Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CrazyInSane

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: 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 06:02, 15 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]

CrazyInSane has engaged in sockpuppetry, as well as in repeated POV pushing and tendetious editing, including edit warring over AD/CE and over POV issues related to holidays. He has repeatedly pushed for Christian and especially Protestant emphasis in articles and redirects. He has also violated WP:CIVIL calling edits he disagrees with vandalism, among other problems. In addition, he has attempted to wikilawyer, attempting to use policies to his advantage on one page even as he violated them on another. He has more recently used sockpuppets to circumvent a block, and stated his intention to circumvent a block if it continued.

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. Calls an edit he disagrees with "secularist propaganda" [1]
  2. Implies that his own views of what constitutes a "moral" issue are NPOV [2]
  3. [3] POV pushing on December 25, also calls edit he disagrees with "vandalism"
  4. [4] Ignores sourced change that disagrees with his point of view.
  5. [5] Example of editing warring of CE/AD. Note that his user page User:CrazyInSane lists what languages he knows, and Chinese is not one of them so this is a clear example of edit warring.
  6. [6] One of possibly the most absurd and POV edits I have seen on Wikipedia ever, redirecting a greeting in one religion to an article about another religion.
  7. [7][8] Attempts to de-emphasize the use of CE as an abbrevation for "Common era" by keeping it far down in the list of abbreviations. Also in the edit summary calls putting it higher up "POV"
  8. [9] Edit wars over whether AD/CE should redirect to "Common era" or "Anno Domini"
  9. [10], [11], [12] More edit warring over Common Era
  10. [13] Puts in claim in Spring Holiday which is admittedly original research.
  11. [14] New user he used to circumvent his most recent block and his declaration that he would continue to edit using IP addresses if his block was not removed: [15].
  12. Edit warring at Xmas to push his POV that Christian holidays are deemphasized. [16][17]
  13. [18] Further edit warring over AD/CE issues, this time immediately after coming out of previous block, removing sourced content.
  14. Earlier use of sockpupetry can be found here [19] which more recent Checkuser evidence from User:Jayjg found to be linked to CrazyInSane [20].
  15. Claimed as a sockpuppet to be an agnostic rather than a Christian. See the version of his sock's user page here.
  16. More edit warring over AD/CE issues[21][22]
  17. And yet more edit warring on AD/CE on yet another page [23][24]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

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

  1. WP:AGF
  2. WP:NPOV
  3. WP:CIVIL
  4. WP:SOCK
  5. WP:NOR

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28]
  5. [29]
  6. [30]
  7. [31]
  8. [32]
  9. [33]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. JoshuaZ 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Powers 21:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC) but see my separate statement below.[reply]
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC) -with exception of sock which I have no knowledge of.[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Just zis Guy you know? 20:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Addhoc 21:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. •Jim62sch• 21:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Fireplace 18:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FeloniousMonk 01:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Guettarda 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dunc|☺ 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Filll 15:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LtPowers[edit]

I have had disagreements with CiS in the past. Some still continue. When I first encountered him (April-ish), his general attitude and methodology rubbed me the wrong way. Comments like "This is accurate information that will finally help to alert the Christian-American public of the anti-Christian events that are being conspired by the public 'seperation of church and state' enthusiasts" and "is an optimal example of the anti-Christian bias slant that is occuring everywhere in the United States" ([34]) clearly demonstrated that he was editing with a strong POV in mind. He took a strongly adversarial tone when challenged; once (in the same comment linked above, actually) he warned a fellow editor about a 3RR block "if you revert my edits again, and then once again", in other words, after only one reversion.

He also, at the time, admitted that he was very emotionally involved in the topic he was editing (Spring Holiday, [35]) yet used that as justification for pushing his own view ("... because since I am so emotionally involved in the project, I happen to know more about what are facts and what aren't.") instead of taking a step back and attempting to look at the issue more objectively, as I had suggested [36].

In response to this edit [37], which I called "redundant" and "horribly POV to boot (since it presumes that offending a majority is inherently worse than offending a minority)" [38], CiS said "Also, there is something special about Christianity so that it is being persecuted by having its holidays subsumed. Not only is it the majority of population (80%, 2001) in the USA, which makes the minorities feel, well, 'minor', but Christianity — as opposed to Judaism or any other religion — has religious holidays that are also secular in certain ways," [39], but failed to provide any support for the claim.

That he and I had different ideas of what constitutes NPOV is without dispute, I think, but I really can't claim I was unequivocably right. What grated on me is a seeming insistance on his part (which may have been no more than my own perception) that he was not negotiating NPOV in good faith -- that he was so strongly convinced that his own POV was neutral that he was unable to consider the opposing viewpoint.

However, all that said was months ago. Since that time, I have noticed a definite moderation in CiS's approach. Whether this reflects an actual moderation in his views, or if he is simply supressing them in an attempt to get along and be a useful contribitor, I don't know. It doesn't matter either way, though; the important thing is that there has been a marked improvement. The occassional continuing misstep (such as Number 12 above, which had a clearly POV edit and a slightly incivil edit summary; and the recent use of sockpuppetry which was understandable even if not justifiable) perhaps merely reflect an ongoing maturation.

I believe CrazyInSane to be editing in good faith, and he has come a long way, but my advice to him would be to be cognizant of his own POV, to maintain vigilance that his edits are NPOV, and to count to ten before reverting or responding to edits he perceives as wrong/misguided/malicious/whatever.

As an added note, although I certified the basis for the dispute above, I do not certify items 14 and 15, for the precise reasons CiS states below in his response.

Users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Powers 15:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A Y Arktos\talk 21:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Introductory response[edit]

First and foremost, I would like to address User:JoshuaZ's invalid basis for a block, and incorrect manner in which he proceeded to enforce the block. First, he performed the block with a time of indefinite, at 16:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC), on the entirely false basis of "repeated POV, has no interests other than that" (see below). Not only did he not notify me of his intentions prior to the block, but he also failed to provide warnings ahead of time. He only stated his intentions at WP:AN/I after the block, leaving me no options to defend myself or even respond in any way to his POV of my actions. In an angered furor, I admit that I used a sock puppet, but only to defend myself. The only other option at that point to defend my indefinite block was to e-mail the blocker, of which I had no intentions of doing. Although the sock puppet was completely out of line and I agree I should not have used it, JoshuaZ's blalant disregard of WP:BLOCK and WP:DR unfortunately convinced me of doing so. Those who agree with the fact that JoshuaZ's actions were inappropriate include User:AYArktos, User:LtPowers, User:Jdoorjam, User:Tyrenius, User:Tom harrison, and possibly others.

JoshuaZ based his block on Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Users_who_exhaust_the_community's_patience, although he blatantly violated this section himself, as per "Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block".

He also disregarded Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Controversial_blocks, which states "Where consensus proves elusive, blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reasoning for the block, are damaging to the community"

Though he eventually reduced the block to 1 week, this was due to other users' comments that convinced him to do so. If other users would not have intervened, I would remain unfairly blocked indefinitely without the option of defending myself at WP:AN/I without either contacting User:JoshuaZ via email, or violationg WP:SOCK. I did not intend to lower myself to the level of contacting him directly, because I believed his actions were totally ludicrous and uncalled for.

Please see WP:AN/I/Indefinite_block_CrazyInSane for further discussion on the initial indefinite block.

RESPONSE to "Evidence of disputed behavior"[edit]

This is a non-issue. The user who replaced the picture of Jesus' nativity with Santa Claus has been blocked for personal attacks and other behaviors. The edits would never have stood with the community, as Jesus' nativity was always the subject of the Infobox, and Santa Claus is merely a secular aspect of Christmas, not the subject of it as is Jesus (i.e. - Christ's Mass). I am convinced that someone else would have reverted the edit eventually, and cannot see how all of a sudden every edit "for my POV" is disruptive.
This editing confliction had nothing to do with me, the word "moral" was first removed by an anon IP address, and reverted not by me but by User:Str1977[40]. He/she stated the exact same statement as me, "no POV problem here". I felt the word "moral" when pertaining to abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality was indeed appropriate and nothing to do with religion whatsoever. I only reverted this once and was uninvolved otherwise.
As per [41], there was a confusion regarding where to place the recognition of the birth of Jesus.....I re-entered his birth at 1 BC in the "Births" section [42] when I found a citation, which is what I thought the opposing party wanted. DJClayworth agreed with my re-instation of Jesus, reverting KillerChihuahua's reversion of my re-insertion. This wasn't an edit war, it was a misunderstanding that didn't just involve me on one side of the argument.
The Passover citation reversion was part of a discussion on the Spring Holiday talk page, and it was decided that this citation was nonwithstanding of what it apparently supported. The very person who added the Passover citation[43], LtPowers, later admitted that it was not a great citation [44]. See the discussion about the verity of Passover references at Talk:Spring Holiday.
Here, I've changed "the Chinese have used the literal translation of Common Era" to "some in China have used the...". I can not see how JoshuaZ verifies this as edit warring, I was clarifying that "some people" in China, rather than the "Chinese language", use the CE/BCE terms. There were no reversions or further edit wars to follow regarding this. And as of current, the article states "most Chinese" rather than "the Chinese", asserting that not all Chinese use the terms BCE/CE.
Regarding the "most absurd edit ever", the Happy Hanukkah redirect to "Christmastime greetings", I assure you my intentions were innocent. Upon creating the article there were 2 users that agreed that it was as neutral as possible, except for the title[45]. I later stated that I agreed, and that a title change would be fine[46], I also stated that "Christmastime" was a term relating to "the time relation to Christmas", not holidays linked to Christmas directly. My Happy Hanukkah redirect was not with anti-Semetism intentions, I simply felt "Holidaytime greetings" was not a good title choice—but was fine with any generic title change from "Christmastime" to "whatever". It was just that at the time, me nor LtPowers or other users involved could think of an alternate title. User:LtPowers also agreed that he didn't like the title but that he didn't have an alternative yet. The rest of the article, which I created, was deemed NPOV by me and 2 other users (LtPowers and AYArktos). Its "supposed POV" was exaggerated later in discussion, when other users (User:KillerChihuahua, User:Jim62sch, others) in whom had previously been involved with me negatively joined discussion. The aforementioned users and others began discussion about Christmastime greetings' POV, citing only the bad title[47] as a specific reason. They did not think to look at the above comments for consideration. They immediately hacked up the article citing my inherently POV bias. KillerChihuahua also made comments about a title change[48] and noted that the title could be changed to "Holidaytime", but instead acted by removing the "Happy Hanukkah", "Happy Holidays", and "Season's Greetings" sections of the article and keeping the title "Christmastime greetings", but with only a "Merry Christmas" section included. I never reverted this. Also, to prove my point that this was a heated personal situation, note User:Jim62sch's very rude, suggestive comment[49], which borders on a personal attack. It seems clear to me that the opposing party in this article were more motivated by their dislike of CrazyInSane than the "NPOV of the article". Evident of this is that they never addressed specific POV issues other than the title, which they could have changed but never did, for unknown reasons—even though I agreed with the change. I also made this comment in regards to a title compromise, directed at KillerChihuahua, to which he never responded, even after being active in the talk page later on with other users. There was no substantial effort by the opposing party to figure the situation out, just to assume bad faith and ignore my comments. Although from first glance redirecting "Happy Hanukkah" to "Christmastime greetings" looks bad, my intentions were not so and I apologize there.
The user who edited before me here asserted that common era is "the most common usage" and he moved "Common Era" to the top of the list. I deemed that as POV because there were no citations proving "Common era" was the most popular form of "CE". Although I later relieved myself from the issue, my edit was a revert, it was not just done "for the hell of it". It was the user before me who claimed that BCE/CE was the most common usage, it wasn't me who claimed that it was not.
This is certainly not an example of "edit warring". I had initially created this redirect, which had "AD/CE" redirecting to "Manual of style#Eras"[50], not Anno Domini, and then someone deemed this inappropriate, and changed the redirect to "Common Era"[51]. Why this was done, I do not know, but I found it biased. So, I changed the redirect to "Anno Domini" instead, which I admit was not the right course of action. I should have reverted to the "Manual of style" redirect, but felt that the individual who changed my initial redirect to "Common Era" had no basis in such.
(Link 1) – I feel I am being targeted as the bad guy here when in fact I am not ill-intended. In this edit, I changed the term from "often" to "sometimes", because there was no citation asserting that Common Era is "often" used. Though some initially disagreed with my change, the current Common Era article as it stands uses "some" instead of "often", which shows that my change has consensus and merit.
(Link 2) – Again, here, I changed "less often referred to as Christian era" to just "Christian era". There was no citation providing that the term "Current Era" is used any more often than "Christian Era", and I actually think "Christian era" is used more often (see Encyclopedia Britannica, where they label "CE" as "Christian era" and nothing more).
(Link 3) – When my edits were reverted I responded by adding a {{fact}} template after "less often referred to as Christian Era"--- I cannot even IMAGINE how JoshuaZ sees this as edit warring. I was adding the template to disputed claims, something that should most definitely have been done.
I think User:JoshuaZ intentionally linked to the actual revision rather than the appropriate differentiation link so as to hide the fact that the "original research" that I inserted is actually against my "supposed Christian/Protestant bias" and that a {{fact}} tag immediately follows the added material. The fact that I explained the usage of "Spring Holiday" instead of "Good Friday" as being to enforce the "Separation of church and state" goes against that "bias", so this "evidence of POV disruption" by JoshuaZ is actually the opposite. Also, LtPowers and other users have also inserted "original research" with {{fact}} tags into the article, and this was allowed by consensus to create a NPOV counter-balance effect[52]. I was simply adding to LtPowers' (as of current) unsourced statements. I want to be neutral as possible in my edits, yet also want to add religious balance to counteract the many secularly-biased articles. Even User:Krychek (who believed Spring holiday was too POV), said recently that the article is heading in a NPOV direction, partly due to CrazyInSane's 'church and state' contribution. So, in retrospect to this "evidence" from JoshuaZ, it seems to be evident of the opposite.
As for the new user, its contributions are related only to discussion over my abrupt indefinite block, which was (as written above) done by JoshuaZ prior to notifying me or offering any warning of any kind. I used this new account only to defend myself (as per the contributions) yet I concede that I still should not have done so. I was (reasonably) too angry to contact the blocker via e-mail, which was my only other option other than spending eternity outside of Wikipedia. Again, I restate that the sockpuppet was still not acceptable. As for the second link here, I merely stated that I would "monitor the article with varying IP addresses", which would be necessary given that every time I dial-up to the internet, I am given a new IP. I never stated that I would "edit" the article.
  • #12 – Edit warring at Xmas to push his POV that Christian holidays are deemphasized – Link 1Link 2.
For this situation, refer to WP:BOLD. I did not believe the addition to be my POV but believed it to be true–although I could have worded it more neutrally. The usage of "Xmas" in the public is very rare, or even non-existent, these days. I felt my addition was more accurate. Although I reverted one time afterward, I did so only because no explanation was given for initially reverting my addition, and my edit summary of the reversion stated "explain your reversions"[53]. I never raised that issue again.
I deleted an entry in the "Support" section of Common Era here, because it seemed to be anti-Christian and supposing that it is less offensive to refer to Nordic gods in public atmospheres than to Christian gods. The only "source" for this claim is an article that states "this MAY be considered an argument". However, the main incentive behind me removing this statement was because of an earlier, pro-Anno Domini statement that was added[54], was a considerable addition, and yet was deleted with the edit summary "No evidence for this". Instead of reverting back to include the newly added pro-Anno Domini support claim, I removed a statement from the opposition that looked to be awfully secular biased in saying that people are offended by Christianity but not Nordic or other ancient religions. I see no reason why pro-Anno Domini arguments are removed when pro-Common Era arguments are never even questioned and are defended to the death. I find this anti-Christian bias. But, when my removal of the comments was reverted, I did not pursue the issue.
As for the sockpuppet case, it is partially incorrect in concluding that User:Darwiner111 is a sockpuppet of User:CrazyInSane, as this is not the case–my username of Darwiner111 was simply moved to CrazyInSane per request–contribs and all[55],[56]. And User:PatrickA was created prior to User:Darwiner111/User:CrazyInSane, and was discontinued in favor of the name 'Darwiner111', therefore shouldn't be considered a sockpuppet. I admit User:1929Depression and User:Jordain are sockpuppets, and they were consequently blocked. Also, User:24.222.79.90 was my IP address so is not a sockpuppet.
Ludicrous. First of all, the User:Jordain page claims the following: "I'm an former Christian and now an agnostic, however I firmly believe in defending Christian traditions and beliefs"–the latter being completely in line with my current claims. Although I admit to no longer being an agnostic, that is because I converted to theism on 25 February, 2006–which was, of course, after the the creation of my 'Jordain' user page in October 2005. Even my current userpage completely verifies this, stating (in third person): "As for his religious conviction, he was a Christian from 1998–2002, an agnostic/atheist from 2002–2006, and a spiritual theist from 2006–present". There is no validity to JoshuaZ's comments on my religious status.
  • #16 – More edit warring over AD/CE issues – Link 1,Link 2
I will completely agree that my actions at this particular page were not acceptable. The style of this article was "AD/BC (or BCE/CE)" and User:Prosfilaes altered the article to "BCE/CE (or AD/BC)"[57]. I reverted these changes, and admit that I should have first started discussion, but at the time I felt that "AD/BC" should be listed first, as it had been before. User:Prosfilaes also should not have made the edit he did, but I digress. I have now created a compromise of the issue at that article. Ironically however, my compromise was partially reverted in favor of "AD/BC" over "CE/BCE", by a different user.
  • #17 – And yet more edit warring on AD/CE on yet another page – Link 1,Link 2
As for this article, my edits to enforce "AD" rather than "CE" were reversions, not alterations. The usage was originally AD, and was changed without consensus to change (see WP:DATE#Eras) and I was only reverting these edits. User:Interiot agreed, adding discussion on the issue after the events. In his discussion he refers to WP:DATE, as well as that "AD" was used first (thus should remain until opposing consensus).

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

Since User:JoshuaZ offers no comments on these "evidences", I am forced to estimate what it is he's referring to in each link. I have done my best to offer a rebuttal on all links:

The first three links are all related to the same subject, comments on my talk page. The first comment, by User:Zora, was to notify me not to use AD/BC on List of founders of world religions because it had originally been BCE/CE. When I performed my edit that changed BCE/CE to AD/BC, my edit summary stated "revert unannounced era change", because in an earlier edit by an anon IP, "BC" was changed to "BCE", and I assumed this was an undiscussed change from BC to BCE. However, User:Zora informed me on the userpage that I was mistaken, and that the original page (that she wrote) contained BCE. That was a mistake on my part, for not looking further. I'm human, we make mistakes. The point is that I wasn't intentionally trying to enforce my POV here, I thought the original era notation was, indeed, BC/AD and that it was changed unannounced. This was not evidence of being "unable to resolve disputes", as I never edited at that page again. There was no need to respond to Zora, or subsequently to the comments by User:Mel Etitis or User:NSLE, though I could have.
This edit refers to User:Interiot's comments regarding my edits at Epoch (reference date), which is mentioned above. I cannot see how JoshuaZ justifies this as evidence of being unable to resolve a dispute, when Interiot his/herself clearly states: "AD seems to be the first use, so the article should probably stay as you've edited", referring to this. There is no argument here, Interiot agreed that my later edits were justified.
All those links refer to discussion at Christmastime greetings, in which didn't only result in my full participation and intentions to resolve disputes, but also involved a near–personal attack directed at me, by User:Jim62sch. Also, User:KillerChihuahua refused to respond to one of my latter comments, even though he discussed further with others later in the discussion. The first diff is a question by KillerChihuahua – here is my response. I clearly stated my intentions to agree with a title change, and to work with KillerChihuahua and others. My response to the second question by LtPowers is here, in which LtPowers responded with "point taken". I was causing no difficulty here.
The link here is a comment by Slrubenstein. There was no need to respond to these comments, firstly because I do not "govern" Spring Holiday and am not required to respond to all queries. Also, it was agreed apon that Slrubenstein's contributions to Talk:Spring Holiday were nothing more than disruptive and to make some obsure point – as per myself, AYArktos, and LtPowers. It was mainly AYArktos who talked with Slrubenstein, eventually concluding that Slrubenstein's responses and arguments were vague and annoying and non-productive. I agreed with that assumption, as well as did LtPowers and (possibly) Krychek. Please see Talk:Spring Holiday/Archive 3 for detailed discussion regarding this matter.

This diff is a non-issue. As per my statements above, I was not involved in the "moral" discussion at Separation of Church and state, I merely reverted someone else's reversion once, and was not involved any further. JoshuaZ's assumption that this shows evidence of my non-compliance in disputes has no basis whatsoever. Again, I believe he is grasping for straws here. His failure to offer comments on each link show that.

Productive edits and actions[edit]

Apart from merely defending the accusations, I have decided to provide some evidence of my good and productive behavior on Wikipedia and why I am a valuable contributor. I will list some of my recent valuable contributions here. As JoshuaZ cited the reason for my indefinite block as "repeated POV pushing, has no interests other than that", I would like to prove that this is not the case, thus eliminating the entire basis of his block.


  • Other productive/non "controversial" recent edits
  • [74] – courteous fixing of red links associated with Talk archives
  • [75] – basic addition, of Candle in the Wind to the list of Ballads
  • [76] – basic copyediting
  • [77] – added image for The Santa Clause
  • [78] – created an interesting article
  • [79] – also created this article
  • [80] – addition of info.
  • [81] – Christmas tree traditions
  • [82] – minor edits
  • [83] – created this article
  • [84] – stuff on Kelsey Grammer
  • [85] – Lisa Simpson
  • [86] – random fixings
  • [87] – copyediting
  • [88] – Our Lady Peace
  • [89] – Deep Impact (film)
  • [90] – 2-1-1
  • [91] – Hugs and Kisses
  • [92] – Holiday Inn commercials
  • [93] – some "The View" fixes
  • [94] – removing vandalism
  • [95] – the Today Show
  • Talk:Spring Holiday – see here for my productive/neutral comments with other users regarding the article

For more contributions, please see Special:Contributions/CrazyInSane. Also, see my user page which you may find interesting and full of ideas.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. . — `CRAZY`(IN)`SANE` 22:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 07:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Slrubenstein[edit]

I cannot speak to sockpuppetry, but this is an issue of fact that should be easily determined by people who are technically competent. I have however interacted with this user several times, and my experience (admittedly subjective) is this: he is a POV pusher who, when confronted with POV issues, somewhat inanely cites NPOV policy to support his views. In my experience he picks a few issues of particular importance to him, and vigorously uses Wikipedia as a platform for expounding his views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. •Jim62sch• 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FeloniousMonk 01:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Guettarda 21:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by AYArktos[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.

{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 interactions with User:CrazyInSane have always been civilised and reasonable. He has listened to issues [96] and sought to address them promptly and reasonably. He has heeded criticism, always and always politely.
  • I do not share his strong POV on many matters. I consider him however to be a useful contributer - it can take many points of view to make a neutral point of view. It is how you deal with your POV (we all have one) and whether you respect others POV that is important. It is also important if you are prepared to cite your sources - CiS is prepared to support his assertions with research or back down.
  • The most recent use of a sock puppet was only to let people know that he had been blocked. The blocking was without warning and I think the user's response can be excused as panic - it was unexpected to be blocked indeifinitely with no prior conversation on his talk page from the blocking admin. CiS did not use the sock for any other purpose and declared who he was. His use was within the bounds allowed by the policy, that is: If someone uses multiple accounts, it is recommended that he or she provide links between the accounts, so it is easy to determine that they are shared by one individual. Although the use breached Users who are banned or blocked from editing may not use sock puppets to circumvent this. Evading a block or ban causes the timer on the block to restart, and may further lengthen it. - an indefintite block without any warning was entirely unreasonable as discussed at WP:AN/I and thus circumventing such a block is understandable.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --A Y Arktos\talk 10:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Outside view by FeloniousMonk[edit]

  1. Contrary to CrazyInSane's claim that he only made the new sockpuppet to deal with the block he declared his intention to keep sockpuppeting: [97] Note that he said that even if the block stayed he would keep monitoring with "varying IP addresses" which doesn't make any sense to tell anyone unless it was because he intended to edit. This is reinforced by his claim in a later edit that "As for the block, since it has been reduced to 1 week I will stay calm and refrain from Wikipedia for the assigned timeframe": [98] Thus his claims now that he only was using a sock to protest his block is inconsistent at best. Multiple users (even users who disagreed with the block itself) agreed the block was within normal procedure and clearly JoshuaZ followed precisely what to do.
  2. Even if JoshuaZ's block had been problematic, which I do not think it was considering the scope and gravity of CrazyInSane's activities, this RfC isn't about JoshuaZ, it's about CrazyInSane's actions. His inability to focus on his actions is troubling.
  3. CrazyInSane's redirect of Hannukah is patently POV and his explanation for doing so is ridiculous.
  4. In regard to the claim about which use of the term CE was most common, does CrazyInSane seriously think that Cosmic Era, a storyline in the anime metaseries Gundam is a more common use of CE? The claim is insulting to the intelligence of participants here.
  5. As for the 10th diff he offers above, I really don't think the diff shows any strong POV in either direction. Furthermore, his claim that JoshuaZ used a version rather than a diff to hide something is exactly the sort of assuming bad faith that others have rightly already brought up here and that needs to be addressed.
  6. CrazyInSane's need to point out his productive edits is confusing. No one is claiming that he doesn't have any productive edits (to be sure if he had none, no one would have protested JoshuaZ's block). The point of RfC is to discuss possible problems and room for improvement. All the productive edits listed in no way excuse highly POV redirects and sockpuppetry; in fact, they are washed away by subsequent bad acts. FeloniousMonk 03:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. JoshuaZ 03:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Guettarda 21:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Just zis Guy you know? 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. •Jim62sch• 22:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fireplace 22:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Addhoc 21:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Filll 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[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.

{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:

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/CrazyInSane&oldid=1142570467"