Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Carfiend



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

Statement of the dispute
repeated violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF,WP:NPA,WP:OWN on Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations

Description
Carfiend has exhibited a pattern of personal attacks and use of aggressive and unresponsive language that has resulted in his dominence over the talk pages for Apollo_moon_landing_hoax_accusations and the content of the article itself, all apparently aimed at enforcing his perception of the topic. This pattern of behavior has been pointed out by a number of editors without notable response from Carfiend.

Evidence of disputed behavior
The majority of following may be found on Talk:Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations, links are given for the remainder:


 * 1) WP:NPA: Whoever you are, your grasp on reality is very slim. Carfiend 03:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:CIVIL: No, I can't imagine what would make you think that was what I was saying. Although, having three tapes at the same time without loosing one of them does seem like it would be taxing for them, now you come to mention it. Carfiend 03:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep it civil, Carfiend. If you disagree with a statement, attack the inaccuracy, not the poster. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 03:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

''Others have identifed structural problems in this article which a number of editors have attempted to address over the past week. These edits have been systematicaly rolled back by essentialy one. . . editor who refuses to engage in any meaningful way on these talk pages'' Note, the user in question had made over 30 edits in a span 0f 8-10 hours with the results that I identify above. I realize these are not sentence level critiques, but they are valid concrete issues. I feel that addressing the structure of the content that we have now is a priority and I don't feel obligated do any more (or less) to justify my edits then any other user. I feel that I've met the standard. Numskll 00:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) WP:CIVIL: Ah yes - when defeated by the facts, resort to abuse! Bravo! Carfiend 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) WP:NPA, WP:AGF: It shouldn't be - it's some numskull vandalizing it by moving it to mis-spelled versions. Carfiend 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF WP:OWN: ::: Here to help separate signal from noise is a bit from my rationale for the reverts.
 * Quack. Quack. Quack. Carfiend 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. Your archetypal response. Numskll 01:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

If you refuse to discuss on the talk page, you have no right to complain. Carfiend 02:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

See above. WP:AGF and WP:CIVILNumskll 10:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Quack. Quack. Quack. If you refuse to discuss on the talk page, you have no right to complain. Carfiend 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) WP:NPOV and WP:OWN:, Carfiend's edit summary 'Revert POV Jihad to last NPOV version by Mark Grant. Please discuss major changes on the talk page.'
 * 2) WP:NPA: []

Applicable policies and guidelines
WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF,WP:NPA,WP:OWN

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * []
 * []
 * []
 * []

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
 * Bubba73 Bubba73 (talk), 20:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Numskll 00:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Numskll 16:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i kan reed 23:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Algr 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist 19:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mark Grant 01:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * C HAIRBOY (☎) 18:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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:

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.''

I just read the talk page, and, to be honest, I think Carfiend has conducted themselves in a manner becoming a wikipeadian. Their edits may not be accepted by the majority, but, in the interests of articles purporting to be NPOV, I think he is entitled to have his contributions. Personally, I don't see anything which he has done which would warrant a rfc.--No Username 03:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to mee that many people get provocated by reading arguments saying the Apollo moon landings was a hoax, even if the arguments are presented in a NPOV form. Often people post views that are not logical, matter of factly, or polite. I appreciate Carfiend`s contribution on the page, think he is making it more NPOV. I think Carfiend is among those with an better behavior on this disputed talk page. It is human to "talk back" when faced with offense and lack of logic from people who disagree. If someone regularly on that talk page should get a rfc, Carfiend is certainly not on my "top 10 list". People should in general be more polite, tolerant and matter of factly on that spesific talk page. Carfiend has stepped over the line occationally, but is not the worst guy in the neighborhood. Axlalta 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the above two users are sock puppets. If you examine their user histories, and  they are both very short single-topic histories, and they have ceased to exist since appearing here to defend Carfiend. Algr 20:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) This RfC has failed to establish meaningful unilateral wrongdoing by Carfiend. Addhoc 13:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) This RfC is nonsense. It seems to have been started in order to get rid of someone who  has a dissenting opinion. The things mentioned above aren't really very big. It's everyday conversation. --Maxl 14:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of TeaDrinker
There seems to be much heated discussion on the talk pages linked. While there is some evidence of broader incivility on the talk pages, I see Carfiend's comments to be different from other editors. Too many of the edits Carfiend makes appear to be trolling rather than constructive editing. Too often his comments seem intentionally inflamatory, and edits contrary to consensus. I think Carfiend should focus on commenting in a more constructive way and limit making controversial edits until a consensus develops on the talk page for those edits. But I also think all folks on the talk page should remember to keep cool. --TeaDrinker 07:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

Stong Endorse: Numskll 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Carfiend presents theirself very knowledgable on specific topics related to the article on which they are focused. The value of contributors like this is obvious. However, they should exercise more care and restraint in responding to edits AND editors on the talk page that contradict Carfiend's perspective. Part and partial of such a strategy would be a sincere effort on Carfiend's part to seriously and substantially engage in topics being discussed on the talk page and to avoid ill-considered, tangential, disruptive and abusive comments. Numskll 03:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Bubba73 (talk), 22:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

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. violations of WP:VAND, WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:TPG and WP:OWN on Apollo Moon landing hoax accusations. See[] and [] for evidence of repeated attempts to reason with this user. 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that most of the archives of the talk page are somewhere else, due to recent moves of the article. Current location of the archives is unknown to the present editor.  Bubba73 (talk), 01:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independent_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings&diff=cur&oldid=111210556 —The preceding [Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by Numskll (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: The archived talk pages have been relinked to the current talk page for the article. Carfiend's bad behaviour begins around midway through archive #5. Numskll 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It begins again.