Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KaintheScion

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: 00:23, 12 May 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC).

(KaintheScion | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

KaintheScion has repeatedly used personal attacks, especially against User:Yuber, but also against other users who have disagreed with the edits he has performed. He has also made knowingly false reports of vandalism on WP:VIP.

Description

KaintheScion uses personal attacks when he disagrees with other editors. He has falsely claimed "consensus" for his edits when there is none, and has made false reports of "vandalism" for edits he disagrees with. He has also violated WP:3RR on several occasions, and has been blocked for this behavior. [1]

Evidence of disputed behavior

Personal attacks

Repeatedly refers to User:Yuber as a "Revert Monkey". [2] [3] [4]
More such attacks: [5] [6]
I advise him to refrain from personal attacks, and he deletes this message from his Talk page. [7] The behavior continues. He also posts a comment justifying his use of personal attacks. [8]
KaintheScion accuses Yuber of lying. [9]
Accuses people he disagrees with of being "POV-pushing morons". [10]
Accuses jpgordon of being a "Power-Abusing Admin". [11]
Accuses User:Grace Note of vandalising Islamofascism [12], though that was Kain's tenth edit. [13]
Calls User:David Gerard a "lying sack of crap and a vandal-protector" [14] (ElKabong removed this entry)
Elkabong removed the above entry with the edit summary: "Evidence was not removed, just moved to its proper location. Learn to stop lying and live up to your fucking scout oath." [15]
The above was a personal attack directed towards User:Zscout370.
Makes a personal attack against Zscout370: "Zscout is a lying POV-pushing jerk" [16]
Makes a personal attack against David Gerard: "David Gerard is a liar. He fabricated the so-called "evidence", in a scheme to aid Tony Sidaway in violation of Wikipedia policy on using admin powers to gain an advantage in content disputes. Nothing more, and nothing less." [17].

Spurious vandalism charges

Accuses User:Grace Note of vandalism for removing unsourced content from Islamofascism. Despite the statement here, GraceNote did indeed discuss his edits on the Talk page. [18]
Repeats accusations of vandalism [19], and also violates WP:RFC policy for page listings by (1) assigning blame, (2) signing his entry, and (3) listing argument details. I advised him of the policy [20] and he then deleted my warning from his Talk page.
Accuses Yuber of "vandalism" for edits he disagrees with. [21]
Another identical spurious report. [22]
Announces intent to make another inaccurate vandalism report [23] and then does it [24]. I advise him not to do this, and he accuses me of "protecting POV-pushing vandals". [25]

Sockpuppetry

At WP:AN/I#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong, User:David Gerard determined that both of these users share the same IP address and have the same editing habbits. The proof provided by David was "ElKabong/KaintheScion was already busted emailing claiming to be the wrong account. Both emails I got from ElKabong/KaintheScion were from the same IP as well. Oddly enough, I don't believe any claim they aren't linked - David Gerard 14:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

See also /KaintheScion edits annotated (compiled by Tony Sidaway). Briefly, you have to look very hard to find edits that don't violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks or Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

The accusations of course are themselves bullshit and in bad faith, but they seem to have served Sidaway's purpose of getting two users permablocked for the low, low price of one fraudulent complaint. (Note: This posting was by IP 129.7.35.1)

Inapropriate edit summaries

from this page: "Put page back in order and bullshit accusation where it belongs" [26]
also from this page: "Evidence was not removed, just moved to its proper location. Learn to stop lying and live up to your fucking scout oath." [27]
from here: "Oh look, lying Mel Etitis into the fray. Huzzah!" [28]

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Wikipedia:No personal attacks (official policy)
Wikipedia:Assume good faith (semi-policy)
Wikipedia:Three revert rule (official policy)
Wikipedia:Sock puppet (official policy)

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

See above listed messages that I posted to his Talk page.

Users certifying the basis for this 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.

Firebug is pursuing a personal vendetta against me, nothing more.

The behavior of Yuber is well documented. From Talk:Kharaj: What, yet another article in which he can continually delete well-sourced information that doesn't agree with his POV, while simultaneously making claims of his own which simply don't match the sources provided? That's an appealing thought. Jayjg (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This has been Yuber's bad-faith MO on more than one board. In the previous dispute (link) there was a page-protection, followed by dispute resolution. Yuber bided his time a day or so after the dispute resolution and then began trying to reinsert misinformation and factual errors into the document. This is bad faith and counts as Sneaky Vandalism (adding misinformation) under the Wikipedia definition. KaintheScion

I've run into the same sort of horse shit from Firebug, this is ridiculous. Kain's description of Yuber is 100% accurate, and the charges of vandalism were correctly brought.

I'll note that Firebug chose to make it a point of contention that Kain didn't "sign" his complaint against Yuber, despite the fact that very few of the vandalism complaints prior to Kain's on the page are signed. ElKabong

Lies by those who are attacking him/her:

Calls User:David Gerard a "lying sack of crap and a vandal-protector" [29]

Actually, that was ME (ElKabong) and I stand by that. David Gerard, [...] who claimed I was a sockpuppet, was doing nothing more than following [...] Tony Sidaway's whim and blocking out users who were preventing Sidaway from inserting NPOV violations into the George W Bush article.[... personal attacks removed]

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

KaintheScionKaintheScion 05:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ElKabongElKabong 14:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC) - Wrongly Identified as a sock puppet by [...]User:David Gerard who seems to have done so only to support [...] User:Tony Sidaway in violation of Wikipedia policy on blocking users to gain an advantage in content disputes.[reply]
Klonimus 15:05, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Yuber is a very uncooperative editor,and while I don't endorse some of the language used in this complaint, I sympathise with the defendant. Yuber does show a very annoying tendancy to revert edits he doesn't like rather than attempting to work out a concensus.[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.

I am a user who has not had previous interaction with either party, and I have no strong feelings on the topic at the focus of this dispute. Regarding the allegations made above, I reviewed the references to see whether they supported the claims.

Original Complaint

Following the links in the above section Evidence of disputed behavior, the contents appeared to be as advertised.

Response

No supporting evidence is provided for the allegation that Firebug is pursuing a personal vendetta.

The disparaging comment by Jagjg is faithfully reproduced. It could be counted as hearsay (what Jayjg had to say about Yuber).

I was most troubled by this statement:

This has been Yuber's bad-faith MO on more than one board. In the previous dispute (link) there was a page-protection, followed by dispute resolution. Yuber bided his time a day or so after the dispute resolution and then began trying to reinsert misinformation and factual errors into the document. This is bad faith and counts as Sneaky Vandalism...

Following the link, it does not appear to be quite the case.

There are three differences that have been toggled in the bout of revisions following consensus.

Appears to be an incidental grammatical correction that got caught up in the revision battle. The version by KaintheScion appears to be more sensible (emphasis added to show differences):
- (Yuber): The Saudi also go by the name of Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
- (KaintheScion): The Saudi Mutaween also go by the name of Authority for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
A minor difference; whether to refer to a building or a dormatory.
- (Yuber): An incident attributed to the mutaween occurred when they prevented girls from escaping a burning dormitory...
- (KaintheScion): An incident attributed to the mutaween occurred when they prevented girls from escaping a burning building...
Appears to be the main point of contention. There were three versions of this: one by Yuber, one by KaintheScion, and one by an admin who attempted to mediate.
- (Yuber): An institution found in Saudi Arabia and other countries such as Iran and Nigeria is the Mutaween, or religious police.
- (KaintheScion): An institution found in Saudi Arabia and various other Muslim nations (in varying degrees) is the mutaween, or religious police.
- (admin, proposed compromise in Talk): An institution found in Saudi Arabia is the mutaween, or religious police.

At this point KaintheScion and another user indicated general agreement with the proposal, Yuber did not comment. About an hour later, the admin changed the text and unprotected the page. However, regarding the disputed sentence above, the admin inserted the version by KaintheScion, not the version he proposed for consensus. I would suppose this was inadvertent.

However, regarding KaintheScion's allegation, it appears that the text that Yuber was revising was not the text that was proposed as a compromise.

Conclusion

In my opinion, the proposed compromise text should reintroduced to the article. As for point 1 above, the word Mutaween seems to belong in the sentence, and for point 2, a dormatory is a building, so the fact that it is a building is uncontested.

To the question of behavior, without outside knowledge of the parties, the original complaint seems to be far better supported than the response.

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

Tabor 20:08, 12 May 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.

Sock puppetry

KaintheScion and ElKabong are currently blocked for sock puppetry. See block log for 22:59 UTC, 12 May. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Kain denied being ElKabong before, though its behavior since it came to Wikipedia did smell and act like a sockpuppet. Should we move this to edvidence and provide a few links? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please refer to David Gerard's comment on WP:AN/I. He is an arbcom member who has been given the privileges necessary to perform sock puppet checks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[personal attack, no other content, removed] ElKabong

User:Yuber

Although I haven't investigated closely, it appears to me that Yuber should also clean up his act. He has engaged in an annoying level of revert warring and I can quite understand User:Klonimus's sympathizing with User:KaintheScion's exasperation, while not condoning his language. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you stated that Kain had a block on him and his sock, maybe Yuber could calm down for the day. We just need to see if Yuber usually reacts to Kain, or it is his general behavior. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The revert wars that I have engaged in with KaintheScion have involved many personal attacks by him. I have tried to come to a consensus on the various talk pages but he just won't listen. This might seem as an "annoying level of revert warring" to you, and I admit I might have gone to far on some occasions, but KaintheScion was the main instigator of all those revert wars.Yuber^(talk) 21:45, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As for KaintheScion, or ElKaborg, or whatever he wants to be known as, well he's been very annoying and has made editing unpleasant for a lot of people, mainly the administrators who happened to protect an article on The Wrong Version (as we administrators always do).

Your idea of "finding a consensus" was to wait a day and try injecting the same edits that had been rejected. You're a poor liar, Yuber.

Grace Note sees it my way. I was the one who originally added the mutaween section!!!! Then Kain came here and changed it to found in MOST muslim nations. I told him that's totally false and he got into an edit war with me. I told him only Nigeria, Iran, and Saudi have religious police and he still wouldn't believe me.Yuber(talk) 21:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

A quick look into the page's history reveals the truth, as it was ElKabong who created the section, and Yuber who decided to revert-war it. It was also not Yuber who was interested in finding a consensus, but rather KaintheScion who made the first attempt to correct the section's POV. Not that I'm calling Yuber a liar... well, actually, yes, I AM calling him a liar for his demonstrated bad faith. (Note: This post was by IP 129.7.35.1)

Ok Kain, a quick look and you would see I readded the section after talking to a person who lived in the KSA (named Eaglemn).Yuber^(talk) 16:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand he clearly has a flair for research and a passion for finding the right way of expressing things. If we can lose the sock puppetry, and the rudeness, and the revert warring, we'll have a reasonable editor and a good Wikipedian. Not to mention a welcome comrade on this massive Library of Babel.

Wikipedia works by making itself accessible to all and accepting edits from every single human being who can work a keyboard. It's a very forgiving institution, more interested in making Damascene conversions than hammering nails into flesh. Therefore I appeal to this sock puppet editor, who, as his edits sometimes clearly show, is no stranger to courtesies such as explaining his edits and correcting his mistakes, to extend a little more courtesy than perhaps he has felt able to so far. To express his opinions fearlessly, but without attacking others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any article that Yuber is involved with, will quickly decend into a revert war started by Yuber. See Jizyah, Mutaween, and Islamofascism for good examples. Yuber seems not realize that most people find his casual reverting insulting. Many people get the impression that Yuber is more interesting in defending "his version" of an article, than it trying to come up with a concensus of some sort. It may also be added in passing that Yuber generally endorses a POV that that is sympathetic or even apologetic to Islam. Klonimus 06:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not expect less from Klonimus, a person who has created such articles as List of Saudi Arabian Jews, Islamic fascism, and the like, not to mention calling the prophet of a religion a pedophile and a terrorist. I don't exactly value his opinion as unbiased.Yuber^(talk) 16:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuber, dont let your rightoeus fury blind you to the facts. I did not create Islamic fascism, or Islamofascism, or Jizyah, or Mutaween or even Ibn Warraq. Klonimus 07:33, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, both of you are making KaintheScion look real good here. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kain has been commenting under an anonmyous IP address. Look above.Yuber^(talk) 17:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]