Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.147.97.230

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

(24.147.97.230 | talk | contributions) and other IP addresses

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 See [[1]]
4 Outside view
5 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a Request for Comments about the conduct of an anonymous editor who primarily uses IP address 24.147.97.230, and also appears to use other anonymous IP address. This anonymous editor has a pattern of incivility, personal attacks, and 3RR violations in editing certain articles about US political figures.

Other addresses used by this editor (or by other anonymous editors showing a similar pattern of behavior) include:

207.69.167.24 (talk · contribs)
202.79.231.67 (talk · contribs)
66.176.129.11 (talk · contribs)
38.118.3.16 (talk · contribs)
162.83.136.16 (talk · contribs)
141.155.150.21 (talk · contribs)
141.155.154.108 (talk · contribs)
18.60.3.22 (talk · contribs)
65.205.189.54 (talk · contribs)
216.69.164.185 (talk · contribs)
68.120.235.145 (talk · contribs)
172.142.111.56 (talk · contribs)
24.55.228.12 (talk · contribs)
68.35.159.18 (talk · contribs)
69.159.212.161 (talk · contribs)
209.172.97.76 (talk · contribs)
65.241.12.7 (talk · contribs)
204.186.238.30 (talk · contribs)
62.245.167.6 (talk · contribs)
24.147.231.218 (talk · contribs)
193.136.157.2 (talk · contribs)
203.112.194.81 (talk · contribs)
210.0.200.2 (talk · contribs)

[edit] Please provide proof of this accusation

I have no knowledge of being on any IP address than 24.147.97.230. It also seems that there are multiple users on ip address 24.147.97.230 according to this post: To any other users of this address If anyone is using this address who is not the subject of the conduct described in the RfC, please consider creating an account so as not to be blocked. Robert McClenon 16:45, 20 August 2005 (UTC)24.147.97.230 23:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Description

24.147.97.230 is sometimes known as the "Kennedy anon", and began editing on 8 July 2005. He has engaged in revert wars with other editors due to differences to whether material negative to Kennedy is of encyclopedic character, and has a pattern of 3RR violations, disregard for consensus, claims of censorship, incivility, personal attacks, and taunting of a type characteristic of an Internet troll.

There is a pattern of the use of multiple anonymous IP addresses as sockpuppets on pages in which this user is engaged in edit wars. These multiple anonymous addresses have apparently been used both to create the appearance of consensus when surveys were used, and to "game the system" to avoid 3RR violations.

Criticism of this editor is not intended to have to do with his political views, but his conduct and incivility. I would prefer to use the usual Wikipedia consensus process to determine what is of encyclopedic value, but this anonymous editor's pattern of incivility makes it difficult to reach consensus.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Taunting

A series of multiple reverts from various IP addresses on 6 August 2005 (Note also the reference to the 3RR rule addressed to signed-in editors, showing an awareness of gaming the system):

Four reverts in one day, followed by multiple fraudulent page protection requests to lock the result of the improper revert:

An edit about which there had been previous controversy, followed by five reverts in the same day, on 2 September 2005, with allegations of vandalism

An edit about which there had been previous controversy, followed by five reverts on 22 September, some by sockpuppets, showing a knowledge of how to game the system

Personal attacks in edit summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Kennedy&diff=prev&oldid=19181297

Report of vandalism regarding good-faith removal of paragraph

Another claim of vandalism, following a good-faith removal of a paragraph

A series of reverts using multiple IP addresses, each showing the same pattern of claiming that the opposing edits were vandalism

An archived talk page showing a survey in which 12 anonymous IP addresses were used to create the appearance of majority support of inclusion of a link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ted_Kennedy/Archive_2#Running_tally

An admitted first-time use of an anonymous IP address to create an appearance of consensus on an RfC

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman&diff=21252284&oldid=21252219

Altering the Description portion of an RfC, inserting material that should be an Outside View or endorsement of the Response

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman&diff=21253448&oldid=21253169

Altering the Statement of the Dispute in an RfC, inserting material that should be an Outside View or endorsement of the Response

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman&diff=21253914&oldid=21253733

Vandalizing the Ted Kennedy article and numerous other articles with a vile edit summary that is an obscene personal attack on an administrator

Continued accusations of vandalism in edit summaries

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ted_Kennedy&diff=23724222&oldid=23717300

User contribution histories of User:Fishingguy99 and User:Labgal, showing that they are only used to edit the Ted Kennedy article and to sign this RfC

Side-remark on this last (move this if it is in the wrong place): some people may have been specifically recruited via a discussion site somewhere to participate in the TK article, so these are not necessarily sockpuppets. The involvement of single-issue Wikipedians is not necessarily bad, though it probably means that we shouldn't give their opinions on procedural matters, etc., the same weight as a more active Wikipedian's. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Robert McClenon 16:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel 17:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

JamesMLane 23:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Voice of All(MTG) 23:50, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
And now a pair of unfounded RfCs have been filed for the two people above who signed this dispute above. Clearly a lot of the IP addresses and user names on this page need to be removed; I suspect only one actual human being would be banned, however. It is good that bad people are punished. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am not certain of all of the details above, but it sums up pretty much what I've seen. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:42, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. · Katefan0^(scribble) 02:50, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Calton | Talk 01:27, August 25, 2005 (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.}

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

This RfC is just more harrassment by the POV warrior bullies here to suppress anyone who doesn't endorse their pro-Kennedy POV. It is also an attempt to intimidate editors who support me in the RfC these bullies used to attack me. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman). I believe 24.147.97.230 and I are the two main critics of the POV in the [Ted_Kennedy] article and we both have been subjected to this process. The bullying gang mentality by pro-Kennedy POVers is uncalled for and disgraceful. It is a clear abuse of the RfC system. I will be researching how many times User:Robert McClenon and Gamaliel have initiated or participated in RfC requests designed to harrass those that disagree with them.--Agiantman 21:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am an observer right now and not a member. This is only the 2nd time I have written on wikipedia, again at the request of agiantman who is a friend from work. Agiantman said I should become a member, but after reading this article and the one about agiantman, I don't think joining is worth the grief and harrassment. This article about Mr.24 is clearly just retaliation against him from leaving positive comments defending agiantman on the other article. It looks like the exact same dudes on the attack: Gamaliel, Robert McClenon, and JamesMLane. I am sure the others will be piling on soon. It looks like it is too easy to harrass people on wikipedia, especially with these rfc pages. If I join, I would only do it help more little guys who are getting attacked by a gang of bullies. I don't know what criteria it takes to be an administrator, but based on Gamaliel's actions on this page and the other page, neutrality is clearly not one of them. Like the other article, this one is another silly and mean spirited attempt to attack the guy who holds the minority position. --66.176.137.204 23:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I strongly dispute this biased lynching of myself. As this seems to be driven by a "wolf pack" mentality, I have had many friends sign up as wiki members. I hope you don't mind that they vote on this issue, as members they have the same rights you do, as friends they also enjoy the same rights you do as you are allowed to have friendships. 24.147.97.230 01:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sock puppet#"Meatpuppets". --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This is not a proper way to treat a person who has disagreed with your POV. You are wrong to proceed with this.AngieWCoombs 01:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Angie. This is terribleJoshCoombs 01:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

This a a horrible way to treat a person which you simply to not agree with. I vote for 24-147-97-230. PS This is a hard system to learn, I need help! SamRCoombs 01:31, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been asked to join Wikipedia and vote on this. I vote to call this proceedings a sham. You are quite self serving.EdwardLCoombs 01:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I have just joined this Wikipedia club. I agree with my pals and you should not be doing this. The reasons have been explained to me and I see that your argument is one sided and the real reason is that you are not getting your way about making Ted Kennedy look better than the person he really is. ThomasSCoombs 01:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everyone here. As a new member of you club I look forward to learning how to edit by myself, I wrote this on my own free will but needed help with the system. You are wrong to gang up on my this user here just because he wants everyone to know just what Ted Kennedy is like. All the items you presented are either false or trivial You should want to know too.MoparDr 01:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

We all think this is horrible. Who do you think you are to push your opinion on others? User 24-147-97-230 did nothing wrong. Stop bothering him. PS Glad to be a new member!! FishingGuy99 01:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Very glad to join the Wikipedia Project. I have worked with software for years, this is a great idea. I support the user at IP address 24.147.97.230. We have been friends for years, you should really reconsider. My opinion is that your judgement is far too harsh, you also present only the facts to your advantage in this request for comments.Wikinut 01:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I support the user at 24,147,97,230 100%. Glad to help, LabgalLabgal 01:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm the last one here to join. I support the user in question after reading all the comments. I can also have my peers at work join and help on Monday. If you really want everyone to participate in this encyclopedia you need to be more open of other viewpoints. It is clear that this is the reason for this "RFC".Susanrd 02:05, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] See [[1]]

The person behind this RFC has admitted to the following, "It is true that I wrote four user conduct RfCs in 30 days" "I think that I was using the Wikipedia process as it is meant to be used,"I then posted a RfC against Agiantman. In retrospect, I recognize that I made two mistakes." "I certainly think that I was making a reasonable argument about consensus." "As to the claim that I offered to withdraw an RfC if conditions were met, and then did not keep my word, that is not true...I admit to having made a mistake," "I admit to having made mistakes. We all make mistakes under stress. Perhaps my mistakes have been trying too hard to engage in dialogue with problematical editors." "I have no interest in mediation with any anonymous editor"

Gee.. Four RFCs in 30 days. That's one a week. All this while admitting to making mistakes. As you write an RFC to have me banned, you are working on three others? What is your problem? Do you see yourself as a police officer of this site? I suggest you drop them all immediately. Not only that, in your persecution of agiantman, you suddenly announce that you will take off 36 hours and then take it up again, like a mother telling a child, "wait until your father gets home". To attack another user via RFC, then hold it over his/her head for days...all the while during a period of admitted mistakes? I think your credibility is rock bottom. I don't see how you fit into this community. I suggest that you either drop all these RFCs now or stand ready to fight for your right to be here. You are nothing more than a wreckless bully of others.24.147.97.230 00:02, 22 August 2005 (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.

Sure are a lot of "new users" here all of a sudden who decided to come to this page first to make their first edits. Zoe 09:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

More new users for wikipedia! Isn't that great?--Agiantman 12:52, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Zoe 09:18, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
206.114.20.121 18:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
RyanFreisling @ 19:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC) None of the sockpuppets above has performed a single additional edit besides this 'vote'. They are obvious sockpuppets who, to quote one of them directly, "have been asked to join Wikipedia and vote on this." - an obvious abuse of the sockpuppet rule. Even if they were real people, which any experienced Wikipedian would call an extreme unlikelihood, you don't encourage people to join in order to affect a vote - you ask them to join and let them make up their own minds. Since none have made any substantive contributions elsewhere on Wikipedia, (including 'SusanRD', who claims to be the wife of one of these people), I believe this attempt to stack an RfC is blatant and unacceptable. To avoid a show of what is extremely repellent bad taste (and bad faith), your 'Wikipedia club' should start on the non-political articles - that is, if you really wanna benefit Wikipedia by bringing new members in. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.