Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Viriditas2

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: 06:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:00, 13 April 2025 (UTC).

Viriditas (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Viriditas has taken it upon himself to repeatedly move my posts on another user's talkpage. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

He will not stop, even after asked repeatedly. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desired outcome

Viritidas admonished to be less demeaning to new editors and respect their right to edit. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) -->[reply]

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.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(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.)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

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

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

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.

Outside view by

{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 by

{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:

Reminder to use the talk page for 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.

Viriditas has taken it upon himself to repeatedly move my posts on another user's talkpage. [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

He will not stop, even after asked repeatedly. Drolz ⁰⁹ 06:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also in favor of such an RfC. I've seen Viriditas really go after Drolz about a lot of things unfairly. Macai (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]