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: 20:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC).

• Cenwin88lee ( talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

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:Cenwin88lee has been involved in a dispute with various users at Singapore-related articles. Despite repeated requests, pleas and warnings, he continues to attack and insult other users:

• [1] (he calls User:Jpatokal a troll and says he should ask questions before "opening that gap of yours")
• Talk:Singapore_English "you are showing your ignorance once again", "unlike some wannabes on wiki"
• Talk:Singapore "you seem to struggle with understanding very simple concepts." "Even an idiot can tell you that", "Not everyone has the time to hold your hand and correct every appalling mistakes you write. You are becoming a nuisance with all these shoddy writings rather than contributing to Wikipedia. People have to take time to correct all the misinformation you spread.", "it has not escaped my notice that you have been blatantly lying about things for quite a while now", etc.

In addition, he continues to remove sourced information, despite repeated warnings and requests not to, on the basis that it does not fit his perception of reality:

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]

He also often removes entire threads from discussion pages for no apparent reason:

• [7]
• [8]

He has also called several well-established users vandals and trolls for no apparent reason.

• [9]
• [10]
• [11]
• [12]
• [13]

Most troubling to me, however, is his latest tactic of reverting my and User:Jpatokal's recent contributions to entirely unrelated articles:

• [14] - an article about Colombia
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]
• [21]
• [22]

It is my hope that Cenwin88lee will refrain from personal attacks and stick to discussing articles and topics. I also hope that he will stop deleting well-sourced information. Most of all, I hope he will stop reverting, with no edit summary, random articles from my and Jpatokal's recent contribs. -- ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ ( talk) 21:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Cenwin88lee has continued to remove well-sourced information from articles, engage in personal attacks against other editors and delete discussions on talkpages without explanation, all in spite of numerous warnings and pleas for him to stop doing so. Most recently, he has reverted the most recent edits of User:Node ue and User:Jpatokal to any articles, including ones that appear to be outside his usual area of interest (for example, Finnish cuisine and Arizona City, Arizona).

(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.)

(see above)

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:POINT
3. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]
6. [28]
7. [29]

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

(see above)

1. ಠ_ಠ node.ue ಠ_ಠ ( talk) 21:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC) reply
2. Jpatokal ( talk) 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

1. Alarics ( talk) 06:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC) reply

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:

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:

{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.