Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/LSLM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I will just say a couple of things and that is it. I will not respond anymore. Some of the assertions above are just false. Pay good attention to them. Still, Just make a follow up of this guy (and others of his team). He has had already several problems with users because they accuse him of being a Nazi (an ideology not an insult, although the ideology is not good that it is used as an insult). He has already been in this type of conflict for the same reason with users Alun, Sugaar and Psycohistorian, at least that I know of. They all told him what he is: A Nazi manipulating Wiki for his agenda. You can find all those conflicts in his personal page, although he makes a big effort to hide it all the time, like his friend DarkT.
Plenty of examples you will find also in the white people article, but not only there.
I had problems with him before for the same reason, because I denounce Nazi manipulation in Wiki and will continue to do so although I am thinking on taking a vacation by now. Good luck. I am looking forward to seeing if he and his team fool you again. Cheers. Veritas et Severitas 18:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Outside view by User:Maunus
Please include diffs for basis of your accusations such as:
1)"He often allies himself with the kinds of views that serve as a theoretical basis for various white supremacist groups - and while this of course doesn't make him a Nazi it does explain why someone in the heat of a discussion would feel that such a label was not completely undeserved."
2)"Lukas19's style of argument is monotonous and consist mainly in denying that his opponents have any idea about what they are talking about and that they are out to get him. His stubbornness often wear the patients of discussion opponents thin." Lukas19 13:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Ok then, my personal impression of your debating style is that you'd like to make baseless accusations and/or silly remarks. While of course this doesnt make you a troll, it does explain why someone in the heat of a discussion would feel that such a label was not completely undeserved.
- Oh and indigenous status is given to people who are living in their ancestral homelands, such as native Americans, I guess they must be white supremacist too. Of course, you may accept the description of UN without any questioning, but I'd rather try to see if their criteria is coherant. You may misrepresent such skepticism and questioning as me thinking that people "are out to get" me but it may be a Psychological projection on your part.
- The "sheer number" of RfC's I raised would be 1, including this, though I signed into 2 of what others made.Lukas19 22:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Actually Lukas19, speaking as another who was involved in the ultimately fruitless discussion with you at talk:Indigenous peoples, I think that Maunus' observations are pretty much spot-on. In that exchange at least the circular reasoning and non-sequitur commentary you employed left me with the impression that you were only out to stir the pot, and did not reveal any intention on your part to genuinely discuss the merits of the article itself. Your comments above tend to reinforce the impression. --cjllw | TALK 02:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Agreed. It's something worth thinking about, Lukas. We all need to be able to work together here. futurebird 02:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Actually I was going to start a "European peoples" page but I havent found time to start it. I dont think you are being fair with your comments, since you didnt accuse Maunus of "stirring the pot" but focused on me. Lukas19 23:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I didn't stir the pot I was trying to explain to you why other editors had agreed that the page should be as it was - I was also not the only editor to contradict your idea of what the page should be like. I am sorry if you haven't started as many rfc's as I thought - I was under the impression that you had started the rfc against sugaar as well - you certainly were a party in it. Also I remember that you repeteadly threatened with appealing to hihger authorities in the "indigenous" discussion. something making you come off more like a lawyerist trying to force a verdict in his favour than someone intent on collaborating with other editors on making the best possible article. In those of your discussions that I have read I have seen no interest from your side in collaborating, listening to other viewpoints or building consensus. I am not saying that it is in order to call fellow editors Nazis or to engage in the kind of behavior that LSLM has done - it is not, he was clearly out of line. But I am saying that you would be a lot less likely to wind up in editing disputes and namecalling if you adjusted your debate style in a less confrontational direction. I know I am not the first to tell you this. IF I were you I would let this RfC go and try to see if some attitude changes on my own part might not make other editors have a different, more positive attitudes towards me, and if that wouldn't make the wikipedia experience a lot nicer for all.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 12:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I might have heeded your advice if you yourself had been more neutral in your inital approach. I consider your remarks unacceptable. If your only point was to tell me to be less confrontational, you could have done this without the usual white supremacist accusations. In future, if you want to give attitude advice to others, adjust your own first.Lukas19 23:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The reality is that Manus's comments were measured and thoughtful, while your response was first to criticisize and then to indicate you consider virtually any form of criticism to be unacceptable. Essentially, I would suggest you are attempting to use this response to prevent any discussion of your edits. Addhoc 11:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Apparently, our realities do not collide. Lukas19 16:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] This must be how I provoke other editors (!!)
[1] and the response from Wobble: [2]. Of course "Wanna...wanna...learn to spell....." is definately not the worst thing he has said, but given his history, I'm surprised that he felt the need to harass me on someone else's page after a note not directed at him. Lukas19 23:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Another example, read edit summaries: My edit [3] Wobble's response: "please don't remove cited information it is considered vandalism, who says thatall the time.........I wonder who........some one...nor.....dick....yes...dick....." referring to me. [4] These examples clearly show that editors I had problems with, clearly dont need any provacation to be incivil. In LSLM's case, it's proven by his behaviour to his former ally, Sugaar. Of course, the bias of some of the responding editors here may have gotten in the way of getting this simple point. I do hope that, in future, they dont try to find excuses for disruptive behaviour in Wikipedia. Lukas19 23:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ummmm, unless I'm very much mistaken, this RfC is not about me. Am I not allowed to express my opinion? What's the point of a Request for comment if no comment is allowed to be expressed? And if one makes a comment, does that automatically mean that any opinion they express is automatically rendered void just because they disagree with one of the parties involved in starting the RfC? This is an RfC againt LSLM, but it would be unfair not to examine the background to this RfC. Behaviour is rarely spontaneous, especially in these sorts of circumastances. We are not talking about someone telling someone else just to "fuck off" here. I'd like to point out that I have had serious personal attacks against me, so I know what it means, but even then I actually did not report the person to AN/I or PAIN, and it was massively more serious than this sort of puny crap.[5][6] [7] [8] [9] I've been here for some nearly two years, and I've had real personal attacks and seen real vandalism, and this is accusation not only pathetic, is the worst waste of time there is or ever could be. The solution is to tell Lukas19 this, Go and get a better thing to complain about, being a sad white guy does not automatically make you king of the hill these days Alun 00:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lukas behaviour
Look at Lukas's conduct right now at the white people's article. Look at the history. I just made that contribution because I know his tactics and I knew he would engage again in an edit war: If any information relating genetics points out relationships among Europeans and Non-Europeans clearly, like in a map, he runs and deletes it constantly. He does not care whether the information is reliable and verifiable. He will respond with his usual sophistry and monotonous style and impose himself as the owner of that article (I think he does the same in other articles). Again, look and judge for yourselves. Veritas et Severitas 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] More RfCs
Seems Lukas has decided that RfCs are the best way to "punish" those naughty boys who disagree with him.[10] [11] [12] Alun 07:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Banned
The user who is the subject of this RfC has now been banned from editing Wikipedia for one year by decision of the Arbitration Committee. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lucas19-LSLM. This RfC can be archived. Newyorkbrad 21:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
