Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chuck F

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit'

I think we should add 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit' to this complaint;

User:Chuck F engaged in a debate on Vfd [1], and to make a point created the nonsense page 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit'.

Chuck F (and possibly another user) then added the phrase 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit' to the Nut (hardware) page and engaged in a revert war.

In order;


This is pure vandalism and I don't know why he hasn't been banned. Duk 02:54, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added this incident to the RFC. Rhobite 03:09, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Nato at the 2004 summer olympics

A reversion of this article by User:203.112.19.195 was listed as one of the items in the Statement of Dispute. Since the article has now been deleted, and thus only an admin can examine it, here is what happened:

  • User:203.112.19.195 created the article. Content is "Nato beat out the European Union for most medals at the Summer olympics, The count goes as this" (and a medal table)
  • User:Pgreenfinch changed the text to "The European Union, as a friendly gesture, left retiring Nato beats it out for most medals at the Summer olympics, The count goes as this."
  • User:Mikkalai added a {{cleanup}} tag
  • User:203.112.19.195 reverted to his version with the comment Reverting vandal to last verison by 210 ip

It is not clear whether his reversion was meant to undo Pgreenfinch's apparently humorous edit, Mikkalai's cleanup notice, or both. —Stormie 11:12, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Didn't I re-add the clean-up tag after that? I'm almost postive I did. I was Refering to pgreenfinch as the vandel

Sorry, I may have misunderstood this chain of events. Rhobite 16:19, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
Aha, I missed that too: the next two edits were:
  • User:Mikkalai listed the article on VfD
  • User:203.112.19.195 restored the {{cleanup}} tag
..followed by User:Pgreenfinch once again making an apparently humorous edit, and User:Poccil reverting it. Then the article was deleted. It seems to me that Chuck did not do anything untoward on this article. —Stormie 01:24, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Invalid dispute?

Chuck F states that this complaint is invalid because two people failed to attempt resolution in the Exxon dispute, and that other complaints have been resolved.

This complaint is larger than the Exxon dispute, it includes, among other things, the vandalism of the Nut (hardware) page. I did attempt to resolve that issue, with no response.

Duk 16:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but as the top of the page states did anybody else? as far as I can tell, this qualifies for deletion within thoese 48 hours 203.112.19.195 16:41, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

the two people would be User:Rhobite and me (User:Duk). The dispute is your behavior as outlined above, and not limited to Exxon. Duk 16:51, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I moved this discussion to the talk page. I also believe the RFC is valid, and Chuck it's important to realize that this is just an RFC and it can't result in punishment. Although if you break the 3 revert rule or change other people's comments again, an admin may exercise their judgment and block you for a day or two. I think you have made more of an effort to compromise instead of deleting any section with words you disliked. In terms of the validity of this RFC, we need an outside observer to judge that. Rhobite 17:29, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Outside Comment and Query

Stormie suggests that Chuck F has just been "learning the ropes". I am rather concerned about Chuck F's changing the comments of others, those are the kind of ethical ropes that one should have learned about in grade school. I've been trying to figure out what Exxon Mobil and Wal-Mart have in common that would make those the only two companies that he would express "anti-corporate" concerns over, when the possibility occured to me that he may be an investor. In truth, I don't really understand the notion of "anti-corporate bias". All large companies eventually end up with some critisim no matter what, and critisim of important institutions is always notable. His behavior on those two articles seems to suggest to me some kind of personal involvement. I wonder if he would be willing to address this possibility. func(talk) 06:43, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chuck's recent edits and reverts at Ron Paul demonstrate that he hasn't yet learned anything about editing civilly and respectfully. Rhobite 16:55, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Wow, and neither has this Reithy guy. func(talk) 17:48, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're correct, but I'm not so quick to accuse Chuckschneider of being Reithy. There's no evidence that they're the same person, and I don't believe Reithy has been blocked yet, so why would he need another account? Rhobite 19:46, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
Yet more names. ;-) In only two days, Chuckschneider has made dozens of edits to a single article and no others... never a good sign. Rhobite, are you an admin? If not, you should be. You are a model of NPOV and consensus building. func(talk) 20:35, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good thought: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rhobite. Hope you don't mind being quoted. RadicalSubversiv E 00:25, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On Chuck F, can I suggest the persecution of Chuck F conclude now. He is obviously enthusiastic about wikipedia which is to be celebrated and nurtured. Live and let live I think. My only suggestion is that he not be anonymously Chuck but come out and to leave the libertarian articles alone. ReithySockPuppet 22:49, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Reithy - you've endoreed two summarys on the page, Not to be bothersome here... but you really need to choose one
Chuck_F, much as I love you I can only feel sadness as your departure is imminent. Reithy 18:10, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Chuck_F_1442.html"