Wikipedia:Requests for comment/The 13th 4postle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 18:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

Personal attacks on both the user User:SuperFlanker and User:JRSP

[edit] Desired outcome

That the user drop the innuendos and accusations.

[edit] Description

The user continually accuses us of being paid agents of the Venezuelan government without evidence.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

  1. [1]
  2. [2]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:AGF

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

  1. [3]
  2. [4]
  3. [5]
  4. [6]
  5. [7]
  6. [8]
  7. [9]


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. Flanker 17:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. JRSP 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[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.

About less then a month ago, out of no where, months after I had edited my wikipedia profile, I received a message from JRSP asking me to refrain from personnel attacks. I had not been on wikipedia for a while and I had not purposely attacked anyone in a while(I admit in my frustration with the editing rules of wikipedia I have done so in the past) I asked JRSP what he was talking about and he said he was referring to the Suspected Chavistas section of my wikipedia profile. This incident in no way concerns vandalism of any Wikipedia Articles only my User Page. I was I admit extremely annoyed to do so on my my own user page but, I did take his name down from the list with no objections I might add. And despite the fact that I may have been hostile towards these two individuals, I feel they have been the same way towards me and I did as they requested, no questions asked. I took down the "personal attack" plain and simple. Yet they continue to harass me and provoke me. They constantly play games with policies and guidelines which coincidently is a violation of wikipedia's own good faith policy. WP:AGF

Now first I would like to point out that me making a list of suspected Chavistas would be the political equivalent of me posting a list of "Suspected Democrats" or "Suspected Republicans". Next I would like to point out that I have a very strong suspicion that the two users who have started this whole discussion are in some way or another lobbying on wikipedia for Hugo Chavez and the Chavez government. I honestly feel that this discussion is a type of political vengeance against me because I have given them trouble in the past. I constantly have argued with them on wikipedia edits. They have on numerous occasions changed articles to have a more pro-Chavez stance and in the process have neglected any correct information which might cast him in a negative light. Any information that that does cast him in a negative light is always changed, deleted, and/or manipulated (unless it has numerous sources backing it up). I have not been the only user to notice this. And it is not only users that have seen this and as a result wikipedia is seen in a negative light. And this is how Wikipedia attains impartiality It pains me to see wikipedia be shown in any negative light and so I have tried to keep any of these articles balanced. If anyone wishes to see any evidence of this you can check practically any wikipedia page related with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. If you do, you will see what I am talking about.

I admit that in my frustration I have made a personnel attack recently but I kind of meant it as a joke even though I knew it would not be received as such. I apologize for my most recent comment it was unnecessary. I have always tried to make wikipedia better because I believe in the essence of wikipedia. If I have made a personal attack against anyone, it is because I believe they threaten what wikipedia is all about and I admit I have gone about this the wrong way. In all of my edits I try to make a better wikipedia article and in essence a better wikipedia. I admit I have neglected some wikipedia guidelines. The guidelines were not known to me at the time and I have tried my best to learn from such mistakes and not repeat them.

In this response I have been brutally honest with you and myself. It all there for you to see. I have shown you the good, the bad and the ugly. Carlitos 14:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This might be interesting to note. For "Flanker's" birthday on July 24th, JRSP gave him(on his discussion page) this "present" http://www.el-nacional.com/referencia/documentos/pdf/Listadeimputados.pdf The Chavez government has constantly been proven that it uses lists of people (Maisanta List and Tascon List) who disagree with the government so that they can politically persecute them. This list is a list of people who signed the Carmona decree during the 2002 Coup d'etat against Chavez. Making all of them prime political targets in Venezuela. I would just like to ask why one of them is giving the other the list and what are the motivations behind such a gift. Carlitos 17:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Carlitos 14:18, 15 August 2007 (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.}

[edit] Outside view by Coldmachine

A cursory review of this suggests that the efforts to resolve the dispute seem entirely based on the use of templates against the user in question. This hardly seems like a thorough effort to me. Templating with warnings does not suggest any real attempt at dialogue has been made. At the same time, the guidelines on use of talk pages clearly state that Wikipedia is not a soap box so the inclusion of a list of other users suspected of whatnot is inappropriate. Removal of the whole list, and an apology to the users included on that list, should be added to the 'desired outcomes' in my opinion.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ColdmachineTalk 15:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Arky

Firstly, the statement of the dispute talks about "Personal attacks" on both of the users who listed this dispute. I would like to point out the fact that only two diffs of personal attacks have been provided. Not in any way to undermine the severity of the attacks, but with only two insults, and seven warnings about the disputed behavior, could it be said that this is a bit close, but does not equate to, harassment. I can sympathize with the victims in tis case, but I do believe they overreacted. In addition, the warnings given were mostly templated, as Coldmachine said, which in my opinion is not a complete effort at solving the issue. Plus, the Desired outcome of the dispute is to have the user stop their personal attacks. They have yet to post another attack on one of the victim's pages, and even have removed the attacks on their userpage [10]. So, friends, is this dispute over and done with? It appears its goal has been accomplished. Cheers, and happy editing!

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Arky¡Hablar! 02:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. ColdmachineTalk 09:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Mirage GSM 12:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Carlitos 15:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:31, 5 September 2007 (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.