Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fingers-of-Pyrex

WP:RFC/FOP

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: 21:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC).

Fingers-of-Pyrex (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Fingers-of-Pyrex has continually changed various Tennessee State Route articles' leads from the accepted "State Route x" to "Tennessee State Route x", contrary to the first guideline below.

Desired outcome

This user should learn to get along with the community, such as disagreeing and going along with consensus. At first, he tried to work something out at WT:USSH, however it was turned down by consensus. Following that, he is recklessly editing articles without any discussion and that do not comply with consensus.

Description

Fingers-of-Pyrex is a good contributor to roads in Tennessee, providing citations to the State Highway and Interstate list (Tennessee's route log), something that most people would not have access to. However, his behaviour and failure to work with the community is a big concern that needs to be addressed.

One of the concerns that need to be addressed is that he uses "Tennessee State Route x" instead of the accepted [by consensus] "State Route x" wording in the lead. At first, he was kind enough to post on WT:USSH (archived here) to get some input, but when he saw that there was disagreement, he just replied with a "no comprendo" [in the edit summary] and kept making the change to the wording that wasn't accepted.

Another problem that needs to be addressed is smaller than the above, however encompasses it. There was a dispute whether State Route 383 should've been merged to the Tennessee section of U.S. Route 58. A thread (see below) was started on WT:USRD to see if the state route article should be merged to the US 58 article. A consensus was quickly reached that it be redirected, however Fingers-of-Pyrex reverted it twice, with a reason no other than "needs to be separate". With that revert came the unwanted wording of "Tennessee State Route 383".

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] - episode at State Route 9
[2] - episode at State Route 383

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute; please sign with four tildes}

(→vish win60 - review) 22:29, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--NE2 21:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 03:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
JA10 Talk • Contribs 18:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

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:

Discussion

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.