Wikipedia:Requests for comment/69.253.195.228

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was created at 23:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] 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.

Since his first contribution on 24 October 2005, the user behind this IP address has edited almost exclusively articles related to the eXile newspaper, and mainly the eXile's article itself. He claims to be Peter Ekman, a former newspaper editor who was criticized/mocked by the eXile; Ekman has repeatedly criticized the eXile in a hostile way and called for a boycott of it, for example in Johnson's Russia List [1]. As he has stated in a comment on Kmweber's talk page, he views Wikipedia's page on the eXile as an extension of the eXile's business, which he wishes to "stop permanently."

Consequently, he has tried a variety of strategies for degrading the quality of the page.

This RfC is a conduct dispute, not a content dispute. So far consensus and wikipedia policy have in every instance prevented a degradation in quality of the content in question. But 69.253.195.228 has proved persistent and versatile in inventing outlandish ways to push his POV, and is effectively holding the article hostage. His contributions, which have been largely contentless, have served only to create ongoing tasks of babysitting and cleanup for the other editors, and distracted from the addition and refinement of real content. There are no other users or ip adresses which agree with his edits, but this has not stopped him from flouting consensus. Specifically, major changes are often made without reaching or even seeking consensus on the talk page.

In particular the talk section 2 calls for consensus is notable in that what it chronicles provides a microcosm for the whole phenomenon: 69.253.195.228 makes edits that border on vandalism, they are reverted, they are re-reverted; discussion on the talk page is slow to get going but overwhelmingly against the change, and the change is ultimately removed, with much time wasted all around. This is not to say no edit whatsoever by 69.253.195.228 has been useful or that none of his points have been valid. Rather, the point of this RfC is that his behavior must change.

[edit] Evidence of Disputed Behavior

Specific disputed actions:

  1. 2 spurious nominations for deletion, the second of which resulted in a speedy keep. (1 ,2)
  2. Blanking: ([2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]), for which he was briefly blocked by Tregoweth.
  3. Removal of the eXile from a disambiguation page [13]
  4. Creation of a page with the same name to intentionally mislead wikipedia readers. [14]
  5. Highly POV reorganization of pages, to portray the subject in the worst possible light. For example, this hasty edit to Matt Taibbi or this one to the eXile
  6. Claiming (usually on the basis of satirical articles) that the newspaper is unreliable, fascist, racist, extremist, etc. so that in a sound-byte based, narrowly legalistic interpetation of wikipedia:verifiability, it cannot even be used a source to show what it has published. I repeat, because it sounds so incredible: he insisted that the eXile's article not cite the eXile!
  7. Claiming on the basis of "length" that info should be removed, and removing lots of information from the article, without first seeking consenus on the talk page.[15] Exactly which facts are notable is always a touchy issue, but 69.253.195.228 has quickly jumped to a delete-happy conclusion, disregarding the work and opinions of everyone but himself.
  8. Trying to label the eXile as fascist, "an extremist organization" etc. on both the article and on the talk page. Most recently, this edit basically listed a lot of controvertial things done by Eduard Limonov on the eXile page to portray the paper in a negative and biased light, instead of exploring the notable aspects of the connection between the two. This edit reaks of yellow journalism and a blatant disregard for the NPOV policy. It came after he had violated the 3RR rule, when other editors had stopped making reversions to abide by the rule/avoid senseless edit wars.
  9. Violating the 3RR rule, as has been recently reported on the appropriate page.

Minor issues:

  • Claiming a consensus when he did not have one, by cutting and pasting a single week-old comment [16]
  • Perpetually refusing to sign posts on talk pages and indent, ignoring requests on his talk page to do so
  • Patronizing and billigerent edit summaries such as "just check the facts!" or "leave out the libel!"

Dsol 19:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

Aside from many reminders of policy and requests for consensus-seeking in the discussion at talk:the eXile, several users have specifically tried to reason with 69.253.195.228:

Other attempts at resolution have included:

  • Edits to restore NPOV from an outside perspective by user:Squibix by who later disagreed with 69.253.195.228's proposals for placing a factually disputed tag on the article and placing info about their libel case at the top of the page.
  • Other attempts have been made on the talk page to resolve the dispute by 24.168.5.223 ([17]), Dsol ([18]), Brighterorange ([19],[20]), and Mgreenbe ([21],[22])

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Dsol (talk · contribs)
  2. Mgreenbe (talk · contribs)
  3. Brighterorange (talk · contribs)
  4. Ryan Utt (talk · contribs)
  5. DakotaKahn (talk · contribs)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Urthogie (talk · contribs)

[edit] Updates

  1. 69.253.195.228 has been blocked for a 3RR violation, and then unblocked in order to respond here. He promptly violated 3RR again. And again. Dsol 10:04, 17 November 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.

[edit] 69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs)

The eXile has a consistently stated policy of libelling it enemies (see Libel sections and "Fringe Voices" section as well). They have publically confessed (and then retracted) forging U.S. Congressional documents.

They have libelled me (and other private citizens)and hidden behind weak, unenforced Russian libel laws. Now they come to Wikipedia and write a fluff piece about themselves, quoting the eXile as having said ... about me and others. This seems to be laundering the libel the same way that some criminals launder money. It is also against Wikipedia rules that say REPUTABLE sources must be used. The eXile is clearly not reputable in any sense of the word. They can't even write a list of contributors that is not obviously false and self-promoting.

The eXile staff is clearly a group of very nasty, disreputable people Please take 5 seconds to look at the eXile's cover immediately following 9/11/01 that sexually mocks the victims of 911. [23] [24]

And look at their guide to committing mass murder [25]

Look at their close connection to neo-Fascist Edward Limonov, founder of Russia's banned National Bolshevik Party. (I've reinserted this section, since it is the best sourced section in the entire article).

Do you really think that Wikipedia should allow self-confessed serial libellers to pass their garbage off as coming from a REPUTABLE source?

Several related Wikipedia policies are relevant here.

from Verifiability WP:V “One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher.”

I've asked several times and no editor has ever claimed the eXile is a REPUTABLE source. So text that relies solely on the eXile as a source should not be included.

from Reliable sources WP:RS

“…editors should avoid using political groups with widely acknowledged extremist views, like Stormfront.org or the British Socialist Workers Party. Groups like these may be used as primary sources only i.e. as sources about themselves, and even then with caution and sparingly. Extremist groups should not be used as secondary sources.”

The libels that the eXile is trying to launder through Wikipedia, are obviously using the eXile itself as a secondary source. There is no question about the close connection between the eXile and Eduard Limonov, founder and leader of Russia's banned National Bolshevik Party. (At least there should be no question if the section on the relation between Limonov and the eXile is not deleted again).

From No Original Research WP:NOR “Original research refers to original research by editors of Wikipedia. It does not refer to original research that is published or available elsewhere (although such research may be excluded if editors consider the source to be disreputable or inappropriate). The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; …”

Clearly somebody is doing "original research" and it is not reputable and may be excluded.



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

  • ...

[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.}

[edit] Outside view by SlimVirgin

Wikipedia articles must be written in accordance with our content policies, which are Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. In addition, we have a guideline about sources: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. What these polices jointly say is that we publish material only if it has already been published by credible or reputable sources, and that our articles should include all majority and significant-minority views, but should not include tiny-minority views, except in articles devoted to those views. We also have Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, which prohibits advocacy of any kind.

When dealing with published sources not regarded as reputable enough to be used as sources of information on other people, we may nevertheless use them as sources of information on themselves if they have a Wikipedia page, but even then we proceed with caution. So for example, Stormfront may be used as a source if we want to know what Stormfront says about itself in the article about that group, but we don't use Stormfront as a source of information on Jews. We also don't repeat its views about Jews in the Stormfront article unless we're carefully selecting certain passages to illustrate what kind of organization it is. But we don't allow the Stormfront article to become a platform for Stormfront propaganda. Wikipedia is not an extension of other people's websites.

The article about the exile violated these policies. It freely admits to making things up, appears to have a very low circulation, seems to have very little editorial oversight or fact-checking process, and is not what anyone would call a "reputable publication". It violated our policies because it contained information about third parties where the only source of that information was the exile itself. It was this information that 69.253.195.228 (talk · contribs) was trying to delete, because he believed some of it was defamatory. The other editors argue that, if the exile is notable then so is everything it has published, whether libelous or not. But Wikipedia is not an extension of the exile, which is what some of the editors seemed to be trying to turn it into. As a result, the content wasn't encyclopedic, it looked like a vanity page written by people who work for it, and it contained information not verified by third-party sources that was potentially damaging to a couple of named individuals. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. DakotaKahn (talk · contribs)
  2. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC). Sounds just right.
  3. —Hauser 0136 AM, 18 Nov 2005 (NZEST). Very true, and I must say that here, the current eXile article CONTINUES to be, in my opinion, a violation of Wikipedia protocol in that it includes far too much information than is required for a real encyclopedia.

[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.