Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NPOVenforcer

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: 12:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC).

Note: I have blocked NPOVenforcer indefinitely for an improper username. While this may be controversial, and I considered unblocking after noticing that the user's been around for over a week, the username can signal that this user has power to enforce NPOV, not to mention that the user has developed a "hit list" of users in only 8 days of contributions. If anyone feels like unblocking, feel free to do so, but please notify me on my talk page afterward so I can stay abreast of the situation. Ral315 (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(NPOVenforcer | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

The only dispute it a user has created a hit list. This is way more than unacceptable. This is taken as a threat to my person. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add more detail, the user in question has compiled a list of individual wikipedia editors whose behavior he believes to be undesirable. He lists them on his Userpage with a description of what he believes they have done wrong (in disagreeing with him on an article). Kit 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Description

Please see: 05:02, 8 November 2005 NPOVenforcer

Although NPOVenforcer in question claims to be a different person who is merely seeking to uphold NPOV, every user on this list is someone who has disagreed originally with anonymous editor 67.159.26.71 and subsequently found themselves in a editting dispute with NPOVenforcer. Although the supposed purpose of this list is to enforce NPOV, the actual use (along with accusations of libel and other uncivil behavior) is to enforce the POV of the opinions originally proposed by 67.159.26.71 and now by NPOVenforcer. Kit 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

05:02, 8 November 2005 NPOVenforcer's enemies list, on his user page
2005-10-30 14:59:58 addition by anonymous editor to polyamory
2005-11-07 23:10:42 Later request for comment by NPOVenforcer based on this edit. Both User:Jakob Huneycutt and User:Saxifrage are listed as violators of NPOV on NPOVenforcer's User page, and are involved in this dispute. User:Todfox is also listed, and is involved with this dispute as well as having disagreed with him on an RfC in Objectivist philosophy which leads to accusations of Wikistalking by NPOVenforcer as well as accusations of libel.
2005-11-07 23:10:42 the anonymous editor adds to Capitalism and related political ideologies
2005-11-07 21:54:22 and :#2005-11-07 22:14:05 from the subsequent edit war between NPOVenforcer and User:Mihnea Tudoreanu for which the latter is added to the enemy's list.
2005-10-26 16:50:21 from the dispute with User:Dominick, who is then added to the list on NPOVenforcer's page.

The term 'enemies list' is a libelous personal attack. The list serves to inform the innocent. NPOVenforcer 05:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

No Personal Attacks
Wikipedia:Civility
Wikipedia:No legal threats (wild accusations of libel)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Please read [1] as his reasoning why I merit inclusion. It is important only because I consider someone who would make such an unbalanced attack, as a threat to my person. Dominick ^(????) 13:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That libelous statement that I am threatening Dominick's person clearly indicates that Dominick is trying to threaten my person by putting me in prison for something that I did not do, all because I am trying to make wikipedia more NPOV. That is an EXTREME violation of the wikipedia policy and is, in itself, grounds for permanent banning, if not legal action, if framing is a crime. NPOVenforcer 05:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005-11-08 09:44:22 both User:Todfox and User:Saxifrage have politely attempted to get him to alter his behavior on his Talk: page by encouraging him to delete the list and go through normal dispute resolution channels.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

I haven't seen significant evidence of User:NPOVenforcer being in breach of wikipedia policy. More citations or DIFFs rather than "puff claims" or a dispute over whether "Google hits" is a reasonable source, please, if any? My other observation is that making a list of "bad" users (in his view) is not detrimental to wikipedia as such. Other editors are not fools. if he does so without cause, he will lose credibility and so will his list. if he does so and others tend to agree, then he will gain credibility and so will his list. There are other arguments for and against, but thats a big one leading me to say "dont make a big deal of it." FT2 06:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Harald88 14:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my agreement with the above, after reading the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Polyamory I do notice that NPOVenforcer didn't seem very concerned with the Wikipedia rule about reliable sources and didn't show to be reasonable either. Let's hope this person calms down and studies the rules before coming back. Harald88 19:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.

I have been listed on a hit list from this person. This is not acceptable. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 12:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]