Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!

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: 05:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

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.

Description

{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.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

  1. [1] The first of a series of continuing charges that articles about subjects related to the Confederate States of America are parroting the Southern Poverty Law Center.
  2. [2], [3], [4], initial round of POV-pushing at Texas in the Civil War
  3. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], initial round of edit warring and 3RR violations at Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  4. [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], blanking user talk page of warnings and comments regarding Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  5. [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], blanking other editor's talk page comments at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  6. [30], legal threat issued during initial round of edit warring and blanking at Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  7. [31], [32] Bad faith claims of vandalism after round of editing at Sons of Confederate Veterans, then after block.
  8. [33], apology at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans immediately after unblock.
  9. [34] incivil comments at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans relating to alleged POV in the article.
  10. [35], removal of sourced material from Flags of the Confederate States of America with the edit summary "rv vandalism".
  11. [36], [37], [38] removing some POV, but adding other POV, and edit warring at Neo-confederate.
    [39], another claim that a Confederacy-related article is a "subpage of the SPLC (southern poverty law center)".
  12. [40], [41], issuing sock puppet warnings to two users.
  13. [42] incivility and assuming bad faith at Talk:Naming the American Civil War.
  14. [43], [44], [45] further POV edits to Neo-confederate.
  15. [46], assuming bad faith regarding another user.
  16. [47] POV-pushing at Sons of Confederate Veterans regarding "left-wing" and "controversial" critics of the organization.
  17. [48] POV pushing in Neo-confederate with edit summary "admins next".
  18. [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], removal of sourced material at Sons of Confederate Veterans that is critical of the organization (claim of talk page agreement, but no evidence of agreement to completely remove the text).
    [54] manipulative use of other editors' comments out of context to support a POV.
  19. [55] continued allegations of SPLC conspiracy.
  20. [56], [57], [58], more POV pushing at Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  21. [59], arguing to remove reference to a Sons of Confederate Veterans splinter organization that is critical of the SCV from the SCV article.
  22. [60], more Southern Poverty Law Center allegations.
  23. [61] incivil comment at Talk:Naming the American Civil War regarding references.
  24. [62] Accusing a user of vandalism because of this.
  25. [63], [64] More removal of referenced information at Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  26. [65] Removal of material critical of Sons of Confederate Veterans from the Military Order of the Stars and Bars article.
  27. [66], [67], [68], more POV pushing and removal of sourced material at Sons of Confederate Veterans.
  28. [69] more claims of SPLC "manure" in articles.
  29. [70] more POV qualifications of organizations critical of confederacy-related orgs.
  30. [71], [72], [73] blanking of all material cited to the Southern Poverty Law Center at League of the South.
  31. [74], [75], [76] more POV pushing at Southern Poverty Law Center.
  32. [77], [78], [79], [80], [81] more edit warring at Sons of Confederate Veterans, including accusation of vandalism directed at one of several opposing users.
  33. [82] Accusing other editors of being "SPLC activists" at SCV talk.
  34. [83], [84] removal of sourced text at Sons of Confederate Veterans with alleged support at talk (though Fix Bayonets! was the only editor supporting the edits at talk).
  35. [85], [86], [87], [88] Recent assumptions of bad faith.
  36. [89] POV pushing at George Allen (U.S. politician).
    [90], [91], [92], [93], accompanying 3RR violation.
  37. [94], further claims of bogus talk agreement, reinsertion of text in violation of consensus.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:3RR
  4. WP:NOT#A soapbox
  5. WP:AGF

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Will Beback's attempts to discuss issues at Fix Bayonets!'s talk page: [95], [96]
  2. One of Alarob's several attempts: [97]
  3. Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans includes many attempts by numerous editors to explain to Fix Bayonets! why his edits often do not adhere to WP:NPOV

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. · j e r s y k o talk · 4:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Will Beback 05:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Verklempt 05:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rob C (Alarob) 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Zantastik talk 05:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Rjensen 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC) I have repeatedly found him very troublesome, difficult to work with, and committed to inserting his own POV into Wikipedia.[reply]
  2. BusterD 12:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC) I have not gotten into disputes with user, but can confirm from watching many of the articles described in comment above, that user continues to take adversarial tone even after being admonished for such tone, and as a general rule tends to bring passion to situations instead of good judgment.[reply]

Response

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 do find it interesting that 3 of the editors pushing for this are themselves massive POV pushers in the referenced articles. This dispute as I understand it involves the opinions of the SPLC, which considers anyone with a Southern drawl a racist monster, and the adding of those opinions to every article related to Southern history and heritage. There are many outlets for this type of opining but the general purpose encyclopedia is not one of them. I think the best resolution for this situation is for ALL editors on both sides of this issue take a break and work on something else for a while, Community to-do list has some great suggestions for things they can work on without stepping on eachother's toes. Cheers. L0b0t 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  • L0b0t 17:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black Flag 18:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • --Bedford 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks/response of the accused party

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:

"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..... 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: 02:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)."

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
SCV article revision of 22:00, 1 August 2006

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)[reply]

Outside view

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.

Outside view by Ramsquire (throw me a line)

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:

  1. Ramsquire (throw me a line) 18:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Edeans 19:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rob C (Alarob) 02:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Zantastik talk 05:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rjensen 10:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Fix_Bayonets!&oldid=1064219626"