Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2

To remain listed at Wikipedia: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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:57, 21 November 2012‎), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC).

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2.

See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red

talk) 23:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply ]

Incivility by User:Rhode Island Red, as noted below.

Desired outcomes

All user parties to this RFC agree to the following:

1. Maintain Civility on the Talk Page, in Edit Summaries and during Dispute Resolution.
2. Use Edit Summaries only to summarize editing and, if referring to other editors, to be civil at all times.
3. Make no accusations of
   tag-teaming
   without offering specific evidence thereof.

In addition, I personally would like an apology from Rhode Island Red, posted on the

]

Description

in response.

Evidence of disputed behavior

Some pertinent remarks by Rhode Island Red are in boldface below.

Civility, personal attacks

Policy or guideline contravened: Wikipedia:Civility

Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates.

Policy or guideline contravened: Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

Essay contravened: Wikipedia:Tag team

Unsubstantiated accusations of tag teaming are uncivil. Care should be taken to frame assertions in an appropriate way, citing evidence in the appropriate venues, following our dispute resolution process.

In Talk space

Are you blind or just being obstructive as usual? . . . Please stop wasting everyone's time with this pointless griping and tendentious editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 8:09 pm, 5 November 2012, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−8)

---

. . . either you're very bad at counting to three, or you're lying on purpose. You're lucky that you haven't been blocked for WP:3RR. Deception won't help you win any arguments here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 2:38 pm, 11 September 2012, Tuesday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC−7)

---

Could you possibly have said anything more shallow and non-constructive? Seriously, I have no patience for the use of BS to influence content debates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 10:23 pm, 8 September 2012, Saturday (1 month, 23 days ago) (UTC−7)

It seems that your hypocrisy filter is set on zero. Rhode Island Red (talk) 8:08 am, 11 September 2012, Tuesday (1 month, 21 days ago) (UTC−7)

---

Bear in mind that the WP Project Conservatism crew (eg, GeorgeLouis, Collect, Andrewman327) have campaigned relentlessly . . . . Yet another comment from WP Project Conservatism editor. We already know what the WP Project Conservatism editors' POV is on the issue. Rhode Island Red (talk) 7:17 am, 16 November 2012, last Friday (5 days ago) (UTC−8)

---

A small cadre of partisan editors and SPA/socks keep arbitrarily raising the bar higher and higher . . . I will go straight to ArbCom and request that the offenders be blocked. It’s just that simple; and it’s what the situation warrants. Rhode Island Red (talk) 2:06 pm, 11 September 2012, Tuesday (1 month, 20 days ago) (UTC−7)

---

Please stop wasting everyone's time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 11:23 am, 14 September 2012, Friday (1 month, 17 days ago) (UTC−7)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=bloviating&prefix=Talk%3AFrank+L.+VanderSloot%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search

take your petty vindictive bloviating elsewhere. [Unsigned and undated comment by Rhode Island Red.]

---

Maybe you could try providing some of those...um....what are the called again...oh yeah...LINKS! Or should we just put in a sentence in the article that says "what they do is legitimately philanthropic" and cite "Andrewman327" next to the claim? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

---

(Off-topic exchange has been hidden.)

You campaigned strenuously for inclusion of that source, edit warred over it, and even improperly canvassed other editors at WP Project Conservatism to support you. (9:24 am, 7 December 2012)

---

Just for clarification, You seem to be running from one spurious argument to another without even taking a breath in between. Relax. (7:11 pm, 2 February 2013)

---

Please up your game or better still just drop this tendentious MLM argument altogether. The discussion has only continued this long because you choose to keep beating the dead horse. [6:37 pm, 2 February 2013)

---

Get over it. I’m expected to be civil, but neither of you are my friends, so don’t confuse the issue. Again, the links Collect posted have nothing to do with the matter at hand. However, if the two of you want to double down on such nonsense, be my guest. After all the grief you’ve caused beating this non-issue into the ground, I would have thought that you’d try to make a better effort to support your case with relevant comments now that you have a forum and other editors paying attention, but apparently that’s not the case. (4:58 pm, 3 February 2013)

On Notice Boards

[1] Your off-topic moaning and wailing is pointless. Back off with the harassment or I will file a long overdue user conduct dispute regarding both of you. Smarten up. (7 November 2012)

Soapboxing

Policy or guideline contravened:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.

[2] It is a fact that VanderSloot is being audited by the IRS, but it’s not a fact that the audit was retributive, as right-wing talking heads like Strassel, Hannity, and FOX News alleged. . . . Lots of sources covered these events in a neutral manner (reporting just the facts without the accusations), so giving undue weight to the hysterical right-wing sources is inappropriate (i.e, it is a biased minority opinion). . . . Just be aware, as I pointed out already, that if you propose to mention these muckraking op-eds, they will have to be balanced by other sources that objected strongly to Strassel's dirt throwing accusations. (8 November 2012)

Misuse of the Edit Summary

Communal consensus contravened:

Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause tension or bad feelings, which makes collaboration more difficult. Explain what you changed, and cite the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but try not to target or to single out others in a way that may come across as an attack or an insult.

[3] "be specific; this isn't a soapbox" (1 November 2012)

[4] "-please stop removing reliable sources and don't edit war" (5 November 2012)

[5] explained why the video violates WP:BLP one more time for the hard of reading (26 September 2012)

[6] ‎Political campaign financing: Don't be ridiculous. Open ended accusatory question like this are decidedly non-encyclopedic. Be careful about lowering the bar, as it could come back to bite you. (27 September 2012)

[7] ‎Link to Heritage Foundation video: defense of linking to Heritage Foundation video has no merit with respect to WP:RS or the clear WP:BLP violation. Stop ignoring the elephant in the room please. (26 September 2012)

[8] pettiness, red herring -- stay on topic (11 September 2012)

[9] tendentious edit by WP:SPA [Note: This remark and reversion was also a violation of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. (21 January 2013)]

Assuming good faith

Behavioral guideline not followed: Wikipedia:Assume good faith

Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.

[10] your buddy's disruptive behavior . . . you two are marching in lockstep, as you always do (which is why I referred to your history of collusion and obstruction). . . . as George alleged in his trumped up accusation. . . . If there were a barnstar for hypocrisy... (1 November 2012)

[11] "I've provided you already with sufficient warning about wikihounding in the past and you chose to ignore the warnings, so I have little choice but to alert WP admin about your violations of policy and ongoing harassment. (10 December 2012)

[12] I also find it disturbing that whenever George Louis claims, in the midst of being rebuked for improper conduct (e.g., edit warring[13] most recently), to be taking a break from editing,[14] one of the other members of the conservative/VanderSloot PR spin-doctor contingent (e.g., Andrewman327 in this case), immediately moves over and takes the wheel, driving home the exact same tendentious arguments that George was trying to push. This is exactly the type of conduct that has prompted me to raise concerns about WP:TAGTEAM in the past. (20 January 2013)

Biting the newcomers

Policy contravened: Wikipedia:Civility#Avoiding_incivility

Be careful with user warning templates. . . . exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers (see Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers). Consider using a personal message instead of, or at least in addition to, the templated message.

Behavioral guideline contravened:

Do not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner.

[13] Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed. . . . Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. Re: your recent removal of content[1] on Frank Vandersloot was disruptive. . . . (20 January 2013)

{List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
2. Wikipedia:Civility
3. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
4. Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion
5. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
6. Wikipedia:Please don't bite the newcomers

Attempts by certifier No. 1 GeorgeLouis

1. [14]] "Hello, Red ! I wonder if it would be possible to reach a compromise in the VanderSloot article; that is, regarding the MLM dispute. I propose deleting the phrase from the lede paragaph and inserting a separate subheader into the body of the story that will give "both sides" of the dispute. Frankly, I would like to see the whole issue abandoned, but I can see now that would not be possible. What do you say? Sincerely," (25 September 2012)
2. [15] "Thank you for the above statement. I am joining User:Collect in seeking your cooperation in adhering to Wikipedia:Civility, and I certainly hope that you will apologize to both of us. Yours in Wikidom," (31 October 2012)
3. [16] "I agree with Iselilja, RIR. "Please refrain from baseless personal attacks." Actually, please refrain from personal attacks, period. I have a compendium of some of your personal attacks and will share it with you on your Talk Page, if you feel it might be helpful to you. Or I could send it in a private e-mail that no one else would see. Perhaps my doing so would help further the project by making you aware of how I at least feel about the remarks you have been making either here or in the Edit Summaries." (16 November 2012)
4. [17] Red: I call to your attention WP:Civility and would appreciate an apology for your peremptory remark, or at least an explanation for such language. In my view, "Move on now and be cooperative" is really counterproductive and makes all editors wince. It made me wince, and I am fairly well inured to such a gibe ("an insulting or mocking remark; a taunt").
5. [18] Red, this is the place to talk to you about your User Conduct, as you made so clear when you told me to stay away from your User Page, so I will say right now that your use of the words "perceived slights" and "counterproductive" is really offensive to me, as they would be to most people, and I again ask you to review WP:Civility, which states "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." (17 November 2012)
6. [19] I shouldn't have to remind you that "reverting good-faith actions of other editors may be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing," because I am fully aware that you know a great deal about WP policies and procedures. (23 November 2012)

Attempts by certifier No. 2 Collect

Rhode Island Red exhibits "ownership" of the BLP in question: [20] 360 article edits, 203 talk page edits to a single article, or a huge percentage of all edits thereto, making up about 10% of his total activity on Wikipedia. More than half of his edits are on a single topic "health foods and claims".

He has repeatedly edit warred on the article - see [21] and [22] and [23] and [24]

His typical reaction is [25] with the response to an admin of removing trumped up 3RR allegations

The article was discussed at DRN with the result: [26]

The case has gone on for ten days and should be closed by now, as partially resolved. There is a rough consensus not to include the paragraph on the 1997 warning letter, which was the original issue that was brought to DRN. The Rolling Stone and Slate articles don't explicitly mention the 1997 letter, but do refer to the controversy over Melaleuca's supplements.

RIR did not abide by the DRN result. I disagree that violation of WP:UNDUE has been demonstrated. Any proposals for changes in the wording should be discussed in order to resolve the dispute (quoting RIR) [27] shows his iterated and ongoing behaviour on this issue which had been resolved weeks earlier.

He then asserts "tag team" over and over ... [28] he asserts that an RS "scrubbed" an article and had to be shown he greatly misapprehended what he was reading. [29] has RIR state: Some input from editors independent of the Conservative project is needed. (Collect: I am not a member of any such project, by the way)

[30] shows another example of his attacks: BTW, I've been pleading to get more objective eyes on the article because it would put a stop to the tag

Two editors from the "conservative" block have made two attempts ... There is absolutely no valid reason to delete this term from the article and if the attempts to whitewash it continue, the COI/user conduct will be brought to the attention of the admins. This hyper-partisan disruptive POV pushing cannot continue unchecked.

RIR loves to threaten as well: [33] That's preposterous George. I did not call Collect a dick. I did not violate 3RR. Your off-topic moaning and wailing is pointless. Back off with the harassment or I will file a long overdue user conduct dispute regarding both of you. Smarten up, right after: [34] Read WP:DONTBEADICK please. Also, note that I said that you were “involved” with WP Project Conservatism, which is a fact; there’s no need for such an emphatic denial of something that wasn’t said. In fact, your POV pushing has been an ongoing concern there, as indicated by comments like: "I'd like to point out that Collect's behavior is why there's a problem. He's a conservative editor who viciously and falsely attacks anyone who criticizes WikiProject Conservatism."[35]. And yes, I do consider your trumped up 4RR accusation to be a witch-hunt, and a waste of everyone’s time, since it’s obvious that I didn’t violate 4RR. You and George together use these retributive accusations to obstruct work on the page and intimidate opposition. It's time to straighten up and fly right

[36] Like I said, pointless tag-team witch-hunt. An apology after the fact doesn't make up for the hassle or wasted resources. This is emblematic of a chronic problem.

[37] Collect failed to identify himself as an involved participant, and his off-topic ad hominem and suggestion that I'm "rather upset" about some prior incident was entirely predictable given that he and George Louis (both members of the NPOV-challenged WP Project Conservatism)[38] have been marching in lockstep on the VanderSloot article, and one always pops in to back up the other in virtually every dispute. Together they have been trying to game the system and whitewash the article since long before I first visited the Vandersloot page. ... Collect has probably racked up 200 comments on the article's Talk page alone and still hasn't contributed more than a sentence or two to the entire article. If there were a barnstar for obstructionism... (my 'total' edit count on the talk page (including typo fixes) is under fifty! and my edit count on the article was on the same order - mainly removing blatant

violations.)

But background details aside, notice how Collect's mudlslinging has no bearing whatsoever on the 3RR issue

In short, he iterates claims of "collusion" and "tag-team", of acting wihout good faith in pointing out his repeated edit war and battleground attitude, he uses

in an insulting and puerile manner, and he makes threats in many places (I went back scarcely more than two weeks for most of this - and it goes back for months now!)

In short - plenty of evidence that DRN was used - and he rejected the result, that he has been repeatedly asked not to claim "tag team" but he continues to do so, that he denied misusing

which is belied by his own words, and I did not even have to go back far to show it is all current and ongoing.

He removes all warnings from his UT page, and seems to think that his continued incivility is of no account. Collect (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment anent RIR's "summary": This "summary" is misleading utterly -- making a point that I "posted" on a project page is not the same as being a member of the project, and RIR knows it, has been repeatedly told he is purveying a falsehood, is repeating his invcivility on the RFC/U for gosh sakes! He iterates the silly "tagteam" charge which he has been told requires evidence and should not be used in namecalling posts, else is uncivil mudslinging in the first place. In short - he provides evidence against himself here - which I find vastly amusing. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC) (had been placed under "comments" after his response - he "endorsed" his own summary, and left a place for others to "endorse" - I count this as a "non-endorsement" of a summary which shows precisely his problems on Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Buku: Please remove your blatant personal attack. I am quite specifically not "far right" and I have no "agenda" here other than following the requirements of

]

Other attempts

1. [39] "I added the sentence. Rhode Island Red, if you already have the sources that object to Strassel, by all means add them for balance." User:HtownCat
2. [40] "No matter what your opinion of VanderSloot's actions, we still can't misquote him. The current article is not representing both sides of the issue and including his full quote will help provide balance. Whether you “see a pattern” in VanderSloot’s actions or not, let’s just add information to this article that comes directly from sources and leave it at that. Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal politics." User:HtownCat
3. [41] "Civility, Rhode Island Red; Assume Good Faith. And I suggest you stop edit warring, the article has already been put on SYSOP lock." Jeremy112233
4. [42] ". . . stop being uncivil." Jeremy112233
5. [43] "Please retract your statement and please refrain from further personal attacks. There was an invitation to comment and I did. No reason at all for you to get incivil just because I happened to have another view than yours." User:Iselilja
6. [44] "Again - please read
   WP:NPA. You seem unable to make a single post without making it a personal attack. And drop the grossly uncivil claim of "tag teaming" as it has been found to be uncivil many times now. Cheers. User: Collect
7. [45] "For the last time - there is no tagteam trying to get at you. There is no conspiracy or "clique" aiming at your back. There is no "single voice on every issue" here. There is no cabal trying to put you down. There is no collusion between editors all of whom are "against you." Is this finally clear? Cheers. Collect
8. RIR, please do your best to address the logic of other's arguments, rather than labeling them "tendentious". Both sides have strong points and it serves the RfC better to have a more focused and calm dialogue. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 1:40 pm, 4 February 2013, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC−8)
9. Hi Rhode Island Red. I just saw this edit. Please be careful about casting aspersions, i.e. accusing others of misbehavior or impropriety without evidence. I suggest taking a break from the RfC for a few days. There's plenty to do without being stressed and without the risk of further complications. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk)2:02 pm, 4 February 2013, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC−8)
10. I certainly don't think escalation is necessary. I do think you need to cool off because your recent edit summaries are getting pretty tense. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 2:17 pm, 4 February 2013, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC−8)
11. This edit is not acceptable. You need to be civil with discussing with others. This, compounded by the issues I wrote to you about above, don't seem to be going away. I strongly suggest you take a break from the RfC. Any more comments or edit summaries like that will result in a block. Butting heads with other edits will do nothing to help your case. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 3:51 pm, 5 February 2013, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−8)

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

talk) 15:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Collect (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. I endorse this summary. Rhode Island Red's WP:Ownership actions have gone on for months. He/she seems to be pushing a political agenda and accusing those trying to make the article more encyclopedic as conspiring "conservatives." HtownCat (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree with the summary's presentation of events. I first became aware of Rhode Island Red at the BLP noticeboard regarding the Frank L. Vandersloot article. Since then I have been watching the talk page and tried to participate but was chased away by the battleground atmosphere created primarily by Rhode Island Red. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Would Keithbob care to make at least an attempt at justifying, with actual evidence, how I chased him away? I contend that his claim is utterly baseless. Here is the sum total of my interactions with Keithbob, none of which remotely support his gobsmackingly unwarranted accusation:

(Inoffensively answering a direct question): "In some cases multiple citations are used because the material deals with issues that could best be described as critical of the BLP subject, and thus the bar is set rather high to demonstrate prominent/widespread coverage -- the downside of pruning sources under the guise of addressing citation overkill is that later on someone will inevitably argue that the issue did not receive coverage significant enough to warrant inclusion. In other cases, it demonstrates uniformity of facts or opinion across a fairly broad spectrum of publications/media outlets. Pointless duplication has been avoided as far as I can see. If there are any obvious exceptions, let me know."[46]

Perhaps Keithbob was referring to this blatantly hostile reply of mine:

"We're on the same page. Let's see how it plays out."[47]

Or maybe he felt chased away because I agreed with him too strongly while replying to Collect's edit warring:

"That's unfortunate. You deleted it once already today[13] and then did it again after Nomo reverted your deletion.[14] Did you miss the part where KeithBob said "discuss those sources here and gain consensus". Was that asking too much?"[48]

Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is reserved for the use of the user whose conduct is disputed. Users writing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section, and the person writing this section should not write a view below. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one except the editor(s) named in the dispute may change the summary here.

This is a malformed myopic RfC. The primary editors involved (George Louis and Collect) are throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping that something sticks. The RfC bypasses the real crux of the issue, which is a longstanding editorial dispute, as well as serious user conduct issues on their part (e.g.,

have been trying to POV push and whitewash the article (about a somewhat controversial conservative political figure) since July of this year -- this would be readily apparent to any NPOV editor who undertakes the monumental task of reviewing their contributions to the article and weak/contentious/tendentious comments on the Talk page. There have been several overt incidents of gaming the system. Recently, other editors from the ‘conservative bloc’ have been piling on to influence the outcome of content discussions on the Talk page, which I might not object to if the comments weren’t so utterly lacking in substance (i.e., simple me-too comments) and basis in WP policy.

I’ve pointed out a few examples of the problematic behavior on the Talk page, and I hoped that calling attention to it (as per the suggestion in “Dealing with biased contributors” under

WP:HARRASS

, which necessitates urgent remedial action.

Because this RfC is malformed and ignores the larger editorial and user conduct issues, and because RfCs are non-binding, I would like to see the entire issue go to ArbCom where the outcome would be binding, so that the matter can be resolved definitively and that these time-wasting exercises will end once and for all. There is simply too much of an air of collusion going on now to ever expect fair treatment of the matter through conventional DR processes, so the involvement of ArbCom and input from neutral admins is the only appropriate remedy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. A group of conservative editors trying to remove their opponent. Collect is a far right POV pusher and long-term edit warrior (for "long-term" see for example
   WP:BLPN where User:Hipocrite sums it very well).--В и к и T 16:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Writegeist (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. As more content is added to this RfC, it steadily reveals itself to be, at best, a waste of time, and at worst, a POV-pushing witch-hunt. Grayfell (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. I am uninvolved with this dispute (I came in from the "Centralized Discussion" area of ANI), but after going back and observing as much of this dispute as I can, it is clear that Red's statement here is correct. (Please see my full view below for... well.. my full view on this dispute). RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I had been planning to eventually prepare a more detailed reply to George Louis' and Collect's certifications of this witch-hunt, and will probably still do so at some point -- the timing of the RfC (launched the night before Thanksgiving and continued through the holiday season) was maximally inconvenient and I've been disinclined to waste anymore than the minimum amount of time necessary to defend myself. However, I just noticed that George's desired outcome for this RfC is that ALL parties should agree to the following with respect to the article on Frank VanderSloot:

1. Maintain Civility on the Talk Page, in Edit Summaries and during Dispute Resolution.
2. Use Edit Summaries only to summarize editing and, if referring to other editors, to be civil at all times.
3. Make no accusations of tag-teaming without offering specific evidence thereof.

I am perfectly OK with these suggestions, so I'll be the first to tentatively agree, assuming that all other involved parties do so as well. I'll also be elaborating on the evidence of tag teaming in short order. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Violation

It seems that George will stop at nothing, including violating WP policy on

]

When George initially filed this RfC he stated that he would only be soliciting editors who had worked on the Frank Vandersloot article and had 10 or more edits or talk page comments.[55] But now, realizing that his witch-hunt is about to unravel without achieving his desired result, George has abandoned his initial strategy and chosen to improperly solicit hostile SPAs who I interacted with roughly 5 years ago and have had no involvement on the Vandersloot article. Clearly inappropriate and will not be tolerated. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to

. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

Outside view by Keithbob

I first became aware of Rhode Island Red at the BLP noticeboard regarding the

:

• If I am mistaken in my research, just respond here. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Are you blind or just being obstructive as usual? ……Please stop wasting everyone's time with this pointless griping and tendentious editing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• You are right; I missed that reference, ……..As I mentioned, anybody can correct me here. But nicely, please. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• I can't even dignify that with a response, it's so ridiculous. Stop being disruptive please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• Although it is often difficult when editing a contentious article, we should always assume good faith, remain civil and be patient with each other. Its also important to stay on the topic of content and avoid making derogatory comments about editor behavior...-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
• I deleted the two sentences again, for the reasons given above. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Did you miss the part where KeithBob said "discuss those sources here and gain consensus". Was that asking too much? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

As a community, I don't think we should tolerate aggressive and disruptive behavior that destroys the collaborative process, chases away good editors who don't have the stomach for battleground editing and brings out the worst in the ones that stick around.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Collect (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. --- Later Days! Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. GregJackP Boomer! 00:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jeremy112233

As my comments have been utilized as points of evidence in this claim, I feel I should respond.

I agree with both parties on certain points. In my experience I have found Rhode Island Red (RIR) to be very aggressive about his/her edits and unwilling to communicate about why they believe references that do not back up RIR's own opinion cannot be added to the article without them reverting them. I believe RIR purposely deletes reliable sources because of his own intuition, rather than Wikipedia policy, and then tries to find a way of justifying it, and that this is the source of most of the user's uncivil behaviour--attacks on editor's that question the user's editorial decisions.

However when consensuses are made on the talk page, Rhode Island Red has begun to respect them more than in the past, which I find encouraging. RIR also recently posted a personal comment for me on the talk page of the article in question that I saw as an effort to make peace during an instance where I believed he was in the right on the page, an effort the user did not have to make and to me was an example of some willingness to work with others. There is a deficit of trust between editors here, which I see no reason for. RIR is correct about the large amount of negative sources that exist, but the other editors are correct that the accuracy of what many of these articles puts forward is tenuous, and that RIR has refused neutral or positive sources because negative sources also exist. I do support RIR's right to continue to address his concerns with the article even if he is in the minority opinion on the page; but I see no evidence whatsoever that there is a POV push as RIR claims there is. I simply see individuals questioning the wisdom of only leaning away from an NPOV towards the negative on a BLP page, and not treating this BLP with the care that any BLP deserves.

I also support Rhode Island Red's request to take this issue to Arbcom (mediation would probably be better and less confrontational) as soon as possible, so that all sides can be heard as this situation has dragged out for months and wasting many hundreds of hours that could have been used more constructively on the site. I have not been heavily involved with the editing of this article, so I leave it up to closer parties to judge the merits of this case, but I hold out hope that cooperation can take place as I believe all editors involved are very passionate about improving the article and have no intention of white-washing or, conversely, creating an attack page. Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. partial endorse.--В и к и T 16:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Bbb23

I write only in response to

]

Regarding the two links provided by User:Wikiwind, I don't believe that either supports the accusation of "far right POV pusher". In the 2009 RfC, the closing admin alludes to what other editors may think ("without some editors believing from the outset that his BLP edits are stirred by something other than BLP policy"), but there's no finding by the admin as to POV-pushing. The RfC involves mainly edit-warring. As for the link to the more recent BLPN discussion, that's just accusations by specific users. Users, just like Wikiwind, make all sorts of accusations; that doesn't make them true. BTW, I should say that I have no idea where on the political spectrum Collect lies and don't care much, either. I concentrate on policy and violation of policy, not on agendas, unless they are a lot more blatant than anything Wikiwind has come up with and they interfere with an editor's ability to edit positively on Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Andrew (talk) 19:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. talk) 20:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Comment:

The 2009 RfC/U was heavily CANVASSED for 14 editors to front-load the process. Some of those editors are now banned as sockmasters and the like. The official reason for the RfC was the mediation for Rick Warren and I suggest that anyone reaing the mediation pages will see where the problem lie. There was, in fact, no evidence of "edit war" on my part on the Rick Warren article. [56] shows the position one antagonist actually ended up with - Unfortunatly on wikipedia, editors are so partisan, biased, that you consistent position on wikipedia is not only unusal, it is inconsistent with the way editors are here. Which I took as an admission from Ikip (the drafter of the RfC/U) that the RfC/U was rather badly flawed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remotely involved view by Iselilja

From Rhode Island Red´s response above:

“There have been several overt incidents of gaming the system. Recently, other editors from the ‘conservative bloc’ have been piling on to influence the outcome of content discussions on the Talk page, which I might not object to if the comments weren’t so utterly lacking in substance (i.e., simple me-too comments) and basis in WP policy.”

I will respond to this as I happened to get such an accusation directed at me when I made one comment as a response to a RfC set up on the VanderSloot talk page. The accusation was based simply in the fact that I preferred the expression “advertisements again” instead of “attack ads” in the lead section of the VS article. With all due respect; there appears to be a certain kind of paranoia when one can interpret such a trivial position as evidence that the commenter belongs to some conservative conspiracy on Wikipedia.

To make this very clear: I do not belong to any conservative bloc (and am not and have never been part of the Conservative project group). There is no conservative agenda in my Wikipedia editing, which any reasonable user looking into my contributions will easily see. Nobody influenced me to comment on the VanderSloot page; I have never discussed VanderSloot with anybody, neither on or off Wikipedia and have no particular interest in the subject. There is an apparent shingling in glasshouse when an editor who has been fighting over this article for months accuses me - who have made exactly one edit to the article and one comment on the talk page (plus a follow-up to accusations) - as being the one with an agenda relating to VS.

It´s very important to underline that accusations of agenda or bias editing should not be thrown out lightly, but only when there is a valid reason for concern. Otherwise, such accusations cause a whole lot of unnecessary distress and disturbance which take the focus away from building the encyclopedia. And making the accusation in an article talk page is especially unfortunate, as one can´t defend oneself against the accusation without making the discussion further off –topic. It may also easily make other users afraid of taking part of the debate or editing out of fear of being similarly unfairly accused of having an agenda.

As a female contributor I belong to a minority here at Wikipedia, and I believe that the aggressive and negative tone that is far too common at Wikipedia is one of the factors that keep many women away from this place.

It´s very unfortunate that I now had to spend time to write this to defend myself against an accusation that is such utter nonsense .This is not what Wikipedia editing should be about. I really hope this is now put to rest for good, so I won´t have to come back to elaborate further on this nonsense accusation at ArbCom or other places. An apology on the VS talk page would be welcome and accepted.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Iselilja (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. It is the iteration of such blatant nonsense which I find troubling from RIR. He seems to think that name-calling is a good way to impress other editors. It ain't. Collect (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I struck out my request for an apology from RIR (above) because I knew I would not get one, but I simply remind him here that a gentleman never insults a lady. I endorse Iselilja's view here, which should be taken seriously by all Wikipedians.
   talk) 15:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. I saw this exchange between RIR and Iselilja and found it troubling. I have seen several instances where RIR resorted to name calling and baseless accusations in an attempt to create smoke with which to confuse and derail a discussion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Andrew (talk) 19:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Arkon (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. As a fellow female editor, I wholeheartedly agree. HtownCat (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Concur. There is no excuse for the incivility, and the comments speaks for themselves. GregJackP Boomer! 00:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I changed the headline to reflect my involvment with the case. A reply from Red Island Red has been moved to the talk page. Iselilja (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

View by Andrewman327

I wasn't going to post a response until I saw that I had been mentioned by name. I want to respond to the accusation that I have been involved in

of this BLP behind a wall of accusations.

Contrary to RIR's assertions, the BLP is not controlled by any bloc. In fact, new editors are continually contributing. Including IPs and bots, 34 editors have made their first edit to the BLP since the beginning of last month. That's 39% of the total number that has ever made an edit. Similarly, the Talk page has seen 1/3 of its total contributors join in that time. I am happy that there are fresh voices coming to the page, but RIR is not. Iselilja already described what happened to her when she was randomly selected to participate in an RFC. Her experience is not an isolated incident. RIR has chased away other new contributors who have posted information that does not match his view of the world. That's not the only way RIR has made wild accusations, either. In one situation, RIR misread a section of an online news article and believed that it had been censored. He accused editors of somehow working with a respected newspaper to engage in "shady offsite coordination to influence the WP BLP". Rhode Island Red eventually repealed the claim, but it shows a conspiratorial mentality that makes real progress impossible. How can I find common ground with someone who thinks I can control newspaper editors?

One of RIR's claimed proofs of the conspiracy occurred when I edited the page to indicate that a ranch had won awards. RIR requested copies of all documents used to make the claim,

showed RIR refusing to acknowledge reason and instead claiming conspiracy over the most minute of points.

I do not move "in lockstep" with other editors. The other editors he has accused and I have significantly changed each other's edits many times. I have stayed out of many (but not all) contentious Talk page fights while performing my own research and making my own edits. I do not mind disagreement, in fact no other editor has created widespread problems, even those who have significantly disagreed with me. If RIR were no longer editing this BLP, there are other editors who would maintain balance much more effectively and dispassionately.

The user is a single purpose account whose only apparent purpose is to find companies that make natural products and post negative information about them. RIR has been issued warnings and bans in the past, including a 6 month ban for what one admin described as "threatening and harassing" behavior. His fixation on this subject even extends to other pages, where he edited another BLP to fit what he had written on Frank L. VanderSloot. 17:24, 29 November 2012‎

UPDATE: After Keithbob endorsed my statement, Rhode Island Red posted below his comment with allegations of tagteaming and harassment. This would not have bothered me except RIR clearly knows that that is not the appropriate place for comments and by posting there, it became more difficult for other editors to figure out how to endorse my summary. When

]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Andrew (talk) 17:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. talk) 19:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC) , particularly the treatment given to User:Iselilja.[reply
   ]
4. Yes I support this statement and in particular these comments: 1) RIR hides
   ownership of this BLP behind a wall of accusations. 2) If RIR were no longer editing this BLP, there are other editors who would maintain balance much more effectively and dispassionately. 3) The user is a single purpose account...-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC) Note: by using the term "SPA" I was referring to the fact that 97% of all of RIR's last 400 edits (beginning Oct 22nd) have been related to the Frank L. VandreSloot article.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Arkon (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. HtownCat (talk) 21:46, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Collect (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC) RIR accuses absolutely everyone in sight of collusion and tag-teaming. Such behavuiour is contrary to the Five Pillars.[reply]
8. GregJackP Boomer! 00:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

View by Leef5

RIR has demonstrated clear

and incivil behavior for a long time on Wikipedia. He has a very specific negative POV on multi-level marketing companies, their products, and the people associated with them. Over 90% of his edits are within this scope of articles and have been very questionable on good faith with regards to coming up with NPOV articles.

I challenged his ownership on the

article, to which he and another member have worked together to wikilawyer the article to his point of view, skewing the article far away from a neutral stance.

Due to his harrasing behavior, I stopped editing Wikipedia after spending a year trying to improve several articles that he maintains a tight ownership editorial control. I just can't keep up with the amount of time he spends editing and cherrypicking excerpts from policies that he feels justifies his behavior (wikilawyering at its best). I'd love to continue to contribute to the Wikipedia project, but RIR is a classic example of bad behavior mixed with lack of administrative action = he runs off other editors with his bullying.

I have warned RIR on numerous occasions on this article of his incivility - here are a couple examples for your examination:

• Suffice it to say, I should be sorely vexed with you for wasting WP resources with this fools errand. You've been around here long enough to know what constitutes an RS, so you shouldn't be tossing out $#!% like this to see if it floats. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Let's stop dicking around here. You seem to seriously misunderstand how WP operates. You stated in your edit summary "Consensus must be reached before adding potentially libelous material to article".[44] That's utter BS. (1) You are not in a position to opine about libel (and the accusation is laughably inappropriate). (2) As per WP policy, no consensus is needed to add reliably sourced content to an article. What your comment translates to is essentially "you can't add content to the article unless you have my approval, otherwise it's OK for me to delete it and edit war (cf. WP:OWN). You'll not get far with that attitude. Please stop it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1.  Leef5  ^{TALK | CONTRIBS} 17:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. TraceyR (talk) 17:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Writegeist

Well, now we know: Rhode Island Red is a wicked wiki witch (something we should already have known from the fact that RIR possesses the Devil's own power to take the form of a chicken at the drop of a pointed hat). It goes without saying that RIR has a black cat as a familiar, and that they are to be seen roaming the night sky on a broomstick at full moon.

The

.

Clearly our community has been terrorized by RIR's foul incantations (e.g."I have no patience for the use of BS to influence content debate" and "take your petty vindictive bloviating elsewhere"). I have personally witnessed numberless innocents fleeing, and soon there will be nobody left. Clearly also RIR has stuck pins into wax effigies of blameless individuals who suffered grievous pain in consequence (as several have indicated). And as these worthies have ingeniously limited any aggression in their own comments to the passive variety when interacting with RIR, let nobody say RIR has had the slightest cause to feel needled. (And anyway it is a known fact that witches can't feel the pain of pricking.)

We must act fast, or the wicked wiki witch will transmogrify us all into tadpoles. So which is it to be? Ducking pond? Fiery stake? Or gibbet? Writegeist (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Acting fast): Definitely the ducking pond. While not agreeing 100% with everything you wrote here (unfortunately you didn't cite a single source, not even for the for the 'fact' that the familiar is a black cat), I am grateful for your esteemed contribution, simply because it led me to your user page and, inter alia, the "Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia" (if I recall that correctly) and the IQ section. But now we have a problem: will future endorsers be endorsing my comment or yours? --TraceyR (talk) 08:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm worried about that too, particularly as there's such a wild stampede to endorse my comments. Or maybe yours. Endorsers, please form an orderly queue. Soup will be served (a spicy stew of eye of newt, toe of frog, wool of bat, tongue of dog, adder's fork, blind-worm's sting, lizard's leg and howlet's wing) while you wait. Writegeist (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly concerned that animals might be harmed in the preparation of your well-intended refreshment. I also appreciate that the flavour might lack that certain je ne sais quoi if it relied solely on wool of bat - what to do? --TraceyR (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Writegeist (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2012 (UTC) (insightful; bonus points for hilarity)[reply]
3. Grayfell (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. TraceyR (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. --В и к и T 12:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: noting (with new metaphor) that GeorgeLouis has now added yet more balls to his buckshot, this time accusing RIR of "biting the newcomers". To support this accusation GL cites a January 2013 message from RIR to a user who registered in October 2009. Hardly a "newcomer" by any stretch of the imagination, and 3+ years is more than enough to learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. (And as a matter of fact, RIR's message was perfectly civil and actually rather helpful.) GL has simply provided additional evidence that this scattergun RFC/U, brought against an editor with whom he is in a prolonged content dispute, is meretricious. It's high time it was brought to a close. Writegeist (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:RedSoxFan2434

I was brought into this case by the "Centralized Discussion" board at ANI, and am in no way affiliated with this dispute or (as far as I know) any of the involved editors; any of them (on either side of this issue) can attest to that. However, I should disclose that, like Rhode Island Red appears to be, I am very liberal, oppose

. However, this does not mean I endorse so-called "liberal bias" on Wikipedia or any other website that proclaims to have neutrality, and I despise liberal bias masquerading as facts more than conservative bias doing so, and for good reason: it gives liberalism and liberals a bad name. But, in the interest of total neutrality, that opinion in no way factors into my judgment of this dispute.

I think this is one of these cases where both sides are wrong, but RIRed's above statement more accurately captures the situation than his opposition's statement. However, this issue also seems to be nothing more than a content dispute; anyone who wants to make it more than that is simply overblowing the magnitude of this issue.

I can find no solid evidence of incivility by either RIRed or GeorgeLouis, aside from RIRed's implications that

WP:Conservatism

, as an entity, intends to push a conservative POV, when in fact it is interested in improved, neutral coverage of Conservatism and related topics. However, this does not mean that some of the Conservatism WikiProject's members do not intend to push a conservative POV, and it does appear that GeorgeLouis and others may be attempting to do so at the VanderSloot article. Additionally, RIRed accuses GeorgeLouis of canvassing, which I do not believe was done; GeorgeLouis brought the issue to the attention of a relevant WikiProject in a neutral manner, albeit in a way that hides his own misdoings, although I guess that is to be expected from any editor. As for the accusations of Soapboxing, it is clear that both sides are guilty of this (although perhaps RIRed more than anyone else, as outlined by his accusers above).

Going back to the issue of NPOV, this seems to be the crux of the issue here (which, I reiterate, is primarily a genuine content dispute and does not seem to involve as much of other disruptive behaviors as others have claimed). On one side, GeorgeLouis and other conservatives have added Fox News and other sources that lean the article conservative. On the other side, RIRed, who warns GeorgeLouis of hypocrisy, and defends the article's would-be neutrality from the input of obviously conservative bias such as FOX News, himself supports the inclusion of obviously liberal bias such as Rachel Maddow.

In short, this is the most obvious you're-both-wrong cases I've ever seen. So yes, please pass this along to ArbCom, as RIRed suggests, so that this can be firmly and definitively dealt with, and the issue finally put to rest, now that it is clear that there is no other way to do so.

In closing, I'd like to recognize both sides for mostly maintaining Civility throughout this rather messy content dispute; maintaining Civility as these two sharply-divided camps have is a sign of hope for Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary (Considering I pointed out faults in both sides, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the only one):

1. As writer of this view, RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (disagree about the canvassing but aside from that, an honest and evenhanded summary)[reply]

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.

Category:Wikipedia help templates