Wikipedia:Requests for comment/TheKingOfDixie

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:Tom 18:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC) ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

TheKingOfDixie (talk · contribs · logs)

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.

TheKingOfDixie keeps adding unsourced/original research and seems unwilling to work towards resolution.Tom 17:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.}

This user has inserted the same information into the Tom Metzger article 27 31 times from 13 January through ~~29 April~~ 4 May (see list below). The information has been removed from the article by at least 10 different users:

This demonstrates the user is acting against any sort of consensus, but unilaterally insists on their own POV. The user asserts that the only citation, a web page rant [1], is all that is needed.

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.)

This user has stated:

"This will continue to be added to the Metzger page , no matter how many times it is removed by Metzger's followers, because it is fact." [2]

and echoed:

"To continue to add this on the Metzger page is not vandalism and will continue to be added each time it is removed." [3]

The history of additions/reverts to the same text:

Updating list - some of these have additional text now

12:59, 4 May 2006 [4]
09:57, 2 May 2006 [5]
14:02, 1 May 2006 [6]
12:35, 30 April 2006 [7]

04:38, 29 April 2006 [8]
07:00, 27 April 2006 [9]
15:14, 24 April 2006 [10]
03:46, 24 April 2006 [11]
10:03, 21 April 2006 [12]
06:35, 20 April 2006 [13]
06:55, 18 April 2006 [14]
21:59, 16 April 2006 [15]
13:41, 15 April 2006 [16]
02:23, 12 April 2006 [17]
07:14, 29 March 2006 [18]
01:55, 22 March 2006 [19]
09:39, 21 March 2006 [20]
00:34, 18 March 2006 [21]
22:34, 15 March 2006 [22]
06:41, 8 March 2006 [23]
23:15, 5 March 2006 [24]
23:50, 1 March 2006 [25]
07:05, 1 March 2006 [26]
08:13, 28 February 2006 [27]

Plus 7 more from when user entered the scene 13 January up to 25 February.

Perhaps a good illustration (pun intended) of User:TheKingOfDixie's stance on what is acceptable information in the Tom Metzger article is this example [28] (Please note that they did not originally insert the picture, but are again demonstrating bad faith editing)

The web page repeatedly cited as 'proof': http://www.johnnyleeclary.com/metzger.htm. Note that this is a decidedly POV rant by a 'convert'. That the point of the article (God punishes the wicked?) is reinforced by the stories 'fate' of living down by the river is possibly what causes TheKingOfDixie to emphasize this one fact over and over again.

TheKingOfDixie was also impressed enough by Johnny Lee Clary as to create the article, and so might be unquestioning in the acceptance of everything on that web page.

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

original research
unsourced facts

I could use some help finding the directly applicable policies:

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

My interactions with User:TheKingOfDixie on their talk page, section Tom Metzger, where I point out other's exceptions, add my request for anything more substantial as a cite, and user's reply (April 14 and 15) -- as diffs [29] [30] I took their reply to mean that no discussion was possible.

Threeafterthree on User talk:TheKingOfDixie makes another request (some exasperation evident) [31] which TheKingOfDixie removes from talk page [32] without any explanation. I assume that Threeafterthree also took this to mean that no discussion was possible.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Tom 18:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shenme 22:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

FRCP11 17:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC) NB that the problem is worse than described: TheKingOfDixie is Johnny Lee Clary, according to the Johnny Lee Clary talk page, so the user is bootstrapping his own webpage. TKOD also reverted my edits on Metzger while this RFC was pending, and I suspect he used an anonymous IP address to sanitize Talk:Johnny Lee Clary.[reply]

NB that TKOD is still reverting the page without participating in discussion here or on the talk page. At what point can we stop assuming good faith and start banning bad actors? -- FRCP11 12:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB violation of WP:CIVIL -- FRCP11 17:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, TheKingOfDixie is Clary?? I TRIED to tell the guy that I would WORK with him on the Metzger article BUT he refused. Go figureTom 21:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, finally, after Johnny Lee Clary was deleted, TKOD proceeded to recreate the page twice, including at Johnny Clary--all while this proceeding was pending. FRCP11 18:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IrishGuy 21:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC) I have seen some of this user's behavior and it isn't very civilized to others. Calling people "neo-nazis" who vote delete on his vanity article is a bit much.[reply]

He just altered the voting for his vanity article by removing comments he didn't like. [33]. How much longer are we going to allow this behavior? IrishGuy 07:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[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.}

There was absolutley nothing that was done wrong by user TheKingOfDixie. Everything that was added to the Tom Metzger page was pure FACT and references were even given. The users who signed this dispute against me all seem to be either supporters of Metzger, white supremacists, or friends of those who started this dispute. There was absolutley no reason to delete the Johnny Lee Clary page, other than this is a personal vendetta carried out against me for creating the page. Everything that was posted on the Johnny Lee Clary page was pure fact. and not opinion nor fiction. There are plenty of references to back up each and everything that was said on both the Tom Metzger page and the Johnny Lee Clary page.These people who did not want to see the Johnny Lee Clary page, had only one reason in mind and that was because of their hatred towards Johnny Lee Clary. End of story. Not one emailed and offered to help fix the page or anything. The only reason they gave was Johnny Lee Clary can not be included in the Wickipedia community, end of story. It was not my intention to disrupt the community at all. I would have gladly worked with any of them if there was anything wrong with either article, but not one of them was willing to. Users IrishGuy and Tawker have carried on this vendetta and deleted the pages on Johnny Lee Clary and I have filed a formal complaint against them. Users who endorse this summary:

TheKingOfDixie

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.

{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.}

Note: This outside view was actually written by User:TheKingOfDixie. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 08:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

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.