Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whig 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] My experience: An informal view with no diffs

Note: I can add diffs for all of this if required and even put it on the front page. However, I just want to informally give my 2 cents in this less structured venue

  • I have been stunned at how aggressive and anti-science Whig is. He seems angry at everyone and everything. He charges around like a bull in a china shop here. He seems to be completely clueless about WP:NPOV, about WP:NOR, about WP:RS, about WP:UNDUE, about WP:CON, and about WP:FRINGE. He seems not to understand science, or statistics, or experimentation at all.
  • He engages in serious quote-mining to try to push his narrow pseudoscience views.
  • He just seems to want to dictate to others and throw tantrums if he does not get his way.
  • My experience with him has been extremely poor. He said that since I had not edited the article, I must agree with its present state, when I have repeatedly said that I am not happy with its present state, over and over, on the talk page and on the GA review page.
  • He will not take the advice of senior WP editors or even admins with vastly more edits and experience than him. He insists on demanding his way in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.
  • He is willing to engage in insults, disruptive editing and edit warring to try to bully others.

He is a singularly nasty and unpleasant editor who is destructive to the overall goal and tone of Wikipedia. It is editors like this who drive productive editors away. Dealing with him for a few days just made me want to take the homeopathy article off my watch list, or even suggest it be deleted completely so we could start over from scratch. Very disheartening to have to deal with editors of his ilk here.--Filll 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion by User:Sm565

It is not worth commenting on the accusations of the above editors some of which have poor record in behavior issues. As I said whoever looks at the talk page he/she will see what is really going on.--Sm565 04:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Then don't comment. But commenting by stating that you have no comment is fairly disingenuous. If you have a difference of opinion, provide diffs of your statements. Make non-accusation accusations appear petty. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanderer57's Comments

This is a request for comment on the user "Whig", not on the Homeopathy article. Thanks for the comments though, you might want to move this to the talk page if it's not directly related to the user "Whig", or perhaps even other editors involved. This is a editor RFC not a content RFC. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, WDM. I believe my comments are much more about the discussion itself and the attitudes of the editors toward the subject matter than they are about the article. These are relevant to the matter of editor Whig’s role in the discussion. I would appreciate your feedback about the substance of my comments. Wanderer57 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with some of your points about the homeopathy article and all of these things are in the process of being fixed. I also agree that not all of the problems with the discussions on that article and th edit warring are the result of one person, however the fact is that Whig is probably the most important aspect of it. I don't want to get into discussing the actual points of the Homeopathy article as that's off topic, and can be done on the articles talk page. Wikidudeman (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whig's Comment

Please consider this RfC as applied to the submitters. Whig 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wikidudeman (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Huh? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Whig's statement is very terse but not totally impenetrable. I believe the point is that he thinks the questions being asked about him, and the process he is being subjected to, ought also to be applied to the editors who submitted the RfC. Wanderer57 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Then let him do so, passive aggressiveness is not exactly an attribute that most people find pleasing. In addition, note the deafening silence of nonsupport of Whig's attitudes and behavior. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I did notice that. Very difficult to miss. I tried in my comments to point out that there were some mitigating factors in the discussion itself that made the whole mess a bit more understandable. I am disappointed that the only thing my comments seemed to do was stir up a small controversy about whether the stupid comments were in the right place. Wanderer57 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The deafening lack of support of Whig is really odd considering who you'd think would support him. I don't see you for example endorse his statement. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Despising this process... "

I note that ScienceApologist and Orangemarlin both despise this process. I have not been around Wikipedia long enough to actively despise the process, but I can feel myself starting to tilt in that direction.

Can somebody please tell me what is supposed to happen next? Thank you. Wanderer57 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we're meant to discuss in a mature and reasoned manner how this situation came about and what to do to avoid it arising again. However, that is unlikely to happen without input from non-involved people and critical self-examination from participants. Tim Vickers 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'll speak for myself, and SA can speak for himself. This process, to me, is marginally of any merit whatsoever. I think we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to save edit-warriors and others who do not help the project grow--Whig and others should be receive a community ban quickly and efficiently. Read this statement by one of the most respected admins and editors on this project. What is particularly galling is that there are individuals who use this system against perfectly reasonable editors, drive them off the project, and leave behind individuals like Whig. However, since this process exists, I will participate to make sure that the POV-warriors are thrown out. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I agree with OM and SA in this instance. This process consumes a huge amount of time. It is a waste of effort in most cases. The person whose behavior being examined seldom agrees to change their ways, or sees a problem with their past actions. The normal response is hostility to all concerned. This process can also be used as a weapon by editors who are not operating with the best of intentions for WP. So it is a flawed tool, at best.--Filll 12:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that the massive amount of consensus against Whig and his response to this RFC could go far if we ever decide to take it to arbitration, if this RFC solves nothing. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I will strongly encourage you to go to arbitration, then. Whig 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Do I have to? I don't want to. Arbitration is a LAST resort and it's not a pretty process. Are you claiming that you will not take anything from this RFC? That you won't acknowledge that your fellow editors see your editing habits as problematic? Wikidudeman (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, you don't have to do anything. But you are welcome. Whig 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks like I don't have a choice. You've said that you refuse to acknowledge the consensus of your fellow editors concerning your behavior and to apologize for the edit wars, threats and insults. This means that if you continue your disruptive editing habits then I will be forced to use go to arbitration. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this process has gone as far as it can.[1]  – ornis⚙ 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

He's now attempting to bait me... Wikidudeman (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's not beat around the bush. Lets get rid of the disruptive elements here.--Filll 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What would you suggest? Wikidudeman (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What he is essentially saying is that he couldn't care less about collaboration and has no intention of reforming. That being the case an arbitration would be doomed and therefore a waste of time. Since he can be community banned indefinitely by any administrator right now for holding such an attitude of stubborn refusal to listen and learn, without going through the grueling and often time wasting process of an arbitration, who is willing to save us a whole lot of grief and time? He is thumbing his nose at the community and daring someone to take action. Can him now, please. -- Fyslee / talk 04:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone would just unban him if that happens, we don't want to do the same thing we did with User:Profg or else it won't last. If he is truly unwilling to admit any fault or make any compromise and will continue to make edits similar to those he has been making in the past few weeks then an arbitration is in order, not a "community ban" which runs the risk of being reversed in a few days by another administrator. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you waiting for, then? Whig 18:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is an NPOV dispute

I agree that it is an NPOV dispute, but not in the way that that Whig means it. The problem is that Whig disagrees with or does not understand the WP definition of NPOV.

What Whig means when he calls this an "NPOV dispute" is that it is not neutral to put critical material in an article about the topic. I agree with him in one sense, but it is contrary to the principles of WP and what NPOV means.

The fact that he has been unable or unwilling to read and absorb the WP definition of NPOV is the aspect of Whig that has been revealed in this exercise. In light of this, how useful will Whig be to WP? It is not as though he has not been told dozens and dozens and dozens of times about what NPOV is and means.--Filll 12:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whig's Second Comment

Please verify the facts underlying this complaint, and do not take them as accurate in their portrayal. Whig 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the complaints in this RfC do not go near far enough to painting a suitably accurate picture of Whig's negative behaviors and attitudes. His gloating and cavalier approach to insulting others and inability to compromise approach legendary levels and have not served him well in this venue.--Filll 02:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Aside from his attempt to coax me into starting an arbitration, he hasn't actually done any edit warring nor has he made any especially disruptive remarks. Perhaps he's heeded the consensus from this RFC. I surely hope so. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this a disruptive remark? Whig 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Please define disruptive remark and provide an example. Whig 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss in a mature and reasoned manner??

As Tim Vickers suggested, it would be good to see this matter discussed in a mature and reasoned manner.

What I see in the "certifying, experiencing, endorsing, etc" process looks to me much more like a popularity contest. That being the case, I note that some of the people speaking out against Whig have "voted" 3, 4 or 5 times.

If this is kosher, who needs sockpuppets? Wanderer57 16:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Wanderer, you're new, so I'll be nice. First of all, kosher is a reference to dietary food laws of my religion. It's offensive when it's used incorrectly. Second, that's the process of RfC's. Editors may make comments, which are endorsed. The RfC requires certifying by some number of other editors. That usually comes from involved individuals. I did not certify it, but I did endorse it. Comments usually have different takes, which are endorsed by other observers. It is not a popularity contest. If you think Whig is so abused, then make a comment in logical form. If someone agrees, so be it. RfC's are a method to gather information. You ought to read the rules of Kashrut and of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct before making comments that attack other editors. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

A good start to this discussion would be a statement from Whig explaining why he thinks so many editors disagree with his actions. What is his response to the points that have been put to him in this RfC? Tim Vickers 17:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have made my response. Whig 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I see. Your response is very illuminating. Tim Vickers 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh? That was a response? What's that old saying about attorneys who represent themselves? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
[Since there is intervening discussion, please note that the following is in response to OrangeMarlin’s initial reply to my comments beginning this section.]
OrangeMarlin - Thank you for the feedback.
First of all, please believe me that I meant no disrespect to Judaism.
Aside from the specific meaning of kosher in regard to food, the word kosher has come to have a more general meaning. The Kashrut article in Wikipedia says “By extension, the word kosher means legitimate, acceptable, permissible, genuine or authentic, in a broader sense.” This is the sense in which I used the word. Nevertheless, I should have chosen another word, such as acceptable or permissible.
I understand now from reading “Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct” that multiple inputs and endorsements by one editor are considered legitimate in this process, and I guess I also need to apologize for suggesting they were improper. I so apologize.
I stand by my statement that the RfC process in this instance looks to me more like a popularity contest than a discussion in a mature and reasoned manner. [Users endorsing this view are invited to indicate this.]
You suggest that I should make a comment in logical form if I think “Whig has been so abused”. I already have made comments suggesting that not all the problems with the homeopathy discussion can be laid at the feet of any one person. I think these were in a more-or-less logical form.
As I said earlier, I am disappointed that the only thing my comments seemed to do was stir up a small controversy about whether the comments were put in the right place. I thought a discussion might include some feedback about the substance of my comments, rather than only their location. Wanderer57 22:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
You should note that I have already endorsed your view as posted on the project page. Whig 22:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't claim that Whig alone caused every problem with the homeopathy article. But since the comments you cited as bad examples were in response to something else Whig had said, I think it's fairly obvious that his actions are a primary cause. Even if they are not, they're still bad. -Amarkov moo! 22:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • And even if they're not bad, you'd never know without looking at the underlying record. Whig 23:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    I have looked at the underlying record. If you are going to continue doing this, go away. -Amarkov moo! 23:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Go away? From my own RfC? How interesting. Whig 23:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    Yes. If you are not going to contribute anything useful, then you should go away. Continuous insinuations that people are ignoring evidence without providing any of this evidence don't count. -Amarkov moo! 23:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Am I your monkey? Whig 23:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
    As I've said before, when I say things like this, I don't mean that you are obligated to obey. But it would be in your best interest to stop, instead of continuing to do things like this. They reflect really badly on you. -Amarkov moo! 23:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Discuss in a mature and reasoned manner" versus "Am I your monkey?" - Theory versus practice. Tim Vickers 23:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the editor in question has gone back to his previous style of editing, as evidenced on the Homeopathy talk page. Definitely recalcitrant.--Filll 13:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whig's Third Comment

Please consider whether this RfC may be abusive. Whig 17:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig, if you'd like to comment, there's space on the actual RfC page. Ideally, you should make comments supported by evidence (diffs), and allow for other participants in the process to evaluate your remarks. Endorsement of your remarks (or lack thereof) can help you to determine whether or not your assessment of the situation reflects the understanding of the larger community.
Thank you, I have made my formal response there already. Whig 18:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that your formal response doesn't work. It makes no case that you are not guilty of everything that you're accused of, and even if it did, you have no evidence backing it up. -Amarkov moo! 18:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
The record speaks for itself. Whig 18:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, but if you're going to rely on the record speaking for itself, you really have no right to complain when people disagree with you. -Amarkov moo! 18:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless I am banned, I think I can continue to make whatever comments I think proper. Whig 18:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say you couldn't. But people have no reason to listen. If you're fine with just knowing you're right and never convincing anyone else, I don't care. -Amarkov moo! 19:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a popularity contest. Whig 19:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
No, but that doesn't mean that your opinion is the only relevant one. -Amarkov moo! 19:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to leave your own opinions. Whig 19:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I have. You're now disputing the validity of the evidence I used in determining my opinions, but you've failed to give any reasons. -Amarkov moo! 19:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
It is up to you whether you look at the underlying facts, per my Second Comment above. Whig 19:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

<RI>You treat someone who actually supports you like that? Are you actually that arrogant? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

He endorsed a statement against me, as a matter of fact. Whig 19:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Quoting from Talk:Homeopathy: "So stop playing word games in a language you do not understand and please go away to harass someone else.--Filll 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)".

IMO, the person who wrote this does not have much credibility to say about anyone else: "He is a singularly nasty and unpleasant editor..." Wanderer57 02:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

(Any endorsements of this point of view?)

Whatever. Filll is a perfectly direct editor. My opinion...move on. You seem obsessed with this RfC. There are other things to do in life. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
How many edits has Orangemarlin made to this RfC and associated pages? Whig 03:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Between the RfC and its talk page, 20, versus 11 by wanderer. On the other hand, OM has made a total of 206 edits to homeopathy and its talk page compared to only 36 by wanderer. OM's right, wanderer should probably find some articles to edit, given that he's only made 37 mainspace contribs, it is rather odd he should spend so much time here.  – ornis⚙ 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Message: Go away? Whig 04:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
No, not my message. But obsessing over this RfC certainly should end. BTW, out of nearly 200 edits to Wikipedia that I have made since this RfC went up, less than 10% have been to this RfC. Kind of high, but then again, there are a lot of postings to it, and I read them all. I'll probably make 1000 edits this month. This will be a very minor part of my numbers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a high scoring competition, you know. If you want to stop obsessing over this RfC, then just leave it alone. I've asked Wikidudeman if he'd like to consider withdrawing it, as I think it was improvident. Whig 09:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<undent>This last comment was a perfect example of the apparent contemptuousness shown for consensus and other WP procedures and principles.--Filll 13:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whig's Evidence

[2] Wikidudeman explains how he thinks NPOV works. Whig 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Notable people at least. You seem to agree. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Check your passive voice. Whig 20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by "my passive voice"? I'm saying that if we can find notable people who call it "quackery" then we say they call it quackery and reference them. You agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Read what Mercury is telling you. Whig 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
He also agrees. However the discussion is how to properly cite numerous people without using weasel words. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Mercury is correct, that is how we get to NPOV. Whig 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
The idea is that you provide evidence which demonstrates the concerns you have. Not that you provide a piece of evidence and then go off complaining about other things that your evidence doesn't demonstrate. -Amarkov moo! 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
My only concern is the NPOV dispute. Whig 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a user conduct RfC. If you have problems concerning some other user's conduct, or have evidence against the allegations of your misconduct, feel free to bring it up. But this isn't going to help solve the NPOV dispute. -Amarkov moo! 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not acknowledge user misconduct. Whig 21:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. But it doesn't make this the right place to decide what the article content should be. -Amarkov moo! 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is relevant evidence. You don't care much for evidence anyway, I understand. Whig 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, no it isn't. You just said that you do not acknowledge the thing which the evidence must be relevant to. And as I've said, if you're going to allege that I've ignored the evidence, you must provide this evidence that I've ignored. -Amarkov moo! 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the evidence is relevant to my response. I do not regard this as a valid RfC. Whig 21:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Then why is someone else's opinion of NPOV, which you agree with, relevant? -Amarkov moo! 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not agree with Wikidudeman's opinion of NPOV. Whig 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so you don't agree with putting it in the passive voice. That's still completely irrelevant to complaints about your conduct. -Amarkov moo! 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not acknowledge any misconduct on my part. Whig 22:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
And how does that make his opinion of NPOV relevant evidence? -Amarkov moo! 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Please read my formal response. This is an NPOV dispute. Whig 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, we're getting somewhere. Now please substantiate the assertion that his preference towards the passive voice is the problem, and not your conduct. -Amarkov moo! 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I have no defense to offer because I have done nothing wrong. Whig 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that you think you've done nothing wrong. But you have to explain why the examples that have been given of wrongdoing on your part are faulty. -Amarkov moo! 22:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't. You should actually look at those examples and see if they are as represented. Whig 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you don't think you have to explain yourself, and can instead just tell anyone who disagrees to look at the evidence, then we're done here. Enjoy the block you'll get soon. -Amarkov moo! 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig, I'm getting quite tired of your almost constant attacks on other editors. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Bring down the hammer! Whig 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common sense

Whig is almost certainly trolling, and even if he is not, he is clearly being very disruptive. Can we just skip to the block? -Amarkov moo! 21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No. We need to go through procedure. An Arbitration is a nasty and time consuming matter but I guess that we have little choice in the matter. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
We definitely don't need Arbcom. Right now, the list of people who support him numbers one, with someone else kinda half-supporting him. If we had to go to arbitration every time someone disagreed with an assesment as disruptive, nobody would have time for anything else. -Amarkov moo! 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Yet what choice do we have? If we simply notify him to the Admin noticeboard, it's unlikely that anything will be done and if something is done (such as him being blocked), he will likely be unblocked by someone else, uninvolved in any of these disputes. This is what has happened before. Though I guess it's worth a try. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If I actually deserved to be blocked, I suppose you wouldn't worry about me being unblocked. Why do you continue to abuse process? Whig 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whig's Fourth Comment

RfC's are not to be used to abuse editors over content disputes. Whig 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on ANI

This discussion on ANI will likely interest people here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whig. JoshuaZ 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

You made a false accusation in that thread. I did not accuse the present RfC submitters of bad faith. Whig 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Your attempt to block me is abusive. Whig 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
If you notice, I gave the link and the context should make clear that was about the prior RfC. Nevertheless if you insist, I'll be more explicit. As for blocking, if you think it is abusive, you should say so on ANI and explain why. JoshuaZ 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Be very explicit. Whig 00:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Now that you have partially corrected it, why is the fact that a bad faith RfC was brought against me two years ago relevant? Whig 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
What is relevant is that you've had issues with editors in the past and are very quick to accuse them of bad faith. The context of your new comment on your talk page right under the old one hardly inspires confidence...JoshuaZ 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You accuse me of being too quick to accuse bad faith, when I have accused nobody of bad faith who submitted this RfC. Would you like to make some more false accusations? Whig 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
And again, if you think my comment on ANI isn't relevant the place to say so is in the ANI discussion not here. JoshuaZ 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
You brought it here. I don't feel a need to participate there. Whig 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I made a mention here for interested editors. You might see a difference between that having "brought it here" (whatever that means). I strongly recommend you comment there, since it looks like a topic ban is going to occur. If you don't give some defense or explanation there, that topic ban will almost certainly occur at minimum. JoshuaZ 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whig's Second Evidence

[3] Filll left this threat on Wanderer57's talk page. Whig 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What's that got to do with you? Oh, NOTHING! And it wasn't a threat, Wanderer's harassment of other editors has gotten out of hand. But you are getting very funny. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Um, what harassment of other editors? I could just be missing it, but I don't see any. -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I looked at Wanderer's edits and they looked fine. Whig 05:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[4] This is the immediately preceding edit by Wanderer57. Cause and effect? Whig 05:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It has a chilling effect on the process when participants are threatened with RfC's for their participation. Whig 05:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cautioning people and starting RfCs are supposed to have chilling effects on uncivil behavior and disruptive and tendentious editing and edit warring etc. This is the purpose. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not engage in endless nonsense. --Filll 05:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What were you referring to, Filll? What did Wanderer57 do? Wikidudeman (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to discuss Wanderer57 here. I just want Wanderer57 to avoid the situation Whig finds himself in here, given some problematic behavior I have witnessed which I hope does not get worse. --Filll 06:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is directly relevant to your attempt to chill participation in this RfC. Whig 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If it is inappropriate to discuss me (Wanderer57) here, please feel free to carry on the discussion on my talk page. Filll opened a new section there titled Harassment, which can be used for the purpose. I have copied the above discussion to that section. Wanderer57 17:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[5] It should be noted that Wanderer57 denies any wrongdoing as well. Whig 19:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whig's Third Evidence

[6] Orangemarlin left this message on Wikidudeman's Talk page calling Sm565 (who endorsed my response) "pathetic" and also calling me "mean spirited," proposing to subject Sm565 to this same kind of abusive RfC. Whig 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Third evidence that you should be banned? and that Sm565, who I believe has been blocked again should be banned? You got me. Wow, you DO have a sense of humor. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Abuse of RfC and personal attacks. Whig 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Research Findings re Talk:Homeopathy

I did some research and would like to report the results.

All of the eighteen Archive files of Talk:Homeopathy include significant discussions or debates about POV/NPOV. Only the last two of these archives include contributions from Whig.

Conclusions:

1. The current dispute is another in a continuing series of NPOV disputes about homeopathy.

2. The odds are about 98.6% ± 2.3% that Archives 17 and 18, and the current Talk:Homeopathy, would include NPOV disputes even if Whig had never become involved in this discussion. Wanderer57 00:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. That's not relevant. NPOV disputes or not, Whig's edits were very disruptive. So even if your conclusion is true, this doesn't excuse Whig's disruptive edits.
2. Your inference is that since NPOV disputes occurred in the past, they are somehow bound to occur in the future regardless of circumstances. This is a fallacy. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusions. However, they are not relevant unless you arguing that it is impossible to act in a disruptive manner when editing controversial subjects. Since this is obviously untrue I don't see what you are trying to say here. Tim Vickers 00:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you both for your feedback.
I did not say anything in this section about Whig's edits. A great deal has been said about them already in the RfC. In my opinion, the RfC process by its nature focuses on one person and ignores other relevant considerations.
My chief point, both here and in my earlier comments, is that there are other factors affecting the Homeopathy discussion which I think other editors are ignoring, either deliberately or inadvertently.
More specifically, my 1st point here is that this IS an NPOV dispute.
My 2nd is that NPOV disputes are nearly inevitable in this discussion, based on past history. I would not say they are "bound to occur", but extremely likely.
I noticed in looking through the archives that in the archived talks some of the people involved in the current round of discussion used what I (when being polite) would call "very contentious" language. I think there is a double standard as to what people can write without being called on it.
It is certainly possible to avoid acting in a disruptive manner when editing controversial subjects. However, IMO, some of the most egregious language in the discussion has come from editors arguing against Whig. I could point out examples but I hesitate to as I was accused of harassment the last time I did so. I think anyone who is able to look through the discussion objectively will find examples of this. Wanderer57 02:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, NOPV disputes have occurred regularly in the past and will occur again in the future. Yes, other editors have not acted as well as they could. I agree completely, but still fail to see the relevance to this process. Tim Vickers 02:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I think what Wanderer57 is saying, and I hope he will correct me if I misapprehend, is that he feels intimidated to introduce evidence into this RfC regarding the user conduct of participants who have brought it. Whig 04:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whig's Question

Should Wanderer57 or any other user feel free to bring forward evidence regarding the user conduct of the participants who have brought this RfC? Whig 04:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If others have acted improperly, then a separate RfC should be brought on their conduct. More broadly the real or imagined misdeeds of others are not a defense for one's own misdeeds. Be sure that any such RfC has a sound basis, as the filing of frivolous or retaliatory actions is often considered when reaching Arbcom decisions (should this matter end up there). Raymond Arritt 13:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[7] Wikidudeman states in my user Talk, "RFC brings the light of investigation upon ALL participants." Whig 19:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact Wikidudeman is correct as a matter of policy/ Quting from WP:RFC "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." (emphasis in original). You are welcome to file whatever comments you would like about other editors in this RfC. However, I doubt they will change the situation of your editing restrictions at all. Moreover, bear in mind that personal attacks in RfCs are still personal attacks and will be dealt with as such. JoshuaZ 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not concerned with editing restrictions being modified as a consideration of this RfC. This is an opportunity for users to make comments about my behavior, and also about the behavior of all involved participants, if I understand policy correctly. Therefore the answer to my question should be that Wanderer57 or any other user should feel free to bring forward evidence regarding the user conduct of the participants who have brought this RfC, is that correct? Whig 22:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Essentially yes. JoshuaZ 23:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that is indeed what the policy says. What is the problem? Tim Vickers 19:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem as I see it:

It is nice that I and others “are welcome to file whatever comments you would like about other editors in this RfC. However, I doubt they will change the situation of your editing restrictions at all.” The second part of this, about comments not changing the situation, quite agrees with my experience. To outline this experience:

  • I put comments into a section in the RfC called "Wanderer57's Comments". The result was, a) they were moved elsewhere, b) they were moved back to where I put them, and c) they were then ignored, as far as I can tell.
  • Other comments which I thought were relevant have been dismissed as irrelevant.
  • My note “Civility” pointing out that there was incivility in Talk:Homeopathy resulted in a) me being accused of harassment and b) a discussion of how little editing I have done, which, while true, is irrelevant as far as I can tell.
  • I checked the Talk:Homeopathy archives and found that NPOV disputes are normal in this article. I concluded that the current dispute is an NPOV dispute, which is what Whig has asserted. This information also seems to be either of no interest, or irrelevant.

My view (based on only one RfC, I admit) is that the RfC process is strongly biased in favor of the complainants and against the person being complained about. I don’t see how I can possibly change this so I do not see much point in further inputs.

I think the group of editors responsible for the Homeopathy article actually did a pretty good job, and I commented to that effect when I first looked at the article.

- - -

I have another point related to bias in the RfC process. I was appalled to discover that the Administrators discussion about what penalty was appropriate for Whig was infested with inputs from some of the people most negative about him. Let me describe the mental image this conjured up. I promise to be brief.

In a courtroom, the Court Clerk announces, “All rise! Court is in session, Judge Hawthorne presiding.”
Judge: “Raise your right hand if you know the defendant.” Hands go up.
Judge: “Raise your left hand if you do not like the defendant.” Hands go up.
Judge: “Great! We have a jury. All those without two hands raised can leave the court”.

Wanderer57 01:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Analogies aside, there was a consensus even among users who haven't dealt with Whig, note that many users such as Bishonen who have never interacted with Whig at all have reached the same conclusions. As to the fact that this is an "NPOV dispute" (by which I presume you mean a dispute over what would be NPOV) the issue isn't the nature of the dispute but how Whig has handled it. He has consistently been disruptive and failed to understand what NPOV and RS actually say. Many uninvolved editors have reached the same conclusion. When I said that posting more evidence wouldn't change Whig's editing restrictions, it was for a very simple reason: because many editors who weren't involved saw it as necessary; it might be helpful to restrict others as well, but Whig's restriction will almost certainly stay. In any event, if you have any specific issues about other users conduct in this situation by all means feel free to post an opinion about that on the main RfC page. JoshuaZ 01:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration isn't a nasty and time-consuming matter

Reading Wikidudeman's claim above that "an Arbitration is a nasty and time consuming matter", I feel moved to protest. It's true that the arbitration committee is having one of its periodic bouts of bogged-down inefficiency, and is in fact taking a long time over everything; but arbitration still doesn't absorb anything like as much time, effort, and frustration from the regular users as RFCs do. This is a fairly well-kept secret, but I'm hereby outing it. And the most important function of the arbcom, as I pointed out in my Outside View, is precisely to protect productive editors from the timewaste and attrition caused by disruptive editors. I mean, come on, people! Look at this small selection of comments made in this RFC—you wrote them yourselves, voicing exasperation, frustration, perhaps burnout:

  • ...this user has failed to make any attempts to resolve the disputes in a constructive manner... this user has also had a previous RFC with essentially the same things brought up but for other topics and by other users: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig. ...this user has replied with threats and filibustering when attempts to resolve disputes were made...
  • ...the discussion between Whig & everyone else can be summarized as follows:
Others: We can only use reliable sources in this article.
Whig: Fine. My sources are reliable.
Others: What we mean by "reliable sources" are sources written by scientists, published in peer-reviewed publications.
Whig: My sources are reliable.
Repeat the above until you want to pound your head at a wall.
  • ...stubbornness alone, without any attempt to address the concerns of the other side, is just being disruptive.
  • He has claimed that it does not matter if others have concerns.

From the talkpage:

  • It is editors like this who drive productive editors away. Dealing with him for a few days just made me want to take the homeopathy article off my watch list, or even suggest it be deleted completely so we could start over from scratch. Very disheartening to have to deal with editors of his ilk here.
  • I think we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to save edit-warriors and others who do not help the project grow--Whig and others should be receive a community ban quickly and efficiently. Read this statement by one of the most respected admins and editors on this project. What is particularly galling is that there are individuals who use this system against perfectly reasonable editors, drive them off the project, and leave behind individuals like Whig.


I strongly suggest you dump this abysmal waste of time in the arbcom's lap. That's what we keep them for. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC).

Arbcom should deal with complicated issues. This one is pretty one-dimensional. If it continues to be a problem we can simply get a community patience ban. JoshuaZ 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I love being quoted by Bishonen. It's like getting a cookie with my newspaper in the morning. Not guessing what WDM means, I think what frustrates me is that Whig has abused the system to keep from getting blocked for a long period of time or even banned. Arbcom requires a lot of information, and gives the appearance that it protects editors like Whig, Ferrylodge and Profg. They should be executed without prejudice. No loss to Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


I also have been quoted by Bishonen. I have to admit, it is great that he delivers this message, but to be honest, I am pretty skeptical, after having seen how other things around here work, particularly with committees of admins involved. I suspect it might be even worse than going through with RfCs. I am afraid that using this as an avenue might easily backfire on those attempting to use it and be turned into a weapon against good editors. I have to see it to believe it, I guess.--Filll 00:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, arbitrations are indeed time consuming, energy consuming, frustrating, and inefficient processes. I think that there needs to be at least 10 more arbitrators before anything can be changed. The arbitrators are overworked and the previous RFA that I was involved in, which was initially started mainly as a RFA against a specific user mainly didn't even mention him in it's final decision but just re-stated policy and warned a few small fish disruptors. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
<intemperate comments I made refactored> Skinwalker 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Filll, for some reason, I think Bishonen is a woman. That's why I use the neutral "they" whenever I'm not sure. But I could be wrong.  :) WDM, by the way a Marlin is a big fish.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
My dad caught a marlin once. It didn't taste very good. Cheers, Skinwalker 01:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I live 1200 miles from the nearest ocean. Having gotten that out of the way, let's not waste any more of our (or arbcom's) time on this matter. User:Whig is on topic ban, 1RR, and civility parole. If he stays within those bounds -- which he seems to have done so far -- great. If he doesn't, he gets blocked. In the meantime let's all get back to writing articles. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

...removes this page from his watchlist and gets on with more important matters. Tim Vickers 02:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not going to remove it from my watchlist, but I think it is time to move on. This RfC will of course be very useful if a community ban is necessary. Whig is staying within those bounds, though he's pushing it with comments on Talk:Homeopathy. But since I rarely read talk pages, I'm fine with that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, let's move on. Pardon the venting. Skinwalker 02:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)