Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone

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, not different disputes. 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: 12:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

Trey Stone a.k.a. J. Parker Stone repeatedly engages in revert wars while failing to cite his sources. He is exceedingly argumentative on Talk pages, but fails to back up assertions with solid scholarship. He is rude and condescending to other editors that do not share his particular and readily apparent political leanings. He has been blocked at least eight times for breaking the 3RR rule, seven times since this RfC was opened; on 10 May 2005, for three 3RR violations and on 13 May, 2005, for two 3RR violations, on 15 May, 2005, for one 3RR violation, and again on 18 May, 2005, May 21, 2005, June 26, 2005, and July 15, 2005 for one violation.

Description

[edit]

User Trey Stone has been contributing to Wikipedia since July 2004. He appears to be waging a single-handed crusade to purify Wikipedia of what he considers "leftist" POV. He engages in revert wars, insults fellow editors who don't share his views, and indulges in endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over Henry Kissinger. He had inflammatory remarks remarks on his user page directed at several other users until he was compelled by other users (after the inevitable revert war) to remove them. By failing to back up his arguments and counterarguments on talk pages with meaningful citations, he wilfully conflates his own opinions and beliefs with fact, thereby contravening the "no original research" rule. Having failed to convince with his arguments on the talk page, he is pursing a nearly continual revert war over the Kissinger article, having repeatedly reverted to his desired version of the article some twenty-five times over the past six weeks, in opposition to at least half a dozen other editors. Trey Stone appears incapable of collaboration and negotiation to achieve NPOV in articles.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

24-hour 3RR blocks

[edit]

1. Henry Kissinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

To circumvent the 24-hour block, Trey created and employed three sockpuppets:

Blocked for two weeks by ClockworkSoul 15:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)]. After private discussion by email with Tony Sidaway, who offered to serve as a mentor to him and advised him to read up on Wikipedia policy, Sidaway reduced the block to three days. Trey Stone wrote on Sidaway's talk page: "I've read the wikirules and agree to abide by them." 04:28 UTC, 25 Mar 2005

Relevant discussions have been archived at

2. Death squad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

  • 1st revert: [1] 23:52, 9 May 2005
  • 2nd revert: [2] 01:03, 10 May 2005
  • 3rd revert: [3] 22:30, 10 May 2005
  • 4th revert: [4] 23:25, 10 May 2005
  • 5th revert: [5] 23:33, 10 May 2005
  • (5th revert diff is actually: diff — Davenbelle 00:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC))

3. Allan Nairn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

  • 1st revert: [6] 23:54, 9 May 2005
  • 2nd revert: [7] 00:57, 10 May 2005
  • 3rd revert: [8] 22:37, 10 May 2005
  • 4th revert: [9] 23:25, 10 May 2005
  • (4th revert diff is actually: diff — Davenbelle 00:26, May 11, 2005 (UTC))

Reported by: Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4. Isle of Youth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by: NoPuzzleStranger 23:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours.
James F. (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

5. Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by: Viajero 20:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Here are clearer diffs: [10] [11] [12] [13]

— Davenbelle 20:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

6. Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by: Mark1 07:48, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I can only find 4 reverts. no matter blocked for 24 hoursGeni 08:06, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

7. Contras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Also a partial revert at: 05:41, 15 May 2005

Reported by: Viajero 12:35, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

8. Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by: Mark1 07:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • With minor variations, the version reverted to is [14]. Mark1 07:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 4th revert indicates that Trey has the incorrect belief that the 3RR only applies to identical reverts. In fact, it applies to reverts to the same article, whether they are reverts of the same or of different material. Firebug 07:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's worse then just a 3RR, I asked everyone (in a new subsection) to keep my minor fixes, making sure the first footnote was 1 and not 5, and other purely technical fixes, TDC ignored that in his revert. I respond with: PLEASE READ THE EDIT SUMMARY tdc, and Trey Stone in his next edit summary tell me to watch the language (how else can I get attention in such an edit war), and after that proceeds to revert, ignoring all my minor fixes. I point this out to him, and he fixes some of them, but the first footnote remains 5 and not 1 with his last revert (of WebLuis, who also ignored my pleas). Never would I have imagined that fixing a footnote would prove such an insurmoutable feat. El_C 08:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 24 hours. Although there are minor differences, he reverted to communist state from socialist state four times. No need for a warning in this case as he's been blocked for 3RR three times in the last eight days. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:29, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

9. Amy Goodman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by: Davenbelle 10:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Comments:


10. Fidel Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by: Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Now, I'd like to clarify this report. These are not four reverts in 24 hours. These are four reverts in a hair under 25 hours. I see no reason to fetishize the 24 hour aspect–Trey Stone is clearly revert-warring and that sort of behavior shouldn't be tolerated. (Note that the 3rd revert is still a revert even though there's a one-word difference. The rest is the same.) Before another administrator blocks, I'll note that 172 is already blocked for a violation of the 3RR (which I disagree with, but I appear to be in a minority of one on the matter). If Stone is blocked (and it would hardly be the first time for him), then it will be 24 hours before we can start resolving the dispute on Fidel Castro. The article is protected, and will remain so until the dispute is resolved, as the parties involved have demonstrated that they can't handle having the page unprotected. I really wonder if blocking does any good at all in this situation. Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone shows a pretty clear history of breaking and gameing the rule.Geni 13:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
blocked until 08:26, 27 Jun 2005. Geni 14:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have discussed this block with Geni and already informed that I would not have made the fourth edit if it was going to be interpreted as "gaming" the rule. J. Parker Stone 28 June 2005 03:31 (UTC)

11. Ronald Reagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

Reported by: Ruy Lopez 06:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Some background on this user - he is in arbitration currently - [15]. Three arbitrators have proposed a temporary ban on him to edit any political articles while the outcome of the arbitration is settled (four are necessary for this temporary ban to take effect). Regarding remedies, four arbitrators have voted for a one year ban of Trey Stone editing political articles. I should also note that Trey Stone has been been blocked eight times[16] since going into arbitration on May 12th, for such things as violating 3RR, one of the reasons three of the four needed arbitrators have voted for a temporary ban so far. Another source of Trey Stone's misbehavior is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone. Anyhow, in this particular case, Trey Stone removed this sentence from the Ronald Reagan article four times in the space of two hours: "When the kidnappers of Patty Hearst demanded the distribution of food to the poor, Reagan suggested it would be a good time for an outbreak of botulism." I and User:NoPuzzleStranger restored the sentence, but he kept deleting it. Anyhow, he violate the 3RR rule, this being the fourth or fifth time he's done so since going into arbitration (which he's been blocked four or five times since going into arbitration for doing - he's been blocked three or so times since going into arbitration for other reasons). Ruy Lopez 06:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As any admin can see, the 4th "revert" is an overhaul of the first part of the domestic policy section that included the removal of the Patty Hearst deal, not a revert back to a previous version. J. Parker Stone 06:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize, what I said is incorrect. What is correct is that the 1st edit was the initial removal, not a revert; the 3rd edit was a removal of the sentence in the middle of my edits overhauling the article, not a revert back to a previous version; and the 4th revert includes slight changes in text. So we have, at best, 2 reverts here. J. Parker Stone 07:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Block log
[edit]

No original research

[edit]

From Talk:Allan Nairn:

"First off, I skimmed a TWT article originally by Nairn, and in Guatemala he seems to have been referencing the Guatemalan business elite. You provided a quote where he claims American businessmen supported the death squads, but if this is true, surely as a superb "investigative journalist" he can give us a quote from one such executive.
Secondly, his evidence surrounding U.S. "support" of Constant is not conclusive, and contradictory to the Clinton admin. policy of restoring Aristide to power. This needs to be noted. J. Parker Stone 21:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)"diff[reply]
"Yet again you're offering original research. You might think that an action, event, or state of affairs conflicts with a certain politician's or government's stated policy, but that's not sufficient reason reason for excluding it from the article. You need to provide evidence for your views, not assumptions and appeals to what seems to you to make sense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)"diff[reply]

Other examples in article edits:

  1. Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti: Revision as of 03:39, 25 Apr 2005 Trey Stone (talk · contribs) "i think i've successfully NPOVerized this"
  2. Amy Goodman: Revision as of 03:44, 26 Apr 2005 Trey Stone (talk · contribs) (no edit summary)

See also this thread: Talk:Fidel Castro#Trey Stone, POV, and personal attacks

Inflammatory language and personal attacks on his user page

[edit]
  1. 01:19, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    "There is a certain user 172 who attempts to provide a leftist and anti-U.S. sympathizing slant to all wikipedian articles under the guise of "historical complexities" while slandering all who disagree with him as brainwashed right-wingers, whining about imagined personal attacks, and having a kneejerk reaction to even minor edits of his flawed work. I urge you to revert any biased edits from him, lest young minds get corrupted by his abuse of the public encyclopedia. Thanks much. I'm Trey Stone, and I approve this message."
    deleted as slander by Ta bu shi da yu and quickly restored by Trey Stone. Two months later adds: "Thankfully, that asshole is gone now. Perhaps he'll make something of himself, or perhaps he'll continue being a crappy professor at some obscure college no one gives two shits about." This quickly removed as a personal attack by Oven Fresh. Three reverts each later Trey Stone 'backs-off' to the following version:
  2. 06:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    "Hi, my name is Trey Stone and I will be attending college at USD. I'm a center-right Republican who is economically conservative and socially moderately conservative. I dislike Marxist apologists and will revert their work on sight, especially if their name happens to be WebLuis or the infamous (now gone) Russkom 172. dat be all da info ya need bitches"
  3. (in an email sent to me (BrokenSegue) from Trey Stone)
    "please unblock me for fuck's sake. and maybe next time don't be such a fucking stickler about reverts intended to restore a shred of fucking respectability to this sorry project."

Incivility in edit summaries

[edit]
  1. Collectivisation in the USSR — 06:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC):
    "removing bullshit"
  2. Collectivisation in the USSR — 06:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC):
    "yeah real clever you SOB"
  3. Collectivisation in the USSR — 06:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC):
    "what the fuck?'
  4. Fidel Castro — 06:56, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC):
    "some jackass butchered my fine work"
  5. Death squad — 09:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC):
    "get better sources. wikipedia isn't the place to dump this transparently biased shit."
  6. Death squad — 09:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC):
    "what the ****? this makes absolutely no sense. clinton RESTORED Aristide to power, jackass."
  7. Fidel Castro — 02:49, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC):
    "take your own advice, jackass"
  8. Fidel Castro — 04:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC):
    "well aren't you a scholar of useless knowledge"
  9. Fidel Castro — 06:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC):
    "i am not going to have someone butcher a section that I created"
  10. Juan Bosch — 06:42, 9 May 2005 (UTC):
    "removing seaping leftist BS"
  11. Fidel Castro — 08:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC):
    "for the last goddamn time, those groups are Marxist. i'm not gonna have a buncha Castro sycophants whitewash that basic truth"
  12. Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haiti — 20:58, 12 May 2005 (UTC):
    "goddammit, stop removing the context."

Incivility on Talk pages

[edit]
  1. Talk:JEM Management Corp. 04:08, April 24, 2005 (UTC): "Joseph Desmond's my great uncle. Top that punks." (presumably addressed to Users Rhobite and SqueakBox who had just removed diff diff this assertion from the JEM Management Corp. article as vanity).
  2. Wikipedia:Requests for page protection — 07:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC): "I have fucking explained myself again and again, but you kids can't fucking compromise on anything less than anti-American tinged POV."
  3. Talk:Fidel_Castro — 07:32, 18 May 2005: " an obnoxious knowitall kid leftist, to be sure."

POV pushing

[edit]
  1. User talk:Trey Stone — 03:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC) — re his engaging in personal attacks:
    "Well I appreciate your sympathy. If you ever have the spare time, feel free to help me in this anti-Castrosanitization campaign."

Vandalizing pages

[edit]

1. Adolf Hitler — diff (as User:64.7.89.54, see also: User talk:64.7.89.54)

"leader (we can't call him a dictator now kids, some rabid neo-Nazis might get offended)"

2. User:Sesel — diff (replacing photo of user with one of Mao)

Sockpuppets

[edit]
Trey Stone and his Sockpuppets
UserID talk, contrib first edit blocked
64.7.89.54 talk, contribs 04:15, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC) autoblocks
Trey Stone talk, contribs 05:51, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC) frequently
Chomskoid talk, contribs 08:20, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) 15:31, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
De-Chomskidize talk, contribs 18:34, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC) 04:45, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
The Negotiator talk, contribs 05:03, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC) 05:57, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
Delita Hyral talk, contribs 06:20, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC) 14:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
source
The Return of Trey talk, contribs 07:15, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) tbd
Mr. Stone talk, contribs 22:08, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) tbd
This is Trey talk, contribs 07:03, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) tbd
Shreem Fried Rice talk, contribs 02:24, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC) tbd
Master Sockpuppet talk, contribs 03:57, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC) tbd
Raghead-in-Chief talk, contribs 10:12, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC) tbd
Neo-Comm talk, contribs 00:38, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC) tbd
Supreme Moolah of Iran talk, contribs 08:47, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC) tbd
EDR talk, contribs 06:22, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) 16:56, Dec 18, 2004
Prole talk, contribs 06:09, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC) tbd
non User talk, contribs none tbd
Gdit talk, contribs none 05:08, Dec 25, 2004
source (Ambi's archives!)
The User talk, contribs 06:37, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) tbd
suspected
Schizomatic talk, contribs 06:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) tbd
Gamal Abdul Nasser talk, contribs 06:50, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) tbd
per 172
271 talk, contribs 03:03, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) 16:12, Dec 17, 2004
Number one, I am not Kapil. Number two, all these things you're posting occurred about a half-year ago, and the accounts were banned. J. Parker Stone 03:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would second that Kapil is clearly not Trey, who lives in California whereas Kapil is clearly from Bogota, Colombia, SqueakBox 01:59, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

See Talk:Cuba#Big_revert. Possible sockpuppeting? Just a guess, but Trey Stone has been acive on the Cuba page before and this seems to carry his signature. Also a (as yet minor) incident on Talk:Isle_of_Youth#Spanish_or_English_title.3F.

i am not said IP addresses, and i can't remember the last time i editted the Cuba page. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 10:23 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

[edit]

On 15 Dec 2004, Trey Stone staged an edit war with one of his sockpuppets, Chomskoid, and presumably a second, Schizomatic (note irony), over Collectivisation in the USSR (history). Between 06:02 and 06:36 (times UTC), there were some two dozen reverts between the three accounts. Everyking protected the page at 06:39. Although the point of the exercise is not explicit, Trey Stone presumably wanted to project the image of a vandal fighter.

good theory but it was more like...no reason. i did some major vandal crap in late '04 that i have refrained from since. J. Parker Stone 9 July 2005 10:43 (UTC)

From the page history: (UTC)

06:02, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (removing shrill Communist propaganda)
06:17, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid  —  "Goddamn these are some fine collectives. Everyone work together like pals!"
06:18, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (let it be known that i will shoot any vandal in sight. like a kulak.)
06:19, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid (restoring objective material)
06:19, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (removing bullshit)
06:20, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid  —  "Join up, suckers."
06:21, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (yeah real clever you SOB)
06:22, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid (reverting Marxite apologia)  —  "Let's go kill us some Ukrainians."
06:23, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (restoring FACTUAL DATA.)
06:24, 15 Dec 2004   Schizomatic (????)  —  blanks page to:  "Look, all you need to know is it sucked ass. Goddamn landgrubbing peasants."
06:25, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (what the fuck?)
06:26, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid ("The day will come when Fascism will triumph over Communism." -Winston Churchill.)
06:27, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (request page protection)
06:28, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid  —  "In the Soviet Union, collectivisation refers to totalitarian death brigades instituted by Stalin during the Second World War."
06:28, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (rv)
06:30, 15 Dec 2004   Schizomatic  —  blanks page to:  "The process of collecting old pennies. It is common amongst children."
06:30, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (argh)
06:32, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid (actual quote by Lenin)  —  "Rich people? Fuck 'em, shoot 'em, and take their property. Motherfuckin exploiters."
06:32, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone
06:34, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid  —  "Exchange your individual soul for a piece of land here."
06:34, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone
06:36, 15 Dec 2004   Chomskoid  —  "10 million starved ain't half bad."
06:36, 15 Dec 2004   Trey Stone (restoring consensus)
06:39, 15 Dec 2004   Everyking (temporary protection due to vandalism)

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Cite your sources
  3. Wikipedia:No original research
  4. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  5. Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule
  6. Wikipedia:Sock puppet
  7. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Viajero asks Trey Stone to cite his sources and Trey Stone's response. "shaddap"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Viajero 12:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Firebug 14:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Davenbelle 17:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
        nb: with Viajero's blessing I will be participating in the updating of this page. — 02:54, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  3. WebLuis 01:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ruy Lopez 02:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Hello there, Ruy. Strange to be in the same column for once.[reply]
  6. ClockworkSoul 16:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RadicalSubversiv E 16:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Comandante 22:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  9. NoPuzzleStranger 02:16, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Meursault2004 21:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Pavel Vozenilek 23:23, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Should have been hard-banned many months ago. 172 07:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  13. — Chameleon 16:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC) I'm amazed at our tolerance so far.

Response

[edit]

i'd just like to address certain points as this is apparently a big deal in the ArbCom case:

first off, the sockpuppet thing. the sockpuppet/vandal deal took place in December '04. i was punished for it and all socks were blocked indefinitely. i don't see how this is relevant to the Arb case, despite the fact that some Arbs have mentioned it, because the evidence presented on both sides does not mention it at all (with the exception of Viajero's link.) anyhow, i have refrained from the kind of blatant vandalism and sockpuppetry that i did back then, and i apologize for it.

second, 3RR. i admit i knowingly went over at times (i had some very long RV wars with 172 in '04 and i didn't even know that rule existed at first -- and then didn't know it was treated so seriously by some users.) but if you look at some of the later ones, they are less blatant -- some were mistakes based on my own reading of my timestamps, some are varying edits in an attempt to compromise. anyhow i have generally stopped the 3RR business, but i think some of my initial misunderstandings should be taken into consideration.

third, original research. this relates entirely to the FRAPH-related articles. Viajero and me reached a compromise on the FRAPH article itself. i acknowledge some of my added comments on the Nairn article (and a couple others) were original conclusions, and i have refrained from making such edits since.

lastly, general abrasiveness -- not much to say on this one, other than that the user page was changed a long while back, i got warned for it, etc. some of the stuff a few months ago that was cited in this RfC were clear insults, others, cussing and non-genteel language that i'd view as borderline. like the other stuff i think there's been a general improvement here.

i'd also like to add that Davenbelle, WebLuis (doesn't seem to be active anymore,) Ruy Lopez, Radicalsubversiv, Comandante (also doesn't seem to be active,) NoPuzzleStranger, 172, and Chameleon have been involved with editting disputes with me at one time or another and would have definite ideological reasons for wanting me banned in addition to any relevant policy. of course does not negate their comments, it is just something i think should be taken into account. J. Parker Stone 23:59, 9 July 2005 (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.

Around late March, Tony Sidaway got Trey to read some policy and say he'd done so, in exchange for releasing a long block imposed for his earlier misbehavior. Most of the really bad personal attacks and whatnot come from before that date. Trey has not been that badly behaved, on this evidence, during April and May, although his activities continue to be problematic and he is continuing to show unwillingness to submit to the normal rules of editing on Wikipedia. He needs to pull his socks up if he is to stay out of trouble.

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

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SqueakBox 18:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I got to know Trey when Roberto D'Aubuisson got locked after he and another user were in an edit war, and have kept an eye on him since. The only edit of his I have reverted was putting himself in his great uncle's article. I am unimpressed with the evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. I don't consider the example to be any type of mediation attempt. Has mediation been asked for? If not my advice would be to go for mediation at this point. Nor am I convinced that he is POV pushing. Having had some strong disputes myself with various users POVing invariably right wing, pro-American sentiments (which are not mine) I haven't found a problem with Trey's alleged POV when we have coincided on Latin American articles. If there were a Castronisation going on in wikipedia obviously it would have to be removed or reedited like any POV. If Trey really believes there is a Chomskyisation going on here he is entitled to his opinion, and to try to make the articles more NPOV as he sees it, sourcing, etc. I don't believe his political views should be used against him in this way. Yes, he gets involved in edit wars, but always with other users who look to me to be equally responsible for the edit warring. I certainly don't want to comment on whose POV may be more NPOV, just I don't think the whole POV issue should be the basis for an RFC in this case. I see no evidence of vandalism has been offered. Can we have some diffs? I agree he has been rude, and attacking of other users. I would urge Trey to use this page to apologise, and to try to be more collaborative and friendly with those editors with whom he is in dispute. But I don't think the rudeness of itself is any reason to take action right now,

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

  1. SqueakBox 18:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
  2. TDC 15:43, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

SqueakBox wrote above: I don't think the whole POV issue should be the basis for an RFC in this case.
Trey Stone's politics are most decidedly not the issue; it is his behaviour and lack collaborative spirit which are the point of this RfC. -- Viajero 20:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which seems to need a serious mediation attempt before an Rfc (I think). There clearly is some kind of political dispute going on, and as I haven't got involved in edit wars with Trey I am left wondering what this dispute is really all about? Mediation could help resolve that conflict, whereas I fear this Rfc won't (based on Trey's response), --SqueakBox 21:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
I'm uninterested in the political differences (I despise all politicians heartily if not equally). I'm only concerned that this User regularly changes articles by adding or removing material based on original research and speculation, and then refuses to back down when this is pointed out, accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being politically motivated. I take that to be behaviour that requires modification, according to Wikipedia standards. If this RfC fails to change him, then more serious measures may need to be taken, but I don't want to prejudge matters by skipping the RfC. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To those who are (admittedly rather half-heartedly) defending Trey Stone, I'd point to his refusal to conform to Wikipedia policy concerning both NPoV and original research and his recent record of 3RR violations. The idea that he's reformed is pretty difficult to swallow. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHOAMG, 3RR violations (I used to have edit wars with ADMIN 172 all the time and no one seemed to care,) the recent of which are sketchy anyway because I have tried compromise edits that have been labelled as "reverts" because of one miniscule part. And I'm sorry I'm not civil, but it's hard not to get frustrated, even moreso with certain condescending people (not you guys) J. Parker Stone 03:43, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Trey Stone and Davenbelle

[edit]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Trey_Stone&oldid=1086092511"