In order to remain listed at Wikipedia: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: 00:57, 24 June 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)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
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.
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 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. 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.
(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.)
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.
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.
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.
User continues to intentionally edit war on several articles against consensus.
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.
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. [59] [60] [61][62]
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[63]. The user also tries to exploit supposed loopholes in official policy[64][65][66][67], showing his true attitude towards the project, even when other editors inform him otherwise. [68][69][70][71]
The user has deleted comments from his talk page when he deems then unfavourable[72][73][74][75][76], replacing them with his desired version of the communism article, along with the misleading boilerplates that force cats [77][78][79][80][81][82] despite suggestions and efforts from editors not do so. [83][84] [85][86][87] 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 [88][89], and also in addition types occasionally in ALLCAPS, uses smileys in inappropriate situations, and uses multiple exclamation marks, etc. which make for impolite comments. [90][91][92][93]
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)
The user disrupted several articles in order to prove a point.
The user continues to accuse that his edits are being removed without consensus, despite evidence to the contrary. [97][98]
consensus means everyone, never has there been a point when everyone aggreed. (Gibby 16:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC))
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.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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
I responded by
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 : Wikipedia: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
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 ~~~~):
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 [121]. 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 ~~~~):
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.
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.
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.
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.
In summary, I think this RFC is a continuation of a POV crusade conducted by a group of editors of Communism.
(sign with ~~~~)
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).
(sign with ~~~~)
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.
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))