Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Benapgar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Ann Coulter 2 Benapgar's altering of the evidence section 3 Ec5618 4 POV 5 This RFC is getting as messy as the original page 5.1 The 'truth' according to me 5.2 KC's comment 6 A previous encounter 7 I am done here 8 Moved content 9 3RR 9.1 Steps 10 Corrections to evidence descriptions 11 Consensus 12 Disruptiveness/Personal Attacks 13 Conclude the RFC? 13.1 Support 13.2 Object 13.3 Abstain 13.4 Comments 14 POV to the point of vandalism 15 Additional, recent personal attacks 16 Biting Newcomer?

[edit] Ann Coulter

What is this obsession with Ann Coulter? He seems to be using the same bullying tactics (surprise surprise), but does anyone understand the issue better? Dunc|☺ 22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benapgar's altering of the evidence section

Benapgar altered the Evidence section [1], striking out the times, dates of the evidence and adding his comments/responses to it. I've reverted it as this section is reserved for presenting evidence, not responding to it. Benapgar can re-add his comments and responses to the evidence presented in the "Response" section, which is there for his use.

This is an example to Benapgar's general unfamiliarity combined with his aggressive editing style that prompted this RFC in the first place. FeloniousMonk 23:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I copy and pasted in the wrong place and thought I was editing in my own space. Keep your pants on. I already had SlimVirgin come on my talk page and say she was going to block me. GET A GRIP. Did you even notice I already set up a "Response to individual evidence section IN MY OWN SECTION? Nothing wrong with reverting and telling me not to do it, but this is ridiculous. Ben 01:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ec5618

Since there is no place for me to post this on the main RFC page, I'll do it here.

Ben has stated on this page that: A short while later, Ec5618 reverted again simply saying both he and FM disagreed and that "the last post was hardly clinching.".

I'd like to clarify: I did this for the simple reason that the edit in question was being discussed, and no course of action had been agreed upon. Adding a disputed statement to an article is hardly a wise or constructive thing to do.

He also states that FeloniousMonk had told him to "learn to abide by consensus,"

FeloniousMonk may be making a general statement about he basic principles of the Wiki, and I agree with it atleast. Edits are made to the article by consensus. A simple edit may be implemented without discussion. Either someone disagrees, and will revert, or the edit will remain and concensus will be in favour of the edit. A greater edit should be discussed prior to implementation (which Ben neglected to do) and consensus should be abided by.

An important point here may be that consensus can be shaped. By assuming that no-one was willing to listen to his arguments, Ben chose to ignore te concept of consensus editing, and made a controversial edit. Had he tried to explain his motives better, he might have found an ally or two.

I don't care for this quarrel. In my view, Ben is trying to do too much, too fast, and is a smart aleck. Throwing policy around, citing ownership, and things like 'Wikipedia is not a chatroom', and seeking arbitration for a dispute with a single editor, less than two weeks after becoming an editor. This is rash.

The most amazing thing is that Ben seems to trying to make a single point, but as yet I've no idea what it is. Nor, to be frank, do I feel intirely compelled to try to re-read his posts to find out. Ben has been coarse and disruptive. -- Ec5618 00:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

comment to address BenAveling's confusion as to how the intro as written by Benapgar is POV: ID does not meet criteria for scientific theory. Anyone who refers to ID as a theory is either a POV ID proponent, or ignorant of the criteria. If you, or Benapgar, are unclear on scientific theory, perhaps it would help to read Theory (especially the first paragraph under "Science") Second comment: although Dunc's actions are outside the purview of this rfc, I concur that calling someone "a lowly troll" is hardly a shining example of behavior. KillerChihuahua 11:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say "scientific theory" for a reason, I just said "theory". Specified complexity, a major and key component is a theory. One might even argue that that particular theory is indeed scientific^†, but I didn't want to get into that. "Intelligent Design" is not scientific because it is so undefined. The separate components should be taken on their own merit. Trying to characterize "ID" in general when you have no base to work from, like Dembski's book, or The Discovery Institute's concept of it, is not going to work.

Let's just say specified complexity theory, right or wrong, is really a good theory, and, right or wrong, falls within the means of the evaluation of the scientific method^‡. This is why people get angry when you say "ID" isn't scientific, because if the previous part is true than it is, and why they also get angry when you say "ID" is scientific, because of other aspects which aren't.

† As long as one does not include the excess definition included on the article's page about Dembski's unscientific corallaries, it is pretty much mathematics, right or wrong. An example would be his Law of Conservation of Information. Personally I don't think it is scientific. I think he has made some a priori assumptions which render the theory, as applied physics rather than mathematics, unprovable and possibly useless not to mention other things like subjective definitions. And now that I've looked more closely, it seems he has not even got the maths right. Still, saying "My theory is that 2 + 2 = 5 and because of this gravity goes up" is still a theory which falls within the evaluation of the scientific method. Adding "and because of that God exists" does not.
‡ I know this does not make it a "scientific theory", try to stay with me here. --Ben 14:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, consensus is that calling ID, or anything related to it, a theory, is confusing and ambiguous. The article uses scientific terminology. Often, people say: "Well, Evolution is just a theory, as is ID", obviously completely missing the point. Calling it a concept, assertion, belief, ideology, field, notion, etcetera is less confusing.

Please note also that the article currently does not state that ID is unscientific, only that it fails to meet the criteria of science (a point admitted by IDists) and that it is often seen as unscientific by large bodies of scientific thought.

And of course, it's possible that some aspects of ID could be classified as scientific, by which I mean that it's not out of question. -- Ec5618 14:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• as Ec5618 notes, the article uses scientific terminology - the use of "theory" would imply "scientific theory". To avoid that, non-confusing terminology such as "assertion" is preferable. Further, in your footnote (which I may have misread as to who the source for this is) is the following: "My theory is that 2 + 2 = 5 and because of this gravity goes up" is still a theory which falls within the evaluation of the scientific method." No, it isn't. See Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories for clarification. KillerChihuahua 16:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

But this is completely the opposite complaint that people normally have, that people like Creation scientists like to point out that "evolution is only a theory." This is having it both ways. The proper dictionary definition of theory is fine in my opinion. As for my footnote, now you are misinterpreting what theory means. I didn't say that that is a scientific theory (see my next footnote), I said it is a "theory which falls within the evaluation of the scientific method". The scientific method in this case would say "gravity does not go up so the theory is false," or "2 + 2 = 5 is false so the theory is false," or "you have not proven any relationship between mathematics and gravity, so the theory is not conclusive." Surely you know that a "theory which falls within the evaluation of the scientific method" is not considered the same as a "scientific theory." If you want, just completely ignore the footnote. I thought it would help, apparently it didn't. --Ben 20:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

1. I don't know what complaints "people normally have" and that is not germane.
2. What is "having it both ways"? What way, and what other way, could you possibly mean? Please clarify, I find your assertion unclear.
3. What "proper dictionary definition" of theory, and what possible difference could it ever make? We've already said, multiple times, that as the article uses a great deal of scientific terminology, "theory" as a word would tend to indicate scientific theory and other words are preferable. This is the consensus. That some other use of the word theory is fine with you is irrelevant. I do not say this lightly or with any intent to insult, but consensus matters here. This has been endlessly discussed and consensus is clear.
4. As for your footnote, I stated clearly that I found it confusing and offered a disclaimer that I might be misreading it. With that said, it is hard to see how I could have been misrepresenting anything.
5. I'm not discussing the scientific method. You are tangentializing this. I was discussing the use of the word theory in the article. If you wish to discuss scientific method with someone, please find someone else.
6. Consider the footnote, which I did find confusing to say the least, ignored from here on out. KillerChihuahua 21:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand either. Is it a problem to avoid the term theory?

To use the term to refer exclusively to scientific theory, in an article that uses a lot of scientific terminology? I would prefer it if the term 'theory', on Wikipedia, would refer solely to scientific theory. -- Ec5618 01:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

See these articles: Judge nixes evolution textbook stickers and this one Is Evolution "Just a Theory"? There are lots more if you need them. If you want to look around yourself just search for "evolution is a theory"--Ben 01:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• No. As pointed out elsewhere, this is an RFC. My only interest was to clarify why the word "theory" is innacurate and POV, which it has been determined to be by overwhelming consensus. As this discussion is not on the ID talk page, we are rapidly wandering off the purview of this page. Your links which you suggest I read would have been better placed on my talk page, or better yet, never posted anywhere as they do not have any bearing on whether you keep arguing a lost cause and even making edits after consensus is reached. I am not here, nor are you, to discuss whether Theory as a word is POV in the use which you suggest. That has been established, and that you are ignoring that point is part of the reason for the RFC. That you are trying to convince me that it is not, and possibly trying to change consensus, on this page is inappropriate. That I responded to your earlier off-topic post was inappropriate of me, and I apologise to all. KillerChihuahua 14:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This RFC is getting as messy as the original page

I quote:

BenAveling's confusion as to how the intro as written by Benapgar is POV: ID does not meet criteria for scientific theory

Forgive me, but I think this RFC is in danger of wandering off topic.

I could be wrong, but I believe the RFC should be about Benapger's conduct, not about ID itself. For the purpose of this page, I suggest we turn a blind eye as to whether or not ID is a theory, a scientific theory or the name of the next StarWars movie.

I see the following claims.

Benapgar has repeatedly been :

1. trying to insert content that is POV
2. trying to insert content that is original research
3. disruptive
4. broken 3RR
5. unwilling to accept consensus
6. unwilling to assume good faith
7. launching personal attacks

I see evidence presented in the following 3 categories :

1. Ignoring consensus & 3RR
2. Disruptiveness & Personal attacks
3. Good faith

Were I adjudicating this, I would appreciate it if the evidence were presented

1. First Claim
   1. short example [footnote]
   2. short example [footnote]
2. Second Claim
   1. short example [footnote]
   2. short example [footnote]

In particular, it should clearly prove each and every claim.

As it is not so presented and as I am not adjudicating, I spent only enough time to sample some of the evidence presented. Each time, I did not find to my complete satisfaction that the evidence supported the specific claim it was supposed to be proof positive of.

In some cases, I felt it put Bengaper's accuser in a worse light than Bengaper.

Overall, I suspect that Bengaper is indeed ignoring consensus, and may be guilty of 3RR. But I say that based on the number of witnesses supporting the evidence, not on the quality of the evidence itself.

Perhaps, in sum, the evidence does prove all the claims. But if this case is as strong as it is supposed to be, it should be possible to present damming evidence of each claim in a simple, easy to follow, fashion.

I do not see that this RFC is heading for a negotiated outcome. Nor do I feel that a majority vote will satisfy anyone.

Were it up to me, I would ask all interested parties to dismiss this RFC, go away, and come back with a clear list of claims and clear supporting evidence for each claim. And then I would expect them to discuss the claims one at a time with no reference to the underlying rational or otherwise of any individual's POV.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

An examination of evidence is fine with me. I will participate.--Ben 03:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The evidence as it is currently presented follows both Wikipedia policy and convention. This RFC has already been certified and is underway; it's not going to be dismissed because one editor doesn't find the evidence clear or compelling.

That you have difficulty in understanding how each diff relates to its description is neither reason to dismiss the RFC nor is it surprising considering this is your first RFC in the 2 weeks and 2 days you've been at Wikipedia. Since you're new at this, please consider participating in a few other RFC's before attempting to reinvent the procedures and processes. FeloniousMonk 04:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I see 8 charges. I see evidence divided into 3 categories with headings that cover 5 of those charges. Drilling into the claims, I find that I am only sometimes able to see how the evidence supports the claim. This I have already said.

I have not intended to say that your claims against Ben are invalid, or that the evidence as a whole is inadequate, or that the procedure is wrong, or that it has not been properly followed. What I said, what I believe, is that the evidence has not been presented clearly enough for me to be confident that you are right in all your claims.

If you are certain that I am alone in being dissatisfied with the presentation of the evidence, then I cannot explain why you feel the need to discuss my contribution at all, let alone the age of my registration. If, on the other hand, you will credit me with any preexisting ability to assess what I read, I suggest you focus on the substance of the comments, rather then the scribe.

Regards, Ben Aveling 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

In the spirit of RFC you've stated your opinion as to what the evidence shows and how the evidence is presented. Other interested parties will state their own opinions and endorse the viewpoints of others, and thus the community's voice is heard and purpose of RFC is fulfilled. Your call for the dismissal of the RFC is unwarranted and overreaching and would deny others their opportunity to comment, and that is why I addressed your point about the presentation of the evidence.

Now I could write a long-winded, detailed description of how each diff presented shows a violation of policy or guideline. But I feel that most interested parties coming here are knowledgeable enough of policy and convention that the transgressions will be apparent, and indeed the numbers seem to validate my trust. If I'm right then those familiar with the project's policies and guidelines will recognize when someone isn't through their comments, and weigh them accordingly.

Responding to your edit summary comment, it's not that I have strong views about Benapgar. It's that I have strong views about this project and its policies, and those who don't follow them hampering those who do. FeloniousMonk 07:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The 'truth' according to me

1 trying to insert content that is POV

• Undecidable. This issue requires an agreed NPOV to judge against, which I do not believe we have.

2 trying to insert content that is original research

• Not proven. Ben's content did not appear to be original research.

3 disruptive

• Proven. Ben has conceeded this, and claims he was provoked, which I can accept.

4 broken 3RR

• Proven. Ben has conceeded this, but claims he was acting in good faith. I accept that Ben mistakenly though that he was within the letter of the law. Even if he were within the letter of the law, 3RR is described as an absolute maximum, not a priveledge; even 3 reverts in a 24 hour period would have been against the spirt of the law. At the same time, I do not see that it would have damaged wikipedia to have extended Ben the priviledge of leaving a good-faith edit in place while its reversion was discussed.

5 unwilling to accept consensus

• Proven. However, consensus must be reached in good faith and I'm not convinced that a good faith effort was made to address Ben's concerns, as below.

6 unwilling to assume good faith

• Not proven. I do not believe good faith was extended to Ben. To choose only the nearest example, I myself cannot find good faith in this response, which I think is not atypical: "That you have difficulty in understanding [this is not] surprising considering this is your first RFC in the 2 weeks and 2 days you've been at Wikipedia". This is discourteous to me, off topic, and least importantly, wrong. While I am only reg'd for nearly 3 weeks, I have been an occasional user of wikipedia for over 6 months, and while I am not proud of this fact, this is the 2nd RFC that I have stumbled into.

7 launching personal attacks

• Proven. However, on this count, much as on good faith, my sense is that Ben is more sinned against than sinning. I see a passionate man trying, and failing, to remain reasonable in the face of a consistent and apparently organised barrage of oh-so-polite taunting and outright abuse.

The question I have is what would I recommend be done? Does anything need to be done? Comment has been requested, and made, and will continue be made. Neither party has emerged with honour completelly intact.

Blocking anyone would seem less valuable than extracting a commitment from all concerned to meet in a neutral area, list their differences, and deal with them one difference at a time. This page has degenerated into a free for all that is raising more problems that it is resolving.

How to eat an elephant? One bite at a time. Trying to RFC on everything about ID and each other at once was a bad idea.

I suggest all parties making a list of thier disagreements, and deal with them, one at a time, without dragging in all the other disagreements and dislikes that make rational conversation a fond memory.

That's my opinion. I have tried to communicate to you how and why I formed that opinion. My opinion may be wrong. I may have failed in my attempt to help you understand why I hold it. But I have tried the best I can. That's all you can expect of me.

I wish you the wisdom of Solomon.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KC's comment

1 Inserting content that is POV

Demonstrated, albeit not clearly (along with virtually all editors who have worked on ID)

2 Inserting original research

I see no evidence of that

3 disruptive

Proven. Ben has conceeded this. He has not stated how he intends to avoid this in the future, or even whether he intends to try.

4 broken 3RR

Proven. Ben has conceeded this, claimed good faith, and stated he will not do so again.

5 unwilling to accept consensus

Proven, abundantly.

6 unwilling to assume good faith

Demonstrated, as is a serious unwillingness to assume good faith on Ben's part by the other editors. It seems to be a mutual distrust society.

7 launching personal attacks

Proven, with new examples given right here on this page. Again, all parties seem guilty to one degree or another. In some exchanges it is hard to tell who is the troll and who is doing the troll-baiting.

comment this page is enormous, and with one exception (Ben Aveling) no one seems to have treated this as an Rfc. This must be the oddest Rfc page on Wikipedia. About 60% seems to be an ID debate forum; 20% seems to be mediation attempts and discussion of Wikipedia procedures and policies, and the remaining 10% is trolling, troll baiting and oh look! Actual Rfc comments. I am as guilty as anyone else. I have attempted to serve somewhat as a mediator and identify what is going on, as there seems to be a lot of communication static and the examples did not seem to explain the issues/complaints/defense very well, and I don't think Ben wants to reach consensus, identify problems, correct them and move on so much as continue the fight. I have not only been a party to not sticking to the intended use of an Rfc, but my efforts have been fruitless. Ben seems to be unable to examine his behavior without immediately offering justification, couched in arguments about the ID article. He shows an alarming ability to read simple statements as personal attacks against him. In Ben's defense, he may be so used to personal attacks from other editors that he is sensitized. This does not of course excuse his behavior. I would suggest that the other editors also take a step back and examine whether their attitude towards Ben could use a dose of ettiquitte and common good manners.

Unless I am specifically requested to try to help out in this matter, I will cease here. I don't seem to be helping at all.

KillerChihuahua 13:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I would be sorry to see you go, KillerChihuahua.

To be honest, I haven't minded this a Talk page devolving into insanity, because it has given Ben a forum on which to elucidate his points. Since he did not take the time to do so on the ID Talk page, I have had trouble relating to him. Not that I still don't, mind you.

Nevertheless, Ben seemed unwilling to discuss his point on the ID Talk page, and has demanded a more formal environment. Here he seemed more willing to Talk, which is good, even if it completely negates the official point of this page.

Perhaps, Ben, in future, this sort of thing could be handled on the ID Talk page. -- Ec5618 14:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

thanks, Ec, that was my original thought and intention (Ben elucidating his points) which is why I participated in the "insanity." As I see it, though, it appears that is not helping much. Nothing seems to have been clarified or resolved as a result of my efforts, except that Ben made the statement that consensus is very clear (blindingly, even) about the use of the word Theory - he did not take the next logical step and state whether he would abide by that consensus, but rather re-opened the issue with a hypothetical situation. I am encouraged by your comment, and will continue watching this page to see if anyone else thinks this may be of some value in the long run. I think Ben has a lot to offer, were he to accept WP policy. 24.73.237.226 14:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The above was me, I lost my login somehow - KillerChihuahua 14:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A previous encounter

I've previously encountered Ben on the climate pages. He was easily offended (basically he took offence once and never recovered) and whilst keen to contribute (by reorganising all the climate articles) had no real substance to contribute. His lasting monument was Climate forcing, which he created despite opposition, and which (before getting redirected) ended up as [2] and Ben was obliged to add the comment Note: This Wikipedia article is a work in progress. Some terms may be misrepresented to the start. This isn't the way to do things. I'll skip over his unhelpful comments at my RFC and other stuff.

In summary: really needs to find something that he actually knows about to edit on, and be less brittle.

William M. Connolley 22:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC).

[removed personal attack] And are you still re-directing climate forcing to radiative forcing? They aren't the same thing at all, you know. [removed personal attack]

p.s. to readers, what I was railing about (that "global warming" is ambiguous and something like "climate change" should be used instead) was something I clearly cited. A Government Canada site run by a PhD climatologist just like Connolley. Well, almost just like Connolley, since this climatologist participated in the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change, unlike Connolley. I make no secret that things like knowledge representation, ontology and semantics really get my goat. I even did the same thing on the Classical music page, but since there was noone acting as owner there, I just added in a small change. The long running dispute about whether or not it should re-direct to European classical music is now, for all intents and purposes, over, since it is clear why people think one way or the other, and it is clear to the reader why the article content is what it is. Please check it out.--Ben 01:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

p.p.s the reason I said that "some terms may be misrepresented" is because while I understood the basic concepts involved, I wasn't sure which terms referred to which concepts and exactly how they were related. The terms are used pretty ambiguously, but the concepts are there. Connolley doesn't know what "climate forcing" is either, that or he simply left me to flounder [removed personal attack]. "climate forcing" 159,000 hits, [3] (without quotes) 4,230,000 hits. Ben 01:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If climate forcing and radiative forcing aren't the same thing, and if the redirect is (therefore) unhelpful, it should be removed. If the redirect is helpful, and the best we can do, for now, it should stay. If you can write a stub, that's fine too, but you'll need to be able to convince some people that you're right. The google test might show that the term 'climate forcing' is in use, but not that the two are different. -- Ec5618 01:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't even get me started. --Ben 02:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, how come WMC gets to say I "really need to find something that [I] actually know about to edit on," while I can't say "Maybe you should realize there is more to climate than just the current warming trend." At least leave that part in, he insults my knowledge, I insult his, or he gives me a tip, I give him a tip.--Ben 02:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

One last thing, WMC is still on a six-month revert parole because of his reverts[4]. Apparently he just recently violated his parole too [5]. He then showed up on the ArbCom talk page and made fun of the guy who called him on it, calling him a "troll" with "nothing else to contribute." --Ben 02:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of behavior that landed you here. Can you not see that? FeloniousMonk 02:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you not see that you are trying to bait me into responding with your "innocent" question? This is completely insulting and I hate it. First WMC comes out of nowhere and calls Climate forcing my "lasting monument" and then says I was "obliged to add the comment"--I did so of my own will thank you very much, I even told WMC this months ago before I quit editing the climate articles but he forgot again--and then he says I need to edit "something that I actually know about." He knows I dislike him and yet he still baits me with crap like that, then you come along and ask your little question, hoping I will respond with a personal attack, well here it is: I do not think you are a nice person.--Ben 03:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That you took offense is, quite frankly, your business. An editor suggested you did not have an extensive background in the areas you were contributing to, and thus, not aware of pertinent details. He suggests you're easily offended and brittle. You responded by calling him names. Which is obviously insulting, and bad form, and you have been told basically the same thing by every editor in this RFC. Incivility does not justify incivility. So why do you do it?

Now, again, you take offense at what might be an innocent comment from FeloniousMonk, suggesting that perhaps, just possibly, you should calm down, and not take offense. You probably should.

Most people here, I'm sure, are not out to get you, and would be quite willing to put this ugly business behind them. You continued indignation can only ever fan the flames. -- Ec5618 07:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not so sure removing the personal attacks is the best course of action here, it is precisely this kind of personal attack which is at issue. It is almost like being in court for domestic violence and then smacking your wife in front of the judge - it shows a lack of understanding of the seriousness of the issue, or responsibility for one's actions beyond what the original incident(s) would indicate. I realise there are several schools of thought about removing personal attacks on WP, I'm just saying that there were perosnal attacks made here is serious indeed. And the attacks were not in a "grey zone" - [6] -- My $,02. KillerChihuahua 14:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I know EC's heart was in the right place when he removed the attacks, and they're still available in the page's history [7]. I agree with you that additional personal attacks being made here by the RFC's subject is indeed troubling. FeloniousMonk 18:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I called WMC a "condescending bastard" and a "jackass." Of course, most of the rest of my comments which are no worse than WMC's personal attacks were removed. WMC said I had no real substance to contribute which is an insulting personal attack and not even true. I created the entire Climate forcing article. I created a proposal for re-structuring the climate change articles, I created a new User:Benapgar/Global climate change article. WMC might as well have said:

"Ben is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Last time I saw him, this pussy flipped out of the slightest thing. His stupid Climate forcing article was garbage and a complete waste of my time, I call it his "lasting monument to his ignorance" lol! It took me over 5 seconds to revert it because I didn't like it. This guy couldn't even understand what he was talking about, unlike me. He is an ignorant fool compared to me and the other editors. In summary, he's a complete idiot that should shut the hell up, and he really should get the hell out of here. It is no surprise he's angry and makes personal attacks: it's because he's a worthless moron."

Are we censoring "bad words" like "jackass" and "bastard" or are we censoring personal attacks? WMC's post was insulting, but I suppose his opinion is important. Isn't my opinion important? --Ben 20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Please leave the above in: its perfect evidence against Ben. I don't understand how he can possibly have thought writing it was sensible. Anyone writing stuff like the above needs to take a break from wiki. For the record, I've never called Ben an idiot and don't think he is; climate forcing was (a) unwelcomed by me and others and (b) an attempt to describe fairly subtle things by someone who didn't understand them well enough to do so (but please don't discuss the details of that here: go over to the CF talk if you're interested). I called it his "lasting monunment" because (despite his grand plans to reorganise all of the cliamte pages) it was the only piece of text by him to survive; no more. My "he was obliged" to add the disclaimer may have been misunderstood: I didn't mean anyone forced him: I meant, that he realised that the page was dodgy (an implicit admission that (b) is correct). All in all, I think the fact that Ben cannot manage to remain civil, even on an RFC when civility is an issue and he knows everyone is watching, says a lot (having said that, the degree of incivility from Ben before this RFC is pretty low by the Great Climate Wars standards, or even by Duncs normal mode of discourse standards).

[edit] I am done here

This is a kangaroo court and completely ridiculous. FeloniousMonk refuses to address the evidence and almost all the people voting for his summary are directly involved. If those people want sanctions against me, fine. Block me from editing Intelligent Design. Block me from the talk pages. Block me from posting on all your talk pages. As long as I can participate in my Request for Arbitration against FeloniousMonk, RoyBoy, and Duncharris, I do not care. Their violations are far worse. All I did was arguably violate Wikiquette and a single time I went too far and reverted to prove a point. I convincingly showed that the majority of FM's "evidence" is trivial, and in some cases completely false, and I explained my reasons for every single one of my actions. If all you want to do is bait me into making personal attacks on this talk page then I refuse to participate. Lay down your sanctions. You do not want to discuss any of the evidence so there is no more reason for me to participate on this talk page.--Ben 20:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Are you under the impression that the rules apply differently to you, and that you can choose which rules apply to you? You cannot honestly expect people to take you seriously with this kind of talk. And you cannot honestly believe that the personal attacks you made were somehow not your responsibility, simply because you feel you were baited.

I'm not even sure what prompted this sudden realisation in you. How is this a kangaroo court, suddenly? Did someone offend you, recently? Could you try to get over it, and respect Civility and Wikiquette (both of which are backbones of Wikipedia, and not something you can halfheartedly dismiss, even in this special case) -- Ec5618 21:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No the rules don't apply to me differently. I take responsibility for my "personal attack" on William M. Connelley, who has nothing to do with this RFC. If he wants to file an RFC, he can. He already knows I think those things. Personally I would rather someone call me a condescending bastard straight up. In fact, I give all of you licence to call me all the names you want. Call me a bastard, call me a jackass. To me, that's just your opinion and it doesn't bother me. There is a difference between simply insulting someone and things like bullying, spreading libel and trying to make people angry.

Look at KillerChihuahua's posts up there. What does he do? He claims I do not understand what the word theory is. I explain and demonstrate to him very civilly that I do. He says he does not understand and asks some questions. I reply with civility explaining that his concern is rather unorthodox, and that he has mistaken my point by focusing on the wrong thing. He replies with another question about why it is unorthodox. I reply with some very good examples. His reply? NO! I refuse to look at that because this is an RFC! You are going off-topic. How dare you discuss this with me!

As for this being a Kangaroo court? I thought it might turn out to be one. FeloniousMonk had support of something like 5 people--all involved in the dispute--before I had even finished writing my statement. When I wrote my statement I gave really good reasons why much of the evidence was copmletely ridiculous. In fact, some of the evidence is even false. FM would be charged with perjury in a real court. He suggested I was reverting things when I wasn't to try to prove his charge that I violated the 3RR. He also did not use UTC time, pushing everything 7 hours backwards to try to further show that I had violated the 3RR. A real "whoops" right there as in "Whoops I forgot Wikipedia runs on UTC time so I converted it all to 7 hours earlier which just so happens makes it look like Ben violated the 3RR." HE DID NOT EVEN CORRECT ANY OF IT AFTER I POINTED THIS OUT. And now, surprise surprise, the thing that finally proves this is a kangaroo court is that he refuses to discuss the evidence. No cross-examination, no nothing. And all of his supporters are perfectly fine with that, basically "Nothing wrong with not discussing the evidence, everything FM has said is clearly true." And what does FM when someone suggests it, perhaps, the evidence needs to be examined? He says:

The evidence as it is currently presented follows both Wikipedia policy and convention. This RFC has already been certified and is underway; it's not going to be dismissed because one editor doesn't find the evidence clear or compelling.

Aveling said "Were it up to me, I would ask all interested parties to dismiss this RFC, go away, and come back with a clear list of claims and clear supporting evidence for each claim."

Then of course, FM bites the newcomer as usual because he thinks it is conspiracy:

That you have difficulty in understanding how each diff relates to its description is neither reason to dismiss the RFC nor is it surprising considering this is your first RFC in the 2 weeks and 2 days you've been at Wikipedia. Since you're new at this, please consider participating in a few other RFC's before attempting to reinvent the procedures and processes.

Suggesting Aveling is trying to "Reinvent the procedures???" This is BULLYING. --Ben 22:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

And I might remind you what a personal attack is. Here are some examples:

Specific examples of personal attack include but are not limited to:

• Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
• Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.
• Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme.
• Profanity directed against another contributor.
• Threats of legal action
• Death threats.
• Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.

--Ben 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It might have something to do with his RFAR against the people who brought this RFC being rejected. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 22:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE A JOKE? YOU SUGGEST I AM CALLING THIS A KANGAROO COURT BECAUSE MY RFA WAS REJECTED? PLEASE ACTUALLY READ THE REASONS FOR REJECTION BEFORE MAKING THESE LIBELOUS SUGGESTIONS ABOUT MY MOTIVATIONS. AND ONE AND ONLY ONE PERSON BROUGHT THIS RFC AGAINST ME: FELONIOUSMONK. Ben 22:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

One reject vote is Reject without prejudice until currently open RfC is concluded and another concurs. So I suppose Ben may be trying to wrap things up here in a hurry to get on there. But I doubt that would work. To Ben: any time you feel tempted to write things in all caps its probably a sign that you are too wound up to edit straight. William M. Connolley 23:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

Again, I mean this in the gentlest of terms, but I don't think you understand what the goal of an RFC is. The only court here is the court of community opinion. Here you are judged by your peers on the evidence and your actions. Considering that, you're not helping your case by getting so upset. FeloniousMonk 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the only court here is a kangaroo court. The "community" which was already on your side ignores all of my statements and evidence. Half of them voted before I even made my statement. And if anyone gets to cast aspersions on motivations it's me, because you filed this RFC 30 minutes after I filed an RFA, and not only that you lied to the arbitration committee and said no other dispute resolution regarding your conduct, for example an RFC, had been tried when I asked you if you would participate in one and said no.

"Would you participate in an RFC if a file one against you? I would like to know, because otherwise I will file an RFA.--Ben 22:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)"

"...no, I'm not interested in "participating" with you in an RFC.... FeloniousMonk 02:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)"

RfArb, Ben v. FeloniousMonk, RoyBoy, Duncharris, filed: 21:33, 5 November 2005

RfC, FeloniousMonk vs. Ben, filed: 21:51, 5 November 2005

"I'm not going to waste too time responding to this because Benapgar has failed to seek any other form of resolving this dispute first, jumping straight to arbitration. Needless to say, there is a user conduct RFC I have filed on Benapgar's chronically disruptive behavior... FeloniousMonk 00:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)"

--Ben 23:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, I think you don't quite get how this works. There is no policy or convention compelling you to seek the assent of the other party before filing a user conduct RFC, as you've recently discovered, no doubt. I was under no obligation to grant it or even respond to you. But I did, and your selective use of quotes doesn't quite convey what I actually said in response to your offer: "So, no, I'm not interested in "participating" with you in an RFC. My position is you're not the person to be bringing such an RFC, but that you're an excellent candidate as the subject of one." [8]

You've ignored consensus since you arrived at the Intelligent Design, and by dismissing the good faith comments of others made at this RFC, you're ignoring consensus again here now. FeloniousMonk 23:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moved content

comment on move: Hope this makes things make more sense - sorry about the inadvertant delete, FM, Ben - if someone thinks this is still a little out of order please move again. KillerChihuahua 02:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben, perhaps we could take a fresh look at this: I didn't say you didn't understand theory; my explanation was intended mainly for Ben Aveling and was about the use of the word in the ID page intro. You replied, I replied, at which point it was pointed out elsewhere on the page (by Ben Aveling) that this page was getting off topic. You replied (to my reply not Ben Aveling's post), and I said No, this is off topic as was pointed out. I said you could post on my talk page, or drop it as it wasn't pertinent. I then apologised. Now, this is how it looks like it happened to me. I may be alone in my summary view. I am wondering, tho, how can you take my saying we've gotten off topic and my apology as meaning "How dare you discuss this with me!"? And finally, all of this does not precisely address the rfc, but perhaps will be helpful in some way in figuring this all out, because there seems to be some difficulty in communicating here - we're not understanding things the same way. I am very sorry to say I cannot make of this exchange anything other than that you are having some difficulty assuming good faith, and remaining friendly. In my experience, when party A does something innocuous, which may or may not have other meanings, it is usually least disruptive for party B to either assume they meant well, or ask to confirm what they meant, not to interpret their words in a harsh manner, effectually implying base motives. If you took it that I said "How dare you discuss this with me!" then there is either something wrong with my writing skills, or with your understanding, because I assure you that was not in any way what I meant. KillerChihuahua 23:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua you erased one of FeloniousMonk's posts by accident [9]. Can you put it back in? Otherwise my reply doesn't make any sense. You should probably move your comment up too to make the thread more readable. You can erase this after. --Ben 00:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's my response to the above (please move this too). You are right, but it seemed to me all you wanted to do was attack the use of the word "theory" and not listen to what I was saying. I probably should not have harped on the hypocrisy, that wasn't right of me to do that. Hypocrisy doesn't prove anything, but I did want you to know about the common "evolution is only a theory" line creationists use to put it into perspective. I do understand the reluctance to use the word theory, that's why I said "beliefs and theory." One good reason is that it makes Intelligent Design look like a scientific theory (creationist's hypocrisy be damned, they will say this anyway). I was thinking about it, possibly "theories" would be better, or "mathematical theories." The thing is, there are mathematical theories involved. To some, they are pretty stupid theories, equivalent to "gravity goes up." Refusing to use the word theory when it is appropriate is what makes people angry, also using it when it is appropriate makes people angry. You just have to use it in the right place. Identify where "theory" can be used and put it in and everyone will be happy. Dembski's "specified complexity" is mathematical, all sorts of equations and such. His theory is that one can identify "complexity" in nature using information theory. I don't think anyone has proven him wrong on that. You could say "pseudoscientific theory," but then you have to prove that it is pseudoscientific. Has anyone done that? Proven, specifially mind you, that his "specified complexity" is pseudoscientific? Forget about his corrolations, what is it that he is examining? He has likely said it himself numerous times. In the article it says his theory is that one can "formalize a property that singles out patterns [in nature] that are both specified and complex." Specified and complex should be in quotes since Dembski uses (or claims he uses) a specific scientific meaning for those terms. That really is a theory. It is not a "scientific theory" but provided he has stated it empirically, it is still a theory. Finding places where you can use "theory" scientifically would make people less angry, and including it in the introduction will show people exactly which parts of empirically verifiable--and those that are interested not in the beliefs, but in the scientific aspects, can quickly find out which are which. It's all about making every aspect of ID accessible. Once it is in the open, no one will be mad. But if you don't even want to discuss even the possible use of the word theory when it is clear there are a lot of mathematics in there that people would likely call "theory" and indeed do call theory all the time just provokes accusations of bias. If there is nothing whatsoever within all the concepts of ID that can be called "theory", that should be first thing in the introduction. If specified complexity cannot be called "theory" then that too should be the first thing in the introduction. Simply referring to specified complexity as a "concept" with no discussion on why the word theory is not used is obviously going to get you accused of bias. Explain why, and if you are reasonable, no one will argue. I know this is "beyond the scope of the RFC" but you said I didn't understand what theory meant, what am I supposed to do? The way you put it makes me look like an idiot when I think I have shown for good reason why I used the word "theory." To me, specified complexity seems to be a an empircally testable theory in certain aspects. --Ben 01:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong, I'm afraid. I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say 'mathematic theory', but a scientific theory is not a mathematical relation, and is never false. A scientific theory may call itself that if it has never been proven false. A single example of an event that does not fit into the theory disproves the theory. 'Gravity goes up' is not a scientific theory, in any sense of the word, ever. Again, is there a problem with using less ambiguous language?

Pseudoscientific can be defined. As such, concepts can be found to fit the definition of pseudoscience, without the need for an authoritative source.

About specified complexity, it cannot be falsified, only the specified complexity of specific examples. The eye was originally given as an example of irreducible complexity, which has been proven false.

The funny thing is that as long as IDists can come up with a complex structure we don't fully understand, they can try to move the burden of proof to evolution proponents. When that structure is explained (as the eye was), they simply move on, basically saying "You, evolutionist, explain to be how a flaggelum could have arisen through evolution, now!" The only thing that could ever truly falsify specified complexity is complete and total (scientific) knowledge of the universe.

And funnily enough, these points have been argued on the ID Talk page, ad nauseam. -- Ec5618 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is where it should really stay, not here. This page is about the rfc, not about the article or any debates about the article. All that is really needed here is whether there is consensus on the ID talk page that "theory" implies "scientific theory", which there is, and whether it should therefore be avoided, for which there is also consensus, and whether Ben has ignored consensus, and inserted POV content. Has he? KillerChihuahua 02:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, before you get too far down that path of determining what constitutes theory, consensus, etc., you will need to make yourself familiar with WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, it's the policy that governs the presentation of such distinctions in articles that deal with pseudoscience, like ID. This has been the governing policy for presenting information in the ID article. The article wherever necessary attributes differing POVs to the relevant group (ID proponents or the scientific community) instead of making simple declarative statements as one would normally find in a scientific article. Using this rule, all that is necessary for content to make it into the article is to pass WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience and WP:NOR. It should be a factual and verifiable description of a significant viewpoint that is relevant to the topic, and presented as such. FeloniousMonk 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

And, funnily enough, people still argue about them. How about putting it right in the article then? Won't this solve it once and for all? Right on the page, write:

While some describe aspects of specified complexity as theory, none of the aspects are scientific theory, so the word concept is used throughout the article to eliminate any confusion."

If the above is misrepresentative, how about writing your own? Get it out in the open.--Ben 03:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to be a pest, but all of this is more appropriately discussed on the ID talk page. I take it from your entry, Ben, that you disagree that there is consensus that "theory" implies "scientific theory" and therefore should not be used (as that would be ignoring consensus)? Am I understanding your position correctly? KillerChihuahua 03:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No. It is blindingly obvious that there is "consensus," meaning "the editors on the ID page," that "theory" implies "scientific theory." The consensus is based on their own bias, basically that "people do not understand what the word theory means." That is the reader's fault, not the editor's.

Here is something to think about. Imagine creationists wrote the article, and they called it a "theory." You, the reader, see this and think "This is ridiculous, it is not a proper scientific theory!" So you remove "theory" and place "concept" in instead. Would they get angry and revert the change? Yes they would! So you revert and say "theory implies it is a scientific theory" and they say "no it doesn't, consensus says it does not. Reverting." What would you do then?--Ben 04:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• If that happened, it would mean I was on a creationist site not WP. If that happened to the WP ID page, I would advise them to go write a creationist page on another site, which they may indeed already have, because consensus is not that ID is a scientific theory. The situation is currently this: consensus has been reached, and you confirm that consensus has been reached (indeed saying it is "blindingly obvious"), that theory implies scientific theory and should not be used on this page. Once consensus is reached, especially with the unbelieveable amount of debate that has gone into this one, it is time to drop the subject unless something new which bears on the topic is discovered. You are entitled to think that the consensus is based on bias, that it is based on "people do not understand..." and you are welcome to that opinion, but not to keep stating it, because that is disruptive. KillerChihuahua 12:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are not listening. Please listen. In the example I gave they did not claim ID was a scientific theory. Do not change the example. Their reply to you would be "We are not saying ID is a scientific theory, we are just saying it is a theory as in the first meaning in the dictionary: 'an unproven conjecture'. Please look up the word theory in the dictionary. It is totally NPOV. Please abide by consensus or we will block you for being disruptive." --Ben 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No. You are not listening. This is how you got into all this trouble in the first place. It's not just one person doesn't agree with you. Make your arguments sensibly and people will listen, and if you don't achieve consensus, get over it. Don't launch your rattle out of your pram attached to an Exocet. Ambiguity is to be avoided. POV is to be avoided. That is ambiguous. Which part of that do you not understand? Dunc|☺ 21:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You are not listening. Please listen. Since the article is worded in scientific terminology, using the term 'theory' is ambiguous. You are not listening. Please listen. Since the term 'theory' is ambiguous, consensus is that it should be avoided. Please acknowledge that you realise the implication of consensus on wikipedia. Please acknowledge that you realise the implication of the use of the term 'theory', within a scientific context.

The definition of theory is not the issue here. The ambiguity is. Please listen. -- Ec5618 21:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ben: If I am giving the impression I am not listening, perhaps I am not being clear. In any example, the article is either on WP or it is not. If it is on WP, then consensus is how things are determined. Currently, consensus is that the word theory in the ID article implies Scientific theory and should not be used. In your example, the consensus is that the dictionary first entry is relevant, and that it should be used. In yet a third example, consensus might be that "theory" means "lie" for who knows what reason (example intentionally nonsensical) and if that is consensus, then hey, they're wrong in my opinion but my opinion is not how decisions are made on WP, they are made by consensus and after enough debate and discussion has gone by that consensus is "blindingly obvious" then it would be disruptive and against the community's best interests, and against the guidelines, to try to re-open the subject unless something new which had a bearing were discovered. You have found nothing new; we all know about the dicdef. So what would I do in your example? Abide by consensus, because that is how WP works. In the privacy of my own mind, I might think to myself "gosh, there are some ignorant people on WP" especially if the consensus is my example of theory=lie, but that would not give me the right to be disruptive and waste people's time arguing about something that had already been decided. Many times I have been in discussions on talk pages or Afd and said "I think A, here's why" and guess what? consenus was B. And that's the end of it. If someone changes the page from B to A, I would, were I to see that edit happen, revert back to B and my comment might be something like "consensus is B, pls see talk page." Once consensus is reached, it is reached. If it has been reached to the point where it is "blindingly obvious" then someone, or several someones, have already been beating a dead horse. KillerChihuahua

Thank you for your understanding. The problem, as I see it, is that the purposeful avoidance of the use of that word is obvious in the article. This makes people angry NOT necessarily because they think "ID" is tried and true scientific theory, BUT because they think THE EDITORS think that THEY think it is a scientific theory, and as such are insulting their intelligence as they do not believe it is a scientific theory either. They think the use of the word is appropriate, and the absence of that word indicates that the editors are insulting their intelligence as it shows the editors do not believe the readers are smart enough to understand the difference, as quite clearly they do not. If someone believes the word "theory" necessarily implies "scientific theory" that is their problem. If it is clearly explained in the articles why it is not a scientific theory then the avoidance of the use of this word is pointless--other than to insult the intelligence of the reader of course.--Ben 22:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. If it is clearly explained in the articles why it is not a scientific theory then the use of this word would be inconsistent. To me it seems more like If I say "George is a male" then refer to George as "she". That's not precisely the same, am I making myself clear?

However, the above is, again, on the topic of the article itself and thus not appropriately discussed here, except as it might be relevant to resolving the issues at hand. KillerChihuahua 22:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Dunc, I appreciate that you are frustrated, but IMHO "Don't launch your rattle out of your pram attached to an Exocet" falls either into the nonsense category, or the personal attack category. Which did you intend, and what was your intended goal in typing that? This is an honest question, I'm very confused as to why anyone would type that and what they would expect the effect to be. This page is already overlength and we've resolved precisely 1 of the concerns, perhaps you would be kind enough to restrict your additions to those that might help reach a calmer place, with consensus on the issues raised by the Rfc? If you have any off-topic comments that you would like to make, feel free to add them to my talk page. It is very short, I still have Meelar's welcome message. KillerChihuahua 21:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618: Respectfully, I must disagree with part of your post. You said "The definition of theory is not the issue here. The ambiguity is." That is indeed the point of the discussion which has already taken place on the ID talk page. However, here the issue here seems to me to be that Ben is having serious frustration with dealing with consensus when he strongly disagrees with it. Does anyone else see that as the issue? Ben has already stated he knows that consensus on the ID article is that "theory" means "scientific theory" and is not, therefore, being used. It seems to me that his hypothetical situation is specifically designed to present me with a situation where the consensus is different - I believe he has inferred that I concur completely with current consensus, although I have not said so - and that seems to point to frustration with consensus, and how to deal with that, as the issue. I would appreciate everyone's input on that specific point - The issue here is how to deal with consensus when an editor strongly disagrees with consensus. Thanks! KillerChihuahua 21:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

In a doomed effort to find something to agree on, I tried looking at the 3RR issue. This should be straightforward. FM sez Ben broke 3RR; Ben sez no. I find against Ben: [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] - this is 4 clear reverts within 24h (first at 2005-10-23 22:14:49, last at 2005-10-24 06:57:20), poss 5 if the first was a revert too. This is on the assumption that Ben accepts that he is 24.57.157.81, which I think he does. So... I can't understand Ben when he denies breaking 3RR. Do please explain. William M. Connolley 23:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC).

It seems you are right. I thought it was no more than three per day, not every 24 hours, but I was wrong. So, block me for that if necessary. Also please look at the false statements FM made in his statement. Maybe you can agree on that.

9. [15] 17:28, 30 October Readding removed dab template as Benapgar against consensus

10. [16] 17:34, 30 October Reverting removal of dab template as Benapgar

Note also the previous edit in 10. Note also that I pointed this out in my statement in big red letters. FM did not correct it so either he did not bother to read my statement, or he has no problem with misleading people who might comment on this RFC.

--Ben 23:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Typos combined with tu quoque arguments do not change the material facts, that your misuse of templates, whichever ones you chose at the moment, were unjustified, intentionally went against consensus, and part of a well-established pattern of disruptive behavior.

Now you may think nitpicking at the evidence is a fine defense of your actions, but those same actions when taken in whole, form a history of disrupting the project, despite any typos on my part found here. And it is a history which continues even today, when as both 24.57.157.81 (talk • contribs) and Benapgar (talk • contribs) you sought out a number of admins in an effort to undermine the legitimacy of the Wikipedia:POV fork guideline as part of your defense. FeloniousMonk 23:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is merely a "typo" which happens to support your statement, then I hereby demand you strike out (but not remove) that evidence and explain in an addendum to your statement the mistake you made in either your description or the inclusion of the evidence itself. --Ben 00:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As for Wikipedia:POV fork: I knew your were following me and were going to try to libel me based on it. Trying to undermine it? NO. Trying to understand how come it became a guideline simply by a single editor--and at exactly the same time as it was being referenced in a dispute about POV forks (not this dispute, a different one[17]) placing {{guideline}} on it? When it is clear from the history that the status of POV fork is in question [18],[19],[20], and that there is absolutely no discussion on the talk page of that article? YES. If anyone wants to know about this just follow my edits [21], [22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]. So now you are forcing me to run around defending this baseless accusation with your libel.--Ben 00:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It appears to me that we have (shaky) consensus on one thing: Ben violated the 3R rule, possibly as a result of lack of care, possibly as a result of misunderstanding the "day" in question, and possibly for some other reason. FM, the question in this section is the 3R violation. Let's all try to stay cool and on topic, yes? I know you are frustrated, try not to restate grievances where not necessary for explanation, ok? (yes even the puppy is trying to stay on topic) KillerChihuahua 23:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. FeloniousMonk 00:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, that's one down! As FM agrees, and Ben has agreed as well, there has been violation of the 3RR. That said, as Ben states he did not understand the 24-hour methodology of calculating "days", it seems to me that if Ben agrees to abide by this rule in the future, and if possible to discuss issues on the talk page when his edits are reverted, rather than reverting them back, this issue would be resolved. Do we have consensus on this? Ben, your reply here is crucial - thanks! KillerChihuahua 03:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree to not violate the 3RR. I agree to discuss my edits on the talk page. However, please read my statement of account on the RfC page[28] if you have not already, as well as my request for arbitration against FeloniousMonk[29], for why your suggestion that I discuss my issues on the talk page drives me up the wall. I already discuss my edits. FM does not. Kinda tricky, isn't it? :/--Ben 06:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Unless there are objections, I would like to call the 3RR issue resolved. Ben has, upon careful consideration and examination, concurred that he has been guilty of violating this rule, and stated he will not violate it again. KillerChihuahua

[edit] Steps

• On the subject of FM and discussion on the talk page - Ben, please be patient with me here, because I'm going to get wordy and I know when I get wordy sometimes I come across as condescending, because I'm trying to avoid confusion. If I sound at all condescending, remember that I am only trying to be abundantly clear on my meaning and just be happy with your superior mind that you "got it" the first time, ok? thanks.

First of all, this is not "Rfc/FeloniousMonk", this is "Rfc/Benapgar" so technically what FM did or did not do is not strictly germane. Even if what he did was horrible, rude, breaks every rule of conduct to civilised society, it is not germane. One cannot say "I was driven to it" because that is a lack of self-control with an excuse, as opposed to a lack of self-control without an excuse, and self-control is not behaving appropriately when there are no extenuating circumstances, it is behaving well in spite of extenuating circumstances. Regardless of what may or may not have happened to you, the issue is what you actually did. This is also not "Flame war between FeloniousMonk and Benapgar", so sticking to what Benapgar did should be the goal here. I've been guilty at least once of getting off topic myself, so I am not a shining example, my apologies.

That said, I concur that FM has been making some posts which read like he misread the title of the page to be "Flame war between FeloniousMonk and Benapgar", too. This is unfortunate, and hopefully has no bearing on how you choose to behave. tu quoque arguments are logically inept regardless of who makes them. Let us, as logical beings, attempt to avoid them.

The reasons your request for arbitration was declined, and this Rfc exists, is simply because of procedure. Odd a bunch as we are, there is actually procedure for resolving disputes. They are outlined as follows:

1 Avoidance:

2 First step: talk to the other parties involved

3 Further dispute resolution

3.1 Informal Mediation

3.2 Discuss with third parties

3.3 Conduct a survey

3.4 Mediation

3.5 Requesting an advocate

4 Last resort: Arbitration

The process is outlined as:

Dispute resolution processes

Negotiation: Current surveys

Requests for comment | Third opinion

Mediation: Mediation Committee

Requests for mediation

Arbitration: Arbitration Committee

Requests for arbitration

Please note that we are on negotiation, Rfc being the action chosen. After negotiation comes mediation, followed by arbitration. The goal here is to negotiate, with third parties involved, which is why you have this big messy talk page with all kinds of third parties running around, including small dogs who bite at your ankles (that would be me.) There is no way the arbitration committee would have accepted any request until all other means had been exhaused, and I certainly hope we are all better than that - arbitration here on WP usually means someone is a completely unreasonable person in some way (my humble opinion, yours may vary.)

That should cover arbitration.

Discussion on talk page of ID article: I am not sure how long you've been following the ID page. You registered on Nov 1, with a comment which seems to make it clear that you've been contributing for some time prior to that. The ID article's talk page currently has 18 archives. Numerous, sometimes organized mass attack type, POV edits have been made. Many things have been discussed ad nauseum until consensus was reached. Once consensus is reached, it is generally disruptive to try to re-debate the issue, unless there is some new compelling evidence. As I see it, there are two things going on here; You feel you are discussing edits, and others (including FM) feel you are being disruptive by debating that which has already been resolved. Now I am sure anyone can nitpick that statement to pieces but it was meant as a very brief summary. The second thing is that FM is reverting and you feel he is not discussing why. This is very probably true, and hard as it is to see it, it is appropriate. With 18 archives, there have been a lot of debates and discussions, as well as a lot of Pov editing, as I mentioned above. If FM Rv's an edit back to what has been resolved, he doesn't need to type in, for the 400 or so lines it would take, all the points of the preceeding discussions and why consensus is what it is. Calling it "tricky" that he does not do so is rude and uncivil and inappropriate behavior, and I have seen myself that you can be very polite if you want to be. Don't sink to Dunc's level. In fact, FM is careful to add a summary of what has already been resolved each time the talk page is re-archived (under "In these archives,"), which is a good deal of extra work and very helpful, for which he has my admiration and kudos. If your edit falls under anything listed in the "In these archives," section, you should not have made it, because whether you saw it or not, your points have already been made and consenus was against that edit, whatever it is. You are at fault if that is what happens. Read the talk page before making edits is the rule. The onus is on you. The second thing is that there is a difference between this series of events:

1. You make an edit
2. The edit is reverted for going against consensus, or Pov, or whatever reason

and this series of events:

1. You make an edit
2. The edit is reverted
3. You revert back to your edit

The second series of events is called a Revert war. It is against policy and is the entire reason there is a 3RR to begin with. Do not revert back whenever possible, which is virtually always, unless dealing with vandalism.

As regards FM's behavior: Yes FM has been less than civil at times and has had trouble sticking to the topic at hand, and he's obviously frustrated, and I would advise him to take a break from the ID page if I weren't absolutely sure that he is badly needed there to revert all the multitudinous Pov and against consensus edits that are made there, practically daily.

I think I've typed enough for one morning - I hope I have not muddied the issues any, but instead have brought some clarity and common understanding. KillerChihuahua 12:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you have indeed muddled some issues.

a) I am not debating that which is already resolved. My main point, in case I have mislead you, is not to insert the word "theory." My point is EITHER characterizing the article (NOT THE TOPIC) properly OR redefining the topic (I believe it is not defined properly) and rewriting the article. I would also like to MOVE superfluous criticisms which, WHILE RELATED, are more appropriate in a DIFFERENT ARTICLE. So unless consensus is the entire article should not be changed (violating Wikipedia's policy) then my point is a new point which does not have consensus. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN LITTLE UNDERSTANDING, NOR WILLINGNESS TO UNDERSTAND MY REASONS. I highly doubt this, or indeed anything related, has been discussed before. FURTHERMORE, FM should reference these previous discussions if they exist as it is not clear where they are in the archives. This would give me a good idea if my issue has been discussed, and at the same time, demonstrate his understanding of my issues. It will also help me to explain myself, as it will show what FM thinks my issue is, or is at least related to.

b) My RfArb/FeloniousMonk has 1 rejection, 1 accept, and 2 reject without prejudice until RfC/Benapgar is completed. "Without prejudice" means that those people have the opportunity to change their vote to either accept or reject when this RfC is concluded. Suggesting my RfA is totally rejected is not helpful.

c) FeloniousMonk stated quite clearly he was not going to answer to my charges in an RfC/FeloniousMonk. I have said this numerous times. Like you said, this is not "Rfc/FeloniousMonk", this is "Rfc/Benapgar". In other words, I did in fact try to resolve the dispute in an RfC/FeloniousMonk. Suggesting I did not try to resolve my dispute with FeloniousMonk is not helpful.

d) You said "Calling it "tricky" that he does not do so is rude and uncivil and inappropriate behavior" Please re-read what I said was tricky. I apologize if I was not clear. I said the following situation is tricky: You asked me to agree to discuss my issues on the talk page, implying that I fail to do so. I have shown that I always discuss my issues, at length, on the talk page. I have also shown that FeloniousMonk does not care whether I do or do not discuss my issues on the talk page. I said before, you have asked me to agree to something I already do, and FM does not care if I do it. As a solution to this RfC, your suggestion is naïve. Finding a solution based on my discussion habits is going to be "tricky" as, like I have said numerous times, I do discuss my issues on the talk page. It is FAR different than calling someone, as you suggest, a "lowly troll."

e) I am WELL AWARE of what a revert war is. I have made almost 1500 edits, and I have been editing articles for nearly as long as FeloniousMonk has. You are LEAVING OUT the fact that after I make an edit and it is reverted, that I DISCUSS AT GREAT LENGTH THAT WHICH WAS REVERTED. If, in the great amount of writing and discussion, I see no attempt at understanding my point, I revert because the editors refuse to understand my point AND editors refuse to come to any compromise AND editors refuse to ensure I understand their point.

Again, please read, IN FULL, my statement of account. Let me know when you have read it. Specifically say "Ben, I read your statement of account." Until that time, your muddling of the issues is NOT HELPFUL.--Ben 21:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

a) Since this is a very complex issue, I am tabling for now - we can get back to it later, I just lack the ability to discuss it in the detail it deserves right now.

b) No one suggested you didn't try to resolve the issue with FM. All I said was that procedure is that Arb comes after others things are completed, which have not yet been completed. I personally give this problem an 80% probability that it will go to Arb, partly because you are so quick to take things so ill, make accusations, and fly off the handle.

c) Again, no one suggested you didn't try to resolve. That is not pertinent. That this page is about your behavior is.

d) My error, and my apologies! I had indeed read it that you meant "FM's behavior was tricky" not "the situation is tricky". Please accept my apologies.

e) This would be part of what I asked your patience with when I started my very verbose post, remember? I said I might be redundant and state stuff you already knew, and asked you to pat yourself on the back for being bright instead of attacking the puppy for being tedious. However, the second issue you raise is serious indeed - please correct me if I misunderstand you, but it seems that when you are saying:

If, in the great amount of writing and discussion, I see no attempt 
at understanding my point, I revert because the editors refuse to 
understand my point AND editors refuse to come to any compromise 
AND editors refuse to ensure I understand their point.

You are saying (simplified) "if no one understands my point, and no one even tries to understand my point, or explain theirs, then I just go ahead and revert to my version of the article." Is that correct?

Ben, I've read your statement, three times now I think, and if I missed something or misunderstood it, or forgot it, I appreciate your understanding that I am far from perfect and bear with me with patience.

KillerChihuahua 22:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop yelling. Stop whining. Stop making demands. Until that time, your muddling of the issues is not helpful.-- Ec5618 21:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ec5618, please clarify, was that to me? thanks much! KillerChihuahua 22:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Heh, apologies. Your comment seems to have sneakily come to precede mine. I was trying to tell Ben that there is no need to yell, and that his constant whining (I discussed it 'at great length', and still no-one agrees with me) and demands of adherence to policy (I demand you fix X) are counterproductive and wearing my patience thin. -- Ec5618 23:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

While your point is valid, perhaps a slightly less confrontational method of phrasing would be more likely to be well received. This is a volatile situation or it would not be on Rfc; it behooves us all to try to keep cool. I much prefer your second version. My $.02.

KillerChihuahua 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No that is not entirely correct. Please note that when I say "refuse to understand" I do not mean it as the same as "does not understand." I mean "If no one tries to understand my point, nor explains their point, and of course I have explained my point to the best of my ability, then yes I will revert." This I see as a violation of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles.

Here is an extreme example of refusing to understand an editor's point. You arrive at an article which says "Tort reform is needed for government to function correctly." You remove this and say it is "POV". Then someone on that page reverts it saying "your removal is factually inaccurate." . You explain on the talk page that that it is a matter of opinion and personal politics. The reverting editor says "No, it is the truth." and cites many economics papers saying so. You try to explain what "personal politics" is. They say "it does not matter what personal politics is." You try to explain why it does indeed matter and they do not respond. Let's even say you cite a PhD in political science which lays it all out. An editor says "that's not the point here, the point here is that Tort reform is needed for government to function correctly." You file an article RfC. No one responds except for one guy that says "You stupid liberals. Tort reform is needed. It is a FACT which has been proven." You explain it again, and this time none of the editors respond to you. What do you do? Revert and hope they will continue the discussion? File an RfC against the editor? The editor says "you are being disruptive. I am not going to respond to your RfC." Then what? What I am getting at here is that a group of biased people can easily take over articles. To maintain control, all they have to do is just not respond to anything any editors bring up. Simple as that.--Ben 22:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah... There is ownership of articles, and then there is failure to reach consensus. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like what you are saying is that if you see what appears to you to be ownership, then you feel justified in ignoring reaching consensus, because it appears to you that you have tried to reach consensus and no one is working with you - is that correct?

KillerChihuahua 22:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

My main point is if an editor is essentially saying "Blah blah blah blah. Nobody here cares about your point. You're simply wrong because of X. Go away, I'm not going to respond to you anymore." And X has nothing to do with my point, then I will revert. This says it a bit better than what I first said.--Ben 23:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

(and of course I will first make sure to explain why X is unrelated to my point.) --Ben 23:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If an editor says "no one cares, you're just wrong because of X" and "X" is unrelated to your point, one of three things is happening: 1) You were unclear. 2) Their understanding was incorrect. 3) They are actually ignoring you and don't care.

In my experience, it is rarely (3). It is usually (1) or (2). If it is (3), however, do you think reverting is the correct course of action?

KillerChihuahua 23:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

In the case of (3), if it stimulates discussion, yes. I think it is better to at least attempt to stimulate discussion than to file an RfC against an editor. Both (1) and (2) can be resolved without reverting or any rash action. In the case of (1) the majority editor can simply keep saying "I do not understand your point. It is unclear. Please explain this part of it..." In the case of (2) the minority editor can say "You do not understand my point. Let me try explaining it this way..." Both (1) and (2) lead to more discussion. --Ben 23:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Like it or not, in the end you are going to have to come up with a way to explain your point to other editors. The system may not be perfect, but if you can't explain your point in a few hundred words (on the Talk page), why do you believe your point will come across in your edit? If there is no support for your edit, it will be removed, which is why many editors choose to discuss their views on the Talk page. -- Ec5618 23:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not imply that I do not "choose to discuss my views on the Talk page." Please read my statement of account. The reasons I reverted were because the reverting editors did not discuss their views on the talk page. --Ben 23:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I must concur with Ec5618 here. Flouting one rule because you feel, for whatever reason, another is being disregarded is not an effective nor an accepted policy.

KillerChihuahua 23:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

That's why I tried not to break the 3RR. It was never my intention to break the 3RR. --Ben 23:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections to evidence descriptions

Per Benapgar's "demand" above, I've corrected the typos in the evidence descriptions. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus

Following the agreement about the 3RR (Ben accepts he broke it, now understands the rule, promises not to do so again) the next point at issue is "consensus" and/or disruption.

My view of this is that after hitting your 3RR barrier, and being reverted by several people, then you need to back off and discuss things on talk (rather than, say, using your 3RR every 24h continuously). *If* you're being reverted by a variety of people, then trying to re-insert your changes in this way just amounts to disruption. If you're sure your edits are correct, then you need to persuade people of this on talk, or find some other people to help you.

If Ben is prepared to accept this, then we could probably regard the consensus issue as settled, and move on to dispose of the incivility, which should be fairly easy to handle. William M. Connolley 17:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC).

That's fine with me. I pretty much already did accept that as per KC's posts. You're leaving out that people quit responding to my posts on the talk page or even providing a decent summary the majority of the time, but it seems everyone commenting here keeps forgetting that and suggests I should "discuss things on talk" instead of reverting, so whatever. Next time I'll try to find other ways to kick start the discussion that don't include simply adding my edits back in.--Ben 21:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptiveness/Personal Attacks

OK, into the closing stretch?

The first 6 listed ([30] [31] [32]... ) are adding that people are admins. That wasn't helpful, but it wasn't very harmful.

The seventh [33] is a misunderstanding of policy but it *isn't* Personal attack, harassment, failure to assume good faith as the RFC lists it.

The others... there is nothing there worth listing. This [34] is a good faith attempt to talk on Bens part. Its listed on the RFC as Personal attack, disruptiveness. Thats quite unreasonable.

Ben *has* been quite impolite on this RFC (which was unwise) but the diffs listed *for* the RFC just aren't up to any serious level.

William M. Connolley 22:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Obviously you missed something on the 7th diff/link, [35]. You need to scroll down to see the personal attack. "Refusal to discuss, misinterpretation, and bad faith. That's par for the course with you. Get a grip." certainly consititues a personal attack, regardless of whether it was preceded by a "good faith attempt to talk". You'll need to correct that description, WC. FeloniousMonk 22:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I may well have missed that bit. But even so I think that by the general standards I see elsewhere, considering that to be a personal attack is being picky. William M. Connolley 22:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC).

Criticisms leveled at a person instead of their reasoning that are not relevent or necessary are by definition a personal attack. Also, items 1-6 are not "adding that people are admins" but turning and expanding an entire section of the talk page into a list of accusations directed at the other participants on the page, namely the admins. That's another description that will need adjustment. FeloniousMonk 22:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok fine. Telling you to "get a grip" and was a "personal attack" regarding the way you conduct yourself on the pages, implying that you are unbalanced. Considering the number of personal attacks I've received from your buddy Duncharris for example, who constantly says things far more insulting to me--even in his statement in the RfA--I don't think that this particular comment was very serious. I will refrain from commenting on your conduct in a way which suggests you are unbalanced in some way.

Saying that "that's par for the course with you" is my view that I see a pattern of poor behavior with respect to your conduct. I will, however, refrain from stating that opinion in a such confrontational way. I should have said something like "This seems to me to be a pattern of behavior."

As for adding that you were an admin, I was hoping you could suggest a way I could inform other participants on the talk page that you are an administrator. This in my opinion is important to know, especially when content disputes arise between administrators and regular editors which occurs very frequently on the ID page. You do not provide this information on your user page. If that were the case I would not have posted the information, as I would have had no need to. Further, I was engaged by many users who wanted to know my reasons for posting the information and asked specific questions. I responded to their questions honestly. It would have probably been a better idea for me to ask you on your talk page to inform people there yourself that you are an admin.--Ben 23:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as FeloniousMonk is not abusing his powers as admin, his adminship is really not an issue. -- Ec5618 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that even as this topic is being discussed here, Benapgar's personal attacks directed at me still continue elsewhere [36]. FeloniousMonk 03:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: The first 6 listed ([37] [38] [39]... ) are adding that people are admins. That wasn't helpful, but it wasn't very harmful.

I disagree. Listing of these facts was not a neutral act, particularly with the context Benapgar himself had already created. This was done, as I had suggested in the talk page, in "vigilante style", with the implication that these individuals were acting inappropriately by not revealing they were admins. Benapgar also suggested without adequate explanation that these individuals should recuse themselves. --CSTAR 05:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conclude the RFC?

Please indicate whether you support closing the RfC.

[edit] Support

1. Support. FM does not seem interested in it anymore and noone else has shown up to mediate. I don't want to keep checking this page. I admitted I unintentionally broke the 3RR. I admitted that I made a non-serious personal attack and was generally acting confrontational. Unless FM has more to say, then I would like to close the RfC and get on with my RfA against FM and find out if it is accepted.--Ben 23:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I'm going to write in this section, which indicates I think this RFC is effectively closed, purely on the grounds that just about everything has been said. I think it was poor form of Ben to suggest it though. I don't think you close RFCs by voting, do you? I also *really* think he should withdraw his RFA: its a waste of time, doomed to fail, and can do nothing but waste wiki time. Ben should show good faith by withdrawing it and getting back to editing. Sorry for late comment, BTW: but I was banned :-( William M. Connolley 22:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC).
3. Support. This is a call for comment and comment has been made. I would also recommend Ben withdraw the RfA and make a call for comment instead. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Object

1. FeloniousMonk 03:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC) The subject of an RFC trying to close it prematurely by vote is not supported by Wikipedia policy or convention. It strikes me as an end run around the dispute resolution process. As the bringer of this RFC I'm not inclined to close it early considering Ben's defiant attitude in the comments section below, his reluctance to accept much responsibility for his actions shown above, and his continued personal attacks during the course of this RFC; violating WP:NPA as recently as two days ago [40]. Clearly there are still behavioral issues Ben needs to confront and address. Also, Ben seems to be laboring under the mistaken notion that RFC is a process meant primarily for mediation, not community comment, and that a lack of mediation efforts here somehow justifies bringing this RFC to an early close. Again, something which is supported by neither Wikipedia policy nor convention.
2. Just because someone's laying low does not mean that it is closed. Ben has admitted violating the 3RR, but not other misdemeanours and his defence is now "I admit the 3RR!", when that was really just a start to his correction. I have the feeling that Ben still does not realise the extent to which he has been a pain in the bum. Ben should not get the impression that we are letting him off the hook in any way and users should still be able to come to this page which all his new friends are watching to comment about his behaviour should he continue to be naughty. Not only do I have an objection to the idea that this should be closed, I object to the notion that it can be closed. — Dunc|☺ 22:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
3. Jim62sch 18:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Ben continues to be both disruptive and offensive. I realize that Ghost and FM are trying to get Ben to change his ways and to contribute to, rather than disrupt the article: only time will tell if that works. So far, given that Ben is still displaying his predilection for defiance, I do not hold out much hope for a change.

[edit] Abstain

1. Ben does not seem to realize that an Rfc is a "Request for comment" and as this Rfc is "Benapgar" it is a request for the community to comment on Ben's conduct. There are two formal comments, and both support the majority of the charges against Ben's conduct, as does most of the less formal commentary here. Related discussion of the conduct of others involved has resulted in some criticism of their behavior, but not exoneration of Ben's behavior. Ben's motive in closing this has not been "I appreciate everyone's input and time, and I see where I have run afoul of the WP community and its guidelines" but rather "Let's close this so I can continue the war elsewhere." I would support a close if Ben were either a) willing to accept the comments given, or b) wanted to de-escalate to some other form of mediation. As it is, I see neither happening. However, I cannot vote "Object" because I don't see any signs anything will result from this. No new editors have responded to this request, and Ben shows no sign of accepting or even acknowleding the comments which have been given. Keeping this going seems to serve no purpose, closing it seems to give the wrong message. KillerChihuahua 14:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ben shows no sign of accepting or even acknowleding the comments which have been given." What an interesting statement. --Ben 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

I'll have no objection to closing this RFC so long as Ben agrees to stop his disruptive behavior, but if it starts up again, I reserve the right to reopen it, and if Ben agrees to drop the matter of his rejected RFAr against all those named, and any plans to re-file it. If Ben agrees, we can close this matter completely. FeloniousMonk 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I will not drop the matter of the RfA, nor will I give up my right to re-file. That request is quite inappropriate. --Ben 01:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, because with the recent rejection of your RFAr, you could have put this matter behind completely behind you and moved on. My terms are appropriate, aimed at avoiding further disruptive behavior. Certainly less inappropriate than you trying to end your user-conduct RFC prematurely. The offer remains on the table should you change your mind. FeloniousMonk 03:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

No, they're not. For just one reason, I'd be giving you and Duncharris free reign to personally attack me (not that I can give you that anyway). Your terms are stupid. I agreed to stop being disruptive. I'm going to put this behind me and move on anyway. I'm walking away. Goodbye.--Ben 23:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV to the point of vandalism

Benapgar just made this edit to the intro of Animal rights: "The animal rights movement mostly consists of morally bankrupt violent extremists intent on spreading propaganda throughout the liberal media, while those opposed to their views are generally nihilist sociopaths, more generally evangelical Christians waiting for the apocalypse." [41]

This kind of editing makes it hard to assume good faith. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The article itself is in bad faith. Extremists fighting on the page and within the article. Figured I'd point it out in the most understable way. I like it better than talking to a brick wall.--Ben 23:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Additional, recent personal attacks

1. [42] 22 November, 2005 --religious personal attack
2. [43] 12 December, 2005 --religious personal attack
3. [44] 14:51, 12 December 2005 --personal attack
4. [45] 00:51, 13 December 2005 --renewing personal attacks during a 48 block for WP:NPA
5. [46] 00:54, 13 December 2005 --incivility, reverting removal of personal attacks, deleting NPA warning
6. [47] 01:06, 13 December 2005 --reverting removal of personal attacks, deleting NPA warning
7. [48] 01:10, 13 December 2005 --reverting removal of personal attacks, threats, bullying, deleting NPA warning
8. [49] 01:55, 13 December 2005 --reverting removal of personal attacks
9. [50] 14:46, 15 December 2005 --creating a personal attack list against various editors on user page while under NPA block
10. [51] 18:35, 16 December 2005 --personal attack, language, while under NPA block
11. [52] 13:11, 27 December 2005 --personal attack
12. [53] 14:00, 27 December 2005 --personal attack
13. [54] 15:25, 26 December 2005 --personal attack
14. [55] 03:02, 4 January 2006 --personal attack
15. [56] 19:11, 4 January 2006 --Disruption. Specifically, by encouraging others to be disruptive. Made while blocked for WP:NPA and WP:3RR
16. [57] 23:35, 26 January 2006 false allegations of being harassed
17. [58] 00:09, 27 January 2006 personal attack, language
18. [59] 20:10, 17 March 2006 --Personal attacks, disruption, POV pushing

Clearly Ben has benefitted little from the community's comments about personal attacks. In fact, his personal attacks have only gotten worse, though less frequent. Ben needs to rethink his strategy if he is to continue at Wikipedia. Religiously framed ad hominems are personal attacks of the worst sort. FeloniousMonk 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You call that a religious personal attack? You're a little thin skinned for Wikipedia--especially considering the number of derogatory remarks you make about religions other than your own.--Ben 21:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I call it a religious personal attack when you call Christianity atheist. Whatever your belief system is, it doesn't allow you to make those sorts of accusations in Wikipedia. Guettarda 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional evidence of personal attacks by Ben

1. because now I really am calling you a liar - Guettarda 21:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It was clearly a personal attack, and a sneaky one at that. Someone just reading would not assume the underlined word "agenda" to be a refer-back to atheism. Additionally, what to what religion one belongs, or in what one believes is no one else's business unless the belonger or believer wishes to make it public knowledge. To automatically assume that Guettarda, or anyone else, is an atheist (or has any other religious belief for that matter) is un-called for. For all you know Guettarda could be a priest who does not think ID is a science. Thus, your attack is personal and aims to demean any number of people who do not hold your personal views or beliefs.

Additionally, calling Guettarda a liar is clearly a personal attack, and one for which I can see no basis. Jim62sch 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is really crossing the line:

1. you're actually a meatpuppet or a troll and just pretend to be Christian so you can help the agenda-driven Atheists here" - Guettarda 22:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

And it continues

1. You're either a piece of shit trying to troll me, or a piece of shit with an agenda. Either way: Piece of shit. - Guettarda 22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Biting Newcomer?

I submit that I did not bite a newcomer. Once an editor begins referring to Wikipolicy, especially in a manner which infers they believe they understand it (ie: WikiLawyering), they immediately cease to be a "newcomer". I concede my comments were unproductive, but I could not help my bemusement at the constant rule breaking Ben alleged as a result of his edits being rebuffed. As I found his comments unhelpful, tangential and unproductive I responded in kind, and in brief. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)