Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aidan Work

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: 15:31, 13 December 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Mr Work has now been banned from Wikipedia so this page can be shut down. Adam 15:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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.

[edit] Description

Aidan Work, a recent new user of the Wikipedia, has contributed to the Wikipedia on a large range of subjects, from Numismatics through to Northern Irish and New Zealand politics. However, with the exception of his edits to numastics-related articles, his edits are mostly filled with hate, and fantasy. Many of them are strongly libelous to political and religious figures. He is vehemently, and admittedly, anti-Roman Catholic, anti-Irish Nationalist, anti-Maori and anti-Homosexuality/transexuality.

He also attempts to deflect criticism of his edits with fantastical reasoning, or by purely removing them.

He has invented a number of entities, from a British Commonwealth and British Parliament - both common misnomers among the ill informed; through to a British Nation of Ulster, which is nothing more than a POV-wagon for those who want to reclaim the name of the Irish province of Ulster for Nothern Ireland - a region which consists of 2/3 of Ulster, but not all.

While not many attempts have been made at dispute resolution, this is mainly down to Aidan's inability to discuss anything - Talk:Ian Paisley (in relation to his title, his nationality, and other topics) and Talk:Flag of Northern Ireland (in relation to his fantastical British Nation of Ulster being a 'more common' name) show this in great detail.

I utterly despise filing RfC's, but in this case, something has to be done before the Wikipedia gets filled with hateful, bigoted, libellous statements about everyone and everything Aidan chooses to dislike.

[edit] 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.)

  1. [1] His user page, as of 15:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC). This refers to Pope Benedict XVI as a "pointed-hatted Nazi gorilla" and the "Antichrist"; Gerry Adams as a "mass murderer" and the head of the IRA; Jim Bolger as a "low life scumbag" and Robert Mugabe as a "crackpot dictator". All of these descriptions are under a heading of "People I hate.", alongside Homosexuals, Transexuals, Tariana Turia and the Maori Party. None meet NPOV. His entries under "People I admire." also fail to meet NPOV policy, but are at least not libellous.
  2. [2] NPOV non compliant edits relating to a non-recognised micronation who's leader he "admires".
  3. [3] as above, about the leader.
  4. [4] NPOV-violating, fantastical, hateful edit.
  5. [5] NPOV-violating, hateful, libelous edits attempt to 'condemn someone to hell'
  6. [6] NPOV violating, libelous edit.
  7. [7] develops his fantastical "British Nation of Ulster"
  8. [8] removal of a complaint about himself from WP:AN. This lead to a 24 hour block despite his claims that it was not vandalism following issuing of a {{test4}}. [9], [10]
  9. [11] transcript of User:Camillus McElhinney's "discussion" with Mr. Work regarding evidence for allegations made against Mr. McElhinney by Mr. Work.
  10. [12] says Tariana Turia is "subhuman" and should have been shot "for trying to cause a bloodbath"
  11. [13] says Tariana Turia has been lying for years.
  12. [14] and [15] sees nothing wrong with his defamatory statements
  13. [16] made personal remarks when placing me on admins noticeboard
  14. [17] adopts denial mode when taken to task for personal attacks by neutral editor

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:VAND
  2. WP:DICK, if this can be taken as a valid policy
  3. WP:NPOV
  4. WP:V

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. {{test4}} issued as a final warning for vandalism of user's talk pages and WP: namespace pages [18]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Kiand 15:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. User:Camillus McElhinney 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Moriori 21:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Sean|Black 02:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (Not sure that my note about personal attacks is an attempt to resolve)
  3. I would also say his comments against homosexuality could be illegal in some juristictions. Astrotrain 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Ambi 00:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. OwenBlacker 21:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. Stifle 14:37, 25 January 2006 (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 ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by FreplySpang

Aidan Work is not required to be NPOV on his user page - in fact it's useful that he is so up front about his POV. However, having a list of "people I hate" is troubling. Aidan Work's list of hated people includes large categories of people - homosexuals and transsexuals - that include many Wikipedia editors. This is not good for our community.

After reviewing his contributions, I do not see very many examples where Aidan Work has tried to impose his point of view on articles. Most of his article contributions have to do with coins and currency. However, he also makes inflammatory posts to article talk pages: e.g. Talk:Gerry Adams, Talk:Westboro Baptist Church, Talk:Jim Bolger, Talk:Tariana Turia. There is concern that some of these posts may verge on libel.

Aidan Work needs to understand that Wikipedia talk pages are for discussion of the article, not the topic. This is not a forum for engaging in political debate, but for describing political debates that exist elsewhere. Basically, don't post comments to a talk page unless you have a specific suggestion for improving the article.

Aidan Work has contributed a lot of good information to Wikipedia on non-political subjects. If his political and religious beliefs are so strong that he cannot be civil in some kinds of Wikipedia discussion, then he should stay away from them. Civility is one of the key tenets of our community.

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

  1. FreplySpang (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. Kbdank71 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. Naif 03:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  5. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  6. I have not reveiwed User:Aidan Work's contributions (except for his user page) but I endorse the general policy views above. While a user page is not required to be NPOV, I think a list of "People i hate" particualrly framed in tems so likely to be offensive to many is undesareable and should be discouraged. DES (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  7. —Guanaco 23:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  8. OwenBlacker 21:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Djegan

I am not so sure that Aidan Work's numismatic contributions are an exception to the general negative trend he introduced. He created Banknotes of Ireland and Coins of Ireland which essentially duplicates the preexistent Banknotes of the Republic of Ireland and Coinage of the Republic of Ireland. Before he created the two former articles he did realise that the latter two existed, as evidenced at Talk:Irish_pound#Coins_of_Ireland.. Additional editors discussed it with him on his tak page[19] to no avail.

Moreover the two articles he created have required substantial rework as he persisted in using the outdated word "Erse" apparently as a substitute for "Irish". He also commenced a Coins of Ulster which I must assume would righly be Coins of Northern Ireland.

When challenged he cited his "troubled British nation of Ulster" and the "British Commonwealth" as being the reasons for needed duplication. Needless to say I was very dismayed when he created articles which introduce duplication, as I contributed to the latter on the Republic of Ireland and also advised him duplication would be inadvisable.

  1. Djegan 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. I would endorse DJ's points with regard to specific problematic behaviour, without implying that I associate myself with any of the points made in other sections. Palmiro | Talk 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. Yeah, I had the luck of being to first to comment on the duplicate articles; Aidan Work refused to address my concerns, although he was civil in doing so. Melchoir 23:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  4. OwenBlacker 21:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Bjelleklang

I've been observing Aidan Work for some time now, not as much due to this RFC, but rather due to me incidentally coming across a coupple of articles he wrote, and spotting a few easy-to-make typos (Catagory instead of Category) and also suggesting a merger between Bophuthatswanan postal orders and Bophuthatswana Remainder Issue postal orders (now merged). After adding the merger tag, and notifying him (as I preferred to have him merge them if he agreed), I was somewhat surprised when he told me that "they were not to be merged," with no further reason as to why not. When asked over a coupple occasions later as to why not, I got no further explanations. I've looked at some of his contributions, for example his suggestion that all currency denominations start with a capital letter, his tendency to use full stops in several article titles, as well as headers, and also his tendency to put messages probably intended for the general public at his talkpage, a place where they are not likely to be seen.[20], [21], [22] just to mention a few. (Although people have responded, personally I wouldn't use my own talkpage for that stuff, but rather asked someone else)

My point is this: the POV aside, my impression of Aidan is that he is interested in contributing to Wikipedia, but at the same time extremely unfamiliar with the policy, and I get a general feeling that he hasn't read the most important pages that explain several of the most basic things. Although I'm quite new to Wikipedia myself, I'm going to be as bold as to suggest that he possibly could be part of some or other training/mentoring programme, and assigned someone who could at least walk him through the basics, provided that he agrees to this himself. Also, I believe that some of the vandalism (eg. [23], [24], [25]) he's been accused of could have been avoided if he'd had a better insight to the current policy.

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

  1. Bjelleklang - talk 01:39, 27 December 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.

{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 ~~~~):

[edit] 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.

[edit] Anti-Maori I am not!

There is a big difference between being anti-Maori & being anti-Maori Nationalist. I have some very good friends who are of Maori descent, & understand why I hate the Maori Nationalists. Former Governor-General Sir Paul Reeves & I had a discussion on this, & told me that he could understand where I was coming from. Sir Paul Reeves is of Maori descent. He is from the Te Atiawa Maori nation of Taranaki. I actually have a genuine respect for the descent ordinary Maori, as they are very Royalist-minded people like myself. - (Aidan Work 01:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Page locked

Because of the explicit attempt at defamation of named individuals on his user page, and his unwillingness to remove and stop repeating the comments, that section of his user page has now been blanked and protected to stop the reinsertion of the defamation. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 02:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Retired constitutional ally of Michael Hardie Boys?'

What on earth does this mean? I don't recall Hardie Boys as having any explicit constitutional programme at all (and nor should he have, being a judge and then governor-general). Does anyone know what Mr. Work is referring to when he says this (it's in his speech on his talk page). It seems odd that a 29-year old should describe themselves as retired. A curious 01:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This was a personal & private arrangement between Sir Michael Hardie Boys & I when he was Governor-General of New Zealand. He is a very good friend of mine who did me some favours, & I provided him with some constitutional advice from the horse's mouth, as the old saying goes. There is nothing wrong with saying that I am retired, is there? I am still very active in fighting for the restoration of New Zealanders' constitutional rights, which were illegally taken away by the corrupt politicians. - (Aidan Work 02:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] His conduct

Posted to my personal email by User:Aidan Work: "Adam, as seen as you had the cheek to make a personal attack on me,I will be putting your name at the top of the 'Bigoted Wikipedians' list. As far as I can see,you're a low-life scumbag! Do you know why? Firstly, because you've admitted to being a Commie,a republican pig who supports Sinn Fein/I.R.A. terrorism,&,of course,you've admitted to being a pro-faggot,which in itself means that you will burn up in the Lake of Fire in Hell along with the Nazi Pope of Rome! There is one good faggot - a dead one! One which has either been shot or blown up!"

For the record, I am not a communist and do not support Sinn Fein or the IRA. I am however openly gay. I do not regard this as conduct acceptable at Wikipedia. Adam 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by RatSkrew

This page should forever be preserved as the outrageous lynching of a courageous free speaker by the Leftist Mob that rules Wikipedia. The so-called Toleration Crew shows its true colors: free speech only for those who they agree with. -RatSkrew 05:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of outlets for free speech, including making your own sites and your own encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a place for unconstrained speech, for good reason. Sorry. The constraints in the Encyclopedia space are Neutral Point of View and in the User space the constraints are respect for others and No Personal Attacks. True courage here is to submerge personal biases to the greater cooperative goal of presenting unbiased information. Individually, we can make trouble for each other, but working cooperatively we can together make something far greater and much more useful than any individual or small group could create. Hu 05:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)