Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chuck F

In order to remain listed at 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: 01:01, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Same user:
 * (Chuck F | talk | contributions)
 * (203.112.19.195 | talk | contributions)
 * (210.142.29.125 | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.''

Description
User:Chuck F, who frequently edits anonymously from 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125, IP addresses in Japan, linked to Japan has been removing large sections from articles which he feels present corporations negatively. He has engaged in revert wars, violated the three revert rule, and modified other people's votes on VfD.

User:Chuck F has deleted factual sentences from Exxon Mobil, Wal-Mart, changed other users' votes on VfD pages Votes for deletion/FahrenHype 9/11, Votes_for_deletion/NATO_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics, Votes_for_deletion/Market_libertarianism. He has edited using an account and anonymously in an attempt to circumvent the three revert rule.

User:Chuck F has repeatedly engaged in vandalism on the Nut (hardware) page and vandalized Wikipedia by creating the nonsense page 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit'.

These edits show that 203.112.19.195 and 210.142.29.125 are Chuck F: ,

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * Violated the three revert rule on Exxon Mobil on October 8:, , , ,
 * Violated the three revert rule on Michael Badnarik on October 10:, , ,
 * Reverted Libertarianism seven times between 12:53, Sep 9, 2004 and 00:01, Sep 10, 2004:, , , , , ,
 * Changed other people's comments on several VfD pages:, ,
 * Changed my listing of Talk:Exxon Mobil on WP:RFC
 * Removed large chunks of Wal-Mart to its own article:
 * Accused User:Mikkalai of vandalism for attempting to clean up an article Chuck started: Nato at the 2004 summer olympics - article has since been deleted, please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Chuck F for details. &mdash;Stormie 11:12, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Disrupted a Wikipedia article in order to prove a point in Votes for deletion/Market libertarianism. See comment by Daesotho on VfD page:, revisions to Nut (hardware): , , and history for 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit'. Did not respond to discussion regarding these edits, and returned as Chuck F and vandalised the page again.


 * NEW complaint as of October 15. Chuck is now edit warring and removing portions of Ron Paul for no legitimate reason. Examples:,.
 * NEW complaint as of October 23. Broke 3 revert rule.
 * NEW complaint as of October 30. Chuck F has reverted a specific edit to Temple University twelve times without giving proper justification. Some of these edits have come with pretty abusive comments:
 * NEW complaint as of November 5. User:Chuck F is has reverted Liberal Democratic Party of Australia to an inaccurate version. . This seems to be part of an edit war over United States Libertarian Party and libertarianism. He seems to be trying to create evidence to support his claim about what the word libertarian means outside of America. From this article and looking at his behaviour elsewhere he refuses to compromise or to discuss the matter. He has broken the three revert rule on this article. He seems to have recently broken it many times on other articles and the edit wars have caused several pages to be protected. He also seems to be involved in a revert war over Exxon Mobile. I am concerned that his edit warring is now spreading unchecked beyond the articles where it started to related and unrelated areas. --213.120.56.41 13:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Darn't I wrote the intial article for that page, you act like i just followed somebody there and started revert warring, they followed me to that page Chuck F 14:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Applicable policies

 * Talk page - changing other users' signed comments on VfD and RFC pages
 * Three revert rule
 * No personal attacks
 * Accountability - making large changes anonymously
 * Always explain your reverts

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Talk:Exxon Mobil
 * Warnings about changing other people's comments:
 * Warning about deleting factual information for no reason:
 * Ignored my suggestion that we moderate:
 * Regarding Nut (hardware), did not respond to discussion regarding these edits and returned and vandalized the page again.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * Rhobite 01:01, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Duk 02:23, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * RadicalSubversiv E 20:31, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC). I've only taken cursory glances at the earlier corporate material, but I wholeheartedly endorse the new complaint regarding Ron Paul.
 * Reithy 09:18, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) Chuck_F frequently appears to be in breach of wikipedia rules as I understand them, he reverts without explanation, and deletes useful information for no good stated reason. This borders on vandalism. See his McJob efforts for recent examples of this. His deletion of General_Motors information on its finances is another.[]
 * Arcuras 16:55, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Sekicho 15:57, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Improv 19:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC). Has also violated temporary bans by not logging in.

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.

First off: wikipedia is unneutral to large-scale corporations. Look at pages of Forbes 500 companies, most all of them have history, and then criticisms, and no counter-points to those criticisms or good things those companies have done. You turn this into a database of criticisms of corporations.

The top of this page states "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". In the Evidence of trying to and failing to resolve a dispute, they forgot to mention in all thoese examples, the dispute was resolved.

No other people's comments were changed after "Warnings about changing other people's comments". Exxonmobile was a seriously biased article(still is, but a bit better), and I stopped reverting the page after "1.Talk:Exxon Mobil" occured and have worked towards discussion.

All thoese attempts to resolve the dispute were by Rhobite, Duk didn't show any ways he tried to resolve a dispute.

Also in terms of the claim that I called user mikkalai a vandel, that was not directed at him, but at an actual vandel of the page, I later restored the cleanup tag he added to the article.

As to Ron Paul: I wasn't removing large chunks of info, I was removing Reithy(THE Chucksch guy is obviously reithy, an admin can check that for me)'s half-truths/quotes taken out of context that he just vandalized the page with. Golby later went and fixed the congressional medal of honor one and I don't have any problems with it right now. But taking Quotes out of context from what his staffer's wrote and attrbuiating that to Mr.Paul and then putting it under a section called His views on Race is obviously vandalism

And I want to point out that ron paul has been edited by 4 different people who within mintues of them creating accounts edited ron paul(none of them editing at the same time or talking to each other, and all of them ceasing all editing acitvity once the newer one came about(I strong suspect at least two of these are for sure Reithy): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Chuckschneider, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Schweppes42 , http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=144.132.89.151 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Special:Contributions&target=Guido1970 (most likely that 144 ip though)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) 203.112.19.195 08:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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.

While the statement of dispute is an accurate summation of bad behaviour on Chuck's part upon first joining Wikipedia, in my opinion, it is not an accurate picture of his current behaviour.


 * There is no edit-warring on Exxon Mobil since some claims in the article have been sourced, and others have been rephrased to make it clear that they are allegations, not facts.
 * Chuck is engaging in discussions on Talk:Michael Badnarik and a rewrite of a controversial section at Michael Badnarik/Political views temp
 * There is no edit-warring on Libertarianism and as far as I can see Chuck hasn't been involved there for more than a month.
 * The removal of large chunks of Wal-Mart to Criticism of Wal-Mart is imho a perfectly reasonable act (and one which I have not seen any fundamental objections to), given how dominated by criticism the article was previously.
 * Chuck is involved in an edit war on United States Libertarian Party, but his position is aligned with the general consensus of editors, in opposition to another user who is himself the subject of an RFC: see Requests for comment/Reithy
 * Chuck has put some good work in cleaning up a hopelessly biased article, Virginia Trioli. Given that the other conflicts he has been involved in have involved articles he considered to have an anti-corporate bias, whilst this one was a clear hatchet job on a prominent left-wing journalist, I think it speaks well for his willingness to make NPOV edits.

In conclusion, I think it is clear that Chuck is moving in the direction of being a useful contributor to Wikipedia, and we would be better served by just getting on with it, rather than focusing on edits he made while still learning the ropes.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Stormie 01:38, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) MunchieRonnie 15:23, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) I think that the assume good faith policy suggests this is the right summary to endorse at this point. Shane King 05:00, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.