Wikipedia:Requests for comment/24.168.92.117

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC).

(24.168.92.117 | talk | contributions)
Also uses (24.168.95.76 | talk | contributions)
Also uses (24.168.91.84 | talk | contributions)
Also uses (24.168.66.27 | talk | contributions)
Also uses (63.169.104.2 | talk | contributions)
I believe this is the same person as (Keith Wigdor | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

Description:

24.168.92.117 seems to spend all his time on Wikipedia engaging in edit wars. From June 29 to July 29, for example, three quarters of this user's contributions were reverts in revert wars, almost exclusively to remove information he felt unimportant, or to restore his POV that one of a dozen users removed. All the rest of his contributions were comments, occasionally inflamatory (e.g. "You are violating my rights!"), and sometimes on the article pages themselves.

Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):

On Surrealism, repeated self-promotion (e.g. "Surrealism is KEITH WIGDOR."), repeated removal of links to other artists, repeated insertion of blatantly POV material (e.g. "which was a huge mistake by the surrealist movement to have ignored his great contributions!"), and repeated removal of info about other groups: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] ad nauseam.
Gratuitous reversion of info on Zazie. At first it was a reasonable disagreement, but due to a lack of justification on Talk:Zazie, this quickly became purely puerile. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] ad nauseam.
Repeated removal of info he felt was unimportant (though apparently not inaccurate) from Collage, without discussion except for a single unrelated accusation: [21][22][23][24][25][26] ad nauseam.
Repeated removal of info he felt was unimportant from Chicago Surrealist Group: [27][28][29][30][31]
Repeated removal of info he felt was unimportant from Automatism and the computer without discussion: [32][33]
Repeated removal of info he felt was unimportant from Decalcomania without discussion: [34][35]
Repeated removal of info he felt was unimportant from Penelope Rosemont without discussion: [36][37][38][39]
Repeated removal of info he felt was unimportant from Parallel collage without discussion:[40][41]
Similar removal of info on Dale Houstman with no discussion: [42]
. . .and Franklin Rosemont: (nearly identical, listed in history at [43])
. . .and List of surrealist poets: [44]
. . .and Surrealist Movement in the United States: [45]

Applicable policies:

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):

The following users politely informed the user on his talk pages that he was violating various policies: UninvitedCompany, Tagishsimon, Daniel C. Boyer, Wyllium, No One Jones, Guanaco, Texture, and RickK. Apparently this has not worked, as the revert wars continue.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):

Quadell (talk) 17:21, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Daniel C. Boyer 17:47, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Guan aco 23:48, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
Tagishsimon 20:19, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Neutrality 17:55, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Valmi 05:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Response

This is my response to the good gentlemen, Daniel C.Boyer concerning the edits that were made in good faith. I am providing this response for the benefit of the entire Wikipedia Community and the public, so they have Factual Information on Surrealism; Dear Daniel, I have read the Requests for Comments concerning the edits. You do not provide any response to my questions regarding the factual information that I am requesting. The reason for my edits is for the benefit of the entire Wikipedia Community, so that they have the best and most accurate information on Surrealism. Daniel, you have been on Wikipedia for quite some time know, and with all due respect to you sir, I can see that your efforts to maintain a vested self-interest for exposure for your friends, is very obvious. Daniel, this is not an allegation, nor is this inflammatory at all. Consider the simple question that I ask you over and over again, yet you still do not answer. Did Franklin and his wife Penelope Rosemont really meet Andre Breton, and is there any pictures to prove that? Daniel, these people are your friends and you are a contributor to Ron's book, that all of your friends are in together. Whether or not, your contribution to, "Surrealist Subversions" is minimal or not, does not make a difference. These people are your friends, you collaborate with all of them and you have a vested self-interest in getting exposure that is needed. Remember, Daniel, all of your friends do sell their art, or am I wrong? Anyway, I respectfully disagree with the allegations against the edits. They are in good faith. Regarding Zazie, she is a Cyberartist and she is part of the WEBISM Movement. Pygoya's Webism Manifesto is absolutely inconsistent and hostile to anything that has to do with Surrealism. You read it, so did I. Zazie is a Webist, not a surrealist, that I respectfully say is a fact. In regards to your friends, The Rosemonts, I say, they never met Andre Breton, that is not true and very misleading to the public. Also, the removal of THE WEST COAST SURREALIST GROUP from the SURREALISM article is not fair. They were Very Involved with Surrealism and their work has been documented by Jose Pierre, Andre Breton's personal assistant. I know that you really want me off Wikipedia, I can see that. However, my edits are in good faith. I will not stand by and allow the Wikipedia Community and the public believe innaccurate misinformation on Surrealism. I asked you for a simple Picture of Franklin and Penelope with Breton. If you show me that, I can work out any compromises with you, as I have done with the Surrealism page, before it was unprotected. Also, if you were to show me any public statement by Zazie denouncing Webism, then I would stand by All of your information on here 100%. Daniel, this is Surrealism, you know it. Daniel, I would also like to see any article on Andre Thirion, that would be nice.

You yourself could write an article on Thirion. I would be all in favour of this. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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.

I believe that, while User:24.168.92.117 can and should take a lesson from Wikipedia:Wikiquitte, many of the edits he has made are factually sound. The surrealism-related articles do at present suffer, on the whole, a POV that is neither mainstream nor neutral. Therefore, I suggest that this dispute be reframed as chiefly a matter of Wikiquitte rather than a problem with the substance of the edits themselves.

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

UninvitedCompany 18:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC). More in my response at User talk:Quadell.

Discussion

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

I cannot contribute to discussion of the actions of this user as I do not participate in the topics in question nor do I fully understand all of them. However, my only interaction was to support Wikiquitte suggested to the user by Guanaco. The user's reply was detailed with facts and viewpoints that I am unqualified to discuss but the tone of the reply was respectful. - Tεx τ urε 18:25, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)