Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Aquirata

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Andrew Homer chiming in

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. Andrew Homer 22:28, 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)
I moved this here since, as I understand it, comments should not be on the front page. I left a note with 'remember to "vote"' in the edit summary since I do not wish people to discount AH's comment or opinion (I also think it was in the wrong section for the vote he wants to cast).
Regarding the contents, I would ask people to review this charachters edit history and see for themselves who has badgered who. I would like to point out the following:
  • I never debunked anything, nor do I agree with AH's use of the terms.
  • I never claimed that new advancements in physics disproved astrology (AH claimed they are going some way towards proving it and I am not the one carrying the burden of proof, I pointed out to him the physicist he quotes would probably not see their research as supporting astrology and that the existence of dimensions only interacting upon us with gravitons could hardly do more than, well, gravitate things around).
  • My belief is that I would like to see evidence and citations for it, and I think this goes some way towards maintaining neutrality; not, as AH seems to claim, destroying it.
  • I also think AH has every right to practise astrology to his hearts content, I do not, however, think that his statements on astrology should be the new paradigm for truth or inclusion at Wikipedia.
See the following for pointers to AH's behaviour: User talk:Andrew Homer#More on your astrology edit, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive89#User:StarHeart_NPA_and_various, my user page and this page's history (sorry to seem vindictive, but I will not be slandered without standing up for myself). Lundse 00:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I have let his comment stay on the main page, because I am too tired to take it up and because I think anyone can see who is being a pest here. I will, however, stand by my right to have at least a link to my response. Lundse 00:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Other comments on this

Aq. reinserted this at the main page, presumably without reading the note at the end of this page (as AH himself did not, despite me pointing it out to him). He moved this back to the main page and fearing a 3RR violation I have let it stand but included a link to my response (above).

Here follows Aq.'s comment on why he moved it and my response. Lundse 14:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Moved Andrew Homer's post to 'Outside views' as I believe it belongs there. Aquirata 12:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
And what of this: "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."?
I would say his comment is not directly related and is certainly a reply to my endorsement. That fact that you have elected not to be consistent am move my comment along with his shows, IMHO, a reluctance to be neutral once again. Lundse 14:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
This is a digression not really related to the RfC and does indeed properly belong on the talk. Marskell 16:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Lundse: My decision to include Andrew Homer's post under 'Outside view' was based on the following:
  1. He is clearly not endorsing the RfC's 'Statement of the dispute', so the post doesn't belong to its original place
  2. It cannot belong to the 'Response' section either, as this is written by the user being questioned
  3. It is not an explicit endorsement of the 'Response' because it is more than a signature
  4. Andrew Homer is an 'outsider' as defined by the 'Outside view' section, and so he can post there
  5. The topic of his post is a challenge to the credibility of the user certifying the RfC, therefore directly relevant (there is no RfC without certification), and so should remain on the main page
By the same token, as the user certifying the RfC's 'Statement of the dispute', you definitely do not qualify as an outsider. Therefore, please move your comment to the Talk page. You should also remove your comment from the 'Statement of the dispute' section (right under your signature within 'Users certifying the basis for this dispute'). Aquirata 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the first three points completely. The fourth is a bit shaky - sure he is an outsider, so is he allowed to comment on the Iraq war here? It has to be relevant. Fifth point is in direct conflict with "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."?"
Moreover, your view that I should not be allowed to write my own summary is a bit weird - AH can attack me but I cannot defend myself? If you can get him to tone down the attack and make a link to the talk page where I can be allowed to answer I would be OK with it.
And finally, the "evidence" part is not my doing but a link to something I said - I did not add it. I certified the dispute, but that does not mean I should not be allowed to defend myself. The AH comment is an attack, pure and simple - endorsing it reflects poorly on you and paints you in an antagonistic light. Lundse 21:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't write the rules. I am only pointing out how my interpretation of them apply to AH's post. It is an unusual post and perhaps the usual rules cannot do full justice here. I understand you are questioning my 5th point but agree with the first four in actuality. The 5th point is about relevance, and I don't see you addressing this directly. The contradiction with the 'Discussion' quote is not apparent to me.
You should be able to defend yourself, but not on the main page, since that qualifies as 'discussion'. I'm fine with a link pointing to the Talk page. I can ask him to be more civil in his post, although I don't have any influence on him obviously.
I endorsed his view because I agree with what he is trying to say but not necessarily with the style. The style simply shows to me that he is frustrated and fed up with your editorial work and that of others acting in a similar manner. Aquirata 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we come to some agreement? The only thing I want is for his comment to have a link to my resonse (which I only think is fair) - but the rules do not allow me to edit his summary (which under normal circumstances is fair enough). How about I make a "users who disagree with this view", put my name and a link to why on the talk page? I do not like my solution with making my own "view" any more than you do - it is clumsy and messy and should not be necesarry. I still think his comment should only be a link to talk, as it is odd we cannot have a discussion on the mainpage but can apparantly slander each other and soapbox. Lundse 22:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm fine with a link on the main page to your response on Talk. I'm not quite sure about "users who disagree with this view" because this could be interpreted as an invitation for other users to join, which is clearly not your intent. How about a single line in place of your 'outside view' reading "Lundse's response: <link>"? Aquirata 00:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
But where to put such a link? Surely not in AH's summary? I will make a comment section under the endorses, methinks, and see how it works out. Lundse 00:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks good except for the plural in comments. We are not inviting others to comment here, so I would rephrase this to "A comment on this summary", "A personal comment on this summary", "Lundse's comment on this summary" or similar. Aquirata 10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marskell's response to Aquirata

May your thoughts on NPOV be summed up as follows: "I am right and everyone else is wrong"? I don't know how else to read your commentary here. "It was shown that the NPOV policy contained a contradiction." No, it was repeatedly explained to you why no contradiction exists by good faith, long-term editors who understand the policy. The fact that the day of this RfC you would return to the talk page to take another kick at the dead horse strikes me as POINT in the extreme.

The other critical thing here is the sourcing. Again if I'm understanding you right, your thoughts are:

  • When you ask someone else for a source it's a matter of WP:V. All well and good. I've read it a few times and we should all go read it again.
  • When someone asks you for a source it's "somebody else'll come along and source that so I don't have to"?

This is fundamentally contradictory and it is insulting, as I said to you, to be lectured about sources and then be told "who me?" when asking for them yourself. And to be clear "I'm not going to provide one" is not an "answer to sourcing requests" (neither is "he must be a fire sign" or some other gibberish). That Wikipedia is collaborative isn't a reason to decline to source a sentence you've introduced, worked on, or generally support. I'm sorry if my response sounded hostile—your comment in this regard genuinely astounded me.

What, while I'm at it, is the purpose of leaving Andrew Homer's slander on the main page of this? He should receive a personal attack warning, not endorsements. Marskell 16:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Piper weighs in

Here is the dispute as I understand it. Marskell is particularly insistent on labeling astrology a "pseudoscience." Marskell verifies this POV by pointing to various sources of conventional wisdom, most of them quite old. Using this label allows Marskell to use the definition of pseudoscience, "does not follow scientific method," to argue that astrological researchers do not follow scientific method, even though this is untrue, as can be clearly seen by reading the article in question, Objective validity of astrology.

Marskell takes refuge in WP:V, which says inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Marskell can verify that many people say that astrology is pseudoscience and ignore all the hard work by editors to present arguments and evidence in the article to the contrary. This is why the pseudoscience label is so important for Marskell to use. It gives incredible, indescriminate, and judgmental leverage. This situation has created an escalating dispute with Aquirata. WP:V also allows Marskell to cite old studies and opinions that have been specifically covered and refuted in the article as if they are the final definitive word. This certainly muddies the waters to the point of confusion and contradiction in the article. But of course no one can dispute that Marskell is using verifiable sources. Many times I do not think Marskell is acting in good faith and trying to clarify and improve the article. Piper Almanac 18:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe astrology is a pseudoscience and I would like the article to say so.
And there is a fundamental error here notwithstanding your sentence that follows. The article is not about your beliefs or truth as you perceive it. It is about verifiable statements. Then there is your strong belief about something you know nothing about. Which interpretation of the scientific method did you apply to arrive at that belief? Aquirata 15:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Ignore what I said next and that this is an introductory paragraph about my beliefs and wants (which I never claimed I wanted to include as such and/or uncited). And go ahead and claim once again I nothing about he subject (which is validation and scientific theory, which I have studied at university level). The method I applied, BTW, is quite straighforward - people making claims without backing them with evidence all the while most of them like to delude themselves and others that their method is a science is engaged in pseudoscience. It is called a syllogism and is more basic than scientific methodology and consists here of applying a definition. Lundse 15:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But a the term is loaded and we will never find consensus, I will settle with the article saying that scientists (who know the difference between science and pseudoscience) say it is a pseudoscience. If only a minority of scientists thought so, it would be POV to include it (or at least to include it in the summary), but since almost every scientists does believe it (and it is relevant and goes a long way to defining astrology, which is what the intro is about) it is fine to include it in the intro.
You are right that this has started a dispute. The fault lies not with me or Marskell who wish to include this piece of relevant and (exceedingly) well-sourced viewpoint (as a viewpoint, I might add) but with those who would rather see it go. I can take a guess at their motives, but they claim NPOV policy - so they must establish how it is not NPOV to say what scientists believe about something making claims to be able to predict and analyze.
Lundse, if you're referring to me, this is a misrepresentation. I have repeatedly said that I didn't have a problem with the article stating that 'scientists say astrology is a pseudoscience.' The statement is more damning to the scientists than it is to astrology. Aquirata 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
If you had no problem with it, why did you keep pestering me about what was wrong with the citaions? Surely not just to be disruptive? Lundse 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The sources didn't support the statement in question (as explained previously). Aquirata 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. Lundse 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Your claim that the old sources on astrology has been refuted is nonsensical. If astrology does not itself prove it's side of the matter, it is a pseudoscience. It is not for Marskell or others to prove it is - your quoting of the Mars Effect study (with which numerous faults have been found) is what is muddling the water.
The latest word on the Mars effect is that it is real, but of course it is your prerogative not to accept that. Aquirata 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll accept it when they do the study properly, have it published in a peer-reviewed journal and replicate it. Lundse 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You know as well as I do the rules of engagement in science. Publishing an astrological article in a science journal is not a simple matter. On the other hand, Correlation is a peer-reviewed journal, but you question the reliability of it. Aquirata 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course publishing an astrological article is simple, you just have to do a good one, with proper proof and stuff... "Correlation" I am suspicious of, yes, but I am more worried about the methodology of the tests, which you have not addressed anywhere. Lundse 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Experience indicates otherwise, but if it's that simple as you seem to think, you are welcome to give it a try. The fact is that scientific journals are quick to publish astrological articles when it appears that astrology is being refuted despite obvious violations of the scientific method by 'researchers', yet high-quality research articles supporting astrology are also quickly rejected on political grounds. You are suspicious of the foremost astrological research journal yet you don't read it and have no knowledge of astrology. So why should your opinion matter? And, by the way, the methodology used in the tests are addressed in the article. Aquirata 15:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I trust those knowledgeable about statistics and applying the scientific method. Not those with an agenda and a weird belief about giant balls of gass having an effect on my life. The latter should present better evidence, the easiness with which they could if they were right is the single most damning thing about their theories. Lundse 15:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You may not believe we are acting in good faith - would that be because we have a different opinion than you? Aq. demanded sources for "scientists claim astrology is a pseudoscience" and when I supplied 12 of them he argued thus:
"Claims made by scientists that astrology is a pseudoscience is not good enough, we need third party sources saying specifically scientists claim astrology is a pseudoscience.
This is ridiculous and absurd and only serves to disrupt. Later he demanded a survey among scientists be found before the claim could be "sourced properly"...
I'm not going to argue this further since you still don't understand the difference between the statements 'astrology is a pseudoscience' and scientists say astrology is a pseudoscience.' Aquirata 23:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said there were the same, I said they both work as supporting statements for "scientists say astrology is a pseudoscience" (provided the first one is said by a large number scientists). Don't tell me you do not understand this, I told you (A and B being scientists and astrologers):
...they are examples of A and B saying X, and the statement is that "As and Bs say X" - what more do you want? C saying "As and Bs say X"?
This is quite clear, I think. I am saying that both kinds of statement support us saying "A and B claim X" - are you saying that me saying you are disruptive is not sufficient reason for someone to summarize "Lundse thinks Aq. is disruptive" but that one would need another users statement (such as Marskell saying "Lundse says Aq. is disruptive"? Do I have to explain this a fourth time or did it get through?
"Do I have to explain this a fourth time or did it get through?" is a derogatory and patronising question. Have you ever studied statistics? Do you have a good handle on sampling theory? Quoting a dozen scientists will do nothing to further a claim about what scientists say. Aquirata 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am patronizing you. Because you simply will not allow this one piece of logic to penetrate. Quoting scientists to give a view of what scientists think is good encyclopedia writing - how about you finding one scientists who has contradicted it? Again, I ask if this weird view of sources is to be extended to other areas or only when you personal opinion is being discussed. When writing that cars drive, can we use 12 quotes from car owners about how they like their cars "driving abilities" or do we need an outside view (such as EB) saying "cars drive"?
Seymour is a prime example, and there are many others. No, cars don't drive but they are being driven by people. And this is not analogous to what we are discussing. One statement is 'people drive cars', and the other 'people say they drive cars.' You still don't appreciate the difference due to your blinding assumption. Aquirata 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am beginning to doubt whether you are trying to discrupt or is just plain unable to comprehend this. First of all, insisting that it is people who drive cars instead of going with the painfully obvious example is truly just being disruptive, no amount of comprehension problems excuse it, you are simply being troublesome. Secondly, your representation of my statement is again wrong - I will try explaining a fourth time.
We wish to include a statement of the type "A says B". To do this we can use (at least) two kinds of sources. The first is no more straightforward than the second, but you seem for some reason to have no trouble with it, perhaps because it has not been used to add something you did not like to the article. It is a statement from some other source (X) which says "A says B". This would allow us to write "A says B" or, if it seems a bit POV or we have other sources saying something else "X says that A says B".
The second type of source is more direct, here we use a statement by A him/her/them-selves, or a representative group if there are many. We use statements which boil down to "B" which are said by A, representative organizations of A and/or just a whole bunch of As. In the latter case, we should be careful that there are no As opposing the statement "B", in which case we should write something like "most As says B" or "some As says B".
Do you understand the difference between the two? Do you understand the last one? Do you disagree with people using it - and if so, how would you source the obvious statement "cars can drive" since you will be hardpressed to find a good secondary source (X) which states something so blindingly obvious? Lundse 15:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That you stand up for him I can only attribute to your shared faith in astrology - the same goes for your endorsing of Andrew Homer's summary. How can you defend a guy whose response to a rather polite pointing out of how he was signing comments in article-space was "You're so ignorant of the topic of Astrology that you're imcapable of understanding that I was UPDATING the House (astrology) article, not just making inane commentary as you just did"? I can only surmise it is a matter of astrologers standing up against anyone wanting a skeptic viewpoint (such as mentioning what science has to say of the matter) Lundse 23:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
First, I am not an astrologer, so that couldn't be the case. Second - and I will say this again - I do not wish to push down your throat my point of view, just as I will defend against you doing likewise. My objective in editing the astrology articles is to ensure that a neutral presentation prevails. The current scientific view of astrology cannot be called neutral by any stretch of the imagination. Let alone the skeptic or debunking view. These views must be balanced by views of astrologers or students of astrology in the interest of NPOV policy. It's that simple. Aquirata 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Strangely, you do not respond to why you stand up to AH.
I have already. Aquirata 15:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Where? Never mind, you are proving to be alsmost as directly obnoxious and unable to listen to peoples arguments or comments that I can hardly tell the difference any more. Lundse 15:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You just claim neutrality and, once again, your view that the scientific view of astrology is not neutral. Could it be this is the reason you do not want it there?
Again, misrepresenting me. Aquirata 15:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And of course it should be balanced, but the entire article in question is already riddled with astrology POV and unchecked assertions so I do not think adding that "scientists think this is wrong" is all that bad - especially since anyone could win 1 milllion dollars and shut up all the skeptics once and for all if they could just do what they say they can. Lundse 09:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Randi's 'challenge' is a joke, and any fool would know that. I could do the same with any topic whatsoever provided that I write and interpret the rules of engagement. Aquirata 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"First, I am not an astrologer, so that couldn't be the case". As much as I agree with Iantresman that you have a right to exercise questions of the definition of NPOV, this statement strikes me as sophistic since you did express belief in astrology when you posited another editor has Mars or fire prominent. Yes, someone who calls themselves an astrologer after studying for 10 or so years would say you are but a student of astrology (as you said yourself). Zeusnoos 13:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said I believed in astrology. I am studying it and open to the possibility of some correlation between celestial and earthly affairs. My remark about Mars and fire signs was simply applying a couple of very basic tenets of astrology, which in no way implies that I believe in it. There is a long road to travel between observing individual cases of correlation and belief (for me anyway). Aquirata 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Re Piper: "Here is the dispute as I understand it. Marskell is particularly insistent on labeling astrology a 'pseudoscience.'" I have not used the word in this RfC. This is incidental to what this is about, which is Aquirata's behaviour at NPOV and his refusal to provide sources of his own. My comments to Aquirata stand above—he may reply as he wishes. Marskell 07:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If there's a verifiable citation labelling astrology as pseudoscience, then quote it. And likewise, if there's a verifiable citation labelling astrology not as pseudoscience, then quote it too. Wikipedia is not about debating a subject, but representing the extent of knowledge as it is known. I think you'll find citations to astrology being both pseudoscience, and scientific. --Iantresman 12:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't follow that if "astrology not as pseudoscience" it is a science. It very well be a categorical error and certainly is when it comes to proposed theories. There are many disciplines from which astrology can be studied and questioned besides science. The term pseudoscience is meaningful from the view of science, but not meaningful when astrology is approached through other categories (art, religion, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, etc). If you need a citation saying astrology is not a pseudoscience from the perspective of anthropology or philosophy, I can provide one later. I think one of the problems in this dispute is that it is starting to touch upon original research - very few astrologers actually do thinking about the 'philosophy' of astrology just as very few practicing lab scientists are informed about philosophy of science. Zeusnoos 13:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a science. I said there were probably verifiable citations suggesting it is a science. By using verifiable citations, we avoid original research. For an overview of peer-reviwed articles about astrology in some form or another, take a look at the results from the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS). --Iantresman 15:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If you need a citation saying astrology is not a pseudoscience: Yes please. This would also be useful on the Category_talk:Pseudoscience page. Aquirata 16:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Will look it up when home. Zeusnoos 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say that you had said it is a science if not pseudoscience, but I wanted to emphasis that it could be and often is thought of as a different category. Thanks for the excellent resource and doing that search. It's excellent because it includes articles on the history of astrology/astronomy. Zeusnoos 16:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by iantresman

I am not sure I understand this, because it is a good thing (tm) to discuss things, Aq. is right in the discussions he has been engaged in? Or is his insistence that "NPOV policy is a policy = hypocrisy" right because we should question policy? I am not saying we should not, but neither should we call everyone a hypocrite who believes that the NPOV policy is right (even though it is, of course, not NPOV in itself).

And how is brushing aside other editors responses with "My first thought is Mars or fire signs prominent" conducive to discussion? Lundse 15:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Sxeptomaniac

[Endorsed] in spades. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm not sure Aquirata here understands how inappropriate his removal of others comments from the main RFC page is, but it has happened twice now and it needs to stop. This sort of behavior is not making him look reasonable and sensitive to the community's views and is a sure way to ensure that his actions make it the next level of WP:DR. FeloniousMonk 22:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Aquirata, please see WP:VAND, specifically "Editing signed comments by another user" KillerChihuahua?!? 22:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
To pile-on slightly (sorry), Andrew Homer's attack on Lundse was left on this page (though it doesn't actually belong) because RfC commentary is basically sacrosanct. I think it should be removed but I won't remove it because the page should reflect what uninvolved people say and it's really a no-go to change anything on an RfC. Nothing should be removed or refactored without definite reason. KillerChihuahua endorses "in spades"? Well, that's his business. You do not have perogative to remove it. Marskell 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I took the following:
  • "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse";
  • "Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section"; and
  • "Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view"
to mean that endorsements are strictly signatures, and if you have something to say, you need to post that in the appropriate section. Lundse and KillerChihuahua have added comments in the endorsement sections, which were moved to the Talk page (and not removed as you imply). If you are saying that this interpretation is not correct, then please explain. Please do not revert my edits, and do not assume bad faith (and I'm sure you can quote the relevant policies or guidelines for these).
In any case, I don't think FeloniousMonk (or anybody else other than Marskell and myself) has the right to edit anything here. Aquirata 01:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm well within the bounds of policy, guideline and convention in restoring the comments you removed; your removing the comments of others, on the other hand, is not. You should learn the relevant policy, as it's your understanding of these, or lack thereof, that has landed you here. Also, RFC is a request for community input; anyone has the right to edit the page. FeloniousMonk 03:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I had a long discussion with Aq. about Homer's little contribution, and how I could be allowed to respond to it without breaking any rules. Seems he just went over my head when it did not turn out as he wanted. Whatever policies in this area, not allowing me to post a simple link to my answers when I have been attacked is just plain wrong - but of course I should not edit AH's summary (leaving a link to comments under the people who endorse it does not seem all that terrible, however. Lundse 07:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lundse, This is yet another misrepresentation. We agreed to have a single link regarding AH's post on the main page. Your other comment was moved to Talk in accordance with this agreement. Aquirata 10:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
We agreed on nothing, I tried to talk this through, but we did not agree to something I later ignored. Am I to take this comment as meaning that you do not find it fair that I should be able to add a small comment to the fact that I have addressed certain points raised by AH (carefully dug out between the personal attacks)? If someone had added the outside view that "Aq. is an idiot" and people started signing it, how would you respond, where would you put your answer? Lundse 12:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This is what you said above: "The only thing I want is for his comment to have a link to my resonse (which I only think is fair) - but the rules do not allow me to edit his summary (which under normal circumstances is fair enough). How about I make a "users who disagree with this view", put my name and a link to why on the talk page?" And later: "But where to put such a link? Surely not in AH's summary? I will make a comment section under the endorses, methinks, and see how it works out." This to me says that you will have one line on the main page with a link to your comments. Instead, you have two places now where you respond to Andrew Homer: one under 'Users certifying the basis for this dispute', and one under 'Outside view by Andrew Homer'. Aquirata 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
And so what if there are two links? What is the problem? This is nitpicking to about the same degree which started this RfC... Lundse 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
You had said that you would have one link on the main page. Then you ended up with two. I moved one of them to the Talk page, for which you said: "Seems he [Aquirata] just went over my head when it did not turn out as he wanted." This is misrepresentation, which is what I stated above. Then you denied we agreed to anything. When I showed that you had agreed to one link, you accused me of nitpicking. What will you think of next? Aquirata 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking about asking you what the hell that last message meant... First of all, I never agreed to anything, I tried a lot of different tactics to escape the bother of discussing with you. If one of these was semi-permanent until you started complaining again, then you cannot take that as agreement, merely that I was content to let matters lie. Secondly, moving them to the talk page is going over my head - the idea behind these comments was to allow people to see them on the main page where I was attacked, removing them defeats this purpose. Thirdly, my first link was added before the second, and I thought it could stay while we discussed if there could be one near/at AH's attack. But you tried to delete this, too...
The comment left at AH's summary is there instead of a defence. I think that either we should both state matters on the main page, or none of us should (certainly, a personal attack should not be left unchallenged there). But since I have realized it is more damning to AH than to me, I am happy with just the link - if you can convince him to tone it down we can discuss this again.
The comment I left at my own endorsement is accepted form, I think. And I do not think I want to remove it - if AH can attack me, certainly I can be allowed to poke a bit of fun at it in my own comment space (as long as I do not attack back, what I am doing is to shed light on what AH is doing). Do not remove my comment again, either place. I am done trying to humour you (you hav not even told me what the problem is with there being two links). Lundse 01:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)



FeloniousMonk, I have quoted relevant text, and explained my interpretation of them. You have not responded to this except with a blanket statement. Please show me how my interpretation is wrong, and which 'relevant policy' contradicts it. You have reverted an edit where you have no place to edit, and you haven't posted a reasonable explanation of your action. I'm sure this is against some policy or guideline, which an experienced editor should know about. Aquirata 10:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
FM is not only an experienced editor, he is a respected Admin, and you would do well to listen and learn rather than assume your interpretation of policy supercedes his experience and understanding. Simply put, do not edit other's comments, period. Adding comments to endorsements is common practice, so long as the comments are brief. See here, here, and in fact click on any user conduct Rfc to see similar examples. Your "interpretation" of guidelines is faulty; FM's interpretation of policy is not. Note also that you are quoting guidelines, FM is using policy*; policy supercedes guidelines. It is this kind of misunderstanding of policy/guidelines/editing/civility/etc which has garnered you attention in this Rfc. An Rfc is for comments, for learning what other's input on your actions is. It should be a learning experience. You are treating it as a forum for arguing.
To answer Lundse's question, had someone posted "Aq. is an idiot" I would have strongly advised them to strike their post as a violation of NPA. I would not have removed it. Other editor's opinions on this vary, as personal attacks are the one exception to the "do not edit other's posts" rule. I personally leave all attacks intact, including those on my user talk page. KillerChihuahua?!? 12:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I have taken a look at the last 10 user conduct RfCs to get a feel about what endorsements are typically like. Out of the nearly 400 endorsements I counted, 61% were signatures only, and 39% comment plus signature. I was surprised to see even discussions within the endorsement sections, which is clearly a no-no according to the guidelines within the RfC template. My conclusions from this are as follows:
  • Although 'signatures only' endorsements outnumbered 'commented signatures' 6-4, it is clear that many people make comments within the endorsement sections.
  • RfC guidelines are frequently ignored. Specifically, endorsement sections are used for discussing topics tangential to the RfC itself.
So, while it would seem that FeloniousMonk was right in assessing the situation, he should have explained first, and then ask Marskell or myself to undo the changes. That is what an "experienced editor" and "respected Admin" would have done in my opinion.
Regarding the interpretation of the guidelines within the RfC template, perhaps the wording should be made more explicit to avoid problems similar to this one in the future. If a reasonable interpretation can be faulty, then the guidelines must be ambiguous. Also, if the guidelines are ignored by the community as a rule, why are you jumping on me when I make a reasoned (albeit mistaken) interpretation of them, and explain my edits accordingly?
Vandalism clearly doesn't apply in this case - no signatures were removed, in fact nothing was removed, comments were moved to the Talk page.
You say the RfC is about community input. Why does it feel like persecution then? "Looks like freedom but feels like death" as Leonard Cohen put it in Democracy... or was it Closing Time? Aquirata 21:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Aquirata_1334.html"