Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Radicalsubversiv

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, not different disputes. 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: 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

"Note: there is some question as to the gender of every anonymous user, with the possibility of those identifying as male being female and vice versa. Radicalsubversiv describes himself as a male on his user page and in accordance with Good Faith principles, I will identify him as he but will revert if that causes offence or proves inaccurate."

This dispute is about the misconduct of Radicalsubversiv. It is my submission that Radicalsubversiv has repeatedly acted outside the rules and guidelines, custom and practice of Wikipedia inasmuch as he:

  • Persistently and with malice aforethought engaged in personal attacks against a number of users, including but not limited to me
  • Identifies as a "Radical Subversive", and far leftist and then promotes those unpopular views on Wikipedia in articles on controversial political subjects, usually acting in concert with a wide variety of users with very similar views and editing styles giving rises to unresolved questions of possible sockpuppetry involving some of those users
  • Declines opportunities for discussion, mediation and consensus repeatedly
  • Accuses other of trolling and personal attacks while deliberately provoking other users and with little basis in fact.

The purpose of this RFC is emphatically no to re-hash the merits of the Soviet Union dispute where known associates of Radicalsubversiv engaged in academic fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation but to raise specific concerns about Radicalsubversiv's improper conduct and wilful pattern of self abuse and abuse towards many other users.


[edit] Description

This is a selected highlight from a Talk page of one of the many people Radicalsubversiv has harassed to endorse his campaign against users he doesn't approve of. It neatly summarizes his unreasonableness and manic pursuit of "opponents".

[edit] From Mirv's Talk Page After Radical Arrived

Just wanted to let you know that I've opened a user conduct RFC regarding Libertas, primarily over habitual personal attacks. Your request for him not to make them is included in the evidence section. As such, you might want to certify the basis of the dispute (it's currently awaiting a second certification) or otherwise provide your input. Let me know if you have any concerns. RadicalSubversiv E 03:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Um? Is this a cross-post or something? The diff linked doesn't show me telling Libertas anything, and as far as I remember my only conversation with him was in the section above. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not a cross-post, just tired and pasted the wrong diff. Try this one RadicalSubversiv E 04:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That edit is by Improv, not me. . .? Again I don't remember ever advising Libertas against personal attacks. —Charles P. (Mirv) 08:05, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Complete brain fart, somehow had you two completely mixed up in my head. Sorry for pestering you. RadicalSubversiv E 08:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV Pushing - Corruption of Content for Private Purpose

[edit] Editing Howard Dean While Campaigning For Howard Dean

Radicalsubversiv - by his own admission - is a left-wing activist within the Democratic Party of the United States.

On the 23rd of October 2003, the Dean campaigner started writing on the Governor's article[1] That edit lavished Governor Dean with praise, calling him "forceful", how he ignited "disillusioned Democrats" (code for leftists), referred to the anti-war movement as "burgeoning" and otherwise engaging in Dean advocacy making the in-house Dean argument that a "polarized electorate" made a polarizing candidate like Dean more desirable than candidates Radical characterized as "Bush Light." It turned a previously neutral article into Dean polemic and was the start of a pattern of POV advocacy in Radical's work which will be fully documented in this Request for Comment.

He went on the edit the Howard Dean article on nearly one hundred occasions [2], frequently introducing POV text[3] such as complaints that the media was unfair to Dean, adding spin to the Trippi resignation matter [4], lavishing praise on Dean's campaign fundraising in a lengthy diatribe including words such as "unprecedented success", criticizing other campaigns as relying on wealthy contributors, and canvassed the prospect of Dean "competing" with President Bush[5].

One respected user suggested that in light of Dean's failed candidacy that the Howard Dean article be significantly reduced in length[6]. With Radical's additions, the article is considerably longer today than it was then.

[edit] Editing Howard Dean's Rivals While Campaigning for Howard Dean

From among his first postings on the 7th of January 2004, he promoted his POV in relation to internal Democratic party matters. While working as a volunteer on the Howard Dean campaign, he wrote without disclosing that fact a highly POV contribution editing the Dean rival Wesley Clark's article [7] introducing pejoratives such as "flirting", "stumbling", etc. to a previously neutral article.

[edit] POV Pushing within Left wing subjects

[edit] Smear Against First Lady

Radicalsubversiv caused to be published false inferences that First Lady Laura Bush was a murderer, cloaked in a manner unacceptable in any court with the words "it is rumored." [8] Stating a false claim about such a thing at length with a caveat at the end is blatant POV and is in exceptionally poor taste.

[edit] Conspiracy to Deceive on the Soviet Union article

Radicalsubversiv and known associates of his acted in concert and engaged in a revert war to protect the Soviet Union article from any suggestion that it might have been a touch repressive, or dictatorial or totalitarian.

User:Libertas alleged that the "scholarship" underpinning various claims or omissions from the article were not correct for many reasons including their Marxist ties. An associate of Radical's expressly denied using Marxist sources in any respect[9]. Radical condoned this denial by continuing attacks on Libertas of a spurious or irrelevant nature[10]. Indeed, Radical endorsed his associate calling him a "valued contributor with expertise"[11].

User:Libertas revealed that the main source, a Columbia Professor Stephen Cohen was actually a Marxist despite the strong denials of Radical and his associates. Radical's academic fraud had been revealed and he was not happy. While Radical did not directly post the fraudulent claims, he was knowingly concerned by specifically defending his associate on the issue of whether the USSR was totalitarian[12]

Venom and vitriole spewed out from Radicalsubversiv and known associates including but not limited to the following terms:

  • Liar

etc.

Eventually, User:Libertas proposed a compromise which User:172 implemented. In short time, Radicalsubversiv's associate and Radicalsubversive unilaterally changed the compromise version with Radical reverting it without discussing it in Talk. [13]


[edit] Seattle Riots

Radicalsubversiv insisted that his attendance at the 1999 WTO riots entitled him to dictate what did and what did not happen at those riots.[14] He reverted one user's claim that the crowd had interfered with the Police maintaining the peace, by "de-arresting" the detained forcibly. He "knew" better. This is either blatant POV trafficking or original research.

[edit] Misuse of Deletion Process

  • Plus examples of personal vilification and attacks

Radicalsubversiv has inappropriately launched article deletion, pushing a personal political agenda.[15] The article deletion process mandates that articles be deleted on the following grounds:

  • No potential to become encyclopedic
  • Original research
  • Inappropriate user pages in excessive or stubborn cases.
  • Vanity page
  • Advertising or other spam
  • Completely idiosyncratic non-topic

Instead, Radical made vague assertions about the subject of the article being of "dubious notability" without providing any evidence whatsoever. He subsequently personally attacked the subject on his personal talk page [16] with patronizing comments like "Calm down", "it's not a campaign", "you are not personally notable enough" and falsely alleged that he had engaged in "self-promotion." As it turns out someone else wrote the article[17], he was just inquiring why it was being deleted without adequate explanation.

[edit] Personal Attacks

Radicalsubversiv has evolved into an abusive intellectual tyrant, intent on stifling debate so that he gets his own way in the promotion of his POV.

He attacked one inexperienced user (an anonymous and new contributor) saying "go read a text book"[18].

Attacks other users as contributing nonsense.[19]

[edit] Threats

Radicalsubversiv undermines the work of others, particularly new users by threatening them constantly, with blocking, banning or some administrative procedure which as it happens he is in no position to implement as he is not an Administrator.[20]

[edit] Absence of Good Faith Dealing

In one incident involving the Republican Congressman Ron Paul article, User:Libertas included a quote about 9/11 which asserted that US foreign policy was the cause of 9/11. Radicalsubversiv repeatedly deleted explanatory statements comparing and contrasting that position with that of those responsible for 9/11.

He deleted these statements and purported to mandate he inclusion of a specific quote not explanation.[21]

User:Libertas proposed a quote from Rudy Giuliani and in very conciliatory tone asked Radical what he thought.[22]

Radical reversed his previous position, rejecting the quote and was reminded of it by User:Libertas[23] indicating a complete absence of good faith.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

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

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

[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.

The 48-hour certification period has now passed without a second user signing on, so I feel no obligation to respond in full to these allegations, which are mostly absurd. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libertas for details on disputes with this user, particularly the Soviet Union issue (where, incidentally, my involvement in the actual article, as opposed to dealing with Libertas, was mostly limited to making some minor points on talk). Note in particular that Libertas uses phrases like "known associates" to blame me for the actions of others; I have never called her a liar (although I did once state that she was lying in making a specific comment about me, on a matter unrelated to Soviet Union). A few of the allegations could affect my reputation as a contributor, though, so:

  • Howard Dean: It's true that I was a supporter of Howard Dean during the primaries, but I don't believe this disqualifies me from contributing to the article; indeed, a close look at the history and talk pages on primary candidates indicate that the primary contributors were the candidate's supporters in many cases. (Ditto for much of our coverage of Libertarianism.) More importantly, I believe all of my contributions to the article have been NPOV; Libertas has seriously misrepresented them by pulling out individual adjectives without context. Contrary to the allegations of hagiography and inappriorately lengthening the article, I recently posted suggestions on Talk:Howard Dean which included adding more critical coverage of his time as governor and summarizing the ridiculously lengthy views section.
  • Laura Bush: Libertas removed the text in question, saying that a source needed to be cited. I'd never edited the article before, but happened to have read a discussion of the issue on Snopes.com fairly recently, so I resotred it with the added citation.
  • WTO Meeting of 1999: The article included an unsourced claim that protestors taken into custody by the police had been successfully unarrested. I know quite a bit about the demonstrations and know of no reports that this actually occurred, so I removed it.

I'd encourage anyone who has concerns about any of the material here to contact me directly; I'd be happy to respond.

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

  1. RadicalSubversiv E 23:09, 10 Jan 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.

Obviously a frivolous rfc filed in retaliation for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libertas.

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

  1. dab (ᛏ) 15:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. It would seem so. No evidence is presented... Smoddy | Talk 16:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  3. It's a random grab bag of trumped-up complaints with no evidence of any attempt at resolution. —Charles P. (Mirv) 20:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Better she edit this, than articles! — Davenbelle 21:05, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  5. True. This, together with comments made on the Andrew Villeneuve vfd, provides ample evidence that Libertas is acting in bad faith and pursuing a politically motivated campaign of harrassment against RadicalSubversiv (and others). Mattley 22:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. Libertas has become obsessive on the subject of RadicalSubversiv. This RfC is not only unnecessary, it is clearly vindictive. The Talk page of the Andrew Villeneuve VfD article clearly shows Libertas's lack of impartiality in these matters. Please note that Libertas has not indicated ANY attempts at trying to resolve the "problem". RickK 23:44, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Quite. --fvw* 23:53, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)
  8. This is my opinion as well. Note that most of the evidentiary links don't prove exactly what is claimed, but rather only that there was dispute. I would guess that the lack of evidence and links to relevant policy are due to a lack of familiarity with the RfC process as much as a possible lack of good faith. Note too that most allegations against RadicalSubversive involve Libertas. (Note too, too, that I am certifying at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Libertas, so please take my comments with the grain of salt they deserve.)  — Saxifrage | ☎ 00:01, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  9. Yeah. Andre (talk) 04:51, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  10. Concur. jni 16:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  11. 172 21:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  12. Endorse. This conflict is escalating, as both RadicalSubversive and Libertas have been named in RfAs. Hopefully it will be resolved. Khanartist 06:27, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

I don't neccessarily see this as frivolous. It could just as easily be a massive overreaction to minor incidents. The diffs I checked do show that there's a conflict between Libertas and RadicalSubversiv.

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

  1. Carnildo 02:42, 9 Jan 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.