Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hinduism/Swastika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Questionaire in Guidelines for Commenting

I think we should remove this questionaire. I don't think it is the Wiki way. We should focus on the arguments, not on the editors who raised them. Other RfC's do not require editors to describe themselves before commenting. --BostonMA ^talk 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree completely. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 15:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The questionnaire isn't focused on the editors. It is instead trying to give those who will ultimately decide the matter as much information about the respondents as possible. Again, as stated before, it might be possible (unlikely, but possible) that some editors who might consider working with the project might respond more favorably if they saw the swastika. Also, as the question is basically about the effectiveness of the template as an advertisement, it makes sense to follow standard practice in the advertising industry and get together a group who will respond to questions. In effect, this isn't a standard RfC, but an advertising focus group. And, again, it seems to make sense to me that we follow the existing procedures in the outside world for such matters. On that basis, I am adjusting the text of the page a little to clarify the matter. Badbilltucker 16:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with the questionnaire. It does not seem to be in conflict with "the wiki way". Some people didn't respond by numbers or respond to all the questions asked, which is fine. I feel it's an optional thing. If answering the questions in that way helps explain the situation, then why not? I fail to see the negative here. It is also the wiki way to try new things and be bold. (that being said I think the part that asks to respond 1-10 is a bit silly, which is why I responded with a comment rather than a number) -- Ned Scott 17:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI, apparently Bill believes the questions are not optional, and has singlehandedly reverted my good-faith effort to correct the text accordingly, with the lovely and contrived edit summary "reverted non-consensus changes which might constitute vandalism by a non-project member regarding a specifically project-related matter)" [1] -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The questions were optional. Clearly, no one has to do anything. However, it is generally better to have more and clearer information, and the requested answers to give more than just someone's expressed opinion to go on. You did know that knowledge is good, right? Badbilltucker 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of time to run "poll"

The question that remains is how long to run this request for comment. I was initially thinking about a month, as per the project talk page. That would allow enough time to get (I hope) enough responses to be close to significant enough to be potentially useful. I would welcome any responses or alternate timeframes. Badbilltucker 23:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I said February 20 on the Hinduism Project talk page, I think we should get enough responses by then, an extension may be asked for if we don't get enough, but there's still a lot of time before thinking about that. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change to phrasing of questions

I just noticed that a non-project member participant in the earlier discussion has changed the phrasing of the main page, for reasons unknown and not indicated in the edit summaries. Simply for everyone's information. Badbilltucker 01:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been an active participant in the conversation, and if you examine the diff, you'll see that the wording was to bring what is read by new RfC readers into compliance with what has been agreed - that the 'questions' are optional. If you disagree, please feel free to revert this non-project member participant's edits. 'Badbill', I ask you again to focus on content (the validity of the edit) rather than attempting to minimize other contributors. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You will note that the phrasing which you have just unilaterally removed was accepted by the person who created the page. When I proposed it, that made two people who had implicily agreed to it. Two have since opposed it. Since I clarified the reasons for the language, after the two oppositions, one other party has agreed to the phrasing. So far, three people have explicitly agreed with it. Only two have not, and none have disagreed since the reasons for inclusion were clarified. In fact, an outsider have even agreed to the phrasing you have unilaterally removed. 2 to 3 (40%) is far short of the wikipedia policy requirements for Wikipedia:Consensus. It could in fact potentially at least border on Wikipedia:vandalism. There is a proper way to raise your point, as you have already done. You had one person agree with you. Since then, two others have disagreed with you, giving reasons which were not yet presented before then, and no one has agreed with you. And I also note that you have once again raised completely extraneous points and accusations to divert the focus from your own unilateral actions. And, in response to your emphasis on contributors, I note that this is a specifically WikiProject template, and that by wikipedia guidelines and policies they are the explicit domain of the project themselves, provided that they do not violate any official policy. Clearly, in a 3-2 agreement to the inclusion of the language, it could not be said that the inclusion of the language was not against consensus. I ask you in the spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus to follow the official policies of wikipedia, and not take such unilateral actions again. Badbilltucker 02:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please. My edit was correct and valid. This entire 'focus group' approach of yours is outside policy, so I'll ask you not to wikilawyer valid edits like this. I disagree with your 'summation' of consensus thus far, your 'characterization' of the statements of others and I simply ask you to focus on the issue at hand - this RfC. My edit was in good faith, improved the accuracy of the RfC and I stand by it. If you want to insist on 'official policies', I suggest you consider following official RfC policy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Then my reversion of it shall also be in good faith. Kindly address the issues raised by the opponent, for once. Again, in the spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus, as opposed to whatever else has been guiding you to date, I request that you actually follow guidelines. Badbilltucker 02:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your constant effort to paint me as non-responsive will not be successful. If you revert my plainly more accurate edit I won't revert war with you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not characterized you as being unresponsive. I have characterized you as failing to answer direct comments. By not addressing that, and by once again trying to distract people with unwarranted accusations, you are clearly demonstrating the opposite of what you have stated above. Badbilltucker 02:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I find your entire course here (deflecting and attacking me) non-productive and I've already justified my edit and indicated I won't revert war with you. Not much more to say here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not attacked you, despite your clear and direct attack above. I have pointed out the factual fallacies in your own arguments. And, if there is not not more to say here, then kindly allow the discussion to continue without any more of your insults and attempts at distraction. Badbilltucker 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Amazing. Yep, done for now. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you still try to avoid answering direct questions and impugning others at the same time, thinking there isn't anyone else in this conversation who hasn't already seen through these attempts at misdirection, is probably the most amazing thing. And, for once, I sincerely hope you are done. Badbilltucker 02:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll only respond to the monologue you're carrying on by pointing out that once again, I've answered your questions clearly, made my answer clear and you don't want to accept it. Please feel free to restate again that I'm non responsive, distracting, vandalous, a non-project member contributor non-member, etc., etc., etc... but the questions are optional and your reversion of my edit continues to hide that fact from new RfC readers. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Then please tell me exactly which policy is being violated, which is a direct personal attack on all of the members of this project who have supported the idea of this RfC. That is the core of your argument and as stated I believe constitutes a direct personal attack on the members of the project who supported this idea. Badbilltucker 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I've made myself clear already, I have stated my views clearly and all stated numerous times: that I prefer an actual RfC to this 'advertising focus group' (eeuw) approach, and that at the very least I believe the questions you've posed (which like your repeated polls on this issue are imho counterproductive to consensus) should be optional. I won't feed a needless fire. If you have concerns about my conduct (I have engaged in no such attack) you know where to take them. Trying to paint me as someone 'attacking' the group or the project won't fly - I haven't done anything to validate that contrivance. Rational people can see a reason to remove the swastika from the welcome template and that's the core of my argument. Satsified yet, or would you like to try to adhere some other slam to me besides 'threat to the group' ? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please note that your repeated attacks on others (accusing others of dragging your gender into the discussion, rephrasing their statements in a provocative and objectionable way, etc.), clearly indicate that your own statement above is either willfully dishonest or that you have no clear idea of what it was that you have earlier said. And, actually, you misstated things above. As you had yourself noticed earlier, this is an actual RfC, as it is listed on that page. Your continuing insistence on prejudicially rephrasing the comments of others, and making disparaging personal comments about anyone who disagrees with you rather than directly answering the points they make, probably does you and your position more harm than good. Badbilltucker 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Bill, I'm comfortable with my conduct and have misstated nothing, despite your ongoing harangue to the contrary. I'm very clear on whose 'position' is being done harm here - it's the reader of WP whose 'position' is being harmed by this kind of ridiculousness on your part. My 'position' (that we should replace the swastika with a less controversial image) is plain and your baseless attacks do nothing to address the underlying logic of the proposal. You yourself have recommended as much in your 'statement' - in so doing you acknowledge the logic of my argument but appear unable to acknowledge me as a person deserving of basic respect (entitled to be free of baseless accusations), I can only once again suggest to you that you stop trying to minimize editors with these baseless accusations and bring your concerns about my conduct to the proper forum, where they will get all the attention they warrant. Have a great day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Such as perhaps your own lack of basic respect for having yet to point out exactly which policy I violated, as you explicitly stated above. Or any of your prior "rephrasings" of other's statements to insulting effect. Or your direct statement above which clearly goes against your own earlier acknowledgement of "rephrasing the words of others." Or your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that the events whose direct victims are at retirement age or more earlier, on the basis of the comment having been removed to an archive. Or your standard failure to directly answer any points raised against you. Or, even, your willful italicizing of my own username above. I repeat, your emotional and generall irrational arguments, and failure to show even standard civility in directly answering questions raised to you, I think demonstrate why your own efforts have been as extraordinary futile and inspiring of opposition as they have been. And, I notice, you couldn't even live up to your statement above saying in effect "that's it", could you? :/ Badbilltucker 20:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

'Willful italicizing' ? You really have to be kidding with that one. Once again I literally find fault (apparently conscious fault on your part) with every comment you just made. I live up to my comments and stand by 'em all. Either take your monologue to the appropriate forum or drop it, 'cause you're not achieving anything by outright lying about my conduct. Your behavior is bordering on bad faith in the extreme, and I ask you again to take it to another forum where it can be dealt with, or to drop it - because you're not besmirching me, you're just highlighting your behavior all the more. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that you have still refused to answer any points made against you highlights your own even more, even after actually making a personal attack accusation of something violating policy which you have still refused to offer any support for. I have no doubt that you are comfortable with your behavior. But what opinion does everybody else have of it and you? You have noticed, right? :) Badbilltucker 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Focus on the issue please. I'm not going to re-parse my argument for someone who ignores it. You respond to every answer I give by saying I'm not answering the question. Classic bad faith. As far as 'opinion polls', you clearly put far more stock in them than I do (having tried four times to add polls to this discussion), and apparently put little faith in discussion - you ignore literally every answer I give. The rest of your circularity is tendentious and unproductive and I will continue to ignore your attacks, your misleading representations of the opinions of others, etc. Just pick another target because your tactics aren't effective against those you cannot scare away or intimidate. The logic of my argument (Swastika = too controversial for a welcome image) is strong, is shared by numerous contributors to the discussion, has persisted thru a lot of unfair treatment (much of it delivered by you), was acknowledged and recommended by you in your statement and so your conduct is clearly prejudicial and disruptive. Again, your statement reads:

"If a template were decided to be the best way to go, however, I personally think the best alternate might be to use perhaps images of the aum, Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu" [2]

The wisdom of the idea to replace the swastika on a welcome template with a less controversial image (or no image at all) will continue to be demonstrated well after your 'focus group' has cycled away into archivia - and I'm eminently comfortable with that too. Issue = content, not contributors. Issue = arguments made, not allegations and characterizations. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I note that you are still refusing to answer the question raised above, a problem which you by your repeated attempts at misdirection and refusal to directly answer questions have created for yourself. You have directly accused me and others of violating policy by creating the questionnaire. Please indicate which policy was violated to verify that that statement is not in fact a direct attack on not only me, but the other project members who approved of this. Badbilltucker 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I made no such attack. You have your answer. Bill, you should know I won't fall into the trolling pit. If you feel personally attacked, you know where to raise the issue. The issue for this page is the wisdom of using a swastika for a welcome image, given it's controversial meanings to varying groups. That's the focus here. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

At 2:08 on the 25th, you indicated that policy was not being followed. Please indicate where. And, I repeat, when an individual makes of themselves a point of argument, as you repeatedly insist on doing, it is reasonable to argue the point. Badbilltucker 20:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Diff please. You, and not I, have made 'me' the topic here, on numerous occasions. And be certain I've taken good notes on your egregious conduct. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You have already been specifically and pointedly been asked three times to justify an accusation made above. After three formal requests, you have still done everything in your power to avoid a direct answer. And you accuse others of "egregious conduct"? lol Badbilltucker 20:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you paraphrase me, I will not stand up for the words you use in your paraphrasing. I stand by my OWN comments. So. once again, I formally ( :) )ask you for a diff please. Oh, and didn't you repeatedly attack me for paraphrasing others (and indeed, focus on that instead of the issue at hand)? Yes, you did. But you do so with impunity. All your hollow cries of 'still no direct answer' are truly laughable, Bill. Except they're unfunny. Once again, focus on content, please. Diff. Issue at hand = swastika. Thanks! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The paraphrasing was unfortunate. However, you did clearly imply then, at least bordering on accusation and personal attack, that rules were not being followed. Now five requests for a direct answer to justify an apparent personal attack made by you above. Badbilltucker 21:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

'Unfortunate'? I'll take that as the closest thing to an apology I'll ever get for your ongoing disruptive conduct. I'll ask you again for a specific Diff, please. Six times now? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict over belated additions to statement above) Yes, I do actually want a direct answer. You have heard of them, haven't you? Or at least a clarification of how you felt justified to make the accusatory statement referenced above, and why you still refuse to acknowledge the remotest possibility of your ever being in error. Badbilltucker 21:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Diff, Bill. Provide a diff so I can respond to my own words - and not your 'unfortunate' paraphrase - even though this ridiculous thread of yours leads me strongly to believe that you'll only claim I didn't respond at all. Diff. Diff. Please provide a diff. Thanks, and have a super peachy afternoon. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Evidently, then, you can't read either. And please use clearer language so the admins who may find cause to review this will clearly know what you are saying. On 2:08 on the 25th above, you indicated that policy was being violated. Which policy were you referring to? A direct answer, please. SEVENTH REQUEST Badbilltucker 21:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Times display differently for different users, so WP tradition is to provide a diff. Please provide a diff that I 'indicated policy was being violated'. 10th time? 15th time? Not sure, but I'll ask you again - Diff please. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Your fourth statement in this heading. Evidently, you are unable to convert hours, or be able to tell when the eighth minute is. Badbilltucker 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Insult ignored. While you haven't provided a diff, based on your 'clues' apparently the 'accusatory statement'/'personal attack' you allege refers to my comments:

"This entire 'focus group' approach of yours is outside policy, " and

"If you want to insist on 'official policies', I suggest you consider following official RfC policy. "

Those comments are true, are by no means attacks and I stand by them. As you yourself so stated,

"In effect, this isn't a standard RfC, but an advertising focus group." and "The questionnaire isn't focused on the editors. It is instead trying to give those who will ultimately decide the matter as much information about the respondents as possible. " [3]

So by your own admission, you're not engaged in a standard RfC, and you're using the questionnaire not to inform group consensus - instead, you're using it to inform 'those who will ultimately decide the matter' about the respondents. In essence, focusing on editors instead of arguments. That's definitely outside any RfC policy I'm aware of. Whether your conduct is 'against' policy, or just outside of policy are different issues. But once again, you merge them in order to make your own judgments (and base your own attacks) not after what is said, but after you WISH had been said. I stand by my comments, I have answered your question (despite your apparent inability to provide a diff link) and I wonder how you will now call my response a non-response... what I don't expect is for you to consult an admin... since I've already recommended you do so once before and since your unecessarily inflammatory conduct here is plain to see to anyone reading the argument. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you consider saying that someone is not following official RfC policy is not in any way an attack, presumably knowing that by so doing you were clearly and explicitly impugning the character of the person(s) you were talking about? Please answer clearly and directly. Badbilltucker 21:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone is not following official RfC policy is not an attack. Clear enough?

However, presuming the intent of a fellow editor is to 'impugn the character' of another with such a comment IS an unacceptable attack - so please cut it out. Your presumptions are bad faith, and they have poisoned this discussion on numerous occasions. Bring on the admins if you have complaints, but otherwise give it a rest since you're only hurting WP by aggravating the issue at hand (placing/replacing the swastika on a welcome page) by continuously attempting to falsely attack and minimize me with such laughable 'paraphrasings'. Clear enough for you, Bill? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So, you believe telling people that they are explicitly violating policy, and that they are potentially subject to banning on that basis, is not an attack. Then what is it? A threat? And, please, once again, which policy were you speaking of, as you were clearly and explicitly indicating that you knew of a policy being broken? Badbilltucker 21:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, when was banning mentioned? 'explicity violating policy'? Once again you paraphrase. Diff please (13th time?) If you cannot understand the difference between 'outside policy' and 'against policy' in the context of 'being bold' with this 'advertising focus group', I can't educate you. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote from fourth statement in this subject heading: "I suggest you consider following official RfC policy." Which policy is not being followed? Badbilltucker 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggested that we initiate a standard RfC, one without a page containing a contrived poll (certainly without a mandatory poll), and most of all, that the comments elicited should be at issue (and not the respondents). As it stands, you already recommend yourself the clearly right thing to do - to remove the image from the welcome template. So in fact I'd say the right 'policy' would be to follow an approach without an RfC (imho, the whole 'focus group' idea is at least very silly, if not a destructive misuse of 'policy').

Bill, policy is not god. 'Ignore all rules' is a powerful and useful approach, and one with which I at times agree - so I didn't try to stop this 'focus group' of yours. It is, however, outside official RfC policy, and I once again suggest you consider following RfC policy, by providing a space for comments without polls seeking to validate the respondents rather than the issues at hand. I don't expect you'll be bold enough to do the right thing (support the removal of the swastika image from the welcome template), nor that you'll stop doing the wrong thing (attacking me instead), but your question has been answered, Bill. Try not to spin it, just listen and learn. Ease off the trigger and I'll be at the gym. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Direct quote from fourth statement in this subject heading: "I suggest you consider following official RfC policy." Which policy is not being followed? Badbilltucker 21:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Answered directly above. I'm sorry if once again you can't handle the answer. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 21:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate what the official RfC policy is that is being gone against. Really, these aren't hard questions. Why do you have so much trouble answering them? Badbilltucker 21:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

BadBill, the question has been answered. Please drop it. --BostonMA ^talk 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

NO, IT HASN'T. You specifically accused me and others of going against policy. That is a form of attack or threat which is, at this point, clearly unsubstantiated. Please indicate which policy is being gone against to prove that your statement was not possibly in bad faith. It can clearly be seen as being a form of attack, or at least a threat, but that could be justified if substantiation of the statement were made. It has not been. Badbilltucker 22:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Badbill, please be careful when you write "you". Also, there is no attack involved, just an observation about how procedure was not followed. --BostonMA ^talk 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict addendum when noticing identity of respondent; sorry, I didn't notice the different name of the contributor) When someone makes such statements that procedure is not being followed, that is a form of threat, as it implies that action could be taken against the party who is not following procedure, and it is reasonable to expect justification of such statements. All I am doing is requesting a clear and direct answer, which is required in any reasonable adult conversation. I once again note a certain persons's abject failure to seemingly ever provide such clear and direct answers, without which reasonable conversation is impossible. Badbilltucker 22:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time you don't bother to read the response enough to know how you're yelling at, each time you say 'a certain person' and every time you employ all the other intentionally dismissive language you have chosen, you reveal your intent to be attacking others, and not solving this issue. Gym time for real. Excelsior! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Badbill, no when someone makes an observation that procedure has not been followed, that is not a threat. That is simply an observation. Please drop it. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If the respondent above the above response is willing to either directly substantiate an allegation, or (better) actually leave well enough alone and refrain from further allegations, innuendo, and obfuscation, I would be more than happy to. Please note that none of the points I made above, by the way, have yet been directly and clearly answered in any of the subsequent responses. Badbilltucker 22:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Back from the gym. 'The respondent' has answered clearly, plenty of times, has made no allegations, innuendo nor obfuscation. Glad to hear you're happy to leave it alone (again), I am too. I'm here to resolve the issue of swastika usage on the welcome template, not to respond to endless inaccurate 'paraphrasings' from you. Good day. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that this comment has been replaced on this page by the above user, after I had pointedly told her on her talk page that her own incivility and attempts at avoiding responsibility for her own statements and actions would not avail her anything. Personally, I think her choosing to post this response here was, at best, childish. Somehow, that doesn't really surprise me. Badbilltucker 23:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that my comment should not have been deleted, and I reverted your inappropriate deletion. You may want to take some space from this issue, since you have now resorted to a number of acts I would suggest you not repeat (deleting other editors' comments from article talk pages, false accusations and talk page trolling, calling me an 'idiot', and 'pathetic', etc.). That's completely unproductive conduct and you should really consider a break. Thanks to all and my sincerest condolences for this ongoing disruption of what should be the issue at hand - swastika usage on a welcome template. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Something you yourself haven't addressed in the last fourteen posts you have made here. How's that for a double standard? LOL Badbilltucker 00:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The question was already answered. Please drop it. --BostonMA ^talk 22:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I second BostonMA and request all concerned editors not to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. No rebuke, threat, attack ... intended or implied Abecedare 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

None taken, at least by me. Personally, I would enjoy it if people actually answered questions and acted rationally. I think almost all of us would. Badbilltucker 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Abecedare. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Either end this, or take it to arbitration. It's inappropriate and ridiculous. Daniel^C/_T+ 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)