Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Carfiend

Carfield = sock puppet?
Carfield appeared on wikipedia about a week after another disruptive person was banned, and he has the same talking patterns and tactics. I forget the original person's name, and can't look it up because the recent title change revert war war has left the archives broken again. Like this other person, he discusses almost nothing else on wikipedia but the Apollo hoax. Algr 18:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that "For Great Justice" (perhaps without spaces) was suspected of being the same person. Bubba73 (talk), 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:For great justice - blocked indefinitely. Bubba73 (talk), 02:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion
I believe that the charges against Carfiend on the main page are only part of the picture. I believe that he is violating WP:NPOV and is POV pushing. I can no longer assume good faith, and assume that he is editing for the good of Wikipedia. He will not look up facts and he will not accept facts provided by others. He brings in things that are irrelevant to the topic of the article. He is not knowledgeable enough in science, history, or technology to be editing. Bubba73 (talk), 00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I think that's the primary issue. We've had many discussions about why the page doesn't meet NPOV and how it could be fixed, and we've made many changes to try to improve it, but Carfiend just seems to revert them all. If Carfiend is allowed to continue doing so, we might as well just give up on it (which is precisely why I don't even bothered trying to edit it anymore). While I'm all in favor of assuming good faith, I'm afraid I don't see any evidence that Carfiend has any interest in improving the article rather than pushing their own POV. Mark Grant 01:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I've fixed up the archive links on the talk page. Because it's been renamed several times, the page archives seem to have been separated from the talk page along the way: I managed to find at least one copy of each archive page, but they're under three different names. That also means the next/previous links internal to those pages are often broken. Can we just move them to the correct names? I'm not sure how move works. Mark Grant 01:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One more thing to add: if you look at Carfield's contributions, you see that he has made hundreds of edits, and almost all of them have been to the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Accusations article or its talk page. This may indicate that he is too focused on a single issue.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The criticisms of Carfiend's near-total focus on this one article, his double-standard on POV-pushing, and his approach to editing, are all well-grounded. He has been absent for several days, so this may be moot. However, that could change now that the page is unlocked. There are also other flamers making their presence known, but it's difficult to judge if they are sockpuppets (even though they parrot much of the same rhetoric) and/or whether they plan to follow the same path as Carfiend. The next few days should tell the tale. Wahkeenah 16:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
I would also suggest that anyone commenting on Carfiend's actions reads the WP:NPOV policy, particularly WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV/FAQ. Mark Grant

3RR block

 * On Sept 11, 2006 Carfiend was blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on List of space exploration milestones, 1957-1969. Bubba73 (talk), 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The user continues to disrupt that article. Bubba73 (talk), 17:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Carfiend seems to see this RFC as an endorsement of his behavior
Carfiend has indicated on several occasions that the reaction to this RFC amounts to an endorsement to what I've defined here as his poor editing practices. These practices continue unabated following his 2-3 week absence. Further, Carfiend has indicated that users participating in this RFC who agree with its premise do so as a kind of revenge or POV pushing. I don't beleive either of these claims are valid, but since this process seems to be about forming opinions about behavior I thought Carfiend's reaction was pertinent to this discussion. Numskll 16:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)