Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Grazon

---

• (Grazon | talk | contributions)
• (Grazon's IP 132.241.245.49 | talk | contributions)
• (Grazon's IP 132.241.245.132 | talk | contributions)
• (Grazon's IP 71.143.3.205 | talk | contributions)
• (Grazon's IP 71.142.223.71 | talk | *contributions)
• 71.143.17.215
• 71.143.21.122
• 71.143.4.229
• 71.142.209.99
• 71.115.222.77

and others in the 71.***.*** range.

---

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

Statement of the dispute

User chronically makes article additions from user's POV, and edits lacking context or relevance. User rarely uses relevant edit summaries.

Description

Grazon/132.241.245.49 has been adding POV and generally poor edits to the wikipedia since his second edit, 04:35, 9 September 2004. Most commonly, Grazon attacks individuals and organizations by adding material that puts them in a bad light. He seems to particularly attack American political conservatives and Christian fundamentalists. His POV additions are most often not very important to the article, and seem to be added only to promote his point of view.

A number of Grazon's neutral edits also lack context or are otherwise poor.

In spite of multiple requests on both talk pages to use a neutral point of view, his edits have not improved, other than to use citations.

Evidence of disputed behavior

POV lacking relevance or context

1. Pat Buchanan
2. Charles Coughlin
3. 501(c)(3)
4. example early edit to Bob Jones III
5. 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities - misleading edit, copied straight from an editorial article.
6. Two separate 3RR violations, both involving out of context quotes written by news sources: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive5
7. Kfir Alfia
8. Admiral Hyman G. Rickover

Edits lacking context or relevance

1. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt
2. Ira Hayes

Edits lacking edit summaries or sigs

1. edit history as 132.241.245.49
2. edit history as Grazon
3. no sig on article talk page
4. no sig on article talk page

Applicable policies

1. Neutral Point of View
2. Edit summaries
3. Signatures

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. by DDerby: [1], [2]
2. by Lucky 6.9: [3]
3. by Radicalsubversiv: [4]
4. by Ran: [5]
5. by Derktar: [6]
6. by Calsicol: [7]
7. by Rhobite: [8]
8. by Willmcw [9]

All of these and more can be seen at User talk:Grazon, User talk:132.241.245.49, and User talk:132.241.245.132

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

1. DDerby-(talk) 08:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
2. Rhobite 17:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Willmcw 00:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
4. Derktar 22:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
5. Rogue 9 03:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
6. AustinKnight 06:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Kwh 07:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

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.

{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 (sign with ~~~~):

I find this "dispute" to be pointless since much of the "Evidence" is faulty.

grazon 22:46, 28 December 2005 (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.}

I've run into a few of Grazon's edits and found them to be largely meritless. He likes to go through and remove qualifiers to cast statements in a more definitive and sinister light. For example, he'll change, "Mr. Smith's lawyer stated that he believes Mr. Adams was behind the cover-up" to read "Mr. Smith's lawyer stated that Mr. Adams was behind the cover-up." This user appears to be unflaggingly dedicated to his own POV on things, and that's fine, but inappropriate for Wikipedia. His defense of his actions is unconvincing.

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

1. Bjsiders 22:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Crockspot 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.