User talk:Skinwalker/RfC

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: 15:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC).

(Canaen | talk | contributions)

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

1 Statement of the dispute
2 Response
3 Outside view
4 Discussion

[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 has violated numerous Wikipedia policies in an effort to keep legitimate criticism of veganism out of the Veganism and Environmental vegetarianism articles.

[edit] Description

User has instigated edit wars at Veganism and Environmental vegetarianism, resulting in the protection of Veganism for over a week at present. User has organized a meatpuppetry campaign among various vegan blogs to eliminate sourced and legitimate criticism of veganism and environmental motivations thereof. This campaign has resulted in personal attacks, legal and physical threats, violations of 3RR, user page vandalism, and numerous instances of suspected meat- and sock-puppetry.

Additionally, this user is unwilling to listen to even the politest criticism of himself or his edits. He regularly refactors his talk page to eliminate these criticisms, instead placing them in a subpage labeled "nonsense". User has refactored administrator warnings to this page as well. User routinely accuses critics of violating Wikipedia policies.

List of suspected meatpuppets:

User:195.82.106.12
User:195.82.106.62
User:195.82.106.64
User:Nidara
User:217.147.85.6
User:84.64.121.200
User:64.105.20.237 (believed to be older incarnation of User:Nidara, a.k.a. idleguyspal, skinwalkerspal, fleshstomper, vigger, etc.
User:218.18.228.53
User:Mitsu

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

Veganism

There are too many instances of disputed behavior on Veganism and Talk:Veganism to list them all, so I will provide some highlights:

User reverts Idleguy's additions, leaving a personal attack in the edit summary.[1]

Canaen violates 3RR multiple times over, resulting in the protection of Veganism.

Canaen makes a personal attack.[2]

Canaen makes a personal attack.[3]

Canaen makes a personal attack.[4]

Canaen makes a personal attack.[5]

Canaen proposes[6] moving information to Environmental vegetarianism, where he is already edit warring to keep this information out of that article.[7]

Canaen resubmits an unmodified survey and represents it as a final vote, despite active debate on the proposals in the survey.[8]

Canaen refactors a survey tally to make it appear that someone opposed to a proposal is actually voting FOR it, rather than suggesting a compromise.[9]

Anonymous ip (see list of suspected meatpuppets) posts a lengthy personal attack.[10]

Anonymous ip (see list of suspected meatpuppets) posts a lengthy personal attack.[11]

Anonymous ip (see list of suspected meatpuppets) posts a lengthy personal attack.[12]

Anonymous ip (see list of suspected meatpuppets) posts a lengthy personal attack.[13]

Anonymous ip (see list of suspected meatpuppets) posts a lengthy personal attack.[14]

Meatpuppetry

User:Canaen posted a request to four vegan livejournal blogs for help removing criticism of veganism.[15] [16] [17] [18]. In these discussions, Caenen is posting as "theunseenkid". I base this assertion of his identity on this Google search, which brings up this Crimethinc user, which leads to this blog, where the original request for help originated from. Since then, the Veganism article has been besieged by suspected meatpuppets (listed above) who engage in personal attacks and attempt to reach a sham consensus. In particular, Canaen instructed a person on a vegan blog to misrepresent their nationality and command of English in order to mislead discussion participants.[19]

Talk pages

Canaen refactors his talk page to remove criticism and polite reminders of Wikipedia policy, labeling it as "nonsense".[20] and current "nonsense" page.

Canaen accuses a legitimate contributor to the Veganism page of vandalism.[21]

Canaen threatens contributor to Veganism with administrative action.[22]

Canaen leaves a personal attack on a user talk page.[23]

Anonymous ip 85.195.123.22 (see list of suspected meatpuppets) vandalizes a user talk page, leaving a threatening message.[24]

Anonymous ip vandalizes a user page, leaving a personal attack.[25]

Administrative reports

Canaen requests adminship. He implies that he would use his adminstrator privileges to act on articles he is working on.

Anonymous ip (see list of suspected meatpuppets) starts a revert war to modify a RFC on Veganism, making legal threats in the process.[26]

Anonymous ip (see list of suspected meatpuppets) files a specious and incomplete user conduct RFC on a contributor to the Veganism page.[27]

[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)

Skinwalker proposes a compromise to end dispute on Veganism.[28]
Viriditas reminds Canaen of NPOV policy.[29]
Viriditas reminds Canaen of good faith policy.[30]
Woohookitty, an admin, reminds Canaen of no personal attack policy.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACanaen&diff=30206185&oldid=30205906]
Woohookitty blocks Canaen for 24 hours due to repeated personal attacks.[31]
Viriditas asks Canaen to build consensus instead of edit warring.[32]
Idleguy reminds Canaen of no personal attack policy.[33]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the 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. 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

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 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.