That anyone would emphatically claim that I am an SPA shows the true absurdity of this entire exercise. I had hoped to keep the amount of time wasted responding to this this nuisance RfC to a minimum, particularly since it was launched for maximum retributive effect on the eve of Thanksgiving, but if it's necessary, I will post a more detailed reply at some point before the 30-day allotment expires or the RfC is closed. In the meantime, it's looking more and more like a witch hunt, supporting my previous assertions of WP:TAGTEAM and WP:HARASS. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 01:32, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Moved from RFC page by Andrew ( talk) 19:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Reply

In the interest of full disclosure, which Andrewman327 chose to ignore, he is in fact a member of WP Project Conservatism. [1] This speaks to exactly the type of POV pushing/collusion/TAGTEAM concern that I've been referring to. It can only assume that this is what motivated him to make the mind-numbingly inane accusation that I am SPA, as well as every single one of the other baseless assertions he made in his summary. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Keithbob and Andrewman327 both made the same absurd accusation about me being an SPA. I will ask you both to redact the accusation and apologize. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

As you know WP:SPA is only an essay. But its a fairly well-known, often used and widely accepted term on Wikipedia IMO. The essay defines an SPA as "editor whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles". I am aware that you have significant past experience editing other articles besides FVS. But from Oct 22nd and the present you have made approximately 400 edits with only about a dozen were not related to FVS whether it was talk pages, noticeboards or whatever. That said... being an SPA (for whatever period of time) is not in and of itself problematic. It only becomes a problem when there is corresponding behavior that causes disruption and that, I believe, is the case here. To be fair to you, I will clarify this point in my comment on the main page. Thanks,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Moved from RFC page by Andrew ( talk) 21:29, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Rhode Island Red is not an SPA, so claiming this is just a distraction. Let's focus on user conduct, so we can start to get along better :) Jeremy112233 ( talk) 00:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply

(MOVED from RfC page by Iselilja ( talk) 22:22, 9 December 2012 (UTC) ) reply

Reply

This could be the worst canard on this entire page – the misogyny angle. Bloody amazing! Can you all tell what gender the name “Iselilja” is? I certainly can’t; I can’t even pronounce it. By the same token can you tell the gender of an editor who goes by the name “Rhode Island Red”? Of course not, and I’ve never stated my gender because it’s nobody’s business – WP should be gender blind. If someone chooses the user name “Rosemary” can you assume that it’s a woman and not a guy who simply like herbs and spices (or enjoys editing in drag, so to speak)? How about “HTownCat”?

The fact is that the man-versus-woman misogyny angle that’s being played up here is beyond ridiculous. It’s black mark against anyone who would stoop to endorse it. I could just as easily accuse the witch-hunters here of discriminating against me based on my race, religion, and physical disabilities -- even though you have no way whatsoever of knowing what my race and religion are, or whether or not I have a disability.

The initial comment that I made was a response to Iselilja’s post on the talk page in which she made a statement that struck me as illogical and without basis in policy. When someone makes vaguely reasonable comments (i.e., with some form of valid rationale) then I don’t really give a second thought to the person’s editing history or issues like TAGTEAM. But when I see a driveby “me too” type comment lacking in substance, my suspicions are aroused, and when I did a quick check of this editor’s user pages, I found a feed of "Articles on Conservatism" and a link to Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia, listed among their "Articles of Interest". I felt that I had “valid concern” regarding agenda/biased editing as outlined in the policy that Iselilja quoted above. I had previously, on many occasions, raised concerns about WP Project Conservatism/conservative POV editors piling on to the article and how it was undermining neutrality, and those concerns were magnified by Iselilja’s comment. I clarified this in a cool and neutral manner on the talk page:

“Didn't mean to rough your feathers. My statement may not have been entirely accurate, perhaps, but it was not too far off the mark either. I just assumed you were actually a member of WPPC based on a quick glance at the feed of "Articles on Conservatism" on your user page and the link to Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia, listed among your "Articles of Interest". That in itself sufficient to support my concerns about getting input in a content dispute exclusively from a particular narrow band of the political spectrum. Having gotten that out of the way, I have no intention of belaboring the issue here. If I feel that we are not getting sufficiently neutral input on disputes, I'll look to resolve it elsewhere. As for the content dispute, I don't understand the logic of your assertion to censor the specific and well-defined term used by the sources and replace it with a more vague term, and clearly I'm not alone in that position.” [2]

The actual exchange we had wasn't at all hostile, and I explained my concerns very clearly, but like several of the other inquisitors here, Iselilja conspicuously avoided providing links or a diff edit for the example text she provided above. Should it be assumed that in every case these omissions were simple oversights, or is it really that these editors don’t want anyone to scrutinize the actual threads lest they not reach the desired damning conclusions? Rhode Island Red ( talk) 00:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The reason I didn´t present a diff was simply that I am not used to participating in RFCUs or similar discussions, and I wanted to keep things simple. The relevant diff is here: «Yet another comment from WP Project Conservatism editor. We already know what the WP Project Conservatism editors' POV is on the issue». This is pretty much the same as you later wrote in your RFCU reply (see project page): «Recently, other editors from the ‘conservative bloc’ have been piling on to influence the outcome of content discussions on the Talk page.» You didn´t present diff yourself regarding this on the RFCU – or named any names – but based on context I interpreted it as referring to me.

Which is why I felt the need to state very clearly that your accusation was wrong; partly to set things straight regarding myself, but also to avoid that others should unfairly be suspected of canvassing in my case (I would guess they didn´t even know my username when I made my comment to the FVS talk page)

I am not so happy that this RFCU was put up in the first place. At the time I made my reply in it I wasn´t quite aware what the concept was about. Now that I understand it a little bit better, I don´t think I particulary like it; except in more severe cases. But I also think you should be far more careful about making accusations against other users.

(My comment about incivility and women´s participation is clarified further down, where I have stated my regret for bringing up the issue) With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 23:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Re: Leef5

So let me see if have this straight Leef: you are saying, based on a now very stale confrontation from more than 6 months ago, that my cautioning you about your display of WP:OWN behavior somehow constituted ownership and bullying on my part? And you are further suggesting that this vanilla cautionary statement intimidated you so much that you became too terrified to ever edit WP again? I hope you take a moment to think about how ridiculous and baseless these accusations are. My view is that you are using this RfC as a convenient opportunity for retribution because we had a past editorial dispute; I got one of your buddies blocked (Icerat/aka Insider201283, who was POV pushing on Amway) [3] [4]; I weighed in for deletion of a WP:PROMO article that you created about another multi-level marketing company; [5] and raised issues about your WP:CLEANSTART and possible sock puppet issues on your user page. [6] With that in mind, I might be PO-ed at me too if I were you, but that still wouldn’t make me stoop so low as to jump into the abyss of this tag-team witch hunt RfC and make such hollow, desperate accusations about ownership.

Re: TraceyR

Conspicuously, Leef you failed to provide diff edits to back up your examples of alleged ownership and warnings about incivility (conveniently avoiding any scrutiny of your own actions that took place at that time on the article talk pages and DR boards); and yet somehow this oversight posed no obstacle for TraceyR to endorse your frivolous accusations. Are we to suppose that TraceyR went rummaging through hundreds of posts to confirm the accuracy of your statements, or is the reality of the situation that Tracey fired off a reflexive endorsement without verifying the veracity of your allegations because she also saw a convenient opportunity for retribution after her attempts at POV pushing on Juice Plus -- nearly TWO YEARS AGO -- were rebuffed by me and one of the admins, who repeatedly cautioned her while she was colluding with a Juice Plus distributor/ sock puppet that got permanently banned from WP. [7] [8] [9] [10] The admin investigating the case at the time has this to say about TraceyR's conduct:

"I also have a concern (and this is not the first time) that TraceyR is coaching people behind the scenes; she has also worked as a proxy for Julia Havey (who was responsible for most of the recent socks)...several people have tried to politely explain that you've got a bit of a blind spot and its affecting your judgement when it comes to things related to JuicePlus. Whatever the reason, you have very strong feelings about this article and it has affected your ability to edit and work with others in this context." [11]

"Tracey, you have developed a push towards the product. Please remember that Wikipedia isn't really the place for strong feelings or advocacy; if you're not able to remain neutral on a subject and "write for the enemy" because of feelings about the subject or other editors involved, its best to step back and take a break from the subject." [12]

"Tracey, I understand that you have a history with RIR and on the JuicePlus article. I'm concerned that this history is making it very difficult for you to be objective and civil in discussions on the article. You posted a link without doing much research on it; other editors called you on it when they noted that it not only sounds like advertising, its actually owned by the JuicePlus manufacturer. Lesson learned; beware of links provided by people who have a clear conflict of interest and do a bit more checking before you suggest something is notable and independent." [13]

But this comment to TraceyR from the admin sums it up best:

"Honestly, if after everything that's been pointed out to you, you still believe that this link and its material is appropriate for the article, I can see why you're running in to so many difficulties. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote anything - this is why Julia ran into problems with her editing and why this source is blatantly inappropriate…The fact that you presented this source as neutral, failed to disclose that Julia gave it to you and now continue to advocate its use makes me sincerely wonder about your credibility in regards to this particular topic. While Bhimaji and RIR may have been more blunt about things than you'd like, but they brought up some very valid points that call this expert into question -- while you may not like their opinions, there's no need to chalk it up to a negative POV and start discussing them instead of the article. Your behavior, once the link was called in to question looks more like someone desperate to save an issue once they've been found out rather than someone having a friendly discussion over content -- some of your complaints on the talk page don't even make sense. Even still, Bhimaji and RIR continued to civilly discuss the issue with you and avoided making things personal.

I have been very active in helping resolve issues on the article without pushing for either side and I have to say, with the little research I did, you're assertion that this was an independent expert couldn't have hit farther from the mark. This person has a history of being paid for endorsements and currently lets their name be used on faux research studies and commentary on a website owned by JuicePlus -- there's simply no way to spin that into independent no matter how much you might like that to be true.

I can clear up why RIR feels harassed. You brought up the link, discussion didn't go your way and you proceeded to stop discussing the content and start making things personal. That's not the way to handle disputes on Wikipedia and yet every time a discussion starts at JuicePlus, this is what happens. You presented this as an independent, reliable source - expect that people are going to double-check those kinds of statements. You appear to construe every comment made by RIR as "against JuicePlus" or pushing a "negative POV" and react badly even in cases where he's being perfectly reasonable.

At this point, its becoming a serious drain on resources since someone has to step in and referee every time an issue is brought to the talk page of JuicePlus. If you can't take a step back and deal with collaborating on the article objectively, it might be time to take a pass on it. You have many other areas you seem to contribute to positively - try focusing on those instead." [14]

Tracey, since you found the time to participate in this witch hunt, perhaps you'd also care to comment on chronically violating WP:COI. That's an issue that we can take to the admins today if you're prepared to address it in the appropriate forum.

Re: GeorgeLouis

And George, while we're at it, perhaps you'd care to comment on why you canvassed this hostile editor, who had no history of involvement on the Frank Vandersloot article on which your current dispute is based. [15] You'll soon get the chance to account for your other transgressions too, once I get around to preparing a detailed summary.

General Note

Bottom line here is that when one works objectively on any articles on multi-level marketing they can be prepared to meet with hostile resistance from the various companies' "independent distributors" who have COI's, POV push, and try to game the system. Over time, those aggrieved POV pushers become legion; some begin colluding with one another; and when they smell an opportunity for revenge (and a chance for unimpeded POV pushing in the future), they will pounce, as this cooked-up RfC so vividly illustrates.

Are you all prepared to take this to ArbCom for binding arbitration and a comprehensive review that will scrutinize your actions to the same degree that you are lopsidedly trying to scrutinize mine? I am 100% willing to do so; in fact I’m champing at the bit, so let’s go. It’s about time you all put some real skin in the game instead of sniping from the sidelines without consequence. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 23:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Congratulations on such a tour-de-force of (seriously misleading) cherry-picking. I'm not going to waste my time replying in detail to this trumped-up nonsense. -- TraceyR ( talk) 11:35, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Really? You had no qualms about wasting my time with your trumped up nonsense. My statement, in contrast with your knee-jerk retributive endorsement, is perfectly accurate. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Just take a few moments to check the first two paragraphs of this section (i.e. View by Leef5), since that is what I endorsed. You do not agree with them but I do. It is my right to express my opinion. Your attempt to discredit me for expressing my opinion (by an unwarranted broadside of contentious selective quotation) confirms the subject of this RfC - your incivility on Wikipedia. -- TraceyR ( talk) 20:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You are tacitly arguing that it's OK for you to WP:WIKIHOUND me and to weigh in on an RfC to which you were improperly solicited. I've provided you already with sufficient warning about wikihounding in the past [16] and you chose to ignore the warnings, so I have little choice but to alert WP admin about your violations of policy and ongoing harassment. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 16:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Of course I'm not arguing any such thing, nor am I wikihounding you (that's just laughable, as I responded to you when you first made the allegation). And are you really suggesting that any article which you happen to be editing should off limits to anyone you don't like? Again: Ho ho ho! Remember: this is an RfC about your incivility to other editors, which (from experience) I endorse. Lashing out at all and sundry just makes matters worse. For what it's worth: when you're in a hole, stop digging!-- TraceyR ( talk) 17:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You were canvassed into this witch-hunt RfC, have thrown gas on the fire, and wikistalked and harassed me. You've been warned on more than one occasion, and since you show no sign of backing off or even recognizing the situation for what it is, I will deal with it separately via WP admins. I take it seriously; you should too. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 23:43, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Get a life.-- TraceyR ( talk) 00:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Moved from RFC page by User:Leef5 ( talk) 13:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

This behaviour really cannot go unchallenged. I demand that the subject of this RfC either back up his repeated baseless accusations of wikihounding/wikistalking with facts or issue an unqualified apology. I have the impression that he thinks that if he continues to throw mud, then some will eventually stick. I made one (yes, ONE) edit to a website, which he deemed to be wikistalking (a symptom of ownership?); I endorsed one (yes, ONE) comment on this RfC, which he considers enough to justify a (baseless) accusation of wikihounding (a symptom of a persecution complex?). I stand by both the edit and the endorsement. Considering that this RfC is about his incivility, and considering also that another comment on this RfC refers to his wikilawyering, he does himself no favours. Is this an attempt to divert attention from the RfC into his conduct? I don't know what can be done to stop this unjustifiable behaviour. Perhaps he needs another 6-month (or longer) block to cool down. -- TraceyR ( talk) 22:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC) reply

As you wish. I will file a user conduct and COI report and we can take it from there. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 16:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Feel free - let's see what happens. I sincerely hope that you provide evidence to back up your allegations; I'm sure you don't wish to waste anyone's time here (apart from mine, but I have an interest in providing the facts).

As far as your vague reference to 'user conduct' is concerned (wikistalking? wikihounding?), I have saved you the effort of looking them up (I wish you luck with your COI windmill - don't blame me for the time you waste on that one):

1. re 'Wikistalking'

In a [17] single edit I changed "he is 'the state’s most boisterous conservative financier'" to "... he has been described as “the state’s most boisterous conservative financier" (one can tell that I was feeling very bold that day).

The [18] response by Rhode Island Red to the above edit was: "Given that we have a long history of conflict on Juice Plus, it is hard to view your recent text deletion [19] on Frank VanderSloot as anything but wikistalking (purposely steeping into a new conflict on a page that you have no history of involvement with). I suggest you recuse yourself from that project lest this become an administrative issue."

This is a fact. I leave it to the reader to form her/his own opinion. The whole thread, including the above (threatening) response, can be seen at [20]

2. re 'Wikihounding'

As a result of the above thread, GeorgeLouis became aware of the 'history' between me and Rhode Island Red and told me [21] about the current RfC (this is what Rhode Island Red refers to as 'canvassing').

The RfC view by Leef5 [22] summed up my own experience with Rhode Island Red so succinctly that I endorsed it.

In his response to this endorsement [23], Rhode Island Red asked: "Are we to suppose that TraceyR went rummaging through hundreds of posts to confirm the accuracy of your statements, or is the reality of the situation that Tracey fired off a reflexive endorsement without verifying the veracity of your allegations...". The answer to this is a simple "no" to both; I had no need, because the statements accurately described my own experience with Rhode Island Red on the Juice Plus article, which was, as he wrote, "nearly TWO YEARS AGO" (I haven't checked this - let's assume that this is accurate. The following are the points which mirror my own experience with Rhode Island Red's behaviour:

• RIR has demonstrated clear ownership and incivil behavior for a long time on Wikipedia. He has a very specific negative POV on multi-level marketing companies, their products, and the people associated with them. Over 90% of his edits are within this scope of articles and have been very questionable on good faith with regards to coming up with NPOV articles.

• I challenged his ownership on the USANA Health Sciences article, to which he and another member have worked together to wikilawyer the article to his point of view, skewing the article far away from a neutral stance.

• Due to his harrasing behavior, I stopped editing Wikipedia after spending a year trying to improve several articles that he maintains a tight ownership editorial control. I just can't keep up with the amount of time he spends editing and cherrypicking excerpts from policies that he feels justifies his behavior (wikilawyering at its best). I'd love to continue to contribute to the Wikipedia project, but RIR is a classic example of bad behavior mixed with lack of administrative action = he runs off other editors with his bullying."

The only difference is that I didn't stop editing Wikipedia; I just stopped editing the Juice Plus article, for the very reasons given by Leef5, my last contribution being in August 2011. This is a fact.

Since Rhode Island Red has mentioned "our long history" and reported, very selectively, on what one admin wrote, I would like to draw attention to Rhode Island Red: You are blocked (serious BLP violation), this in 2010. This section contains many statements by admins, especially about his behaviour, which are also relevant to this RfC.-- TraceyR ( talk) 22:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

December 2012

This Request for Comment (RFC) was filed on 21 November 2012, so it is now 18 days old. What should the next step be in this process and when should it be taken? Has there been a drop-off in RIR's alleged "Disruptive editing, incivillity, misuse of Edit Summaries, personal attacks, assuming bad faith, soapboxing"? Should this RFC be left open for further comment? And for more additions of evidence if there is any? Should this matter be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Should a block of RIR be requested, based upon his or her User Conduct? Is such Conduct a hindrance to the editing of this article? Are there other facts or ideas to be considered here before a next step is taken? GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Please consider rephrasing that. Asking if there has been a drop-off in RIR's alleged "disruptive editing" etc., is a classic loaded question. There is no consensus that RIR has demonstrated such a broad collection of bad behavior. Perhaps it's an overly subtle point, but that kind of thing serves no one's best interest. Grayfell ( talk) 00:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

George, as I already stated, I consider this action of yours to constitute harassment, and to make matters worse you've corrupted the process by violating WP:CANVASS. [24] Although your accusations have no merit, I've already tentatively agreed to your desired outcome (assuming all other editors agree as well) [25] and I've suggested taking this to ArbCom for binding resolution. [26] [27] You've ignored both. At this point, your continuance of the haranguing serves no purpose (unless your purpose is harassment). Rhode Island Red ( talk) 15:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

It wouldn't be unusual for this RFC to be open for six weeks, giving everybody a chance to comment and for the situation to change (one hopes). If RIR agrees to amend his ways, and sticks to his agreement, then we have no more User Problem. If he continues to be so terribly uncivil, then I believe the Next Step would be to bring in an Administrator from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. The last (pretty Draconian) step would be to go to Wikipedia:Arbitration. We have to remember that the object of this whole thing is not to punish anybody, but to improve the encyclopedia. We just have to wait and see how this phase turns out. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The page is already certified at User Conduct RfC, so that step has already been taken. I agree we need much more time to let this settle out; the primary objective should be to come to a mutual conclusion where everybody feels welcome to edit this page, regardless of their opinions, including of course Collect, Rhode Island Red, and GeorgeLouis. Jeremy112233 ( talk) 00:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC) reply

RIR has calmed down somewhat on the article's Talk Page. There are plenty of Content Issues there, but that's a separate matter. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 15:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I think the RfC should remain open for its full term. The majority of those who have commented so far have expressed concern over a pattern of disruptive behavior from RIR. If this RfC serves as a stimulus for improved behavior, that is great and that is the intended and stated purpose of the RfC. However if the disruptive behavior continues or returns then I think a trip to ANI is in order and this RfC (and the prior one) will serve as a foundation for that future action should it be needed. For myself, I have not seen any signs here on this RfC of improved behavior by RIR but I am encouraged to hear from others that there seems to be some improvement on other pages and I hope for everyone's sake that it continues. Best wishes to all concerned. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

That comment further demonstrates why this pointless exercise is nothing more than a witch-hunt. Had you actually looked at my edit history over the past few weeks, you'd have seen that I haven't edited the article at all and have only provided a few comments on the talk page -- all of which were inarguably civil. For you to suggest otherwise shows that you are not approaching the matter objectively. The RfC is not a stimulus modifying my behavior; I am acting on the suggestion of Ed, one of the admins who made a reasonable suggestion that George and I should both disengage for a while (George ignored the suggestion and went ahead and edited the article anyway). I am merely biding time before filing a comprehensive complaint with WP admins regarding the conduct of several editors on the VS article. The most significant problems here have nothing to do with civility but rather POV pushing and tendentious editing on the VS article, and chronic harassment/canvassing violations. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 16:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I've been reading the article's talk page, and the word "somewhat" in GeorgeLouis's comments above strikes me as, er, somewhat disingenuous. As for the comments from RIR that are cited as reasons to drag him or her here, I see them as fairly robust, nothing more. Discourse on the talk pages can get aggressive at times—it's a fact of wikilife—and the aggression takes many different forms including, most insidiously, that of the outwardly civil. For example, as someone commented at another RfC which has nothing to do with this one, "[t]he worst nastiness in Wikipedia is pursued while being "wp:civil" and is in fact conducted via mis-using (rather then violating) the letter of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and mechanisms." By comparison, RIR's posts are refreshingly honest and straightforward. And that I can respect. Time to drop this RFC and move on. Writegeist ( talk) 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Your joke of a 'view' made your opinion of the RFC clear from the start. Glad you are just now getting around to reading the talk page though. Kudos! Arkon ( talk) 19:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid the sneering pleasure at the idea that I'm "just now getting around to reading" the talk page is misplaced. I had the VS pages watchlisted long before the RfC. My post referred to reading the last few days' comments with GeorgeLouis's grudging opinion in mind. Writegeist ( talk) 20:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Ah, yes: "The Grudge Report." GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

@Arkon: Apologies accepted despite their deletion; and the character of yr. subsequent comment was hardly surprising given the tenor of the VS talk page and the RfC witch hunt. Writegeist ( talk) 21:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Just out of curiosity, I'm not entirely sure why the RfC has been labelled by you as a witch hunt. Just interested in your rationale--not questioning your point, just would like a bit more insight into your opinion :) Jeremy112233 ( talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Replied at your talk. Writegeist ( talk) 18:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC) reply

January 2013

Rhode Island Red's comments on the Frank L. VanderSloot article were, it seemed to me, becoming very much less disruptive than they were before this complaint was filed, and so I removed it from the active list. Unfortunately, within a week or so of my doing so, Red once again began to display his old vituperativeness, and so I returned this complaint to the active fold and added an instance of his attacks against an unassuming almost-newbie, User:Instayl, who previous to his action on the VanderSloot article, had exactly two previous edits made in Wikipedia—a newcomer by anybody's standards and one who should have been welcomed instead of bitten. RIR also continued his lack of assuming good faith in an attack against User:Andrewman327. I added both instances of his obstreperousness to the RFC page here and here. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I've brought up several issues in response to accusations made by the witch-hunters, and these have been completely ignored by the parties in question, raising serious questions about the validity of this entire process. Specifically, I am referring to KeithBob's baseless accusations about gender discrimination, Andrewman327's affiliation with WP Project Conservatism, TraceyR's wikihounding, and GeorgeLouis's repeated instances of canvassing violations (for this RfC included) and failure to respect his own self-imposed editing moratorium. These are just a few examples that serve to illustrate the ridiculousness of this RfC . It is not a good faith discussion; it is a one-sided witch hunt and a clear attempt at harassment and intimidation. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 00:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I am sorry I haven´t replied and that this has bothered you. I will come back to you with a reply (above), only I am not totally well for the moment, so it might take a little while. With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 18:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Not really necessary, so rest up and feel better. You already stated that you felt persecuted. I wrote a rebuttal but I specifically directed my followup to KeithBob because he made an indefensible and very vocal endorsement of a baseless accusation. After I pointed that out, the onus is on him to reply, not you. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 21:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear RIR, I have already responded to your concerns about you being a single purpose account since Oct 22, 2012 [28] and I have clarified that point on the project page. [29] Now you say: "Specifically, I am referring to KeithBob's baseless accusations about gender discrimination". Please provide a diff showing my alleged "accusations about gender discrimination" and then I'd be happy to respond. Happy holidays.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

You endorsed the comment alleging, essentially, that I was discriminating against a female editor -- which was ridiculous -- and you elaborated that you found it "particularly troubling". [30] You accused me of chasing you away -- also completely untrue -- and you accused me of being an SPA. That's 0 for 3 on your contributions to the witch hunt so far. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I asked for a diff not for a link to a section of the RfC page. The reason you have not provided a diff is because I never made any "accusations about gender discrimination" and you have been spreading mis-information. And yes I do find your mis-represention of this RfC, your attacks on its participants and your disruptive battleground behavior to be "particularly troubling". -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not here to convince you of your own transgressions Keith; I am here to make a compelling case to the WP community in defense against your hasty ill-founded accusations. You were hasty in calling me an SPA when I'm clearly not; you were hasty in suggesting that I chased you away when I clearly didn't; you were hasty in vocally endorsing Iselija's comment about misogynistic intimidation, which now even she has walked back on. Your comments make it clear why this is a pointless slap-dash time-wasting witch-hunt. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 00:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I´ll give part of my reply here: I am sorry for the remark I made about the relationship between incivility and women´s participation on Wikipedia. This has obviously hurt feelings and been more disruptive than constructive for the debate. I never intended to accuse Rhode Island Red or any other user on Wikipedia of misogyny or gender discrimination because that´s not the problem I see. Rather, I wanted to state my opinion that women – very generally speaking – are more likely than men to stay away from web forums that has an uncivil/”robust” tone. I believe this mechanism may also apply to Wikipedia, but it doesn´t mean I believe male contributors here actually want women to stay away or are more uncivil towards women than towards men. This is a general thought I have about the problem with incivility on Wikipedia, but it didn´t have anything in particular to do with Rhode Island Red and their remark/accusation directed to me, so I should not have brought it up in this setting. (Thanks for your kind reply Rhode Island Red, but it appears that at least this issue needed to be addressed). With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC) reply

That's totally reasonable and I appreciate you clarifying your position and apologizing. I respect your right to express your opinion. I was offended most by the rather bloodthirsty endorsements made by the inquisitors. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 00:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC) reply

I am not comfortable though seeing my apology used as “evidence” in attacks against other users, like you did in your reply to KeithBob. I am the one responsible for what I wrote: «I believe that the aggressive and negative tone that is far too common at Wikipedia is one of the factors that keep many women away from this place.» You understood this as an accusation of gender discrimination/misogyny and I have apologized for the disturbance caused by my statement. But those who endorsed me may have understood me more in line with what I really meant (as explained above). Or they may not have paid much attention to that particular line, at all. So, my apology is not an endorsement of your view that you were attacked of gender discrimination, but a regret that I brought up the women´s issue at all, which was kind of off topic and led to misunderstandings. – And with this, I am out of this discussion. With regards, and hope of a continued blessed Christmas and happy new year to all participants here, Iselilja ( talk) 23:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Your input is appreciated and for the most part I agree with your overall take on the situation – i.e., that this is a content issue masquerading as a user conduct attack (hiding behind accusations of incivility). However, a couple of statements were not entirely accurate. I have not favored “liberal sources” over conservative ones such as FOX. In fact, it was I who cited FOX in the article; I included the FOX citation along with other middle of the road source to offer a balanced sampling across the political reporting spectrum. The sources that I objected to vehemently as being inappropriate were, for example, the Heritage Foundation video featuring a lengthy Grover Norquist tax lecture (and slurs against political opponents), which George Louis added (and edit-warred over) to support a point about Vandersloot’s early days working on his parents’ farm. The community provided input and it was deemed that the use of this biased source was blatantly inappropriate. [31] Not one of the plethora of sources that I have added to the article have been deemed to be inappropriate on the basis of political POV.

Secondly, I dispute the suggestion that George Louis has not been canvassing. Not only did he inappropriately canvass editors in the current dispute; [32] [33] [34] [35] he also did so previously with regard to a content dispute. [36] [37] [38] [39] He was warned about WP:CANVASS and yet has persisted in using this tactic – which is a blockable offense according to WP policy. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC) reply

If I was incorrect on any points regarding sources, then that would be because it is nearly impossible for one to look back through the entire history of this dispute, although I feel it is better to simply avoid editorial sources (from either side) in favor of neutral sources (especially if those neutral ones discuss a view given by an editorial source in a neutral manner). However, all the supposed canvassing that GeorgeLouis has done is in a neutral manner to related editors; I see nothing wrong in that, although I do not know at what level this is considered "spamming". RedSoxFan2434 ( talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The complaint on the Project Page was deliberately written to AVOID content issues. In fact, as I stated above, "RIR has calmed down somewhat on the article's Talk Page. There are plenty of Content Issues there, but that's a separate matter." Interested editors can read the charges against RIR on the Project Page, examine what he said to or about other editors, and get the feeling for how the atmosphere on the Frank L. VanderSloot article suffered as a result. The content issues have been and are being handled on the article's Talk Page, where editors are still trying to reach consensus on some trying topics. Mostly, civility reigns, even though everybody continues to hold strong opinions on this WP;BLP and on the person whom the article is about. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 00:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

And that is precisely the problem. This is a comprehensive editorial/POV issue which George et al. have camouflaged as a civility issue. The article suffers from George's incessant POV pushing, whitewashing, and overall tendentious editing and talk page comments. He's gone right back to edit warring and deleting perfectly reasonable content from the article because he simply does not like it. [40] [41] [42] As Nomo indicated just today, George shows disregard for the consensus building process, ignores talk page comments, and does whatever the heck he feels like doing -- policy and commonsense be damned. [43] Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

RedSoxFan -- I totally understand why it's difficult to track all the history -- the Talk page has been buried with with GLs diatribes. Regarding the second point, there have been several instances where GL has solicited editors to comment who had nothing to do with the Vandersloot article. In one case it was petitioning for support from uninvolved members of WP:Project Conservatism, and in a couple of other instances it was purposely seeking out and contacting editors/dormant SPAs who I had previous run-ins with many years ago (and therefore likely to be adversarial and supportive of George's witch-hunt). It's something that we can take up in more detail if this moves up the DR chain. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 17:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I in no way meant to imply that GeorgeLouis' comments are the reason that it is nearly impossible to track the entire history of this dispute. It is simply because this dispute has been going on for so long and includes so many changes and comments by both sides (rather right or wrong to be made). RedSoxFan2434 ( talk) 01:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

George updated his witchhunt accusations today with a new one – that I bit the head of a newcomer. [44] This accusation is ridiculous and warrants a more detailed examination. George had been arguing for removal of the term multi-level marketing from the article. He had just finished violating 3RR [45] and then claimed that he was taking a weeklong wikibreak (which he ended up rescinding after only 4 days). [46] [47] Curiously, a new WP:SPA showed up right after George announced his wikibreak and began edit warring over the exact same content that George Louis had been arguing over. [48] [49] While this is strongly suggestive of sockpuppetry, I simply reverted the SPAs edits twice and left a completely neutral standard template warning, [50] which was warranted because the SPAs edits were disruptive and ignored the discussion that was taking place on the Talk page (George's response to the disruptive editing, however, was to shower the SPA with Wikilove [51]) For George to cite this as an example of biting the head off a newcomer is disingenuous to the extreme. It provides yet more insight into the gaming of the system that’s been taking place on the Vandersloot article. Rhode Island Red ( talk) 16:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply