Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ste4k

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] General Comments

This user is unimaginably annoying and frustrating to even think about. I really don't want to post here. They are combative, unable to fathom that other entities have their own minds and viewpoints, and highly emotionally unstable. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to get therapy for oppositional defiant disorder. --mboverload@ 00:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I would very much like to see a radical change in her behavior. I wish the best for everyone. I do have considerable doubt if this is even possible, however. A small part of my doubt comes from her response itself (the rest comes from her editing of articles). In her response she completely fails to see that she has a problem. Instead, she places the blame on everyone else. She seems to be in complete denial. This may simply be her personality. I cannot recall seeing anyone act like her before. This is not an attack or a diagnosis but I have wondered if she has some underlying personality disorder such as OCPD [[1]]. If this is the case then she may be able to alter her behavior for a short period of time now but then revert back after this process is over. I do not think this action should be decided by positive behavior changes either during this process or since she first learned that it was being prepared. If this is her core personality, then WP may not be the best place for her talents.--Who123 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The summary of Ste4k's actions, while generally quite fair, does omit the fact that certain users have been rather provocative towards Ste4k as well. Like I said earlier [2], for example, Andrew Parodi seemed to have a knack for knowing how to irritate Ste4k. But that being said, there are two rules for functioning smoothly in civilization: do not offend, and do not be easily offended. Unfortunately, Ste4k seems to be extremely quick to take offense, and seems to take the worst interpretation of any ambiguities in others' statements, rather than asking for clarification or assuming good faith. Kickaha Ota 01:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think her behavior should be excused because of other's behavior. Her behavior is too widespread with too many different people. I have seen two types of behavior. One is described in the article. The other is to use flattery to manipulate people.--Who123 18:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me also say that I strongly object to the reference to WP:DICK in "Applicable policies and guidelines". First of all, it's neither a policy nor a guideline, as it very clearly says. Second, it implies that Ste4k's being intentionally provocative, and I'm not convinced that that's the case -- I think it may just be in Ste4k's nature to read the worst possible motive into people's written words and respond accordingly. Kickaha Ota 01:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Good points about the policy and guideline thing. However see the below section. Instead of just reverting and explaining why her talk page had to be unreadable to other editors (this was never referenced or explained), she went on a drama-rampage instead of just reverting it. It had an easy solution, but she had to be a WP:DICK --mboverload@ 01:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Don't be a dick" is the fundamental rule of all social spaces.
In some respects, WP:DICK is the most important rule we have. -Will Beback 03:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It may not be official policy and may not be PC but it certainly applies here, IMHO--Who123 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Like most of you, I have no personal problem with Ste4k, although I endorse the basis here. The best outcome for Ste4k would be for her to not take any of this as a personal attack. It is not, but she certainly won't move beyond this RfC so long as she thinks it is (and she seems to). I think right editing at Wikipedia is using common sense before applying policy. "Will the content I'm adding help Wikipedia's readers?", "Will the content I'm removing help Wikipedia's readers?", "Why?", "What for?". Don't stop at Policy. Question. Policy means nothing without asking these questions. More accurately, Policy means nothing but furthering an alienating POV without asking these questions, which then means nothing. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I do have a question. Why does Ste4k act the way she does? Where does and where has Ste4k lived (in general)? The reason I ask this is that I do not understand her behaviour. Is she from a country, a city, or a society where her behaviour is the norm?--Who123 18:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I come from an area where the word "Dick" means "penis". Feel free to look it up. For more information about what country I live in, please see: [3]. About where my behavior is norm, please review the "law of the land", particularly the part about Justice Louis Brandeis: [4]. Thanks. Ste4k 08:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
While I think Who123's going on about "Is she from a country, a city, or a society where her behaviour is the norm?" is silly and not constructive, please don't take the bait and pretend to answer by pointing to a website about personal privacy. That's just answering one attempt to provoke with another. We're trying to calm the fires here, not inflame them. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
My comment was not meant to be intrusive, silly, not constructive, or bait. I was not trying to provoke. I have found that in cerain areas and societies people sometimes interact differently. For example, people in large crowded cities tend to be more aggressive. Psychological studies have shown that crowding increases aggresiveness. I have found similar behavior from people that lived in countries where they were oppressed (or believed that they were oppressed). I was simply trying to understand Ste4k's behavior. Ste4k certainly was not required to answer and I would not have held a lack of answer against Ste4k.--Who123 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Some words have many meanings. The meaning we are using here is described at M:Don't be a dick. -Will Beback 21:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Michael, an Act of Congress and the rights of the American people are not just some website. I know my rights, and I know that you're intentions are well placed, but I don't believe that you speak for the majority regarding intent, with all due respect. Ste4k 15:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Will, I haven't read it and I don't intend to. If it's an essay that you believe in, then that's fine for you. I didn't come to Wikipedia to have my morals changed. The word is highly offensive and unsuitable in a normal business environment. If you don't believe that, then send a letter to the CEO of whatever company you work for and refer to him by that word. It's one thing to make an assumption and be incorrect. It's quite another thing to know before hand that a word is inappropriate and use it purposely. As far as I am concerned, just listing this RfC with my name followed by such an accusation is extremely rude. It is not a policy, nor guideline, and yet it is listed beneath that heading just the same. This entire RfC mocks me. I will not apologize for being mocked and taunted. Ste4k 18:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It is part of WP lexicon. Your inappropriate behavior is being addressed here. It is apparent that you will not realistically address the issues here and will not change your behavior at WP. Your preference is to attack others instead.--Who123 19:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It is a part of the WP lexicon... the citing of which is itself (rightly IMO) considered an example of the behaviour it seeks to discourage. --CBD 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Internet troll contains the same paradox. -Will Beback 23:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If I understand that correctly, perhaps better put, then it takes one to know one even if the one accused hasn't any knowledge of the meaning at all. I suggest that it be removed for the previous reasons as well as it being only essay. If you would like me to begin using this behavior then you have all just stated that submitting this RfC was a dick thing to do. Ste4k 00:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you have it entirely backwards. It says that a technique of trolls is to call other people trolls. -Will Beback 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Like you refer to me here? [5] -- Ste4k 18:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
No, more like your comment here [6]. When you were described as trolling it was done so to your face, with evidence, and in the proper context of an RfC. -Will Beback 21:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you quoting policy Will? Because policy says otherwise, both verbatim and in spirit. Ste4k 02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Response

Ste4k doesn't have any claim about "distruptive edits to the talk page". She could have easily reverted and explained why instead of making it into a drama-thon. --mboverload@ 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I could have. But at the time in question I was under the impression that you were acting as an administrator. In essence your message to me was, "Look lady, this is the way it's going to be whether you like it or not". And keep in mind how many "revert wars" on talk pages are mentioned on the main page. That you would suggest that I revert an admin's edit, when others are suggesting that I revert warred with people who were clearly told to "leave me alone" is very confusing. You didn't even introduce yourself. Until yesterday, as far as I was concerned, the matter between you and I was a thing of the past, forgiven and forgotten. But your statements throughout this RfC appear to be contradictory in regard to your own self-description as one whom forgives and forgets. Do you honestly believe that the dispute between you and me has anything to do with Articles for Deletion? with religious views on A Course in Miracles? with whether or not a merge was reverted or orphaned? When you are makiing edits on the main page of this RfC, clearly inside of sections that have instructions not to edit, are you making a point about your RfA? And about your RfA, don't you think you might have warned me where you and others were having a conversation? Do you really think that it's fair to blame me for searching around pages trying to find out where that was? How do you think I felt when I saw for the first time, while still under the impression that you were acting as an admin and "laying down the law" that you were not even an admin? About the purpose of this RfC to change my behavior for the better, and in regards to forgive and forget, in my opinion, and after reading your opinions, the effect is exactly the opposite. Had you actually forgiven and forgotten, you would probably have simply declined to comment. But instead of that, your statements are confrontational. I am answering you here directly to your confrontation in that regard. Ignoring your statements is a way of trying to forget. But you have persisted in a need for answers, instead. Ste4k 09:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

These are my reaction's to Ste4k's response.

  • As has been noted, this was improperly addressed to "Will".
  • In the first paragraph she states that

"...you should actually have tried to resolve a dispute using discussion before writing up an RfC."

My personal experience in trying to resolve disputes with her is 'like trying to talk to a brick wall'. She seems to think that her opinions represent absolute truth. Instead of trying to actually discuss issues she uses every tactic she can come up with to "prove" that she is right. These include:
Illogical or meaningless responses.
Deflection and tangential responses.
Obsessive and sometimes misleading partial quotes of WP Policy, Guidelines and other articles.
Personal attack.
Edit wars


  • Later she states "Looking over your comments, in the evidence section about "strongly contested edits", I don't really see any edits of mine that have been strongly contested..."
I have had multiple "strongly contested edits" with Ste4k over the ACIM and EA articles. Because she had a notice on her talk page not to put comments there, these took place at the articles themselves. Even now she has this notice at the top of her talk page: "To discuss articles, please use the appropriate Discussion page of that article."


  • Ste4k states: "If you sincerely believe that belittling a person simply because their glasses are as thick as coke bottles (as is pointed out to me quite often) is in the general good spirit of Wikipedia...". Where is this said?
  • "When Andrew Parodi first contacted me, he was already on the verge of leaving." I would like to see evidence for that. It appears Ste4k drove the user off. In regards to Scottperry, I do not know his reason for no longer posting. He did say it was because of his upcoming wedding. I notice that there were constant disputes between Ste4k and Scottperry. She was one by one going through the process of destroying or deleting his multiple ACIM articles as well as other ACIM articles. I suspect that Scottperry stopped posting because of Ste4k. He should be involved in this and this entire RfC. Is there any way to contact him such as email? In regards to myself leaving WP, I have considered leaving WP several times because of Ste4k's behavior, that it seemed to be tolerated on WP, and some even seemed to encourage it. She then points out an example of my "interesting edits" at the ACIM article. I removed a concordance as a reference. A concordance is not a reference source. I removed "A Supplement to A Course in Miracles" as it seemed to not have any relevance to the article and was not acting as a reference. I added a reference that I found on the internet that I thought might be useful. I do not find these to be particularly "interesting edits". She then states that I have made "disparaging remarks" toward her. In her one reference, there is no mention of "Ste4k". It was a general question that was never followed up on.
  • As noted in the RfC, it is suggested by WP that new editors work with what they know. She states that she knew nothing about ACIM until a few weeks ago. Although I prefer to accept what people say on good faith, my discussions with her and her comments make me doubt that good faith (e.g., see ACIM discussion here).
  • Ste4k then accuses me of being the one deleting and destroying on WP. I think this is just a weak attempt to deflect her problems onto me. She give two examples.
In the first example I deleted the image (as explained in talk) that there was a copyright question, it added bias to the article for FACIM (see my comments here about FACIM), and added no content to the article. I removed the Foundation for A Course in Miracles reference because the article had been deleted. I deleted the facimoutreach external link as it was just more advertising for FACIM. I deleted "*facim.org/ The FACIM website" as it was a duplicate of the one above. I do find it particularly interesting that it was mainly deletions related to FACIM that Ste4k is concerned about (see ACIM section).
The second example was my second edit after I happened to stop by the ACIM article and was shocked by the dramatic changes of this long standing stable article. (see section on ACIM here). This was reverted and I did not contest the revert. I agreed that my editing of the introduction was poor. I did remove the FACIM material as it added such a huge bias that the article now read like an ad for FACIM. I added factual information about the FACIM/EA lawsuit. One again I find it interesting that Ste4k's main complaints are about the removal of FACIM material (see ACIM section here).

She then accuses multiple users of "collusion". I cannot speak for the other users but in the first example I was simply responding to the request of an Administrator for assistance. This seems to be another attempt to deflect the problems of her behavior away from the user and onto other users.


  • "Many of your other remarks are very biased, and opinionated...". I do not find the remarks biased or opinionated. Once again, this is deflection.
  • IMHO, the last paragraph is nonsense. This RfC is very much related to this user's behavior in regards to editing article content. Ste4k refuses to "address the section about "A Course in Miracles" at all...".
  • To date, Ste4k is the only user endorsing her summary.
  • In summary, Ste4k does not appear to have the slightest awareness that she even has a problem with her behavior. Ste4k's summary is simply denial and projection of her problems onto other users. Ste4k's summary itself is a good example of the problem.--Who123 14:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I will supply diffs as evidence for your questions below. Please include diffs for your listed grievances above. Thanks Ste4k 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#What_talk_pages_may_be_used_for Ste4k 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
IRL. Ste4k 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding Andrew Parodi: [7][8] Ste4k 12:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding Scottperry: If he said that he was having a wedding, I find no reason to doubt it. Ste4k 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you should trust me and I don't think that you want to have this discussion about an article in a behavioral RfC, seriously. Ste4k 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Article disputes and behavioral disputes are two different things. Ste4k 15:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Ste4k, you have inserted comments within my comment. This is disruptive to my comment and turns my comment into multiple unsigned comments. I would appreciate it if you would remove your insertions from my comment. Feel free to move them to the end of my comment if you wish.--Who123 13:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have moved my comments to their proper place. Please supply the diffs for your listed grievances as I asked. Thanks. Ste4k 18:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Note on authorship

In her response Ste4k repeatedly addresses me directly as the author of this RfC. However four other editors also contributed. The edit history may be found at User:Will Beback/Sandbox. To some extent it is the expression of everyone who has signed on as a certifier. It would be wrong to view this as the perspective of only one person. -Will Beback 01:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitely. Her comments on the "Description" section, for example, reference several statements added by me. I agree that this RfC represents the views of all who've endorsed it. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. Although Will Beback should be thanked for putting much hard work into this, it should be considered to come from all those who endorsed it.--Who123 20:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The only preperatory notice that I was given was in regard to this URL and the index to this Page on another. At the time when I first read the RfC, there was one signature. Will sent me the message. I asked him in what category. He told me. And I read it. He told me a few days ago that he was going to do it. Ste4k 09:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I alerted you on the 19th that an RfC was being drafted (if I may say so, that is an uncommon courtesy)[9], When the RfC was filed I notified you promptly. I believe you've been warned previously that your behavior may lead to an RfC. Going forward, as Kickaha Ota has said, continued disruption may require binding arbitration. The choice is yours. Please take the option of collaborating with the Wikipedia community in a positive spirit. Please do not prove yourselves to be Internet trolls, or other disruptive influences. -Will Beback 09:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I was not contesting the facts, Will, I was supplying them. The question was in regard to why I addressed your name. Ste4k 15:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this RfC formatted appropriately?

The RfC instructions seem to say that the people who certify an RfC must have tried to resolve the same dispute, not multiple disputes involving the same user. This RfC involves a number of distinct grievances, and it's not clear which dispute(s) each certifier is claiming involvement with. Kickaha Ota 02:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's more about the patern of behaviour and attitude, with multiple large examples of evidence. I think that's what it is anyway. --mboverload@ 02:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Should I annotate my endorsement with reference to my specific interaction? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that since this is about her overall behavior it is appropriate to cite multiple examples of same. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the RfC is over Ste4k's behavior across the project. -Will Beback 03:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
It is improper for the following reason regarding your explanation as a combination. According to the official policy "Resolving disputes, the best way to resolve a dispute is Avoidance. Collusion of several several people to put together an overwhelming mix of material cannot be described as "avoidance. However, be that as it may...
The First step in resolving a dispute is Discussion. As an overall combined problem across the project, there has been no discussion before until this time. There are even issues stated in this RfC that have never been discussed with me at all.
The Second step in resolving a dispute is Informal Mediation. An RfC is not informal mediation. Have all of you gotten together and attempted to informally mediate my "cross project behavior" before? No.
The Third step is to discuss with Third Parties. As a group of nine people (last time I checked), have all of you gotten together along with myself, and third parties to discuss my cross-project behavior? No.
It has already been stated elsewhere that conducting a survey would have been inappropriate.
The Fourth step is Mediation. Have all of you gotten together before this time in one place and attempted to mediate my cross project behavior? No.
The Fifth step is Requesting an Advocate. I doubt that the nine of you require an advocate in this case, however, I was never advised to even consult one in this regard. I did however consult whom I considered to be a neutral party with a lot of experience, privately, over e-mail.
The Sixth step is Disengage for awhile. There are some among the nine that have done this, however, there is more evidence of preperatory collusion to confront me on a continuing basis then any disengagement whatsoever.
If you want to combine this all into one large dispute, then you should at least treat it like a dispute instead of masquerading it as a "request for comments". In that regard, as a dispute, it is not a single dispute, and it has never been treated like one until now. An RfC is not the appropriate venue. Ste4k 09:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gender

I finally got a chance to read this. The RfC says that Ste4k is a male, Rross, on the basis of the two names sharing an IP address, Rross's pattern of edits on Usenet, the reverts on Curse and other unspecified evidence. Ste4k claims this is her husband or teenage son. This would seem a reasonable explanation. Is there any evidence to contradict her explanation? If so, it should be provided. The RfC implies that Ste4k's identity as a male is well-established. JChap (talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that Ste4k is a male. It states that Rrock is referred to as a male and has a masculine first name, and that Ste4k identifies as female. I don't think the point here is whether Ste4k is being forthright about her gender, but rather her reaction when other editors use a universal male pronoun. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I take that back. The RFC does make a claim as to Ste4k's gender:"To assume a different gender and then complain when mistaken for the actual gender is drama-queen behavior" Well, IMO the issue still should only be an editor's reaction to a good-faith usage of a universal pronoun. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 03:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
But the statement is still an accusation: either Ste4k is transgendered or is trying to perpetuate a hoax. (Or in the words of the RfC, "it seems unlikely that this is a good faith gender re-assignment. Combined with the edit warring over fraudulent material, it calls the user's good faith into question and appears to be another case of trolling.") This should either be proven or withdrawn. JChap (talk • contribs) 03:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
"Rrock" has a male name and uses 72.128.30.xxx. Ste4k identifies as a female and uses 72.128.30.xxx. Ste4k claims that Rrock is her husband. Even if that is all true, Ste4k has still perpetrated a fraud on Wikipedia, by edit warring over inappropriate material created by someone using her computer. The time difference between the Ste4k posting the info and Rrock announcing the material was 6 minutes.
As for the identity of Rrock/Ste4k, both people claim to have had 30-year careers in systems administration, both specializing in VMS. All of this adds up to a set of coincidences which exceed my credulity. On the other side, all we have is Ste4k's assertion, with no evidence. If there is any evidence to the contrary I'd be happy to review the situation. -Will Beback 03:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you about the insertion of material. As to identity, you are right that this is quite a string of coincidences (and let me emphasize that I have no way of knowing what happened) but to be fair to Ste4k, each of these is explainable. The diff on the first edit listed the IP address as the editor, not Ste4k, so it is possible that it was Rrock who made that edit. (This of course doesn't excuse/explain her subsequent edit-warring over the fraudulent material.) As for she and Rrock having 30-year careers in the same field: it is common for husband and wife to be about the same age and to work in the same field (although not necessarily in the same subspeciality). She did send me an e-mail a few days ago; her signature and her Road Runner e-mail address each contain the same female name. JChap (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Normally a user's real life identity would not be a concern, but Ste4k has discussed her gender, her profession, and her ailments, and antagonized other users over them. But the insertion of fraud, whether the source is herself or himself, is the most important issue, and one which she hasn't addressed. -Will Beback 05:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this could be streamlined. I agree that her over-reaction to people referring to her as "he" is evidence of trollish behavior, and that her edit war over Curse was unacceptable. Maybe we should move the over-reaction diffs to "Takes offense easily" under General problems, leave the Curse issue to the Curse section, and remove the gender section. Would this make things more straightforward? --Nscheffey(T/C) 06:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I've gone ahead and made those changes. The issue is not so much the gender of either Rrock or Ste4k, but whether they are the same person. The bigger issue is still why they would add the self-sourced material to Curse, regardless of whether they are one person or two. -Will Beback 09:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of this. Is the question being raised that he/she is a Sockpuppet [[10]]? I have found it odd how he/she is so familiar with WP policies and procedures for a new user.--Who123 22:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think there's any sign that she is using a sock, or is one, herself. The assertion is that she is the same as Rrock, an energetic poster on the Usenet.[11][12][13]. Rrock is the source for the Curse hoax, has long been engaged in flame-wars on the Usenet, and has written strong (if unusual) opinions on religious matters. Ste4k inserted the curse hoax material, has engaged in edit wars, and has claimed to have no opinions at all on ACIM. -Will Beback 23:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
So, there is no other user name on WP with the same IP address? Rrock is not a user here?--Who123 02:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Not until now. user:Rrock. -Will Beback 05:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The change does a good job of focussing the RfC on the hoaxing issue without unnecessarily invoking an irrelevant and potentially embarrassing matter. JChap (talk • contribs) 15:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll clear this up real easy for you all. I am a woman, my husband is a man, and neither of us has any comment on any political interpretations of the same. I did vote to delete, rather than redirect a recent neologism, though, if you want to look that up and make some sort of political issue out of it. Ste4k 09:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken wikilinks

It appears that a lot of the wikilinks in the "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" (and maybe in other sections) that currently start with "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ste4k/Prepolicy_Discussion" need to be changed to start with "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ste4k/Archives_of_first_three_weeks" to reflect the moving/renaming/archiving of Ste4k's user talk page. I've fixed a few links that had to do with my own comments, but won't have time today to fix the others. Kickaha Ota 16:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that. I think I've fixed the rest. -Will Beback 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commenting in Article

I do not understand where we can and where we cannot place comments. For example, can we comment on Ste4k's response or outside views in the article itself or just here?--Who123 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the norm is to avoid back-and-forth commentary on the RfC page. That sort of discussion should be kept on this page or on user talk pages. -Will Beback 19:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
OK. Is the "Response" section here for comments on Ste4k's response? If so, could it be retitled to something like: "Comments on Ste4k's Response"?--Who123 20:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that'd be fine. -Will Beback 20:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to User:JzG

User:JzG wrote:

  • 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.

I disagree. A single addition of hoax material is a silly thing. Edit warring over it for three days, attacking other editors for removing it, and filing a mediation request to seeks its inclusion goes way beyond a little prank. Nor is it the distant past. Even so, Ste4k could put it behind her if she'd acknowledge it as a mistake. Instead, she has refused to comment on it here, and just last week complained about how poorly she was treated while trying to push the material intended to further another online dispute. She apparently does not recognize any problem with her behavior in that matter. -Will Beback 20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

User:JzG wrote:

  • The "Course in Miracles" business was an example of acting in good faith with a relatively low level of experience.

To me, exhibiting good faith requires being open and honest. After first trying to speedy delete every ACIM-related article, and then nominating every one for AfD she said:

  • My interest is not to delete all ACIM related articles.[14]

If deleting the articles was not her intent, then why did she try to get them deleted twice? It is hard to see the good faith in someone who does one thing, then claims not to have done it. -Will Beback 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's precisely what IO mean by inexperience. When your only tool is a hammer, every problem tends to look like a nail. Those articles are improving slowly but steadily over time, and removal of most of the original research is one of the principal mechanisms for improvement. Now you could argue that removing the entire content and replacing it with new, better content is not really deletion, and you'd be right, but to a newbie the distinction may be less apparent, no? Just zis Guy you know? 12:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I still wonder if she had/has some hidden agenda or motive for wanting to delete the ACIM articles? Why would a user who supposedly knew nothing about the subject want to do that? It is also interesting that she has largely succeeded in this quest as the primary ACIM article is now destroyed and related articles have been deleted.--Who123 21:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about this "it looks likes she's changed" argument, primarily because there is no evidence of it. Furthermore, her discussions in regards to this RfC display many of the original problems. For example, in the discussion on her talk page with Will Beback regarding her edit war to add a hoax to Wikipedia she repeatedly skirts the question, flat out refusing to provide any justification or explanation for her actions. Towards the end she makes a vague threat that due to his "actions today" she will be contacting an "intermediary" and that he will "be advised." This is similar to comments made about me in the Response section of the RfC, namely "because there are other actions pending about that user, I will say no more about it at this time." I have no idea to what she could be referring. She has never explained her refusal to discuss the Greek Statue merge with me, nor her numerous allegations that I "stalked" her. In fact, in her recent conversation with Martinp23 she again asserts that I'm a "stalker", claims that I had "been advised" to stop stalking her, and even suggests that by calling for a third opinion I was using Martin to "game the system"! This all shows no remorse or even comprehension that this type of behavior is hostile and not conducive to progress. Clearly, she is making no effort to change the disputed behavior. --Nscheffey(T/C) 21:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
She has recently called me a "Pawn" of yours, which I disagreed with her about :P (!). I've been asked to remove my endorsement of the RfC, which I also disagree with, as she wishes to take the RfC to arbitration. I'm not sure whether her comment was a threat, but Im going to AGF. Martinp23 22:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
She continues to call me a stalker. I am completely unsatisfied that any of the issues raised in the RfC have even been addressed, much less corrected. --Nscheffey(T/C) 01:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If I'd have had unlimited time I'd have catalogued the stalker charges too. I think that another editor has also been called a stalker by Ste4k. -Will Beback 06:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I intend to do that for you. Ste4k 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ste4k#Outside_view_by_JD_UK

There is a comment that argues with JD_UK's statement in this section on the main page. Ste4k 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statement about 0RR religiously

Between the 20th of June when I was introduced to the concept of WP:0RR, [15] and the 26th of June when I made that statement [16] is there any evidence to the contrary that what I said was untrue? The way this is phrased appears to be painting me as a liar. Ste4k 01:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I stopped counting the edits summarized as "rv" or "revert" during your specified period after I reached eight. [[17][18][19][20] [21] etc. Since that remark you've engaged in several revert wars, in particular over the inclusion of tags, and before it you made 19 reverts in three days. So your comment about faithfully following a policy of never reverting sounds odd. -Will Beback 07:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I looked at your examples just now... are you saying that reverting vandalism is revert warring? Have you looked at those example closely? And did you read the conversation that I was having with the mediation guerilla person and investigate what I was talking about regarding my reverts? (i.e. my talk page) Ste4k 10:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't necessarily followed all of the steps you recommend. It's enough to see that you reverted before and after your statement of not reverting. Even if there was a several-day window when you didn't revert, your overall behavior calls your strong claim of 0RR into question. Saying one thing while doing another is becoming a theme here. -Will Beback 10:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Your examples are about articles, and my statement was to a mediator about my talk page. Ste4k 15:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Huh? What did you mean when you said "I am 0RR. (religiously)"? -Will Beback 19:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
We were talking about 0RR on my talkpage. Now a direct question for you. What does it have to do with anything in the descripotion or the remedy of this RfC? Ste4k 15:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
When you made that comment, you may have meant "I practice 0RR religiously, on my talk page, between the dates of June 20 to June 26", but that isn't what you said nor was that apparent from the context. Without those qualifiers, it sounds as if you were claiming to never revert, which certainly isn't true. A desired remedy is that you be less confrontational, and that your words and deeds are closer together. -Will Beback 18:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 That is not what I meant either. For a person that is looking for another editor to change her ways, you have a pretty narrow and suspicious perspective. If you wanted to badger me for having a hopeful positive outlook and trying to change my ways, then you have just succeeded. You don't appear to be very adept at understanding peoples' intentions. Ste4k 23:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure that I'm imperfect. Please explain your intentions and the best way to get you to change your behavior. -Will Beback 23:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to be real clear here, you are calling what I said, "a claim". It was intended to tell the mediator that I hadn't reverted the comments on my page. If you had a problem with that, and let's keep in mind that there was no dispute about me saying that with the mediator, then you should have brought that to my attention at the time, told me what I had done wrong in discussion, and how to correct it. As I mentioned before, you are taking all sorts of little things out of context, mixing them together and trying to make some sort of A + B = C synthesis out of it. This is exactly the same sort of thinking that fails to convince me while you and I are working on articles; and you know that there isn't anything irrational about that perspective. Ste4k 23:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been changing my behavior for a month in very many ways and from very different sources of information. It's called "fitting in" and it's a process. I read everything that is said to me and take it to heart. The ten names on this RfC aren't even representative of 1% of all of the various editors whom I have taken input from. Ste4k 00:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments in edit summary

" 23:54, 24 July 2006 Will Beback (Talk | contribs) (→Statement about 0RR religiously - you tell us) "

Several questions regarding my heritage, nationality, etc, have been raised to ascertain what will require a change...

Do you live in a culture where it is appropriate to ask people to apologize for things they haven't done? I haven't any intention to apologize for things that I haven't done, nor do I intend to be a scapegoat for the acts of several other people. Just because I don't complain, doesn't mean that I don't notice. If you want to turn this RfC around, then since it's in writing and published, you will need to remove the unfounded allegations. If you haven't researched these matters well enough in the first place then I suggest you delete the whole affair and we put it in our past. Ste4k 01:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Which of the issues we've raised do you consider founded? I'd gotten the impression that you consider all of them unfounded. -Will Beback 04:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You are asking me to do your work for you, again. If you are going to make allegations, research should come first, imho. If you read my response, it notes which allegations are unfounded, how, and makes suggestions. You might want to start with some of the conversations called unresolved disputes that actually ended up amicably. Ste4k 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
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] Negative Personal Comments "anti-productive" and "trolling"

Regarding this comment of mine:

  • "I am very tired of his bickering, and trolling. He is uncooperative and anti-productive"

What is the purpose of this statement being in this RfC? It was made on a talk-page in a small corner of the WikiWorld. If it is considered a "negative personal comment" then what is an RfC considered that has as it's description of dispute: "Unfortunately, her overall impact on Wikipedia so far has not been productive...Much of her participation in this project can be described properly as 'trolling'" ? If my little statement on a talk-page in the corner of the Wikiworld is considered a "Negative Personal Comment", then doesn't that mean that this RfC is a "Negative Personal RfC"? The intent of an RfC is not to be punitive, and certainly not to be "brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary". [22]. -- Ste4k 02:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to refute was you just said, but then I realized none of it made sense. It's text that doesn't mean anything. --mboverload@ 03:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Negative personal comments are best avoided on Wikipedia. Personal attacks are prohibited. A motto at Wikipedia is "comment on the edit, not to editor". 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)

I doubt seriously that if I were to make such a complaint about a person in an RfC that it would be considered in good faith. I also believe that you should define "trolling" because I don't think that you are referring to the same idea that I am familar with. I am also curious how you could possibly have understood my questions (which you did), at the same time that it is considered to be "text that doesn't mean anything". Ste4k 06:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

From Internet troll:
  • [A] troll is someone who comes into an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive messages designed intentionally to annoy and antagonize the existing members or disrupt the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls.
As attestd by many experienced editors, your behavior has been disrupting and antagonizing. Whether or not it is intentional is open to surmise. -Will Beback 06:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That is not the idea that I understood and my usage is from other cultures. Trolls that I have encountered purposely pit people against one another by disguising themselves and impersonating conversations of various individuals. Other trolls make a patterned habit out of investigating the actions of other individuals to whom they haven't any specific relationship except within their own minds. Other trolls purposely misconstrue what a person says to specifically intensify or enflame a conversation. Some trolls are even a combination of these. The word "trolling" is usually used to signify some sort of long action or series of actions such as phishing or spam or a combination of both. Sending mass quantities of unsolicited e-mail with bogus urls and an impersonation of an actual company falls into this category.

Of specific commonality to both of our definitions, I notice the word "repetitive". Have you examples of my repetitve rude, inflammatory, or offensive messages directed at any particular individual? Did you research your examples well enough to know that several of them actually ended up amicably and resulted in e-mail conversations out of the public view? In that regard have you examples where I intended to be combative for the purpose of combat rather than simply a dispute in coversation over the content of an article? Ste4k 10:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are examples of such behavior in this RfC. -Will Beback 19:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Repetitive rude, inflammatory and offensive remarks directed at a specific individual for the sole purpose of being combative? Ste4k 00:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The repetitive rude, inflammatory and offensive remarks needn't be directed at a single indivdual to count as trolling. -Will Beback 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If you want to turn this RfC around, Will, it would helpful to be specifc, rather than vague. You mentioned that there are examples of RIAO here, but you have pointed them out to me, nor explained how each is RIAO. If we come from different cultures, Will, then that should not be held against a person. Diversity adds value to the encyclopedia, which is the project goal. As I write this, we have 1,856,960 registered user accounts, of which 969 (or 0.05%) belong to administrators. There are perhaps a dozen or a few more users conversing on this page. Ste4k 12:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The entire RfC lists dozens of specific instances of inflammatory, rude, repetitive or offensive postings by you. I'm not going to copy the entire thing here. Please read the RfC. -Will Beback 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ACIM

I noted above "I still wonder if she had/has some hidden agenda or motive for wanting to delete the ACIM articles? Why would a user who supposedly knew nothing about the subject want to do that? It is also interesting that she has largely succeeded in this quest as the primary ACIM article is now destroyed and related articles have been deleted." [[23]]

I had last checked the ACIM page about a month ago. At that time it was essentially the same long standing article. When I checked back recently the section on EA had been removed and replaced by a section on FACIM. FACIM and EA have been involved in a multi-million dollar lawsuit that cost FACIM/FIP the loss of their primary copyright, their Service-Mark on "A Course in Miracles", and their Trademark on the acronym "ACIM". This led me to believe that someone associated with FACIM had replaced the EA information with FACIM information.

As I became involved in this I learned about the widespread changes apparently involving many ACIM related articles. The Anderson article (the head of EA) was deleted. Now he/she wishes to delete the EA article.

He/she has been arguing with little logic why people should not use the acronym "ACIM". It is as if FACIM is trying to protect their now void Trademark by bullying.

I just noted this on his/her talk page: "==License tagging for Image:Wapnickk.jpg== Thanks for uploading Image:Wapnickk.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)" [[24]]

Why did she upload an image of Ken Wapnick (the head of FACIM)?

This is all indirect evidence that she is acting as an agent on behalf of FACIM. My initial impressions are strengthened. Is it really true that he/she had not heard of ACIM until a few weeks ago?

--Who123 03:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't read too much into this. Scott Perry uploaded the Wapnick photo originally. Ste4k just edited it to remove a border. -Will Beback 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
OK--Who123 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is another note from his/her talk page: "Why the push to delete or significantly rewrite all ACIM related articles? Dear Ste4k,
I am the one whose articles you have been trying to delete, many of which you have already had deleted, some of which fortunately were caught before it was too late. You seem to believe that I have some sort of a vested interest in promoting ACIM, and that you must stop me. I don't know. I certainly despaired when I came back from my 4th of July vacation to find so many of the articles that I had researched long hours to create trashed, deleted, or nominated for deletion! Indeed I am an ACIM student, and admittedly I have a pro-ACIM bias. Still, I have done this primarily to further my own study of ACIM, and if anyone else might have benefitted from my work, then I thought, 'so be it'. All of the main article was reviewed by several others familiar with ACIM and it was agreed that it was an accurate summary of the work. Will get back to you later. -Scott P. 16:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)" [[25]]

--Who123 03:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I also note this on his/her talk page: The Original Barnstar - For improving Allerton High School 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)}}

Is this deserved? This is an article on a high school. I question its notability. Is WP the place to have an article on every pre-school, grade school, middle school, high school, and every other school across the world? Why does Ste4k accept this article and so visciously attack ACIM articles for notability?--Who123 04:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)"

--Who123 04:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Its just a barnstar, which means little. Get over it. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The barnstar is not the issue. The issue is different standards of notability by Ste4k when this article is compared to ACIM. If this were an ACIM article it would have been deleted by Ste4k by now.--Who123 16:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Um, Ste4k did nominate Allerton High School for deletion [26] due to lack of "reliable secondary sources to provide any notability to this school". I don't understand your complaint here. -MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Ste4k deserves some credit for this (which she's received). Ste4k nominated the article for deletion, which received overwhelming support for "keep". After the AfD was completed Ste4k edited the article to improve it. Now she could have done that without nominating it for AfD, but the result was good. -Will Beback 06:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I was unaware of the AfD. This makes sense and is a plus for Ste4k. It still speaks to the notability of ACIM articles by comparison and the deletion of ACIM articles and proposed deletion on notability grounds.--Who123 17:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This was not a comment about her work on the article. It is a comment regarding notability and how the user's standards appear to be quite different when it comes to ACIM.--Who123 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would provide the same answer to Who123 on my talk page where the same comment was injected into conversation tonight and I was afraid to reply in any manner whatsoever. You'll find that comment here. [27] -- Ste4k 06:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I addressed the issue on your talk page. I apologize that I did not know the full history.--Who123 21:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Forgiven and forgotten. Ste4k 15:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

We have begun to move forward on the article. After Ste4k reduced the article to a stub Ste4k commented "The introduction is now quoted from a reliable secondary source. Ste4k 05:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)". Ste4k's stub article of the Introduction and History with references were then imported into the main article with very minor changes. Ste4k now writes "The introduction is now no longer quoted from a reliable secondary source. Ste4k 01:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC) The introduction is advertising for the publisher instead. Ste4k 01:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)."

This editor is almost impossible to work with. It certainly appears that his/her primary purpose, at least in the ACIM articles, is obstruction and destruction.--Who123 03:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rrock's comments

Mboverload left the following comment on the main RfC page in response to Rrock's sudden appearance and post:

  • Wow, this is the stupidest RfC stunt I have ever seen.

According to the RfC procedures, that was an inappropriate place to leave that comment; comments on others' summaries, and replies to those comments, go on the talk page.

That being said, here's my comment on Rrock's comments: I suppose I could say "This is the stupidest RfC stunt I have ever seen", but that would be pretty stupid itself, since I've probably only participated in two or three RfCs since I've been here. But I will say this: it's quite remarkably stupid.

It may be that Rrock is genuine, and is genuinely Ste4k's spouse. In that case, we have a Wikipedia user who responds to complaints about her Wikipedia behavior by retrieving her husband from the real world, someone who apparently has never participated in Wikipedia before, and having him launch into a tirade that neatly encapsulates nearly every negative behavior that Ste4k has been accused of, and culminating in a vague, ludicrous, my-genitalia-is-bigger-than-yours challenge to "come over to my turf". And all of this has apparently been done in the belief that this will help.

Or it may be that Rrock is simply a sockpuppet of Ste4k. In that case, either Ste4k is sincere and believes that this will somehow help her cause, or is insincere and merely taking the trolling to the next level.

It almost doesn't matter now who is right about this conflict. (Personally, I think there are valid criticisms to be made of a number of folks that Ste4k has interacted with, myself included; but even though I hate to say it, the sheer number of conflicts that Ste4k has generated over such a short period of time are leading me towards a conclusion of 'If enough people think you're being an asshole, they may be on to something.') Judging from both Ste4k's initial response and this... thing... from the alleged Rrock, it seems pretty clear that there is not going to be a voluntary change in behavior here, and that a Request for Arbitration is appropriate. Kickaha Ota 05:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

He was honest, and trust me, very mild. In a nutshell he raised the concern of my own as I addressed in my response. An RfC is supposed to be about one dispute, as it reads second sentence on the page: "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes" [28]. And this RfC even states for itself that it is about different disputes. "This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor" [29]. In my opinion, if there are policies and guidelines then they are intended to be followed. Here in this RfC many are telling me to change my ways, but I can only really see a large consensus in the policies. It's just me. I am a law abiding person. There are many people in the world that do not follow the law. Clearly they disagree with the laws. That doesn't give them the right to violate the laws. It is very confusing for me to try and operate and function in an anarchy. This does not appear to be an anarchy though, so what is it? If anything it is a small operating model of society as a whole that has established for itself, by its own means, rules to follow. I don't believe in a middle ground. Things are either done, or not done. That's me. If you don't like me, then fine. But that is not proper basis for a dispute. I have also been told that just because one person does something wrong that it doesn't justify doing the same. This RfC is wrong, and it has done nothing but alienate me from working on articles. By combining all of these little disputes en masse, most of them settled, it is overwhelming, doesn't address any specific issue, is filled with contradictory complaints, and not helpful in the least. Keep in mind that you may have seen three RfCs, but that is three times more than I have. Thanks. Ste4k 07:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Acting like you have a husband/bringing your "husband" along to challenge me to a "throwdown" boxing match with him...Wow. We should rename this Request for Circus. This is beyond stupid. --mboverload@ 07:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
First, Rrock, has posted material that appears to express religious viewpoints, in particular: [30][31] And, to a lesser extent, [32][33][34][35][36] I can't describe the viewpoints Rrock has expressed, but only note that they appear different from the ACIM concepts.
Second, the "curse" hoax appears to have been the product of another dispute on Rrock's home "turf". This household apparently believes in moving disputes to unrelated websites.
Lastly, this isn't the Usenet. Our aim here is to further a specific project, creating the world's encyclopedia. While we've established many policies, procedures, and guidelines, one of our core policies remains "ignore all rules". The good-faith comments of numerous editors about this user's conduct may not be dismissed simply because one or another rule hasn't been followed. Please listen to the underlying message: Ste4k needs to forego the disruptive behaviors listed in the RfC. Even her supporters agree about that. -Will Beback 09:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
In regards to mboverload comments, I know for a fact that he doesn't even know who you are. Per the statement that I just made. I don't even know who you are. What anything he had to say has to do with boxing is beyond me. For your sake, and in that regard, I am pretty sure that he was saying that if you wanted to be rude and call me dirty names then you should probably look him up on UseNet and discuss the matter there.
Per your comments, Will, about the first set, I won't discuss anything religious about my husband, and you can also talk to him yourself. I am not even going to look at the examples you are providing. I also don't know much about the concepts of Schucman. I am only familiar with the facts as presented by well established secondary sources. Since you have mentioned here that you do know the "ACIM" concepts, then perhaps you would like to expand on how you believe that any of my behavior is particularly biased, or unsuitable for working on those articles. I suggest being specific in that regard.
Per your second concerns I will only caution you to speak about the content and refrain from making presumptions about peoples' families in public. If you want an explanation you might get one from me, but only in private, and only on a friendly basis. I don't believe that you would like it very much if we started talking about your mother here. I think that if you took an objective view of your own actions, that if some other editor wanted to bring up previously undiscussed curiosity about your mother in an RfC that you would probably be as willing to discuss the matter as I am.
About your third set of comments, Will, you have yet to establish that any specific behavior is ongoing or repetitive. I am learning. I change. I make mistakes. I correct them. Your RfC here has impeded that in a significant manner, especially by addressing old amicably resolved issues, issues that have never been discussed before, ignoring the primary steps of discussion about ALL of these matters, which has given you a biased outlook and an unprepared perspective. If you want to know about me, then talk to me. Reading little bits of conversations instead of understanding the relationships is an extremely narrow point of view, and combining it all together makes you look like you are grasping at straws. You are trying to fix a problem that is self correcting, and reversing its progress in a negative direction. Ste4k 10:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

After reading User talk:Rrock's comment it seems to show the same behavior patterns as Ste4k. I also find the writing style odd for a husband coming to his wife's defense. This may be her husband. If so, I find it odd that he has not been a user at WP before now. I also find it odd that he would be so late in coming to his wife's defense. When I went to the user's discussion page I found this: " at least make a page Your name is going to be all red and look like your angry or something. Ste4k 04:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)" [37]. I find this odd. Why would Ste4k not just turn to her husband and suggest this or do it for him if he wanted? I wonder how two people with this personality have been able to remain married for 30 years. The other possibility is that Ste4k and Rrock are the same person. I do not know but this is my guess. In any case, I do not think any of Rrock's votes should be counted.--Who123 12:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all these oddities aren't really relevant (or helpful) for this discussion. And this isn't a vote, but rather a discussion. Let's try to help resolve this dispute, ok? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe that "this dispute" can be stated as a single dispute and cannot be resloved as the same. Ste4k 15:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page issues

When I first tried to leave a comment on Ste4k's talk page she had a notice telling people not to post comments there. I now see a boxed comment by Ste4k at the top. I was surprised to see an American flag in the box. Perhaps my memory is poor but I seem to recall Ste4k saying somewhere that she is from another country in Europe and now lives in the UK.

Recently, I left a comment on the RfC to let Ste4k know I had endorsed the RfC. She moved my comment with this comment: "Hello Who123, please try to remember to use a section of your own to speak with me on my talk page. That way I don't need to guess what the general topic pertains to. Thanks. Ste4k 22:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)" [38]. I find this odd. Does Ste4k expect each user now to have their own section on her talk page and only put their comments there? Multiple users are not allowed to comment on the same subject?--Who123 12:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Who123, about your questions regarding my person, please see the 14th Ammendment of the U.S. Constitution. Regarding you questions about my discussion page:
  1. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission.
  2. No insults: Don't write that user such and so is an idiot, or otherwise insult them (even if they are an idiot). Instead, explain what they did wrong, why it is wrong, and how to fix it.
  3. Assume good faith: In other words, try to consider the person on the other end of the discussion as a thinking, rational being who is trying to positively contribute to Wikipedia — unless, and only unless, you have firm, solid, and objective proof to the contrary. Merely disagreeing with you is no such proof.
  4. If you are having a disagreement or a problem with someone's behavior, please read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.
  5. Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article.
  6. Separate discussion topics, with new topics at the end: Put each new conversation topic or major thread at the end of the talk page, under a different section header (== Subject ==). This uses section headers like the "Subject line" in email messages.
  7. Proceed descendingly within topics: Within each topic, chronological order should also be preserved: the further down the contribution to talk, the later in time it was made.
  8. Avoid markup: Don't use a lot of Italic text, Bolded text, or CAPITAL LETTERS. These are considered SHOUTING, and contribute to the view that you are RANTING!!!!!
  9. Please refrain from using headers to personally address people on talk pages. Headers should be used to facilitate discussion by indicating and limiting topics related to the article.
  10. Article talk pages should be used for discussing the articles and how to improve them, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article.
  11. If the community lets you know that they would rather you deleted some or other content from your user space, you should probably do so, at least for now - such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. After you've been here for a while, and written lots of great articles, the community may be more inclined to let you get away with it. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it. If you do not cooperate, we will eventually simply remove inappropriate content, either by editing the page (if only part of it is inappropriate), or by redirecting it to your main user page (if it is entirely inappropriate).

Hope this helps. Ste4k 14:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why everything (or anything) you posted here applies to me. This is just another example of your mis-use of WP material and your ability to communicate with others.--Who123 21:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for quoting excertps from Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. How do your actions comport with #9? You seem to have gone out of your way to create antagonisitic section headings. Do you feel you've done anything incorrectly in regard to your talk page, or have all of your actions been perfect? -Will Beback 19:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
My actions were in direct response to what I had been taught was the norm by consensus. You had become aware of such actions yourself and ignored them. The heading in this very section is against the WP:TPG guidelines. At one point during a session where I was being actively harassed, you advised me not to edit war even though I was right. Then you advised the very same to the other party. You completely ignored that I had been harassed, and you have participated to aid in that harassment even if you were unaware. Ste4k 15:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly how is this section heading against WP:TPG Guidelines? Would you please document your assertions above?--Who123 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Ste4k, when you feel you are being harassed the right response is to seek dispute resolution or file a complaint. The wrong solution is to add large, multi-color headers attacking your perceived harasser. I can't imagine who taught you that doing so is the "norm", as I've never seen anyone do that the way that you did. -Will Beback 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's not mix up two different issues. There is large multi-colored heading in this very sub topic which is against WP:TPG for exactly the same reasons you are describing. Ste4k 23:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
The issues aren't different. This is an RfC, so comments about you are appropriate. -Will Beback 23:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
You've missed the point. There is a clear difference between how my username is used on this page as a subject rather than a predicate. You also seem to have selectively forgotten other instances of the same that exist on your talk page. Is there any reason that I should take your advice when you yourself fail to heed it? Ste4k 00:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not a talk page, it is a RfC and WP:TPG simply does not apply to this page.--Who123 00:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is a talk page, for the RfC (hence the "Wikipedia talk:" in the page title. WP:TPG applies for any talk page throughout the project. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, sorry. I was confused between User Talk Pages and WP Talk Pages. I still do not understand Ste4k's concerns.--Who123 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I 've changed it to avoid another distraction, though I would not say that the heading was anything close to the headings that Ste4k put up here [39] and here [40], which I think were intended to be antagonistic. -Will Beback 04:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Your opinion about those seems to me to be contradictory. Do you also feel that this example is antagonistic? Ste4k 12:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Adding heading that say, "Nscheffey makes confusing comments about what I should or shouldn't like", and "Nscheffey advises not to follow the guidelines" (though that is not his advice) appears to me to be intentionally antagonistic. -Will Beback 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that you put that into writing. Thanks. Ste4k 18:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Ste4k refuses to address this issue or any others. Of course those headings were intentionally antagonistic, as any honest observer would agree. --Nscheffey(T/C) 21:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a patent falsehood. You seem to combine a flimsy grasp of policy with a stubborn and self righteous nature, a dangerous combination. Ste4k 01:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making things worse

Seems this RfC is just making things worse rather than trying to bring editors together to constructively discuss and guide Ste4k's approach and actions. Its turned into yet another example of editors talking past and around each other, trying to find minutiae to discredit the bases of questions (and the RfC overall), and its not getting anywhere. (Which somewhat reminds me of my only interaction with Ste4k [41]). We need to get by the wikilawyernig and move forward. While I agreed with the Outside view by JD UK that Ste4k had made progress in terms of relating with other editors, the last few days on this RfC bring that into doubt. That said, I also don't think it is all Ste4k's fault - seems many editors refuse to "forgive & forget" and continue to find ways to provoke Ste4k within this RfC. This all is nonsense, and does little to help improve the encyclopedia, which needs to be the primary concern here.

Let's all just start over, perhaps agree to a day or two of "radio silence," start working on separate articles, and just see what happens if we stop being confrontational with each other and try to find ways to constructively help each other become better Wikipedians. </lecture> --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I am sorry but I totally disagree with this. I do not think we should just cover our eyes or brush all of this under the rug. The problem is not the people commenting, it is Ste4k's behavior.--Who123 14:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we brush things under the rug. The very existence of this RfC is testament to the desire to make these issues public and deal with them collectively. My problem is that the method used by many here remains confrontational rather than working towards either constructive criticism or an outright solution. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree. Antagonizing someone who has trouble responding civilly with an aggressively worded and dubiously organized RfC is not the way to resolve the problem, folks... -- nae'blis (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think that just "stepping back" is a viable option at this point; I think that the ill feelings on all sides have gone too far. It does not appear that Ste4k is going to change her behavior voluntarily, and it does not appear that the people who have challenged (and in some cases deliberately provoked) Ste4k are going to change their behavior either. I think the only way we're going to get closure to this is through a period of probation (where provocative acts on either side can be immediately stopped); that's going to require an arbitration. Kickaha Ota 17:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ste4k shows no interest in stepping back and instead is escalating the matter. -Will Beback 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording outside views?

Is it appropriate to re-word outside views after they have already been endorsed by other users? [42]. Concerned that it might change a user's choice to endorse, and they'd have to be watching closely to ensure they're not still endorsing an opinion that has changed. (Not saying JD UK's edit means harm or necessarily causes problems, just wondering general policy). Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 13:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself, since my response was in reply to the article before [43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] happened. Ste4k 13:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Most of the edits you present were simply formatting or correction of bad links - not substantive changes of content or tone. Feel free to amend your response. My concern has to do substantive with changes to an "outside view" which might affect other users' endorsement of said view. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The changes I made were only minor; I didn't feel they would be that big of a problem, as my English seemed pretty dodgy, especially since I was a bit tired when I first wrote my outside view thing. If people want to revert it to how it was before, I won't have a problem with that. --JD[don't talk|email] 15:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well since bad links were evidence I probably got the wrong impression from a lot them, just a guess, but I would have to go back an reread the entire thing to be fair and rewrite an entire different response, or at least different sections. The way the page originally appeared to me, it was some fairly strict rules, Will's comments, very explicit rules about how to respond and where exactly to sign. So I did that. Ste4k 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that you re-read the RfC. You do not seem to be familiar with its contents. -Will Beback 21:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
You do not seem to be familiar with its contents. Ste4k 01:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Remedy

In the RfC this is the proposed 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."

  • After reading Ste4k's response and the discussion here, I do not agree with this remedy. I think this user's behavior toward others and in editing articles is completely unacceptable. 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)
While a block is one (of many) possible solutions, your inference that a user could also be blocked from even viewing Wikipedia is quite wrong & dangerous. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 15:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not know the mechanics of how WP works and what is possible and not possible. I was not suggesting that Ste4k be blocked from viewing WP.--Who123 16:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a Request for Comments. The only dispute resolution procedure that can actually lead to punishment of users is a Request for Arbitration. Kickaha Ota 17:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. Will this decide if this goes to a Request for Arbitration?--Who123 17:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyone can start a Request for Arbitration. But it's up to the arbitration committee to decide whether or not to actually accept the request and start an arbitration. The Request for Comments (and all the other dispute resolution procedures that have been tried) are still all important to the process, because arbitration requests will usually be refused unless all the other dispute resolution procedures have already been tried, and because the cases presented to the arbitrators are usually based in large part on the comments made during the previous dispute resolutions. Kickaha Ota 20:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you again for explaining the procedures to me. In light of this, I still stand by my initial comment but instead think at this point that a Request for Arbitration may be in order.--Who123 21:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Kickaha Ota has it exactly right. Since a User RfC seeks to modify the editing behavior of an editor it is fitting to allow some time to see if the problem behaviors will change. If they don't, and if other relevant dispute resolutions procedures don't help either, then an RfAr is appropriate. -Will Beback 21:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. I would just like to point out that although I have enjoyed WP for some time I have only had an account for a few months and did few edits. It is only in the last 3 weeks that I have become very active as an editor. I have learned much in these 3 weeks but there is still so much more that I do not know and would like to learn. I certainly welcome helpful advice particularly because I am new.
  • I still have not seen one comment by Ste4k where she indicates that she may have some problems. I have not seen any change in her behavior towards me or other users. Although I would like to see a positive result short and long term from this process, I do not see it. I suspect that Ste4k will only worsen, particularly with the users who endorsed this process. I suspect Ste4k views us as enemies now. I am at a loss as to where to go from here. I leave it in the hands of more experienced users and Administrators.--Who123 22:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps disengagement? --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Once this RfC simmers down then we should wait and see if Ste4k changes her behavior. -Will Beback 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
That is my plan here unless I see new comments or ones that I have missed that are in need of response. One of my concerns is that the ACIM articles are in disarray at this point. I would like to see things put back in order and then continued improvement. I do not know how that should be addressed.--Who123 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The work on ACIM articles should progress normally. Ste4k has made several comments ot the effect that she has no interest in ACIM, and would be glad to be done with the topic. So she might or might not participate. That shouldn't affect the decision to work on articles. -Will Beback 18:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a hurry? Ste4k 12:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what that question is in regard to. -Will Beback 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Well put simply, now that I am out the way, working on that article is back to "normal". If you go look at the complaints you have on the main page, basically all you're saying is that I am not allowed to work on any articles. It's the same intent as the other editors there who have endorsed this RfC. [52] -- Ste4k 18:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For my benefit

In the RfC it is listed as a "General Problem" that I "Implied that a subject will sue if we include a link." I am completely confused about how this is a General Problem, and would like this addressed by someone other than before. Will, JzG, JChap, or MichaelZimmer would be my preference. Thanks.

I can't tell if I'm asked to respond or to not respond. Anyway, it is included as an example of an irrational concern. -Will Beback 19:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
How is WP:LIBEL and the associated material irrational? How is the burden of evidence in biographies of livings persons irrational? Why would it be a "General problem" for these policies and guidelines to be considered? Ste4k 15:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how Chuck Anderson would be libelled by a Wikipedia article that links from his biography to A Course in Miracles. -Will Beback 18:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Please don't digress from the topic of whether or not WP:LIBEL is irrational. This RfC is not about article content but behavior. I don't intend to be swayed into a political discussion about policy interpretation here. You have your POV on policy, and I have mine. A difference between two POV's is not a "general problem" of "one individual". If anything it is diversity that helps the encyclopedia achieve NPOV. That you have listed this as a General Problem looks to me like pushing your POV and having nine other editors back it up to subdue my own. Many of those other editors haven't even been party to discussions between you and me on this topic. There is no dispute that exists between them and me regarding this topic and yet you have them endorsing the entire complaint. Why? Ste4k 00:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I haven't changed the topic. I think that it is irrational to suppose that somone who claims to teach based on "A course in Miracles" would sue Wikipedia or its editors because his biography contained a link to our article on A Course in Miracles, and I believe that it was a flimsy excuse for removing that link. I think that this is characteristic of your editing behavior. -Will Beback 04:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You are digressing the point and discussing the article. It is only your opinion that what you state was my point. I will not repeat my points about that article in this discussion and I do not agree with your synopsis of what I said. In order to discuss any of that, we would have to discuss the article. It is not a General Problem for an editor to have a point of view. Ste4k 12:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Since you've copied the whole discussion below there is no need to rely on my synopsis of what you said. The problem here is that you used a flimsy, irrational excuse to justify removing an important internal link. You've been unable or unwilling to explain why your reasoning is rational. This is indeed indicative of your general behavior. -Will Beback 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So you think that people that remove unsourced material is a flimsy excuse. That is indicative of your general behavior as well. Do you actually want a better encyclopedia Will? Ste4k 18:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That is an entirely incorrect summary of what I said. I said that you made an irrational argument that an internal link should be removed becasue the subject of an article might sue us if we kept it. -21:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevent Discussion from my talk page

Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey(T/C) 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review this and reconsider your actions from an objective viewpoint. Thanks. Ste4k 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey(T/C) 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not uncalm. I don't know why you would think I am. I don't know this man, and I don't dislike him, and I don't like him either way, he is just another human. He was involved in a one-million dollar law-suit. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? If you have not been reading the ongoing conversation, then please do so since it is at least four or five screens long now. Thanks. Ste4k 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Not only have I read the talk page, I've commented on it. The link to ACIM should be on there because he was involved in a one million dollar law suit over it. That makes it relevent to the article. What about that don't you understand? I have yet to see you directly reply to a point I (or any one else) have made. Try it. --Nscheffey(T/C) 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

...Ste4k 14:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People Missing

It appears that we are missing two key editors in this (that I know of):

Andrew Parodi
Scottperry

Is there any way to contact them?--Who123 17:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, leave a message on their talk pages: User talk:Andrew Parodi & User talk:Scottperry --MichaelZimmer (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not getting anywhere

I can't see how any rational person could still assume good faith after Ste4k endorsed Rrock's comments. She could have ended this whole thing with one paragraph saying, I've made some misakes and I'm sorry. That would have been it. Instead, look what this RfC has turned into. If we ignore this problem (as some have suggested) who's to say Ste4k won't just bring this attitude and behavior to another article and another set of editors will have to waste a lot of time dealing with her? The fact that she thinks Rrock's comments are appropriate and constructive illustrates a dangerous misunderstanding of Wikipedia. I've seen many editors attempt to explain her actions, but I haven't heard any from her. I'd like to see more input from previously uninvolved editors, as I can't believe anyone can excuse her behavior at this point. --Nscheffey(T/C) 00:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Though Ste4k has not taken responsibility for her past actions, we can still hope that her future actions will be different. If they aren't then other dispute resolution procedures will be needed. -Will Beback 01:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this action seems to have gone nowhere. Although many users endorsed this process and spent time on it, what has it amounted to? My particular involvement was with the ACIM articles where Ste4k has left a path of destruction. It is much easier to destroy then to create. If I were User:Scottperry or any of the other authors of ACIM articles, I would be left with the impression of, "Why bother contributing to WP?"--Who123 16:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't give up. It's easy to rebuild. Nothing is truly deleted - it's all in the page histories. -Will Beback 18:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate you mentioning that, especially in regard to what is considered the "Main Article" by some people on "A Course in Miracles". Your statement in that regard on the main RfC is incorrect. You have it listed under the statement "Ste4k sought to delete every single article connected to A Course in Miracles". You have it listed under Speedy Deletes without a reference. I haven't checked the others yet, but your statement about the article "A Course in Miracles" is incorrect.
There is another matter about that article though, that appears to be blaming me for trying to delete the topic. Per the consensus of the FACIM AfD, six editors voted to merge, and the remaining four voted to keep.
Since much of your research into the allegations of this RfC are in my opinion unfounded, can you explain why you have me listed as trying to delete all articles regarding "A Course in Miracles", and can you explain who performed the merge to add the FACIM article into "A Course in Miracles" and how that entire section ended up deleted against the consensus of ten other editors voting in AfD? (i.e. can you show that it was indeed not me rather than as it is painted to be in this RfC) Ste4k 00:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
This is not the correct section for these comments.--Who123 01:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It is correct that the outcome of the AFD on FACIM that Ste4k initiated was to merge rather than delete. It is also correct that once it was merged ("dumped" is more appropriate) into ACIM by Ste4k it was subsequently deleted by Who123. I have discussed this with him and we are seeking a solution. I don't believe that Ste4k is accused of this in the RfC. The RfC does show that Ste4k nominated Chuck Anderson for deletion, then proposed a merger with EA and, once the merger was complete, argued that Anderson had nothing to do with EA and should be deleted. The RfC asserts, but does not include diffs to support, that the content of other articles that were merged into ACIM and was subsequently deleted by Ste4k. (If it would make a difference I'm sure we can substantiate this in detail) Lastly, Ste4k did indeed nominate every ACIM-related article for deletion, in many cases twice, and then said that she had "no interest" in having them all deleted. -Will Beback 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
As stated earlier, I did not propose a merger. I carried out the fruition of the AfD that I had nominated. The AfD was closed as no consensus. Applying a maintenance tag was done on behalf of all whom had proposed the merger. The tag was marked disputed on behalf of all of those whom voted for deletion. The FACIM is another matter of maintenance. I proposed the AfD, and it was voted to be merged. Following the exact guidelines for how to perform a merge, is not dumping an article. There were several active editors that had several days of opportunity to merge any sections that they felt were needed. Again, I nominated the article for deletion. To be objectively neutral about the matter, I followed the wishes of the AfD consensus. And all of the editors whom had voted to merge, had plenty of opportunity to carry out fine tuning.
You haven't yet addressed why it is mentioned that the Article "A Course in Miracles" was put up by me for deletion.
About the articles and substantiating allegations, yes, I agree that all of your allegations should first be substantiated, or removed if necessary, before asking me to apologize for things I haven't done. In my culture, apologizing for something that one hasn't done is lying. If you feel that you are running into a brick wall, then perhaps you should consider that my word is of much higher value to me than your opinion of my demeanor. Ste4k 13:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You nominated A Course in Miracles for speedy deletion here.[53]
Your role in the Anderson/EA merger is covered with links in the RfC, but adding merger tags is the same as proposing a merger.
I don't know what culture you belong to. But ten editors who belong to this culture have certified that you have engaged in problematic behavior. An apology is not the outcome we're looking for, a change in behavior is. At best your activities in this RfC don't indicate an awareness of the problems or, viewed cynically, are examples of further trolling. -Will Beback 20:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Did you want to try and find another URL for that Will? There isn't any speedy deletion in that one. Do you actually look at the diffs or do you just make assumptions about them?
Adding merger tags is not the same as proposing a merger. Where did you get that idea? Have you read WP:MERGE?
Yes the change of behavior that you desire is evident. You don't want me working on those articles and are being uncivil yourself by calling me a troll. There isn't any excuse for incivility Will, RfC or otherwise. That's the policy Will. That's the spirit of the policy as well as the verbatim writing. Opening up this RfC to subdue an adversary and then using it as a venue for personal attack only deters the community from creating a good encyclopedia. Ste4k 18:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It appears that this section has been diverted from its original intent. I do not think this is going anywhere. I have read that this should just all be forgotten and swept under the rug. I do not agree with this. I have also read some say it is the fault of other editors. I do not agree with that either. I do agree with the original comment.--Who123 22:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure who suggested that this "all be forgotten and swept under the rug," but one important step in dispute resolution is disengagement. There has been a lot of bickering back and forth here, with little progress towards resolution. I would suggest to all parties to let this page rest for a day, and go on and edit articles as normal. And simply see what happens. Perhaps, perhaps, Ste4k might make productive contributions to the project itself, instead of this page. The proposed remedy was "We request that she stop the problematic behaviors listed above and instead contribute Wikipedia in a more positive, less confrontational manner." Ok, now everyone has had a few days to vent. Now lets see if the remedy takes hold. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration filed against Nscheffey

Ste4k has now filed a Request for Arbitration against Nscheffey, alleging harrassment and wikistalking. This arbitration request clearly seems to be tied into the overall dispute here, and I have placed a statement in the arbitration request referring the arbitrators to this RfC and suggesting arbitration of the whole dispute. Kickaha Ota 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, Kickaha, it may have something to do with this RfC, but it is not because of this RfC. I'd like to make that clear. If you note the date of my response and the content in it, you will also note that the arbitration on that matter was already being discussed. Ste4k 13:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
They are clearly related. The fact that you do not see this speaks for itself. Who is next on your list?--Who123 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
How is your question helpful in this RfC? It only goes to show that this RfC was created in bad faith. Ste4k 19:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good development, as Ste4k has now (albeit unintentionally) opened an RfArb on herself. --Nscheffey(T/C) 20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Using cool down templates is a General problem?

Under General Problems on the main page, it states: "Used templates in a condescending, uncommunicative manner."

This template was applied to the talk page right after the closing of an AfD. Why is it a general problem, condescending, and uncommunicative to apply a Dove of Peace that reads: "This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page."? Ste4k 14:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Much more could be added under that heading. In the example provided there hadn't been any heated debates, frequent or otherwise. -Will Beback 19:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That is certainly only your opinion, and it certainly doesn't have anything to back it up. The way you have it stated is that I made condescending and uncommicative application of a Dove of Peace. When you filed this RfC, I was expected to respond to it. You listed this as my using a template in a condecending and uncommuncative manner. Maybe you shouldn't have rushed this through and gotten a few extra opinions before making a public condemnation of my behavior. You and others hadn't even finished writing it yet. I am surprised at the editors who put their credibility on the line by endorsing this RfC. Ste4k 17:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Here's another example. In the middle of a conversation on my talk page you replied with a agf3 template. [54] Not commenting on my actual statements and instead replying with a preformatted (and inappropriate) template fits the definition of "Used templates in a condescending, uncommunicative manner," pretty well in my opinion. --Nscheffey(T/C) 19:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Triangular contradiction

On the main page, under "General problems", the following to items are listed:

  • Made unusual interpretations of policies. [164][165]
  • Although the user appears new to WP she is very knowledable about WP policies and procedures and is becoming worse with time.

I have a few questions about these inclusions. First, how is it "worse" to be very knowledgeable about policies? Second, as stated here, my being very knowledgeable about policy, how then may also my interpretation be considered "unusual"? Aren't policies created by consensus? Ste4k 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should have read:

  • Although the user appears new to WP she is very knowledgeable about WP policies and procedures and yet her behavior is becoming worse with time.--Who123 14:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable edit. I'd be happier if you edited that and the misspelling please (I will not edit that section of course).
It still seems like three opinions to me though, logically, considering the first included item. Ste4k 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abuse of Comments on Response Section

Ste4k has abused my comment by interweaving rebuttals into the middle of my comment.

"Interweaving rebuttals into the middle of another person's comments, however, is generally a bad idea. It disrupts the flow of the discussion and breaks the attribution of comments. It may be intelligible to the two of you but it's virtually impossible for the rest of the community to follow."

See: How to avoid abuse of Talk pages Wikipedia:Etiquette--Who123 14:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Who123, please assume good faith. Her replying within your comments was poor form, but it is not "abuse." Everyone here needs to relax a little, and not spend all of their energy wikilawyering trying to find every new little thing they can complain about. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If it is not abuse then why is this behavior under WP: "How to avoid abuse of Talk pages"? May I restore my comment by removing Ste4k's insertions into it? Thanks--Who123 16:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the mention of this being a bad idea is in that section, but that doesn't make each and every occurrence of this action actual abuse. Again, AGF, keep cool. Go ahead and move her comments down to an indented reply to your original comments, but do not simply remove them. You should also add a note when you move them stating what you did. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I've taken care of the matter, thank you Michael. I hadn't noticed it with so much else on this page. Ste4k 19:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you.--Who123 19:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Negative personal comments: not conducive for editors

Either the link to the evidence for this is broken, or something else has occurred. Either way, can someone explain to me why this was considered a negative personal comment of mine if the person who wrote it was Jossi (talk · contribs)? Ste4k 14:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That quotation was misfiled, thanks for catching that. I've aded a better link and moved it down to "Other comments from editors". -Will Beback 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it normal to file RfC's like this without doing the research first, Will? Ste4k 17:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
This is a Wiki - we edit to fix mistakes. -Will Beback 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My talk page.

About this entire section listed below. It appears to me that this entire section is saying that it is more important for other people to be able to read messages on my talk page than it is for me to receive them. I have tried just about everything that I can to make communicating with me easier. When you edit a talk page you get a big white box to put your message in. If I can't read your message or if it looks like people are shouting when they're not, then all of the complaints that are lodged about my talk page are worthless. The purpose of the talk page is to contact me. I have a e-mail link on top as well. The frequency that any other person needs to use my talk page is far less frequent than for me.

This entire section hasn't any place in this RfC. There isn't any possible reason that I should be required to apologize for trying to read the messages from other people in an easy and convenient way for myself.

...Ste4k 17:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section, we don't need it copied here and it makes for a more confusing talk page. There are several issues with your talk page behavior. The formatting matter is just one, and the issue there is more how you handled it. Other issues include telling folks they can't post to your talk page, revert warring on your talk page, adding antagonistic headings, and denigrating the messages of others. -Will Beback 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
So you unilaterally decided that I cannot put comments about the main page in this discussion? Please look below where an entire conversation has been copied by another editor from their talk page. It is at least seven times longer than what you removed of mine. Please put my comments back and remember that as the administrator that started this RfC you of all people should be aware of WP:TPG, and the irritation that is normally caused by disregarding it. Ste4k 17:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this talk page is discussing the RfC we don't need to copy every section from the page itself to comment on it. In fact, doing so would be redundant and confusing. Copying something from another talk page that may be relevant (as you and Viridae have done) is different and acceptable. Drop it. --Nscheffey(T/C) 19:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section "Curse" contradicting editing philosophy.

About the section below, and seeing that I had only been on Wikipedia for a few days, how does this relate to the premise of this RfC being that I need to change? The below is listed as a complaint and the RfC is allegedly geared to show I need to change. All that the evidence below demonstrates is that I have read much more documentation (as noted elsewhere) in the past five weeks and that I have followed the advise of the other editors involved, and changed. If the complaint is "preachy" then please show where and how it was any different then the rest of the editors. This is a long dead conversation about an article that none whom have endorsed this RfC partook in. It is not a dispute. I even worked with the other editors on other articles later. Why is this entire section below included in this RfC?

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

  • (3rd day here) Please help verify instead of simply refuting without basis, thank you.[16]
  • (2nd day here) Removing POV warnings and Nuetrality warnings. Neither have been justified in discussion.[17]
  • (Unsubstantiated Comment) Blanking, the removal of all or significant parts of articles is a common vandal edit.[18]
  • (4th day here) 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[19]
  • (2nd day here) Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.[20] "

Further comments on this section on each listed point:

  1. A polite, but naieve request for the other editors to help improve the article. Problem?
  2. I would love to hear the explanation for why this second point was a problem. I already have my opinion about that. Anyone?
  3. This comment is completely incorrect. How is including information considered blanking? This allegation should be removed.
  4. How is this preachy? The other editor addressed me as "Sir" and the statement that he makes is actually untrue.
  5. On my second day here, I apparently agree with the group that put this RfC together about blanking as they point out in the third listed point. If that is your opinion, then why is this point even listed?

On the whole this section about contradictory editing philosophy is highly contradictory with itself. I suggest it be removed. It serves no purpose that I can see except to fatten the complaint. It is completely out of context with the rest of the comments in the section on Curse.

...Ste4k 19:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In those comments you are complaining about people removing your curse material. Over and over you tell them not to remove information, but to improve it. Subsequently, you went through many articles and deleted rather than improved material. You removed tags because you say it wasn't justified, and later added numeorus tags to articles and edit warred over them. The comments are preachy because even though you'd only been here a few days or less you still presumed to lecture more experienced editors. Remember that all of these comments are concerning material that never should have been added in the first place. -Will Beback 20:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
First address the issue about the blanking. It is clearly in error. Did you even check any of these before posting this RfC?
Second I am having difficulty with your circular logic here. You are telling me that after more experienced editors had shown me the light that you disagree with them. Which would you prefer? The entire remedy that you propose for this RfC is that I "change". If I had changed due to the experience of other editors, then what is your complaint? Have you seen your own preachy words on your second here arguing with more experienced editors and even referencing the guidelines? I can easily understand why you feel that your POV is necessary in these articles. But that is not a good reason to start an RfC to remove a person from working on them. Ste4k 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any blanking issue. These messages of yours, and there are many more, show no humility. They declare what is right and why the other parties are wrong. Those were made on your first days here. Although your positions on some editing issues have apparently changed, your certainty that you are right and others are wrong hasn't changed. My own comments are not the topic here, but I see nothing preachy about the comment you linked to. I am simply giving my opinions on some editing issues, not lecturing other editors. -Will Beback 21:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • (Unsubstantiated Comment) Blanking, the removal of all or significant parts of articles is a common vandal edit.[18]

That's on the main page of this RfC. Why? Ste4k 01:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's recap: You vandalized the project by adding material that was known by you to be untrue. Other editors removed it, calling it "nonsense", "silliness", "hoax", etc. You lashed back at them by calling their legitimate removal of the material "vandalism", and complained that they didn't assume good faith.[55]. Later on, you deleted significant parts of other articles. Your actions and comments are antagonistic, you have engaged in edit wars, have called other users vandals, and yet have unapologeticlaly vandalized the project yourself. That's why it's included. I have no idea why you added the words "Unsubstantiated Comment". The diff substantiates your comment. -Will Beback 02:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of dispute

The following is cut an paste entirely from my talk page - ViridaeTalk 01:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable

Your comments in AfD are incorrect. How you personally interpret policy is your choice. I prefer to read the words and follow the policy as written. You wrote: "And it is your job as someone listing an article for deletion, to actually do a bit of background research to make sure that it warrants deletion under one of the wikipedia policies. ViridaeTalk 11:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)" It is not my job. That is the job of the author. And if an author does not provide any sources of information then it makes that quite impossible and by definition original research. I haven't any personal prejuidice against any topic or content whatsoever. All articles must be compliant, however. You perhaps are a contributor. I on the other hand mainly do cleanup of the WP:BACKLOG. I see no reason for you to be upset at me at all. If an article can stand on its own, then what does it matter to you? Thanks. Ste4k 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. AfD does not need to be filled with articles that do not have a hope in hell of being deleted. You do not list it for deletion just because it does not cite sources - just because it currently doesn't cite sources (very common with an article that size) doesn't mean it can't. Unfortunately the vast majority of articles on wikipedia do not cite any or sufficient sources - that doesn't mean that need need to be deleted they just need work. I understand that WP:V says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." but a cursory glance at AfD will show you that for a deletion to pass, the article must be unverifiable not unverified - this is why I stated that the onus was on you, the person nominating for deletion, to do a quick search to see if you could turn up any significant results, saving everyone elses time. If you do, I was not stating that you should fill in the gaps and provide the references for the material, but that you should tag the article as needing sources and leave it for another editor to fill in the gaps. Contributing to the massive amount of AfDs a day by nominating superfluous deletions will not endear you to any of the editors who reguarly vote on AfDs.
As I mentioned, any article that lists only itself as a primary reference and hasn't any secondary references is useless. Per the idea that I would know what would or would not pass AfD, I find that pretty hypocritical. After all, if it were possible to be known in advance what will or will not be deleted, then we would have a pretty good set of policies and criteria to follow, wouldn't we? Basically you are suggesting that the current set of policies is insufficient. A cursory glance is not what I apply when I read the documentation which states that there are differences between primary and secondary sources and it should be obvious why those rules are included WP:RS.
On the subject of WP:OR. To quote the policy in a nutshell Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position.. At no point was any of that article original research. Original reasearch is not unverified but verifiable claims. Lastly I am not upset at you, I was just pointing out that you were listing articles for deletion without doing some quick research to determine wether they warranted deletion or not. ViridaeTalk 23:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually I do quite a bit of research, probably more than you might think. And you should also keep in mind that we should be looking at the encyclopedia articles from the OUTSIDE rather than the inside. My son, for example, will use citations from this very site for his homework. Is the encyclopedia just a facade?
P.S. I call your attention to the {{unreferenced}} template. It is for articles like that that we have that templaate and others like it. In future, if you find something lacking sources could please tag it with that or similar rather than taking it to AfD. ViridaeTalk 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I have only been here, going on three weeks now, and my experience in such matters is first the template is assigned, and later the person that "owns" the article gets upset because of aesthetic reasons, or simply doesn't understand the purpose, that follows with an edit war, or simply realizing it was a waste of time to even heed the call to look at the article in the first place. I don't believe that you have been uncivil in any way, but I have made quite a study of the documentation for various reasons. I am also not saying "I am right", but on the matters of policy, you are incorrect to say that one person's interpretation of those is any better or worse than anothers. I can tell you this, for certain, I do trust the policies, and stick to them like glue, and I have seen a very large diversity in opinions about them and how they are used. Nothing wrong with that. Ste4k 23:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I was unaware you were a new editor. For the most part sticking to the policies is the right way to go (Unless you consistently stick to the break all rules policy (which i currently can't find a shortcut to) - which will annoy most people). However as you get more experience with AfD you will notice that and article that is verifiable but not verified (and not about a ridiculous subject) will pass the AfD. Thus taking articles that fit those parameters just chokes up AfD and leaves you with editors that are irritated that it was listed for deletion in the first place. I hope you enjoy editing, any questions don't hesitate to ask. ViridaeTalk 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
No harm done, all forgiven, and no matter anyhow. :) The policies you were hoping to refer to are WP:BB and WP:IAR. :) I appreciate you noting on my talk page that you replied. But again, I think I need to refer you to something, and maybe that will allow you to understand where I am coming from better. Please see my very first AfD nomination. It just closed a couple days ago. Link. At that time, I was under the impression that the nominator needed to convince each person in the debate that had a contrary notion. Think about that for a little bit, okay? Thanks! Ste4k 00:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with that link? Maybe that its not up to the nominator to convince everyone - they will generally convince themselves either way? The way it ussually happens is that the nominator provides suitible reasons for deletion and everyone else determines the articles merits on the information given and any information they can glean from some quick research. Thats why I said it is pointless nominating verifiable articles - wether or not they are verified. I may have got you wrong though...? ViridaeTalk 00:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
By performing that research that you suggest, rather than reading the article stand alone as if it were the first article you've read, we are performing original research if we make assumptions on the data collected which it never actually says. Consider that if the page itself were to say "she is extremely popular, and she gets 200000 hits on Google." Then we could use Google as a basis for criteria. You see? Google does not say anything about popularity, nor notability, etc. 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. It also included reversing the actual logical meaning of various facts, i.e. Instead of Jack gave Jill a flower, they had written Jill gave Jack a flower. Assuming good faith I asked questions, was ignored, harrassed, and even during the AfD's votes were even changed by these people, my words were changed in my nomination as well. It's still around and being cleaned up. In the interim of all of that, I have been accused of being in one or another faction, having bad faith, etc., and everyone would rather turn their heads (except a few) and not want to see matters like this resolved (yes they are tedious and boring, too). I believe the term is "smoke and mirrors", and this was what was keeping Next Door Nikki around. But no matter how you slice it, if the article doesn't even mention Google, Google cannot be used as a reputible secondary source on the behalf of the article for it's author. Does that make sense to you? Ste4k 00:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense - at least the second part. Google is never really used as a reputable source in an article, but the number of unique and relevant google hits can be (and is) used as an argument for keep or delete (although I don't entirely agree with that as the sole reason for keep or delete in most cases). By wikipedia's definition of original research though, doing a google search to find already published results to determine wether an article is possibly verifiable or notable isn't original research. Original reasearch is looking out my window and seeing that all the birds out there are black - and then coming to wikipedia and writing an article that says that all birds in melbourne at 10:54 AM on a monday are black. The research is not verified and not independantly published - therefore original. Sorry about your trouble with the NDN article, I too have run into some very possesive editors at times. ViridaeTalk 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What is NDN? Let's take that no research a little deeper... you might see my point. Suppose an article has only primary sources. And let's say that the article's topic is Jack and Jill going up the hill. The J&J web site says, they went up the hill to milk the cow. I decide that the article should be nominated on grounds that it has insufficient secondary resources (zero in this case). Someone challenges that and says keep because they go out onto the web themselves and find an artible about J&J, even though the article doesn't mention why J&J went up the hill. They have just committed original research, because, they are themselves attesting to the fact that the rest of the article is verifiable by the secondary source that they found. You see? It happens all the time if you watch closely. And I am not speaking of people that are simply deliberately wanting to see an article stay, but people whom actually don't see the difference; and they end believing that their own research into the matter, i.e. read/writing between the lines, justifies what the article does NOT say and then base on the fact that it should, could, or would say. By the way, Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pale of draft beer, as everyone knows. :) Ste4k 01:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • NDN = Next Door Nikki. I do see where you are coming from regarding the orginal research. But if you look at WP:OR it states that original research is (to paraphrase) when someone has come up with something new and it is not independantly published/reviewed/verified - it is totally new. Its not the use of that as sources. The policy "No original research" says that those shouldn't be used as sources/references. However using them does not itself constitute original research but does violate the no original research policy. ViridaeTalk 02:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the point you are missing is this. It doesn't matter what the resource states, as long as it is a reputible resource. What matters is that the article says what the resource says. Anything else is original research. Okay so far? So, now consider for a moment an article that only has a single resource. Anything that is said in the article that isn't said by the resource is OR. When voting in AfD, people very frequently see articles that haven't any resources at all. They then go out and find a reputible resource that speaks about the topic. But the part you seem to be misunderstanding here, is that they then assign the idea of notability to the resource they just found in AfD discussions. And there still isn't anything in the new article that matches anything that the original author said. Do you see now? Original research has to do with making sure that what is reported in the article is the same as the resources it relies on. Verifiability has to do with making sure that the resources are reputible. They are two different things that work together. Ste4k 05:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Viridae here. If I can add sources to an article so that it does not fall under "original research", then I would do that instead of nominating it for deletion. Similarly if someone else was unable to improve an article beyond OR status, but I am able, I would do so (or say how to do so), and recommend "keep". —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-03 09:35Z
Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Buell Anderson for a better understanding of original research, the comments after the first Keep vote you might find interesting. Thanks. :) Ste4k 12:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same fair use claim??

About the sentence on the main page listed below, the fair use claim on the image I uploaded is promotional use, the others aren't even similar:

"She has also listed images used in the articles as copyright violations[56][57][58] (then, strangely enough, uploaded an ACIM-related photo using the same "fair use" claim that they others had [59])."

[edit] Mine

Copyrighted

This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, it is believed that the use of this work in the article "Promotional":

  • To illustrate the object in question
  • Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information
  • On the English-language Wikipedia ([60]), hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation ([61]),

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use and Wikipedia:Copyrights.

To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale.

[edit] First two examples of "the same"

Copyright undetermined Note: Please do not use this tag. Instead, use either one of the more specific tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use or {{fair use in|article name}}.

This work is copyrighted and unlicensed. It does not fall into one of the blanket fair use categories listed at Wikipedia:Fair use#Images or Wikipedia:Fair use#Audio_clips. However, the individual who uploaded this work and first used it in an article, as well as subsequent persons who place it into articles, asserts that this use qualifies as fair use of the material under United States copyright law. For each use of this image, please provide a detailed rationale as to why this image qualifies as fair use.

If you can find a suitable alternative image that adequately conveys the same information as this image and is under a free licence, please swap this image with the free version. Then, request deletion of this image by adding the following to the image description: {{ subst:or-fu-re|Image:New image file name }}.

[edit] Final example of "the same"

Copyrighted

This image is a screenshot from a copyrighted film, and the copyright for it is most likely owned by the studio which produced the film, and possibly also by any actors appearing in the screenshot. It is believed that the use of a limited number of web-resolution screenshots

qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Wikipedia:Image description page, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.

Warning sign The assertion that the use of this image qualifies as fair use has been disputed by one or more individuals. Further information may be available below or on the image's talk page. Please provide a rationale as to why this image qualifies as fair use. If no acceptable rationale can be provided, this image may be nominated for deletion in the future.

Any reason why these are being called the same? Ste4k 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Please don't post image copyright tags anywhere except on image pages. They've added this page to a number of inappropriate categories. The Chuck Anderson photo was just as promotional as Image:Whitsonj.jpg. I don't know why you'd seek to delete images associated with Endeavor Academy while uploading an image of the rival Foundation of Inner Peace, but your reasoning does not appear consistent. -Will Beback 21:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the categories. Please consult the guidelines. As an administrator you should be aware about the differences of fair use rationale. Publicity profiles are quite a different thing than "no rationale". And keep in mind that it wasn't me that marked that image for dispute. I didn't see the answer to my question. Do you have one? Ste4k 01:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I know the inage tags well enough to know you've misused the Fair Use tag. There's no indication that the material has been released for promotional purposes, nor is it used in the "promotional' article, as you've indicated. Further, please read the last line (emphasis in the original):
  • To the uploader: this tag is not a sufficient claim of fair use. You must also include the source of the work, all available copyright information, and a detailed fair use rationale.
You didn't provide the copyright information or a detailed rationale. This is just as much a "copyvio" as the image you marked as a copyvio.[62] Why did you upload the image anyway? -Will Beback 01:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC moved to his/her talk page

I was just reading the recent comments here and was directed to Ste4k's talk page User talk:Ste4k. It seems that part of this RfC has been re-directed to his/her talk page and even taken privately. Should not all the comments be public and take place here?

Also, I find his/her talk page hostile in many ways particularly the directives.--Who123 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR reports inappropriate?

Can anyone explain why these are marked as "inappropriate"? The second clearly shows that the page ended up protected after an administrator was alerted. Something wrong with that? Ste4k 01:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In neither case were the editors whom you accused actually guilty of having broken the 3RR policy. They were, as you like to call them, "unfounded allegattions". -Will Beback 01:52, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misrepresentation of my words

In the section on the main page, my words are being misrepresented [63] and I quote, "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"). [64]". Where in this diff do I say that "overly harsh words" had been used? This diff shows that I actually say, "I think "accused" is a little strong and "pointed out" might be more accurate." Is there any reason that my words are being misrepresented here? Ste4k 02:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference between "overly harsh" and "a little strong" is negligible, and frankly the least of your worries. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perfect example

I believe this conversation between Ste4k and Will Beback on Ste4k's talk page neatly encapsulates why it is completely impossible to interact with her. In the preceding section of her page she claims Will admitted to submitting this RfC in bad faith, a very serious allegation. When Will calmly asks her to point to said admission she repeatedly dodges the question, says she refuses to do his research for him, suggests someone may have erased it, accuses him of being hostile, and finally asks if she needs to help him learn to read. Calling this circular logic is an insult to logic. What happened here, which any honest and rational observer can see, is that Ste4k lied about Will to another editor and refused to admit it. For people reading this who need a summary of the problem with Ste4k, here is a perfect example. --Nscheffey(T/C) 02:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The following conversation on her talk page [65] (which she named "Comments") is along the same theme. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] STOP!

Everybody needs to stop this, right now. This has become more, much more, than an RfC should ever be. It's gone right past the helping stage; it's moved to a personal level, where the two parties are literally faulting the other's every move. This is not moving towards a resolution; and it definitely won't achieve one. This should be discussed amicably; with both parties co-operating and not doing... this. Though I have no power to stop this myself, I'm hoping that everybody involved has the good nature to stop for just a minute, and actually try to salvage something. —JD[don't talk|email] 09:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would sincerely like to comply with your request. Unfortunately Ste4k's behavior continues without a change for the better. It may be just getting worse.--Who123 12:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nothing, and nobody, is deciding what people are choosing to do. It's easy to stop inflating the situation the way it's going - just stop. Everybody needs to calm down so this can be dealt with appropriately, with an outside party's involvement if necessary. If everybody stops doing things, that'll be the first step. What happens after that, whatever it is, will never happen unless everybody can take this first step together. As it is now, everybody's still doing their own thing; and that isn't helping anybody; least of all the main people involved in this RfC. —JD[don't talk|email] 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I understand your good intentions, but I completely disagree with this "just drop it" idea. Have you looked at the RfArb Ste4k filed against me? Take a serious, honest look at some of the diffs she provided. For example, this one as "evidence of wikistalking", or this one as "evidence of obsession." The best way to deal with this behavior would be to disregard it? Plus the fact that not once has she offered an apology, an "I was confused", or even a rational explanation for any of her strongly contested actions. This needs to be confronted, not ignored. --Nscheffey(T/C) 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I have seen the RfArb, and I think it should also be dropped. If everybody's gonna be besties around here, they need to start burning the bridges to Hell, and start building new ones to that happy place that I forget the name of... If Ste4k can withdraw that RfArb, and does that in an attempt to try (again) to discuss and resolve this in a peaceful way, then the problem would be over; and we can all go back to being happy. --JD[don't talk|email] 21:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
JD, while I truly admire your optimism I think the chances of Ste4k dropping the RfArb are slim to none. I mean, look at her "revised" response section to this RfC. Is she trying to show examples of "personal attacks" by everyone who endorsed it? Ignoring the fact that none of these are personal attacks, can you think of a worse method to "resolve this in a peaceful way"? And how about her new penchant for sarcastically referring to herself as a DICK, HOAX, and (inexplicably) CON? As far as I'm concerned, she lacks the ability or the desire to converse constructively with other editors. This wouldn't be a problem if she didn't also make major changes to articles based on unusual interpretations of policy. The combination of strong unilateral actions and horrendous people-skills is too dangerous to be ignored or forgiven. --Nscheffey(T/C) 22:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
It appears that there is a desire to sweep this all under the rug and forget about it. I do not like conflict and do not like the conflicts here. Unfortunately, I find the behavior of Ste4k so bad both here and elsewhere that I think the chance of rehabilitation nil. I have noticed over the years that certain people on the internet just do not have the desire to interact with others in a constructive way. They do not change. I think this is the case here. It is not a matter of Ste4k being a bad person. It does not mean that Ste4k does not have good qualities. What it does mean is that Ste4k appears to lack either the ability or the desire to interact with most people in a constructive fashion. The question at this point is: should Ste4k be allowed to continue editing at WP? Ste4k does have talent and perhaps this talent is best applied elsewhere, not at WP.--Who123 00:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
This isn't about personal opinion. It's not about speculation or theory, as likely and true as it may or not be. It's about trying to help the situation with a fresh start. If some people aren't willing to do that, then they are as hypocritical as the people that have commented on this RfC with only critical intentions. —JD[don't talk|email] 00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Does that mean to say, that if Ste4k weren't doing what she's doing now, you'd be more than willing to try and fix things? —JD[don't talk|email] 22:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course if Ste4k wasn't doing what she's doing there would be no problem. Unfortunately, she is doing it, and she has done it without remorse throughout her entire Wikipedia career. This needs to be addressed. --Nscheffey(T/C) 00:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh, no, what I meant by that was this RfC and the RfArb, and behaviour that's surfaced as a result of this RfC. —JD[don't talk|email] 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess what I'm saying is that this behavior hasn't surfaced because of this RfC, it's been there all along. Again, I really respect your desire for reconciliation and your work towards that end. But how can we achieve that if Ste4k won't even admit that perhaps the 10 editors who certified this dispute have valid concerns? Instead she seems to think that everyone who questions her is making a personal attack. If I saw even a shred of reconciliatory attitude from Ste4k it would be a huge step, but I'm not holding my breath. --Nscheffey(T/C) 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Well what I was trying to say in my first few posts, was that if and as that isn't going to happen, that should just be forgotten; and resolution should be sought. Waiting for something you're not actually expecting is, as I'm sure you know, pointless. —JD[don't talk|email] 00:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on Response 2

It appears that Ste4k has re-written his/her response. Ste4k may wish to update their endorsement of their response on the "project page" with current date.--Who123 13:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k 14:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Who123 meant the time stamp on the actual project page (below your amended response). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what I meant.--Who123 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In Ste4k's new Response to this RfC there is a sub-section Don't do it. This seems to be accusing many other editors of personal attacks. I do not believe the two examples under Who123 are personal attacks. This new Response appears to be yet another example that Ste4k simply has the inability to recognize his/her problem behavior. Ste4k simply blames everyone else for their problem behavior.--Who123 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • There appear to be certain irregularities in Ste4k's new Response. What are these doing above Ste4k's endorsement of his/her response:


6. MichaelZimmer (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (as it relates to my interaction here [66])

[67] 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.

--Who123 15:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diverting RfC Discussion to User Talk Pages

It seems that Ste4k is diverting discussion that belongs here to User Talk pages. See his/her own talk page. Also see User talk:MichaelZimmer. Under I believe that, but it is out of your hands., Ste4k states:

"If we had a dispute, then we come from two cultures. I thought we discussed and came to a mutual understanding. People don't have to see eye to eye to respect each other, and the world is not gray. In my world, that is where you came in."

Ste4k seems to comtinue to bring up that Ste4k is from a different culture or world. I seem to recall Ste4k first writing that they were from Eastern Europe and now live in the UK. Then Ste4k has an American flag on his/her page and cites US documents.

To eliminate this confusion about cultures and worlds would it be possible for an Administrator to tell us the country that Ste4k is in without violating Ste4k's privacy?--Who123 16:00, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, how much does it actually matter where she lives? --JD[don't talk|email] 16:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
As addressed elsewhere, the gender of Ste4k is in question. I really do not care much where Ste4k lives. I am concerned when Ste4k deflects issues by saying he/she is from a different culture.--Who123 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
As I've said many times before, this has gotten too far. Who actually gives a damn about who Ste4k really is, where she works, how old she is? She took the time to register on Wikipedia; that should be enough to get everybody's respect. I can understand that she's done lots of things that aren't so good, but what you're all doing, Ste4k included, is making a major deal out of something that should be left to die so that things can be started afresh. —JD[don't talk|email] 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not care much about Ste4k's personal information either unless Ste4k brings it up to support his/her position or behavior or has different stories about it. I disagree that we should just all forget about it and Ste4k should be allowed to continue in his/her problematic behavior.--Who123 00:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New response by Ste4k

Does anyone have any idea what in God's name this is supposed to be? This might be the most indecipherable Ste4k action ever (which is saying something). --Nscheffey(T/C) 00:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This section appears to contradict itself.


At least this is humorous. There appears to be a quality problem with the article that this tag points to as well as its origin.--Who123 02:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, where can I find these messageboxes?--Who123 12:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup. Kickaha Ota 14:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after further review I think this is much worse than unintelligible. Here are my comments I posted on Ste4k's talk page, which she has (characteristically) not responded to.
It is much worse than that. "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)" This is a sloppy and misleading paraphrasing of his actual comments, to which you have appended his signature. This is wildly inappropriate. If this is a work in progress as you noted perhaps you should move it to a subpage in your userspace. As it is, you are posting misquotations on a well trafficked Wikipedia project page. --Nscheffey(T/C) 03:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just about to say more or less the same thing. I've read Ste4k's response three times, and I simply cannot fathom what most of it is trying to say. There's only a few points I can understand:
  • The RfC instructions suggest that it's intended for single disputes, but this one involves a variety of disputes involving Ste4k. (Yes, you can say "it's a pattern of behavior", but presumably you could say the same thing about pretty much any user.) I raised this point early on, so I'm not going to disgreee that it's a valid procedural point. But it's arguably a terrible point to base a defense on, because even if everyone agreed that the RfC was improper on that basis, the result would presumably be that four or five RfCs would all be filed against Ste4k, each involving a different incident. (And Ste4k would presumably claim that that would be evidence that the RfC process was being used to harass.)
  • Kicking people when they're down is bad. Yes, but when a user has been involved in multiple controversial incidents, it's not "kicking when they're down" to comment on all of them, especially when a related Request for Arbitration has already been filed.
  • Lots of people have raised different criticisms against Ste4k, and some of those criticisms are arguably contradictory. That shows that Wikipedia editors are human, perceive situations in different ways, and understand Wikipedia policies differently. But it doesn't mean that all of their criticisms are invalid. In fact, in this case, the contradictions are arguably a function of the sheer volume of criticism that Ste4k has generated. Kickaha Ota 04:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint

I just noticed that the RfC discussion is continuing but Ste4k has diverted it off the RfC. I also complain that these include discussions about me "behind my back" when they should be here in the RfC. Some of this are a similar attempt to move discussion about Ste4k's RFArb.

Please see: User talk:Ste4k User talk:Will Beback User talk:JzG User talk:Coredesat User talk:Bhouston User talk:JChap2007 User talk:A Man In Black User talk:KickahaOta User talk:Martinp23 User talk:MichaelZimmer.--Who123 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

People will no doubt continue to leave comments on each other's talk pages if they have comments specifically directed towards that person. I do not believe you are discussed on my talk page, but if you let me know where people are talking smack about you, I would be more than happy to give them a stern talking-to. On a related note, I think it would be better to stop poking at Ste4k and try to promote harmony on the wiki. It takes two to argue. I would also appreciate it if you would refer to her by exclusively feminine pronouns and adjectives, as she has requested. Even if she really is biologically male (and I doubt it) it is the polite thing to do. JChap (talk • contribs) 23:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not "poking" at Ste4k. I had not intended to add any more comments except in response to another comment, particularly if it involved me. This comment was prompted by Ste4k's comments in regards to me under Complaint at User talk:Will Beback. I would appreciate it if you would give Ste4k "a stern talking-to" in this regard. I would love to see more harmony in regards to Ste4k. In regards to the gender issue, please see Gender above. Despite this, I will refer to Ste4k as "she" even if that is not "her" gender, from now on. I do wish to be polite. I appreciate your guidance on these matters.
In a related matter and for full disclosure I just received this message at my talk page (I had asked for help with the ACIM article):
Just a quick response to your note. I haven't "returned" to Wikipedia. I just decided to check to see if I had any messages, and I responded to the message because it was directly related to why I left Wikipedia.
I'd like to help with the ACIM article, but I just don't want to get involved anymore. In my opinion, Ste4k created the ugliest scene I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and now that ACIM page looks like a complete battle ground. It's just too frustrating. Life has been good without the headache of trying to improve that article. I'm sorry, but I have to wash my hands of it. I hope the rest of you are able to do something that apparently I wasn't able to do: create a good ACIM page without getting caught in a bizarre battle. To be honest, I'm shell shocked from my experience with Ste4k and as a result just can't bring myself to contribute to any page anymore. Andrew Parodi 21:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
--Who123 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Indefinite block

It appears that Ste4k has managed to jump directly from "RfC and proposed RfAr" to "indefinite block for exhausting the patience of the community". When you're already the subject of administrative scrutiny, moving your talk page in an apparent attempt to destroy evidence is sure to get an immediate response. I personally think that the checkuser of Ste4k and Rrock was rather ludicrous -- they'd already claimed to be husband and wife, presumably living in the same house; a checkuser showing them to use the same IP address is, er, rather unsurprising. But Ste4k was managing to create such a large amount of irritation in such a small amount of time that a block was probably inevitable anyway; the whole sorry spectacle of bringing someone in to challenge people to fistfights over the Internet was just icing on the cake. I'm sorry to see it turn out this way; Ste4k made some very sensible and productive edits when she wasn't being disruptive, and her increasingly erratic behavior distracted attention from the fact that some people seemed to be needlessly provocative to her. I hope she can find a hobby where she'll fit in better.

I don't know offhand what the procedure is for closing an RfC, but the indefinite block of the user being commented on is probably as good a reason as any for closing it. Kickaha Ota 04:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine just got left. Look, it's still on the page! —JD[don't talk|email] 04:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images left by Ste4k

Image:Kangaroo 1 by GcJ.jpg
Ste4k 01:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that's not called for.

2
Kickaha Ota 04:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)