Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Reithy Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Reithy

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: 18:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:24, 28 June 2025 (UTC).

• (Reithy | talk | contributions)

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Reithy has been repeatedly vandalizing articles related to the Libertarian Party. Despite plenty of warnings and requests to stop, he has refused to do so. He has also vandalized a user page and used personal attacks in edit summaries.

(provide diffs and links)

1. Repeatedly vandalized United States Libertarian Party on October 11 and 12, resulting in (otherwise unnecessary) page protection: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] (a small sampling). Personal attack in edit summary: [7]
2. Vandalized Michael Badnarik on October 10: [8]
3. Vandalized User:Pstudier on October 11: [9]
4. Vandalized Ron Paul on October 11: [10]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Vandalism
2. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
3. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

(provide diffs and links)

1. Requests to stop on his talk page from RadicalSubversiv, Rhobite, and Stormie: [11], [12], [13] (his vandalism continued the next day)
2. Discussion at Talk:United States Libertarian Party

(sign with ~~~~)

1. RadicalSubversiv E 18:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. Rhobite 20:51, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Simoes 21:27, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
2. pstudier 23:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
3. Stormie 00:50, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
4. Chuck F 06:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
5. Nat Krause 16:46, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
6. Maurreen 18:33, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
7. Scottbeck 22:01, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
8. RickK 23:45, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
9. Delirium 14:47, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)
10. Sarge Baldy 06:37, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
11. fvw 13:22, 2004 Oct 16 (UTC)
12. Johnleemk | Talk 08:07, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
13. Geoff Canyon 20:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. M Carling 16:13, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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.

I am a new user who stumbled onto writing about the Libertarian Party, which is really interesting to me.

The article as I found it was a highly misleading, partisan advertisement for the Libertarian Party containing puffery and obscure details like whose home the Party was founded in. It was utterly weird and totally partial.

I attempted to add some degree of neutrality and realism to the article. I was surprised and offended that this was immediately reverted without comment and without taking my more neutral language into consideration.

Borne of frustration about this, I stupidly retaliated by injecting some humor to the debate with unjustified references to Richard Nixon, Pablo Escobar et al. It was my intention to revert these, as necessary.

For this stupidity I apologise. And totally promise not to succumb to such temptation again. If my language in the edits commentary is too robust, I also apologise, it was borne of frustration. For my initial and subsequent efforts to write a more balanced article, I make no apology and will persist in making the article more balanced. Reithy 14:51, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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.

{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 ~~~~):

It's pretty clear to me that the issue isn't so much about the actual content Reithy is adding to the articles, but the personal attacks and inflammatory language he uses in his discussions about the edits. I found myself agreeing with most of the edits themselves, but I was appalled by the tone of his comments on the discussion pages and in the edit history comments. Such immature behavior is decidedly hurtful to Wikipedia, since it detracts from any meaningful discussion of the actual issues at hand. Jerde 01:12, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

His edits seem to be more of an attempt to get personal attacks in than any attempt to edit articles in good faith. For example, he changed the "History" section label to "History of a minor party", which is ridiculous—our "history" section in the article on the United States is just labeled "History", not "History of a large country". The rest is mostly the same, rife with attacks on other editors and edit summaries about how the articles he's editing are about "clowns". Clearly he has no good faith interest in creating an encyclopedia, merely in using it to attack people he happens to dislike. --Delirium 18:51, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Listing Libertarian Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates and one of the founders of the party on VfD as "vanity" is not editing in good faith. Deleting all but the most minimal amount of information from these people's articles is not editing in good faith. RickK 08:20, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

209.102.125.180 15:52, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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