User talk:DavidBailey/RfC: Alienus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am going to be using this as a workspace to put together some of the problems I have encountered with Alienus to create an RfC. Feel free to set up a sub-section for yourself. DavidBailey 03:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] DaveBailey comments

Alienus has twice removed one of my comments in a discussion page. He claims this is due to a software bug, but it only seemed to remove only my comment and no other text.

Alienus has made a great number of reversions over a long period of time to monopolize discussion and control of articles, even though he claims not to "be a fan" of edit warring.[1] Often, reversions are made without any indication in the edit history that it is a reversion, making them difficult to spot. The following list doesn't attempt to include "edit" reverts, but there are some of those as well.

[edit] Homosexual agenda reverts

[edit] Special rights reverts

[edit] Comments

Alienus makes comments that are often uncivil and condescending and not helpful to consensus building and cooperative article writing.

[edit] Ignores consensus when it suits him

Alienus has ignored consensus when it suits his purposes.

[edit] Mediation attempts

Alienus has shown an unwillingness to work with mediation and continues editing contested sections while they are undergoing mediation.

[edit] Contributions and Talk

Reading Alienus' contributions list and user talk page makes it clear that Alienus' abrasive style often foments edit wars and inhibits good Wikipedia article development.


[edit] AGF

From Talk:LGBT rights opposition/Archive 2 referring to fundamentalists: I'm all for a comprehensive, neutral article, so I oppose unfairly singling out one particular group of bigots from among the rest. Let's include them all. Al 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC

Same user painted a stereotypical "viewpoint" of the opposition which was negatively slanted, with an armchair psychoanalysis that made it more negative, then cried "AGF" when challenged:

Perhaps the same logic follows here. It may be that some people are fine with homosexuality so long as it's closeted and hated, but are afraid of the effect that public acceptance of homosexuality may have.
What effects? I can only speculate, but here's a plausible possibility. Consider that the traditional religious marriage is based on strong sex roles, where the man is the head of the family and the woman is to trust and obey, not lead. This is defended in terms of God's will and the natural order. After all, if a marriage is inherently between a man and a woman, and the man is inherently on top, then it's obvious why the woman can't be an equal, right?
This argument would be disrupted if there were societally sanctioned marriages where both partners are male or both are female. In such marriages, neither partner can dominate on the basis of inherent sex roles, so there is the possibility of equality. And if it's possible for gays, why shouldn't it be possible for straight women? In other words, gay marriage may negatively impact the religious man's ability to justify his dominion over his wife. The homosexual agenda is therefore a threat to headship, though homosexuality in itself is not.
Anyhow, this is just one reasonable explanation, but I hope it illustrates the issue. Al 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
What is being illustrated is your projection of a POV upon someone else, then arguing with that position. No need to go into all the Propaganda ramifications of that technique. Suffice it to say that it's an easy, but intellectually dishonest way to advance one's own POV. Pollinator 03:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There's a lot to be said for assuming good faith. In fact, I'd recommend that you try it. You'll find that, since you won't be reacting to quite so many things with hostility, others will treat you more seriously. Until then... Al 04:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Pollinator 05:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jakew

Please feel free to make use of this. Jakew 09:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC Format

PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THIS IS A DRAFT RFC THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN FILED, AND IT MAY CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE MEANTIME.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

[edit] RfC from Jakew

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: ~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

Alienus disagrees with several editors on the subject of Wikipedia's policies. He accuses these editors of being a cabal of pro-circumcision zealots. Despite numerous requests, he is persistently incivil, and frequently makes personal attacks, and speculates that those who disagree with him must have a religious motivation (judging by his user talk history, this is not uncommon).

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. "At this point, I had no interest in continuing this pointless fight on circumcision, but I was blocked from editing anything else for two fucking days because of this asshole. Oh, look, I'm not being civil. You know what, I don't care. Ban me. For two days, for three, forever. I'm sick of this shit" [2]
  2. "I'm beginning to wonder if editing Wikipedia is turning me into a bigot. I came into this rather apathetic about specific religious affiliations, but now I'm starting to note disturbing patterns. For some time now, it has been clear that the people who most fervently and unreasonably modify articles so as to denigrate abortion correlate strongly with self-avowed Catholicism. Now, this makes sense, because Catholic doctrine claims that abortion is a horrible sin and nobody should ever do it (or be allowed to). Lately, I'm starting to notice a similar correlation among those who most fervently support circumcision in what are supposed to be neutral articles; they seem to be far more likely to be Jewish than random chance allows. I find this particularly puzzling because Jewish doctrine claims that circumcision is a special covenant that only applies to Jews and does not require it of everyone else. And yet we just had a random Jewish admin revert my text. How odd. I still don't have any bias against either Catholics or Jews, but I am starting to wonder if these religions tend to breed zealots over their respective hot-button issues. So far, I don't have anywhere near enough data to safely generalize, but I do have enough to wonder, so I'm sharing that here." [3]
  3. "I guess I was wrong; you don't even know what a cabal is even though you're part of one. No, the defining aspect of a cabal is their agreement to support each other, regardless of what's reasonable. Consider how the three of you are chiming in to create a mock consensus against the mention of CA-MRSA, even though there is sufficient evidence to support it. In any case, your interpretation of WP:NOR is simply mistaken, so I'm not bound by it." [4]
  4. "There is a consensus: you're just not part of it and never will be, which makes you irrelevant. Only reasonable people, who might change their minds when presented with evidence, have opinions worth caring about. Therefore, those of us who form the consensus will wind up reverting censorship by the cabal. This is a prediction, not a call to action." [5]
  5. "I'd generally ignore Jayjg's unreasonable complaints and focus instead on supporting your text changes with solid references. You're not going to satisfy Jay no matter what you do, so don't bother trying. Save your time for reasonable requests and focus on improving the article, not placating the partisans. That's my $0.02 worth." [6]
  6. "Let me translate for TipPt: there will never be a consensus to support your reasonable changes so long as the cabal that currently owns this article remains. Never. Not ever. Regardless of your evidence." [7]
  7. "My "method of pushing" my view was to try to work with these people here in the Talk page to find an acceptable way to mention CA-MRSA. See the history for why this didn't, doesn't and won't work. The truth is that Wikipedia punished unilateralism but rewards cabals, which is why Jayjg, Jakew and Nandesuka have formed one. Therefore, the only consensus we'll ever get that allows such things as the CA-MRSA is one that is viciously opposed by the existing cartel that owns this article, yet overcomes it. Call it cynicism, call it realpolitik; either way, it's the simple truth. This article will not get one bit better until the current cartel is overthrown by another one." [8]
  8. "By the way, Nandesuka is the one who got William to ban me on a false basis and is part of the weird pro-penis-trimming cabal who think they WP:OWN all articles about circumcision." [9]
  9. "* spit * I wash my hands of this page and all of you people on it. I wish I could wash the foul taste of dealing with you out of my mouth, but I can't. You want this page whitewashed to oblivion? More power to you. You get what you deserve." [10]
  10. "What amazes me is that it still needs summarizing for Ann to understand it. After all, it's been explained over and over again. I'm wondering at this point if Ann is capable of understanding it or if we've run into a cognitive limitation on her part."[11]

[edit] 3RR dispute

Alienus asserts in numerous places, including his response to this RfC, that the "cabal" persuaded User:William_M._Connolley to ban him under false pretences. The evidence is presented here that this is incorrect, and an example of him assuming bad faith. Please compare with Alienus' version of events ("then set me up for a fake WP:3RR violation, and had their pet admin ban me on the basis of a flat-out lie.")

  1. User:Nandesuka presented evidence of 4 reverts at AN/3RR here.
  2. User:William_M._Connolley responds "Blocked 48h as multiple offender and particularly blatant well-over-3RR this time" (diff)

A complete record of his discussions with various users on this subject may be found here.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Civility
  2. No personal attacks
  3. Assume good faith

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Alienus, regardless of any other consideration, the personal attacks and violations of WP:CIV do have to stop. I don't know anything about the content disputes, and whether I'd agree or disagree with you, but I do know it's best to try to reach compromises on the talk page, or if you're well and truly outnumbered, consider walking away from the dispute. By all means, make your point forcefully, but comment on content, not the contributor. User:SlimVirgin [12]
  2. I'd like to echo SV's concerns. I understand that tempers can fray and frustrations build, but comments such "Perhaps you should stick to baseless reverts" do not assist in resolving disputes. User:Aaron Brenneman [13]
  3. This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. (npa3) User:Nandesuka [14]
  4. And you, my friend, are ignoring WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You are required to adhere to these regardless of what other editors do, and whether you find their actions acceptable. Even if (and this is purely hypothetical) Nandesuka acted for no reason at all, or perhaps simply didn't like your username, you are still required to adhere to these policies. You are quite entitled to think that he's an asshole, but you must not say so. Is it really so hard to say "I think your actions here were inappropriate" rather than "You're an asshole"? User:Jakew [15]
  5. I don't think an anti-circ POV cabal would be any better for Wikipedia or for its readers. You make a lot of claims about conspiracies, but those are extraordinary claims that require proof that you're not supplying. If you're wondering why you're getting blasted for violations of WP:CIVIL, that's why. Calling people conspirators is uncivil, no matter how right you think you are. I'll agree with you that Jakew has a definite POV and guards the article zealously, but he's also one of the most well-informed people who's ever contributed to this page. He's contributed a great deal here, and if some bias has come with it, then (IMO) that's just life - apparently no one on the anti- side has cared as much as Jake has, to educate themselves and contribute. Democracy, which includes Wikipedia, is a system that favors those who get involved. Jake has invested a great deal of his time here, so as a result the article has a lot of his stuff in it. That bothers you, I know. It bothers me too, at least a bit - but since I haven't taken the time to educate myself and become equally involved, it obviously must not bother me that much... User:Kasreyn [16]
  6. You know, I happen to agree with some of your substantive points, but your methods of pushing it are anything but appropriate here. Like it or not, Jake and Jayjg are here and here to stay. You can either compromise like an adult, work with them, and produce something that might not be perfectly what you wish to see, but will at least be an accomplishment - or you can continue to insist on having it all your way, and be stonewalled out. It's your choice. This is a site that rewards consensus and punishes unilateralism, and you're putting yourself in a position where you're going to learn that the hard way. Learn to separate the person from the position. You may disagree with Jakew but he is not an evil person and he's not your enemy. User:Kasreyn [17]
Note: The user has since wiped his talk page. Comments may be read here.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Jakew 20:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. Nandesuka 00:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. DavidBailey 22:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Hi. Nobody bothered mentioning this Rfc to me, which is a fine indication of just how Jakew, Jayjg and Nandesuka work. I can see that they had a lot of fun quote-mining, which is why I recommend reading in totality the pages that those quotes come from to understand the context.

The context, fundamentally, is that these three people consistantly act in unison while taking offense at being called a cabal. Moreover, they act so as to violate, in no particular order, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:REASON, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:ROWN, WP:IAR, WP:HA, WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:ES and WP:EQ, among others.

Of course, anyone who protests is automatically guilty of WP:CIVIL according to them, which is their main tool for silencing their opposition. This trio has one thing going for them besides unity, a commitment to keeping up appearances and an intimate knowledge of how to game the system, and that's their bad faith. They have shown a willingness to do anything it takes to get their way, and this Rfc is just one more example. Consider the fact that they made no attempt to get mediation before attacking with an Rfc. This is consistent with their history; I first ran into them when they kept reverting every draft I attempted without constructive comments, then set me up for a fake WP:3RR violation, and had their pet admin ban me on the basis of a flat-out lie.

Anyhow, I encourage you to look at the history of Circumcision and Medical analysis of circumcision, where these three have worked together to remove any trace of accurate medical information about such well-cited issues as the risks from coagulation disorders issues and CA-MRSA. Their actions have frustrated and intimidated a number of other editors. The method is to revert first, then follow up with escalating demands for support that violate both the spirit and letter of WP:RS and WP:OR. The talk pages are full of examples of how hard they've made it for the editors who contribute to these articles in good faith.

I feel that, ever since I was banned in bad faith, it's become my job to oppose their attempts to [[WP:OWN] these articles. I've flagged one as {{POV}}, and have listed it for RFC. I have also done my part to support and inspire those who oppose this little cabal, giving people the courage to overcome the threats. In short, I pissed them off, and I'm proud of it.

In the end, I invoke WP:IAR in my defense for all of my actions. I have worked hard to do the right thing, here and elsewhere. In fact, I point at my history of significant positive contributions, from vandalism patrolling, NPOVing, and brokering truces, to just plain writing good stuff. In doing the right thing, I've butted heads with sockpuppets, edit warriors, and zealots of all stripes, and I've sometimes been tarred for my interaction with them. I am proud of my efforts and would be disappointed in Wikipedia if its admins allowed themselves to be conned by this lame cabal into impairing my ability to contribute further.

That's all I have to say for now.

-

Well, Jake has added another accusation; that I am not assuming good faith. I actually refuted this a whole bunch of times, which makes this accusation particularly funny. Briefly, the rule says we should assume good faith, which I did. It doesn't say we must conclude good faith even in the face of evidence to the contrary. I kept on assuming good faith right up until the bad faith ban that Nandesuka arranged. I was particularly bothered by the fact that the ban was extended to 48 hours on the patently false basis that I went "well over 3RR", when in fact I didn't violate it at all, and even the admin's dishonest count didn't exceed 4. In short, I ran out of good faith around the time they started doing the wrong thing. Alienus 10:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

-

Now they've added the 3RR farce that started this. According to their pet admin, I was guilty of "particularly blatant well-over-3RR this time". Now, if you look at the history of edits, you'll find that, at the very most, I made four revisions. While 4 is over 3, it is not by any measure "way over" 3. Moreover, I didn't actually make 4, except under his intentional misinterpretation. This was in particularly bad faith and I hold it up as being significant in creating my unhappy attitude towards the cabalists. Alienus 01:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

(If anyone who signs this does not aggree with sections I add later, please make a note in your endorsement.) Alienus 01:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Alienus
  2. Superdix I have only been active on the Medical analysis of circumcision article for some time, so I can't vote for all of this. In my opinion all of those who are currently editing the article should leave it for someone else to rewrite it. Everyone involved seems to passionate about the issue. Clarification as requested by Jakew on my talk page. I am of the same general impression as Alienus, in that a cabal exists, and I have the impression that Jakew does "own" the Med. analysis of Circumcision article. Superdix 11:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. I recently discovered Wiki, and want to write! The circumcision topic has been trial by fire, and I'm afraid to make changes because it just gets changed back (including fixing simple misquotes!). We all should have better things to do.TipPt 15:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Dabljuh Having been RFC'd by "The Pro Circumcision League" (You guys should really get yourself a proper name eventually) by pretty much the same bogus means as you, I can just say: Anyone who is RFC'd by Jakew or Jayjg or "friends" should be awarded a medal: Because that means they percieve that particular individual as a threat to their version of the article series, and regular bullying didn't stop you. Dabljuh 12:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

a: I am not a party to this particular conflict. However, I have been contributing to articles on circumcision for some time and wish to make several points.

  1. People are very passionate about the subject of circumcision for religious or personal reasons.
  2. These views may be pro or anti-circumcision.
  3. These views lead to a lot of passionate involvement. However, the downside is that some are particularly intolerant of those who beg to differ from their interpretation of the facts.
  4. This leads to incivility from people on both sides of the debate.
  5. Some of the incivility is blatant. Whatever the provocation, this is unsatisfactory and cannot be approved.
  6. However, the more damaging abuse is more subtle, and effectively poisons the atmosphere for editors generally.
  • The hostile revert. One editor add information and this is automatically reverted by another without explanation. If the first editor protests in a way that is at all intemperate, the hostile editor invokes all the Wiki rules about incivility.
  • Pony express excuses for removing information and links. This is the determined removal of information on any pretext whatever. If one reason fails to stand up the hostile editor moves on to the next reason, and the next and the next. If someone protests in a way that is at all intemperate, the hostile editor invokes all the Wiki rules about incivility.
  • Mushroom edits. Editor A makes a point with a properly cited link. A hostile editor then removes the direct link and leaves an indirect link. The indirect link preserves the appearance of a link but makes it hard for the general reader to find the specific web page. The reason? It helps to conceal information that the hostile editor doesn't like.
  • Tunnel Vision edits. Editor A puts a point in a wider context. Editor B removes the point and the links on the pretext that the wider context is 'off topic'.
  • Original Research abuse. Claims that something would be original research in article A but not original research in article B.
  • Horrible, poorly structured writing, and an article that does not reflect practice. (Jakew is an editor?)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Michael Glass 01:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (except for the last dot point)
  2. Alienus 01:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. TipPt 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Liftarn 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. Hugh7 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.