Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Imacomp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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: 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Imacomp has been engaging in uncivil behavior, including blatantly misleading edit summaries, repeated personal attacks, edit warring, and blanket reverts of edits to edits made by editors that he "trusts".

[edit] Description

Imacomp has been engaging in uncivil behavior, including blatantly misleading edit summaries, repeated personal attacks, edit warring, and blanket reverts of edits to edits made by editors that he "trusts". Any requests on his talk page for him to stop this behavior is quickly removed without a response, and any posts on talk pages informing him about his behavior are replied to with sarcastic comments, and usually another personal attack. User has been blocked 3 times for 3rr violations on the Freemasonry page, and a 4th is already reported. He is aware that he is breaking wikipedia rules, however he simply does not care. Also any edit that he disagrees with he quickly labels vandalism. Seraphim 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[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.)

[edit] Blanket Reverts of multiple edits without valid reasons

These are two examples from the last few days of Imacomp blanket reverting changes instead of actually looking at them, or commenting on the changes.

  1. 15:58, June 18, 2006 edit summary: "m (Rv. to 17:24, 18 June 2006 Imacomp as intermediate edits (as "vandalism") not in line with general flow - see talk.)" Instead of looking at edits, he called them vandalism and just automatically reverted.
  2. 14:50, June 20, 2006 edit summary: "(Rv.to Edits that are trusted. Sorry for inadvertant loss of good edits with bad, but I do not have the time to weed out the bad. Try doing fewer edits at a time.)"

Ran into problems with this user here, and will not discuss the changes on talk page like the rest of the editors are. Also on another article here. There is just no talking to this person, even making a header here to demenstrate his bias. Zos 17:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Edit Summaries

These are only a few examples of misleading edit summaries Imacomp uses to make his changes (I'm only posting a few links for each evidence section since there are really too many examples to list).

  1. 03:52, June 22, 2006 edit summary: "m (→Ritual, symbolism, and morality - degree candidate)" the actual reason for his edit, was the line 317 change of perished -> murdered
  2. 09:33, June 22, 2006 edit summary: "(Kipling ref edited)" same thing as the above edit, the actual edit was perished -> murdered

[edit] Repeated Edit Warring

It's hard to make a section showing his edit warring look good. So i'll point to his Block Log, the current 5rr (3rr+2) report against him filed here (since this RFC was started, the 5rr was resolved and a 72hr block was given to Imacomp), and here's an example of a trivial edit war that he is engaging in also right now on the Freemasonry talk page. [1] [2] [3] [4] where he is changing the letter grade of the article from A to B repeatedly even though no other editor supports his assessment, nor does the assessment system itself.

[edit] Personal Attacks

Once again, there are way too many to list, however I will post a few links so you can see what he does.

  1. "men only" reverting a change made by me (i'm female)
  2. calling other editors "vandals"
  3. Go play with your dolls girlie vandal. This is Man stuff. Ps what has the Royal Flying Corps (RFC) got to do with this article? in reply to me asking him to stop his uncivil behavior
  4. I suggest you read a nice girlie mag with lots of pictures, and not many big words. another reply to me

[edit] Other Uncivil Behavior

There really is too many to list, however just to give a quick idea. Look at the history of this RFC page while I've been filling it out, which he keeps deleting over and over. And the discussion page for the RFC which was started with a comment by him "If you want to disscuss me use my correct page."

[edit] Probable Sockpuppet of User:Skull 'n' Femurs

User:Imacomp edit style and pattern is very similar to User:Skull 'n' Femurs. User:Skull 'n' Femurs was banned by Arbcom about the same time User:Imacomp began editing. One strong point of evidence is this edit [5] with the edit summary "Rv to last trusted edit. If I ruled the world – every day would be the firt day of Spring..." Over the past two months, User:Imacomp has repeatedly used the term "Rv to last trusted edit", which is not common wikipedia termonology.

Note: A check user has been done, it's likely imacomp is a SnF sock, however it can't be proven.

Copied from checkuser case Skull_%27n%27_Femurs
IT WAS denied to ALR, and I asked for a retraction. However he persists. ALR is one of a stable of socks by Anti-Masons (posing as a Mason) only shown a more active interest in edits within a section posted by SnF after his block, and and is refusing to contenance discussion. "Skull 'n' Femurs" did once post an unsolicited comment on my Home page once, and I gave him a Barnstar in his early (better)days. That is the sum total of interactions - and many other editors interacted more. ALR's actions are in poor taste (issues are related to the Holocaust), as are several others. I removed stuff on the subject, and complained on the talk page of Freemasonry. The use of threats as a response to any request is ALRs style. Many thanks. Imacomp 14:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
A match between Imacomp and Skull 'n' Femurs appears likely. Per Imacomp's allegation, I ran a sockpuppet check against ALR. ALR shares his IP with a great many other users, which (upon furthrer checking) appears to be a proxy server shared by many thousands of internet users. Raul654 21:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I can confirm tht I spent most of today using my employers network to access WP, circa 200,000 users on that gateway. Thanks for the checks anyway.ALR 22:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Imacomp 16:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Note ALR's format changes to the above: "16:48, 30 June 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (→Probable Sockpuppet of User:Skull 'n' Femurs - tidied to aid readability)" Imacomp 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Update on sockpuppetry:

Case assessed here demonstrating that User: Azuredeltascribe and User: Deltascribe are likely socks of Imacomp. This comment on a talk page supports that suggestion. These diffs also demonstrate a likelihood of a relationship, given that I've had only one interaction with User: Deltascribe, here, I don't see any justification for the comments, which would suggest that it is Imacomp venting:

on User: Azuredeltascribe 4 July 06
on Freemasonry 3 July 06
on User: Deltascribe 4 July 06
on User: Skull 'n' Femurs 4 July 06
ALR 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:VAND
  4. WP:3RR
  5. WP:AGF

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Misleading Edit Summary Warning
  2. NPA/Uncivility Warning
  3. Vandalism/Uncivil Behavior Warning
  4. Another user asking an admin to ban him
  5. Another user asking him to stop blanket reverting
  6. Misleading Edit Summary Warning
  7. Resolution attempts by 999: [6], [7], [8], [9]
  8. Resolution attempt by Ben Standeven: [10], [11], [12], [13]

There are many more

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Seraphim 16:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. 999 (Talk) 16:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zos (Talk) 16:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Chtirrell 16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ben Standeven 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I attempted to fix the multiple problems in this topic months ago, and this user was among the largest stumbling blocks to making any attempt at neutrality.

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. OzLawyer 16:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. ALR 09:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. SarekOfVulcan 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ardenn 23:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Avador 05:33, 10 August 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.

This is Wiki-lawyers “Pots” calling the kettle black May I respond with quotes from Freemasonry Talk:

"14:35, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv - my 3rd revert today.) So why ‘‘he’’ is not blocked for 3RR? (I'm too kind to do it). Why not report both sides of the edit war?[to Admins] Imacomp 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have never needed to Wiki-lawyer or resort to reporting to an admin - those are the tactics of others. Imacomp 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The report is on the fourth revert. The reason it's called the three-revert rule is because three is what you're allowed. MSJapan 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

From Freemasonry History 12:25, 11 June 2006 Imacomp (Talk | contribs) (My 3rd Rv. But quotes added, as per last edit by BB.) From my Talk page, You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 13:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC) - Imacomp 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!Thunderbird15 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC) As this is a personal attack directed at each individual Freemason, I think an admin should block thunderbird for 24hrs muliplied by the number of current editors here who say they are Freemasons. Would someone like to do the reporting, (as I've lost count)? Imacomp 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reported him for personal attacks to user:Jpgordon and made a checkuser request as a LB sock. Hopefully it helps. Chtirrell 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. Imacomp 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

In short my actions are no better, or worse, than any editor on the articles in question. Much of the evidence given to work against me was from a period when only I was defending the articles from facile edits and POV vandalism – inserted without any consensus. In fact, since this dossier has been opened, and without any contribution (in an act of contrition) from me over several days – the edit wars and abuse on the pages has got much worse – with many of the prosecutors being at the forefront. Imacomp 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Textbook case of how a Revert War is conducted, using “Tag Teams”, when I’m NOT involved - from “Freemasonry History” page:

17:59, 28 June 2006 MSJapan (Talk | contribs) (rv to ALR. SOP on this page requires discussion of changes, and the discussion is not over.)

17:40, 28 June 2006 999 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 61032491 dated 2006-06-28 15:39:24 by SeraphimXI using popups)

17:37, 28 June 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (N o they don't,. This has already been discussed to death.)

15:39, 28 June 2006 SeraphimXI (Talk | contribs) (rv - the critical links must stay)

14:35, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv - my 3rd revert today.)

13:28, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (rv to me read and understand. This is an encyclopedia not a masonic propaganda website.

13:28, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (rv to me read and understand. This is an encyclopedia not a masonic propaganda website. The websites are critical of Masonry.)

12:55, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv to me - read and _understand_ discussion on talkpage.)

12:17, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (No "discussion" took place, just a tirade against the websites which criticize Masonry.)

12:12, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv to Tagishsimon - refer to discussion on talkpage why these links are unsuited.)

11:04, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (→External links - restored links that are critical of Masonry that were repeatedly deleted in an unjustified and biased way using misleading edit summaries)

05:46, 28 June 2006 Tagishsimon (Talk | contribs) (→External links - *The Mysteries of Free Masonry, by William Morgan, from Project Gutenberg)

Imacomp 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS The only repliess to "I've reported him [thunderbird] for personal attacks to user:Jpgordon and made a checkuser request as a LB sock. Hopefully it helps. Chtirrell 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)” (see above, copied from Freemasonry talk):

1) From talk:Jpgordon Re: [Possible Lightbringer Sock] "There is possibly another user:lightbringer sock on the freemasonry page under the name user:Thunderbird15. I have requested a checkuser on him, so you can check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thunderbird15 for the full reasoning. This user has also made personal attacks against members of the masonic fraternity, i.e. "If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!" which breaks NPA under "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I know you've dealt with user:lightbringer in the past, so I figured I'd go to you. Thanks Chtirrell 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Let's see how the RFCU works out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)"

2) On my talk page: “You may wish to respond to the RFC; ignoring such things usually has less than optimal results. (As does ignoring your talk page.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)”

So serious personal attacks are ok now? Imacomp 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: checkuser case Thunderbird15 “ Confirmed Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Note these changes to my post, above: “16:53, 30 June 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (→Response - try again) 16:49, 30 June 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (→Response - use of italics to differentiate cutnpaste from current commentary)” I regard this as changing my response. I sugest you find my words below: Imacomp 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response (as I posted it, so DO NOT ALTER IT)

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.

This is Wiki-lawyers “Pots” calling the kettle black May I respond with quotes from Freemasonry Talk:

"14:35, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv - my 3rd revert today.) So why ‘‘he’’ is not blocked for 3RR? (I'm too kind to do it). Why not report both sides of the edit war?[to Admins] Imacomp 18:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)”

“I have never needed to Wiki-lawyer or resort to reporting to an admin - those are the tactics of others. Imacomp 18:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)”
“The report is on the fourth revert. The reason it's called the "three-revert rule" is because three is what you're allowed. MSJapan 19:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)”

“From Freemasonry History “12:25, 11 June 2006 Imacomp (Talk | contribs) (My 3rd Rv. But quotes added, as per last edit by BB.)” From my Talk page, “You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 13:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC) - Imacomp 20:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)”

"If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!Thunderbird15 11:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)" As this is a personal attack directed at each individual Freemason, I think an admin should block thunderbird for 24hrs muliplied by the number of current editors here who say they are Freemasons. Would someone like to do the reporting, (as I've lost count)? Imacomp 15:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)”

”I've reported him for personal attacks to user:Jpgordon and made a checkuser request as a LB sock. Hopefully it helps. Chtirrell 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)”
”Ok. Imacomp 15:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)”

In short my actions are no better, or worse, than any “editor” on the articles in question. Much of the evidence given to work against me was from a period when only I was defending the articles from facile edits and POV vandalism – inserted without any consensus. In fact, since this dossier has been opened, and without any contribution (in an act of contrition) from me over several days – the edit wars and abuse on the pages has got much worse – with many of the prosecutors being at the forefront. Imacomp 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Textbook case of how a Revert War is conducted, using “Tag Teams”, when I’m NOT involved - from “Freemasonry History” page:

“17:59, 28 June 2006 MSJapan (Talk | contribs) (rv to ALR. SOP on this page requires discussion of changes, and the discussion is not over.)

17:40, 28 June 2006 999 (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 61032491 dated 2006-06-28 15:39:24 by SeraphimXI using popups)

17:37, 28 June 2006 ALR (Talk | contribs) (N o they don't,. This has already been discussed to death.)

15:39, 28 June 2006 SeraphimXI (Talk | contribs) (rv - the critical links must stay)

14:35, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv - my 3rd revert today.)

13:28, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (rv to me read and understand. This is an encyclopedia not a masonic propaganda website.

13:28, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (rv to me read and understand. This is an encyclopedia not a masonic propaganda website. The websites are critical of Masonry.)

12:55, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv to me - read and _understand_ discussion on talkpage.)

12:17, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (No "discussion" took place, just a tirade against the websites which criticize Masonry.)

12:12, 28 June 2006 WegianWarrior (Talk | contribs) (rv to Tagishsimon - refer to discussion on talkpage why these links are unsuited.)

11:04, 28 June 2006 Thunderbird15 (Talk | contribs) (→External links - restored links that are critical of Masonry that were repeatedly deleted in an unjustified and biased way using misleading edit summaries)

05:46, 28 June 2006 Tagishsimon (Talk | contribs) (→External links - *The Mysteries of Free Masonry, by William Morgan, from Project Gutenberg)” Imacomp 16:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

PS The only repliess to "I've reported him [thunderbird] for personal attacks to user:Jpgordon and made a checkuser request as a LB sock. Hopefully it helps. Chtirrell 15:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)” (see above, copied from Freemasonry talk):

1) From talk:Jpgordon Re: [Possible Lightbringer Sock] "There is possibly another user:lightbringer sock on the freemasonry page under the name user:Thunderbird15. I have requested a checkuser on him, so you can check out Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Thunderbird15 for the full reasoning. This user has also made personal attacks against members of the masonic fraternity, i.e. "If the criteria is factual accuracy then there shouldn't be any entries on Freemasonry on Wikipedia as the entire history and teachings of this group is a farcical fabrication. Factuality in Freemasonry? Please give me a break!" which breaks NPA under "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." I know you've dealt with user:lightbringer in the past, so I figured I'd go to you. Thanks Chtirrell 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Let's see how the RFCU works out. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)"

2) On my talk page: “You may wish to respond to the RFC; ignoring such things usually has less than optimal results. (As does ignoring your talk page.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)”

So serious personal attacks are ok now? Imacomp 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: checkuser case Thunderbird15 “ Confirmed Mackensen (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 16:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

(END of my re-post) I submit that if I cannot post my words here then there is no case to answer by default.Imacomp 17:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Copied here: “I coulda warned you that Imacomp would use your attempt to make his ramblings legible as evidence of his opponents' malfeasance. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Too right, altering a person's statement - case fails by default. Imacomp 17:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 17:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

More evidence: [on tidying] “I've tried to tidy up the cut/ pastes from the talk page, but there are so many broken formatting bits in there that I've lost interest.ALR 16:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

And cue a toys out of cot experience, surprisingly enough. :) ALR 17:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I see, ALR, so you find changing my statement funny? Your bad faith with the system just keeps coming... Imacomp 17:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)” Imacomp 17:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I submit that you jpgordon appear, at first contact "out of the Blue" without advertising the office(s) you hold. This invites a bad response, (is that the idea – I hope not, in good faith), and is compounded by jargon about wiki-lawyering that is somewhat opaque to the average user/editor. Thus I submit that my response to "RFC" was a mistaken reaction to what looked like a personal attack - on a "secret" page - that I stumbled upon. I made a honest mistake, because of a faulty system of administration. Imacomp 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
    • If you cannot take on-board my reasoning, then at least acknowledge my reformed efforts to conform to Wiki best practice. However it is evident from the talk record @ Freemasony that that trying for an open consensus is not popular in itself, with others. Perhaps an Adim should look at these others? Imacomp 21:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Imacomp 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view from User:Jpgordon

I was asked to help resolve an issue about sources in Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis. As I was getting the two sides to talk, Imacomp dealt with the issue by blindly reverting to his preferred versions. After asking him not to do so, and advising of the consequences, he continued to revert, so I protected the article so that further discussion would ensue. (See the talk page archives for that phase.) Imacomp then announced that he would not discuss any of his changes unless the article was unprotected; I said, OK, we'll work out a consensus on the talk page without him, and that he's welcome to take part in the discussion. An agreement between the other disputants not to edit war was reached, so I unprotected the page while we continued negotiations. Not too long thereafter, Imacomp showed up and immediately started reverting to his preferred version again, without any discussion. Right around the same time, User:999 called my attention to his 3RR violations on Freemasonry; I looked at Imacomp's contributions and noticed he was blanking this very article; I suggested he not do so; he persisted. I blocked him for 72 hours for repeated 3RR and for vandalism in blanking this RFC. My conclusion is that Imacomp is a dedicated edit warrior who will not rest until he gets his own way.

Another admin may wish to consider unblocking Imacomp so he can respond here; I'd not be adverse to this if he'll agree to edit here and here only.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zostalk 18:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. The statement of conclusion is accurate Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. I also observed all of the above and endorse this statement's accuracy. -999 (Talk) 16:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. ALR 09:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum -- Given what Imacomp has said above (I submit that my response to "RFC" was a mistaken reaction to what looked like a personal attack - on a "secret" page - that I stumbled upon. I made a honest mistake), I'm content to consider the RFC-blanking incident water under the bridge. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[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.

{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.}

Imacomp took exception to one of my edits. He posted "BlueValour, what have your cult's beliefs got to do with Freemasonry? Imacomp 08:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)" here

I posted this on his talk page (but it was blanked within 24 hours and I received no reply):

"Calling an editor a 'cult member' is a clear personal attack. Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. BlueValour 23:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)" here

Users who endorse this summary:

  • BlueValour 22:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Zos - reviewed the evidence and concur. 22:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Chtirrell 13:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:ALR

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.}

Whilst I have not been directly involved in the difficulties above, due to a self imposed break as a result of other hotility from User:Imacomp I have reviewed the various discussions.
My experience of dealing with Imacomp since his appearance has been unremittingly difficult, I have previously stated that my opinion is that he is a sockpuppet of User:Skull 'n' Femurs and the latter stages of his contributions in that persona, prior to permanent blocking, may have led to that difficulty. It should be noted that more recently Imacomp has been demonstrated to have created another sockpuppet, indicated [14]. Reviewing the contributiosn by the new sock with the information on User:Skull 'n' Femurs page would tend to support that all three are the same person, SnF started throwing a 'Red Delta' around just before his blockage, claimed to be from Manchester and edited similar topics [15].
One must appreciate that there are many different schools of thought within the craft and it would appear that we are from different ends of the scale with respect to our approach to the craft, this will also contribute to a degree of difficulty.
Imacomp appears to be extremely protective of Freemasonry and manifests this as a desire to bias any articles in a favourable light and to excise material which he perceives as 'sensitive' or 'private'. I would tend to disagree with his perception of 'private' in this sense, this difference of opinion is leading to some difficulties. Unfortunately this protectiveness leads him to summarily revert and substantial edits made by new editors to 'a trusted version', leading to an imemdiately confrontational situation with a newer user, if not hounding them out of the article completely. User:BlueValour has already articulated that, a similar incident happened with User:Pail recently, demonstrated [16]. I do not see this as a particularly useful approach to collaboration.
Imacomps intimidation and abuse of other editors reflects badly on other declared Freemasons who contribute to the article, since he is seen as representative of the craft in general. His confrontational approach leads to the friction which is needlessly extended onto others who seek a more responsible approach.
The approach taken degrades efforts on any article which he feels the need to step into, leading to needless friction and confrontation and inevitable 'taking of sides', leading to more contrived wording and phrasings which, whilst being entirely consistent with the guidelines and policies, lead to a POV message being communicated to the reader.
Notwithstadnign all of that Imacomp has made some useful contributions to detailed formatting of the various articles.ALR 09:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. WegianWarrior 05:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC) Seems to be a very accurate description of the issue, fitting my experience as well.
  2. SarekOfVulcan 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC) Good summary.

[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_Imacomp_01b6.html"