Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 01:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC).


207.200.116.* block of IP addresses:


172.19*.* block of IP addresses:

In case it is preferable for admininistration, the above information is also included in a diff here, for reference. Ancheta Wis 11:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

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

[edit] Description

This editor has engaged in revert wars in several articles about abstract philosophical concepts: Truth, True, Knowledge, Epistemology. He also removed content from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that it is a "logical fallacy". When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being "obscurantists", of being "vandals", and of violating the NPOV policy. When informed that most users oppose his edits, he responds that this is fallacious reasoning, "argumentum ad numerum".

At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement. When he was informed that this was not the case, he removed the paragraphs from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contradicted his belief.

He has removed other users' comments from talk pages, claiming that they are personal attacks. At the same time, he has called other users names.

DotSix may claim in his response that I removed his comment from Talk:Truth. That is a false claim, I did remove it by accident [22] but I replaced it two minutes later [23]. For days he has been complaining about this perceived violation, although he himself is not above removing other users' comments intentionally.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

Behavior issues

  1. Removes several comments from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: [24]
  2. Repeatedly removes parts of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that they are "logical fallacies". The NPOV policy is non-negotiable and may only be edited at the direction of Jimbo Wales: [25] [26] [27]
  3. Removes User:FuelWagon's comment from Talk:Truth: [28] [29]. He has done this again today [30]
  4. Removes User:Ancheta Wis's comment from Talk:Truth, calling it an "irrelevant diatribe with threats of reprisal" [31]
  5. Calls User:Banno "banana", a personal attack: [32] [33]
  6. Removes the lead section of Truth, reverts to own version repeatedly in violation of 3RR [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]
  7. Repeatedly attempts to redirect True to wiktionary:true. Not only is this technically impossible, he violates the three revert rule in the process: [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]
  8. Random sampling of him calling other users "vandals", "obscurantists", and erroneously accusing them of using logical fallacies: "obscurantist jihad" [45], "argumentum ad numerum" [46], "revert to eliminate vandalism" [47]. By only his 8th edit anywhere on Wikipedia he had already begun namecalling.
  9. Removal of comments by User:Banno from Talk:true, [48], [49],
  10. Removes User:Robert McClenon's outside response from this RFC: [50]
  11. Demanding that Wiki policy be ignored when it doesn't conform to his desires. [51],[52]
  12. Repeatedly adding an NPOV tag without explanation. [53],[54],[55],[56],[57]
  13. Adding a NPOV tag to a lead paragraph that he had written himself. [58]
  14. Falsely accused others of threatening him. [59]
  15. Repeatedly inserts his responses to the this RFC in the wrong sections. There is no doubt that he understands the prinicple of confining one's remarks to the appropriate section because one of his complaints (while inserting comments in the wrong sections) was that someone else had inserted comments in the wrong section!!!!! [60] [61]
  16. Removal of other user's comments from this RfC [62]
  17. Referring to User:FuelWagon as "Foolwagon" in this RFC [63]
  18. 3RR violation, again / page blanking vandalism as of Aug 6, 2005
  19. ditto Aug 11th - 12th.
  20. Deletes admin warning and admin explanation of block from his talk page, calling them personal attacks. [64]
  21. Created a bogus 3RR alert [65] for "tyrannous majority" in violation of WP:POINT.
  22. Removed portions of this RfC, stating that they were ad hominem arguments, violating 3RR, on 13 August 2005: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DotSix&action=history

Content issues (for reference)

  1. No other users have supported DotSix's version of Truth. DotSix's edits have been reverted by Banno, Nathan Ladd, Ancheta Wis, Rhobite, JimWae, Byped, Canderson7, Essjay, Meelar, Spangineer, CryptoDerk, Asbestos, BaronLarf, Veratien.
  2. Repeatedly removes sections of Knowledge and Epistemology, claiming that they exhibit "the fallacy of conflation of knowledge and belief": [66] [67] [68][69] [70] [71]. As of today, he has begun doing this again. --63.231.15.66 00:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. Repeatedly adding a link to a page that simply redirects to the original page. [72],[73]
  4. Repeatedly tried to introduce the subject of Truth with a sentence that introduces philosophy. See edits from [74] through [75]. Note how others tried to explain to him what the problem is.
  5. Wikipedia:No tyranny of the majority is a re-creation of Tyranny of the majority which was deleted as the result of a VfD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Tyranny of the majority created by a sockpuppet of DotSix Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix}}

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:Sock puppet
  4. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (removing other users' comments)
  5. Wikipedia:Three revert rule
  6. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

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

(provide diffs and links)

Talk to the other party

  1. I (Rhobite) have twice suggested that DotSix contact me via e-mail or IRC so we can sort this out. These requests have gone unanswered. [76] [77]
  2. Ancheta Wis attempts to explain why it is not OK for DotSix to add POV to Truth: [78] DotSix also removed this comment.
  3. I attempt to discuss how DotSix's contributions violate the manual of style, and warn him about editing other users' comments. He has continued to edit comments since I warned him. [79]
  4. Refusing to respond constructively to attempts by others to meet him/her halfway. For many of these the attempt to reach out to DotSix comes in the edit annotation. [80],[81],[82],[83], [84],[85],[86], [87], [88], and all edits from [89] through [90]

[edit] Discuss with a third party

  1. Banno set up an RfC to seek outside opinion on .6's behaviour. The RfC was placed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Miscellaneous instead of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#General user conduct precisely to give .6 the benefit of the doubt [91]. That we are now involved in this RfC shows that the attempt failed. Banno 12:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  2. FuelWagon responded to an RfC about Truth, and addressed DotSix's conduct: [92] DotSix immediately removed FuelWagon's comment since it was critical of his conduct.
  3. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts notice 23 July [93]

[edit] Conduct a survey

Given the rejection of a "majority rules" explicated by .6 in the talk pages, it is doubtful that the results of a survey on the issue would have a positive result.

[edit] Try to work DotSix's edits into the existing article

  1. On the Epistemology page, when Banno attempted to reach a happy medium by rewriting the intro to include DotSix's points, DotSix (using the IP 172.191.126.235) reverted that on the claim that it was "controversial". Banno's edits: [94]. DotSix's revert: [95] -- Ravenswood 16:32, August 4, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Rhobite 01:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ancheta Wis 02:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nate Ladd 04:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Banno 06:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  5. JimWae 08:32, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
  6. WhiteC 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  7. Ravenswood 16:33, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  8. Removing my signature from endorsers and adding it here. Robert McClenon 15:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Asbestos 19:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC). I was only involved briefly in the events at Truth, so don't think I was involved enough to sign the section above. Personally I think DotSix is a mere troll, but trolls can at times become too distruptive to counter by mere starvation, and action must sometimes be taken.
  2. Christofurio 23:34, August 5, 2005 (UTC) . Like Asbestos, my involvement has been limited. But I do from time to time work on the Epistemology and Truth articles, and I think it fair to say that DotSix's reverts there have long since gone beyond what one might call reasonable disagreement. Aside from misusing the term "conflation," he hasn't even attempted to give coherent explanations.
  3. BaronLarf 16:13, August 7, 2005 (UTC) Also had limited involvement, but made some of the reverts that DotSix quickly re-reverted. I think he's just a troll who's probably thrilled to have so much attention right now. Get him out of here.
  4. Veratien 02:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC) I have repeatedly reverted redirects put in place by DotSix, only to have him re-revery them back. He has repeatedly shown a lack of respect for rules or the opinions of others. Whilst I have only had a limited experience in this matter, I think it is plainly obvious that DotSix is doing this purely because he can. If it is possible to ban him without blocking the entire 207.200.116.* and 172.19*.*.* blocks then I believe it is in the best interests of the project to do so quickly.
  5. ···Kzollman | Talk··· 20:45, August 10, 2005 (UTC) I have reverted many of DotSix's edits to Knowledge and Epistemology. I have been following the dispute between him and the other users, and the representations here reflect what I have seen.
  6. I have observed DotSix's behavior. He seems to have an extremely broad idea about what constitutes a personal attack, that it includes discussion of his behavior or his actions such as trolling (which is a patently false idea), and DotSix seems to almost always take to wiping comments of his behavior or people attempting to deal with it or resolve the situation as ad hominem attacks or tyranny of the majority rather than paying any attention to them. ----Mysidia (talk) 20:37, 13 August 2005 (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.

{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.}

<begin summary number one>

The above summary composed by those who are a party to this nasty little personal attack is definitely biased, as shown in the following examples.


re: "The following response from DotSix ..." -- Rhobite

1. What proof do you have this is from the accused?
2. What gives you the right to edit THE RESPONSE SECTION, unless you are the accused, or among those who think that the dispute is unjustified? Didn't you read the instructions, above, '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'? Shall we take it that you are now changing sides, giving up your nasty little personal attack/vendetta on this newbie, which is conduct unbecoming an adminstrator? If so, please sign in in the endorsement section below, per instructions, 'Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign'. -- 172.191.129.191 16:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

re: "The following response from DotSix was moved here from where he inserted it above in the wrong section" -- Rholite

You mean where the evidence that you, Rhobite, were caught in conduct unbecoming an administrator (deleting the comment of another, and then not telling the truth about it when confronted with the fact) was presented, in the diff just before that one? Why don't you just drop this nasty little personal attack/vendetta of yours, Rhobite? Biting the newbies is also conduct unbecoming an adminstrator, wouldn't you say, old boy? -- 172.192.66.3 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


re: "*67.182.157.6 (talk • contribs), calls himself "DotSix". Also editing from:"

You have no proof of this, it is empty allegation with no basis in fact that you can point to. I move for summary dismissal of Rhobite's nasty little personal attack/vendetta against someone he just does not like, which is conduct unbecoming an administrator. -- 172.191.129.191


re: "This editor has engaged in revert wars"

Is there a policy prohibiting reasonable reverts which are based on sound reasons explained in the relevant discussion page?

re: "He also removed content from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that it is a "logical fallacy"."

Articles based on logical fallacy have no place in a modern encyclopedia. There is enough of that in the Bible, The Washington Times, etc. -- 172.191.129.191


re: "When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being 'obscurantists' ... "

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, don't be surprised when people conclude that you might actually be a duck (or obscurantist, as the case may be). -- 172.191.129.191


re: "When informed that most users oppose his edits, he responds that this is fallacious reasoning, 'argumentum ad numerum'."

It IS logical fallacy to argue, "P must be true, because it is the opinion of the majority here." This is one of the main objections to the consensus theory of truth. Google argument _ad numerum_ (appeal to the popularity of a particular point of view). -- 172.191.129.191


re: "At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement."

Citation?
The accused never said anything like "EQUAL PLACEMENT," did he? Isn't it the actual state of affairs that the accused has consistently quoted the Wikipedia Policy that Principled Negotiation is the method of choice to resolve content disputes, "Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves APPROPRIATE MENTION OF ALL POINTS OF VIEW in an article thus improving the quality of the article." -- 172.191.129.191 (emphasis added)


re: "He has removed other users' comments from talk pages"

Isn't this another case of the pot calling the kettle black? Rhobite has removed another user's comments from a talk page. See below.

re: "DotSix may claim in his response that I removed his comment from Talk:Truth. That is a false claim, I did remove it by accident [96] but I replaced it two minutes later [97]."

The proof that you, Rhobite, were caught in conduct unbecoming an administrator (deleting the comment of another, and THEN NOT TELLING THE TRUTH ABOUT IT WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE EVIDENCE [98]) is clearly evident in the diff just BEFORE the one you like to cite
The comment you replaced, [99], is not the comment we are discussing, it's this other one that you deleted permanently: [100].
How long will you continue to cite the wrong diff? How many times will you have to be reminded that it is not the diff you cite that we are discussing, IT IS THE ONE BEFORE IT, [101], where you are shown deleting a comment you never replaced?

re: "Removed FuelWagon's comment since it was critical of his conduct."

That isn't true, is it? Here is the relevant diff: [102]
As you can see, the ACTUAL REASON STATED for removing it was that it was a personal attack, which is prohibited by policy, Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor?

re: "Archiving material as a rhetorical tool" by Mr. Banno:

  1. Material directly relevant to the discussion of redundancy was removed to an archive the day after it was posted, thereby ending an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise. The discussion concerned the philosopher Frank Ramsey whose redundancy theory was the reason cited for .6's NPOV complaint; .6 did not enter into the discussion of Ramsey's work, instead archiving the discussion, prematurely ending it.[103]
Banno 20:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Banno does not report the actual state of affairs. The accused never mentioned the name, "Ramsey" at all. Repeat, the accused never mentioned Ramsey. If anyone disagrees, please post a link to the page where he did here:
... Yes, .6 did not mention Ramsey ... Banno 11:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
So your testimony that RAMSEY WAS CITED as the reason for taking exception to statements made in the lead section at the time, that testimony was not in accord with the actual state of affairs? Thank you Mr. Bananas, that was the only question the defense had for you. --172.193.218.186

re: "I posted a comment on the Truth article regarding dot-six's behaviour." -- FoolWagon

Hasn't anyone informed you of the Wikipedia policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."?
Shortcut:
WP:NPA

re: "For me, the worst thing about .6's behaviour and its consequences is simply the time spent by myself and others in dealing with it. This is time that could have been spent on far more productive activities." -- Banno

If Mr. Banno and company could learn to follow Wikipedia policy and "Comment on content, not on the contributor," and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, that might solve all their productivity problems.

re: Conduct unbecoming an adminsistrator

Here is another good example of conduct unbecoming an adminsistrator: In the middle of this big total thermoneuclear content dispute, Rhobite arbitrarily and capriciously slaps a block on his oponent: Special:lpblocklist 18:18, 2 August 2005, Rhobite blocked 67.182.157.6 (expires 18:18, 3 August 2005) (contribs) (removing VfD tag)

The allegation, "removing VfD tag" is not in accord with the actual state of affairs, the VfD tag was not removed as Rhobite alleges, it was simply moved to the discussion page where it belongs, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace

<end of summary number one>

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

  1. ~~~~

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

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.

I am inclined to agree with Asbestos that Dot-Six is a troll, but a troll who is being disruptive. My own opinion is that the most serious offense by Dot-Six has been editing a Wikipedia official policy. I am not looking at the detailed definition of vandalism, and so do not want to state positively whether that is vandalism, but multiply editing an official policy to change its content is clearly abusive.

Dot-Six is one of two anonymous editors who are currently the subject of Requests for Comments who illustrate a special problem about disruptive anonymous editors. I agree with Wikipedia policy that anonymous edits should normally be permitted. A signed-in editor who violates the 3RR rule can be blocked. An anonymous editor who violates the 3RR rule cannot be effectively blocked. Since Wikipedia (unlike much of Usenet) is not an anarchy, there must be situations in which the use of anonymity has to be checked. My own suggestion is that there should be a feature allowing an article that has previously been disrupted by anonymous edits more than 3 times in 24 hours to be permanently protected from anonymous edits without the drastic extent of full protection. That is my opinion.

I think that Dot-Six is an anonymous troll who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a philosophical point. I am not exactly sure what point is. There needs to be a way to minimize disruption by anonymous trolls. Robert McClenon 22:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Time for Arbitration

I had previously agreed with Asbestos that Dot-Six was probably only a troll. I have deleted some of my language from the above because I think that "only a troll" may be a misnomer. It is not important whether Dot-Six is a troll, a "warrior", a vandal, or what. In addition to attempting to alter Wikipedia official policy, Dot-Six has also deleted comments from this RfC. At this point, I think that it is time for arbitration. Unfortunately, in the absence of a feature to protect articles from anonymous edits, it may be necessary to enforce a ban by excluding whole ranges of addresses. Robert McClenon 23:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. gkhan 10:24, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ravenswood 16:45, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view from FuelWagon

Well, I consider myself an outside view. I posted a comment on the Truth article RFC regarding dot-six's behaviour. He deleted it, twice. I still stand by that comment, and would add that dot-six's appears unable to respond to criticism of his behaviour as anything other than an attack on his personal character. His deletion of my comment above also includes a comment by him to respect "No Personal Attacks", and "Focus on content, not the editor". I have doubts that he will respond to this any better.

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

  1. FuelWagon 22:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. Robert McClenon 06:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view from Gkhan

I would like to say that his views on logical fallacies is, at best, superficial. The arguments he uses are often ridiculus (Argumentum ad numerum on a policy? The policy isn't valid because many uses it, it is valid because it is policy) to the downright contradictory (falsly accusing a user of a personal attack while making mountains of Ad hominem himself!). Do not be afraid about the fancy-pants latin phrases, this guy has very little understanding about the noble Art of Valid Argument.

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

  1. gkhan 08:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Robert McClenon 06:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

{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 ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

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


[edit] Archiving material as a rhetorical tool

<Banno comment moed from here to discussion page per above instructions> I am re-inserting this material as .6's edit removed a large portion:

  1. Material directly relevant to the discussion of redundancy was removed to an archive the day after it was posted, thereby ending an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise. The discussion concerned the philosopher Frank Ramsey whose redundancy theory was the reason cited for .6's NPOV complaint; .6 did not enter into the discussion of Ramsey's work, instead archiving the discussion, prematurely ending it.[104]
Banno 20:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Banno does not report the actual state of affairs. The accused never mentioned the name, "Ramsey" at all. Repeat, the accused never mentioned Ramsey. If anyone disagrees, please post a link to the page where he did here:
The logic of this response escapes me. Yes, .6 did not mention Ramsey; indeed, this was despite being asked several times to do so. Ramsey is the originator and main advocate of the redundancy theory of truth that .6 used as the basis for his POV dispute. So, in order to solve the dispute in good faith, discussion of Ramsey would be essential. Instead, .6 failed to address the issue and hid the discussion by archiving it. My point was precisely that .6 avoided discussion of Ramsey by archiving relevant material. Banno 11:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Banno 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rebuttal to DotSix's Response above

DotSix has a habit of changing his own remarks (as well as those of others), so I can't promise that any of the matters I discuss here will still be mentioned in his Response by the time you read this.

  1. Allegation that Rhobite deleted one of DotSix comments on a talk page. DotSix, using one of his sock puppets, improperly deleted a comment that was critical of his behavior. In the same edit he added a brief paragraph elsewhere on the page and added a sentence to the beginning of a paragraph that he had previously put on the page under a different IP. [105] When Rhobite reverted this, quite appropriately, the two additions were, of course, removed.[106] Two minutes later, Rhobite noticed the removal of the brief paragraph and restored it. He did not spot the sentence added to the beginning of a paragraph. Hence, it wasn't restored. [107] I hope the breathtaking scope of DotSix's hypocrisy is clear: Not only has he himself repeatedly edited other people's comments both before and since making this complaint about Rhobite, but the very comment whose deletion he is complaining about was added by him while he was in the process of deleting someone else's comment. By the way, Rhobite was under no obligation to restore either of those remarks anyway. When he is reverting someone else's improper deletion, he is entitled to revert it whole. He does not have to hunt through it looking for sub-parts that would be proper if entered by themselves. When DotSix, or any of us, violates a policy, we put all parts of that same edit at risk of reversion.
  2. Allegation that Rhobite edited the Response section of this RfC It was me, Nate, not Rhobite, who moved DotSix's first response from the section where he has improperly put it and moved it to the Response section. In the same edit, I added the note explaining what I was doing. [108] Please note DotSix's stuptifying hypocrisy: The you-edited-the-wrong-section complaint is about an edit that was made in order to correct HIS editing of the wrong section.
  3. Did DotSix claim that all points of view must be treated equally? Yes, he did at [109] [110] [111] [112] and [113]. It was pointed out to him that, although Wiki policy requires that all points of view be mentioned fairly, it explicitly rejects the idea that all points of view have to be treated equally. He responded by editing the policy page itself in an attempt to unilaterally reverse the policy. He didn't get away with it. DotSix's claim, in this Response, that he did not ever assert that all points of view have to be treated equally is dishonest.
  4. Did DotSix archive an ongoing discussion? Yes, he did. It was a discussion that concerned the philosopher Ramsey, as Banno noted; but what it concerned is irrelevant. What matters is that DotSix effectively shut it off by archiving it. This point seems to be lost on DotSix. Indeed, he seems to think that whether or not he mentioned Ramsey in his contributions to the discussion is the issue. But, of course, what matters is what he did with the discussion, not who he mentioned in it.
  5. Is there evidence that the IPs above are all be used by DotSix? DotSix says there is "no proof" that he is using these IPs. Notice he is not denying that he is behind all of these IPs, he is only claiming that there is no proof of it. In point of fact, there is ample evidence. See the comments, diffs, and links above in the list of IPs he has been using.
  6. Allegation that FuelWagon made a personal attack on DotSix. FuelWagon's remarks are here: [114]. It is criticism of DotSix's behavior, not a personal attack. Moreover, it was appropriate since it came as part of an RfC.
  7. Allegation that DotSix's opponents use the Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity DotSix says that his opponents argue thus: "P must be true, because it is the opinion of the majority here." In fact, no one has made such a ridiculous claim. Rather, we have argued "P is not commonly accepted, therefore, to be consistent with Wiki policy, it should be mentioned fairly, but it should not have as much prominence as other views." (This distinction was explained to DotSix before at [115], but he has ignored it.)

--Nate Ladd 06:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Tyranny of the Majority

I assume DotSix created the above project page (original version linked above) as a response to people's explainations of what is meant by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or it was created as a fake piece of Wikipedia jargon to be used in this RfC. Either way, he certainly ought to that the project namespace is to be used for policies and the like, so ought to know by now that it's not a place for rhetoric, nor as a vehicle for complaining that his own POV isn't getting enough weight. It's been nominated for deletion. — Asbestos | Talk 19:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that the subtitle of this section (above) does not actually link to the latest version of [116] which includes the request for deletion header. Presumably this was intentional, but I thought it should be emphasized, nonetheless. WhiteC 19:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I have deleted that page per the VfD but felt nessacery to preserve the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Tyranny of the majority to provide evidence, if needed, for the ongoing arbitration. Sasquatch↔讲↔看 20:58, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Restitution

For me, the worst thing about .6's behaviour and its consequences is simply the time spent by myself and others in dealing with it. This is time that could have been spent on far more productive activities.

The only positive consequence I can see is that in amongst the hundreds of edits, Nathan noticed a genuine problem with the introduction. Perhaps this will result in an improvement.

I'd like to see .6 do a few things. Foremost would be to register, give himself a proper user name and stop using sock puppets. Not only would thins make his own life easier, but it would also make it possible to deal with difficulties with him directly, instead of through the various article talk pages. It would simply be the courteous thing to do.

Next, I think .6 would benefit from reading more extensively before editing. Wikipedia:How to write a great article does a great job of explaining why it is important to research a topic before editing. I think it clear from his comments that he is a novice in philosophy. Having novices around is extremely important - their misunderstandings allow us to improve the articles. But in order to improve the article, one must be able to clearly articulate the problems one sees with it; one can do this much more easily if one is willing to learn about the topic, rather than just to assume that their naive opinion is the one that counts.

Finally, of course, adopting a civil attitude towards other editors would make .6's life easier. People are more likely to accept change when it is presented politely. None of .6's edits on an article have been accepted - I imagine this would be a considerable source of frustration for him; it would be for me. Getting others to accept your edits is part-and-parcel of working on the Wiki.

Again, it is up to .6 to adopt his behaviour. Perhaps he can. If he can't, and it becomes necessary to block his IP addresses, an injustice will have been done to the other legitimate editors who apparently use the same IPs. That injustice would be down to .6, not to the Wiki admins. Banno 00:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Both Robert McClenon and gkhan have suggested moving on to arbitration. 6., you should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration so that you understand what is being suggested. You might consider taking this issue to Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, in order to avoid its going to arbitration. Banno 12:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I did read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. I don't see the purpose of offering to mediate with someone who is trying to change the rules and change the record of the dispute. Other opinions may differ. Robert McClenon 12:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
My point above was to .6; don't get me wrong, if someone here were to take this to arbitration they would have my full support. I am just ensuring that .6 knows about the process and what his options are. Since his opinion has received virtually no support, I strongly recommend that he should seek an advocate. I would also be happy for him to take this to mediation - I think that he should be the one to do this, rather than us, because it is he who is in the minority. But if he doesn't want to do this, and he continues to be a blight on the editing of the epistemology pages, I will take him to arbitration myself. Banno 20:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that you were addressing Dot-Six rather than Robert McClenon or gkhan. I have posted a notice that arbitration is being discussed on the "talk page" of each of the IP addresses that has so far been identified in this RfC as being used by Dot-Six. The template for an IP address talk page contains a good instruction that if any comments are made that are not applicable to a person using an anonymous IP address, they are advised to create an account or sign in. Anyone who is not Dot-Six can avoid being blocked by creating an account. (For that matter, anyone who is Dot-Six can avoid being blocked by IP address. However, that is hypothetical.) Robert McClenon 21:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
It isn't quite true that other users will not be inconvenienced by blocking .6's IPs. I've had this happen before, when a vandal using the same ISP as myself was blocked. But it was fixed by contacting the ISP directly, and making a complaint. presumably those who share .6's ISP could make a complaint (the email address for reporting abuse is freely available - abuse@comcast.net in the case of the block 67.182.128.0 - 67.182.159.255; see [Domain Dossier]). This might, of course, have implications for .6. But the decision to block lies with the arbitrators and admins. Banno 23:09, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Since it's being discussed, I have blocked him once for repeatedly removing the VfD notice from Wikipedia:Tyranny of the majority. I blocked one of his AOL addresses (User:172.196.123.246) for 24 hours, not his main 67.182.157.6 address. I believe arbitration may be necessary but I'm willing to participate in mediation first. Rhobite 03:35, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
From what I see of this guy I don't think mediation will help. Ofcourse there is no harm in trying, I just think that this is one for the ArbCom. Obviously I wont start it or anything since I am not involved in the dispute. gkhan 06:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

My suggestion is that we wait a day or so to see if .6 is willing to either change his dogmatic approach, seek mediation or arrange an advocate. If there is no progress, then I guess we have done as much as we can, and we can take it to arbitration. Again, I think it needs to be .6 who seeks mediation, since he needs to be committed to the process for it to work and he has previously accused those who object to his edits of collusion. Banno 08:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am attempting to talk to .6 about this in the epistemology talk area, and I would like to wait a few days as well. I'm not terribly hopeful, but I would like to exhaust the possibilities of reason (and afterward copy the argument here) before arbitration. WhiteC 00:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. DotSix should not be given any more time. If he were willing or capable of being reasonable, he would have done so by now. He has not once responded constructively to any disagreement or objection. His repetoire of responses is limited to (1) hurling false accusations, (2) namecalling, (3) repeating the edits that were rejected and repeating the behavior for which he was admonished. This is behavior of someone who doesn't believe that the rules apply to him and has no interest in the thoughts of anyone else. (I'm frankly just amazed that any of you could think at this point that his behavior is going to be any different in the next two days than it has been for the last month.)
He has spent the last 2 days repeating the behavior in the numbered list of complaints above. I mean literally repeating: deleting the same text from the same articles and talk pages. Obviously, he no longer cares about any of the issues, if he ever did. He's become a troll, if he weren't one already. He's just prolonging the dispute and enjoying the attention. You all are just playing into his hands. Also, please remember, it is not really true that you should always err on the side of being more tolerant rather than less. There is a price paid with each day that he is allowed on Wikipedia: Productive time is wasted. --Nate Ladd 01:37, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Things aren't instantaneous on Wikipedia. Waiting a few more days isn't going to hurt any articles in the long run. I have asked DotSix once more if he'd be willing to negotiate the dispute privately (IRC would be good) or mediate. If he refuses this, I'll turn my attention to arbitration. Rhobite 01:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree that arbitration should be attempted at some point soon. I realize that Nate Ladd has been arguing with .6 longer than I have. I do not intend to advocate patience indefinitely, but the longer we wait, the stronger the case against this vandalism (which is all it is so far) will become. WhiteC 03:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] arbitration commenced

I have commenced arbitration proceedings against DotSix - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DotSix. I encourage all interested users to add a statement. Banno 21:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_DotSix_2ec9.html"