Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aquirata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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: 08:43, 2 June 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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.

[edit] Description

User is chiefly in violation of WP:POINT and WP:V, in the latter case using WP:V where it suits him and ignoring it where it doesn't. Trolls talk pages to the point of disruption and badgers other users with variations of "you are wrong" or "why won't you answer me?". Is holding a handful of Astrology related articles hostage.
Talk posts on Objective validity of astrology have been testy in general for about ten days (my own included) but WP:CIVIL I don't see as the chief problem. Rather, I think this user is engaged in a subtle form of trolling: single-issue focus, massive talk posts, general hypocrisy regarding what should and should not be sourced, insinuations that other editors don't know enough about astrology to edit, repeatedly citing consensus where none exists, and inaccurately citing policy (particularly WP:NPOV) despite having had policy amply explained to him.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Trolling on the WP:NPOV talk page by repeatedly placing massive talk posts to clog the page, and belittling or ignoring other users responses (one or two long posts to NPOV may be over-eager, but this was obviously disruptive): [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Scroll here for to see in full how much time was wasted responding to him. The conversation was eventually cut-off due to the trolling.
  2. Badgering other users for sources, including a fact request on citations already provided [6] and an obviously POINT request to source "astronomy is accepted as a science" [7]. Being picky about sources is not in-itself a bad thing, but:
  3. User explicitly refuses to provide sources of his own. Please look at the last paragraph of this post from him, as it's what induced me to bring this RfC: [8]
  4. "Consensus" consists of him and one other user. Here for example.
  5. Glib asides when challenged (the last one is patronizing in the extreme and strikes me as an attack): [9] [10]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:POINT
  2. Wikipedia:Verifiability (and/or WP:CITE)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

  1. Various editors explaining there is no contradiction on NPOV and that consensus is long established: [11] [12] [13] [14]
  2. User:Lundse [15]. See last part of edit.
  3. User:Marskell repeated demands for sources: [16] [17] [18]. Note the user has yet to provide any.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Marskell 08:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundse 09:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Apperantly, my word is not to be trusted, see the talk page for User:Andrew Homer's reason why. Lundse 23:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. siddharth 13:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. •Jim62sch• 21:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. JoshuaZ 22:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jefffire 12:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.}

My response to the above allegations under Evidence of disputed behavior:

  1. Trolling on the WP:NPOV talk page: I have pointed out a logical contradiction within WP:NPOV [19]. Responses to this have been hostile and bordering on ad hominem attacks [20] [21] [22]. The main point had to be repeated in various forms so that other editors address the argument directly [23] [24].
  2. Badgering other users for sources: Simply following WP:V, which states: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." The presentation of the Astrology and astronomy page was particularly biased towards the scientific point of view, therefore the need for sourcing 'obvious' statements highlighted the need for a neutral rewrite.
  3. User explicitly refuses to provide sources of his own: Wikipedia is a community project and no single user is solely responsible for content. I have pointed out that problematic (unverified) statements must be flagged with the 'fact' tag, which will result in somebody providing a reliable source [25].
  4. "Consensus" consists of him and one other user: I don't see how the example cited supports this statement; in fact, it is support to the contrary [26] [27].
  5. Glib asides when challenged: This is part of a longer conversation. It started with a restructure representing the views of editors: [28], which was quickly reverted by User:Marskell without discussion. Then he accused me of changing content [29], which he later retracted [30]. Later he proposed merging [31], to which I responded with a call for balancing the arguments first [32]. This was quickly dismissed [33], after which I pointed out to him that my restructuring helped him see how the article could be made better [34]. In fact it is User:Marskell who frequently uses course language in his replies [35] [36].

I will also respond to the other three points when I have more time.

My response to the above allegations under Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute:

  1. Various editors explaining: I see no evidence for 'trying and failing to resolve dispute' here. It was shown that the NPOV policy contained a contradiction, and the logical arguments put forth in support of this were not directly addressed - this can be considered as evidence for repeated attempts by other parties to initiate and escalate dispute: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57].
  2. Lundse's post was in answer to my post [58] calling for cooperation rather than name-calling [59] by User:Marskell. So this is in fact demonstrating that I was trying to resolve the dispute and he was not.
  3. Answers to sourcing requests were provided here: [60] [61] (last three sentences). This again is evidence to repeated, unreasonable demands by User:Marskell after suitable replies have already been given.

In summary, there doesn't appear to be any support for the allegations by User:Marskell. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be the case. User:Marskell could certainly be the subject of an RfC himself not just on the basis of his hostile posts but also due to his unwarranted reverts and edits that he frequently makes without discussion. However, I prefer to concentrate on editing Wikipedia and resolving issues as they arise.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Aquirata 15:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Doovinator 17:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Piper Almanac 04:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside views

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.

[edit] Outside view by Andrew Homer

With how much badgering I've received from Lundse, I don't trust anything he states. He's a debunker pretending to be a skeptic. Each subsequent advancement in physics and astronomy does NOT dismiss Astrology, contrary to what poorly educated psuedo-scientists would have us believe. The debunkers are idealogs more absorbed with their own BELIEFS, rather than maintaining neutrality, as a scientist should. (My pet thesis is that Astrology is the most muscle-bound religion in the world. There's more emperical validation for Astrology than there is for any other religion. Thanks to the U.S. Constitution, I have MORE rights practicing my "religion," than I do conducting "science.") It's the DEBUNKERS who are the trollers and spammers on Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Andrew Homer 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Aquirata 19:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Piper Almanac 04:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Doovinator 03:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment on this summary:

  1. Andrew Homer chiming in by Lundse 14:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (instead of removing personal attack above, I have chosen to comment).

[edit] Outside view by Sxeptomaniac

If there were a Flogging a dead horse guideline, it would apply here. Repeatedly raising the same complaint/comment/question "in various forms" because the answers are not to your satisfaction would fall under WP:POINT, IMO.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Sxeptomaniac 23:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. FeloniousMonk 23:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Marskell 16:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. JoshuaZ 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  5. In spades. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
  6. Lundse 07:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  7. siddharth 06:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by iantresman

"Individual users thus enforce most policies and guidelines by editing pages, and discussing matters with each other" (my emphasis)[62]

Aquirata is querying policy, a reasonable excercise. I am quite sure he has gone through the archives, just I have gone through the archives, and yet there are still queries. The refusal to engage in dialogue is not on the spirit of policy, rude, dismissive and patronising.

Wiki policy has evolved over the years, and no doubt will evolve in the future. Discussing policy is healthy, and makes for good checks and balances. I fully support Aquirata, and others who want to discuss matters... as suggested on the Wikipedia Policies and guidelines pages.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Iantresman 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Aquirata 01:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Doovinator 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Aquirata_1b60.html"