Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Agiantman

STOP REMOVING SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS

I have not yet had the time to respond to the groundless and childish allegations here. I am concerned though that those who have written to support me are also being harrassed with belittling comments after each positive edit or in the outright reversion of their supportive remarks (removal usually done by Gamaliel, a wiki adminstrator!). Until I have had a chance to formally respond to these silly charges, the bullies here should knock off the harrassment of editors who support me. BTW -just by reading this page, any neutral observer can plainly see the hypocrisy of the people I am up against.--Agiantman 03:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Join the lynching of a user

Add you name to this mockery of the democratic process. Be just like the Nazis, add you name to this tiny group and make your own rules. It's just like kristallnacht without the effort. PS This is an RFC, this is a comment. To remove this comment is an admission you do not want comments. If you don't want comments, what is this really about???24.147.97.230 02:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

May I recommend Godwin's Law? --kizzle 04:23, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Failure to negociate

The biased "editors" who endorsements are above refuse to negociate for content. It's their way or no way. The acts of removal of entire paragraphs of work by them is vandalism. We are not looking at content that is fictional, but important parts of Ted Kennedy's life and career. The work on Rosemary Kennedy is the same. If they want to contribute, fine. Stop the removal of other's work and do some of your own. Just because you love the Kennedys does not wash the past clean. It happened as reported, get used to it.24.147.97.230 22:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

WITCH HUNT BY DEMOCRAT-LEANING MODERATORS!

NPOV my foot! your "project" is a joke. You lynch Agiantman, while creating an alternative version of history on scum like Kennedy, Byrd, etc. and then claim "neutrality"! Ha. Look at JamesMLane's user page and his comments on the "right wing". Yeah - real neutral source to cast stones at Agiantman...

Note to above editors

An RFC has a specific format, and there is plenty of room for you to express your views within the proper format. Color inside the lines. I don't see why this is so hard for you to understand. Gamaliel 03:31, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

blah blah blah - don't you have some more vandalism to perform? I hear someone wrote something positive about Ronald Reagan on Wiki. Quick! Go revert it oh sacred "NPOV" guardian.

An RFC also has a specific use. And general harrassment of those that disagree with you isn't one of them. If someone has a specific message of support for me, leave it alone. You have a conflict of interest here. You posted an allegation of a 3RR violation against me and you have sided against me in this forum.--Agiantman 03:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

STOP REMOVING SUPPORTIVE COMMENTS

Note: This page is about me. Stop reverting my comments. This is my 2nd attempt to insert this message. I have not yet had the time to respond to the groundless and childish allegations here. I am concerned though that those who have written to support me are also being harrassed with belittling comments after each positive edit or in the outright reversion of their supportive remarks (removal usually done by Gamaliel, a wiki adminstrator!). Until I have had a chance to formally respond to these silly charges, the bullies here should knock off the harrassment of editors who support me. BTW -just by reading this page, any neutral observer can plainly see the hypocrisy of the people I am up against.--Agiantman 03:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

WITCH HUNT BY DEMOCRAT-LEANING MODERATORS!

NPOV my foot! your "project" is a joke. You lynch Agiantman, while creating an alternative version of history on scum like Kennedy, Byrd, etc. and then claim "neutrality"! Ha. Look at JamesMLane's user page and his comments on the "right wing". Yeah - real neutral source to cast stones at Agiantman...

DEMOCRAT-LEANING?? These guys are past leaning. They refuse to cooperate or negociate. Now they try to squelch an editor who does not buy into thier twisted politics.24.147.97.230 03:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we ban whatwho ever started this page--I-2-d2 03:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Though "the editors" have taken quick polls in the past, the refuse to stand by the results. Instead they ignone concensus againt them and run new polls.

bah

leave him alone, and delete this stupid page, just because he doesn't play ball with the rest of the kennedy groupies here on wiki, doens't mean you can start some kind of a witch hunt on someone just expressing their own view, what's next, and iquisition for all people who don't fly the canadian flag on their user page? I suggest we consider blocking whoever created this page in the first place--I-2-d2 03:51, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Please

Is it at all possible for any of you to make your point without personally attacking those who disagree with you? Seriously, it's not that hard. Just be civil. --kizzle 04:25, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Or at the very least don't modify my comments? And btw, Hillary Clinton is my last choice so far for 2008, just to let you know. --kizzle 05:21, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• ha, yeah, edit without insulting, there's an interesting idea, how about you try it first!! oh and I hope you do run her, fun to see her join the NYC welfare line after she loses--I-2-d2 04:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to point out where Kizzle insulted someone. Good luck. Gamaliel 04:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

I know this must be a joke question. No one insults people more in wikipedia than User:Kizzle. I had been a member of Wikipedia for less than 48 hours when Kizzle called me a "douchebag!" [1] He called me a "douchebag" again when referring to me on another's talk page. [2] Is that the kind of civility wikipedia is looking for? Why no RfC for User:Kizzle? Could it be because he another liberal POV warrior? BTW - If you think he just uses the term "douchebag" with me, guess again. [3]. Kizzle insults others and any request by him for civility is hippocritical.--Agiantman 23:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

It was not a joke question. I simply never have seen kizzle insult anyone like that. Apparently you are the exception. The reason there is no RfC is that no one has started one. You are free to start one if you wish. Gamaliel 23:31, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh I definetely personally attacked him Gamaliel, I do admit I have a problem responding to people in the manner they treat me. And after my very first post to Agiantman, genuinely assuming good faith, Agiantman's very first post to me mocked my viewpoint in return. So, like I told him, I don't feel I owe him one iota of civility. --kizzle 05:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

No. Kizzle does so owe Agiantman civility. Kizzle should refrain from personal attacks on Agiantman, even if it is difficult to do that when Agiantman is himself engaging in personal attacks. Wikipedia is not Usenet. Civility goes both ways.

IP addresses for Anons

Anyone know why there are so many different Anon IP addresses for this RfC? It is very strange to have so many involved on this issue. Also, the IPs are somewhat different. Are they socks? If they are socks, I take back any supportive statements that I previously made. --Noitall 05:13, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

RfC for User:Gamaliel?

I think an RfC about you, User:Gamaliel, is more appropriate. I believe your conduct has been out of control and certainly unbecoming of a wiki administrator. Before I do so, I wonder if anyone else would support an RfC for User:Gamaliel? Please comment here. Thanks!--Agiantman 03:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to the laughter. Gamaliel 04:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't threaten to file an RfC, just file one already if you're going to do it. --kizzle 05:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Attack by Agiantman on kizzle

By this edit to the RfC, Agiantman has tried to divert attention from his/her own gross misconduct by making a trumped-up attack on kizzle.

The exchange that Agiantman eagerly highlights came as a result of the VfD debate concerning Lost Liberty Hotel. In a spin-off discussion about civility on Wikipedia, kizzle jokingly called me an "asshole" as a way of satirizing intemperate users -- like, as it happens, Agiantman, although Agiantman had not yet graced Wikipedia with his/her presence under that user name. I responded in kind, by jokingly accusing kizzle of sexual misconduct. There was no RfC because it was all in fun, as was obvious to kizzle, to me, to the two other editors from the VfD discussion who joined in, and, indeed, to anyone who wasn't completely clueless. JamesMLane 08:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not really fair to call this an attack on Kizzle by Agiantman. The comment you mention could easily be misconstrued. But the other words Kizzle used to call a newbie were uncalled for and even Kizzle's explanation does not even come close to justifying it. That said, just because 2 editors are intemporate to each other, without more, is not a reason for anyone to get involved. This is an adult forum. Agiantman should not be so thin-skinned, but then having an RfC filed can tend to do that. --Noitall 09:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Kizzle did attack Agiantman, and should not have done that. There have been multiple breaches of civility. This is an RfC about Agiantman. If Agiantman or anyone else wishes to write an RfC against Agiantman or Gamaliel or anyone else, I will review it and offer my comments. Robert McClenon 14:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I would only support an RfC against Kizzle if he accepts payment by Kennedy -- just kidding. --Noitall 16:10, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The funniest thing about this is that I don't believe I've ever contributed once to the Kennedy page. So to be called the Pro-Kennedy Warrior is quite humorous. --kizzle 18:00, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

You (Noitall) are in Maryland. Is that correct? What if the payments are by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend? Robert McClenon 16:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have never denied attacking Agiantman, like I said in my post to him, I have a problem of treating others like they treat me. I fully assumed good faith on Agiantman's part, asked him to clarify his problems with the article, and his first response was to attack me. So, like i said, that is a problem I have to work on and not respond to attacks in kind. But I definetely was not responsible for the breach of civility between us. Regardless, I apologize for calling Agiantman a douchebag. --kizzle 17:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, after our initial unpleasant exchange, I did try to calm myself down and work with Agiantman despite his persistant attacks. --kizzle 17:56, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, so don't worry about it. On Kathleen, she is looking for a job, so she can't afford to make payments unless she takes it out of her trust fund. :) --Noitall 19:29, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The linked post by Agiantman charges that kizzle has engaged in misconduct justifying an RfC; that charge is an attack on kizzle. I don't think the comment by kizzle "could easily be misconstrued", and anyone who did misunderstand it would have been corrected by reading the succeeding lines. The implication that Agiantman's incivility was caused by the RfC is not supportable in light of the numerous pre-RfC instances cited. It does seem, however, that he has ratcheted up the volume. Noitall, I invite you to examine Agiantman's edits made after your suggestion that he "modify his manner", to determine whether he took your advice. JamesMLane 23:17, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Why the New Conditions"?

Agiantman asks (on the article page, rather than appropriately on this talk page), "Why the New Conditions?" There are no new conditions being asked. The issue is whether Agiantman has agreed to the original conditions as suggested by Noitall and by me. Those were to be civil and refrain from personal attacks, and to use edit summaries.

I also stated the possibly unreasonable condition that Agiantman either ask his anonymous supporters to be civil, or respond if they were not civil. That condition was not met. The anonymous editors continued their taunting, and Agiantman did not respond. Perhaps I was unreasonable in asking that. I was perhaps expecting Agiantman to criticize incivility without respect to political views. (I note that I did that with respect to Kizzle.)

I then took a 36-hour (two nights, one day) timeout. During that time, Agiantman continued to SHOUT on the Rosemary Kennedy talk page, as well as making edits without summaries. He also continued being uncivil to two editors of this RfC. (I agree that one of them was also uncivil.)

I also discovered that I had overlooked a more serious previous offense by Agiantman, which was altering the description of one of the two quickpolls on the Ted Kennedy talk page. As I had written it, I noted that there was consensus to include a brief mention of the Palm Beach rape trial. The question was whether to include the longer account that had been repeatedly added and reverted. Agiantman changed that to state that it was whether to include the one-paragraph account. This was not a minor edit. It changed the meaning of the poll. If he disagreed as to what the poll was, he should have made a statement to that effect. I have added that to the RfC article page.

I had been willing to consider striking out my signature, which will still leave three certifying signatures on this RfC. I am now not willing to strike out my signature.

There were no new conditions. Robert McClenon 15:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous Editors

At the same time, I also concluded that, although Agiantman was guilty of being uncivil, of personal attacks, and of misleading edit summaries, he was not the only or most serious problem. The anonymous editor, who mostly edits as 24.147.97.230, is a more serious offender, who is gaming the system by shifting IP addresses to evade the 3RR rule. I have no reason to believe that there actually are multiple human beings behind the multiple IP addresses. Noitall was correct in noticing that there are an unusual number of anonymous editors, all expressing the same position, and that they appear to be sockpuppets. Another RfC is in the works. Robert McClenon 15:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I resent the repeated reference to me or those who support me as "sockpuppets." One of the 3 silly charges you made against me in the Rfc is "Accusing two editors of being sock-puppets." Your hypocrisy is evident to us all.--Agiantman 12:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Agiantman, can you please focus on the objective here. Your objective is to make this go away. Refrain from addressing the other editors who may have a legitimate gripe (although, in my opinion, not worthy of an RfC). Robert is not creating these sockpuppets. Someone is. It is unususal to have socks pop up in an RfC. Obviously, the suspicion is that it is on you. Please focus on and address the issue here. --Noitall 13:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

You and "Robert" apparently have actual knowledge of sockpuppets who are operating from multiple IP addresses. That sounds pretty bizarre and I am waiting for the evidence. I am not a sockpuppet and I do not have any sockpuppets. I don't know "Robert" and, if there are sockpuppets, I don't know whether he is creating these sockpuppets. Wikipedia has not provided me with the tools to check these things. The point I made is that one of the three charges User:Robert McClenon lodged against me is that I accused "two editors of being sock-puppets." However, User:Robert McClenon himself routinely refers to other editors as sockpuppets as evidenced above. If that's not hypocrisy, I don't know what is. The baseless RfC here is nothing but harrassment by a band of POV bullies. Any neutral person can see that. --Agiantman 14:40, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom?

It's quite apparent that this RfC is a farce and its clear that no change in AGM's disruptive behavior will result. Instead AGM scours the user pages and edit histories of the people he insults desperately looking for something he can pass off as a malfeasance to distract attention from his behavior. The comparison to Rex hits home; Rex never changed and had to be banned, and it's become apparent that nothing short of the threat of banning will work in this case. Perhaps it is too soon for an ArbCom case, but I don't see any advantage to waiting if AGM's behavior is only going to escalate because of the lack of consequences for his actions. Gamaliel 17:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Clarification?

Gamaliel makes a statement that can be easily misconstrued. He says that this RfC is a farce. I have read a few RfCs that were farces. Agiantman and his anonymous supporters may indeed think that this RfC is a farce. However, if I think that an RfC is a farce, I do not certify it. Since Gamaliel has certified this RfC, he presumably agrees with the statement of the dispute. I assume that he means that the way that the taunting responses to the RfC, accusations of POV pushing by its certifiers, and the bad editing of the RfC are making a travesty of how the RfC process is supposed to help resolve disputes.

I agree that the RfC has been very badly edited and is in need of considerable refactoring. The fault is not entirely that of Agiantman and his anonymous supporters. It is partly that of Gamaliel and of Jpgordon, for annotating signatures in support of Agiantman.

I do not think that I agree with the statement that there has been no change in the disruptive behavior of Agiantman. Most (although not all) of the disruptive behavior since the RfC was posted has been by the anonymous editors. Agiantman is at least talking about being civil and agreeing to a few basic conditions. Under those circumstances, mediation might be the next step. Is Agiantman agreeable to mediation? In formal mediation, there can be only two principal parties. Since Agiantman has suggested that Gamaliel has made threats of misuse of administrative privileges and has stated that JamesMLane is a POV pusher because of political views, I would suggest that Agiantman request mediation with either of them. If Agiantman thinks that there is a conspiracy against him, then perhaps the mediator will rebuke the conspirators. I am agreeable to let either of them be the designated principal in mediation.

Mediation has already been tried with the anonymous editors. Kelly Martin did attempt to mediate via one of the various informal mediation procedures. The one issue that she did address was whether there was a consensus to include the "fatboy" link or not to include it. The consensus was against including it. I have no reason to think that any future mediation with the anonymous editors will have any different result. I see no reason for further efforts to mediate with the anonymous editors. They have since then continued to misstate consensus.

I will mention in passing that Agiantman has posted a response on the article page stating that I have filed another RfC against User:24.147.97.230. He notes that Agiantman and User:24.147.97.230 have been the two main presenters of a Republican anti-Kennedy view, and that there is an attempt to suppress them. This is a very interesting statement. He states that the two of them, both of whom I have filed RfCs against, are the two principal presenters of the anti-Kennedy POV. That would appear to mean that he agrees with the claim that the other anonymous addresses are simply sockpuppets. It appears that this means that Agiantman acknowledges that the other anonymous editors are sockpuppets, which is a major part of my RfC against them. Robert McClenon 01:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I concur with the last sentence of the first paragraph.

If others think mediation would be a productive means of resolving this, I will agree to it, though I doubt it would be useful as AGM's problem is his overall behavior, not his interactions with just one or two users. I also think that this point anything short of Arbcom is pointless as it appears that AGM is a relentless Rex-type user who won't stop unless threatened with banning. I hope I am wrong about this but AGM isn't exactly in a rush to prove me wrong. He barely acknowledges that there is any sort of problem with his behavior. You write that he is "at least talking about being civil". My God, have we really set the bar so low here that this is considered an accomplishment? Civility is a basic component of adult behavior, not something to be cajoled out of a person after weeks of dispute resolution. Gamaliel 14:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)