Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct disputes archive/JackLynch

(Jack removed his original complaint about Bryan Derksen. Discussion of matters arising continues below.)

See also the conflict that was posted here by Jack, in reference to the same articles. And also User talk:Bryan Derksen, where Jack wrote "You comments here make it clear that you have an agenda and are "stalking" me on the wiki, attempting to prevent me from editing. Back off, or I am going to take necessary measures." Considering that the atheism and agnosticism articles are the only ones where I've been locking horns with Jack, I think his accusation of my "stalking" him is a little over the top. As for my statement to edit all changes he makes, I believe it was this (from talk:agnosticism): "at this point I consider you to be a strongly biased editor with a clear agenda, and everything you do here is suspect. Later this evening I'm going to go over all your changes and I'm sure I'll be making plenty of changes of my own to them." The "all your changes" in this case was referring to the agnosticism article, and I did end up reverting all of his most recent changes to that article after considering them. I stand by that reversion. Bryan 01:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Jack is a biased troll of the world kind. He reports anyone who argues against him, makes POV changes and insists they should stay until "further discussion", which basically means "until he decides", and is generally an offensive pain and nuisance with no understanding of NPOV at all.  I am in full support of Bryan over this.  Jack, it is YOU who should be on this page.  However, unlike you, we are not whiny snobs who feel the need to silence anyone who disagrees with us. - Lord Kenneth 02:48, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

While reverting all changes is not particularly nice, I can vouch for the fact that when JackLynch edits articles that relate to religion it is mostly to insert his biases. --snoyes 04:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Secretlondon 13:41, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * This is also true for articles relating to socialism. Sunray 04:43, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)
 * I agree too. I've witnessed it numerous times. MikeCapone Jan 28, 2004, 03:35 (UTC)


 * For the record, I never said I would revert all changes. I said I'd review them, and after reviewing the most recent batch I decided to revert those particular ones. Unconditional reversion is reserved solely for people who have been hard-banned, which is definitely not my call to make. Bryan 05:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate for the user at the centre of a conflict to take it on himself to remove a current discussion of his behaviour off to a sub-page. It smacks of trying to hide the evidence. I have reverted Jack Lynch's removal of this discussion, and remind him that this discussion is very much still current. Tannin 14:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Conflicts between users. I placed this here, and was under the impression that I could delete it, move it, whatever, if the discussion appears over, and if I so choose. I don't feel it was over. I was actually attempting to assist you in keeping this page clean. If you feel this discussion is current, add to it. Jack 22:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * A fair point, Jack. There are in fact two conflicts listed here under a single heading. In a moment, I'll make a second edit to (a) remove your original complaint (in line with your wishes) and (b) retain the second complaint (by Bryan & Lord Kenneth) -- which matter they can remove if they see fit. Tannin 22:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That is not even remotely acceptable. Remove this immediately, or place your own. This is a misuse of your authority, and I will not stand for it. Jack 22:58, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate for the user at the centre of a conflict to take it on himself to remove a current discussion of his behaviour off to a sub-page. It smacks of trying to hide the evidence. I have reverted Jack Lynch's removal of this discussion, and remind him that this discussion is very much still current. Tannin 14:36, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Conflicts between users. I placed this here, and was under the impression that I could delete it, move it, whatever, if the discussion appears over, and if I so choose. I don't feel it was over. I was actually attempting to assist you in keeping this page clean. If you feel this discussion is current, add to it. Jack 22:43, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * A fair point, Jack. There are in fact two conflicts listed here under a single heading. In a moment, I'll make a second edit to (a) remove your original complaint (in line with your wishes) and (b) retain the second complaint (by Bryan & Lord Kenneth) -- which matter they can remove if they see fit. Tannin 22:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That is not even remotely acceptable. Remove this immediately, or place your own. This is a misuse of your authority, and I will not stand for it. Jack 22:58, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * As you wish, Jack. You may now regard me as the instigator of the above. I take responsibility for it. Tannin 23:07, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * What authority would that be? --snoyes 23:05, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Any and all. Her authority as a user, for one. Jack 23:11, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Apparently as an admin as well. Jack 23:16, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * This is nothing to do with being an admin. Secretlondon 23:17, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Violations of policy have everything to do with ones status. Jack 23:23, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * If you believe Tannin or any other admin has abused their powers or otherwise has demonstrated that they shouldn't be an admin, the appropriate venue for that discussion is the Requests and nominations for de-adminship section of Requests for adminship. As that is a voting page, you can see how many other wikipedians agree with your assessment, and how many don't. -- Finlay McWalter 01:14, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Let me be very clear. I am not looking to de-admin tannin here. I am complaining about behaviour unbecoming. Review my complaint about this entry below. If it is valid, that doesn't mean that tannin is a bad user, should be de-admin'ed, nor hung from the highest pole. If I am correct (which is what were trying to determine here) than tannin made a mistake, and one that I will admit made me a bit miffed. But lets not get carried away. All I want is for this entry to be removed, and for policy to be obeyed. If it is determined that I am wrong, and I deserve the scolding, so be it. I apologize if I came across as overwrought, perhaps I was. I pray it is clear I neither approve of this entry, nor of anyone being railroaded because of it. Jack 01:38, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for that much at least. Have you contacted me and attepted to resolvge any problems you may have as per CbU guidelines? I take note that you have not, and contest this entry. Jack 23:10, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I will remind you: "First discuss the issues with the user in question, and do everything in your power to get a resolution that way. In many cases it's possible to resolve the issue with discussion, without getting the rest of the community involved. If it's a dispute over specific article content, it should probably be discussed in the talk page or referred to Current disputes over articles." Please review User conflict policy at your earliest convenience. That will be much appreciated. Thanking you in advance, Jack 23:12, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack wrote "This complaint has been contested as not being in accordance with User conflict policy" an added it out of sequence above. Moved here by me, Tannin.

Jack subsequently tried to pretend that I (Tannin) had removed Jack's complaint. I have reverted the dishonest change and (once again) restored the original complaint made by Bryan Derksen and others. Jack has the right to remove his (entirely frivolous, IMO) complaint about Brian and I have respected that. He does not have the right to remove the (much more substantive) complaints made about him.

Now, back to the topic under discussion. Jack delights in provoking and maintaining edit wars, and in insisting on inserting extraordinarily POV statements into a very narrow range of articles. Quite a few users (including both me and the ones who laid the original complaint), have discussed these with him at some length. Personally, I do not hold out any hopes for a reform. This isn't a case of lack of knowledge about how to cooperate with other users and how to write from a NPOV, it is (in my judgement) a clear case of don't want to cooperate with other editors. Short of requesting that Jimbo simply ban Jack as a hopelessly disruptive user, I am not sure how else to proceed. Tannin 03:22, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I must protest. I recently weighed in on a dispute between User:JackLynch and User:Bryan Derksen in Talk:Atheism, and suggested a one-week "cooling-off" period on the article, to which both parties readily agreed.  Jack left me a note on my talk page thanking me for the intervention.  In addition, on that page, he received abusive language from a user, to which he declined to respond in kind, and appeared to basically keep his cool when accused twice of incorrectly citing a source when he had, in fact, done so correctly (if perhaps in a misleading way).  This is not to say that the user has not used POV in some edits - I believe on review that some of his edits were.  And I have likely missed some history here.  But the behavior I described is hardly indicative of one for whom there is no "hope for a reform", or who shows a lack of cooperation.  It seems to me that malice has been assumed when in fact there've been several honest mistakes that I've seen, both on Jack's part and others.  I've found the user to be far from "hopelessly disruptive", and would hope as an administrator you would at least allow the parties a week to cool down before passing judgment like this. - Scooter 04:37, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * "accused twice of incorrectly citing a source when he had, in fact, done so correctly (if perhaps in a misleading way)." Wrong. My accusations were that the source was cited in a misleading way. Furthermore, I maintain that citing something misleadingly is a subset of citing it incorrectly. --snoyes 04:44, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wasn't referring to you. As to the second point, I'd agree, at least in terms of POV. - Scooter 04:50, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd be interested to know which source he was accused of citing incorrectly. --snoyes 04:53, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. On Talk:Atheism under the subhead "Read some sources", just before the beginning of the next subhead, "What else needs doing?"  Jack cites a figure of 2.44% of the world as atheist, according to the CIA World Factbook.  User:Tannin followed the link and said that the 2.44% figure wasn't there.  You pointed out that it was; she insisted that the link had been revised and it was not in the original link.  You again pointed out that it was, even in the original. - Scooter 05:09, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * If it is that accusation you are referring to then I don't see how you thought that it was possibly cited misleadingly. As the only error was on the part of Tannin (not scouring the page correctly). --snoyes 05:16, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's what it was, and there was some discussion about whether the CIA World Factbook could be considered authoritative in the discussion of world religions. But that's as may be; the point is that some folks, including Jack, Tannin, and others, made mistakes, and I believe the best way to deal with it would be to assume that no malice was intended, take some time off, and try again at a later time. - Scooter 05:21, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Here we have a good example of distorting the facts to suit a particular (trouble-making) purpose - which seems to me to be exactly the sort of anti-social behaviour that this thread is trying to address. If you read Talk:Atheism you soon see that I wrote The link cited does not contain the 2.44% figure. (Certainly not in any obvious location on the page.) Jack then provided another link which did contain the figure, and both Snoyes and Jack pointed out that the original link actually had the figure too (but well-buried in a large slab of text where it was not obvious). I haven't actually checked that last for myself, but I accepted their statements, and said fair enough. From this trivial interaction, we get a huge bucket of hyperbole. This is exactly the sort of time-wasting nonsense we can do without. Tannin 07:16, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Tannin. On the Socialism and Socialism and Nazism pages, Jack has repeatedly deleted material that other users had worked on (for some time and with difficulty) and inserted his own POV edits.  When asked to justify his changes he does not respond.  If he doesn't desist, I really cannot see any alternative but to request that he be banned.  Sunray 04:43, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

I think at this point it's appropriate for me to add an actual complaint against Jack of my own, rather than simply responding to his initial complaints about me. At Snoyes' suggestion, for about a week Jack and I refrained from making any edits to the Atheism article itself and instead spent the time trying to hash out a compromise over on talk:. Finally, we seemed to be approaching one that would avoid the capital-G issue entirely; Jack even agreed to it himself. And then, immediately after that, he moved the entire talk: page over into Archive 5: January 2004 (putting both the compromise discussion, and also previous comments by him that I believe show a great deal of bias, "out of sight and out of mind" - much like he did earlier on this page with this entry on him) and then launched into a flurry of edits on the main article to restore the capital-G God usage that the whole edit war and argument had originally started over. In addition, he has apparently made at least one "stealthy" deletion of a significant line from the article in the midst of that flurry. I'm getting quite frustrated trying to deal reasonably with him, and am wondering if it would be appropriate for me to suggest that Jack is a "problem user". Bryan 00:08, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Take a look here for a bit more facts, and less fiction Sam Spade 13:12, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Folks, you've made rfcs a sort of rite of passage for Wiki edtors...
Hey, folks, leave Sam alone! He was one of my most active and fierce critics for edits on Iridology. But hey, are you after witches or something? Leave the man/lady/Wiki editor at large just as he/she is - free and alone! Or I'll report your acts as a fascist deviation! The right to free speech includes leaving people free to think as they deem fit. If they express themselves, it's there inalienable right. Raising files with profiles and then spamming editors with "urgent" nonsense and stuff raises specters of political police! When I was younger I myself had a huge file in Securitate for opposing communism. I wish not see this experience again! For anybody! If you don't like what Sam thinks, say so, write to him, demonstrate in front of him with facts and your stuff that his opinions are not yours, etc. But don't carry him to Salem for more witch*hunting. Duh! Disgusting! - irismeister 22:57, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)


 * Uh, this page is almost a full year dead and buried. I'd forgotten it existed or that I still had it watchlisted until you made this comment. I'd suggest taking your comments to the main RFC page where it'll be noticed. Bryan 23:26, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that it just got linked to from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Sam Spade. Still, adding comments here is kind of pointless; you should put them over there in this case. Bryan 23:29, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)