Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Garywbush

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: 21:23, 14 June 2008 (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.

User:Garywbush is accused of either beign a sockpuppet, or using sockpuppets, in relation the Kafir article and the Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kaafirphobia article. With relation to these articles, he has also ignored consensus, pushed PoV content and has failed to prove notability for his inclusions.

In response to sockpuppet allegations, he has claimed that User:Earth hacked into his account and is attempting to frame him. He has also claiemd that allegations against him are made due to religious bias, and that User:Robdurbar is a sockpuppet of Earth.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

The article Kaafirphobia was deleted as consenus agreed it was an unotable neologism, when votes by probable sockpuppets were not counted. Garywbush, along with User:Alibadawi and User:Colin chee, suspected sockpuppets of his, attempted to get a paragraph on this phrase included in the Kafir article. Eventually, a short sentence about Kafforphobia was included.

Earth, however, found evidence that Alibadawi and Garywbush are the same user. When Alibadawi was accused of braking the three revert rule on his talk page, it was Garywbush who apologised. Garywbush then changed his edit some twenty minutes later, removing the apology about the 3RR.

Garywbush had faced these accusations by abusing those making them and accusing them of a) being religiously biased against non-muslims and b) using sockpuppets themselves (the specific accusation being that Robdurbar is Earth's sockpuppet). He has also claimed that the above evidence can be discounted due to the fact that someone, probably Earth, hacked into his account and is framing Garywbush. He has faield to provide any evidence for this.

[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] - difference between Garywbush's two edits
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Kaafirphobia - vote for deletion with multiple possible socpuppets
[2] - attempts to push POV neologism without much back up
[3] - threatening and rude reaction to allegations
[4] - placement of fairly unfounded sockpuppet allegation on Robdurbar's account
[5] - makes first claim of religious bias and also accuses earth of hacking into his account
Special:contributions/Alibadawi
Special:contributions/Colin chee

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Wikipedia:No personal attacks
Wikipedia:No legal threats
Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule
Wikipedia:Sock puppet

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

(provide diffs and links)

[6] - use of wikiquette alert
[7] - Kafir page with attempted compromise phrase about 'kaafirpohbia' on it
[8] - attempts to ask garywbush to rationally explain his actions

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~) Robdurbar 12:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC) __earth 13:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[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 McClenon

This RfC has not been properly researched. The template says to provide diffs, not just links to articles or whole user histories. I do not see any diffs. I have not bothered to research the histories of the articles in question, because it should be up to the certifiers to provide that case.

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

  1. Robert McClenon 18:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

:Might it not be better if the word 'diff' was actually explained somewhere in Wikipedia, if it is to be a key part of such a process? If I knew what the term meant, I would willingly change the links! I shall go to the 'vilage pump' to find out Robdurbar 20:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, thank you, I have re-linked the relevant sections Robdurbar 21:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Derex

I'm not impressed by the rudeness, pov, or 3rr evidence; there's just not much there. The sockpuppets are a problem; you should probably just go present your evidence on that over at WP:ANI and get a block on them. As to Kaafirphobia, it's a neologism. Derex 03:42, 28 September 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 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.