Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lilith2396

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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: 07:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC).

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

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This user has constantly insulted, demeaned, and flamed other users, including myself and Idag. She has trolled numerous talk pages and may well be a sockpuppet of Edward Nilges--User:Spinoza1111. See my talk page for some of his antics.

[edit] Desired outcome

I hope to see Lilith indef-blocked. She has shown no willingness to be constructive whatsoever, and there appears to be zero likelihood that this will change.

[edit] Description

User's first post was on Talk:Ayn Rand, where she began by immediately insulting myself and Ethan a dawe. Since then she has continued to attack several users and has done little else since.

[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. [1]--not a diff, but full of her bad behavior anyway.
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
  4. [4]
  5. [5]
  6. [6]
  7. [7]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:ATTACK
  2. WP:CIVIL
  3. WP:FAITH
  4. WP:SOAP
  5. WP:PROFANITY

[edit] Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [8]
  2. [9]
  3. [10]
  4. [11] - (I forgot to log in when I left this message) Idag (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]
  4. [15]
  5. [16]
  6. [17]
  7. Lilith's response to this RfC (see Response section below)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. TallNapoleon (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Idag (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Ethan a dawe (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Coneslayer (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[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.}

This conduct dispute needs to be summarily removed for the reason below, alone

"In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed."

The would-be "resolvers" of this dispute are the people who created the Rfc and here is the example of an effort to "resolve", with sarcastic scare quotes that orders me to "get to work":

If this is what you truly believe, why exactly are you here? "Stupid convenience store clerks", as Edward likes to call us, are not going to change their minds based on your "brilliant prose". So the way I see it, you have two options: 1) pick an article that you can contribute to in a civil and positive way and get cracking on it, or 2) go away. In layman's terms: either roll up your sleeves or get out of the kitchen. Idag (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration by definition recognizes that both sides have a case. But these attempts at "dispute resolution", like the attacks on Edward, dehumanize the addressee.

What the fuck kind of shit is this? It's a kangaroo court!

Edward concluded you were stupid convenience store clerks. He was right, because you don't know the meanings of simple words.

The real issues aren't my "conduct", and you won't patronize me. These are the real issues:
1. Wikipedia was used to call Kathy Sierra a liar until Edward "spinoza1111" Nilges got the page changed, risking his reputation in meatspace...and quite possibly protecting wikipedia itself.
2. An article was deliberately created, in violation of "biographies of living persons" and "original research" which accused a respected computer author and programmer, Herbert Schildt, of incompetence and fraud, and Edward again stuck his neck out on behalf of Herb and got the article changed...in defense of wikipedia itself. He protected wikipedia from a lawsuit, and this is how you've rewarded him.
3. As a former adjunct professor of philosophy, Edward made significant contributions to the Adorno and Kant articles until a user labeled him for the first time a "troll", and since then everything he says has been duh-bated illogically merely by reapplication of the label, as is happening to me and countless other contributors.
4. Upon investigation, his "insults" and mine consist of drawing inferences and citing sources. His sources have included an important alternative account of totalitarianism sourced by him in Arendt, Adorno and Shirer, in which totalitarianism is emergent from micro-authoritarian behavior. You have not once addressed this important issue. Instead, you've chosen to be "insulted", as if you can shit all over newbies based on playing technical games.
5. Bert on the Ayn Rand talk page, and I, have acted in solidarity with Edward, and this is the real "insult" to the house nigras on this plantation, who have constantly harassed Bert, Edward and me for acting in a solidarity unseen in this destructive cybernetic mob.
6. You allow tobacco articles to imply through omission that smoking is safe, thereby endangering children, and you won't remove the album cover of "Virgin Killers", which show a naked, bound prepubescent girl. Yet you eradicate Edward for his "verbosity", and for "insulting" you, and you harass me for coming to his defense. You're pretty fucked up as a "community".
What's going on here is in fact happening all over wikipedia. People are incivilly labeled and thereafter anything they attempt to contribute, especially complex thought, is shit canned by lazy bastards who refer only to the label. This ticket-thinking is symptomatic of a growing Fascism on wikipedia as it is cynically manipulated by Jimbo Wales to get people to work as his slaves.
I reject your charges and your authority. You are, as Edward says, nasty pieces of work and convenience store clerks acting as a cybernetic mob. Shame on the lot of you.
And the creature run from the cur? There thou
mightst behold the great image of authority: a
dog's obeyed in office. - Shakespeare, King Lear
You're "insulted". Who the hell do you think you are when
Kathy Sierra can be hounded and threatened for months, and you create an article that calls her harassment merely "alleged"?
Herbert Schildt can be mocked, his family's very name transformed into "Bullschildt"?
Amerindianarts is able to permanently tag Edward Nilges as an untermenschen troll such that he can no longer contribute his labor without this red herring, this red-baiting in fact, being used as an excuse to ignore and eradicate his posts?
"Bert" on the Ayn Rand can't so much as correct one of your stupid, ignorant, aliterate bone-head typos without being reverted
Thousands of teachers, unlike Edward, avoid contributing their wisdom lest Hitler Youth and shopclerks denounce them and endanger their positions when the knowledge of those teachers fails to reinforce the stupid world-view of machine tenders
I mean: what is happening to these people, and how does it compare to your being "insulted"?
You want people to "be civil". I have news for you. Civility ends when anyone, and I mean anyone is even symbolically eliminated from the perceived ranks of "normal" people.
Edward deserved a reply worthy of his analysis of why Rand's status as a philosopher is questionable. His very prolixity was his being calm and writing with a dignity that you never display. He came up with a striking innovation: a definition that like Einstein's "simplicity" was "as tolerant as possible, but not more".
You stared, metaphorically, blankly and dully and with uncomprehending anger and said "we need not listen to this man because he is a troll".
And should anyone defend him, as I do, she's also a "troll".
Nice going, guys. You've created a pile of shit: a mathematical model of McCarthyism, the Salem witch burnings, and the Terror of the French Revolution.
Furthermore, tallNapoleon and iDag did not try to resolve the dispute. They created it because iDag in particular wants Rand to be labeled a philosopher. Their attempts at arbitration consisted of warnings to Edward as if the only rule applicable was seniority, whereas he entered with more chops than they to resolve the issue. In fact, they were the out of control students and both chronologically and spiritually Edward's juniors. "TallNapoleon" in his very choice of name shows neither Edward's courage in identifying who he is nor anything except grandiosity and vanity.
This is a kangaroo court in which the only thing that counts is an insider trading scheme, as immoral, probably, as the deals which made Jimbo Wales his millions. idag and tallnapoleon are adolescents posing as adults, because their only advantage is ersatz and low-level technical knowledge, microscopic seniority and access to insider information and privileges.
The hell with all of you.


Users who endorse this summary:

Lilith2396 (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Outside note by Rlevse

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.

There are definite issues here, not the least of which is that she just got blocked for 2 months for socking, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spinoza1111.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:21, 31 May 2008 (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.