User:Kelvinc/RfC

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: 14:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC).

---

• USERNAME (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

Kelvinc is abusing wikipedia by deleting information he does not agree with calling it "not neutral" yet leaving propoganda links that he feels are "neutral" because he works for the company

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Evidence of disputed behavior

Deletes links from pages that are true but put his employer is a negative light

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Have reverted his censorship several times

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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.

(First off: consider the irony of the RfC recipient filling out this section before the requester has officially filed the RfC.)

The request in question is due to the actions of unsigned IP 209.29.23.243, who has been adding a link onto the CityPlace (Toronto) article for a website against the developer, Concord Adex, since October 2006 (see history). Every time that the IP edits, there is an element of malice: see [1], [2], [3], [4]. The IP also has now deliberately attempted to hide his work by captioning his link as the official site: see [5], [6]. Subsequently, the IP has appeared to register on en:Wikipedia under the name Lashing: so far, this user's only contributions have been to create this RfC, continuing vandalism on CityPlace (Toronto), and an edit on the income trust article that is consistent with the IP's other vendetta (the IP has also made many subsequently reverted edits on the income trust and Stephen Harper articles, apparently quite infuriated with the tax decision announced by the government in October 2006).

The only part in which I profess to have possibly been overboard was when asking the IP to cease his behaviour that he "please cease accusing people of personal agenda when they are reverting your edits in accordance with Wikipedia policy." Presumably, this line set off the fellow in question and therefore this RfC exists. But I am confident that the IP's actions have long worn out WP:AGF and that reverting these edits are a justified response to a person with personal agenda to use Wikipedia as a platform for advertising his vendettas.

Kelvinc 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Kelvinc 21:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

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.

{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:

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. Kelvinc thinks himself as god and is censoring pages because they do not meet HIS criteria rather than wikipedia criteria. Kelvinc is heavily biased in his thinking and abusive.