Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kdbuffalo 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.} The editor has engaged in incivility and personal attacks. He has systematically went through various pages related to evolution and attempted to add quote mines pushing a creationist POV to the articles and in many cases added neutraility dispute tags before even trying to edit the articles. The editor has also been very stubborn and refused to listen to other editors explanations and in some cases repeat almost word for word his prior statements rather than respond and in general has disrupted talk pages. The editor has also repeatedly removed comments and admin warnings on his talk page and archived in a highly selective fashion.

Note that there was an earlier RfC about repeated POV pushing by this editor. That RfC can be found here.

[edit] 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.)

On evolution: [1] brings up complaint in this case attempting to argue that there is not an overwhelming majority of scientists who support evolution. Detailed response [2] [3] [4] is ignored and responds with an irrelevant creationist canard from an unreliable source [5]. Further attempts to explain [6] are also ignored and he responds to only minor points [7]. He also attempts to make POV edits to the article [8]

On Richard Dawkins: before making any edits he places a POV tag on the article: [9] [10] and attempts to argue for the inclusion of quote mines in the article [11]. Ignores attempts to explain that such sources are unreliable [12] and instead claims that his quotes are not quote mines even though they are second-hand quotes taken from apologetic webpages [13]. More requests are made for specifics about what is wrong with the article other than the lack of quote mines [14]. Ken declares that requests for more information will "not be taken seriously" [15]. More responses including attempts to explain the problems with his quotes [16] are ignored [17] and instead brings up a bizaare claim related to claims of harrasement [18] (see section below) [19]. After his quotes have been dismantled he responds by demaniding quotes showing that abiogenesis was natural[20] and attempts to explain their irrelevancy are also ignored [21] [22] [23] and then returns to push for the inclusion of one of his out of date (in this case 18 years) quotes [24] [25] and somehow mixes this issue with his demand for quotes [26]. Then dismisses another editors attempt to point him to a resource where he could learn more by saying he is "not impressed" [27]. Other editors consider his behavior to be disruptive [28](this is in relation to the claims of harrasement mentioned below) . Responds by making the same demands of that user [29] and attacking that user [30]. Starts off on a tangent indicating a general lack of knowledge about the subject [31]. Is responded to [32] [33] [34]. Ken simply responds by making claims of censorship [35] and accuses the editors in question of being "rabid Dawkins fans" (note also that this edit only responds to precisely the part that Sophia labeled as off-topic and requested that it be responded to elsewhere)

Dawkins Part 2: Drops the earlier matter and brings up an unrelated one in a separate section: [36] which indicates that he didn't read the sources. He is told as such [37] and then clearly did not read the source when it was pointed out to him since he claims it was a debate between Huxley and Dawkins (or something similar) even though Huxley had died almost a hundred years prior. [38]. This also indicates that he hasn't read even the Wikipedia article otherwise this error would be very apparent. [39]

Evidence of evolution. In this case, Ken went through each section systematically marking it with a disputed tag and then bringing up quote mines and similar issues on the talk page. First marks the fossil evidence section as disputed and brings up a quotemine on the tallk page [40] [41]. He is told that one of his quote mines is in fact to old that it is even listed as a quote by mine the TalkOrigins Archive [42]. He responds by marking yet another section as POV and bringing up yet more quote mines on the talk page [43]. When the quote is responded to [44] he responds by listing yet more quote mines for another section [45] and simply claims that the earlier quote mine was not sufficiently rebutted [46] and is again responded to [47]. Responses to his quote mine about vestigial organs are again ignored [48]. He then brings up a completely irrelevant matter and claims that it is related to the section on comparative embryology [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] (there are more difs on this page that indicate the same sort of problems but they would be redundant).

Note that the above are not the only articles where he has done this, but merely a representative sample. Others include Francis Crick and Punctuated equilibrium.


Unwillingness to discuss matters with other editors, incivility, personal attacks, and blanking: When given a 3RR warning Ken responds by accusing the editor doing the warning of harrasement] and removes everything on his talk page included prior block notices and the recent warning [54]. Refuses to acknowledge that valid warnings are anything less than harrasement and goes so far as to bring the topic up elsewhere [55] [56] [57] (see earlier note in section on Richard Dawkins). Even after being shown the standard warning messages and that there are warning templates for coming close to violating 3RR he claims that the user in question is "bluffing" [58] He has previously responded in a similar way to other editors [59]. When warned by an uninvolved admin to be WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF he blanks the comment with the edit summary "edit out poor comment" [60]. Similarly, when told that he should have some knowledge about the topics he was discussing he removed the comment witht he edit summary "deleting whining" [61]. He most recently reffered to yet another editor as a "clod"[62] . The most recent example is on the talk page of this article where rather than respond to the RfC he has simply engaged in person attacks on the main author of this RfC [63]


Note that contrib histories of 136.183.146.158 and kdbuffalo clearly show that ken is now doing a lot of editing/commenting without signing in, presumably in an attempt to not draw attention to his actions which continue to this day. Ken has almost completely stopped commenting on talk pages with his account and instead uses the anon IP to continue his diatribes on talk pages. *Spark* 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WHOIS for that IP has it as New York State University College at Buffalo. Probably just a coincidence that kdbuffalo has Buffalo in it. Wouldn't there be something against the College rules regarding such net vandalism (in the Wikipedia sense) which the College would want to help prevent as it indirectly brings the College into disrepute. Most places have net user policies with these kinds of words in it ?. Ttiotsw 05:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:NPOV,WP:RS,WP:ARCHIVE,WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA,WP:POINT

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16_Deletions_by_user_Kdbuffalo
  4. It would take way too much space to list all the people attempting to resolve disputes with him in Talk:Richard Dawkins. A search for his user name on that talk page will yield numerous examples.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. JoshuaZ 05:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Adam Cuerden talk 06:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I too attempted to deal with him - some of my edits are in the links above, so I shall not repeat them - and found him, frankly, ridiculous. Allow me to particularly point out [66], in which, he having asked for a reference, I added one (see previous edit), and then he promptly removes it all. He never actually responded to the reference I added, despite me putting it up on the talk page as well. - Frankly, I don't think he's capable of behaving in an NPOV way on the subject. He seemed to just ignore any evidence anyone else gave, indeed, anything on the pages HE gave that he didn't like, and any attempt to point this out to him was met with him... well... I'll leave you to decide on what you think of him. Adam Cuerden talk 06:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
He does it again, deleting a referenced section claiming it unreferenced here. Adam Cuerden talk 05:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. I, too, have had a pretty bad experience in dealing with this user. I replied to a complaint from User:Davril2020 link, and upon investigating further, discovered a number of unsettling instances. The "archive" of the talk page is not an "archive" per se, but rather, a selectively edited which leaves out messages from other editors trying to exhort Kdbuffalo to improve. He removed a polite message from JoshuaZ link with the edit summary saying deleting whining. A polite reminder from SlimVirgin link] was promptly removed and ignored as well. Another message was removed, with the link edit summary stating deleted harrassing mail from aggressive clod. Kdbuffalo has demonstrated blatant flaunting of WP:CIVIL many, many times. This is all despite my exhortation to ask him to stop. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 07:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. -- Roland Deschain 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC) I have had very unpleasant experiences with this user. These examples have already been discussed in detail above (Evolution and Evidence for Evolution). I agree with the summary, most notably that the user simply changes many articles drastically (most with long standing consensus versions) and will only enter the talk page upon repeated reversions. His disruptive editing techniques are summarized here. Another disconcerting fact is that he religiously deletes any and all messages on his talk page which would otherwise show the large amount of edit warring he has participated in.--Roland Deschain 00:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. --ReasonIsBest 06:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I notice that if you look back in his talk page history files, he has been irritating other editors in a similar fashion for well over a year now. It was repeatedly suggested by some that he might find Creation Wiki a more amenable environment instead, but he obviously prefers to engage in unproductive tactics here on Wikipedia. I understand that he feels he is fighting for some cause, but I think it is unfortunate that he is not really helping out the cause he ostensibly is championing. I almost wonder if he is really an atheist who is trying to promote anti-creationism and atheism by pretending to be an anti-intellectual, combative and unpleasant example of a religious person. Because that is probably the overall effect (aside from making it difficult to write Wikipedia, which is what concerns us here).
  2. Same old ken. David D. (Talk) 08:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 08:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kdbuffalo is one of two editors recently engaged in a sustained attack on Richard Dawkins, with the aim of getting as many "anti-Dawkins" opinions as possible included. The other person makes suggestions for what he sees as improvements, and is in comparison a constructive contributor, but Kdbuffalo restricts him/herself almost entirely to harangues on the talk page. I see no evidence of Kdbuffalo attempting to improve the article, merely attempts to disrupt. Snalwibma 09:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Vsmith 12:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Guettarda 12:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. An incredibly difficult user to deal with. Consistently disruptive and disrespectful of others. The fact that his only response to this has been to accuse the person that filed ths RfC as an 'evolutionist zealot' just reinforces his problems with WP:AFG and practically every other area of policy. --Davril2020 13:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Filll 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. The above statement appears to be a fairly complete and accurate summary of some serious concerns surrounding this editor- Kdbuffalo does not appear to have constructively contributed, but rather acted in a disruptive fashion at any of the pages mentioned by other users above. Lastly, that the response to the opening statement was to attack the lister's motives is just as serious as many of the items listed in the RFC itself. --Kuzaar-T-C- 16:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. -- *Spark* 17:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. The Crow 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC) After dealing with this user for a year, attempting to assume good faith, I am prepared to say that his only agenda here is to push a pro-religious POV everywhere he possibly can. His policy regarding WP standards seems to be figuring out how far he can push them to his own agenda. His contributions are not beneficial except that they attract the attention of opposite-minded people.
  12. Andrew c 21:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Ttiotsw 21:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC) I guess we can dispense with WP:Assume good faith here as it is a request for comment and as such this is a comment. I feel that the summary is an accurate representation of what I'd call the wilful vandalism of Wikipedia by Kdbuffalo . If the summary sounds complicated then it is because Kdbuffalo is not just a simple annoying test vandal or even the Jesus/Islamic ones who simply call 'x' "satan/atheist/... etc" but is quite adept in adding nonsense dressed as knowledge. Given the complexity in tracking down the cites or the analysis needed to revert the nonsense so as to stay within WP:AGF I'd wish this guy would f*ck off back to whatever crazy godforsaken hole he came out of and he should take his partner in crime too for company and they can then discuss various esoteric apologetics until kingdom come (which is either very soon according to some or a few billion years according to others) on blogs. The most recent incident of distorting neutrality of aticles was with [[67]] in which I said that to use an essay by Johnson (him of intelligent design) in which Crick was very unclearly quoted was "WP:OR by proxy" and I stand by that claim. That Kdbuffalo did obtain the original Crick quote means he is capable of correct citing if he cares. I would have lived with the original Crick quote as I know that (as say with anyone who uses Darwins designed eye quote) it would be trivial to make the quote neutral to what Crick meant and from this I would guess that I feel that Kdbuffalo clearly understands what neutral means but avoids this deliberately. Thats malicious and with intent. I could be wrong and he's just a theistic absolutist on a jihad/crusade. He represents real-world apologetics so actually 1/3 of me kind of thinks we should keep him alive for a few more edits so as to study him but the other 2/3rds feels that Wikipedia doesn't need this kind of editor.
  14. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC) As has been noted, Roland in particular has done an exemplary job on trying to have a productive interaction with ken. I bow to his patience.
  15. pschemp | talk 03:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. --Michael Johnson 04:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC) ken just seems to move from evolution article to article trying to insert his pro-creationist POV. He cannot be reasoned with, he is always "right". It seems when he feels others are getting the better of his arguments, he shuts down and moves to another article.
  17. I've met Kdbuffalo in his early Wiki-days at Bible scientific foreknowledge and it wasn't a pleasant meeting. I've mostly stayed out of his way for his mindbending immunity to reason and argument. --Pjacobi 07:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. I concur. I keep coming across Ken on many pages relating to religion or evolution, and I usually see the same pattern of behaviour described above. Usually others have reverted it, but I've been involved in several prolonged edit-wars with him (as described in Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16_Deletions_by_user_Kdbuffalo). His views are erroneous to the point of insanity: from the archives, I see that he even attempted to argue (on the Skeptics Annotated Bible talk-page archive, section 40:1) that "Given the speculative nature of the macroevolutionary hypothesis and its lack of evidential support, I don't see why a talk origins citation would be notable"! A creationist might not agree with evolution, but... not notable? Yet "Answers In Genesis" is apparently "notable", despite the fact that it promotes a worldview that has no evidential support and was disproved and discarded a couple of centuries ago. He shows a consistent pattern of hypocrisy and double-standards: on the few occasions that he does try to justify his actions, he cites criteria that he never applies to himself, and continues despite this being pointed out. On Bible scientific foreknowledge, he has repeatedly lost the talk-page arguments regarding his attempts to insert an off-topic criticism of ancient Egyptian medicine (filling most of the "criticism" section that's supposed to contain criticism of Biblical scientific foreknowledge), but keeps inserting his material regardless. And, on various pages, he deletes criticism from sources he imagines to be "non-notable" or "unqualified", but relies heavily on apologetics from an unqualified one-man "ministry" whose arguments are quite inept and inaccurate. --Robert Stevens 10:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. I have encountered this editor on the Evolution talkpage where his behaviour was profoundly disruptive. His continued posts made it obvious that he had no interest in improving the article, only in 'disproving' Evolution. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Highly disruptive editor who does not appear to have Wiki's interests at heart. •Jim62sch• 17:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.}

I believe JoshuaZ, the creator of this RFC/complaint page, is a evolutionists zealot and who is on a current crusade against me. For example, I would mentiion that it took a lot of pointed criticism of the evolutionists Haeckel's work to get JoshuaZ to finally admit that his work was fraudulent on a particular issue. And JoshuaZ did so only after I pointed out the prominent evolutionist Stephen Gould said the work of Haeckel in question was fraudulent. Please read this page to see our discussion on the Haeckel issue

Lastly, I would say his quote mining complaints are unwarranted as he has yet to show a quote wrenched out of context. He asserts quote mining over and over but does not demonstrate it. JoshuaZ is simply angry that I cited expert opinion which goes against the flimsy arguments which attempt to establish the evolutionary position. ken 06:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo


Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] 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.

This user is on a crusade to disrupt articles related to evolution and has been exceedingly stubborn and uncivil while doing so. Very little of his editing is productive, most of it involves trolling talk pages with assertations that scientists are wrong with no acceptable facts to back up his views. As such he should be banned by the community from editing topics relating to evolution in any manner.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. pschemp | talk 02:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. *Spark* 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. JoshuaZ 03:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Vsmith 03:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Roland Deschain 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    NOTE: Civil discussions of objections to Evolution related articles are possible. It is heated debate, but constructive arguments are made, discussed, accepted/rejected, consensus reached and the community can move on. An exemplary example is User:Standonbible's objections to the evolution article (#1, #2, and #3). His intro page shows similar viewpoints about science/evolution as Kdbuffalo, yet Standonbible, even though forceful and mistaken in most of his objections, is courteous, direct, accepts consensus, and is willing to disengage to cool down. So constructive discussion on such heated topics is indeed possible. It is regrettable that Kdbuffalo does not grasp that simple concept and that is why I feel only the slightest twinge of remorse at endorsing his ban.--Roland Deschain 05:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed. Standonbible is a useful, polite editor, and a credit to his side. Adam Cuerden talk 05:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    In general, I think that having some dispute and discussion can be quite beneficial, when it is done in a constructive way. However, kdbuffalo has not been very constructive, willing to concede losing positions, accept advice, etc. That is why I have been asking myself (and him), what is his goal here? I think if his energies could be channeled in a productive direction, he could make real contributions. But it does appear that after approximately a year and a half of Wikipedia editing he has produced more than his fair share of disruption. Most of it was pointless, needless and careless or even aggressively and willfully ignorant. I am torn about banning him, but I do think that a year and a half of the same behavior is an awfully long time, and he has not managed to get the message yet.--ReasonIsBest 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Guettarda 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. –- kungming·2 (Talk) 18:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Related link

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-16 Deletions by user Kdbuffalo --Ideogram 05:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Kdbuffalo_2_83a4.html"