Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k

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: 21:09, July 21, 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:25, 15 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

{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.}

Ste4k is an especially energetic and prolific editor, ammassing more than 3500 edits within 5 weeks. Unfortunately, her overall impact on Wikipedia so far has not been productive. Her edits have been strongly contested and her attitude has alienated many. She started by edit warring over material that she inserted fraudulently to settled an off-WP dispute. After that introduction, in one topic after another, she has irritated other users through edit wars and confrontational talk page postings. She has exhibited a condescending attitude towards other editors, takes offense too easily, and insists that she is always right. Much of her participation in this project can be described properly as "trolling".

To her credit she has also done some helpful maintenance work, though even that has caused controversy. She has also done a good job of editing some articles, such as Allerton High School. She is clearly intelligent and can be a good editor when she chooses. Community input could help this editor become an asset instead of a problem.

This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor: Curse, Big Brother (Australia series 6), A Course in Miracles, Greek Statue, gender, and her user talk pages. Several editing-tag revert wars are omitted for brevity, while non-topical behavior problems are covered under "General".

[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] Curse

Ste4k's first known edits were to add material on "Cursed newsgroups" to Curse (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). The material was sourced from a single Usenet posting on June 5 [1] by "Rrock". On June 16, the material was placed in the "Curse" article for the first time by an account with the same IP number.[2] Six minutes later "Rrock" boasted of the material on alt.religion.angels.[3], and then again several times later.[4][5] [6] Those postings make it appear that the entry was created as ammunition in on off-Wiki dispute. (The same user has Google Groups profiles for various spellings and has made several hundred postings a month since at least October 2005. As Ste4k became involved with Wikipedia Rrock's activity on Usenet has either dropped off considerably. There is ample additional evidence confirming that Ste4k and Rrock are the same person or inhabit the same household, which needn't be presented here. It would not matter except that this editor has acted deceitfully.) RRock may have indicated an intent to bring Wikipedia into disrepute and to engage in further mischief, either on Usenet or Wikipedia in this ambiguous posting.[7]

In the subsequent edit war at Curse, the material and/or behavior was described by other editors as "vandalism"[8], "crazy"[9], "silliness"[10], "nonsense"[11]. She reverted the material about 19 times in three days, and removed article tags as well.[12]

Some of her comments that contradict her later editing philosophy, yet are equally preachy.:

  • Please help verify instead of simply refuting without basis, thank you.[13]
  • Removing POV warnings and Nuetrality warnings. Neither have been justified in discussion.[14]
  • Blanking, the removal of all or significant parts of articles is a common vandal edit.[15]
  • Ma'am. And the requirements for both verification and NPOV have been met as discussed in the talk-page. You should yourself supply justification for your POV which declares "patent nonsense". Your reasons are opinionated and do not challenge the discussion presented. Thanks[16]
  • Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.[17]

And that same first day she filed a mediation request over the newsgroup posting. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-18 Cursed Newsgroup - self-published source?. (In the end, the page was protected, the mediation never occurred due to mediator drop-out, and Ste4k moved on to other topics.)

It is clear, for a variety of reasons, that Ste4k is the same person as the Usenet poster "Rrock". Rrock wrote something on the Usenet to denigrate a supposed troll with whom he had had a long term battle. Then he came to Wikipedia, added it to an article, revert-warred over its inclusion, denied the fraud, lectured the editors who removed it, and trolled various talk pages about her poor treatment. Yet Ste4k never admitted that she was the original author of the underlying source and had a vested interest in its inclusion. Even recently she has complained about the "unjust" treatment that she, and her self-sourced material, have received.[18]

[edit] A Course in Miracles

Ste4k sought to delete every single article connected to A Course in Miracles, using {db} tags, PRODs, and AfDs, using incorrect reasons in most cases to support the nominations. Yet she has repeatedly professed complete neutrality about the topic. However the Rrock profiles have posted thousands of messages to religious newsgroups, some of which include clear beliefs that are at odds with the religious elements of this subject. Considered in addition to this user's strident behavior on this topic, it appears that she is acting to further a POV.

Speedy delete tags: (There may be others which were deleted and so are not evident.)

PRODs

AfDs

She has also listed images used in the articles as copyright violations[23][24][25] (then, strangely enough, uploaded an ACIM-related photo using the same "fair use" claim that they others had [26]). She started an AfD at Wikiquotes for material related to ACIM.[27]

Subsequently she wrote "My interest is not to delete all ACIM related articles."[28]

Separately, she decided that the variations in the text of "A Course in Miracles" were sufficient that it was impossible to know which version was begin referred to. She created a disambiguation page among the verisons (only one of which has an article) and redirected many links to it.[29] In other instances she stated that references to the book had to be deleted since it wasn't clear which version was meant, or that we were referring to the "wrong" version. In one case she implied that a subject might bring a lawsuit due to an internal link to the "wrong" version.[30]

She insists that "ACIM" is a trademark or an "affiliated brand name" rather than a convenient abbreviation of "A Course in Miracles", and therefore any use of it is advertisement.[31][32] Insted she insists that the book be referred to as the Course when a shorter version is desired. Though many editors have explained, with proof, that the trademark was cancelled by the Patent and Trademark Office and the matter is irrelevant, she remains convinced that she is right.[33] Even while insisting that other editors should not get stuck on topics, she keep harping on this issue, and seems to have decided that her interpretation prevails.[34][35]

In the case of Charles Buell Anderson and Endeavor Academy she nominated them for deletion together, which resulted in "no consensus".[36] Then she promoted a merge with Endeavor Academy[37][38][39]. Once the merger was completed she said she didn't think that Anderson had anything to do with the Academy, and therefore the material should be deleted.[40][41][42] She even implied that it was libellous to mention Anderson.[43] Similarly, she merged artices into A Course in Miracles, then deleted their contents from there.

Complains of an ACIM "advocacy group". [44][45][46][47]

Beginning on Jun 19 she moved 90% of the "A Course in Miracles" article, about 5000 words, to the talk page. Other editors objected and restored the material which begain a short revert war. Then she created a strawpoll which other editors complained was poorly worded. She sought outside supporters, but after only two days she declared that the poll closed and that the outcome showed users preferred to delete the material, which was totally unsupported by the discussion.

[edit] Big Brother (Australia series 6)

Ste4k nominated this article for deletion after engaging in much discussion on the article's talk page. The result was speedy keep. When it was suggested that this nomination was in bad faith, Ste4k responded irrationaly.

[edit] Greek statue

The articles Greek statue and Sculpture of Ancient Greece had been marked for a merge for almost a year, but the merge templates did not describe which way the merge was required [48] and [49]. Ste4k (talk · contribs) then carried out the merge on the 14th July ([50], [51]) and removed double redirects, carrying the merge out properly. Then, Nscheffey (talk · contribs) reverted the merge on Sculpture of Ancient Greece [52], disputing the merge in his edit summary. At this stage, Ste4k (talk · contribs) should have taken her dispute to the talk page, but a slow-running revert war ensued:

The edit war stopped, leaving the article in its pre-merge form, and a discussion which had been started on the talk page by Nscheffey (talk · contribs) in response to the merges (and which had been ignored by Ste4k) was continued by Martinp23 (talk · contribs) following a WP:3O request by Nscheffey. Talk page here. Ste4k then responded [59], claiming that the merge was not disputed and accusing Nscheffey of distrupting WP work flow and harrassing her. Clearly, the fact that the merge was reverted even once by Nscheffey should have indicated to Ste4k that it was disputed and the edit war should not have ensued. Ste4k also accused Nscheffey of making a POV fork in reverting her merge, but when a function itself is disputed (ie the merge), then a split to revert that merge is not a POV fork.

Comments were then left by JzG (talk · contribs), Martinp23 (talk · contribs) and JChap2007 (talk · contribs) ([60], [61] and [62] who unanimously agreed that the article be merged at Sculpture of Ancient Greece. Ste4k then responded, describing that the direction of the merge didn't concern her - but she didn't want the article to be orphaned following the revert of her merge [63]. Following this consensus, Martinp23 completed the merge from Greek statue to Sculpture of Ancient Greece ([64] and [65]). He then left a message on Ste4k's talk page and on the article discussion page informing that the merge had been completed. ([66] and [67] ). Following this, Ste4k left a comment on Martinp23's talk page [68] informing him that he had omitted some information from the original article. When Martinp23 asked Ste4k what he had missed, he was told to look more carefully([69] and [70]). In the intervening period, Steak reverted the merge on Greek statue but not on Sculpture of Ancient Greece (orphaning Greek statue), leaving dispued merge templates on both ([71] and [72]), prompting Will Beback (talk · contribs) to ask what the problem was on the article talk page [73]. Martinp23 then looked for what he had omitted and put a missed picture in the article and left a message on the talk page awaiting a response from Ste4K [74] . When a response was left, it said that a sentence had been missed from the first paragraph and comlained that Martinp23 had used overly harsh words in describing her actions (the use of "accused"). [75]. In response to this, Nscheffey, in a further attempt to defuse Ste4k's arguement, left a question on the talk page to clarify her position on the merge [76]. Martinp23, in anticipation of a response from Ste4k, added the information he had omitted and posted an apology on the article talk page ([77] and [78]). Then he removed the disputed tags and reverted Greek statue to his previous redirect version. ([79] and [80]). No further dispute was raised by Ste4k.

The users involved felt that Ste4k's behaviour in the circumstances had been inappropriate:

  • She held an edit war with Nscheffey, refusing to go to the talk page for discussion.
  • She commenced an edit war with Nscheffey [81] on her talk page in response to the reverts of the article merge, instead of discussing on the article talk page.
  • She put disputed tags on the articles without explaining why on the talk page
  • She over-reacted to comments left

[edit] User talk page

[edit] General problems

  • Disrupted Wikipedia to illustrate a point. [122][123][124][125][126]
  • Made claims of personal attacks on AN and user's talk pages.[127][128][129][130][131][132] [133][134]
  • Took offense easily: [135][136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144]
  • Claimed to never revert. "I am 0RR. (religiously)"[145]
  • Implied that a subject will sue if we include a link. [146]
  • Inappropriate 3RR reports:
    • User:Bhouston reported by User:Ste4k (Result:No block)]] [147] [148]
    • User:JD_UK reported by User:Ste4k [149][150]
  • Used templates in a condescending, uncommunicative manner. [151]
  • Discounted sources for flimsy reasons: "seven years old"[152], "there is no book cited yet"[153], "will need to have been written in the public by other professional editors"[154],
  • Denigrated external links to official websites: "self-serving websites"[155], "the self-advertising link, as well as the unsourced anti-advertising link"[156], "Spam"[157], questioned their "relevence"[158], "WP cannot ever determine whom is official"[159]
  • Edited articles that by self-admission she knows nothing about. "I haven't read any of these versions [of A Course in Miracles]. ... The first time I had ever heard of the Course was about three weeks ago. [160]
  • Made unusual interpretations of policies. [161][162]
  • Drawn irrational conclusions. "Poll complete The results were that people believe that deleting material is better than moving it to discussion." [163]
  • Plastered tags on articles and then had edit wars over them: [164]
  • Doing massive edits on material she knows nothing about. See "Start with what you know" Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia#Start_with_what_you_know
  • Edits for the destruction of WP articles.
  • Overly compulsive and anal.
  • Raising the same issues over and over again.
  • Removing sources then complaining about lack of sources.
  • Removes long standing external links arbitrarily.
  • Seems impossible to reason with.
  • Refuses to work by consensus.
  • Ignores administrative requests.
  • Hostile personality.
  • Engages in personal attacks.
  • Although the user appears new to WP she is very knowledable about WP policies and procedures and is becoming worse with time.

[edit] Negative personal comments

  • "I'm not originally from the U.S. I was born in Kharkov. In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work. The only POV in that article I wrote was that I wanted to find out the truth, did research, marked it with citations for verifiability, refused to consider any source that came from some primary provider, and all I found out for my trouble was that this encyclopedia isn't even worth quoting. You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium. "[166]
  • "You still haven't apologized for pretending to be a n00b then turning around to slap a POV "delete" on the article. Do you think I am stupid, too? I already told you that insults don't make enemies, but if you want an enemy, then you should reconsider your choice, imho." [167]
  • "Maybe you should speak to the other side. I tried myself, and found him to be less than a troll, imho."[168]
  • "I am very tired of his bickering, and trolling. He is uncooperative and anti-productive." [169]
  • "I recently had a "bout" with a "owner" of a group of pages. By actually reading the citations on the page, I could see that the person or persons who owned the page were basically lying. This was even to the extent that they had a trademarked brand name that they insist on using as an acronym. "[170]
  • That's two articles, now Will, that you and your boy have successfully run me off of. later." [She is making another derogatory remark by calling someone "your boy".] [171]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. WP:HOAX
  2. WP:DICK
  3. WP:CON
  4. WP:POINT
  5. WP:TPG
  6. WP:AGF
  7. WP:CIV
  8. WP:OWN
  9. WP:3RR

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

(provide diffs and links)

[edit] Other comments from editors

  • "Now I wake up and I find that you've spent hours during the night sarcastically mutilating your own article. It appears that one word, "cult", and my good faith editing of its usage may have been your tipping point to go into a frenzy. "[188]
  • "...my point is that "you" should realise that there are some places where you are just not qualified - or, it appears, able - to judge notability."[189]
  • "If you are capable of bringing this article to AfD, you should be capable of the basic research that everyone else put in. If not, dont bring articles to AfD and waste our time and energy."[190]
  • "So, is that basically all you do on Wikipedia, memorize the rules and then try to remind others that they are not following them? If you have any personal friends, they most likely think you're very anal." [191]
  • "Please don't just copy and paste "CSD A3" onto nominations on AfD. I have yet to see an article you've done that on that actually fell under CSD." [192]
  • "the environment here is not conducive for editors like me to put any effort on this. Happy editing." [193]

[edit] Input requests involving Ste4k

[edit] Remedy

This editor is a very smart person with experience in cyber communities and computer systems. We request that she stop the problematic behaviors listed above and instead contribute Wikipedia in a more positive, less confrontational manner.


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Will Beback 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Who123 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Martinp23 22:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. mboverload@ 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (as it relates to my interaction here [194])
  7. Nscheffey(T/C) 00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  8. Kickaha Ota 01:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  9. Antireconciler ◊ talk 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  10. Mangojuicetalk 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  11. Andrew Parodi 09:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Sethie 06:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

( Work in progress ) ( markup added for emphasis )

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.

[edit] BUT

This RfC includes information on     several     separate     disputes involving this editor.

  • WP:RfC Carefully read the following before filing an RfC:

[edit] Don't do it

There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them.

1. Will Beback 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One of the few legitimate places to comment on an editor is in an RfC about them. So it was wrong to casually call someone a troll on the talk page of a third person, but if a person is trolling then an RfC is the place to say so. -Will Beback 05:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[195]On the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ste4k page you posted a user's IP address and a suggestion that they were the same person or associated with an off-Wikipedia user account. Please don't do this. It is a violation of Wikipedia's policies on maintaining the privacy of contributors and may result in an indefinite block. Citing a user's IP address is allowed in cases of extreme ongoing vandalism/disruption with multiple sockpuppets - where it can be helpful in stopping further problems. That was not the case here.

7. Nscheffey(T/C) 00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[196]she claims Will admitted to submitting this RfC in bad faith. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[197] Folks who add fraudulent material to Wikipedia, and then edit war over it, lose the presumption of good faith. -Will Beback 05:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[198] Will Beback does not have Checkuser access, so I have to assume nobody has actually provided technical evidence of your IP address. If people are inclined to draw conclusions from circumstantial evidence, however weak or strong it may be, that's not really something that can be addressed. --Michael Snow 23:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[199]he has stated several times that he didn't want me working on those articles --Please stop making unsupported assertions about what I have said. Put up or shut up. -Will Beback 11:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[200]It doesn't take an admin to do a revert. None of us may make more than three reverts in a day, and I've alredy made two. Why don't you do it? Wikipedia rules prevent involved editors from protecting pages, but I have also requested protection from other admins. -Will Beback 06:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[201] Support. I would like to recognize Mboverload's responsible handling of User:Ste4k. If recent behavior is weighted most heavily then I think he would be a good admin. -Will Beback 10:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

5. mboverload@ 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[202] How dare I edit your page so people can read it? Do you have vision problems[?] I have never heard of vision problems... Here, I'll fix... --mboverload@ 01:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[203] Please do not purposely mess up pages! Doing so is not civil and is against the rules. Thanks. --mboverload@ 01:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[204]Feel free to revert back to your old version. This is a wiki after all.--mboverload@ 02:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
[205] Even when you're right, don't edit war. -Will Beback 09:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[206] Nscheffey If you need anything in regards to this user feel free to contact me. Action will hopefully be taken soon in some form. --mboverload@ 11:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[207]Antaeus Feldspar Nice work on restoring the ACIM link in the Charles Buell Anderson. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[208] Ste4k has failed to provide any convincing argument for its removal on the talk page -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Really really important rules These are the rules that, if you follow them, you'll be respecting the main things needed to edit and build a reputation here. Everything here is basically non-negotiable, and editors are expected to grasp and respect them after being around a while.
  1. Verifiability. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new information into an article should cite a reputable source for that information, otherwise it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it.
[209] reliable resources coming from a primary source speaking about itself, they are both contentious and self-serving or self-aggrandizing. Ste4k 20:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

2. Who123 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[210] I appreciate your attempt at reversion but it must be reverted to "16:19, July 18, 2006 Who123" before the user destroyed the article. --Who123 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

9. Antireconciler ◊ talk 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[211]Your userpage reminds me that I also support being nice to editors who dispose themselves to take things that aren't attacks as attacks, because that way they might learn they aren't attacked. So, I appriciate your message. ^_^ —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[212]when the w4r goddess has reigned for two-and-forty days, this age of d4rkness and desp4ir, having left Wikiworld scorched and barren, dark and desolate, will end as though it never was. And Wikiworld will shine forth with such brilliance as never before it was willing to recognize while the w4r goddess loomed ominously in the sh4dows. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 01:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[213]I like a peaceful mind. Attacks disturb that peace.--Who123 17:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[214] I believe the reason for the problems here is one particular editor. Is it in violation of WP policy or would it be considered a personal attack to start a poll on the helpfulness of one particular "editor"?--Who123 16:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[215] The original author was driven off WP by the user in question. Scott --Who123 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[216] One key member has stated that he is just about to be married and does not have time at the moment.--Who123 13:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
[217] Scott (who was familar with the material) has stopped editing. I seem to be the only one left that knows the material and I no longer wish to interact with that user. --Who123 16:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[218]I think we can pull these from the stub article by Ste4k. I do not know how to do the references. Can someone do this?--Who123 02:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[219] I think Ste4k's talents would be more useful elsewhere. If it is possible, I suggest that Ste4k's editing privileges be permanently removed. Ste4k should be allowed to continue to read WP if this is possible.--Who123 14:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[220] this source wrote the article himself. I think it's pretty safe to say that this source should be removed. Ste4k 23:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[221] I particularly disagree with removing supposedly "anti-cult" sources. -Will Beback 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

4. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[222]You are ignorning the numerous discussion on why this is unattenable. Please become familiar with the discussion(s)/ ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Kicking them while they are down"

[223] Note: There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.

[224] I have done research and have provided evidence for the assertions I've made. I don't see any unfounded allegations. If you do, please point them out. Otherwiese, don't say they are unfounded. -Will Beback 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[225] His hostility notwithstanding, he has a valid claim that you have (repeatedly) refused to reply to. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [226] The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 06:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [227] But you have also leapt straight back into reverting, so you get another block: 24h this time William M. Connolley 20:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • [228] If I see you edit warring on this or any other article in the future in a manner similar to the disruptive way you edit warred on Curse, I will block you for much, much longer than William M. Connolley has. Nandesuka 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[229] (+"== unblock == {{unblock|another user requesting a review of this block}} admins, please look at this"»)
[230] blocking should be preventitive, rather than punitive, and there is no need for this user to be blocked whilst the article is protected. Unblocking now. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[231] Unprotected Curse: This article has been protected for ages and ages Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) 20:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
[232] I have done research and have provided evidence for the assertions I've made. I don't see any unfounded allegations. If you do, please point them out. Otherwiese, don't say they are unfounded. -Will Beback 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
CurseYet Ste4k never admitted that she was the original author of the underlying source and had a vested interest in its inclusion. Even recently she has complained about the "unjust" treatment that she, and her self-sourced material, have received.[233] [Not in citation given]
( Citation ) By the way, [Jossi], in case you don't believe me when I say that there was only one editor that added all of that material to the article which I sorted out today for review in discussion, please see A Course in Miracles Ste4k 08:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
She is Gary_D (talk · contribs)??  
Hi, Gary D here, just surfing by. This user is not me; I would more likely be categorized as part of the "ACIM advocacy group." See ya. --Gary D 08:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[234] I have done research and have provided evidence for the assertions I've made. I don't see any unfounded allegations. If you do, please point them out. Otherwiese, don't say they are unfounded. -Will Beback 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
CurseYet Ste4k never admitted that she was the original author of the underlying source and had a vested interest in its inclusion. [citation needed]
CurseYet Ste4k never admitted that she was the original author of the underlying source and had a vested interest in its inclusion. [citation needed]
Ste4k never admitted
[235] I have done research and have provided evidence -Will Beback 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[236] The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss, contact the other party, stay cool and don't mount personal attacks.
[237] The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise.
[238] The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it. RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. RfC is not a venue for personal attack.
[239]The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.
Really really important rules These are the rules that, if you follow them, you'll be respecting the main things needed to edit and build a reputation here. Everything here is basically non-negotiable, and editors are expected to grasp and respect them after being around a while.
4. No personal attacks. Don't write that user such and so is an idiot, or insult him/her (even if what you say might be true). Instead, explain what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and how to fix it. If possible, fix it yourself (but see good faith below).

[edit] ??

This section appears to contradict itself.
[240] I have done research and have provided evidence for the assertions I've made. I don't see any unfounded allegations. If you do, please point them out. Otherwiese, don't say they are unfounded. -Will Beback 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
[241]
  • Edits for the destruction of WP articles.
  • Overly compulsive and anal.
  • Raising the same issues over and over again.
  • Removing sources then complaining about lack of sources.
  • Removes long standing external links arbitrarily.
  • Seems impossible to reason with.
  • Refuses to work by consensus.
  • Ignores administrative requests.
  • Hostile personality.
  • Engages in personal attacks.
  • Although the user appears new to WP she is very knowledable about WP policies and procedures and is becoming worse with time.

[edit] ?

[242] I have done research and have provided evidence for the assertions I've made. I don't see any unfounded allegations. If you do, please point them out. Otherwiese, don't say they are unfounded. -Will Beback 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Evidence provided by complaintants?

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 ~~~~.

10. Mangojuicetalk 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)



6. MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (as it relates to my interaction here [243])

[244] Sorry Michael, but I was not at liberty to discuss it. Were you at liberty to investigate it and do something about it? If so, then let me know. If not, then as far as I am concerned: This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. I see no other evidence of any dispute, between you and me, that you refer to at that link.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ste4k 01:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (only as outline at this time)

[edit] Outside view by JD UK

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.}

Meh, I didn't know where to comment, so I'm putting it here, as I haven't been as heavily involved in problems with Ste4k as other users have been. While Ste4k's way of conducting herself on Wikipedia causes many disputes, it can clearly be seen in quite a few of the things that she does that she is acting in good faith, and in Wikipedia's best interests; even if her choice of actions are a bit extreme, or cause conflict. That said, she has over-reacted in other situations, and had she acted differently some things may not have happened. From what I've seen on Ste4k's talk page of the last few days, her attitude towards other users has changed tremendously, and she's been acting more positively towards other users. If Ste4k can continue to demonstrate this sort of attitude towards articles and other users, I don't think there'd be much of a problem in a few weeks time. --JD[don't talk|email] 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If she agrees to change then I have absolutely no problem with her. However, I do not agree that she is changing at all. --mboverload@ 02:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kickaha Ota 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. MichaelZimmer (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  5. Antireconciler 04:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  6. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Second opinion

I think this has gone too far, and a resolution is already more than clear. Everybody just needs to drop everything, stop all the conflict, all the communication, everything; and start again. This isn't going to get any better while it's the way it is, because the situation is irreparable. Everything should be forgotten, and everybody should start over. Or, better yet, don't even do that. Everybody should just edit on their articles, and should they encounter somebody they don't like, they should have a proper discussion that goes no further than the talk page, and where the topic discussed stays the same through the whole conversation. This isn't so difficult to do. --JD[don't talk|email] 14:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. I can second this, many of the issues brought up here were from before she appeared on bootcamp for help. I feel, as one of the people who helped her on bootcamp that she is a tramendous editor, over 3500 edits in 5 weeks. What we need to do is leave her newbie mistakes alone, we all made them. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by User:JzG

In addition to endorsing JD_UK and Mboverload's comments above I would say this:

  • The "Curse" thing is, in my opinion, flogging a dead horse. If we're going to beat up every Wikipedian for silly things they did before they got properly involved in the project then we are going to lose some good editors. Even long-established editors have done some things they rather wish they hadn't in hindsight.
  • The "Course in Miracles" business was an example of acting in good faith with a relatively low level of experience. The whole set of articles was a walled garden with virtually no sources outside of the book and its devotees. Still is, for that matter. Ste4k has been persistent in trying to get these articles complinat with policy, and that is a good thing IMO. She needs to learn to be a bit more diplomatic (hah! I'm a fine one to talk!) and to learn to enlist the help of tohers in managing disputes, but the direction of her edits was 100% correct, removing the uncited and uncritical.
  • Castigating Ste4k over the merge of greek statue is excessively harsh. She was working through a backlog of merge tags, doing some long-overdue scut work which brings inevitable kickback from those who have chosen to ignore rather than respond to a merge proposal. In the end the dispute seems to have been settled amicably.

Ste4k is, I think, a bit too inclined to take things personally. Also she is enthusiastic. I strongly believe that with help, support and guidance she will continue to make valuable contributions to the project. Having seen so much hard work from her, in articles where there is little hope of thanks, I am not inclined to be particularly critical. Put the Wikitrout away. Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Wikitrout?
  2. Mangojuicetalk 16:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of JChap2007 (talk · contribs)

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.

Although I understand why people have problems working with Ste4k, it is unfair to say that her net effect has been "not productive" or that the conflicts she has been involved with were entirely her fault.

I am concerned by her apparent insertion of bad information into the Curse article, which I had not been aware of previously.

The deletion nominations for the ACIM mentioned in the RfC were met (and are still being met) with unwarranted accusations of bad faith. What is not mentioned is that most of the articles were deleted or at least merged. Only a few of the articles were kept. Ste4k seems still unconvinced that the movement is really all that notable. While I do not agree with that judgment, this is a disagreement on the merits, not bad faith.

Likewise, Big Brother Australia 6 seems more like a simple newbie (Ipse dixit.) mistake than bad faith. Ste4k asked me about it at the time, with the classic, "Britannica wouldn't have an article about this..." line of argument.

Ste4k is a great help to the project, doing a lot of thankless and noncontroversial tasks (such as cleaning out the merge backlog), so it seems unfair and inaccurate to suggest that she's here primarily to push a particular point of view on Curse or ACIM. She should derive satisfaction from all the hard work she has put in here.

She has been subject to inexcusable personal abuse. [245] Unfortunately, she also has a tendency to seek out or heighten conflict or controversy. [246][247][248] [249] She needs to develop a thicker skin and try to diffuse, rather than heighten, these matters.

She also can get lost in her zeal for policy enforcement. For example, a lot of editors spent a lot of time trying to find a source that she would accpet as reliable for a fact that was never seriously in dispute: that Charles Buell Anderson is the head of Endeavor Academy. Her application of WP rules and policies needs to be leavened with some common sense. In fairness, though, the ACIM-related articles read more like tracts than encyclopedia articles, so some zeal was warranted.

I hope that this talented, hard-working editor will continue in the project, learn from some of the mistakes that she has made and be treated more civilly by other editors on the project. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Kickaha Ota 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Antireconciler 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Yes. What Ste4k needs is help and guidance, not to be beaten with the Wikitrout for her enthusiasm. Just zis Guy you know? 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  4. Yeah, no wikitrouts please... we really don't need to punish people who do thankless work do we? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view of Rrock

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.

lol, this has got to be the funniest thing i've seen all week. lol. ROFL. You got my attention now, calling my wife a dick...several times, evidently, and then you got the nerve to haul her up in front of your supreme court where the first sentence on the page says:

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.

LOL, this is the part that's funny....

Then here i am reading this deal written by some, hmmm, if you call my wife a dick, can i say bozo and not get censored here? lol, well anyhow, here i am reading this thing and one of the first things it says is:

This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor: Curse, Big Brother (Australia series 6), A Course in Miracles, Greek Statue, gender, and her user talk pages. Several editing-tag revert wars are omitted for brevity, while non-topical behavior problems are covered under "General".

All i can say, to the clowns that wrote this is, learn to read. lol, gimme a break. So what else have we got here...

You start talking bout me in Curse section there and you act like you know me or something. So you've read all my posts since nearly a year ago, huh? Well, i appreciate the fandom but i doubt you know much about that group and my posting habits. But since your an expert and all, i think it'd be just peachy to see some real stats. And while your at it, i was just reading what started all of this and some guy named sdedeo says:

Ste4k, the passage you keep reverting claims that there is a real, existing curse on a newsgroup. This is very silly. The rest of the article discusses notable "curses" in a dispassionate fashion. I have reported you for violation of 3RR. When you come back from your block, please try to address our concerns: importantly:

  1. WP:V: can you provide a reasonable source for this "curse". Newsgroup posts are not sufficient; is there an article on this in a magazine or newspaper?
  2. WP:WEB: can you demonstrate that this content is in any way notable? Has it been the subject of attention outside of the group itself?
  3. Common sense: can you rewrite this passage so that it doesn't actually claim that the newsgroup really is cursed? (!)

Sdedeo (tips) 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Now pay attention here, but it looks to me that in this section you've got on "Evidence of disputed behavior" that the first thing you go and do is reference a couple posts of mine in a newsgroup. I'll tell you what. If you can call that evidence, then I'll believe you when you go talk to sdedeo and get his approval, lol. Or better yet, why don't you go over to the curse page and explain it all there. Or even better still, lol, go ahead and include the stuff about the newsgroup being cursed since basically all your proving with your evidence is that my wife was right in the first place. HAHAHahahahaha. too much. no wonder you clowns got her all confused.

so what else you got here...

lol, this is good... and whoever wrote this is a serious bozo. lol...

Says here that, "However the Rrock profiles have posted thousands of messages to religious newsgroups, some of which include clear beliefs that at odds with the religious elements of this subject."

ROFL... now what exactly are you trying to say here, bozo. That has to be the most contorted line of propaganda i've seen in quite awhile. And HEY! guess what, according to you i happen to be an expert on UseNet, so don't be real quick on the trigger there and hear me out on this...

First of all i don't have an inkling about any religious elements of "this subject", but nevertheless, i think you ought to put your words where your mouth is and tell me right here what exactly you think that my religious beliefs are. You are claiming to be an expert on my posts and you are trying to say that my opinions reflect on my wife. So let's hear it from you real plain and clear instead of some sort of rigamaroll about UseNet newsgroup topics that have literally thousands of different posts made by literally thousands of different users every DAY, just exactly what it is about my beliefs that are at odds with the religious elements of this subject. That's a direct request. That's not a question. That's a demand. I think that anyone that calls my wife a dick should be able to put their words where their mouth is.

what else you got...

i don't know anything about the rest of this stuff, so i'll speak my last piece here. If you got problems with me then come over to my turf and quit picking on my wife. That's got to be the most cowardly thing i've seen in quite awhile.

next

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Rrock 03:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ste4k 04:09, 23 July 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.