Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Devilmaycares

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: 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:24, 12 June 2008 (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

User:Devilmaycares has been pushing an anti-Republican POV across multiple articles. He has also for the most part refused to communicate with other editors. In addition, Devilmaycares has engaged in incivil behavior when fighting for his POV often calling others vandals.

It is also my belief this user is attempting to pushes his POV up-to but not over the line of a blatant policy violation. Once they get warned or banned for a short time they back off and push in a different direction.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

POV Pushing:

Incivility:

  • [19] Edit Summary: "take a logic and critical thinking class it might help you"
  • [20] - Edit Summary: "u obviously don't know what you're talking about. try editing there some time"
  • [21] - Edit Summary: "piss off anon"
  • [22] - Edit Summary: "who the hell are u?"
  • [23] - Edit Summary: "ok we need an honnest person here"
  • [24] - Edit Summary: "*bronx cheer*" (see Bronx cheer)
  • [25] - Comment: "I seem to attract assholes..."
  • [26] - Comment: "wow how cute I have a stalker." - Response to being notified of these proceedings.
  • [27] Article Edit: Added "Wikipedians" under the see-also section of nerd.

Copyright Violation'

Block avoidance and sockpuppetry

  • User:Grazon has edited on this account to aboid every block. See contributions of Devils for each date/time Grazon has been blocked.
  • Sock-puppetry has been established though a comparison of edit-times. See: User:J.smith/Devilmaycares And Grazons

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:BLP
  4. WP:RS
  5. WP:C

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

Vandalism Warnings:

3RR

Copyright violation warning

Regarding rem. political category from John Wayne Gacy

Tendentious editing

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. ---J.S (t|c) 18:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. I find this to be an accurate and fair description of the problem. Guy 10:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Aside from the dif about John Wayne Gacy where I don't see why having the category makes a lot of sense, I endorse this as reasonable and accurate. JoshuaZ 21:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. I am not familiar with the above problems, but I would like to record the fact that I have had considerable problems with this user on the Brian Flemming article. Laurence Boyce 13:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. I ran into this user on RC patrol at Ann Coulter. In addition to almost all of his or her edits being contentious POV, Devilmaycares also apparently has experience in gaming the system [30]. Combine that with occasional borderline vandalism and it would seem we have a single-purpose account with little concern for differing opinion and little if any regard for the site, its rules, and its users [31]. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:44, 2 November 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:

[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 from Jayron32

I have not been involved with this user or any of his edits to date. Looking at his contribs, I find the following information which may be relevent:

  • User is unrepentant. The following additions to wikipedia were made AFTER the user was notified of this RfC:
    • [32] shows user being subtly uncivil by adding "Wikipedians" to a see also list under the Nerd article. (Change dated Oct 31st)
    • [33] continues to add the Category:segregationist tag to the Barry Goldwater article (change dated Oct 30th)
    • [34] added category:anticatholic to Brian Flemming article, reverting another user who had THEMSELVES just removed the same tag. The guy he reverted had asked him to stop adding the tag, and asked him to discuss the matter on Talk pages. His response in the edit summary is "Why should I care?".
  • Other edits show POV pushing and edit warring:
    • [35] [36] [37] edit warring of the association of the Boy Scouts with Hitler Youth Knives; his objection to the facts inclusion is not what is at hand, it is his incivil comments and refusal to take to talk page that is bothersome.
    • [38] repeatedly tries to associate BTK killer Dennis Rader with Republican party. When his unsourced statements are repeatedly removed as unsourced, he eventually relents, and provided this source A CNN Larry King Interview transcript, which, while it DOES relate to the BTK killer, has NO MENTION of Dennis Raders political affiliations. It would appear that he is merely trying to provide a link to a relevent site in the hopes of keeping his STILL unconfirmed and unsourced statement.
    • [39] removes reference from an article without comment or reasoning.
    • [40] repeatedly adds UNSOURCED statements to Michael Moore Controversies article, and when reverted as unsourced, he unreverts them, but his only defense is "sadly its true" and never does add any sources to back up his claims.
    • [41] repeatedly adds unsourced statements to Daily Kos article, and is VERY uncivil in edit summaries when his unsourced statements are reverted.
    • [42] attempt to add unsourced, non-NPOV statements to article Black Rage.
  • Suspicious, possibly sneaky anti-LGBT behaviours, largely centering around adding LGBT category tags to articles of people who are not self-identified with the LGBT community, but have deviant or criminal behavior:
    • [43] [44] [45] Suspicious use of Category:LGBT tags that seem to ONLY be applied to pedophiles and other deviant criminals. If the tag were added to a more random sampling of LGBT issues and people, it would not be as suspicious. But the use EXCLUSIVELY with suspected or recognized deviants (pedophiles, etc.) is suspicious.
    • [46] [47] Categorization and comments on Jim Jones talk page are a suspicious attempt to link Jim Jones with being a homosexual. Unverified, and unwarranted.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Jayron32 05:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Well done. I didn't want to get involved with the LGBT cat because I wasn't totaly informed about the issue. The talk page has a huge list of diffs about it tho that might be helpfull. ---J.S (t|c) 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. From what I have seen here, this user should be subject to a community ban if this sort of behavior continues. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 20:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[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.