Wikipedia:Requests for comment/F.O.E.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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[edit]

F.O.E. has engaged in several activites that are against Wikipedia policy. Notably, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:BITE, WP:POINT, WP:UP, and removing comments/warnings from his talk page. This activity is disturbing the Wikipedia community and nothing has been done stop his disruptive behavior. At the very least, he needs to be taught about policy and what his is here for, to create an encyclopedia, not to disrupt.

Comment by ScienceApologist: I have some suspicions that this user's name stands for "Friend of Ed" which refers to Ed Poor. The similarity of this name to other user names that have vandalized my userpage (User:AdE, User:A.d.E., and User:Amigo del Ed) is unmistakeable. --ScienceApologist 15:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(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] F.O.E reverts the article Condom certifying vandalism, but it was not.
  2. [2] He WP:BITEs a newbie by giving the {{test4}} warning before any other warnings were served and it wasn't even vandalism.
  3. [3] He votes at WP:RFA specifically Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ScienceApologist in blatant violation of WP:POINT by citing the vote by "'Oppose loose canon, probable sockpuppet, abusive near vandalism bigotry", which is violation of WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT.
  4. [4] By this diff, I can prove he placed a userbox on his userpage that was in violation of WP:UP and in general being uncivil. The userboxes I am citing are the ones with a picture of a pregnant women and the box says "This user is doesn't support pre-born infantacide." He also had a picture Image:Monkey batu.jpg with the caption below it stating "a portrait of your average christian". This diff is actually User:Kasreyn removing the userboxes from his userpage.
    The striked out part was a mistake, sorry. — The King of Kings 06:22 July 08 '06
  5. [5] This is him reverting the above action by User:Kasreyn removing the userbox from his userpage. He then goes on in this edit to add another userbox that, in the boxes says "homo" and the text reads "This user is understands that so called "tolerance" of homosexuals is supposed to be a good thing, but doesn't approve of putting children in the hands of perverted un-natural deviants." which is again in violation of WP:UP.
  6. [6] He reverted another edit on Condom certifying vandalism, but it wasn't, the user had a very innappropriate tone of voice in his edit summary, but F.O.E. reverted to a bad revision anyways.
  7. [7] The editor readded the correct version again, but F.O.E. reverted again stating that he had to get an account to get taken seriously; WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL
  8. [8] Another possible comment lacking WP:CIVIL
  9. [9] This edit borderlines WP:VAND.
  10. [10] He cites this edit as trying to remain in a WP:NPOV, but actually just messes up the formatting of the article; WP:POINT, borderline WP:VAND
  11. [11] He reverts User:Jimbo Wales by saying that one of our best anon IP editors User:69.145.123.171, was vandalizing, when really he was just trying to simplify the page (he also states that he's an "unregistered vandal" which is completly in violation of WP:BITE
  12. [12] He gives a good editor and non-vandal, 69.145.123.171, a {{bv}} template which was unneeded; WP:BITE again.
  13. [13] This is him removing a warning from his talk page
  14. [14] More personal attacks on User:ScienceApologist
  15. [15] [16] This two diffs of him readding comments to User talk:TruthCrusader, which TruthCrusader didn't want on his page

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

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

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers
  4. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
  5. Wikipedia:User page
  6. Borderlines Wikipedia:Vandalism

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [17] - User:Kasreyn
  2. [18] [19] [20] - User:69.145.123.171
  3. [21] - User:Titoxd
  4. [22] [23] - User:Knowledge Seeker
  5. [24] [25] - User:63.24.51.156
  6. [26] - User:TruthCrusader

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. I would tend to support Moe Epsilon in the points he has raised. The only real issues I was involved with were the WP:BITE problem and the userpage boxes which were extremely contemptuous of homosexuals and supporters of evolution. Note that the image of the monkey with the caption of a photo of the average christian, was actually someone else changing F.O.E.'s page; his original version captioned the photo as a portrait of the average "evilutionist". Additionally, he seems to have some mistaken notions about what constitutes "vandalism". Kasreyn 05:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for telling me about the mistake I made with the picture, I have striken that comment. — The King of Kings 06:28 July 08 '06
  2. Heh, I forgot to sign. I knew I was forgetting something. — The King of Kings 06:20 July 08 '06
  3. The most important problem is the way F.O.E. deals with unregistered users. Also problematic is his lack of response to comments: when I asked him a question, he archived his page without responding (the archive contains less than a day's worth of comments). This makes it difficult to know if he understands what behaviors are inappropriate or if he intends to change. Though he restored the inflammatory messages on his user page after Kasreyn had removed them the first time, after I removed them again and left him an comment, he has not restored them. If he beginds responding to messages and deals with others, especially unregistered users, in a more civil manner (and stops his attacks on User:ScienceApologist), I will consider this matter closed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. My concerns are identical to those of Knowledge Seeker. Allowing anonymous users to edit is a Foundation issue, and there is no reason to alienate potential editors. Titoxd(?!?) 18:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Guettarda 05:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    WantedDeadOrAlive 06:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this vote might have to be discounted, this users only two edits are to this RFC. Sorry. — The King of Kings 06:31 July 08 '06
    LittleAngelLover 06:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has made two edits--one to this RfC and one to their userpage.Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yoshi555 06:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Three edits which include vandalism. I'm thinking that this is a patch of editors angry at User:F.O.E. for one reason or another. — The King of Kings 07:19 July 08 '06
  3. Robert 07:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TruthCrusader 08:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JF Mephisto 11:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. •Jim62sch• 12:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FeloniousMonk 15:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ScienceApologist 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. 63.24.125.176 17:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC) (Before you discount my vote, let me say that I have been previously attacked by this user as an IP. My IP just changes everytime I connect.)[reply]
    I would allow this vote because of the IP's involvement in this case. — The King of Kings 23:47 July 08 '06
  11. tmopkisn tlka 18:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FOE's behavior is unacceptable. The attack on "evilutionists" is at best juvenile and unproductive, but it is a good sample/emblem of FOE's usual behavior and attitudes. JoshuaZ 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 67.160.176.228 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would allow this vote because of the IP's involvement in this case. — The King of Kings 23:47 July 08 '06
  14. Ladlergo 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Silence 17:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. David D. (Talk) 18:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. RandyWang (raves/rants) 08:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 69.145.123.171 Hello! Tuesday, September 12, 2006, 20:02 (UTC)

Response[edit]

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.}

Users who endorse this summary:


Outside view of SB_Johnny[edit]

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.

It's pretty clear that user:F.O.E. is indeed violating WP:BITE, WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, etc., and judging by the large number of certifying users, he has certainly exhausted the community's patience. Should he continue this behavior, he should be blocked.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. SB Johnny 11:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Pretty obvious support. — The King of Kings 22:49 July 10 '06
  3. Support but only if some additional effort is made to impress upon F.O.E. how serious this is. From his lack of response here at this RfC and to warnings placed on his talk page, I really don't think F.O.E. is aware how close he is getting to a block. We should make another effort to bring him into the discussion, before we proceed with any sort of block. Kasreyn 03:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left a comment at F.O.E.'s talk page inviting him to take part in the RfC, in case he was unaware that he could reply here. If there is anything he can say in his defense, he should do so. Kasreyn 15:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support and support Kasreyn's view above. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 04:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Robert 05:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Ladlergo 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support If F.O.E. does not respond to this RFC or to warnings on his talk page a block would be the right thing to draw his attention. CharonX/talk 00:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Numskll 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC) Support I'm with Charon, I think engagement with other editors over disputes like this is critical to a meaningful wiki.[reply]

Outside view of Petersian[edit]

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.

It would be extremely difficult to argue that user:F.O.E. hasn't violated WP:NPA, WP:BITE, and WP:CIVIL to name a few. Perhaps this is why user:F.O.E. has yet to give a response to these charges. It is my opinion that user:F.O.E. should be blocked as he has been given ample time to respond to/apologize for his behavior.

Comment by Petersian: I would also agree with the observation made by ScienceApologist that violators of Wikipedia policy often use handles that are very similiar to Ed Poor, such as EdSpensive who vandalised my discussion page. --Petersian 16:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --Petersian 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. F.O.E. has had all the time in the world to reply. --Kasreyn 11:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. And I'm either going to start the WP:RFAr or going to ask an admin about the situation. — Moe Epsilon 20:13 September 12 '06

Discussion[edit]

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/F.O.E.&oldid=1147974757"