Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Canaen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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: 19:13, 14 December 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Canaen has violated numerous Wikipedia policies in an effort to keep legitimate criticism of veganism out of the Veganism and Environmental vegetarianism articles.

Description

[edit]

User has instigated edit wars at Veganism and Environmental vegetarianism, resulting in the protection of Veganism for over a week at present. User has organized a meatpuppetry campaign among various vegan blogs to eliminate sourced and legitimate criticism of veganism and environmental motivations thereof. This campaign has resulted in personal attacks, legal and physical threats, violations of 3RR, user page vandalism, and numerous instances of suspected meat- and sock-puppetry.

Additionally, this user is unwilling to listen to even the politest criticism of his behavior or edits. He regularly refactors his talk page to eliminate these criticisms, instead placing them in a subpage labeled "nonsense". User has refactored administrator warnings to this page as well. User routinely accuses critics of violating Wikipedia policies.

List of suspected meatpuppets

[edit]

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]
  • 23:00, 15 November 2005, Superclear explains NPOV to Canaen: Sorry, my friend, but seafood (one word) is a definition. You may not like the definition, but it exists independently of your politics. I agree not every word is defined so that its meaning is exactly how it sounds, but to keep NPOV we should try to use standards when possible. [2]
  • 23:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC), Superclear politely criticizes edits by Canaen as POV: The line edited by Canaen (not picking on you either :-) to read "Vegans generally oppose the violence and cruelty involved in the meat ..." is POV. [3] Superclear is referring to Canaen's edit at 22:03, 15 November 2005, where Canaen removed a few words (bolded in this example) changing Vegans generally oppose what they see as the violence and cruelty involved in the meat, to the following: Vegans generally oppose the violence and cruelty involved in the meat [4]
  • 05:24, 22 November 2005, 195.82.106.64 removes "Criticism of environmental motivations" section on Veganism with no edit summary. [5]
  • 18:10, 22 November 2005, 195.82.106.64 is informed of WP:3RR by Rediahs on User talk:195.82.106.64. [6]
  • 02:11, 3 December 2005, Canaen escalates the level of incivility in a comment towards Hq3473, saying: I find your comments to be utter tripe. [7]
  • 19:54, 3 December 2005, Canaen posts a request to four vegan livejournal blogs for help removing criticism of veganism.[8] [9] [10] [11]. In these discussions, Caenen is posting as "theunseenkid". [12] Since then, the Veganism article has been besieged by suspected meatpuppets who engage in personal attacks and attempt to reach a sham consensus.
  • 11:44, 4 December 2005, 212.18.228.53 removes renamed "Environmental criticism" section as well as section on eating disorders. [13]
  • 03:48, 5 December 2005, Canaen escalates the level of incivility in a comment towards Idleguy: I'm still not sure if you're simply ignorant and confused, or if you are consicously trying to muddle the article. [14]
  • 04:24, 5 December 2005, Canaen removes "Environmental criticism" section from Veganism article. [15]
  • 04:47, 5 December 2005, Canaen reverts and removes "Environmental criticism" section from Veganism article. [16]
  • 07:03, 5 December 2005, Canaen reverts, and removes "Environmental criticism" section from Veganism article. [17]
  • 07:07, 5 December 2005, Canaen removes Idleguy's additions, and attacks him in the edit summary with: Fixing Ignorance of Idleguy [18]
  • 07:34, 5 December 2005, Canaen reverts, and removes "Environmental criticism" section from Veganism article. [19]
  • 07:56, 5 December 2005, Canaen accuses Idleguy of vandalism. [20]
  • 08:04, 5 December 2005, Canaen requests adminship. He implies that he would use his adminstrator privileges to act on articles he is working on. Opposing votes start to pile up and the Mitsu (talk · contribs) account shows up and blanks the entire page. [21]. Another account Redpatcher (talk · contribs) is created three days later at 10:57, 8 December. [22], and adds a Support vote while deliberately forging the voting timestamp to show "10:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)" instead of the actual timestamp of "11:00, 8 December 2005", to hide the fact that the account was created three minutes prior to voting.[reply]
  • 08:35, 5 December 2005, Canaen reverts for the fourth time and removes "Environmental criticism" section from Veganism article. [23]
  • 08:44, 5 December 2005, Canaen defends his attacks and claims ignorant is not an abusive term. Canaen follows up with another attack, you simply seem to have a lack of comprehension. Canaen also denies being connected with other users (as they are all removing the same section of the article and attacking Idleguy) and claims that I am connected in no way with them. [24] (See also: 19:54, 3 December 2005)
  • 09:08, 5 December 2005, Canaen reverts for the fifth time and removes "Environmental criticism" section from Veganism article. [25]
  • 09:18, 5 December 2005, Veganism article is protected with Canaen's changes intact
  • 19:04, 5 December 2005, 85.195.123.22 vandalizes Idleguy's user talk page, leaving threatening messages, such as: WE WILL FIND YOU...FUCK OFF YOU PIG IGNORANT TROLL...OR WE WILL WIPE YOU OFF THE WIKI...AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP US...vegan jihad. [26] (See also: 21:24, 10 December 2005)
  • 22:50, 5 December 2005, 212.18.228.53 attacks Skinwalker on Talk:Veganism [27] and two mintues later vandalizes Skinwalker's user page and posts the same attack. [28]
  • 22:53, 5 December 2005, 212.18.228.53 vandalizes Skinwalker's user page, and leaves a personal attack: This is the dishonest snitching to the admins...meateater trolls like Skinwalker and Idleguy...This is Skinwalker snitching to Woohookitty...How can he know all these folk are the same folk? The biggest joke is that they are not! [29]
  • 10:18, 9 December 2005, Canaen proposes [30] moving the "environmental criticism" section to Environmental vegetarianism. [31]
  • 21:24, 10 December 2005, 84.64.121.200 (aka "veganjustice", 85.195.123.22, "veganjihad" etc.) appears to attack Skinwalker and Idleguy (and possibly FrancisTyers by mistake) with a threat/attack that is edited in subsequent edits: Look, you two trolls can keep this circle jerks going between the pair of you for as long as you want but the fact it, the moment you insert anything, we are going to waste it. [32]. Later changed to: Look, you two trolls can keep this circle jerk going between the pair of you for as long as you want but the fact it, the moment you insert anything, we are going to waste it. You cannot block every non-fixed IP, all public internet access nor the increasing number of proxies. I suppose this is only going to last until Idleguy gets a job and gets over his weird fixation with veganism. [33]
  • 03:15, 11 December 2005, Canaen resubmits an unmodified survey on Talk:Veganism and represents it as a final vote, despite active debate on the proposals in the survey. [34]
  • 06:54, 11 December 2005, Canaen refactors his talk page to remove criticism and polite reminders of Wikipedia policy, labeling it as "nonsense". [35] and current "nonsense" page.
  • 19:23, 11 December 2005, 195.82.106.62 makes a personal attack against Idleguy on Talk:Environmental vegetarianism saying: Beware of "lazy", "gunlover", "war freak" - to quote his user page - Idleguy trolling vegetarian and vegan topics... He will also snitch you to admins rather than face the consensus of the discussion page and organise to conspire with his little friends against anyone that attempts to engage in discussion, e.g. he will trying to spoil their chance to become admins. 195.82.106.62 also attacks Viriditas, and Skinwalker. [36]
  • 05:59, 13 December 2005, Canaen refactors a survey tally to make it appear that Skinwalker is opposed to a proposal that he actually supports. [37]
  • 12:35, 13 December 2005, 195.82.106.62 starts a revert war on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Society and law, removing mention of User:Canaen and making legal threats in the process. [38]
  • 12:54, 13 December 2005, 195.82.106.62 attacks Skinwalker in the edit summary with: Skinwalker's dishonesty and hysterical accusations [39]
  • 19:14, 13 December 2005, 195.82.106.62 attacks Viriditas and Skinwalker on Talk:Veganism regarding Canaen's block. [40]
  • 19:45, 13 December 2005, 195.82.106.62 responds to User:Jkelly's comment [41] regarding WP:3RR on User talk:Jkelly blaming other editors for his own edits. [42]
  • 20:15, 13 December 2005, 195.82.106.12 files a specious and incomplete user conduct RFC against Skinwalker. [43]
  • 3:46, 15 December 2005, 195.82.106.78 vandalizes and attacks Skinwalker on User:Skinwalker: ...nark...snitch...you are busy digging a hole in your own canoe because your allegations are lies...You are entirely wrong...you and your views genuinely are so unimportant...You are an individual of very little decency and integrity. I do not state this as an insult but as an objective statement... Don't worry, Karma will come and get you in its own time. [44]
  • 4:46, 15 December 2005, 195.82.106.78 attacks Skinwalker, Idleguy, and Viriditas on User talk:Skinwalker [45]
  • 5:50, 15 December 2005, 195.82.106.78 attacks Skinwalker, Idleguy, and Viriditas on User talk:Viriditas [46]
  • 18:19, 15 December 2005, 195.82.106.78 harasses FrancisTyers (Niggerpuppets) and falsely accuses him of making personal attacks on User talk:FrancisTyers. User alludes to "Vigger", aka 64.105.20.237 Nidara. [47]
  • 18:24 - 22:49, 15 December 2005, 195.82.106.78 continues to harass and attack Skinwalker on User talk:Skinwalker. [48] [49] [50]
  • 22:34, 15 December 2005, 195.82.106.78 jokingly removes comments by Canaen (removed personal attack against Lord Huntly, He suffer enough at Hill of Fare), and attacks Skinwalker again on Talk:Veganism. [51]
  • 23:41, 15 December 2005, 195.82.106.78 is blocked for 24 hours due to repeated personal attacks. [52]
  • 08:28, 16 December 2005, User:212.18.224.118 attacks Idleguy on User talk:Woohookitty and admits he is the same user as all the other users from the 195.82.106.xxx domain. [53]
  • 01:21, 24 December 2005, User:195.82.106.69 blanked this request for comment (diff), replacing it with an accusation that it is libelous. After I reverted it on my regular vandalism patrol, User:195.82.106.47 tried to justify this behaviour on my talk page (diff). Andrew_pmk | Talk 18:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
  3. Wikipedia:Civility
  4. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  5. Wikipedia is not a battleground
  6. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine
  7. Wikipedia:Sock puppet
  8. Wikipedia:Harassment
  9. Wikipedia:Consensus
  10. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
  11. Wikipedia: No legal threats

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  • 08:19, 5 December 2005, Viriditas asks Canaen to build consensus instead of edit warring. [54]
  • 08:24, 5 December 2005, Idleguy reminds Canaen of no personal attack policy. [55]
  • 09:11, 5 December 2005, Woohookitty, an admin, reminds Canaen of no personal attack policy. [56]
  • 10:07, 5 December 2005, Viriditas reminds Canaen of NPOV policy. [57]
  • 17:33, 10 December 2005, Skinwalker proposes a compromise to end the dispute on Veganism. [58]
  • 06:07, 12 December 2005, Viriditas reminds Canaen of the good faith policy. [59]
  • 07:19, 13 December 2005, Viriditas reminds Canaen of WP:SOCK policy regarding meatpuppets [60]
  • 14:43, 13 December 2005, Woohookitty blocks Canaen for 24 hours due to repeated personal attacks. [61]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Skinwalker 19:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Idleguy 05:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Viriditas 13:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. karmafist 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC) To my recollection, Canaen is the first rfa with a negative number of support votes(-1/20/3), I've ever seen. Ultimately, I don't even know if it would be "negative" since it seemed to be a sockpuppet Canaen may have created, and it might just be canceled out to zero, but nobody ever changed that negative vote. karmafist 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Lord Bob 08:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

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.

In the environment I've grown up in, the word "Ignorant" is nowhere near an attack. We use the term as contructive criticism, and we use it in its plainest sense. Ignorance is not a negative thing. It is just something that can be improved upon. This being said, I have already apologized, because Idelguy took offense at the word.

When I came back to Veganism, there was a lot of content (Particularly, the "Environmental criticism" section) that I didn't think should be there. I removed it, as it was entirely irrelevant to the article [62] (follow the history from there to see . It attempted to criticize Veganism by criticizing Rice and Soy bean cultivation. Whether or not it was relevant, I asked Idleguy to explain it's relevance [63] [64]. I fixed a bunch of smaller things like spelling and grammar, too [65] (follow on from there to see more).

Viriditas, after things with Idleguy had stopped, told me of the three revert rule [66], something which I hadn't heard of before (at this point, I had edited the Ec content once, and reverted thrice. Idelguy had reverted thrice as well, which I assume to be the reason he stopped). Thus, I stopped reverting, and limited myself to the various grammatical and small contributios above.

Personal Attacks: [67] I am a Vegan. I was correcting the other user. [68] I believe that Skinwalker is referring to this lineL: "I'm still not sure if you're simply ignorant and confused, or if you are consicously trying to muddle the article." I was being as blatantly honest as I could. I honestly didn't know. As [[69]] suggests, everyone should be brutally honest when communication across cultural boundaries, especially when different languages are involved. [70] I don't see how this can be construed as a personal attack. I referred to the time I called him "ignorant," however it's not a repeat offense. [71] This is defending myself, and a warning for Idleguy to stop attacking me. Nothing more (well, besides fixing the spelling of the word "have").

As for the process of moving both the Environmental considerations and Environmental criticism sections over to their main article, Environmental vegetarianism: this process was not proposed by me. There is a complete history of the matter on Talk:Veganism. Nidara and FrancisTyers can be contacted for that matter, because they were the ones who did the work. All that remained to be done, until Skinwalker's return, was to contact an admin to unprotect the page, so that we could change the Environmental sections to reflect the fact that there is now a main article for them. That said, I did support the move.

I don't know what Skinwalker means to say that I opposed the content. It appeared to me that Idleguy had misinterpreted an FAO study (especially since a more recent study contradicted his interpretation, and I changed the opening line of a paragraph citing the older study, while adding the newer one [72]. I don't see how anyone can view this negatively, especially since my wording is still in place as I write this.

As for the unmodified vote: The above vote had become far too muddled with discussion. It wasn't clear enough. So, I created a new section, warning that any discussion would be moved to what had become the discussion section for this vote (the previous attempted vote section). Since then, I have followed through, moving any discussion to the discussion section, in an effort to keep the Vote section as clear as possible. This is viewable here [73]. As well, Skinwalker's comment was simply stating the intent of the vote. It did nothing but confuse others. Yet, I didn't delete it.

As for "Meatpuppetry": Read the posts yourself. I suggest anyone who actually supports this claim look at Veganism's history. You will probably notice that anonymous IP addresses have been editing, for better or for worse, for quite awhile. As well, check the talk page, and it's history (including archives). I have done nothing wrong in this regard. I invited other users to come work on the page. If you want to accuse me of meatpuppetry, I suggest that you accuse Jimbo Wales as well. Afterall: he started Wikipedia. He's responsbile, in the end, for bringing all of these users here. Including me. I would also like to note that while at this house (which I have been at maybe 2 weeks), I use a Dial-up connection. I have a single IP address. I don't see how I could have used any other IPs.

As for telling people to lie about their identities: You simply do not understand how the bulletin board reply system works. Allow me to demonstrate:
This is Johnny's comment.
This is a response to Johnny's comment by Jane.
This is Johnny's response to Jane.
This is another repsonse to Johnny, by Josephine.
This is another response to Johnny, by Donald.
Even though Donald's comment was directly below Josephine's, it was not to her. It was a response directly to Johnny. Go back and look at the page, Skinwalker. I was telling a Brasilian, who commented that she her English was not fit for writing in the wikipedia, that she should none-the-less add the info to the talk page, and ask that someone clean it up. This is standard Wikipedia policy, except that in most cases, it is suggested that the user add directly to the main article.

As for my "Nonsense" page, and other organizations of my talk page: I'm an organized person. My father is a computer programmer, and I got a bit of the old OCD genes from him. My talk page serves, essentially, as a tool for other users to contact me. I created the "Nonsense" page for things which I basically didn't want to look at anymore. Then, I ran across someone using the current system that's in place on my talk page, leaving open pages for both Constructive criticism and deconstructive criticism. I have since employed this system, moving much of what I earlier labelled as "nonsense" (referring to my use of the word, mind you) to the constructive criticism page, where it is much better suited. I'm sorry if Viriditas is offended that I can move content around on my Talk pages so that it's easier for me to review, but I believe that's my decision to make.

I think that Skinwalker's "Contributions by unconnected individuals to various Talk pages" section defeats itself. All it takes is actually reading the links he provides.

I did request adminship. This was overwhelmingly voted against. Meh. Just wanted to know what other people thought. As for what I did or did not say, please read my own words, and not just Skinwalker's interpretation of them. I did say that I would use Sysop abilities in articles I was working on. Then, Whoohookitty pointed out that this was frowned upon. Ok. I don't see what the point of this section is.

As for attempted resolution of disputes: Skinwalker wasn't proposing anything new, as far as I know. Please review Talk:Veganism. If he was, that's fine. But it doesn't have anything to do with this. Viriditas has reminded me of many policies that he thought I was either breaching, or coming close to. In the case of the 3RR rule, I thank him for it. The rest, we seem to just disagree on.

As for Woohookitty and anonymous personal attacks: Yes, Whoohookitty blocked me, originally intending 24 hours. However the attacks he blocked me for were made in my absence, by IP addresses that have nothing to do with me. I emailed him, we conversed, and he trusted that I was not them -- he reviewed everything, and unblocked me, well before the 24-hour period was up. I ask that this be taken into consideration.

In closing (well, I guess nothing ever closes in a Wiki, but I am nearing the end of this summary), I ask that all information presented is looked over several times, before anything is decided. I think that Skinwalker's RfC is filled with fault. I will refrain from commenting on his integrity, however I will not that he has a history, particularly with Vegans and Vegetarians, of upsetting them, for reasons other than content. This is not an attack -- this is a statement based on what I have seen on his talk page, and on Talk:Veganism. Thank you for reading. It's a shame that we must take the time to do these things, instead of building the encyclopedia. Canaen 07:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Canaen 07:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Whilst I would endorse most of this summary, I would like to point out that I find In the environment I've grown up in, the word "Ignorant" is nowhere near an attack exceedingly hard to believe and it probably isn't true. It may be true for your family, even your extended family, but, if you are scottish as you claim to be, you would have to have lead an extremely isolated life (no television, radio or any outside contact) for you to believe that this wasn't insulting. Here is a comment from someone in Scotland using the word ignorant in a personal attack. I'm sure I could find more. Until this is acknowledged as a personal attack (we all get heated sometimes) I can't endorse this summary. - FrancisTyers 11:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am Scottish, however I don't live in Scotland. I'm from California, in the U.S.A. (as they call it). Honestly, I didn't mean any offense when I used it. I'm sorry you find that so hard to believe. Canaen 03:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So I've thought about it, and I guess I just wasn't expecting that response from an established Wikipedia editor. I wouldn't go around in public calling people ignorant, however when ignorance is apparent in any kind of intellectual discussion, I use the word freely. It was a mistake to use it here, however I did not mean to offend. Canaen 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside Views

[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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Users who don't endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view #1

[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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I'm not sure if I can be considered an outsider or not. I did block Canaen, but outside of that, I'm not really involved in this issue. I just wanted to say that I am not 100% sure that Canaen is using sockpuppets. He might be and I say that because it's hard to prove either way. But he says he isn't and at this point, I'll assume good faith. I do think though that it was irresponsible to start the campaign at livejournal.com. It's brought in a bunch of anon IPs, all of whom seem to have problems with civility. I think it made an uneasy situation worse. Do we blame Canaen for that? I think his intentions were innocent, but next time, hopefully he won't do that. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 04:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 06:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. -- FrancisTyers 11:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Your hopes are not to be let down. I have no intention of repeating such posts, whatever you wish to deem the acts collectively. Though, I do not believe that all of the anonymous IPs cqame from LiveJournal; there wasn't enough of a response there. (I'm not outside, but I still see this summary as valid. Remove this if I'm not allowed to say so or something. Canaen 03:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View #2

[edit]

This RFC is nothing but an ad hominem attack on Canaen by Skinwalker and Viriditas based on bogus lies.

Please note, e.g. ;

The LiveJournal refered to is dated 2005-12-03.
I am one of those contributors mentioned above and have point out to Skinwalker, the author of this attack, many times that I have no connection to the accused. As someone accused of being a meatpuppet, please note my contribution to Skinwalker discussion page, here ; [74]. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkinwalker&diff=29046153&oldid=22008974
  • It is dated 23 November 2005
Please also note my contribution to Viriditas discussion page, here ; [75] Viriditas
  • It is dated 22 and 23 November 2005
  • Noto Bene, they predate the Livejournal by 10 days, and note the initial tone of Skinwalker response. Viriditas just ignores it and any consensus on the vegan talk pages to continue making his own personal revisions without consultation.
I hope this undercuts the credibility of Skinwalker ad hominem attack on Canaen under the guise of a RFC. I state what I have always stated that I have no connection with Canaen or other users however much Viriditas enjoys using the word meatpuppets to insult vegans.
I have to draw the admin's special attention to the deliberate and implicit insult within the name calling of unconnected vegans by Viriditas as meat puppets or " Mr Meatpuppet " as he now puts it.

Most vegans and vegetarians would consider it as distasteful as "niggerpuppets" would be to African-Americans people. See here ; [76].

It is greatly disappointing that these two individuals must create such a bad smell aiming below the belt in such a manner as they are. In the face of such organised persecution, Canaen has been a stiff rod of reasonableness.

195.82.106.78 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. 195.82.106.78 05:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I do have to endorse the LiveJournal dates, and the loose use of the term "Meatpuppet." Canaen 03:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Please don't trivialise racism and please don't make personal attacks. - FrancisTyers 11:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Meatpuppet is a commonly used term on Wikipedia. karmafist 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view #3

[edit]

There is, in itself, nothing wrong with asking others - whether current Wikipedia participants or not - to take a look at a Wikipedia article, or to invite them to contribute. I have done it before, and I'm sure many of us have. I object to the insinuation in this RFC that this is in itself something wrong.

I also think the term 'meatpuppet' is being thrown around rather too loosely here. I prefer to use it only when people are brought to Wikipedia to stack a vote, not to contribute. The posts on LiveJournal by User:Canaen did not instruct people on what to do, and in fact told them to behave themselves. I also note that a number of responders to those posts were already Wikipedia readers or editors.

—Matthew Brown (T:C) 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. (Again, if I'm not allowed to say that I think outside views are valid, then delete this). Canaen 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View #4

[edit]

This is in two parts.

Part 1. SUBJECTIVE: I am very, very troubled that the term "Meat Puppet" (instead of sockpuppet) is used given the root cause of this RfC (veganism). This is really meant to inflame the other side and is neither constructive nor adult. (see comment in OBJECTIVE and results of search on talk page).

This is one instance where I feel both sides should take a couple weeks off from Wikipedia (forced if need be) and get a grip on what is really important.

Part 2: OBJECTIVE: In reviewing the RfC I noticed that a number of ISP codes were listed. I have taken those ISP codes and run them through the Network Solutions WhoIs checker. The returned data is posted on the talk page for this RfC. I invite those who wish to check my work to do so.

OnceBitten 22:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment - Meatpuppet is hardly meant to inflame anyone. Meatpuppets and sockpuppets are two different things. A sockpuppet is a second (or third, fourth...) account created by a single user. A "meatpuppet" is a new user brought into a Wikipedia debate by external forces, with the intent of altering consensus among Wikipedia users. You don't understand our colloquialisms - and you also fail to assume good faith. FCYTravis 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with FCYTravis - FrancisTyers 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the term meatpuppet in the above mentioned RfC has to do with the conflict it presents with the veganism argument stated above. OnceBitten 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Canaen&oldid=1064218743"