personal attacks against me. I think this justifies a strong response, because subtly is obviously not going to work. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After further personal attacks by the subject, this issue was discussed in this thread on AN/I. The result was basically no action. I think this RfC should now be considered closed. If there is further incivility from the user, his history as described in this RfC should be considered. Appropriate steps might include posting a ((uw-npa1)) or ((uw-npa2)) on his talk page, taking the issue to WP:WQA, or alerting one of the admins currently mediating the underlying content dispute. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When the AN/I was closed, the matter was referred back to this RfC, so the fact that it was closed should not settle the matter here. The subject has been laying low, but given past patterns of behavior, I am not convinced it is not just a temporary lull. Muscovite99 has not apologized, nor has he removed or modified any of his comments. If this RfC is closed, I am sure we will be creating another one before too long. Perhaps I am wrong, but in any case, I think the incident deserves at least a warning from an Admin... and thus far, we haven't had even so much as that. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user who closed the AN/I remarked that "the RfC that you have already begun should be the right step at this point to address the above concerns." I read that not as saying that further action should take place at this RfC, but that the evidence and dialogue accumulated here will be useful in any further action. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Otherwise, the RfC that you have already begun should be the right step at this point to address the above concerns" means to me that this RfC is the right place to deal with the concerns that were raised in the AN/I... since there was nothing that required immediate action, due to there being no recurring offenses... though I am still not clear how many offenses and how frequently one has to commit them to warrant more immediate action. I have certainly seen more decisive action over less. But in any case, I don't read those comments as closing the book here, and I wouldn't think that one admin could single-handedly close out something like this any way. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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:

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.

Muscovite99 has continued to engage in personal attacks, despite having been repeatedly asked to stop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=185930647

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vladimir_Putin&diff=prev&oldid=186180794

This user had a history of violating WP rules and had his account blocked several times in the Russian segment due to violations, as can be seen here: Russian talk page He also has a history of vandalism. Frjohnwhiteford (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We made a conclusion that Muscovite99 in Russian WP and in English WP is the same person based on his own words on Putin's talk page where he describes himself as an author of this article. Cfeet77 (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is confirmed that his account has been blocked at least once in Russian WP. Cfeet77 (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muscovite99 continued to engage in personal attacks after being warned to stick to the issues. Accuses several users of vandalism including an administrator [3]. User accuses others of vandalism and violating WP:NPOV when only he a persistent history of being warned for violating WP:NPOV on the said (Vladimir Putin) article [4] [5] [6] has been blocked for violating the 3RR on that article [7].--Miyokan (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biophys argues that Muscovite99 is a newcomer and hence should not be punished for this reason. He also argues that Muscovite99's wrongdoings in Russian WP are irrelevant. They are, indeed, irrelevant for the decision to be made in English WP. They nonetheless prove that Muscovite99 is not a newcomer and he or she is well aware of the effect his activities may have. He has over 5000 edits in Russian WP and numerous warnings on his talk page there. Cfeet77 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]