Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:16, 18 August 2005

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC).

(Example user | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a statement about Agiantman. The user in question is pushing a point of view, but no more than others on the pages in question. That in itself is permitted, provided that consensus is allowed to prevail. Quick polls have been taken and the consensus has been with Agiantman. Others refuse to abide by the results. However, the user in question is also accused of engaging in personal attacks and incivility in edit summaries, and is accusing other editors of vandalism for removing questioned material.

Description

Edit wars are in progress over the Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy articles. A group of editors with a pro Kennedy bias refuse to negocicate content and instead are attacking Agiantman in concert. THese editors suggest that Agiantman wishes to insert negative material that many Wikipedians consider to be non-encyclopedic, they make this claim with no justification or research. This same group of editors feel that they can claim this material is negative and change history, or at least ignore it. When his insertions are removed, he re-inserts them with comments in his edit summaries that he is reverting vandalism, or otherwise referring to his opponents as vandals. The "ediors" do the same. He accused one of those two Wikipedians of being on the Kennedy payroll.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Insulting edit summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rosemary_Kennedy&action=history

Accusing two editors of being sock-puppets

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATed_Kennedy&diff=21083576&oldid=21083214

Accusing an editor of being on the Kennedy payroll

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Though "the editors" have taken quick polls in the past, the refuse to stand by the results. Instead they ignone concensus againt them and run new polls.

Other who think this summary is designed to alienate and intimidate

What disturbed person thought up this lynching? 24.147.97.230 22:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

kizzle 20:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Voice of All(MTG) 21:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

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 (sign with ~~~~):

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 67.18.109.218

Gamaliel always trys to force its POV on other parties, then accuses other parties of violating Wikipedia Policies. Just look at its talk page! It constantly reverts its talk page in order to squash good points made at its motives. You need to consider this when judging the merits of any action brought by Gamaliel. Its even violated the same rules that its accusing this user of!

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

67.18.109.218 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC) - Never forget.[reply]
This user is a vandal. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This IP address has been blocked three times for vandalism and personal attacks. Gamaliel 21:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by kizzle

User:Agiantman IMHO is a particularly troublesome user through his inability to restrain himself from making personal attacks. The first post I ever made to Agiantman on the Kathleen_Willey article simply asked for him to specify what his problem was with the veracity of the article. In return (keeping in mind that we had never dialogued with each other before), he mocked my viewpoint by stating:

P.S. Kizzle, I just read your contributions and discussions in other areas. LOL! Based on your very political comments elsewhere in wikipedia, it should be clear to all why you don't see the POV problem with this article.

This type of behavior has further exemplified itself in the Kennedy pages, and one look to User:Agiantman's talk page shows a variety of warnings for 3RR, users pleading with him to relent in his personal attacks, frivilous charges of vandalism, etc. It is my opinion that this user has been warned more than his fair share by a multitude of editors, and that appropriate action should be taken.--kizzle 21:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by Ernestocgonzalez

I am 100% in support of agiantman. I joined Wikipedia when I read the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page. I admire agiantman because he sticks to his guns. The pro Kennedy editors who are making allegations on this page are guilty of much worse. They are thugs who try to intimidate and harrass anyone who doesn't share their biased pro-Ted Kennedy point of view. When I voted in recent poll, they made a disparaging remark about me. Agiantman has fought to keep important things in the kennedy article, like ted kennedy's role in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. The "bullies" don't want anything negative about kennedy in the article. I support agiantman and those charging him should instead be charged with abusing the process.--Ernestocgonzalez 21:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Note: This is the user's fourth edit. Gamaliel 21:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm glad he or she has come forward. Am I supposed to think less of he or she due to the time spent at wiki? Perhaps you should be a bit more open to others. 24.147.97.230 22:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Ernestocgonzalez's edit history. --kizzle 23:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Outside view by 24.147.97.230

The biased "editors" who endorsements are above refuse to negociate for content. It's their way or no way. The acts of removal of entire paragraphs of work by them is vandalism. We are not looking at content that is fictional, but important parts of Ted Kennedy's life and career. The work on Rosemary Kennedy is the same. If they want to contribute, fine. Stop the removal of other's work and do some of your own. Just because you love the Kennedys does not wash the past clean. It happened as reported, get used to it.24.147.97.230 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's 24's edit history. --kizzle 23:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

...and the point is???? I suggest you guys think about writing your own contributions instead of attacking others.24.147.97.230 00:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise known as "the fatboy anon". What a surprise. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is my very first time editing on wikipedia so please forgive me if I make a mistake. i know agiantman from work and he sent me the link to this page. I told him that I would give him my objective advice. My first observation is that i cannot understand what the fuss is about. i can see there are 3 charges. First charge: "Insulting edit summaries." I clicked on the link and I could not find anything remotely insulting. maybe the guy making the charges made a mistake with the link. Second charge: "Accusing two editors of being sock-puppets." That sounds pretty funny. I have never heard that one before. It certainly isn't offensive and only a real baby would complain about it. the last charge: "Accusing an editor of being on the Kennedy payroll." Are you guys kidding? That's clearly a joke. Again only a big baby would complain. And that's all 3 charges. My conclusion? The people charging agiantman are just BIG BABIES! WAAAAAAA! WAAAAAA! P.S. I guess I will now be brought up on charges for calling you big babies. And I assume Mr. Gamaliel will follow my comment by mentioning that this is my only edit.--66.176.137.204 23:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.

Failure to negociate

The biased "editors" who endorsements are above refuse to negociate for content. It's their way or no way. The acts of removal of entire paragraphs of work by them is vandalism. We are not looking at content that is fictional, but important parts of Ted Kennedy's life and career. The work on Rosemary Kennedy is the same. If they want to contribute, fine. Stop the removal of other's work and do some of your own. Just because you love the Kennedys does not wash the past clean. It happened as reported, get used to it.24.147.97.230 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 ==Statement of the dispute==
-This is a statement about [[User:Agiantman|Agiantman]].  The user in question is pushing a point of view.  That in itself is permitted, provided that consensus is allowed to prevail.  However, the user in question is also engaging in personal attacks and incivility in edit summaries, and is accusing other editors of vandalism for removing questioned material.
+This is a statement about [[User:Agiantman|Agiantman]].  The user in question is pushing a point of view, but no more than others on the pages in question.  That in itself is permitted, provided that consensus is allowed to prevail.  Quick polls have been taken and the consensus has been with [[User:Agiantman|Agiantman]].  Others refuse to abide by the results.  However, the user in question is also accused of engaging in personal attacks and incivility in edit summaries, and is accusing other editors of vandalism for removing questioned material.
 === Description ===