Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Raspor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

This request for comment was filed on January 3, 2007 and has met the threshold of endorsements necessary to be considered by the community.

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

Raspor, a new editor with very strong opinions about intelligent design but with what to most knowledgable editors on the topic appears to be a poor and biased understanding of the background on the subject has been disrupting Intelligent design, Talk:Intelligent design and Talk:Evolution, violating WP:NPA, WP:NOT, WP:3RR while dismissing policies governing article content.

The disruption caused began with Raspor using Talk:Intelligent design as a soapbox, raising and re-reraising baseless long-winded objections and proposals for changes that favored the ID viewpoint over both the NPOV policy and evidence to the contrary at reliable sources. It has resulted in little to no productive discussion being able to take place on other issues without Raspor hijacking those discussions to turn the subject back to his own personal gripes about the article. He has since expanded this behavior to include the Talk:Evolution page as well, which has been equally disrupted, and disruptive editing of the ID article violating 3RR in the process resulting in his being blocked.

As pointed out by a number of long term contributors at Talk:Intelligent design and Talk:Evolution his objections and proposals ignore our core policy, WP:NPOV, and substantial credible evidence which stands in contrary to his claims and interpretation of events. Raspor continues raising the same objections and proposals in pursuit of certain points for an extended time despite opposition from almost all credible long term editors. He has refused to abide by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, failing to cite sources, citing unencyclopedic sources, misrepresenting reliable sources, and insisting on evidence that is strictly partisan and original research. Lastly he has resisted requests for moderation and continues to argue in pursuit of the same certain points despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and administrators.

A large number of editors at both articles have tried to get Raspor to moderate his behavior and stop dominating the page, from pointing him to relevant policies to asking him specifically to moderate his behavior to moving his more disruptive posts to a subpage.

His response has been to dismiss policy and guideline while ignoring all suggestions to follow them, to troll and finally to descend into personal attacks against those seeking to minimize his disruption.

His participation on the project has been marked by all three points defining disruptive editors listed at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, tendentiousness, failing to acknowledge policy, and rejecting community input. Considering this, ideally Raspor would be wise to slow down and take some time contributing to the project on less controversial topics in order to learn the Wikipedia way and how to participate more constructively; at a minimum he needs to moderate his behavior at these two articles to conform to our policies.

[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. Hijacking another's comment/section
  2. Hijacking another's comment/section
  3. NPOV, ignoring evidence
  4. NPOV, ignoring evidence
  5. Dismissing the requirements given in the NPOV policy
  6. Trolling
  7. Trolling, dismissing WP:NOT
  8. NPOV, WP:AGF
  9. NPOV, dismissing policy
  10. Revealing he does not understand the topic
  11. Tendentious arguing, dismissing attempt to resolve the dispute
  12. Tendentious arguing, ignoring evidence that he's mistaken
  13. Tendentious arguing, dismissing sources showing he's mistaken
  14. Dismissing call for becoming more familiar on the topic, article
  15. Ignoring responses showing that criticisms are sufficiently addressed
  16. Ignoring call to become better acquainted with the NPOV policy before raising significant objections
  17. Continuing to ignore responses showing that criticisms are sufficiently addressed
  18. Ignoring call to moderate behavior
  19. Dismissing policy, tendentious arguing
  20. Dismissing policy and call to settle disputes
  21. Arguing for ignoring NPOV on undue weight and inclusion of tiny minority views
  22. Misrepresenting sources
  23. More misrepresenting sources
  24. WP:POINT
  25. Personal attack, misrepresenting the conflict
  26. Misrepresenting the conflict, misuse of WP:DR process
  27. Misrepresenting the conflict, ignoring calls to desist
  28. Trolling
  29. Demonstrating a flawed, biased understanding of a former FA he hopes to significantly alter
  30. Trolling
  31. Continuing same discounted tendentious argument, WP:POINT
  32. Trolling, incoherent rant
  33. Another incoherent rant
  34. Demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the NPOV policy, despite having been directed to it many times and just as many times dismissing it
  35. Another incoherent rant
  36. Yet one more incoherent rant along the same line
  37. Again the same more incoherent reasoning
  38. Yet more of the same
  39. Tendentious arguing, trolling
  40. Another incoherent argument
  41. More ranting
  42. Again, as above
  43. Yet more
  44. Personal attack, trolling, WP:POINT
  45. Personal attack, WP:AGF, WP:POINT
  46. Dismissing calls to moderate behavior, misrepresenting the situation, trolling, WP:POINT
  47. Removing properly sourced content against strong consensus
  48. Edit warring
  49. More edit warring
  50. And more edit warring, violating WP:3RR
  51. Adding nonsense to the article
  52. 4th reversion violating WP:3RR
  53. Personal attacks, misrepresentation, seeking expanding the conflict
  54. Using his timeout for 3RR to demonstate a complete lack of understanding Wikipedia policy and WP:POINT
  55. More of the same
  56. Ranting, WP:POINT
  57. Personal attacks via a 'rap sheet', WP:POINT
  58. WP:POINT
  59. Trolling, rants
  60. Dismissing attempt to get him remove his personal attacks, WP:POINT
  61. Encouraging others to disrupt the ID article and ignore both policy and consensus
  62. Rant, personal attack
  63. More of the same
  64. Promising to return to more disruptive behavior
  65. More of the same, with a personal attack in the section title
  66. Returning off his 24 block to disrupt the same article, this time ignoring evidence and consensus
  67. WP:POINT
  68. Personal attack, trolling, WP:POINT. 2nd instance of of "fellatio" when referring to FeloniousMonk
  69. Another personal attack on someone politely mentioning what vandalism is

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:NPOV
  2. WP:NOT
  3. WP:NPA
  4. WP:POINT
  5. WP:AGF
  6. WP:3RR
  7. WP:RS
  8. WP:NOR
  9. WP:V

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Dave souza
  2. Dave souza
  3. FeloniousMonk
  4. FeloniousMonk
  5. Psychohistorian
  6. Psychohistorian
  7. Ec5618
  8. Ec5618
  9. Ec5618
  10. Mr Christopher
  11. Orangemarlin
  12. Orangemarlin
  13. William M. Connolley
  14. William M. Connolley
  15. Humps
  16. Jason Potter
  17. Jason Potter
  18. JzG

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. FeloniousMonk 00:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Ec5618 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC). There is obviously a conflict, as per this diff -- Ec5618 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mr Christopher 02:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. dave souza, talk 08:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. JPotter 17:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. AvB ÷ talk 00:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Filll 01:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Vsmith 01:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. N6 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. Orangemarlin 02:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  6. •Jim62sch• 09:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  7. Guettarda 15:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  8. Tarinth 15:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  9. Accurate summary. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  10. --CSTAR 19:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  11. Wikiwøw 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  12. MBCF 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  13. With a small exception related to one or two difs which seem to be possible attempts at actual communication. (as discussed by Amatulic below). Otherwise endorseJoshuaZ 03:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  14. Appears to be an accurate evaluation of problem edits. --HassourZain 19:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  15. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  16. Moreschi Deletion! 14:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  17. I'm not entirely sure why it's necessary to note that he's believed to have a bad understanding, but the summary is fair. -Amarkov blahedits 05:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  18. David D. (Talk) 07:34, 9 January 2007 (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.

[edit] Raspor's comments

"poor and biased understanding of the background on the subject"

I have an excellent knowledge of the subject. It is because I am able to logically show the errors in the anti-ID stance that I am a threat. When one of the AIDs says something obvious wrong I tell them. Then they get upset and start calling me names. I took it for a long time and asked for help for them to stop insulting me but didnt get any help and figure is a free for all here. The first change I made to an article was very small and insignificant. It was reverted and I was called a vandal.

what I did was change an article gave my reasons for doing so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=97792222

Then I was accused of vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Intelligent_design&diff=prev&oldid=97793527

Then I started to get wise to what was going on here. The AIDs will use any tactics to keep the other point of view from coming out.

After this they harassed me constantly. I asked for protection against the harrassment but did not get any. So again I figure this is the way the game works.

As far as the 3R goes. the way i looked at it. i reverted just twice. must have been a misunderstnading of the rule.

The article is biased. It does not given even 5% time for the other point of view. The AIDs have hijacked this article. Oh I was told I 'hijacked' a user page cuz i put a response on it the AIDs told me to do that and then when i did the nailed me. these ar the tactics they use. then they say things which are not logical. then when i point out their inadequacies the jump on me saying i am attacking them. i know now that is called baiting. this whole issues was a gaint bait to get rid of someone with an opposing view. they gang up on you and insult you. then when you insult back they have enought number to do like this to you. its mob rule. sorry.

i wanted to see how far they would go with their tactics and now i see how they work. i could make as many charges against all of them but i have better things to do with my time. i wanted to see if any of them had any intellectual integrity as far as letting something of the opposite POV represented. i think one or two AIDs did. the rest of the gang about 15 of them. just jumped on me like a pack of sharks that smelled blood.

look i have better things to do with my time. i am truly embarrassed by their behaviors here. i have not seen such bullyism since high school

raspor 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you say that your 'excellent knowledge' extends to the workings of science. After all, just recently you claimed you didn't understand that astrology is not scientific. Before that, you hadn't heard of teleology. And you failed to recognise that this article deals with the concept of intelligent design as propounded by the Discovery Institute (not panspermia, teleology or creationism), even after it had been explained to you over a dozen times.
Now, this isn't the place for me to comment, and I apologise. But I would advise you to rethink your statement. Feel free to remove this comment when you do. -- Ec5618 23:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

astrologhy is a scientific theory. look it up. it is not VALID theory but it is a scientific theory. now an invalid theory would be that when experimenting with PSI we cannot measure because the vibes of being test cause the PSI to go away

astrology has been test and shown to be in VALID therefore it is a scientific theory. it is falsifiy able. you really dont get that?

raspor 00:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Scientific theories must be falsifiable, not falsified. Astrology was never a scientific theory. Would you please read scientific method and astrology. -- Ec5618 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

ok are you setting me up? you are egging me on here and are you going to say 'he was disruptive'

and why are you doiing this here go to my personal page. and i will answer there

raspor 00:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


you gotta love it! heres the lates

"It is of course entirely possible that he is genuinely unable to understand policies or science. However, it crosses my mind that if he is trolling he is doing so very successfully, and causing a remarkable amount of disruption"

this is souza latest taunt about me. this has been going on since day one

raspor 00:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

and i love charge #47 removing material. jeez isnt that called bold editing. i talked about it on the discussion page. so i am not allowed to edit

felonmonk would be charge with malicious prosecution and prosecutorial misconduct it this were in court. his ass would be sued

raspor 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

is really proper for other editors to be putting there comments here? I dont put comments in the aboves sections. It really is a free for all isnt it?

raspor 12:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Per my view Geo. 05:30, 7 January 2007 (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.

[edit] Outside view by Amatulic

As someone who has (mostly) observed this dispute, I agree with the prose description of the dispute, but I feel that some of the numerous itemized infractions presented as evidence are honest attempts at communication rather than trolling or rants, and therefore are unworthy of inclusion as evidence. Therefore I cannot wholly endorse all of the evidence, although I do endorse the textual description of the dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -Amatulic 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. -Amarkov blahedits 05:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. -Haemo 07:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Philip J. Rayment

It appears to me that Raspor's crimes are not understanding the myriad rules of Wikipedia, not following posting etiquette, and not arguing his case very clearly. I'm inclined to agree with Amatulic insofar as he says that Raspor has made honest attempts at communication. Citing vandalism when reverting one of his edits (and repeating the accusation) is provocative nonsense, which clearly only inflamed the situation. Apart from poor grammar and spelling, those of his posts that I've read were not significantly worse than those of his opponents, who see their own POV as neutral and self-evident and dismiss or ridicule opposing views. Of course, the anti-IDers outweigh those with different views, and despite self-serving denials, numbers count, so Raspor hasn't got a hope, despite clear bias* in the article.

* A specific example of bias (as opposed to the overall bias in spending so much of the article criticising ID) I happened to notice with a quick read: "intelligent design proponents have set up their own journals with "peer review" which lack impartiality and rigor". Yes, the POV is referenced, but it remains an POV presented as fact.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Philip J. Rayment 16:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. I agree with most of this assessment. I am trying to engage the editor and bring him up to speed on standards and NPOV- much of his problem edits appear to me to have been mostly misunderstandings of Wikipedia's purpose and its rules. --HassourZain 16:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Coming back after a few days away, Raspor has not listened to any of my advice concerning civility, and does not appear to be interested in doing so. He has not undertaken the effort to understand WP:NPOV or the concept of undue weight as illustrated by his edits over the weekend, so I am forced to retract my above statement. --HassourZain 19:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Psychohistorian

I've been trying to figure out over the past several days how to describe how I see this issue. It is much bigger than Raspor. Its a great case study in social pathology. The article has been edited by two sects of religious fundamentalists (which, for simplicity, I'll call 'the pro-ID' group and the 'anti-ID' group). Both sides seek to pass themselves off as scientists, but both sides engage in tactics which do not belong in a scientific debate (or, by extension, discussion on how to write an article on a topic whose adherents claim is scientific). Raspor, being a newbie and unfamiliar with the policies and practices of Wikipedia, came into the article, as any religous fundamentalist might, intent on getting the article to match his vision. He did so, I believe, originally with good intent. He was refutted on the grounds that his actions didn't meet policy. Some people pointed out policy to him. He continued to ignore them and continued to try to change the article without adhering to policy and appealed several times that he didn't know policy and that people should be willing to work with him (to which people would point him to policy, he'd ignore them, try to edit the article without adhering to policy, and claim that since he was a newbie people should be willing to be patient because he didn't know policy). This whole dynamic, I believe, became frustrating for him. He became abrassive. He became rude. All the time, the entrenched religious sect (the anti-ID group) fed on his frustration and increased their attack of him. Consequently he became more abrassive, more rude, and the entrenched religious sect fed on it more. This began to spiral even further out of control. One editor began to censor Raspor's contributions by shunting them to another talk page which was created by this editor just for Raspor's comments. Raspor, I believe, feeling put upon resisted by taking mock pride in the fact that he could no longer put his comments on the article's discussion page. The problem kept mounting. Raspor is not an "innocent victim". He consistently violated policy even when it was pointed out to him. Further, while it is not a violaton itself, he failed to avail himself of the tools and assistance available on Wikipedia (such as when I suggested that he contact the Mediation Cabal) and, instead, sought to bull rush his way through the editorial process and was abrassive about doing so. But neither can the blame be laid completely at his feet. I believe he should be censured for his actions, but I also believe that the system which is in affect on the article (meaning the dynamic of the two religious sects one of whom is entrenched and preventing healthy development of this article) be examined and fixed.-Psychohistorian 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Orangemarlin 20:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Filll 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. DPetersontalk 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Geo.plrd

When I look at this RfC, I think "What the Hell!" I think that, because to me this RfC appears to be filed by a bunch of folks who are unhappy that their point of view got ripped out of ID. The edit was properly documented. If you are mad about the fact that the original study got removed replace it, just don't make it an either or. Oh, and the ID article has some serious NPOV problems. Just because scientists believe or disbelieve something, does not make it a fact. For the above reasons i believe the RfC is a crock created to garner community support for a crusade against Creation/ID. --Geo. 05:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view by CyberAnth

I admit only spot checking Raspor's contribs.

But the story they seemed to tell is that of a user who appears pretty knowledgeable about ID (or whatever naming variants it goes by). He seems to feel his expertise area is being very poorly represented in articles. He appears to have gotten very frustrated and reacted to what really does appear to me as some mob rule against him and his views. I suggest the non-ID folks settle down, take a break from the articles for a month, and then come back and really listen to Raspor's concerns and see that some of his ideas very probably should be incorporated into the articles of his concern. The contributions I saw he tried to make seemed good.

Keep in mind, folks, that nobody gets their fill plate. Nobody. CyberAnth 04:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Response to Outside view by CyberAnth

I find it difficult to take seriously CyberAnth's opinion on an RFC which he admits he hasn't even considered the evidence presented. I'd like to see CyberAnth consider the evidence presented in the "Evidence of disputed behavior" and to explain to us how the evidence there supports his contention that Raspor is the victim of mob rule. I'd also like CyberAnth review the last 4 days of activity at User talk:Raspor and explain to us how the effort of HassourZain and others are anything but constructive. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  • Mr Christopher 18:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC) (and I'd like CyberAnth to support any of her/his assertions with evidence)
  • Filll 18:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Amatulic 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Guettarda 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Orangemarlin 19:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Haemo 07:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • KillerChihuahua?!? 11:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

[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] Closing comments

As noted above, Raspor was indefblocked on 18 January 2007 by SlimVirgin and community banned (WP:AN/I discussion). --Muchness (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.