Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby

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 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:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

This page first created 04:41, 12 December 2005. Was resolution attempted by 04:41, 14 December? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feco (talk • contribs)


 * (KDRGibby | talk | contributions)

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

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.''

Description
This user continually wants to add his or her own interpretations to articles, such as liberalism and communism. When other editors removed these sections for reasons such as original research, neutral point of view, and Manual of style, as well as basic redundancy covered by other articles, and the arrangement of content from most general to most specific. I would have made this solely an RFC on communism, until I discovered his past behaviour and decided to file a conduct RFC. When editors removed these sections, he then proceeded to remove a variety of other sections in order to prove a point, despite it being against policy. He then proceeds to put warning templates on the aforementioned articles, although there was no real dispute before adding in the content, despite pleas from other editors not to do so. During the process he has attacked other users, implying they are ignorant, or they removed these sections out of censorship, vested and entrenched interests, which is absolutely not assuming good faith. Attempts to reason with him has failed. When he was blocked for WP:3RR violations, he asserts that he never violated the revert rule because he used copy and paste, as opposed to actual reverting, and then accuses the administrators are a cabal. He then tried to copy the entire Communism article to his talk page, deleted other comments on the talk page, and made it difficult for other users to communicate with him, which is abusing the privelege of being able to voice dissent against their block.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Making incivil or personal attacks
Attacks in edit summaries This user continues to abuse the edit summary to make personal attacks in edits on user talk pages and articles. There were so many such attacks that I wasn't aware of at the time and others will have to cite here.
 * Communism
 * Talk:Communism
 * Talk:FairTax
 * Marketization
 * User talk:KDRGibby

 
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/KDRGibby - talk page of this very RFC is littered with personal attacks
 * Wal-Mart -
 * Articles for deletion/Freedomtarian



Personal attacks and incivility on talk pages Continues to make personal attacks when others try to explain to him why they disagreed with his edits.


 * Talk:Communism
 * User talk:KDRGibby
 * Talk:Liberalism
 * User talk:Electionworld

Personal attacks over e-mail I, User:Quadell, assert that Gibby sent me abusive e-mails filled with personal attacks after I blocked his account.

Edit warring
User continues to intentionally edit war on several articles against consensus.


 * Communism
 * Evidence that addition was against consensus

Abusing boilerplate templates
The user continues to abuse the boilerplate dispute templates despite pleas by other editors not do so, especially by other editors who argue there was no dispute beforehand.


 * Communism
 * Statements by other editors adding boilerplates not justified
 * Wal-Mart
 * Gibby repeatedly removes a POV-section tag from an opinionated section he wrote

Assuming bad faith about editors
When editors cite policy to him or goes to lengthy measures to try to reason with him, he immediately misunderstands guidelines and policy and assumes bad faith about the purpose of these processes and measures, despite other editors reasoning with him that this wasn't so. Also continues to argue there is a cabal.  

No intention to help the project
The user states he has no intention to help the project, and threatened to edit war, and showed no interest of contributing constructively to Wikipedia. The user also tries to exploit supposed loopholes in official policy, showing his true attitude towards the project, even when other editors inform him otherwise. 

Lack of Wikiquette
The user has deleted comments from his talk page when he deems then unfavourable, replacing them with his desired version of the communism article, along with the misleading boilerplates that force cats despite suggestions and efforts from editors not do so. This disrupts the ability of other users to communicate not only with him, but with other users concerning himself. The user is also extremely assertive and arrogant, and also in addition types occasionally in ALLCAPS, uses smileys in inappropriate situations, and uses multiple exclamation marks, etc. which make for impolite comments. 

above user has no problem deleting comments from his own talk page however. (Gibby 17:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

If Gibby is talking about me, he has a point, and I have put back his comments on my talk page. --Pianohacker (Talk) 18:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations
The user disrupted several articles in order to prove a point.


 * Communism

Has no understanding of consensus
The user continues to accuse that his edits are being removed without consensus, despite evidence to the contrary. 

consensus means everyone, never has there been a point when everyone aggreed. (Gibby 16:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC))


 * No, unanimity means everyone agrees. Consensus means something else. Mattley (Chattley) 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Applicable policies

 * What Wikipedia is not
 * No personal attacks
 * Three revert rule (jossifresco has blocked KDRGibby for 3RR violation. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 06:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
 * Civility

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
I only became aware of the situation after being involved with this user. However, I discovered that others had problems with him as well before. Such attempts as theirs, mine, and later User:NSLE when we tried to reason with him has failed to resolve the dispute.
 * Electionworld attempts to reason with him, but Gibby doesn't seem to want to find a solution . An anonymous editor even has had a problem with him . Gibby even goes so far as to remove opposing comments from his talk page. . Electionworld tries to reason with him again  regarding his insults and behaviour, but to no avail. Gibby instead accuses him of vested interests . Electionworld finally gives up.
 * User:Mattley and User:NSLE then tries to reason with him concerning the Communism article, the reverts and copying it over to his talk page. but these reasonings are rejected.
 * I, myself have tried reasoning with KDRGibby but got a personal attack instead.
 * hypocrite and logically inconsistant are not name calling. If i was to say you are a cry baby because you think otherwise, that would be name calling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs)
 * Rejects mediation

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )
 * Natalinasmpf 05:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * NSLE ( T + C + CVU ) 05:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Mattley (Chattley) 13:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rhobite 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC) (partial endorse: I haven't looked into all of this, but it is congruent with what I have seen on Liberalism.)
 * Electionworld 07:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC). As Jmabel I haven't looked into all of this (I didn't look after the communism page), but Gibby kept on insulting me. The problem is that he cannot accept that others have other interpretations of liberalism. His interpreation is included. I cannot say anything about the communism page, since I was not involved in that article.
 * Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC) I have seen his edits to communism and all I can say is that this is a blatant violation of WP:POINT and WP:3RR. KDRGibby smartly jumped through loopholes in policy by not making full reverts and just readding the same content with slight alterations. Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rick Norwood 14:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) In the discussion page of the Liberalism article, I tried to point out to Gibby that he should avoid calling people names, avoid posting at the top of the discussion page, and that he should attempt to discuss and compromise. He has shown no inclination to listen, but rather asserts, repeatedly, that his point of view is the only correct point of view.
 * This user has a fundamental inability to understand Neutral point of view and No original research. My enounter with him involves his attempt to insert a personal essay into the communism article on Chinese market reforms. 172 16:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Pianohacker (Talk) 18:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - See my comments on Talk:Communism
 * – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 19:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * – Ghirla | talk 14:26, 26 January 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.'' '' There is no attempt to resolve any dispute with me by any editor invovled. Each editor from both liberalism and communism, deleted what they wished when they wished for baseless grounds...generally deleted with no reason given. And no reasons were given until small edit wars flamed up along with demands for reasons.

Editors have made no attempt to remove POVs from any edit, the only thing they are capable of doing is eliminating the controversial information outright. Elimination is not real editing and contributes very little. Editors make logically inconsistant claims that defy their own reasoning and even the article they are "defending" For example, the editors of the communist page argue that the "Free Trade Communist?" Section is redundant with other articles on wiki, thus should not be included.

While special economic zones are (barely) mentioned in other articles on wiki, several sections within the communism page have their own page, including Maosim and Lenninism...to name a few. If we were to follow the logic of the editors these sections should also be deleted.

When confronted with this hypocritical information (and calling someone a hypocrite and giving examples is not a personal attack by the way, your examples are rediculous above and prove nothing) the editors continue to make the same excuse while ignoring that their own sections deserve the same deletion they award my own.

You will see that any "edit war" or deletion I was resolved in occured only after intransegent and logically inconsistent editors refused to cooperate and rationally discuss their concerns. (Gibby 05:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

my overall argument which has not been addressed or refuted by the editors is as follows:

Editors of the communism page believe


 * POV
 * Already covered in another page
 * Does not fit with communism

I responded by


 * editing to remove any percieved POV (They did not, they somehow believe deleting constitutes editing)
 * reminding them that Maosim, Lenninsm, the Soviet Union are not only covered in other pages, but have THEIR OWN PAGES
 * reminded them that Maoism, Lenninsm, the soviet union, and more, dont actually fit with the origins of communism either.

you'll also note they are very careful in the selection of information presented in this page...even so, are incapable of proving much of which they claim. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AFairTax&diff=30946406&oldid=30940310

furthermore one editor (creater of this page) in particular 3 revert edited the communism page on one day, 4 on another, and 3 on my own personal page. WAS NOT BLOCKED (emphasis added) no wonder I will think something is up.

(Gibby 05:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)~ --- BostonMA, is the only editor that has tried working with me, and actually supplied useful suggestions to improving the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKDRGibby&diff=31227798&oldid=31216270

His only reward for his attempts was to be accused of being me by NSLE (See below) (and these editors are upset I link them all together in a "cabal" and say they're in cahoots to prevent dissenting information). Seriously, again these editors demonstrate their inability to retain logical consistancy with their complaints!

(Gibby 21:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)) - New claim which has just come up (on why my section should not be included) is "No original research" which is about the dumbest claim one can make (these people are abusing every rule in the wikirule book to keep information they dont like out).

I originally typed that section. I originally researched to find the supporting data. I originally edited to keep the various communist factions happy with the wording of the section. I originally cut and pasted the section back in after each deletion. But seriously, if I'm writing down factual information backed by verified and respected sources like the HOOVER INSTITUTE and WALL STREET JOURNAL (emphasis added so the censors will notice them), then it is NOT original research and thus NOT in violation of any such rule.

See here for the rule : No original research The editors that created this page have shown no ability to understand the rules. The reason is, they abuse the rules to keep information out. That is very clear, as each time I refute a claim they make up another one! And any POV claim can be thrown out by their outright refusal to even help in editing the section to remove any POV.

Making up excuses for deleting stuff by abusing rules DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROPER EDITING! (Emphasis added so they dont miss the point). (Gibby 17:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

--

Saying someone is a hypocrite and demonstrating why is not namecalling

Saying someone has no logical consistancy or is being logically inconsistant, or being illogical and providing a demonstration of their poor logic is also not name calling

None of those are personal attacks. Words have meanings learn them!

Tard and moron are...but in my defense, those were accurate discriptions of the people to which they were applied. :P


 * You are running very, very close to a block for incivility and no personal attacks... NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 00:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

what for 2 words said over a week ago? The rest of the "name calling" is bogus. The incivility ammounts to aggrivation from editors who abuse rules to suite pov interests and who lack any sort of understanding of logical consistancy when making complaints. I could care less about getting blocked from this site. From my experience, much of the articles end up becoming extremely biased as editors are highly selective in making sure only pre approved info gets published. Wiki, is largely a waste of space.

---

THe only reason why this page exists is because the editors dispute the content, period! --- Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Inside view by Mattley
There are two issues here that are only tangentially related. User:KDRGibby complains about the behaviour of other editors on the Communism article. It is true, we're not perfect. Sometimes substantial edits, especially from new editors, get reverted with little or no explanation. This is the wrong thing to do and it's not surprising that it sometimes leads to friction. We seem to have made an enemy of User:BostonMA unnecessarily this way. In future, we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that if we revert any substantial edits that are not clear vandalism we should give a clear and appropriate reason for doing so and, if necessary, invite discussion on the talk page. I'm happy to give an undertaking to follow this guideline. I hope others are too, and I hope it clears the air. The other difficulty, and the major one, is the behaviour of KDRGibby with regard to the section he wishes to include in the article (Free trade communists? shown here . We have been discussing this, and we still are discussing it. KDRGibby, however, is taking the view that the section in question should be included in the article, even though the consensus is against it and despite outstanding difficulties that have not been addressed (such as the assertion of a 'China is communist' POV and the argument that it is outside the scope of the existing article. His response to criticisms of the section suggest that he will only accept its removal if we can prove to his satisfaction that it isn't appropriate. We cannot resolve a content dispute until KDRGibby modifies this behaviour. I hope this RFC will result in an undertaking on his part to accept the principles of consensus and discussion and become a useful editor. Mattley (Chattley) 19:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) Electionworld 15:40, 16 December 2005 (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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

BostonMA
I have copied the original complaint, and wish to respond to it inline item by item. I am not the "defendent" in this RFC. However, it appears that a group of editors exists in the Communism article who act in concert, and who make it virtually impossible for "outsiders" to make any edits.

This user continually wants to add his or her own interpretations to articles, such as liberalism and communism.


 * Yes, the use does want to add his or her own interpretations. There is nothing wrong with attempting to have minority points of view expressed in wikipedia articles.  According to NPOV


 * "Wikipedia policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" "

When other editors removed these sections for reasons such as original research, neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Manual of style, as well as basic redundancy covered by other articles, and the arrangement of content from most general to most specific. I would have made this solely an RFC on communism, until I discovered his past behaviour and decided to file a conduct RFC. When editors removed these sections, he then proceeded to remove a variety of other sections in order to prove a point, despite it being against policy.


 * The Wikipedia:Resolving disputes page is official policy of wikipedia. The very first paragraph on disupte resolution reads in part:


 * The "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."


 * The "other editors" reverted the edits of the user within a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds. The justification offered is that the user's edits had various faults.  I agree that the user's edits contain some original research, and have other weaknesses as well.  However, these weaknesses are found in the Communism article generally, and are not specific to the user's edits.


 * The "other editors" have shown amazing energy in attempting to prevent edits from being made to the Communism article by individuals outside their group. However, when blatant instances of "original research" have been pointed out to them, when requests have been made for verifiable sources for dubious statements, when bias has been shown in the application of their adherence to Wikipedia guidelines, they seem to have no energy for correcting such things.  In fact, they block the correction of instances of "original research" and remove edits which provide verifiable sources.  The appearance is that the "other editors" are conducting a POV crusade against "outside" POVs.


 * With regard to the specific charge that the user removed other sections "to prove a point", the fact is that the "other editors" do not in fact apply wikipedia guidelines regarding NPOV, original research, and verifiable sources uniformly, but apply them only to "outside" edits.


 * For example, consider the phrase "Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale". The subject of the phrase is "the modern world".  It appears to me very doubtful that statements of this sort would appear in scholarly work.  Even if they do appear in scholarly work, I would hope that such words would be represented not as fact, but as the opinion of some scholars, else a question of NPOV arises.


 * The "other editors" claimed to be against "original research", and it was therefore reasonable the the user in qustion attempt to remove text which suffered from that defect.

He then proceeds to put warning templates on the aforementioned articles, although there was no real dispute before adding in the content, despite pleas from other editors not to do so.


 * There is quite clearly factual and NPOV disputes involved with the Communism article. I put up "disputed" and "NPOV" templates myself.  There is a section in the discussion devoted to NPOV, and other sections raise the issues of factual disputes.  Although the other editors don't want warning templates on the website, they have not presented serious arguments that such disputes do not exists.  Adding warning templates is a reasonable and legitimage activity.

During the process he has attacked other users, implying they are ignorant, or they removed these sections out of censorship, vested and entrenched interests, which is absolutely not assuming good faith.


 * The "other editors" have not acted in good faith, by removing edits within minutes of their first appearance. Nor have they acted in good faith in the consistent application of their alleged policies.  When requested to abide by the guideline of improving edits rather than reverting them, as per Resolving disputes


 * "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it."


 * none of them has expressed a willingness to abide by such a policy.

Attempts to reason with him has failed. When he was blocked for WP:3RR violations, he asserts that he never violated the revert rule because he used copy and paste, as opposed to actual reverting, and then accuses the administrators are a cabal.


 * My understanding is that he did not violate the WP:3RR rule because he had not reverted the public page. (By the way, the "other editors" have clearly violated the WP:3RR rule, and did so in a flaunting manner, after they had been warned by Wikipedia administrators.

He then tried to copy the entire Communism article to his talk page,


 * I don't see what is wrong with copying something to one's personal talk page.

deleted other comments on the talk page, and made it difficult for other users to communicate with him, which is abusing the privelege of being able to voice dissent against their block.


 * I fail to see an abuse of privilege in editing one's own talk page.

In summary, I think this RFC is a continuation of a POV crusade conducted by a group of editors of Communism.

Users who endorse this summary:
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) (BostonMA 17:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
 * I'd like to request a checkuser on KDRGibby/BostonMA. NSLE  ( T + C + CVU ) 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is involved in a checkuser, but I assure you I am not KDRGibby. (BostonMA 00:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC))

Lack of evidence of attempt to resolve dispute
Per RfC guidelines: ''The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.''

It seems that User:KDRGibby is in trouble for content disputes and conduct problems. I have found no evidence that any attempt was made to resolve the content disputes through standard wiki practices. Perhaps due to User:KDRGibby's poor conduct, others users took an overly-confrontational path. It also seems that User:KDRGibby was not fully aware of the wiki policies he was violating (conduct problems).


 * It appears that the user in question has not been notified of the RfC against him. (Current talk version at time of this post: ).
 * In the "Evidence of trying and failing..." section, User:Natalinasmpf writes: "[I] have tried reasoning with KDRGibby but got a personal attack instead ." Following those links shows instances where Natalinasmpf made comments along the lines of here is why we did what we did. That is not the same as here is where we stand, and here is where you stand; how can we reach a compromise?.
 * In the "Evidence of trying and failing..." section, User:Mattley and User:NSLE are described as "[trying] to reason with him concerning the Communism article, the reverts and copying it over to his talk page. but these reasonings are rejected ." Again, many of the links provided show evidence of explaining what happened and why. Some links also show evidence of User:KDRGibby's lack of understanding regarding basic wiki policies. There is minimal evidence of attempts to resolve the content dispute that is at the core of the conflict.
 * Yes, but this is no longer a content dispute. There is no excuse about following official policy (such as no personal attacks) - and many users have asked him to stop making personal attacks. Clearly, on personal attacks alone, which he has refused to stop doing, many users have attempted to resolve the dispute and indeed have failed. -- Natalinasmpf 19:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate for User:Natalinasmpf to be commenting in this section? If so, I apologize for bringing it up, if not, I apologize for adding my two cents.  I believe that a content dispute is still burning quite brightly.  The talk page witnesses such.  (A great deal of the discussion was suddenly moved to an archive.  According to the edit note "perhaps archiving all the off-topic soapboxing will make it go away?"  Again, my apologies for editting inline.  (BostonMA 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC))

Users who endorse this summary:
(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Feco 02:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Morphh 13:59, 13 December 2005 (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.

DELETE THIS PAGE
172 and Nati have proven themselves unable to discuss any sort of problems. Their actions are nothing short of thuggish vandalism. I have discussion sections up all over the communist page and they have ignored them. Their only ability is to delete anything they do not like. This is tyrannical abuse of majority power. This page is merely a diversion and from their abuse of wiki rules and editing. (Gibby 08:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Is it appropriate for you to complain about me deleting stuff on MY USER PAGE, while you sit here and delete stuff off a talk page on me that I wrote? THIS IS WHY I CALL YOU LOGICALLY INCONSISTANT AND A HYPOCRITE!http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FKDRGibby&diff=33717668&oldid=33706600

Is it appropriate for you, 172, and Mattley to follow me around every page and delete every section with no discussion? This is a charade! You all are just left leaning thugs who bully competition out of editing what you believe to be your territory!

You have no points, no ground, this is merely a tirade against an ideological competitor and it should be eliminated. You have not proven that you wanted to work with me or that you wanted to compromise. Again, the only place you mention those words is on this talk page. (Gibby 16:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC))