Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WHEELER2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- (User:WHEELER | talk | contributions)
Contents |
[edit] Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.
- Description:
- Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
-
- Talk:Effeminacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk%3AEffeminacy&diff=4906859&oldid=4906749
- Effeminacy - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Effeminacy&diff=0&oldid=4906967
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Classical_definition_of_effeminacy&action=history, "Created the Classical defintion for Classical Scholars and Christians to understand old texts and bible."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump&diff=4973616&oldid=4972469
- Applicable policies:
-
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks (#1,3), NPOV (#1-3)
- Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):
- Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~):
-
- Hyacinth 20:00, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Snowspinner 13:57, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
- Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Addendum
[edit] Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
I apologize for my behavior.
I asked several times for **references** of the term malakos in classical texts that has the meaning they they want it to have. They have yet to give any response. Yet they continue to edit the article. They refuse authority. They refuse the meaning given by Aristotle to it. None of what they have written conforms to the word malakos and all the references I have given. I am very tired of fighting people who want to give new meaning to old words and destroy and obscure the real old meaning of words. That is the question here. No one is concerned over the *deconstruction* of this word. As far as I can tell none of their content, absolutely none, matches anything in the OED, Aristotle, Plato, Greek-English Lexicon, or anything else. I am sorry. Read St. Thoman Aquinas. None of their content matches anything. It has no basis of fact at all.
Where is Wikipedia and peer review????? Do you seriously think that this article and their content would be accepted at the Classical Department of Oxford England???? Where is the Classical reveiw of this??? Where is the concern of Wikipedia and scholary peer review?
If you are not mad at the way these people want to rewrite and deconstruct classical and Christian culture with their viewpoints, and obviously, I can't find any basis for it, nor have they provided ONE word in classical texts to prove their points. If you want to accept their deonstructionism, be my guest. What they have put in here, has no bearing on the occurences of the word effeminate of Classical Greece, The Bible, or Victorian England.
Yet, they bump the classical definition and put their definition forward of what even the Greeks thought it meant. I find this very strange behavior. Yet they can have their way. They totally disregard the history of the word, classical texts, the authority of the OED and an English-Greek Lexicon. I can't handle this.WHEELER 16:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The new contributors of that page refuse to accept the OED and they refuse to accept Aristotle's definition which the Christian Church has for 2500 years has accepted.WHEELER 16:44, 30 Jul 2004 (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.
As far as these spin off articles as a soloution to user conflict, I strongly oppose such a mentality. I had kept silent on this until now (my first instinct being to immediately re-merge the content and redirect the page, much as my instinct now is to merge and redirect "Classical definition of republic"...) because I thought this would all blow over, and sailing upon calmer waters I could quickly and conveniently merge/redirect the content w fewer feelings hurt. Now that is looking like less of an option.
Let me be very clear: The primary purpose of the Wikipedia is in the creating of an encyclopedia. These spin off pages may be good for the "community" but they are in no way good for the readers. My thought is to involve a mediator in this process, perhaps list the pages in question on RfC, Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles, Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, Wikipedia:Peer review, Wikipedia:Village pump, create a Wikipedia:Poll, perhaps even list extra pages on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion if necessary.
WHEELER, IMO is not really the problem. The problem as I see it is a meta-issue, that of integrating new users into the wiki-community. WHEELER is a symptom, not a disease. He's actually quite an excellent editor, with a love for cites and verifiability. That said, he seems to have some difficulties integrating with the group editing process, and perhaps even some fundamental differences with the M:Foundation issues of the project.
In conclusion, we need to be respectful of the work WHEELER is doing here (as a volunteer mind you) and be aware of some of the shortcomings of the project in integrating and acclimatizing new members.
(From [1])
IMO the mediation committee should be called in, to attempt to explain policy goals to WHEELER, and find out where he is coming from and what his goals are. IMO he has alot of potential to do good here, but is having a great deal of trouble adjusting. I would like to see a greater diversity of community members interact w him. To be honest, some of the people he has spent the most time interacting with are just the sorts of people I would prescribe if I wanted there to be trouble. 172, andyL, hyacinth, and explodingboy... frankly I am downright shocked and amazed that there hasn't been an explosion. For being who and what he is (I think we all have gotten an idea of where he is coming from by now ;) the fact that he has been as PC as he has been around these particular editors astounds me. It is very important that the project learn to adapt folks like wheeler into our fold, especially since he has so very much to offer (Wikipedia:Cite your sources Wikipedia:Verifiability). Isn't there a welcoming committee? Can they be called in to help?
(from [2])
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
[edit] Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote, endorsement, or the user in question's response, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
