Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Matt reltub


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 7 October 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

Statement of the dispute
User:Matt reltub has engaged in aggressive and attacking behavior in relation to the use of a source in this article. Because I felt a source should be used in order to balance the POV of the article, I was criticized and reported as a Meat Puppet, since there were a few other editors involved who disagreed with User:Matt reltub.

Description
I am engaged in a dispute with another editor on this talk page about the reliability of sources for the article. Although I am not innocent for remaining calm in the discussion, the editor has responded in an aggressive attitude and removed these sources from the article on grounds that they are contentious material about a living person. He has also stated that the use of some of the sources constitute original research, and do not bear direct relevance to the living person in question.

There are a few other editors involved in the dispute, and who have been accused of Meat Puppetry by this editor, of trying to sabotage or defame the article. Because I got involved in trying to reconcile the use of sources for the article, I have also been included in the Meat Puppetry report. Because User:Matt reltub appears to be very passionate and accusatory in his responses (despite having a good knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines), I question the neutrality of the article. What we need is a neutral third party to weigh the arguments, to determine the reliability and relevance of sources, and to determine if there is NPOV in the article.

Desired outcome
If User:Matt reltub does not follow WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:NPOV, then I request that he be barred from editing in the article.

Evidence of disputed behavior

 * Examples of attacks and accusations:
 * POV by claiming lack of relevance:
 * Attempt to remove neutrality of article when dispute was not settled:

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:NPOV

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

 * Attempt by User:Anton H
 * Attempt by User:Rabicante

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

 * Contacts by User:Anton H dismissed as a "Meat Puppet":
 * Attempt by User:Rabicante answered with accusations of Meat Puppetry:, leading to more accusations:

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

 * User:Rabicante (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anton H (talk) 15:24, 12 October 2008 (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.''

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by
Users who endorse this summary:

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.

Summary
Editor stopped editing on 12 October 2008. Users certifying the basis of the dispute stopped editing a few days later, following blocks for sockpuppetry.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.