Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maddyfan

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: 20:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:48, 9 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

Maddyfan (talk · contribs) has edit warred Christina Aguilera in regards to a vocal profile section which by consensus cannot be verifiable, a section in regards to Mariah Carey and the cleanup of the article by Extraordinary Machine (talk · contribs) (also known in this RfC as "EM"). The edit war has caused Jkelly (talk · contribs) to protect the article. This user has also shown incivility against EM, stating that he is violating policy because of his deletions, and that EM should prevent himself from editing the article in order for it to be opened again. Maddyfan has not provided any evidence of what policies have been violated. EM has repeatedly explained his edits with policy references. It is believed that Maddyfan is using both sockpuppets and anonymous IP addresses in attempt to get the edge in discussions. Xtinamoline (talk · contribs) was created after the lock, and has only made edits to Talk:Christina Aguilera stating how much this user wants EM to leave. This users has repeatedly removed warnings and sockpuppet templates from his/her userspace.

[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.) This is a limited list, more may be added when time allows, and when other participants enter. Please also see "evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute" for more examples.

From Christina Aguilera:

  1. 10:46, 11 June 2006 - reverting EM's edits to intro (further reverts to same section at 10:58, 11 June 2006 and 11:47, 11 June 2006).
  2. 22:31 to 22:35, 11 June 2006 (by 68.46.186.126) - reverting EM's edits to 2006 section and Voice section. (Note that this also reverted the introduction again, which made four reverts to the same section by Maddyfan in a 24 hour period.)
  3. 02:41, 13 June 2006 (by 68.46.186.126) - reverting EM again, including his rewrite of intro.
  4. 02:57, 13 June 2006 - inserting inline citations of a LiveDaily message board posting and a reference.com Christina Aguilera article (a clear mirror of the Wikipedia article).
  5. 10:55, 13 June 2006 - reverting EM, including his correction of an obvious mistake in a date.
  6. 11:10, 13 June 2006 - reverting EM again, and removing maintenance tags in the process (further revert of reinsertion of maintenance tags by 68.46.186.126 at 13:57, 13 June 2006)

From Talk:Christina Aguilera:

  1. 02:51, 13 June 2006 - "Extradinary Machine you're on notice for breaking the 3 edit rule. Stop deleting information. You come here first, discuss and WE will decide what to do. Not YOU."
  2. 11:16, 13 June 2006 - "You're on your way to being blocked and no bullying will stop us from gladly removing you."
  3. 14:00, 13 June 2006 - "Once more, you're out. Leave! You have had more than one chance."
  4. 16:16, 13 June 2006 - "EM, you are a vandalizer. Edit one more time today, you're blocked."
  5. 16:18, 13 June 2006 - "Nice try. Won't work. You have edited 7 times now in one day. You deleted whole sections. Removed citations. All of this without discussing it first. You are claiming ownership of the page and we won't have it."
  6. 18:11 to 18:15, 13 June 2006 - "Again, you're not cleaning up, you're deleting entire headings and sections with information...You are not simply THE editor. Again, you did all that deleting without ever discussing it first. It's hard to go back and source older material, if we have to go back and search for it again, after your deleting hissy fit. You also broke the 3 edit rule 5 hundred times."
  7. 21:45, 13 June 2006 - "See I can work with you, not Extradinary Machine. They just delete everything and go on their way... That section DOES need clean-up, but we need people who know how to do that... Extradinary Machine has this nice way of dancing around what they were actually doing."
  8. 15:31, 14 June 2006 - "Again, nothing is going to be done with Extraordinary Machine here thinking it's their page. If EM wanted to do everyone a favor, they would leave. They continually stick behind words like tidying, just to be able to continually vandalize. They broke the rules a million times, so they're not in a good position to help with this page whatsoever. They make up their own rules. This page will be locked until EM leaves. Take a hint."
  9. 15:33, 14 June 2006 - "Get lost."
  10. 12:26 to 12:33, 15 June 2006 (by Xtinamoline) - "Extraordinary Machine broke the rules. All our additions were deleted without a reason. Edits were done more than 3 times as pointed out, they were not reverts each time as claimed. They think that they own the page, which they do not. This page will not be unlocked until Extraordinary Machine leaves as was already stated. All I'm trying to say is that we're going around in circles here, without coming to a resloution, but again, it is true that Extraordinary Machine did break the rules. So I would say that they're in the wrong."

From User talk:Maddyfan:

  1. 11:46, 11 June 2006 - "Extraordinary Machine you have undone everyone's edits, we will remove you. I have worked hard on this page longer than you can imagine."
  2. 22:41, 11 June 2006 - "Extradinary Machine, I can remove you, and I WILL remove you... You keep writing tidying, when you're vadalizing. YOU CANNOT REMOVE SOMETHING WITHOUT DISCUSSING IT FIRST WHICH YOU HAVE NOT DONE. CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!!!!!"
  3. 07:13, 12 June 2006 - removing messages and warnings from other editors (including EM) about various issues.
  4. 13:58, 13 June 2006 - "One more, and you're block. I've had it... You better get back to Fiona Apple, because we will make sure you never touch the page again. You don't know when to quit."
  5. 00:52, 15 June 2006 - "Knock it off!"
  6. 12:22, June 15, 2006 - "I'd also appreciate it if you'd mind your own business. Thanks."

From User talk:Extraordinary Machine:

  1. 3RR violation warnings at 02:48, 13 June 2006 and 13:59, 13 June 2006.
  2. Vandalism warnings at 10:59, 13 June 2006 and 11:12, 13 June 2006.


[edit] Evidence of sockpuppetry

See: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of maddyfan
  1. 22:39, 11 June 2006 - "Extraordinary Machine, don't be ridiculous... STOP VANDALIZING! We will boot your butt right out of here! This is not your page." (Note: the diff link shows that 68.46.186.126 (talk · contribs) and Maddyfan are the same editor.)
  2. 15:37, 14 June 2006 (by Xtinamoline (talk • contribs)) - "Extraodinary Machine must leave the page. Others cannot work on this page with this person here. They have used up their chances, and there are not enough notices on Wikipedia to help them understand this. Please unlock the page, and please extraodinary machine, leave Christina's page. Thank you for trying, but you're just not contributing to the situation. Everyone's additions were deleted thanks to you." (Compare with [1] from Maddyfan.)
  3. 21:57 June 19, 2006 Checkuser confirmed that Xtinamonline is a sockpuppet of Maddyfan.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. No original research
  2. Civility
  3. No personal attacks
  4. Ownership of articles
  5. Three-revert rule
  6. Sockpuppetry
  7. Assume good faith

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Various explanations made by EM at Talk:Christina Aguilera about his edits in relation to the policies and guidelines, among others 11:23, 11 June 2006, 18:15, 12 June 2006, 18:41, 12 June 2006 and 22:07, 13 June 2006.
  2. Some of Maddyfan's responses to the above at [2], [3], [4] and [5].
  3. 18:03, 12 June 2006 - EM reports Maddyfan at WP:AN/3RR.
  4. Page protected at around 16:30, 13 June 2006 by Jkelly because of edit warring between EM and Maddyfan.
  5. 22:16, 13 June 2006 - EM lists dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature.
  6. 18:27, 14 June 2006 - EM lists dispute at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts.
  7. Additional comments by Lbmixpro at 21:42, 13 June 2006.
  8. Full history of discussions available at the current version of Talk:Christina Aguilera as of 22:56, 15 June 2006.
  9. Initial invites to discuss the issue, 3RR warnings and removing messages warnings at User talk:Maddyfan at 10:51, 11 June 2006, 11:24, 11 June 2006, 11:57, 11 June 2006 and 22:43, 12 June 2006.
  10. History of subsequent discussions available at the current version of User talk:Maddyfan as of 23:28, 15 June 2006.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Extraordinary Machine 22:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. The above seems to be an accurate summary, with the caveat that I am uncertain about the WP:SOCK violation, although it stretches belief to assume that it is unrelated. Jkelly 00:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. I think Maddyfan could have at least attempted to remain civil and not place such ridiculous warnings on EM's talk page. —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. The editor in question needs to remain civil towards editors who follow policy. See [6] for some sockpuppet evidence too! -- getcrunkjuice 16:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. I believe the summary to be accurate. The article is a mess and all I can see in User:Extraordinary Machine's edits is an attempt to fix it. EM has raised points civilly on Talk:Christina Aguilera, and has provided reasons for his opinion, along with reference to other similar articles, and citing Wikipedia policy. User:Maddyfan has requested discussion but has met EM's comments with hostility and threats. Rossrs 02:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Couldn't be more clearcut. POV-pushing editor gets upset when another party appropriately attempts to NPOV an article. Hilarity ensues. Skyraider 20:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. This exactly what was happenning. I read through the Christina talk page in horror. Telling EM "We're gonna block you". Something should be done here.-Giant89 16:04, 9 August 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 by ApolloBoy

I know this dispute is pretty old and has since ended, I'd just like to chip in since I'm quite bored. Anyway, from what I see, Extraordinary Machine seemed to be making good efforts to improve the article. Maddyfan's claims of vandalism aren't justified, and Maddyfan has no authority whatsoever to prevent EM or LBMixPro from editing the article. I'm also not impressed with Maddyfan's uncivil retorts to EM's civil comments. What Maddyfan needs to understand is that personal attacks and retorts of "mind your own business" aren't allowed on Wikipedia, and neither are frivolous claims of vandalism as well as sockpuppetry. Furthermore, the summary below seems to be written by a sockpuppet of Maddyfan herself.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --ApolloBoy 03:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by 200.142.202.140

It has been determined this IP address comes from an open proxy, as such it's been blocked.

Maddyfan set out to improve the Christina Aguilera article when Extraordinary Machine fixed on dominating this article altered it substantially until it met his rigid, uninformed views on how an article should appear. When Maddyfan tried to work with Extraordinary Machine the latter informed his accomplice LBMixPro to block his account. It appears to me like LBMixPro is biasedly taking Extraordinary Machine's side and using his influence as an administrator to help Extraordinary Machine to rewrite the Christina Aguilera article without regard to others who wish to contribute. I should note that Extraordinary Machine has relationships with Eternal Equinox, Jkelly, and Rossrs and anyone who views Extraordinary Machine's talk page will see these names feature prominently on there. It is my belief that they are commenting on behalf of Extraordinary Machine in order to propagate his narrow minded views and his desire to become the sole editor for any article he chooses. I implore the users of Wikipedia to give the Christina Aguilera article back to the Wikipedians and end Extraordinary Machine's dominance over this article and end his intimidation of his fellow Wikipedians. I propose that Extraordinary Machine be banned from Wikipedia for his continued disregard for Wikipedian etiquette, additionally I propose that LBMixPro be stripped of his sysop privileges for gross abuse of power and ffor his removal of any and all Wikipedians that he believes are counter intuitive to his and Extraordinary Machine's vision of how Wikipedia should be.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.142.202.140 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 19 June 2006.

Users who endorse this summary:

[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.