Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x

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: {12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

NOTE: A Request for arbitration has been filed on this matter. Please visit RfAR to learn more.

NOTE: 65.182.172.87 has been blocked for one month as of February 6, 2006, in response to a posting at WP:PAIN. The following note was left on this IP's talk page:

I have blocked this IP for a month for violations of a number of Wikipedia policies, including NPA and NLT. Evidence is at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/65.182.172.x. Other admins are welcome to unblock if collateral damage arises; also, other IPs in the 65.182.172.x range that exhibit similar behavior should be blocked accordinly. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 14:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

(65.182.172.109 | talk | contributions)

This user edits from IP addresses beginning with 65.182.172, including:

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

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view by McClenon
4 Discussion

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.

Description

Inside view by AdelaMae

I feel that I am left with no choice but to bring a RfC against this anonymous user, as s/he continues to post pages-long rants to talk pages personally attacking any editor who dares to change or criticize even the minutest aspect of his/her edits, repeatedly posting people's (alleged) personal information without their permission. Far from complying with WP:AGF, this editor has a consistent history of assuming BAD faith. S/he has refused to provide sources for his/her contributions when asked, choosing instead to spend four or five paragraphs accusing the editors who asked for sources of twisting or breaking any number of Wikipedia rules and of being POV-pushing members of whatever organization is under discussion at the moment, regardless of how badly such accusations conflict with past accusations by this same anonymous user. He has also now accused me (AdelaMae) of being "chemically unbalanced".

The posting of personal information is clearly defined as harassment, and I have repeatedly removed alleged personal information about myself and others, including full names, email addresses, and messages reposted from members-only mailing lists with full headers intact. I even resorted in one instance to having this information permanently removed by an administrator (HappyCamper). One of the motivations behind my continuing presence on Wikipedia, despite the fact that I have very little time right now to devote to the project, is my fear of this person's continued posting of accusations about me accompanied by my real name. I have taken great care to prevent my Wikipedia screenname from being associated with my full name, and it is my belief that these continued violation of my privacy and the privacy of others, when this anonymous editor could just as easily have referred to me by my Wikipedia screen-name, are done with the intent to intimidate and harass. I realize that bringing this attention up in an RfC will reveal my full name to everyone involved due to the necessity of providing diffs, but I am willing to pay that price if it means that this harassment will stop. AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Inside view by Cyberdenizen

I fully concur with AdelaMae, and have only a few further points to add. This user has hundreds of edits, yet still hides behind anonymity. He will not sign his edits or explain his edits in the summary box, and for nearly every contribution made to the project, there is an antagonistic or ad hominem attack on the corresponding talk page, if not right in the entry he is editing. The user manipulates and breaks apart blocks of discussion text other editors have written on talk pages which fragments the discussion and confuses readers because he refuses to sign his edits. Nearly from the beginning of my interaction with him, he has made wild accusations about my motives, my character, postulating about my identity and rattling off a long list of accusations and wrongs I have supposedly committed outside of wikipedia. I am not a Hellenic Reconstructionist, I have never posted to a Hellenic list nor do I personally know anyone from the organization Elaion other than reading their writings online. The headers he posted previously and cites of yahoo postings were not mine. The user incessantly refers to me as "Meic Crahart", but I assure you that is not who I am. I have no vested interest in this subject, other than the fact that I feel that user: 65.182.172.* is harassing other editors and bullying them as if this was Usenet. He is hiding behind his dynamic IP and he even states as much here and elsewhere. I have attempted to reconcile these issues as documented by AdelaMae and at this point, I personally feel that further interaction with this user is counter-productive until his behaviour conforms to wikipedia policy and common courtesy.- Cyberdenizen 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Note:The above block of text has been restored by Cyberdenizen after being manipulated and broken apart by anonymous user: 65.182.172.* View history to see context and my justification for these actions.

Inside view by Reub2000

This anonymous user attacked the editors including me working on the Italian Beef article last summer. Often he/she would not discuss a compromise for the article, instead repeatedly reverting the article to his/her version of the article followed by personal attacks on the talk page. Comments on the talk page trying to resolve the issue where responded to with personal attacks instead of an attempt by the user to resolve the issue. User would also delete comments left on the talk page, and vandalized my userpage. These actions made it entirely impossible to reach an agreement over the article. The diffs posted by AdelaMae (talk · contribs) do not lie. The user claims that me and other editors are racist, a completely untrue statement and not backed up with any evidence. Reub2000 21:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

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.)

I have included specific quotations where relevants as this editor's talk page comments tend to be extremely long. Most of the examples below are from articles related to Hellenic polytheism, because that is the area with which I am most familiar, but you can easily find dozens more just by browsing the contribution history of any of the IPs listed above. This user displays a similar pattern of behavior on every article he/she edits.

June 2, 2005 Deletes entire section on history of Chicago from Chicago, Illinois.
June 2, 2005 Make 11 edits as 65.182.172.83, all of which are vandalism removing sections of text from articles.
June 24, 2005 Calls 64.132.0.250 a "jacka**" (asterisks in original).
June 24, 2005 Edit summar calling 64.132.0.250 a "nitwit".
June 24, 2005 More attacks on 64.132.0.250.
June 28, 2005 Deletes Hal4's talk page comments disagreeing with him/her.
June 28, 2005 Calls Hal4 a "pathological liar."
June 28, 2005 Deletes content of Chicago-style hot dog and replaces it with a call for the article's deletion. - AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
July 16, 2005 Refers to 69.47.22.195 as "you incredible nitwit."
July 16, 2005 Refers to other editors of Italian beef as "a few slices short of a loaf."
July 16, 2005 Personal attack on MysteriousMystery.
July 17, 2005 Deletes another user's talk page comments with the edit summary, "Turnabout is fair play, motherfucker."
July 17, 2005 Calls other editors of Italian beef "twits."
July 17, 2005 Calls another editor "you snobby waspish fuck."
July 17, 2005 Calls Reub2000 a "little spoiled brat."
July 18, 2005 Inserts a refrence to Reub2000's location (Evanston, IL) into an article.
July 18, 2005 Personal attacks on Reub2000, including - "So, Reub, go fuck yourself."
July 18, 2005 Calls Reub2000 an "adorable little cracker."
July 18, 2005 Deletes Reub2000's talk page comments.
July 18, 2005 Deletes comments a second time and insults Reub2000's intelligence.
July 18, 2005 Deletes Reub2000's comments a third time and threatens legal action against Wikipedia.
July 18, 2005 Vandalizes User:Reub2000 with the text, "racist and professional asshole to the stars."
July 18, 2005 Repeats vandalism to Reub2000's talk page.
July 18, 2005 Repeats vandalism a third time and publishes personal information about Reub2000.
August 4, 2005 Edit summary including personal information about Reub2000.
August 6, 2005 Another edit summary with personal attacks against Reub2000.
October 14, 2005 Blatant personal attack against 71.116.132.211 - "If anybody is looking in, please keep an eye on this guy, because he clearly has no intention of dealing honestly."
October 19, 2005 Removed a request that contributors to the talk page review Wikiquette, which was added by Jeffmcneill, not a party to the dispute.
October 20, 2005 Inflammatory edit summary.
October 20, 2005 Inflammatory section heading, accusing an opposing editor of "an almost sociopathic inversion of reality,"
October 26, 2005 Accuses Todfox of libel.
October 26, 2005 Replaces and reiterates libel accusation after it was removed.
October 26, 2005 Ad hominem attack against Todfox - "Tod, you got indulged a lot growing up, didn't you?"
November 8, 2005 Removed NPOV template from article. diff Removed NPOV template a second time, despite ongoing talk page discussion and a plea not to remove it.
November 8, 2005 Deleted AdelaMae's talk page comments in retaliation for her having resorted to requesting administrator assistance in deleting personal information about herself from Talk:Greek reconstructionism; note edit summary containing personal information.
February 4, 2006 Personal attacks on both Cyberdenizen and AdelaMae, accusing AdelaMae of trying to insert a pro-Shrine of the Sleeping Gods POV. (Comment from AdelaMae: This particular accusation is absolutely ridiculous, as the anonymous editor has previously accused me of trying to insert a pro-Hellenion POV, and knows very well from previous association with me that I am in no way associated with Shrine of the Sleeping Gods or any form of Christohellenism and would have no reason whatsoever to prefer any version of Christohellenism over another. I simply do not care.) - "Trying to lodge as many meritless accusations as possible, Cyberdenizen?" - "As the recent head-butting match I had with Ms. ---- over her attempt to slip a pro-Shrine of the Sleeping Gods phrasing into the article shows, I've arrived without any axe to grind."
February 4, 2006 - AdelaMae requested that this 65.182.172.x cite sources for a large quantity of information about Christohellenism that had been added to the article on Hellenic polytheism by him/her. This is his/her response. Repeated posting of AdelaMae's full name, assumes BAD faith, blatant misinterpretations of/outright lies about what she wrote (comment from AdelaMae: the user accuses me of "going back on" my agreement that "prominently" was a more appropriate term than "notably" when I did nothing of the sort - also, note my previous comments stating that this was originally a typo), accusations of breaking any number of Wikipedia rules, personal attacks, threat of contacting admins if she continues to disagree - "If you persist in the position and attempt in any way to act on it, I will be in touch with the admins immediately." - "Except that, and you do this a lot, Ms. ----, you're distorting the policy." - "In closing, let's reiterate the one key point in all of this: I most certainly did not place any claims regarding the number of practitioners or groups in the Christohellenism section of the article." (comment from AdelaMae: I said nothing of the sort. As you will see if you read my comments, I was attempting to find alternate possible sources for information on Christohellenism because The Almond Jar website was the only one I'd been able to locate.) - "And now you have the nerve to to yank my words out of their original context, trying to make political points for yourself out of my willingness to answer your question?" - "Shame on you. If you would like me to "assume good faith", as you said once in the discussion section for another article, try practicing it. This crude attempt on your part to set somebody up hardly qualifies."
February 4, 2006 Personal attacks on Cyberdenizen, willful misinterpretation of the purpose of his edits in a complete failure to assume good faith, threats to post messages Cyberdenizen sent to a members-only email list. (Comment from AdelaMae: I would like to note that I have been working with Cyberdenizen on this and related articles for some time and did not have a clue that he was affiliated with Elaion in any way; in fact, I couldn't have even told you whether he was himself a Hellenic polytheist. I don't see how any reasonable person could have a problem with the neutrality of his edits. This anonymous user insists on interpreting ANY disagreement with his/her edits WHATSOEVER as an attempt at POV-pushing, despite all evidence to the contrary. I suppose s/he just can't fathom the idea that some of us are able to set our personal POVs aside when we write on Wikipedia.) "Your position on NPOV has already been witnessed, Cyberdenizen, back when you made that increadible assertion that NPOV required that the text of the "Hard Recon controversy" section of the old Greek_reconstructionism article exclusively give Elaion's spin instead of presenting both sides of the argument, on the basis that you like Elaion more." - "Should I go dredge that one up out of my personal archives, or are you going to stop trying to use the NPOV policy as a personal mandate to deny visibility to any views you don't personally care for - indulging in the very practice that NPOV was set up to prevent?"
February 4, 2006 Accusing Cyberdenizen of censorship.
February 4, 2006 Accusing Cyberdenizen of censorship - "Your personal agenda is on public display, and now you're just looking for continuing excuses to try to win this one through just pure, underhanded, backbiting persistence."
February 4, 2006 65.182.172.87 edits this RfC, inserting the heading, "BS by those trumping up a charge follows below" at the top of the page and continuing to use AdelaMae's full legal name. Accuses AdelaMae of being an "undersocialized, chemically unbalanced spoiled brat who feels like throwing a fit just because she doesn't like what she has heard or isn't geting what she wants".
February 5, 2006 For a second time, vandalizes the RfC so that his/her comments are at the top of the page and interjects commentary into the Statement of the Dispute section despite being given very clear instructions to put his/her response in the response section. Continues to use AdelaMae's full name.
February 5, 2006 For a third time, interjects comments into the Statement of the Dispute section. Reference to AdelaMae's Yahoo ID, geographic location, etc. suggest cyberstalking behavior.
February 5, 2006 The following edits continuing to interject rebuttals into the Statement of the Dispute section: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (accuses RfC filers of racism) [8] [9] (reiterates accusation of racism, calls AdelaMae a "cracker" [10] (posts AdelaMae's Yahoo ID) [11] (states that he will continue to ignore AdelaMae's request to stop posting her personal information because he sees it as "improper," posts her Yahoo ID again) [12] [13] [14] (threatens to post AdelaMae's personal information on a non-Wikipedia website in retaliation for her comments here) [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
February 5, 2006 Calls RfC filers "whiny overgrown adolescents who can't deal with the fact that somebody else is talking back to them."
February 8, 2006 After having one of his/her IPs blocked for repeated violations of Wikipedia policy, anonymous user continues to edit RfC and insert his/her comments at the top of the page; calls RfC endorsers "a group of childish and demonstrably sleazy individuals".
February 8, 2006 Edits RfC again, calling AdelaMae and Cyberdenizen "a pair of spoiled brats."
February 8, 2006 Makes repeated posts on Talk:Hellenic polytheism containing ad hominem attacks and personal information, including alleged details of AdelaMae's location. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]
February 8, 2006 Edits User:Cyberdenizen with comments such as "Cyberdenizen, blow it out your ass"; edit summary is "Telling this lying nitwit where to get off."

Applicable policies

Policies violated by user's conduct on talk pages:

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links) Since this editor uses a range of different IPs, attempts to resolves these issues have taken place on article talk pages.

Wikipedia:AMA_Requests_for_Assistance#New_Wikipedian_unsure_what_to_do_about_dispute This is my (AdelaMae) original request for administrator intervention, in response to 65.182.172.x's repeated attacks on me for what was my first ever edit to Wikipedia. 65.182.172.x's response to this, as noted above, was to delete my talk page comments.
diff Request for neutral opinion on Talk:Greek reconstructionism by 71.116.133.10. diff 65.182.172.x's response, posting, with full headers, emails by both me and the editor who requested a neutral opinion, which had been sent to a members-only Yahoo Group - including that editor's full name, my full name, various IPs and identifying information. This response also calls the request for intervention "BS" and based on "a baldfaced lie," and includes the "message numbers" of dozens of messages posted on the Yahoo Group by 71.116.133.10. I suppose this could also be listed above as evidence for 65.182.172.x's violation of the harassment policy.
link Requests for mediation filed by Reub2000 and Cyberdenizen.
diff Cyberdenizen filed a request for informal mediation as noted here; however, I have been unable to find a link to the request itself. (EDIT: The information has been restored to the Mediation Cabal Archives - [[29]])
diff Comment made on the user's talk page, on November 8, 2005, requesting that s/he stop posting personal information about other users; 65.182.172.x did not respond and this behavior has not abated (as noted above).
diff Request by AdelaMae that 65.182.172.x comply with WP:V and WP:NOR in his edits, which was followed on his/her part by the edit mentioned above.
February 4, 2006 AdelaMae warned 65.182.172.x a second time not to reveal her personal information on Wikipedia, a request that was completely ignored (see 65.182.172.x's comments below for evidence).

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

AdelaMa e ^{(talk - contribs)} 12:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Cyberdenizen 15:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Reub2000 21:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Robert McClenon 16:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Previous complaints about this user (65.182.172.x):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28assistance%29&diff=prev&oldid=19125481
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=19148986 .
Dcfleck 21:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
SYCTHOS ^talk 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Jkelly 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Durova 07:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Response

[response removed for containing personal information: please ask an admin if the user returns and it becomes necessary to view this material. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC) ]

Outside view by McClenon

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.

Every now and then the "Response" to a user RfC is so over-the-top that it makes the case for the certifiers, so that any subsequent outsider who reads the RfC does not need to read the diffs in order to endorse the RfC. I endorsed the RfC before the "Response" was written. Maybe I should have waited and let the subject present the case for the certifiers. The response is uncivil and consists mostly of personal attacks.

I find the conduct of this anonymous editor with regard to privacy to be very disturbing. He or she is hiding behind the anonymity of a range of IP addresses. The certifiers of this RfC are using established handles that provide them with a measure of accountability. The anonymous editor insists on referring to them by what he insists are their proper names. (I do not know whether that is true, but one of them says that he has been misidentified.) That insistence on disclosure of personal information that they have chosen to withhold is a clear violation of the policy of Harassment, and blatantly unfair.

It also appears that this anonymous editor has tried to deface this RfC. That is not permitted.

I am not an administrator. If I were, I would have blocked the address from which the response was posted.

{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.}

Robert McClenon 22:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
SYCTHOS ^talk 02:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Durova 07:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

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.