Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RichardBennett
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: 04:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
- RichardBennett (talk • contribs • logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
The user has repeatedly and excessively engaged in conduct directly opposed to WP:CIVIL, including unprovoked and completely inaccurate accusations of vandalism, lying, of being a paid shill, and/or being unemployed.
The user has engaged in an edit while blocked using an anonymous IP.
The user has self-evidently failed to assume good faith.
The users edits and edit summaries are highly tendentious
The user repeatedly engages in insults in the the edit summary.
The user has repeatedly failed on very many occasions to cite material. Tags indicating that the material is uncited are often removed without comment. When his material is removed due to lack of citation, the material is usually reinserted, without adding any citation.
In one particularly egregious instance (on one of very few instances where a cite was provided) the user added a cite which when read seemed to be at odds with the paragraph it was attached to (approximately the opposite direction), even though this was pointed out to him. In the end the essentially libelled party was told about it by students of his, and he had to log on to the Wikipedia to demand that this be removed.(See comments by Stanislav Shalunov on RichardBennetts misquotation of him [[1]]).
[edit] Desired outcome
Richard Bennett should either make a very good faith effort follow the principles of the Wikipedia or he should leave or be forced to leave. If he stays he must adequately cite material. He must stop insulting other users, and he must stop tendentious editing, especially of the Network Neutrality article and talk pages.
[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.}
[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior
(When reading the following it helps to know that RichardBennett has repeatedly claimed that user:wolfkeeper is a paid shill of google and continually slanders him as google minion etc -WP:CIVIL, but I don't believe that my edits are compatible with this point of view). See: Talk:Network_neutrality#Non-Neutral_Point_of_view_dispute_2.2F16.2F2007.)
Subject line insults (a very small selection of the most recent examples):
- WP:NPA How much are you being paid to spin this article, Wolfkeeper? - [2]
- WP:AGF (accusation of lying) - [3]
- WP:NPA WP:TEND WP:CIVIL- accusation of being google's minion [4]
- WP:NPA accusation of shill/unemployed [5]
- WP:NPA - accusations of deliberate deception [6]
- WP:NPA WP:CIVIL- scurrilous - [7]
- WP:AFG WP:NPA WP:CIVIL WP:TEND - [8]
- WP:AGF - accusations that other editors are including blatant falsehoods - [9]
- WP:AGF WP:CIVIL WP:TEND - turgid spin - [10]
- WP:AGF WP:CIVIL - re-word phony subjunctive constructions, remove Google-spin [11]
- WP:TEND WP:CIVIL - Remove optional double-talk and tell the truth [12]
- WP:NPA WP:AGF WP:TEND- flagrant falsehoods have no place here -[13]
- WP:NPA WP:AGF WP:TEND WP:CIVIL- Naw, the fuller quote is needed or the spinners will spin. Calton's edit was vandalism [14]
- WP:NPA WP:AGF WP:CIVIL -Restore verifiable information deleted by Calton. Delete Calton's unverfiable false claim. Watch for vandalism by Calton/EssJay - [15]
- WP:NPA WP:AGF WP:CIVIL - Bob Kahn invented the Internet, and his definition stays whether Google minions like it or not - [16]
Other issues
- WP:SOCK - (several anonymous sock puppets- he seems to have created them to libel people).
- WP:NOR WP:CIVIL WP:CITE - (he reinserts uncited material- I actually had to sit through a 2 hour video to check- I found a whole bunch of misrepresentations- wolfkeeper) 'restore scurrilous deletion' - [17]
Bizarre accusations that it's all a foreign conspiracy (or something!) WP:NPA WP:CIVIL WP:TEND: [18] [19]
[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Attempted to warn Richard Bennett against violating WP:NPA while he was using an anonymous IP account at the time [20] (see sockpuppet for extremely strong evidence that anonymous was indeed User:RichardBennett). Later, contacted admin Luna_Santin to have another word with him but he suggested an RFC. [21] [22]. WolfKeeper 08:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
User Thuranx asked RichardBennett not to use derogatory lanaguage: User_talk:RichardBennett#Your_edit_summaries.
[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
- WolfKeeper 07:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- – Luna Santin (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- Calton | Talk 09:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other users who endorse this summary
[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.}
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.
{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:
[edit] Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to [[Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RichardBennett|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.
