Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Trey Stone

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: 12:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC).

(Trey Stone | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Trey Stone a.k.a J. Parker Stone repeatedly engages in revert wars while failing to cite his sources. He is exceedingly argumentative on Talk pages, but fails to back up assertions with solid scholarship. He is rude and condescending to other editors that do not share his particular and readily apparent political leanings. He has been banned at least once for breaking the 3RR rule.

Description

User Trey Stone has been contributing to Wikipedia since July 2004. He appears to be waging a single-handed crusade to purify Wikipedia of what he considers "leftist" POV. He engages in revert wars, insults fellow editors who don't share his views, and indulges in endless circular arguments on Talk pages, most notably over Henry Kissinger. He had inflammatory remarks remarks on his user page directed at several other users until he was compelled by other users (after the inevitable revert war) to remove them. By failing to back up his arguments and counterarguments on talk pages with meaningful citations, he wilfully conflates his own opinions and beliefs with fact, thereby contravening the "no original research" rule. Having failed to convince with his arguments on the talk page, he is pursing a nearly consist revert war over Henry Kissinger, having repeatedly reverted to his desired version of the article some twenty-five times over the past six weeks, in opposition to at least half a dozen other editors. Trey Stone appears incapable of collaboration and negotiation to achieve NPOV in articles.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

24-hour 3RR block

Blocked by Clockwork Soul 15:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1st revert: 04:31, 25 Mar 2005
2nd revert: 05:16, 25 Mar 2005
3rd revert: 05:48, 25 Mar 2005
4th revert: 06:26, 25 Mar 2005

To circumvent the 24-hour block, Trey created and employed three socks:

For this, he was blocked for two weeks, but was unblocked earlier as described below.

Relevant discussions have been archived at

No original research

From Talk:Allan_Nairn Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC):[reply]

"First off, I skimmed a TWT article originally by Nairn, and in Guatemala he seems to have been referencing the Guatemalan business elite. You provided a quote where he claims American businessmen supported the death squads, but if this is true, surely as a superb "investigative journalist" he can give us a quote from one such executive.

Secondly, his evidence surrounding U.S. "support" of Constant is not conclusive, and contradictory to the Clinton admin. policy of restoring Aristide to power. This needs to be noted. J. Parker Stone 21:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Yet again you're offering original research. You might think that an action, event, or state of affairs conflicts with a certain politician's or government's stated policy, but that's not sufficient reason reason for excluding it from the article. You need to provide evidence for your views, not assumptions and appeals to what seems to you to make sense. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)"

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Viajero asks Trey Stone to cite his sources and Trey Stone's response. [1]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Firebug 14:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Davenbelle 17:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
WebLuis 01:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ruy Lopez 02:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 10 May 2005 (UTC) Hello there, Ruy. Strange to be in the same column for once.[reply]
Clockwork Soul 16:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

k, I don't have a whole lot of time to act like this is some kind of real-life court case, but all I'll say is that I have brought up plenty of legitimate points, particularly on the Kissinger article, and have continued reversions within the 3RR limit due to the above users' weak arguments.

furthermore, I don't see what's wrong with trying to cleanse wikipedia of anti-U.S. bias. too often, especially in Cold War articles, subtle language is added to paint the U.S. as the bad guy, as the oppressor of the little people, whatever, with only conjecture and sketchy evidence to back it up. this violates NPOV. i'm sure the above two users feel the same way about alleged "right-wing" bias -- that's why we're having this dispute in the first place.

about my userpage, cussing, when not directed at anyone, is not a violation of any rules. as for my other violations, they occurred a while ago and i'm through with my block for them. J. Parker Stone 21:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[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.

Around late March, Tony Sidaway got Trey to read some policy and say he'd done so, in exchange for releasing a long block imposed for his earlier misbehavior. Most of the really bad personal attacks and whatnot come from before that date. Trey has not been that badly behaved, on this evidence, during April and May, although his activities continue to be problematic and he is continuing to show unwillingness to submit to the normal rules of editing on Wikipedia. He needs to pull his socks up if he is to stay out of trouble.

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

Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:11, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got to know Trey when Roberto D'Aubuisson got locked after he and another user were in an edit war, and have kept an eye on him since. The only edit of his I have reverted was putting himself in his great uncle's article. I am unimpressed with the evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute. I don't consider the example to be any type of mediation attempt. Has mediation been asked for? If not my advice would be to go for mediation at this point. Nor am I convinced that he is POV pushing. Having had some strong disputes myself with various users POVing invariably right wing, pro-American sentiments (which are not mine) I haven't found a problem with Trey's alleged POV when we have coincided on Latin American articles. If there were a Castronisation going on in wikipedia obviously it would have to be removed or reedited like any POV. If Trey really believes there is a Chomskyisation going on here he is entitled to his opinion, and to try to make the articles more NPOV as he sees it, sourcing, etc. I don't believe his political views should be used against him in this way. Yes, he gets involved in edit wars, but always with other users who look to me to be equally responsible for the edit warring. I certainly don't want to comment on whose POV may be more NPOV, just I don't think the whole POV issue should be the basis for an RFC in this case. I see no evidence of vandalism has been offered. Can we have some diffs? I agree he has been rude, and attacking of other users. I would urge Trey to use this page to apologise, and to try to be more collaborative and friendly with those editors with whom he is in dispute. But I don't think the rudeness of itself is any reason to take action right now,

2. (am endorsing Tony Sidaways) SqueakBox 18:30, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

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

SqueakBox wrote above: I don't think the whole POV issue should be the basis for an RFC in this case.

Trey Stone's politics are most decidedly not the issue; it is his behaviour and lack collaborative spirit which are the point of this RfC. -- Viajero 20:03, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems to need a serious mediation attempt before an Rfc (I think). There clearly is some kind of political dispute going on, and as I haven't got involved in edit wars with Trey I am left wondering what this dispute is really all about? Mediation could help resolve that conflict, whereas I fear this Rfc won't (based on Trey's response), --SqueakBox 21:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'm uninterested in the political differences (I despise all politicians heartily if not equally). I'm only concerned that this User regularly changes articles by added or removing material based on original research and speculation, and then refuses to back down when this is pointed out, accusing anyone who disagrees with him of being politically motivated. I take that to be behaviour that requires modification, according to Wikipedia standards. If this RfC fails to change him, then more serious measures may need to be taken, but I don't want to prejudge matters by skipping the RfC. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]