Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 22:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 10:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[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

-Lumière (talk · contribs) aka: Amrit, Lumiere (talk · contribs) and Étincelle (talk · contribs) [1], has been conducting a long-running campaign to rewrite key Wikipedia policies to reflect and promote his personal POV, which is biased toward various forms of pseudoscience. He has time-and-again disrupted these policies' talk pages by repeatedly raising objections over the same alleged flaws in these policies to the detriment of all other discussion. Any discussion on other topics would have its thread hijacked by User:-Lumière/User:Lumiere/User:Étincelle yet again resurrecting long-winded objections and proposals previously rejected by the community. In no policy has this editor been more disruptive than at the WP:NPOV talk page (which now appears as Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17 in edit histories due to an improper archiving). To illustrate the point, the archives of Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view contain as many archived pages for January 2006 alone as there are for the preceding 6 months. All were the result of User:-Lumière/User:Lumiere/User:Étincelle resurrecting and flogging his dead horse. Specifically, the ax -Lumière has been grinding the most has been to rewrite the undue weight section of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It has been noted by others that his rewrite proposals would have the net effect of allowing topics that he has championed which are currently identified as pseudoscientific to be characterized in articles as more mainstream.

These discussions saw the participation of others Harald88 (talk · contribs) MonkeeSage (talk · contribs) Iantresman (talk · contribs). The difference being with these users is that they have been willing to bow to the community's requests to stop flogging dead horses whereas User:-Lumière/User:Lumiere/User:Étincelle has used each request as an opportunity to violate WP:POINT.

His frequent long posts to Wikipedia talk:No original research and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability have several times caused discussion on the pages to grind to a halt, because serious editors stopped posting because of him. He has been asked by several people to stop, but to no avail. He has also been told that a lack of response signals disagreement with his views, because editors got fed up constantly telling him they disagreed. That also made no difference.

Also, -Lumière's use of 3 distinct accounts -- User:-Lumière, User:Lumiere, and User:Étincelle -- makes it difficult for most editors to get a fair complete picture of this one user's contributions which can contribute to a false impression that he's merely dabbling in policy discussions, instead of engaging in long-running attempts at rewriting them.

Additional comments by Leflyman: Being unfamiliar with his past behavior/accounts, I initally supported this user's seemingly good faith intention to improve the clarity of policy on the "No original research" talk page; however, it soon became apparent that his additions to the various discussions were being disruptive, rather than constructive. Numerous editors wrote in opposition to his continued posting on that policy page. See:

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] Campaigning

The complete contribution history of User:-Lumière/User:Lumiere/User:Étincelle to policy pages shows a pattern of tendentious and disruptive debate, with no real, postive results, and a willingness to ignore consensus and force an issue:

  1. User:-Lumière: 81 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17, 53 contributions to Wikipedia talk:No original research, 33 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view 30 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability[2]Edits to actual policy: 7 [3] Total contributions: [4]
  2. User:Lumiere: 425 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17, 224 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, 99 contributions to Wikipedia talk:No original research, 15 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Draft (Rewrite proposal) [5] Edits to actual policy: 2 [6] Total contributions: [7]
  3. User:Étincelle: 72 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view/Archive 17, 46 contributions to Wikipedia talk:No original research, 42 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, 23 contributions to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources [8] Edits to actual policy: 8 [9] Total contributions: [10]

[edit] Edits to the encyclopedia compared to edits to policy talk pages

  • Figures correct as of March 25, 2006

[edit] WP:POINT

  1. Disruptive discussion moved to his talk page: [17] -Lumière immediately replacing it: [18]
  2. Resurrecting an issue to make a point: [19]
  3. Bensaccount (talk · contribs) in forcing the issue along with -Lumière has also stooped to WP:POINT violations: [20] [21] [22] [23]

[24] [25] [26] [27]

[edit] Rejection of consensus as fundamental

Lumière believes that policy should be interpretable and actionable by single editors without having to go through consensus. From the beginning, their project has been to get their idea of "objective criteria" into policy pages. A recent comment shows explicitly that they have not retreated from this view. Lumière refuses to accept that their project would introduce loopholes into the policy and would be fundamentally incompatible with Wikipedia, it being a project that was founded on consensus-building practices. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Even after many editors and administrators have posted their complaints here about his disruptive conduct, Lumiere continues to promote his argument that consensus must also reflect (his) minority views. Once again, he has hijacked a discussion on a policy page to promote his point of view: [28] Askolnick 13:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:POINT
  2. WP:CON

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [29]
  2. [30]
  3. [31]
  4. [32]
  5. [33]
  6. [34]
  7. See the whole of User_talk:-Lumière#NOR_and_V and User_talk:-Lumière#Re:_NOR_comments

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. FeloniousMonk 22:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. Saxifrage ✎ 23:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. LeflymanTalk 00:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. Francis Schonken 06:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. Taxman Talk 12:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC) Not much else to say, it's got to stop though.
  8. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 14:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Jayjg (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  2. JoshuaZ 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  3. Donald Albury(Talk) 23:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  4. With the qualification that I am unclear about any violation of WP:POINT. Jkelly 23:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  5. The one discussion that I was involved which was hijacked by this user would otherwise have been useful. But the off-topic direction it was quickly hauled in and the apparently deliberate misconstruing of what I and others were saying was unhelpful and everything stalled. I reject, however that a WP:POINT was being made, and I would suggest that the "Applicable Policies" section is poorly written: they are WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV rather than POINT and CON. -Splashtalk 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
  6. BillC 00:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  7. He is using the same disruptive tactics to promote his pro-paranormal POV for the Natasha Demkina and Transcendental Meditation articles. Responding to his vandal-like conduct has consumed an enormous amount of time that could have been spent actually contributing content to Wikipedia. Askolnick 12:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Sean Black (talk) 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  9. -Will Beback 22:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  10. Computerjoe's talk 08:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  11. Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  12. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  13. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  14. Pecher Talk 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  15. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
  16. Sethie 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Lacatosias -- he's a crank, plain and simple. Please get rid of that Devcal as well. Go ahead and kick me off as well. Ciao. there are other things to do. --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I d

[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.}

I am going to respond when I will have more time. Right now, I am very busy with other things in my life, and this response will require some careful thinking. -Lumière 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside comment by Kelly Martin

I should like to see the evidence on which it has been concluded that User:-Lumière, User:Lumiere, and User:Étincelle are the same editor. The complaintant(s) are requested to amend their complaint to provide such evidence. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

-Lumière has admitted they are his accounts:[35] FeloniousMonk 23:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- See also User:Étincelle ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It's also on his user page: User:-Lumière. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Where is the discussion that was just here? We should provide a link to it wherever it has moved since it is related. This section suggests that I am guilty of something in relation to multiple accounts and that I have "admitted" it. In this discussion, it is shown that this is not the case. I am not guilty of anything. -Lumière 21:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If you read the bottom section under which you had written, you would see the link. It clearly says: "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." [emphasis mine] —LeflymanTalk 21:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry Leflyman, it was I who moved everything below the line. I failed to read the notice that said to not do so. Lumière, it's been moved to the Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:09, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand how this works. Is a new header below the response section fine? Is Feloniousmonk's post also fine? Is your post just above fine? When does it starts to be unacceptable? -Lumière 22:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comment by Ian Tresman

I should declare an interest as my name was mentioned earlier on, so I'm not completely "outside" of this.

I'd like to declare my support for Lumière, and my belief that he is not deliberately causing "disputed behavior", nor violating policy, and is contributing in good faith. I also believe that a number of the users claiming policy violations have themselves misunderstood policy. I offer the following comments.

  • I believe that Lumière (as have I) has a specific concern, that some aspects of policy are ambiguous, or require clarification.
  • One of the three content-guiding policy pages, states that "NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"[36]. In other words, aspects of the policy should not be so worded that they may be interpreted with opposing view, and subsequently require conensus.
  • Indeed, the guideline on Consensus states "Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy)"[37]. In other words, the consensus of a 1000 editors cannot overrule any policy, which is why it is vital to ensure that policy is UNambiguous.
  • How do we check policy? Again, another policy tells us that "we only publish material that is verifiable"[38], and this must surely apply to Wiki policy itself.
  • It believe that Lumière is trying to ensure that Wiki policy is verifiably absolute and non-negotiable, as defined by policy.
  • The very discussions in which Lumière (and to a certain extent, myself), demonstrate that some aspects of policy are not clear enough.
  • I note that it has been suggested that Lumière may be biased towards "pseudoscience". This reads like an ad hominem attack, and appears to have no relevence to the content of his contributions. Perhaps we should also check to see if Lumière is gay or a practicing Communist? (No disrespect to gays or communists intended).
  • I wonder if any of the other editors can demonstrate that they are also contructively working with Lumière, rather than merely claiming that the policy requires no clarification?

--Iantresman 19:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The mistake you make in your reasoning, Ian, is in line four: that WP:V applies to Wikipedia policy pages. It doesn't, of course (how could it, and why should it?). It applies to the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, you misunderstood Ian. Obviously, Ian did not mean that the policy should be published somewhere else in some third-party reputable source before it can be posted here in Wikipedia. Wow! -Lumière 21:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't know exactly what Ian meant. I know only that what he wrote above is incorrect (emphasis added): "Again, another policy tells us that "we only publish material that is verifiable", and this must surely apply to Wiki policy itself. Not so. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Just ask him.-Lumière 22:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I meant that policy should be verifiable, not with third party sources, but by being able to see it in writing in Wiki policy pages. It should also be clear enough so that there is no argument over meaning. --Iantresman 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
No such state of clarity could ever exist: There will always be people wanting to promote their own agenda, who will argue the meaning of anything -- no matter how clear its meaning is. Lumiere provides us a plethora of examples, where he insists on using his own definitions. People who do that will never run out of arguments in order to get their way. Here's just one example of how he ties up other editors for hours by trying to force his own definition on them. [39] Askolnick 13:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comment by Harald88

IMO such an Rfc is terribly biased and exaggerated -one could just as well launch an Rfc against several others - but I have no time to comment much until after easter. But to start with, the "policies" that are supposedly "violated" aren't even policies! Harald88 22:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comment by MonkeeSage

I haven't personally seen -Lumière violating any policies. He/she has been respectful and thoughtful, imo, though persistent and sometimes rambling. I also have not seen him/her trying to push a POV through the back door. My experience with this editor is limited to the talk:NPOV page, so there might be problems, but I haven't personally seen them. From my outside perspective this Rfc looks kind of like a grudge against an editor who some other editors perceive as annoying. But like I said, I don't know a whole lot about the situation. My two cents, for what it's worth. --MonkeeSage 03:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense, but if you're not willing to dig in to see what is going on, commenting isn't too helpful. The situation is a polite user that has taken it well beyond needed conversation into grinding all useful policy discussion to a halt. So of course on the surface there doesn't seem a problem. But there's big problems below. - Taxman Talk 21:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Personal attack removed. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken. But I was party to several of the discussions in which the disruption was allegedly occuring, and I didn't see it, so I weighed in. My experience seemed relevant, even though I didn't look through the references to other places where disruption is alleged (and hence allowed that it could be occuring elsewhere). » MonkeeSage « 06:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comment by Ragout

I've been following talk:NOR, but haven't seen most of Lumiere's comments before. Now, looking over the "Evidence of disputed behavior," I find parts convincing: it does seem that Lumiere posts excessively to policy talk pages. At the same time, many charges are extremely flimsy and carelessly documented. For example:

  • Alleged WP:POINT violations by Bensaccount are listed even though there is no assertion that Bensaccount is Lumiere's sock puppet, or has any connection at all to Lumiere.
  • Changing a section heading from "Disrupt Discussion" to "Disrupting Discussion" is listed as a violation of WP:POINT.22.
    • That one can be fixed. He made several edits [40] [41] [42] [43] that changed titles to make a point. I've amended the evidence section. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The very same facts are listed twice (although the numbers are sometimes inconsistent). See "Campaigning" and "Edits to the encyclopedia compared to edits to policy talk pages."
  • A statement by Lumiere is described as a "rejection of consensus as fundamental." But a less tendentious reading is simply that Lumiere is saying clearly written policies will cause fewer conflicts.
  • "Disruptive discussion moved to his talk page ... -Lumière immediately replacing it" is listed as a violation of WP:POINT though it is neither a parody or an attempt to prove a point through example. At most it is an unwelcome, dead-horse-flogging, post.

Ragout 05:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside comment by --Light current

I do feel User:Lumiere is struggling to understand and apply properly the WP policies and trying to get a proper interpretation and explanation of them. Im sure he wont mind me saying that his English is not as good as some peoples and therefore some of us may have difficulty in understanding what he's saying without careful study.

From what Ive seen when I was briefly involved in the verifiabliity saga, Lumiere does have a good point about which websites can be used as independent verifiable sources. I feel that the answer from the 'policy makers' (admins) has not been forth coming as yet.

As to Lumieres lack of edits on articles, he states that he cant edit articles properly until he knows the policy on web sources. Depending on the sort of articles he is attempting to edit/write this may be a fair statement and he would have to be shown to be wrong on that.

When Lumiere has tried himself to clarify the policy statements by contributing to the policy talk pages, he has been harrasssed and harangued by (primarily) admins who were content to have their own wheel wars about policy and just regarded him as thorns in thier sides. In this respect I feel Lumiere has been, and is being, used as some sort of scapegoat.

Mererly attempting to establish without doubt the actual policy of WP (however tiresome it may seem to admins), is not a reason for punishing an innocent user who I believe is acting in good faith.

What it really needs is some uncensored proper discussion on policy and formulation of policy that can be understood by everyone. Policy should not be a wheel warring ground which it seems to have been of late!--Light current 20:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

THe moving of User:Lumieres comments from the relevant talk pages to his own talk page and creation of subpages on which to hide his posts can only be seen as an attempt to cover up what was actually happening on policy discussions and I can see why Lumiere took great exception to that - so would I. This action is effectively censorship! The claim that Lumieres posts were effectively clogging everything up is, quite frankly, ludicrous. Have people not heard of archiving talk pages. But no, Lumiere was treated to a special kind of censorship- banishing his unpalatable comments to pages where no one would see them-- clever!

The correct procedure if you do not agree with someones point of view after trying to persuade them is to cease communication. ie dont feed the trolls (or those you consider are trolling). But certain admins involved in their own wheel wars, rather than apply thier own policy of troll starving vented their anger on Lumiere (and others like me) by blocking effectively censoring him (I believe a few times). I consider this action by the admins concerned as hypocracyof the highest order and abdication of their responsibilities. The admins concerned (no names - no pack drill) should be ashamed of their actions.--Light current 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Outisde view by Sethie

I am by no means an "old-timer" to Wiki... with that said, Lumiere has caused more problems then any other user I have seen, my own experience with her being focused on the Transcendental Meditation page.

I most certainly believe she has a lot of positive things to add to Wiki. She helped me become aware of my POV and helped me hone my skills on citing any facts that were contrary to her POV! :)

I believe that if she could limit or had the number of contribs she was alllowed to do per day she has something to offer, if not, I would ask that she be banned, as disruptive. Look at the Jan 5th and 6th history of the TM discussion page. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendental_meditation&limit=500&action=history) Lumiere made 16 edits to the RfC section, without anyone else even replying! This was a bit over the top even for her, yet of all the charges laid against her, it is this which I consider most disruptive to the Wiki community- the # of edits within a short time frame she so often has done. Sethie 15:56, 2 May 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.}

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.