Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FourthAve FourthAve

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: 09:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC).

(FourthAve | talk | contributions)

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

Statement of the dispute

FourthAve has engaged in what I see as personal attacks, obscenity, vandalism, and retaliatory, bad-faith warnings.

Description

FourthAve has continually personally attacked other editors involved in Bob Vander Plaats, Jim Nussle, and University of Dubuque. His edits include calling Nussle's wife some variant of "slut" and the president of University of Dubuque "evil". Any attempt to remove such language is met with personal attacks. While any political article is going to involve disagreements and the occasional POV problems, FourthAve's conduct goes beyond the acceptable threshold. I did not want it to come to this, but after receiving regular taunts to "Go cry to an admin" I thought it was time.

Evidence of disputed behavior

This is an abbreviated list.

Applicable policies

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

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 by McClenon

Sometimes the subject of a Request for Comments writes a response that makes the case against him. The response by FourthAve appears to be nothing but a repetition of the extreme POV-pushing that makes no effort to be encyclopedic or neutral.

It is not up to Wikipedia to decide which of at least three principals (husband, first wife, second wife) were responsible for the failure of a marriage, for instance.

I disagree with the statement that this editor has been guilty of vandalism. He has only been guilty of extreme POV-pushing and extreme incivility, but that is enough. Since he is not a vandal, but clearly is contemptuous of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process and community, if he does not stop his POV-pushing and attacks, he is likely to be the subject of repeated short-term blocks, and then banned by the ArbCom. Maybe he will listen, but I am not optimistic. I would strongly oppose any long-term admin block. This is the sort of user who should be banned by the ArbCom for POV-pushing and incivility, not a troll or vandal.

I am not contemptuous of the Wiki dispute resolution process, rather I am contemptous of Jaysus Chris, a politically motivated vandal with sockpuppets. The adultery-drenched divorce of Jim Nussle is a matter of public record, as is the fact that his second wife was the other woman. She was also a K-street lobbyist working for a foreign-owned lobbying firm. This is Iowa politics, for goodness sakes. Jaysus Chris has routinely vandalized the article to omit any mention of these lurid details.--FourthAve 10:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Robert McClenon 23:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agathoclea 10:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC) (note: I think 67.1.121.134 is possibly a sock)[reply]
JoshuaZ 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC) ccomments like this [1] are just ridiculous. I also don't see anything in FourthAve's contribution list that seems marginally productive.[reply]

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.

Just a FYI, really. I gave him this very stern warning about his vandalism of articles. He came back and was a little bit rude on my talk page [2] [3] [4] [5], but I ignored it because he appeared to have stopped his vandalism. But then he made this edit to an article, so I blocked him for an hour. On examining the attacks, Harro5 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) decided to up the block to 24 hours. FourthAve will either learn to be a good boy or spend most of his time waiting out blocks. --Tony Sidaway 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.