Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:40, 13 December 2005

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: 14:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC).

• (KDRGibby | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

This user continually wants to add his or her own interpretations to articles, such as liberalism and communism. When other editors removed these sections for reasons such as original research, neutral point of view, and Misplaced Pages:Manual of style, as well as basic redundancy covered by other articles, and the arrangement of content from most general to most specific. I would have made this solely an RFC on communism, until I discovered his past behaviour and decided to file a conduct RFC. When editors removed these sections, he then proceeded to remove a variety of other sections in order to prove a point, despite it being against policy. He then proceeds to put warning templates on the aforementioned articles, although there was no real dispute before adding in the content, despite pleas from other editors not to do so. During the process he has attacked other users, implying they are ignorant, or they removed these sections out of censorship, vested and entrenched interests, which is absolutely not assuming good faith. Attempts to reason with him has failed. When he was blocked for WP:3RR violations, he asserts that he never violated the revert rule because he used copy and paste, as opposed to actual reverting, and then accuses the administrators are a cabal. He then tried to copy the entire Communism article to his talk page, deleted other comments on the talk page, and made it difficult for other users to communicate with him, which is abusing the privelege of being able to voice dissent against their block.

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.)

Making incivil or personal attacks

Attacks in edit summaries
This user continues to abuse the edit summary to make personal attacks in edits on user talk pages and articles. There were so many such attacks that I wasn't aware of at the time and others will have to cite here.

Communism

Talk:Communism

Talk:FairTax

Marketization

User talk:KDRGibby

Personal attacks and incivility on talk pages
Continues to make personal attacks when others try to explain to him why they disagreed with his edits.

Talk:Communism

User talk:KDRGibby

Talk:Liberalism

User talk:Electionworld

Edit warring

User continues to intentionally edit war on several articles against consensus.

Communism

Evidence that addition was against consensus

Abusing boilerplate templates

The user continues to abuse the boilerplate dispute templates despite pleas by other editors not do so, especially by other editors who argue there was no dispute beforehand.

Communism

Statements by other editors adding boilerplates not justified

Assuming bad faith about editors

When editors cite policy to him or goes to lengthy measures to try to reason with him, he immediately misunderstands guidelines and policy and assumes bad faith about the purpose of these processes and measures, despite other editors reasoning with him that this wasn't so. Also continues to argue there is a cabal.

No intention to help the project

The user states he has no intention to help the project, and threatened to edit war, and showed no interest of contributing constructively to Misplaced Pages. The user also tries to exploit supposed loopholes in official policy, showing his true attitude towards the project, even when other editors inform him otherwise.

Lack of Wikiquette

The user has deleted comments from his talk page when he deems then unfavourable, replacing them with his desired version of the communism article, along with the misleading boilerplates that force cats despite suggestions and efforts from editors not do so. This disrupts the ability of other users to communicate not only with him, but with other users concerning himself. The user is also extremely assertive and arrogant , and also in addition types occasionally in ALLCAPS, uses smileys in inappropriate situations, and uses multiple exclamation marks, etc. which make for impolite comments.

WP:POINT violations

The user disrupted several articles in order to prove a point.

Communism

Has no understanding of consensus

The user continues to accuse that his edits are being removed without consensus, despite evidence to the contrary.

Applicable policies

Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not

Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks

Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule (jossifresco has blocked KDRGibby for 3RR violation. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Misplaced Pages:Civility

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

I only became aware of the situation after being involved with this user. However, I discovered that others had problems with him as well before. Such attempts as theirs, mine, and later User:NSLE when we tried to reason with him has failed to resolve the dispute.

• Electionworld attempts to reason with him , but Gibby doesn't seem to want to find a solution . An anonymous editor even has had a problem with him . Gibby even goes so far as to remove opposing comments from his talk page. . Electionworld tries to reason with him again regarding his insults and behaviour, but to no avail. Gibby instead accuses him of vested interests . Electionworld finally gives up.
• User:Mattley and User:NSLE then tries to reason with him concerning the Communism article, the reverts and copying it over to his talk page. but these reasonings are rejected .
• I, myself have tried reasoning with KDRGibby but got a personal attack instead.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Natalinasmpf 05:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
2. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 05:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Mattley 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (partial endorse: I haven't looked into all of this, but it is congruent with what I have seen on Liberalism.)
2. Electionworld 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC). As Jmabel I haven't looked into all of this (I didn't look after the communism page), but Gibby kept on insulting me. The problem is that he cannot accept that others have other interpretations of liberalism.
3. Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) I have seen his edits to communism and all I can say is that this is a blatant violation of WP:POINT and WP:3RR. KDRGibby smartly jumped through loopholes in policy by not making full reverts and just readding the same content with slight alterations. Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
4. Robert McClenon 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
5. Rick Norwood 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) In the discussion page of the Liberalism article, I tried to point out to Gibby that he should avoid calling people names, avoid posting at the top of the discussion page, and that he should attempt to discuss and compromise. He has shown no inclination to listen, but rather asserts, repeatedly, that his point of view is the only correct point of view.
6. This user has a fundamental inability to understand Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:No original research. My enounter with him involves his attempt to insert a personal essay into the communism article on Chinese market reforms. 172 16:41, 12 December 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.

I have copied the original complaint, and wish to respond to it inline item by item. I am not the "defendent" in this RFC. However, it appears that a group of editors exists in the Communism article who act in concert, and who make it virtually impossible for "outsiders" to make any edits.

This user continually wants to add his or her own interpretations to articles, such as liberalism and communism.

Yes, the use does want to add his or her own interpretations. There is nothing wrong with attempting to have minority points of view expressed in wikipedia articles. According to NPOV

"Misplaced Pages policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" "

When other editors removed these sections for reasons such as original research, neutral point of view, and Misplaced Pages:Manual of style, as well as basic redundancy covered by other articles, and the arrangement of content from most general to most specific. I would have made this solely an RFC on communism, until I discovered his past behaviour and decided to file a conduct RFC. When editors removed these sections, he then proceeded to remove a variety of other sections in order to prove a point, despite it being against policy.

The Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes page is official policy of wikipedia. The very first paragraph on disupte resolution reads in part:

The "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

The "other editors" reverted the edits of the user within a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds. The justification offered is that the user's edits had various faults. I agree that the user's edits contain some original research, and have other weaknesses as well. However, these weaknesses are found in the Communism article generally, and are not specific to the user's edits.

The "other editors" have shown amazing energy in attempting to prevent edits from being made to the Communism article by individuals outside their group. However, when blatant instances of "original research" have been pointed out to them, when requests have been made for verifiable sources for dubious statements, when bias has been shown in the application of their adherence to Misplaced Pages guidelines, they seem to have no energy for correcting such things. In fact, they block the correction of instances of "original research" and remove edits which provide verifiable sources. The appearance is that the "other editors" are conducting a POV crusade against "outside" POVs.

With regard to the specific charge that the user removed other sections "to prove a point", the fact is that the "other editors" do not in fact apply wikipedia guidelines regarding NPOV, original research, and verifiable sources uniformly, but apply them only to "outside" edits.

For example, consider the phrase "Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale". The subject of the phrase is "the modern world". It appears to me very doubtful that statements of this sort would appear in scholarly work. Even if they do appear in scholarly work, I would hope that such words would be represented not as fact, but as the opinion of some scholars, else a question of NPOV arises.

The "other editors" claimed to be against "original research", and it was therefore reasonable the the user in qustion attempt to remove text which suffered from that defect.

He then proceeds to put warning templates on the aforementioned articles, although there was no real dispute before adding in the content, despite pleas from other editors not to do so.

There is quite clearly factual and NPOV disputes involved with the Communism article. I put up "disputed" and "NPOV" templates myself. There is a section in the discussion devoted to NPOV, and other sections raise the issues of factual disputes. Although the other editors don't want warning templates on the website, they have not presented serious arguments that such disputes do not exists. Adding warning templates is a reasonable and legitimage activity.

During the process he has attacked other users, implying they are ignorant, or they removed these sections out of censorship, vested and entrenched interests, which is absolutely not assuming good faith.

The "other editors" have not acted in good faith, by removing edits within minutes of their first appearance. Nor have they acted in good faith in the consistent application of their alleged policies. When requested to abide by the guideline of improving edits rather than reverting them, as per Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes

"Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."

none of them has expressed a willingness to abide by such a policy.

Attempts to reason with him has failed. When he was blocked for WP:3RR violations, he asserts that he never violated the revert rule because he used copy and paste, as opposed to actual reverting, and then accuses the administrators are a cabal.

My understanding is that he did not violate the WP:3RR rule because he had not reverted the public page. (By the way, the "other editors" have clearly violated the WP:3RR rule, and did so in a flaunting manner, after they had been warned by Misplaced Pages administrators.

He then tried to copy the entire Communism article to his talk page,

I don't see what is wrong with copying something to one's personal talk page.

deleted other comments on the talk page, and made it difficult for other users to communicate with him, which is abusing the privelege of being able to voice dissent against their block.

I fail to see an abuse of privilege in editing one's own talk page.

In summary, I think this RFC is a continuation of a POV crusade conducted by a group of editors of Communism.

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

1. (BostonMA 17:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

   I'd like to request a checkuser on KDRGibby/BostonMA. NSLE _(T+C+CVU) 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what is involved in a checkuser, but I assure you I am not KDRGibby.

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.