Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BigGabriel555

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: 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC).

• BigGabriel555 (talk · contribs · logs)

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

User has a recent pattern of tendentious editing that is now bordering on disruptive regarding articles related to the Dominican Republic. User has ignored requests both in edit summaries and on his user talkpage to work towards consensus.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

Would like BigGabriel555 to be more responsive to consensus and more willing to engage in dialogue with his fellow editors regarding improvements to articles.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description

User has a habit of making large batches of edits marked "minor," often severely rewording or removing paragraphs. I have requested that he stop abusing the "minor edit" tag [1] but this has apparently been ignored. When questioned about his reasoning on some of his changes, or informed that some things he has altered were supported by consensus, Gabriel555 has either ignored these requests or stated the same reason over and over without elaborating on his reasons or engaging other users on the talkpages involved. It has been very frustrating to try to discuss the matter with this user, and it is becoming difficult to assume good faith when the user will not expend effort from the opposite direction.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even we are trying to get a consesus regarding the area of the Dominican Republic, BigGabriel555 has tried to impose, without any discussion, a value of its own. But not only that, he tried to change the value in

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10]
10. [11]
11. [12]
12. [13]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing
2. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
3. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
4. WP:OWN

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [14]
2. [15]
3. [16]
4. [17]
5. [18]
6. [19]
7. [20]
8. [21]
9. [22]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. --
   talk) 22:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. -- SamEV (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

this is BigGabriel555 the user who's conduct is disputed we all already solved the problem we all are getting along so theres no more problem BigGabriel555 (talk) 20:56, 28 January 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.}

Outside view by Caribbean H.Q.

My only involvement in this case per se has been leaving a message on the article's talk asking the user to give discussion a try as well as noting that he had already broken the 3RR. Now I had encountered Gabriel's behavior on the Dominican Republic article before, in December when he was involved in a simmilar content dispute on several articles, only issuing a reminder at the time. I personally believe that Gabriel is actually trying to improve this article in his particular way, but a browse at his edit pattern shows a obvious problem [23] he seems to have little respect for the policies, at times deliberately pushing his POV after being warned about relevant policies, for instance he is currently engaging in a content dispute over a version that he feels is "better", thus effectively disrupting the project as a holder of the "truth". Now I know that with his past edit patterns and block log more than a few admins would simply consider a indef block directly but in my opinion a revert parole can do the trick, especially since a topic ban could end up doing more damage than good (past sockpuppetry), this is supposed to control the content disputes effectively making the talk page the most effective venue to solve his differences.

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.