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: 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC).

• Erikupoeg (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.

User Erikupoeg deliberately tries to provide false translation of respectable sources, has also recourse to insults and personal attacks on articles related to Sofia Rotaru, their talk pages. Although not providing any source ot citation at all to support his assertions, he considers "any argument is good to exclude info" (in this case namely about revenues of Sofia Rotaru)... I have been assuming good faith for months, providing him with any possible sources and answers. But it always comes to the same end. User:Erikupoeg has tagged and deleted large portions of the article Sofia Rotaru and tagged all of the remaining article with citation requests. User:Erikupoeg speaks Russian, and may also find all the desired sources, as the info about Sofia Rotaru is not something difficult to find online...--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

First I would like to make sure some action is taken about the insults and personal attacks in my regard, second I would like his bad faith editing to stop, and generally I would like to see his constructive and not disruptive approach to editing articles related to Sofia Rotaru (ex. Figaro, Chervona Ruta...).

{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.} User Erikupoeg deletes important info, reverts his edits even when the citations and sources are provided, and then provides fake translataion of provided by me sources, with nothing to support his synthesis...

(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. regarding revenues of Sofia Rotaru, confirmation that the provided by me translation is correct and that Erikupoeg's assertions are either bad faith or lack of knowledge of Russian, bad faith (please see the talk page and the history of edits of the article to get an idea how long was it lasting), Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Russia#revevenues_of_Sofia_Rotaru--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
2. personal attacks, personal attacks, personal attacks
3. deliberate fake translation (please see the talk page and the history of edits of the article to get an idea how long was it lasting)
4. Figaro - dusruptive deliberate edits, Figaro - dusruptive deliberate edits (please see the talk page and the history of edits of the article to get an idea how long was it lasting)
5. Chervona Ruta - disruptive edits again (please see the talk page and the history of edits of the article to get an idea how long was it lasting)

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

1. Personal attacks,
2. Disruptive editing,
3. Bad faith editing.

(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. example
2. example,
3. example

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. example
2. example
3. example.

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --Rubikonchik (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

Recently I have been involved in editing the article on Sofia Rotaru and pages that link to it. When I started in April, the Rotaru article looked like a WP:FANSITE and the linking pages like WP:Coatracks. In trying to resolve this, I met the fierce resistance of User:Rubikonchik who has created these and calls every change on his pet artist a "personal attack", "bad faith" or "disruptive editing". Perhaps I have used a too heavy hand in the fight for the integrity of the pages but indeed this has been induced by the relentlessly defensive nature of Rubikonchik's editing and the fact while the 3O process has failed to achieve any results, I have been virtually the only one achieving some results on the issues.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

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 recently came across this mess, and noticed it getting out of hand. The arguments Erikupoeg and the maker of this RfC have gotten into are quite nasty and large, and both editors need to calm down. I am confused that there is such serious edit warring over such a silly topic. (Edit warring over a pop singer? Really!?). I requested protection (which was granted, for 3 months) on the page in question and have started to get involved to try and defuse the arguing. I think both editors need to remember to assume good faith and read up on Wikipedia guidelines, especially WP:NOR and WP:RS. I don't think punitive measures should be applied, I think the page protection will help both users step back and calm down.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Irbisgreif (talk) - Obviously.
2. I applied the protection, and told the users to work their stuff out. That's been my only involvement. IOW, I agree with Irbisgreif. tedder (talk) 23:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I first got involved in this conflict several months ago by responding to a third opinion. It's true that this is a fairly silly battle, but it's spilled over into several other articles, including one that eventually got deleted in an AfD for being a coatrack article. Erikupoeg's edit summaries have been rather heavy handed, but I really haven't seen anything that's bad enough to warrant blocking, and to this end, I think that Rubikonchik is being a little thin-skinned. Having said that, I believe that this little RfC is somewhat unjustified, as Rubikonchik has not be innocent. Time and again, s/he will randomly readd their edits and try to justify them by misinterpreting my views on the topic. I know two people isn't fully consensus, but Erikupoeg and I were in agreement on a number of sourcing issues and Rubikonchik would just really ignore anything we had to say. I think it's also worth pointing out that Erikupoeg is active on a lot of other pages, whereas Rubikonchik's edit focus mainly on Rotaru.

Anyway, it's unfortunate that it came to this, but I'm with Irbis in that no punitive measures should really be taken. I am unconvinced that page protection will really help anything, though; I think there's too much bad blood here for both editors to just put aside their differences and work together. But hey, we'll see. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Myself? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:00, 3 August 2009 (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.

Please comment on actions and recent edits of User:Erikupoeg--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)