Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Used2BAnonymous

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: 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC).

(Used2BAnonymous | talk | contributions) (AKA U2BA)

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

The basis of this dispute is the addition of link to the website controlled by Used2BAnonymous, the coordination of revert wars from that domain, personal attacks in her talk discussions, and constant reverting of removal of this linkspam. This is explained below.

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.)

Refusal to work on consensus. "Consensus vote is an Oxymoron" [1] Does not allow edits that are not extremist traditional Catholic PoV.
Personal Attacks [2] [3]
(Malachias111 | talk | contributions) (La Minturnesa | talk | contributions) Noting the history, these two were "credentialed" folling the instructions on the Take back the Net (Kensmen) and Take back the Net (fisheaters) pages and Wiki War forum postings to steer users here. There are other examples of editors who came here to edit traditionalist Catholic with one of the many extremist traditionalist Catholic PoVs.
On 6 Dec in response to a vote call in Talk:traditional Catholic these two above mentioned make a series of small edits in a short period to get to 100 posts.
Admission of "Steering Support" and Malachias111's origin.

Added

Further evidence of coordination from third party site

Fisheaters Forum on Wiki "purge

Wiki War has new postings

Posted by U2BA:

Well there are, but I can't say lest I be accused of "astroturfing" or "sock-puppetry" and the like (frankly, editor Dominick accuses me of it ALL THE TIME anyway, so I should just go ahead and do it)
I just want for Catholics to keep an eye on entries of interest, especially the one mentioned -- and to be a witness, to have a history of editing so that these endless brawls like the one I'm engaged in now with "Dominick" (and "Lima," who is much more reasonable, and a guy named "JG of Borg"). We have to outnumber them and write in a fair, balanced, "encyclopedia way" -- and not let those with an animus against Tradition blacken our name, remove links to traditional websites, etc.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Violation of Wikipedia:Spam -- Adding links to fisheaters.com, that is a site owned by U2BA. This is presumibly to raise ranking in search engines.
Violation of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point -- Edits to Jew [4] articles to prove point on the Traditional Catholic page.
Violation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:No original research -- Fisheaters.com and Kensmen.com are websites edited by U2BA.
violation of Wp:sockpuppet#Meatpuppets -- two listed there are more.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Talk:traditional Catholic informal mediator gives up
Talk:traditional Catholic more definitions not discussed
Talk:traditional Catholic Tried to clerify the draft
Edit notes Christian-Jewish reconciliation linkspam battle

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Dominick ^(TALK) 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
JG of Borg 01:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

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.}

My main response is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dominick, but to wit: Dominick has been following me about accusing me of "linkspamming" when providing perfectly relevant links to various pages of a non-commercial site he hates. He has been deceptive, accusatory, and engaging in a sort of "vandalism." After a mediator and an admin encouraged me to make an RfC against him, but before I was able to, he comes up with one against me. He needs to leave me alone.

A direct response to his "evidence" of disputed behaviors:

1. "Confrontation is an oxymoron," says Dominicks -- in quotes, as if attributing these words to me. Here is his "evidence" [5]. I want to know who is "confronting" these conservative Catholics who attend regular parishes.

2. a) ? Here is what I was responding to with my comments that his revisions were "hateful, bigoted, wrong, POV, and badly writte" -- the words he is characterizing as a "personal attack." He actually says in this edit that traditional Catholics he doesn't like aren't "official Catholics" and are "militant." [6]:

In this entry, he actually says that traditionalist Catholics are not "official Catholics." He has the following as sub-sections --

3.1 How militant traditionalists view "official" or "mainstream" Catholics

3.2 How "official" or "mainstream" Catholics view militant traditionalists

3.3 How non-militant traditionalists view "official" or "mainstream" Catholics

3.4 How "official" or "mainstream" Catholics view non-militant traditionalists

b) Here is the entry he considered "POV" and reverted: a simple statement of traditionalist beliefs: [7]

3. Response to this here [8], on the RfC for Dominick.

4. What that has to do with me is beyond me.

5. His first link shows where DominusTecum, JLeigh, and InquisitorGeneralis came from (i.e., from mention of this entry at a traditionalist Catholic forum). There is no plea at that forum to jump all over the "Traditionalist Catholics" entry; it is one of many entries mentioned there that Catholics might want to keep an eye on, and there is nothing wrong with that. His second link says nothing about Malachias111. Used2BAnonymous 11:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

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.}

This is a subset of the articles to which U2BA has added links to her site

Update: This is possibly no longer an outside view. I have just removed links to www.fisheaters.com in over 100 articles, some of which had multiple links to fisheaters, and in a fair number of which fisheaters was the only external link, there being none to (e.g.) the Catholic Encyclopaedia. It is in fact quite hard to find any page that U2BA has edited which has never had a link to fisheaters or the predecessor, kensmen, in it. That may be skewed by the recent change of domain name, and U2BA's revision of the links in the many articles to which it was attached. This was clearly a mammoth undertaking, as at least one got missed along the way :-) I am sure that is not all of them, but I have run out of time. As far as I'm concerned systematic linkspamming is the diagnosis. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 01:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And how many of the links were irrelevant? How many of them could be replaced by better pages? How many links are too many if they're all relevant? Used2BAnonymous 02:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You want an honest answer? After the first thirty I thought "the hell with it" and removed the lot. And I notice you're not ogged in now while putting them all back in, but I'm not alone in reverting the linkspamming. I strongly suggest you try talking about it - I'm sure it might be justifiable in some of the hundred-odd articles. All of them? I think not. Beware of the tigers! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 03:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Above summary by Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:20, 20 December 2005 (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.