Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stude62

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

user:Stude62 has been repeatedly using threats and lies (and to at least one other Wikipedian, Rananim, repeatedly engaging in ad hominem attacks). He was requested not to do so on several occasions. His remarks could be reasonably interpreted as threats which will be listed here.

All of this is due to remarkably trivial matters concerning Ohio Wesleyan University's article.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

It also appears that in attempting to advance his threats against various users editing OWU's article, user:Stude62 has made several attempts to list what appear to be lies about OWU's article and its NPOV. A recent evidence of this could be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection

user:Stude62 has engaged in what appear to be acts of vandalism in at least 2 Wikipedia pages:

  1. Ohio Wesleyan University Removing facts about Ohio Wesleyan Female College and adding information about a non-existent Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_Wesleyan_University&diff=9319209&oldid=9319171 Added information about Methodist Episcopal Church: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_Wesleyan_University&diff=9286536&oldid=9286412 despite the fact that it directly contradicts the truth published by OWU at: http://www.owu.edu/about.html
  2. Over Starlight Coupe's page with user:Hotspur
  3. Possibly over Methodism Episcopelian Church with user:Geogre
  4. Yesterday, user:Stude62 accused me of making the article NPOV. If I did, I will be more than happy to read the relevant Wiki policies and refrain from making such changes...but I doubt it. For example, last night, all I did, with the exception of correcting a few typos and 2 other minor edits, I added a table of majors at Ohio Wesleyan. Immediately after this, user: stude62 posted several complaints that the page "needs to be protected", that "I'm making it POV". How and why, user: stude62 never stated, so it is hard for me to argue with him at this point. When I tried to argue with him on previous points about him introducing typos and errors to the OWU article, he threatened me by saying "I will, however, give you that you do excel at what your best at, people with your type of personalities usually are" and "stay out of this talk area" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stude62 and shortly afterwards personally insulted me in an email directly to me calling me a "pompous idiot". All I have to say is that I may have used personal language with other users in what was a very heated discussion, but I have been quite civil and polite with user: stude62 specifically. Therefore, his emails and comments are hard for me to explain. Rananim 17:39, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. Vandalizing facts related to the Methodist Church, inserting referenced to the Methodist Episcopal Church possibly because user: stude62 claims "Methodist Episcopal Church history (my gr gr gr great grandfather was an M.E. circuit preacher in central Ohio) and defending it from those who should know better, but are too wrapped up in their own feelings and perceptions to know any different.".
  6. Abiding by "Civility" policy in doubt. After Rananim's response to Asbestos on the talk page, user:Stude62 snapped "I do not need you badgering me here, too. So while the RfP is going on, while you PLEASE keep yourself posting messages here. Let the process work and PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE."
  7. user:Stude62 does not address the issues brought up. His behavior has improved slightly but he is still uncivil, now to RobOWU, and prone to making questionable allegations of parties who disagree to "prove a point": user:Stude62 said "publicly put me in my place and threaten additional actions if you feel that I act up" and "however it was Patnaik and Rananim who failed to provide those links about my transgressions initially". user:Stude62's transgressions are documented very well above. user:Stude62 is still quick to conclude that whoever is against him is conniving against him and labels them very quickly. He calls the RfC process a "Kangaroo Court" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stude62#RFCs_and_dispute_resolution). I feel he is trying to move the RfC in a different direction by addressing points that were never brought up against him. For instance on the Methodist point. The Methodist affiliation was never disputed in the OWU article. Yet user:Stude62 still believe that that's an issue. I think the argument was one about wording and the best wording that the University picks should be the most appropriate. He is still prone to some uncivility, most recently displayed to user:RobOWU and not "Assuming good faith" by calling me "a biased party in this RfC" and making false allegations by restating and interpreting my "no too familiar with Ohio Methodism" as "nor familiar with the Methodist faith". I personally find this insulting. I follow the Wikipedia the rules of RfC. In one uncivility with another user, user:Hotspur, user:Stude62 admits: "I was working on at a time when I didn't understand the workings of Wikipedia." (see below). Curiously, in recent weeks user:Stude62 has tried to change the RfC rules at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment_%28draft_user_conduct_amendments%29 so that he can remove this RfC. On his talk page, user:Stude62 states "If this were under the draft rules, it would be gone/archived." I personally don't want to press this RfC too far but it seems to me he is still prone to more uncivility in the future to more users when his views clash with other ones. He should be free to express his opinion on here but I feel strongly as if he is still prone to uncivility and insults.

Patnaik 17:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Civility
  3. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  4. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

  1. I agree that the 4 rules above may have been violated.RobOWU 03:57, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  2. Rananim 03:13, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC). I believe user: stude62 has violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks and :#Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point against me. To reiterate, user: stude62 simply accused me of making edits but didn't precisely justify his claims. To illustrate and to close my involvement in this argument all I ask readers to consider is the lack of response by user: stude62 to my most direct and relevant question here since his latest attack or namely failure to answer my "if he states JUST ONE THING that shows how my edits are to my liking and not factual". I can not force him to answer this. I believe he won't answer with an EXAMPLE simply because he won't have the evidence. Therefore, he evades the truth, which in practice constitutes the definition of the word "liar".
  3. Patnaik 01:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) It seems to me Stude62 inserts what he thinks is facts. I am myself not too familiar Ohio Methodism. I am not Methodist. Howrver, it is not very hard to verify facts that are inserted in the page. Some of Stude62's contributions were not verified by the Ohio Methodism Archives: I talked to a lady there. What is particularly bothersome about his style is his counterproductive accusations of users who happen to disagree with him.
Please note that in contacting the Archives of Ohio Methodism in March, 2005, there is no record of the phone call mentioned above by user:Patnaik according to the Archivist at AOM. This matter has been referred to Wikipedia in a request for Arbitration between user:Patnaik and myself. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 23:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  1. Shicksl005 20:20, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) The personal attacks look like revenge and vindictive behavior pure and simple.
    Note that this is the user's first and only edit. --Carnildo 21:10, 18 Feb 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.


The question of my character has been called to question, and I feel that these points need to be addressed. But before doing so, one point of clarification needs to occur: User:ranamim and User: Rananim are one person; I will address that person as Rananim throughout this defense because it is his name and it is a constant. I would also like to point out that Rananim was himself the subject of a Request for Comment/ranamim. That being said I will answer each of the charges thusly:

Charge1: user:Stude62 has been repeatedly using threats and lies (and to at least one other Wikipedian, Rananim, repeatedly engaging in ad hominem (sic) attacks). He was requested not to do so on several occasions. His remarks could be reasonably interpreted as threats which will be listed here.

I have never threatened Rananim, I have however told him of my intent to act on several matters as permitted by Wikipedia. I have also not lied about his behavior, I have attempted to draw attention to his edits, which often times blatantly violate the idea of keeping articles factual and neutral.

Charge 2: Rananim charges me with vandalizing two pages, Ohio Wesleyan University and the “Ohio Women’s Methodist Seminary” (aka Ohio Wesleyan Women’s College)

There is a history relating to the page that shows Rananim has been in conflict with other users regarding content on this page since the fall of 2004. A consistent effort has been made by various members of this community to remove aggrandized terminology that he is so fond of, which robbed the article of its NPOV. As several of us attempted to remove this terminology, Rananim would revert the changes, much of which was done while he editing under his “Rananmin”.
The next issue surrounds the history of Ohio Wesleyan University and its relationship with the Methodist Episcopal Church, which Rananim insists has nothing to do with the Ohio Wesleyan University. When I attempted to seek help on this matter, Rananim stated in a Public forum that my view was “bizarre”. When I asked him to provide documented facts to the contrary and not to do so through web pages, he was unable to do so. In meeting with the Archivist for the Archives of Ohio United MethodismArchives of Ohio United Methodism and the Curator of the Ohio Wesleyan University Collection (both located in the Ohio Wesleyan University Library, second floor) to discuss this point, I was provided with numerous original documents that support my argument for the inclusion and credit to the Methodist Episcopal Church in the establishing OWU. The following documents were presented:
  • Ohio Wesleyan University By-Laws (reprinted 1903 Sphar & Green Printers, Columbus, Ohio) which includes wording from the original charter that reads: AN ACT: To Incorporate the Trustees of the Ohio Wesleyan University. “Whereas The Ohio and the North Ohio Annual Conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Church have determined…As Amended January 11, 1848.”
  • Catalogue of the Officers and Students of the Ohio Wesleyan University: For the Academic year 1844-5, Delaware Ohio S. Medary Printer, 1984, which includes the following wording in the first chapter, “Circular” “To the Ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the Ohio and North Ohio Conferences…”
  • History of Ohio Methodism, John Marshall Baker, Ph.D. Curits & Jennings publishers, Cincinnati, Ohio 1898. pp 241-251. Discusses the Role of Rev. Adam Poe, a Methodist Episcopal minister in establishing a university affiliated with the Methodist Episcopal Church in Ohio.
I should also point out that Rananim when asked, failed to produce any sources other than what he has read on the Internet on OWU web pages or the OWU student catalog. It should also be noted that Rananim has, not to my knowledge ever cited sources in the article.
I also feel the need to point out that modern day United Methodist Church was formed in 1968 by a union between the Evangelical United Brethern (EUB) and "The Methodist Church". "The Methodist Church" was formed in 1939 through a merger of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South and the Methodist Protestant Church. So, given the protracted history, it stands to reason that OWU wouldn't include the history of the church on a high-level web page designed to be an introduction to the University in 2005.
Regarding my edits for the Ohio Women’s Methodist Seminary (which was the early name of the Ohio Wesleyan Women’s College before it took the name of Ohio Wesleyan) are correct and true based on primary documents in the Archives of Ohio United Methodism. Again, Rananim and User: Patnaik have never provided any information that disputes the Women's Seminary existed based on a scholoarly foundation, they simply believe that it never was.

Charge 3 & 4 involve my interaction with users Hotspur and Geogre. All that needs to be addressed about my interaction with Geogre was that he and I engaged conversation about an article that I was working on at a time when I didn't understand the workings of Wikipedia. As for my interaction with Hotspur, the information below by observant third parties speaks to that matter.

Charge 5 “Vandalizing facts related to the Methodist Church, inserting referenced to the Methodist Episcopal Church…” I'm confused - how can facts be vandalism? The United Methodist Church is an outgrow of several church mergers, and the Methodist Episcopal Church was the founding institution of OWU. I also take exception with the remark about my disclosure that my great great great great Grandfather was a Methodist Epsicopal circuit Preacher. This church is in my blood - I know the story of the United Methodist church because it is my faith, and it is the faith that built OWU. When is it a crime to state ones faith?

Charge 6 (added on February 13, 2005 after the Patnaik's addition of the matter on February 13, 2004) Regarding the latest charge by user: Patnaik, that I have been uncivil towards Rananim and that I seem to insert what I think is right instead of what is correct. I answer thus:

  • Yes, I have asked user:ranamim not to contribute to my talk page, and have done so in strong terms in the second request. Rananim had been asked once before not to contribute after posting his opinions on my dyslexia which neither advanced the discussion of dyslexia, nor the OWU issues. After the second occurance, I again asked him not to contribute to me talk page while the RfP was in progress – if there are issues, then they need to be dealt with here in one place, here, not in various forums.
  • As for user:Patnaik and his claims regarding his contact with the Archive of Ohio Methodism, he simply stated that that he spoke with “a lady” and that my claims were not verified, but he provided no details of what he (a biased party in this RfC) learned. What was the name, or the title of the person you spoke with? What exactly did you ask? What were you told? What facts does this information disprove? And, most importly, what legitimate resources can you cite to back this claim up so other people can check your work? With out citations, your information regarding this conversation is heresey.


[edit] Counter Claims

As it is my right to voice my opinions as to the charge, the most pressing matter is Rananim’s claim that I have sent him threatening email in which I called him a "pompous idiot" needs to addressed. I have never, ever, sent a private email, or attempted to contact him in person – all of my dealings with him have on Wikipedia in the talk pages, and for good reason. I would also never call Rananim an idiot either in a personal email, or on Wikipedia link. I also take exception with Rananim's insistence that I am a liar, not only in text, but also message headlines in various public forums.

I have been to and have asked OWU’s archivists to look at the text and make corrections as they see fit, and they found many errors, including an incomplete Presidents list and the denial of Methodist Church/OWU relationships. The archivists in turn have delivered their corrections to the Communications office, which will in turn correct the wording of the article so that it is unbiased and NPOV. They have assured me that changes will be made in a few weeks. I have not seen those changes, nor did I contribute to them. They are, however going to edit the article.

Since January 20th, I have not received any attempt from Rananim (and/or his various sockpuppets) to cool this matter down. When I stated that I would remove his comments to my talk page because they had nothing to with articles on Wikipedia, he thumbed his nose at me and continued to post to my talk page with great regularity. (see answer to charge 6 above).

Finally, Rananim has stated in this RfC that my failure to respond to his claims implies that I am liar: “Therefore, he evades the truth, which in practice constitutes the definition of the word "liar".” The issue that I have with this statement is that it serves no purpose to further an attempt to settle this, it is an attempt to inflame the situation. It is my rightto answer these charges when I feel it is proper, not jump when he snaps his fingers at me.

[edit] My comment on Patnaik Role in this RfP

I am very curious about User:Patnaik and his involvement in this matter. The threat of this action against me was made 24 hours after his first Wikipedia comment according to his history log - a rather advanced procedure for a Wikipedian of two days.

On January 25, 2005 [1], user: Patnaik threatened this RfP against me, twenty-four hours after their first Wikipedia post. On February 6, 2005 at 9:05, Patniaks charges against me in a draft of this RfP state that I have “Added information about Methodist Episcopal Church…”[2]. However, on February 13, 2005, Patnaik states in his newest charge Number 6 (see above) that he is neither a Methodist, nor familiar with the Methodist faith. So, my question is, how does someone become enough of an authority to make charges one day, and then a week later admit that they are not familiar the topic that they charged me with in the first place?

[edit] Stude62's response to Rananim's comments (see outside comments sections) of 2/18/2005

  • Rananim, the charge listed above states that I have inserted the M.E. Church were Patnaik (and you) feels where it doesn't belong; your comment below indicates that getting it correct is not as important as getting it in general. If Wikipedia articles are not based on fact but on PR from another web site, and are generally right instead of being factually right, why does Wikipedia exist at all?
  • We can disagree on the facts. We also disagree on the source of facts. I have gone to the primary documents and the archival source. You have insisted on basing your outlook on what OWU puts on its web page, which was simply built to provide a "high level" of factual introduction to the university itself. OWU's web page, however, is not the last word regarding OWU, nor was it designed to be used as the base model for an article on OWU. I want the article for OWU to be accurate, period. To that end, I have provided the citations stating (above) the establishment of the school and the relationship of the church. You have argued that that the school is Methodist, period. You have also stated that there were many branches of Methodist faith. You have also stated that who founded the school is not important. Since when is the truth not important enough to fight for? How much evidence is necessary to get the facts accepted as facts?
  • As for the recent postings, yes, I would like to know what is going on myself. That someone has logged in as both user:shicks1005 and user:shicksI005 and posts the same comment for and against me certainly looks odd, a point we can both agree on. Perhaps a neutral party should review IP addresses of the last 24 hours and find out who is pulling strings. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 22:08, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Stude62's response Patnaik, RobOWU and Rananim - Comments placed in the wrong section

Dear Gentlemen, there seems to be a point of order that each of you has violated. My understanding of the rules for an RfC indicate that because you each agreed to the initial complaint on the RfC, that you may not place your comments in "Outside" views as you have. Because you have certified the RfC, you are not an outside commentator, but rather an involved party. Furthermore, these comments neither offer anything new, nor anything that could be considered productive in resolving this dispute. As for previous errors in the establishment of this RfC, Milkmandan has also noted that when Patnaik established this RfC, that he did not provide a proper section for me to reply into. If I were the suspicious type, I would point out that perhaps the design of this process all along was to gag me in my defense - but I do believe user:Jrossman when she says that it could have been an oversight.

I have extended two offers to settle the matter, and I have yet to see a constructive offer extended by any of you, which leads me to believe that you intent with this RfC was not to settle the issues at hand, but to publicly put me in my place and threaten additional actions if you feel that I act up (as OWU Rob keeps bringing up). This is not the role of the RfC, which is to air our differences and try to find a work around. Because you haven't suggested that we seek common ground, I feel that this process was used against me in bad faith.

I should also note that user:Patnaik continues to insist that I have not followed a good faith track with user:Rananim, however now I find that user Patnaik is not using a good faith effort with me, by continuing to press charges at me in a subject that he himself claims to have little knowledge about. Patnaik also claimed that I have failed to provide examples of Rananim’s errors in the article; however it was Patnaik and Rananim who failed to provide those links about my transgressions initially. Patnaik also seems too have too much at stake in my communications with Rananim on the OWU user page and my talk page, which I find odd. I maintain that it is any Wikipedian's right to ask, and then later tell someone who is harassing them to leave the premises of talk page in question. The purpose of the talk pages in Wikipedia are not there to goad people into a behavior that they will simply be complained about at a later time.

And with all due respect, removing myself and each of you from the process (and removing any one time/or very new user ID's from outside comments), even those expirienced Wikipedian who have looked at this from outside view have not concurred with your findings. These users have Wikipedia experience levels that have greater breadth then any of ours. I respect their opinion, as you should too.

I have contributed to over 100+ articles on Wikipedia, and I have documented and cited my resources. I have also had many, many collaborations that have been productive and positive. I stand by every assertion that I have made about what I have felt is wrong against the Ohio Wesleyan University article, and OWU agrees with my statements.

It is simply time for this Kangaroo court to adjourn. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 02:42, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • In his most recent comments (again, posted in the "outside views" section) user:Patnaik states that this RfC needs to remain to prevent any future instances of what he deems is my inappropriate behavior. This is not a logical reason. If this were a valid reason, the Rananim's RfC (for user:ranamim) would still be active, as would the majority of RfC's against users. If other Wikipedian's have the need for another RfC against me, then they can start one, and comment there if you like. Likewise, if we should ever butt-heads again, you would be free to either start another RfC on me, or drag this one up from the archives if you prefer and it is relevent. What this does go to is that you simply can not hang this over my head as an idle threat unless the issue is active, and aside from you and Rananim and RobOWU, there has not been a flood of Wikipedian's backing your view. In fact, aside from the three of us, there haven't been many people commenting on this other than us. It is time for this end. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 01:46, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested solution

I'm more than willing to come to a truce on this matter, however I want three things from Rananim (Rananim). 1) I want him to list all sockpuppets and IP addresses that he has used with regard to the OWU article (so far he has linked user: Rananim to his user:ranamim account), 2) I want an apology for calling me a liar in the public forums as he has done and 3) I want him to allow the article on OWU to state the truth about the role of the M.E. Church in its founding. I'm willing to work with an impartial third party on this if Rananim is serious about solving this impass. I have placed an offer to Rananim (user:Rananim) to have a neutral, third party Wikipedian, contact the Archivist of Ohio United Methodism [3] and the Archivist for Ohio Wesleyan University (they are available at the same telephone number found on their web page)to settle the matters involving factual disputes. This was done on User talk:MacGyverMagic page. I will apologize for anything I am incorrect on, and Rananim will need to apologize for anything he is incorrect on - its fair to everybody. Rather than have me state my facts and Rananim state his, is there a neutral third person who can perform this task? user: stude62 user talk:stude62 23:31, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 15:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  1. Metheso 17:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Being a student at the Methodist seminary outside of Delaware, Ohio I can verify that user:Stude62 is correct in his assertion that the Methodist Episcopal Church (M.E. Church) was indeed very involved with the establishment of O.W.U. Those who claim that he is making this up have either not done their homework, or are not willing to do their research.
    Note that this is this user's first and only edit. RobOWU


[edit] Another Suggested Solution

I have no intention to get involved in this too closely as I am a relative new user and most of my contributions have been on pages frequently mentioned in this dispute.

It is obvious to me that a community consensus exists that user: stude62 has violated Wikipedia etiquette for civil conduct to at least two users. Some users feel that it has been too much and others acknowledge that that there are violations but not too serious to warrant the start of this RfC by user:Patnaik.

Another thing that I should say and forgive me user: stude62 if it is too direct but in your entire section of replying to various accusations, you seem to fight back and you personally attack user:Rananim. You do not address the accusations brought up against you accurately. Instead, you attack other users. I should emphasize that never helps in dispute resolutions! Instead, it seems to me, you tried to involve other parties on your side. Bringing more parties will only fuel this. Also, your hot temper and commands for users to get away and leave you alone have resulted in at least one user user:Asbestos to lose interest in being a mediator and he, too, noted that you were too quick and harsh with your language on several occasions. Judging from your bio page, you seem to be quite a bit older than the users involved. To me it seems that you should be more mature and handle this with more maturity than others. I hope you will you find a way to resolve your internal conflicts without getting into more arguments.

My suggestion is for user: stude62 to apologize to user:Geogre, Rananim, RobOWU and Hotspur and make a public promise that he has no intentions to user uncivil language to any of the users involved and disrupt the pages cites. This will calm everyone and bring closure to this case and I am sure everyone benefits from closing this case.

Owu07 06:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

  1. Owu07 02:49, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • OWU07, why is it important to you what Stude62 does in this matter? The OWU article is well under control, and until you entered this forum, you had no interaction with Stude62. So why does it mean so much to you that you feel the need to get involved? Jrossman 19:27, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
        • I do not want to be involved.
    • Thank you for your input. I'm interested in your comment about user:Geogre and myself. To date, Geogre has not contributed to this, ergo I assume that he doesn't have an issue with me - as I understood that, we we ended our discussion with me respecting his opinion, and Georgre respecting the effort that I put into the article. As for Hotspur, again, as expirienced users of Wikipedia have agreed that I handled the matter in a professional manner. As for my "soliciting" help from other users - this is really no different then the efforts put forth by Rananim user:Rananim, user:Patnaik and user:RobOWU in solciting comments aginst me. As for my relationship with Asbestos moderating this matter, that to my understanding was never on the table, nor did I ask him to do so - I respect Asbestos, and I respect what we have communicated between the two us. However, I am suspcious of the one sided suggestions that you have made, which is contrary to the findings to expirienced Wikiepdian's (see below in Outside Comments Section). I don't see that you point to the personal attacks and threats that I have endured from Patinak, nor Rananim's attempt to belittle me by implying that I am a mental defect because I have Dyslexia, nor his posting about that I was a liar. One pattern that I do see is that you respresent the forth person, who almost word for word, charge for charge sees things as the three users who have brought this against me. In fact, I even find the logic and sentence structures somewhat simular with theirs. With all due respect, and I mean this sincerely, I don't find your suggestions a solution, so much as I do see it see a complete abandonment of principles, and that I will not do. Now if the other claiments are serious about having this moderated, I'm willing to work with them on reaching an agreement through an expirienced, impartial moderator

Because there seem to be people posting all over this page I am moving your suggestion to a new Discussion Section at the end of this RfC - This will help to bring some order to this chaos that this RfC has become. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 18:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

      • I moved my suggested solution back because the discussion page at the very end by Wikipedia policies is meant for "All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement". I am sad to see that you do not agree with my suggestion. They are mediation techniques of making consessions meant to calm down the situation...accusing people of being biased or partial, which you implied will not bring you friends and help you get closer to an agreement but it is your choice, so I respect that choice.

Then let the record show that you provided this information in an incorrect spot on the page. Again, I ask you to either place this in the discussion section, or the outside opinion section where it is most appropriate and not misleading to others. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 01:02, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)


[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}

[edit] MacGyverMagic's response

I see no indication that User:Stude62 isn't willing to discuss things with other users and for the most serious offenses User:Rananim is accusing him of, I can find no proof, because he didn't provide diffs. Unless, anyone can proof beyind a doubt that this user isn't willing to discuss things in a civilized manner, I don't think this RFC is needed. He may have used heated language at some point, but so did others in this dispute. Mgm|(talk) 08:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Mgm|(talk) 08:13, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Calton 00:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  3. — Asbestos | Talk 12:34, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC). While User:Stude62 can be a little quick to jump on User:ranamim's edits, I see no evidence of "threats and lies" or any of the other accusations made by ranamim
  4. Carnildo 01:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  5. RickK 00:34, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC) Rananim and his sockpuppet(s) have always dealt in bad faith and refuse to allow others to edit "his" pages.
  6. SamH|Talk 00:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  7. Shicks1005 18:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) This looks like revenge and vindictive behavior pure and simple.
    Note that this is this user's first and only edit. Note also that this is not the same as User:Shicksl005 who certified above. --Carnildo 21:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    User:Rananim (and whatever other sockpuppet account he's using today) has always had a history of "this is my article and I'll edit it as I see fit" attitude, and is quite willing to attack others who disagree with him. We need a developer to check the ISPs that all of these new users are editing from. RickK 19:28, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Rick, do you know of anybody who can do this? Even I'm beginning to think something is amiss. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 02:09, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It has to be a developer, so Tim Starling or Brion Vibber or somebody like that would have to do it. RickK 06:16, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
Um, but for the record, User:Shicks1005 is accusing Rananim of vindictive behaviour, and several other new editors on this page, inclusing [[User:Metheso and User:Jrossman, are also attacking him. I'd find it unlikely, therefore, that this sockpuppet, if that's what it is, was created by Rananim. — Asbestos | Talk 14:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Asbestos, if that is your feeling then can you ask an appropriate person to check IP numbers and get to the bottom of this? If I do that, then I get accused meddling. I respect your input and welcome any help you can provide. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 02:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milkmandan's response

In specific, the dispute with Hotspur was handled fairly, politely, and professionally. I watched this discussion unfold (and later contributed commentary) but was not directly involved when it happened. The discussion has been preserved in its entirety at a subsection of stude62's talk page. In brief, Hotspur was upset because his original contribution [4] was heavily edited into a more encyclopedic version. [5] Hotspur's response was very defensive (although understandable, if we consider the Wiki methodology from a more traditional article-ownership perspective) and stude62 responded appropriately.

I agree with MacGyverMagic above that this entire RFC is unnecessary, but very strongly maintain that the dispute with Hotspur did not involve an infraction of any of the listed policies. --Milkmandan 10:26, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Milkmandan 10:26, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)
  2. Metheso 16:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) I've reviewed the exchange between user:hotspur and user:stude62 and Milkmandan is correct. Stude62 handled the matter in professional manner and even offered a suggestion to Hotspur for incorporating some of the "story-telling" aspects of the original article into the revised one. I have also read the recent exchangs between Stude62 and other users and he is open to suggestion and compliments users who make productive edits. Stude62 also seems to open to productive critiques to improve his work.
    Note that this is this user's first and only edit. RobOWU

[edit] Jrossman's response

This whole sordid affair looks like a soap opera. I’ve tried looking at this logically. I have seperated my emotions from my intellect. And one thing keeps popping up that I find it strange. I'll agree that there is a person with full sense of himself. This person doesn’t take criticism well. This person has to get their way, or there is no peace for anyone. This person also seems to playing both sides of the coin – the aggressor and the victim. Anyone who disagrees with this person is demonized and belittled. And this person has a record of callous comments and passive aggressive behavior is his own request for comment from last November. This person is user:Rananim, it is not Stude62. Now Stude62 isn’t pure as the driven snow. His problem is that he allows Rananim to push his buttons, and he needs to work on taking a breath before jumping to conclusions. But he’s not the problem –Rananim is and it is documented. To me, this smells and looks like a set up, and Stude62 is wrongly in the cross-hairs. This leads me to believe that we need to reopen Rananim's Request for Comment[6] and deal with the cancer not the symptom. Jrossman 03:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

  1. Jrossman 03:08, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Milkmandan 07:23, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC) Absolutely agree. I second reopening Rananim's RFC, but I'm too closely involved with this to do so myself without conflict of interest.
    1. Upon investigation, you may be a bit too closely involved, too. [7] Anyone not directly involved with anyone in this dispute care to weigh in? --Milkmandan 07:33, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
  • I must say that I disagree, and I was one of the people who opened up the first RFC against him. I think that Rananim's behavior has been much better in recent weeks. I think he is still stubborn, still POV-pushing and still prone to using sock-puppets, but none of those things to the extent that it was before, and none of those things to the extent that it is really distrupting. There are far worse POV-pushers and far more stubborn editors out there. Having kept half an eye on the evolution of the Ohio Wesleyan page (it remained on my watch list after my previous edit wars with him), I think that the article has much improved through the combination of both his and Stude62's efforts. I think that Rananim needs to have the policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks hammered into him each and every day, but even his insults are much less than before. If a RFC were to get opened, I strongly think that it should be a new one, not a re-opening of the old one, so that Rananim is not judged by his former crimes. I'd think it better, though, if this escalation of what hasn't been a particularly harsh edit war by wikipedia standards didn't continue, and no RfC's were opened at all — Asbestos | Talk 10:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • ... I also hesitate to say this, because I strongly believe in assuming good faith, but, given the accusations of sock-puppets that have been flying around in this charade, I think that the role of users who were created after this RfC was opened should be limited. Jrossman, I'm sure you can understand why new users look suspicious in this situation. — Asbestos | Talk 10:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, I admit that I am new. And here I thought I was this doing correctly. So, do I remove this? Or does someone else do that? Jeri Jrossman 13:40, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
        • It's not really a problem, as this isn't any kind of formal vote anyway. — Asbestos | Talk 13:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm back in the game. If OWURob gets to be part of this outside comment section and a "users who share this view", then I'm back in. Jeri Jrossman 14:40, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RobOWU's response

I see indicators that User:Stude62 hasn't been civil (or should I say entirely civil) when discussing things with other users. Evidence about this exists with at least three users listed by User:Patnaik. A few people believe that he is willing to discuss things in a civilized manner but there have been times when he responds in a very defensive way that doesn't feel other users feel comfortable to discuss and edit. Hotspur wasn't a happy editor after the exchange of comments with User:Stude62. I think this RFC is needed to protect against future escalations due to uncivility by User:Stude62. I think he has good contributions but still needs to stick to the policies stated above.

Users who endorse this summary

  1. RobOWU 18:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rananim's Response

I don't think there was ever an argument whether the Methodist Church was involved in founding the University. That's a trivial fact and no one disputes it and is acknowledged several times in the article. I am surprised people even argue about it here...I suppose they haven't followed the debate. See User_talk:Rananim. The argument is about the language. My point of view is that it is sufficient to say that it was founded by the Methodist Church and whoever is interested in the history of the Methodist Church and how it evolved, including its various names, can read it on the Methodist page. But the Ohio Wesleyan University page is not the most appropriate place for this since the article is about the University and not about who founded it.

By the way, what's up with the fact that 4 users who signed on this page, most of them seemingly in support of User:Stude62, have been created in the last 3 days with no other editing history? Interesting I have to say...

Rananim 19:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) Users who endorse this summary

[edit] Patnaik's Response

I started the original RfC. In a recent response, Stude62 said "I have placed an offer to Rananim (user:Rananim) to have a neutral, third party Wikipedian, contact the Archivist of Ohio United Methodism [3] (http://go.owu.edu/~librweb/spuma.htm) and the Archivist for Ohio Wesleyan University (they are available at the same telephone number found on their web page)to settle the matters involving factual disputes."

I am happy to see that Stude62 is willing to change his behavior in response to an RfC. I am not convinced that his offer for resolution addresses two of the four charges against him above:

  1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  2. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

In several cases, his uncivil claims disrupted OWU's page and were not backed up by evidence. This was noted by Asbestos on the talk page of Stude62: "His edits from the 3rd to the 6th of Februrary are shown here (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohio_Wesleyan_University&diff=9988324&oldid=9986692). I see the addition of Concentrations, the moving of the Alma Mater song, removing "Affiliated with the United Methodist Church" (it is stated in a better place further down), changing Ohio Womens Methodist Seminary to Ohio Wesleyan Female College, and the addition of a couple of links. While I have no idea about the accuracy of the female college thing, I would be hard-pressed to call the edits POV, and certainly not anything to start protecting pages over."

So far, Stude62 has not responded to Asbestos' and Rananim's question to show what edits by Rananim are POV. However, his claims in the process were not in the most civil of ways: "Alright then, you've had your say. My comments to Asbestos was to Asbestos, NOT YOU" and "PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE"

These are not civil ways to address a person nor do they address the two claims brough by me above about being civil and disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. I think nothing should be done at this time. User Stude62 shows improvement and there are other users far more disruptive and uncivil than him on here. However, the RfC needs to stay for a while before being archived in case he shows new signs of uncivility and disruption.

Patnaik 17:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Note: user:Stude62 is starting this section as a place to put comments open for discussion, which are neither outside views, nor certification comments. user: stude62 user talk:stude62 18:47, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Message from Jrossman

Well, I see that two things seem to have happened. For one, Stude66 got tired of playing around here, packed up his toys and left. And, I see that this Request for Comment lives on as a memorial to those who created it. I've always thought that it spoke best about you, than for you. Jrossman 20:42, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Stude62_44cd.html"