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: 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC).
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.
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} Fix Bayonets! ( talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia since August 29, 2006. On or before September 4, 2006, Fix Bayonets! began a pattern of edit warring and POV-pushing that has remained consistent since. Fix Bayonets! was blocked indefinitely for a legal threat. After calming down and convincing the editors involved that he would discuss issues without threats, the block was removed. A block removal after a legal threat is somewhat rare. Unfortunately, Fix Bayonets' continued pattern of edit warring and POV-pushing after after the unblock are a violation of the trust placed in him by established editors.
(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.)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
I wholly concur with L0b0t’s evaluation and recommendations respecting the above. In law, there is a doctrine known as the “clean hands doctrine”, which dictates that "he who seeks equity must come with clean hands." As L0b0t has revealed, the majority of the above users have been guilty of POV pushing themselves -- thus, the allegations of such users are tainted. For these reasons, I believe that L0b0t’s recommendations should be followed.-- Black Flag 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
First of all, the accusing parties have brought this RFC improperly, because they are attempting to use an RFC to resolve content disputes pertaining to numerous articles dealing in some way with the Southern Confederacy: namely Sons of Confederate Veterans; Confederate States of America; Southern Poverty Law Center; Texas in the Civil War; Flags of the Confederate States of America; Naming the American Civil War; George Allen (U.S. politician); etc. (see statements of User:Jersyko, above). THEREFORE, THIS RFC SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
Secondly, User:Jersyko and the other editors certifying this groundless RFC failed to meet the proper guidelines for the RFQ, which state:
As is easily seen, by the statements of Jersyko, the dispute does not involve THE SAME DISPUTE with a single user: to the contrary, it involves DIFFERENT DISPUTES and MULTIPLE USERS. Jersyko has stated that this dispute involves the following articles: Sons of Confederate Veterans; Confederate States of America; Southern Poverty Law Center; Texas in the Civil War; Flags of the Confederate States of America; Naming the American Civil War; George Allen (U.S. politician); etc. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINE ABOVE, THIS RFC SHOULD BE DISMISSED AND DELETED.
To make a very long story short, the below edit is a fine example of the type of problems I and others are trying to address at the SCV and other similar articles:
"By definition, heritage groups selectively interpret the aspects of the past that conform to desired positive characteristic of a predetermined philosophy….heritage promotion is above all an exercise in pride, which often deemphasizes or conflicts with universally accepted historic fact. Most professionally trained historians criticize the Sons of Confederate Veterans, their tenacious engagement in the “Lost Cause” myth and their aggressive attempts to stifle or obstruct any historic discussion contrary to their ideological constructs."
— the name of editor isn't imp., the issue is
Obviously, there are editors who take a very hostile stance against the SCV and the Confederacy, and there are other editors who are happy to stand by and watch those types of POV edits be made and do nothing about it. Such edits violate Jimbo Wales' vision for Wikipedia:
"...[W]e don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral."
— Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)(Re: Wikipedians by politics; emph. in original)
If I am instructed to respond further I will. Otherwise, I consider this RFC to be an abuse brought in bad-faith.-- Fix Bayonets! 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
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.
All too often Wikipedia is being harmed by editors like Fix Bayonets. From the summary presented above it is clear that he has failed to grasp that above all Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where disputes are resolved through consensus. From the diffs provided above User has been uncivil, and has persistently attempted to add POV to articles, against the seeming consensus of the other editors. I also would like to note that the lack of good faith shown by Fix Bayonets is astounding. I would say to the user and those who believe the editors are bringing this RfC in bad faith, they should have sought an RfC on said content disputes. Namecalling and threats are a sure way to find yourself banned.
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
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: 01:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC).
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.
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} Fix Bayonets! ( talk · contribs) has been editing Wikipedia since August 29, 2006. On or before September 4, 2006, Fix Bayonets! began a pattern of edit warring and POV-pushing that has remained consistent since. Fix Bayonets! was blocked indefinitely for a legal threat. After calming down and convincing the editors involved that he would discuss issues without threats, the block was removed. A block removal after a legal threat is somewhat rare. Unfortunately, Fix Bayonets' continued pattern of edit warring and POV-pushing after after the unblock are a violation of the trust placed in him by established editors.
(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.)
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
(provide diffs and links)
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
I wholly concur with L0b0t’s evaluation and recommendations respecting the above. In law, there is a doctrine known as the “clean hands doctrine”, which dictates that "he who seeks equity must come with clean hands." As L0b0t has revealed, the majority of the above users have been guilty of POV pushing themselves -- thus, the allegations of such users are tainted. For these reasons, I believe that L0b0t’s recommendations should be followed.-- Black Flag 18:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
First of all, the accusing parties have brought this RFC improperly, because they are attempting to use an RFC to resolve content disputes pertaining to numerous articles dealing in some way with the Southern Confederacy: namely Sons of Confederate Veterans; Confederate States of America; Southern Poverty Law Center; Texas in the Civil War; Flags of the Confederate States of America; Naming the American Civil War; George Allen (U.S. politician); etc. (see statements of User:Jersyko, above). THEREFORE, THIS RFC SHOULD BE DISMISSED.
Secondly, User:Jersyko and the other editors certifying this groundless RFC failed to meet the proper guidelines for the RFQ, which state:
As is easily seen, by the statements of Jersyko, the dispute does not involve THE SAME DISPUTE with a single user: to the contrary, it involves DIFFERENT DISPUTES and MULTIPLE USERS. Jersyko has stated that this dispute involves the following articles: Sons of Confederate Veterans; Confederate States of America; Southern Poverty Law Center; Texas in the Civil War; Flags of the Confederate States of America; Naming the American Civil War; George Allen (U.S. politician); etc. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINE ABOVE, THIS RFC SHOULD BE DISMISSED AND DELETED.
To make a very long story short, the below edit is a fine example of the type of problems I and others are trying to address at the SCV and other similar articles:
"By definition, heritage groups selectively interpret the aspects of the past that conform to desired positive characteristic of a predetermined philosophy….heritage promotion is above all an exercise in pride, which often deemphasizes or conflicts with universally accepted historic fact. Most professionally trained historians criticize the Sons of Confederate Veterans, their tenacious engagement in the “Lost Cause” myth and their aggressive attempts to stifle or obstruct any historic discussion contrary to their ideological constructs."
— the name of editor isn't imp., the issue is
Obviously, there are editors who take a very hostile stance against the SCV and the Confederacy, and there are other editors who are happy to stand by and watch those types of POV edits be made and do nothing about it. Such edits violate Jimbo Wales' vision for Wikipedia:
"...[W]e don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral."
— Jimbo Wales 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)(Re: Wikipedians by politics; emph. in original)
If I am instructed to respond further I will. Otherwise, I consider this RFC to be an abuse brought in bad-faith.-- Fix Bayonets! 03:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
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.
All too often Wikipedia is being harmed by editors like Fix Bayonets. From the summary presented above it is clear that he has failed to grasp that above all Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia where disputes are resolved through consensus. From the diffs provided above User has been uncivil, and has persistently attempted to add POV to articles, against the seeming consensus of the other editors. I also would like to note that the lack of good faith shown by Fix Bayonets is astounding. I would say to the user and those who believe the editors are bringing this RfC in bad faith, they should have sought an RfC on said content disputes. Namecalling and threats are a sure way to find yourself banned.
Users who endorse this summary:
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.