Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Gump

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Outside View: Roderick E

I think the admins should examine more evidence showing that Vaduva has a pattern of edit wars & escalating issues to this point -- he had at one time even threatened to sue wikipedia, falsely claiming he owned a trademark on a theological term. It is possible that Gump has been targeted for personal destruction. as so many others have by Vaduva (see evidence here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gump#Rob_Bell_Edits ) Thank you. Roderick E (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION Upon further investigation, I have found that lyonscc is correct about his only recent association with Vaduva. The reason there was a mix up is because lyonscc used the name "Chris L" when posting on Vaduva's personal website -- there is ANOTHER Chris L that is indeed a close friend of Vaduva. I apologize & will make correction to this concept where ever I have posted it -- However, it does not change the fact that Vaduva DOES have a long history of causing edit wars. The events leading up to this present situation were happening before lyonscc was ever involved. There no "ad hominem" going on here. I am careful to post verifiable sources for the things I say. Thanks again for the correction Lyonscc. Sincerely, Roderick E (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I would note that is was lyonscc that submitted this request, not Virgil Vaduva, after repeated attempts to engage Gump in reasonable discussion on Wikipedia policies and blog-sourced material. Gump refused to engage, escalated a Revert War, and then began posting general insults - including looking up lyonscc's homepage by some means and posting personal information about lyonscc in an attempt to intimidate.--Lyonscc (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also note that lyonscc has had no contact whatsoever with Virgil Vaduva Virgil Vaduva prior to this dispute with Gump. Roderick E's OV is, at best, an ad hominem attack on this complaint.--Lyonscc (talk) 06:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View: Gump

Please note that Gump's 03:10, 14 December 2007 comment under "Outside View" was not an outside view, but Gump posting in a section which he was not supposed to edit. As to the content of his note,

Since day one I've only advocated for both support and criticism to be included in the article. Every revert of mine contained both.

Please also note that this is patently false insofar as the reverts since 8 December are concerned.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Evidence of disputed behavior

I would note that last week I was apprised of the existence of a Rob Bell page in Wikipedia and that it contained information from a highly inflammatory and unreliable blog (apprising.org). When I tried to make an edit to the page, I had not edited anything in Wikipedia for ages and I inadvertantly ignored several breaches in normal protocol. After being advised to use the talk page to suggest, consense and make changes to article content, I did so - attempting several times to engage Gump. Before this, I did not know Virgil, though in this matter he seemed very reasonable, unlike what has been reported (true or false) by Roderick E, above. I have tried to be civil and patient with Gump, and the evidence presented to you is what I have received in return. I find referencing material from wikipedia highly useful on the blogs I manage, but it is the NPOV which makes it most useful. What Gump has been trying to do is indicative of the reason that some don't trust wiki information. It is the use of processes like this to get resolution that gives me a little bit more faith in the system.--Lyonscc (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)