Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agiantman

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: 20:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a statement about Agiantman. The user in question is pushing a point of view, but no more than others on the pages in question. However, the user in question is also accused of engaging in personal attacks and incivility in edit summaries, and is accusing other editors of vandalism for removing questioned material.

It is important to note that it is not Agiantman's opinions nor views that are being held in question in this RfC but rather his personal conduct around other editors. This is not a witchhunt to suppress a minority opinion but rather attempt to correct this editor's frequent and demonstrated use of ad hominem attacks against those he is engaged in discussion with.


[edit] Description

Edit wars are in progress over the Ted Kennedy and Rosemary Kennedy articles. Agiantman wishes to insert negative material that many Wikipedians consider to be non-encyclopedic. When his insertions are removed, he re-inserts them with comments in his edit summaries that he is reverting vandalism, or otherwise referring to his opponents as vandals. He referred to two Wikipedians who both post in true names as sock-puppets because they both disagreed with his edits. He accused one of those two Wikipedians of being on the Kennedy payroll.

Two quickpolls were attempted to determine consensus. Agiantman substantively altered the description of one of the polls but labeled that change as a minor edit, interfering with an informed ability to find consensus. 14:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Insulting edit summaries

Accusing two editors of being sock-puppets

Accusing an editor of being on the Kennedy payroll

Substantively altering the description of a survey, labeled as a minor edit (sneaky vandalism)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Neutral Point of View
  2. No Personal Attacks
  3. Civility
  4. Assume good faith
  5. Vandalism

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

(provide diffs and links)


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Robert McClenon 12:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Gamaliel 20:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. JamesMLane 20:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Jmabel | Talk 00:54, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. kizzle 20:59, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Voice of All(MTG) 21:04, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Viriditas | Talk 08:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Calton | Talk 13:26, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Willmcw 05:22, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  6. RadicalSubversiv E 16:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. RyanFreisling @ 01:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  8. 172 | Talk 22:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  9. Derex 04:02, 28 September 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.

User:Robert McClenon and User:Gamaliel have now initiated an RfC against User:24.147.97.230 using User:24.147.97.230's supportive edits on this page as "evidence." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/24.147.97.230 That RfC is more harrassment by the POV warrior bullies to suppress anyone who doesn't endorse their POV. It's also a clear attempt to intimidate editors who want to support me here. User: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 User:Gamaliel have initiated or participated in RfC requests designed to harrass those that disagree with them.--Agiantman 21:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


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

CAPS LOCK 17:46, 25 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.

[edit] Outside view by 67.18.109.218

Gamaliel always trys to force its POV on other parties, then accuses other parties of violating Wikipedia Policies. Just look at its talk page! It constantly reverts its talk page in order to squash good points made at its motives. You need to consider this when judging the merits of any action brought by Gamaliel. Its even violated the same rules that its accusing this user of!

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

  1. 67.18.109.218 20:55, 17 August 2005 (UTC) - Never forget.
    This user is a vandal. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: This IP address has been blocked three times for vandalism and personal attacks. Gamaliel 21:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by kizzle

User:Agiantman IMHO is a particularly troublesome user through his inability to restrain himself from making personal attacks. The first post I ever made to Agiantman on the Kathleen_Willey article simply asked for him to specify what his problem was with the veracity of the article. In return (keeping in mind that we had never dialogued with each other before), he mocked my viewpoint by stating:

P.S. Kizzle, I just read your contributions and discussions in other areas. LOL! Based on your very political comments elsewhere in wikipedia, it should be clear to all why you don't see the POV problem with this article.

This type of behavior has further exemplified itself in the Kennedy pages, and one look to User:Agiantman's talk page shows a variety of warnings for 3RR, users pleading with him to relent in his personal attacks, frivilous charges of vandalism, etc. It is my opinion that this user has been warned more than his fair share by a multitude of editors, and that appropriate action should be taken.--kizzle 21:11, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

User:Kizzle is arguably the biggest hippocrite on this page. I had been a member of Wikipedia for less than 48 hours when Kizzle called me a "douchebag!" [1] He called me a "douchebag" again when referring to me on another's talk page. [2] Is that the kind of civility wikipedia is looking for? Why no RfC for User:Kizzle? Could it be because he another liberal POV warrior? BTW - If you think he just uses the term "douchebag" with me, guess again. [3]
If you want to start an RfC about Kizzle, no one is stopping you from doing so. However, he issue at hand in this RfC is your conduct. Whatever kizzle's past conduct, that does not excuse your behavior. Gamaliel 23:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is User:Kizzle twice referring to User:JamesMLane as an "asshole." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesMLane#Wiki_Wiffle_Bat Does User:JamesMLane complain? No. Why? You guessed it. User:Kizzle is a fellow pro-Kennedy POV warrior. If you are a pro-Kennedy POV warrior, you get a pass. If you attempt to introduce negative info about Kennedy or another liberal politician, you will be harrassed by the bullies until you leave wiki.--Agiantman 04:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Read it again. It was obviously a joke. Gamaliel 04:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


I do have a problem Agiantman, which you have pointed out, of responding to personal attacks with personal attacks myself. But I stand by my initial post of completely good faith simply trying to dialog with you, while the first post you ever write to me is committing an ad hominem attack. Why in the world should I respect your opinion when the first thing you say to me is an attack? Not to mention condescending down to me several times because I happen to be younger than you. So you know what, Agiantman, bring the RfC on. I personally would love to have another avenue pointing out your hostile behavior on this Wikipedia: more evidence to build up for later Arbcom hearings. --kizzle 05:13, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Jmabel

More of the same, after this RfC was filed

I could say several things about this edit, but the main thing I wish to point out is that Agiantman seems to feel that Robert McClenon should change his behavior merely because Agiantman has filed a (possibly retaliatory) RfC against him, while apparently not considering any possiblity that his own behavior might be an issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC for User:Gamaliel?

I think an RfC about you, User:Gamaliel, is more appropriate. I believe your conduct has been out of control and certainly unbecoming of a wiki administrator. Before I do so, I wonder if anyone else would support an RfC for User:Gamaliel? Please comment here. Thanks!--Agiantman 03:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Ernestocgonzalez

I am 100% in support of agiantman. I joined Wikipedia when I read the discussion on the Ted Kennedy page. I admire agiantman because he sticks to his guns. The pro Kennedy editors who are making allegations on this page are guilty of much worse. They are thugs who try to intimidate and harrass anyone who doesn't share their biased pro-Ted Kennedy point of view. When I voted in recent poll, they made a disparaging remark about me. Agiantman has fought to keep important things in the kennedy article, like ted kennedy's role in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. The "bullies" don't want anything negative about kennedy in the article. I support agiantman and those charging him should instead be charged with abusing the process.--Ernestocgonzalez 21:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

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

Note: This is the user's fourth edit. Gamaliel 21:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

And I'm glad he or she has come forward. Am I supposed to think less of he or she due to the time spent at wiki? Perhaps you should be a bit more open to others. 24.147.97.230 22:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's Ernestocgonzalez's edit history. --kizzle 23:23, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by 24.147.97.230

The biased "editors" who endorsements are above refuse to negociate for content. It's their way or no way. The acts of removal of entire paragraphs of work by them is vandalism. We are not looking at content that is fictional, but important parts of Ted Kennedy's life and career. The work on Rosemary Kennedy is the same. If they want to contribute, fine. Stop the removal of other's work and do some of your own. Just because you love the Kennedys does not wash the past clean. It happened as reported, get used to it.24.147.97.230 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's 24's edit history. --kizzle 23:24, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

...and the point is???? I suggest you guys think about writing your own contributions instead of attacking others.24.147.97.230 00:04, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

  • What difference does an editor's history make in the veracity of her arguments?
  • Otherwise known as "the fatboy anon". What a surprise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:31, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by 66.176.137.204

This is my very first time editing on wikipedia so please forgive me if I make a mistake. i know agiantman from work and he sent me the link to this page. I told him that I would give him my objective advice. My first observation is that i cannot understand what the fuss is about. i can see there are 3 charges. First charge: "Insulting edit summaries." I clicked on the link and I could not find anything remotely insulting. maybe the guy making the charges made a mistake with the link. Second charge: "Accusing two editors of being sock-puppets." That sounds pretty funny. I have never heard that one before. It certainly isn't offensive and only a real baby would complain about it. the last charge: "Accusing an editor of being on the Kennedy payroll." Are you guys kidding? That's clearly a joke. Again only a big baby would complain. And that's all 3 charges. My conclusion? The people charging agiantman are just BIG BABIES! WAAAAAAA! WAAAAAA! P.S. I guess I will now be brought up on charges for calling you big babies. And I assume Mr. Gamaliel will follow my comment by mentioning that this is my only edit.--66.176.137.204 23:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow. --kizzle 00:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Noitall

Full disclosure, User:Agiantman requested that I comment here, possibly because I have edited on some of the political pages. I have never, as far as I know, edited a page User:Agiantman has been on or on these pages in dispute. So I do consider myself an outsider here.

Comments:

  1. User:Agiantman looks to be pushing it a little, but not enough for an RfC.
  2. If User:Agiantman states that he will use the talk page more and explain his edits, then this RfC should go away
  3. There may be a little bit of a gang-up mentality here, and one of the editors is never satisfied with extensive writing and analysis even on a talk page, so this can back someone into a corner
  4. User:Agiantman should think through his entire edit and should not attach unrelated items, even if true, onto paragraphs dealing with an entirely different subject -- find a different way, write a new paragraph or transition at the appropriate section of the article
  5. this seems to be confined to an edit war on 1 or 2 pages, not really enough in my opinion for an RfC
  6. to the extent that an RfC is designed to improve, I hope User:Agiantman will modify his manner and improve his edits with my suggestion above
  7. I believe that RfCs should be used for more severe violations than this, especially when the there is a real attempt to harm (no real intent here, just hot temper), the words are truly insulting and uncivil (not here, unless you want to RfC everyone who calls another a vandal), or find out that Kizzle is actually not on the Kennedy payroll (that's a joke).
    1. Ummm, how did my name get dropped here? --kizzle 04:20, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Anyhow, I hope this is helpful in some way. --Noitall 03:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I was also culled here by Agiantman, and also have not had any direct experience with him. This is all a bit silly. Agiantman should avoid personal attacks, the dispute should be settled rationally, and this is hardly worthy of a user Rfc. --TJive 11:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
  2. I concur that Agiantman should avoid making attacks, however there also appears to be a bit of a gang mentality and biting of the newbies going on here among the persons who filed this RfC. There is clear POV pushing going on in favor of the Kennedy figures in the described articles, and to the extent that Agiantman's edits can keep this in check or balance it out, he should be permitted to do so. He is encouraged to cite sources for his additions and write in NPOV where possible, as are the editors on the other side of this dispute. User:Gamaliel appears to be at least as guilty in POV pushing the other way, for example. Also, I don't see anything that rises to the level of requiring an RfC here and certainly not an arbitration proceeding at this time - just political disagreements. Rangerdude 20:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Outside View

Thank you. There are different views as to when a Request for Comments is needed. I think that Noitall and I are in disagreement as to when one is called for. I understand the difference of opinion, and I appreciate Noitall's comments.

I am willing to withdraw the RfC if Agiantman will use the talk page more, and in particular avoid using insulting edit summaries, and refrain from accusing anyone of being on the Kennedy payroll. (I have very mixed feelings as to whether I wish I were. I would like the money, but I do not want to support them.)

I also hope that Agiantman will avoid insulting other editors. If he agrees to do that, I will be glad to withdraw the RfC. Robert McClenon 03:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You can't ask for more than that. I hope that User:Agiantman productively responds to your offer and statement. --Noitall 04:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:TDC

User:Agiantman also asked me to comment here as well. Although I agree that Agiantman has been a shade too aggressive and has arguably insulted some users involved in this dispute, this is one of the most ridiculous uses of an RfC I have seen. It smacks of being a vindictive and petty attempt by some users to keep his content out of the article. TDC 14:42, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Outside view by Willmcw

Editor Agiantman left a note on the talk page of JamesMLane that I noticed. It claimed that Lane had left a rude note on Agiantman's talk page. That surprised me so I looked. It had been deleted, along with three warnings. The Lane note was very civil, so I restored the warnings and added my own admonition. [4] Agiantman's response, on the 18th, said "the editors you mention are all part of the same cabal who harrass and pigpile on anyone who disagrees with their POV. " and, "Please do not leave any further messages on my discussion page. If you would like, I will leave a nice warning on your page."[5]

A recent remark, 05:12, August 20, 2005, is also rude: "I was wikistalked and harrassed when I first joined wiki slightly more than one month ago. I am still being harrassed by bullies who are trying push their POV."[6] It appears that this user is more interested in picking fights than writing an encyclopedia. -Willmcw 20:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Is anyone surprised that User:Willmcw has joined his gang here? You should know that "wikistalking" is a sensitive topic for User:Willmcw. To see a recent arbcom complaint against User:Willmcw for wikistalking, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Willmcw_and_User:SlimVirgin --Agiantman 21:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Agiantman's Response to Robert McClenon

1. I agree that I will use the talk page more often. 2. I will make a conscious effort not to insult anyone, especially on edit summaries. 3. I will refrain from accusing anyone of being on the Kennedy payroll. 4. I hereby apologize for any and all offenses.--Agiantman 04:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

If you also agree to stop using misleading edit summaries - such as claiming consensus for your version when that is patently false - then I will also agree we can end this right here. What is at issue here is not that we insist you agree with our politics or our version of the article, but that we insist you act with civility and stop insulting us. Gamaliel 04:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel while you're at it, why not ask Agiantman to stop posting non left wing POV items? Isn't that the real problem here? PS Who gets lynched next? 24.147.97.230 15:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, Gamaliel your incivility on this page and elsewhere is quite apparent and you are obviously projecting. You have repeatedly harrassed and insulted my supporters on this page by removing their comments or making snide remarks that following theirs. I accepted Robert McClenon's conditions for deleting this page and I am unsure why it has not been deleted. If the harrassment persists, I will take the offensive and introduce RfC pages to discuss the bullies that persist in harrassing others.--Agiantman 15:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
The page has not been deleted because it is a certified RfC. I'm not sure it can be deleted, but you can research the relevant policies yourself.
Your attempts to change the focus to my conduct does not change the fact that you have been repeatedly uncivil and leveled numerous personal attacks. If you actually believe that you have been completely civil in your dealings with myself and others, then obviously we need to take further action beyond this RfC. Gamaliel 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Serious question, why do you feel the need to bully other users by lording your admin privileges (and yes the are privileges) over their heads? TDC 16:43, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
I see that everyone is determined to assume the worst, but the "further action" I was actually referring to meant an ArbCom proceeding, which is open to any user. Gamaliel 16:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel, you state "we" in "we need to take further action beyond this RfC". Who do you represent? 24.147.97.230 17:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Myself and anyone else who is tired of insults and incivility. Gamaliel 18:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Please speak only for yourself or specify exact members of the group who wish to appoint you as representative. You write as though you are in a position of power but do not specify the persons who have appointed you as spokesperson. This is misleading to the casual reader24.147.97.230 20:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further Comments by McClenon

I personally think that it will soon be time to go to the Arbitration Committee. However, it is best to exhaust all remaining dispute resolution options first.

I had been willing to strike my signature to this RfC after Agiantman agreed, in detail, to be civil. Gamaliel is correct that deleting the link to a certified RfC would probably violate policy. I am no longer willing to strike my signature. The reason why I did not immediately strike my signature was that I was waiting for a cooling-off period. During the cooling-off period, Agiantman is engaging in new personal attacks on [User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel]].

Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, it does not have detailed regulations about how Requests for Comments are edited. I think that there have been violations of the spirit of the concept of RfCs by both sides. The less serious violations, but in my view violations nonetheless, have been by signers of the RfC. The notes as to the editing patterns of the outside views should really, in my view, have been added to the foot of the RfC, rather than directly annotating their statements. I think that anyone, even a sockpuppet, should be able to state their view on an RfC without having their view added to in place. There are other ways to comment. The more serious violations have been by supporters of Agiantman. They have altered the Description field of this RfC to insert their opinions. They are entitled to their opinions, but by editing the Description, they are making it difficult for future editors to understand why comments were requested. Also, the appearance of new signed-in accounts for the sole purpose of responding to this RfC and of the use of new IP addresses for the sole purpose of responding to this RfC does violate Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets.

I had hoped that these issues could be worked out without an RfC, and especially without an RfAr. I did post two messages to the talk page of Agiantman. I thought that he had not responded to them. I was mistaken. It turns out that he had responded to them on my user page, rather than my talk page. I assume that this was an accident, because I think that editing another user's user page is inappropriate, and is close to (although not) vandalism. He asked me to stop harassing him.

The anonymous supporters of Agiantman do appear to be sock-puppets, although I do not know whose sock-puppets they are.

I am again willing to consider the issue to have been resolved on a few conditions: 1. There should be a 36-hour cooling-off period.

2. Agiantman will refrain from personal attacks and insults during that period.

3. Agiantman will either ask his anonymous supporters to refrain from personal attacks and insults during that period, or will respond to any anonymous personal attacks or insults.

I would also suggest that any admins who have joined in or endorsed this RfC should refrain from using their admin privileges with regard to this dispute.

I will take a break from this dispute for 36 hours. Robert McClenon 02:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the new conditions?

I met your conditions when you made them on August 18. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agiantman#Reply_to_Outside_View] Why are you creating new conditions? Were you insincere when you made your original conditions? Or did I agree to them too quickly? As everyone can see, the harrassment by these folks never ends. --Agiantman 04:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

This is Rex all over again. --kizzle 05:14, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...maybe he is Rex. Perhaps we need to get someone to do an IP check. Gamaliel 05:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:Ultramarine

User:Agiantman also have asked me to comment. I have no previous knowledge of this conflict. I think Agiantman have made some questionable comments and I hope that he in the future will only comment on the arguments, not the persons. As others have posted earlier, I think that a RfC should be used for more serious violations. As he has apologized and promised to improve, this should be finished. Looking at Ted Kennedy, Agiantman has provided referenced sources about some incidents. I find it troublesome that these hava been completely deleted by some of his accusers. This may violate NPOV. I also find it troublesome that some of his accusers have tried to delete his edits, on a RfC about himself. There if anywhere should he be allowed to express his opinion. McClenon above claims that the "The more serious violations have been by supporters of Agiantman." and seems to argue that there should be a RfA against Agiantman if his supporters should repeat this! No guilt by association, please. His accusers also seem to find the term sockpuppet to be offensive when used by Agiantman, but certainly has no trouble using it themselves. Ultramarine 02:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:RyanFreisling

After joining the discussion on the Ted Kennedy talk page in an effort to help the group in building some amity to resolve the page protection, I have just been personally attacked in an inappropriate and churlish way by User:Agiantman, in a manner reminiscent of the attacks he aimed at User:Kizzle. In my case, his attack read:

You, User:RyanFreisling, are a POV warrior of the worst kind. Your POV pushing history here and elsewhere is a matter of record. I think it may be time for a User:RyanFreisling RFC.--Agiantman 01:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC) [7]

In addition, Agiantman just posted the following to another article to which I contribute, a post reminiscent of Wiki stalking:

I am considering an RFC on User:RyanFreisling's incivility, offensive conduct and POV pushing. Can I find any support here? --Agiantman 01:40, 24 August 2005 [8]

Needless to say, I would rather concentrate on the article and the issues there, but instead, User:Agiantman seems hell-bent on accusing and threatening anyone who confronts him, even in a polite and inclusive way. I think this is one example, in my case a personal example, of a pattern of bad faith and unacceptable behavior on Agiantman's part, that disrupts Wikipedia. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. - RyanFreisling @ 15:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Outside View

The truth is an absolute defense. User:RyanFreisling is yet another POV warrior who fights to defend Ted Kennedy's honor by all comers and refers to any comments about his POV pushing as "personal attacks." His major contribution to Wikipedia is the maintenance and editing of the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities page. --Agiantman 01:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
1. Again, you assert no fact, you just call me a POV warrior, call it 'truth' and don't speak to the actual issues. 2. It's 'her', not 'his'. 3. I'm proud of my work on the article you mention - an article which requires a lot of diligence and neutrality in culling fact from hyperbole. I'm proud of my contributions to Wikipedia. -- RyanFreisling @ 01:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Amen to that. I'd also like to point out that Agiantman's quote came after the Ted Kennedy talk page was cleared and given a "clean slate"... several editors who had been previously involved in disputes had begun to work with each other in a respectful manner... all except Agiantman. Agiantman continues to personally attack those who simply have the gall to disagree with him by calling them "POV warriors" or "POV pushers". And by the way, Ryan has positively contributed more to that and many many many other articles than Agiantman will ever contribute. Maybe Agiantman should start addressing the editor's arguments themselves rather than their political beliefs. --kizzle 18:20, August 24, 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.


I think this needs to go to Arbcom. Agiantman has not curtailed his personal attacks and has instead repeatedly called those who disagree with him as "POV pushers" and "POV warriors", not to mention his incessant threats to file retaliatory RfCs against those users who have commented in this page. Clearly, this RfC is not having any effect whatsoever on Agiantman's personal conduct. Maybe we need to take this to the next level. --kizzle 17:00, August 25, 2005 (UTC)