Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
But foremost, I've been honest. Honest to the sources, honest to the diffs, honest to myself and honest to the other editors. [[User:Glkanter|Glkanter]] ([[User talk:Glkanter|talk]]) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
But foremost, I've been honest. Honest to the sources, honest to the diffs, honest to myself and honest to the other editors. [[User:Glkanter|Glkanter]] ([[User talk:Glkanter|talk]]) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
== The following is NOT permitted: RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary == |
|||
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance2 User conduct/Guidance2] |
|||
So, if you consider: |
|||
:that I work toward a consensus rather than edit war, which is a good thing |
|||
:Rick was not involved in the the Dicklyon incident. Therefore this is an invalid claim. |
|||
:Dicklyon has acknowledged initiating the incident this RfC is based upon |
|||
:I begged for mercy 3 times before Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin made a peace |
|||
:Dicklyon has his edit wars on his user page, but wants mine removed as a remedy |
|||
:the claims of repeated incivility are an opinion |
|||
:the claims that I do nothing constructive are an opinion |
|||
:the claims that I am disruptive are an opinion |
|||
:the claims that I work against the consensus are an opinion |
|||
:I am actually a vocal, constructive member of the consensus that Rick Block and Dicklyon accuse me of disrupting |
|||
:Rick's unfathomable 'meow, meow' uncivil attack on me (the rest of that diff was tremendously over the line as well) |
|||
:Rick Block is ''not'' a member of the consensus |
|||
:The consensus has decided to file for Formal Mediation. RfCs like this delay any such filing, by diverting the editors. |
|||
:Rick is at risk of losing his only FA article due to substantial changes via the consensus |
|||
How can I ''not'' conclude this was a form of harassment? How would I pursue this concern? [[User:Glkanter|Glkanter]] ([[User talk:Glkanter|talk]]) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:48, 24 December 2009
Dicklyon's comments about what's going on
Here's my take on Glkanter. He seems to be not so much a wikipedia editor as a Monty-Hall Problem groupie; 99% of his editors are of the Monty Hall Problem talk page, and he's frustrated that he can't convince everyone to throw out Rick Block and his approach and do it differently; he's not alone in this, and I tend to be closer to his side than to Ricks, and my attempts there have been to find the some compromise to settle the arguments that have been going on for over a year. I've given up on that more than once now, most recently due to the toxic reaction from Glkanter.
The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of this edit by Glkanter, which initially looked to me like malicious disruption of somebody's serious attempt at a chronology. Before I actually did the revert, I did realize that it was his own work that he was editing, but that, to me, was not enough reason to not revert, and as I say in my edit summary here, I took it to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." I took one additional step to convert his "pointy" chronology to somethat that might be worth discussing, here, and finally a bit of cleanup and response to the point here. Whatever one may think of my attempt to patch up the chronology, which was his work, his subsequent reactions were way over the top, culminating in gross incivility, which he repeated both on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no apparent purpose. So I just left that article as intractable and didn't worry about any more until Rick told me was filing this conduct RfC, which I obviously agree with.
ps. my "obviously incorrect" statement referred to the positioning of the paragraph "Devlin and many others write articles and text books as reliably sourced references using only the unconditional solution. They make no mention of Morgan or conditionality." before the publications of any of the relevant articles by von Savant, Devlin, or Morgan.
Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Glkanter's Response to Eastshire
If you were in my shoes, you would not agree that Dicklyon and I acted equally uncivil. To me that's what the msm does sometimes, it's a 'false equivalency'. I think I acted in self defense to a mugging. Then I started yelling that I had been mugged. Now with this un-called-for RfC, I'm getting arrested for disturbing the peace - by the very guy who mugged me! Read the section involved, as it is now, that I had just created new, and that Dicklyon changed just moments later. All that's missing is his deletions that I replaced. I read his user page discussing his various edit wars. I turned the other cheek and begged for mercy 3 times. What else was I supposed to do to avoid trouble? And that whole Dick Cheney thread, while very sarcastic is wholly supported by the diffs. Sometimes honesty isn't pretty. The 'Cheney' diff wasn't posted until 10 hours after the incident began, and 2 1/2 hours after peace had been restored..
Oh, one last quick thing. Rick Block wasn't involved in this incident in any way. That means that he and Dicklyon didn't meet the requirements for filing this RfC. Glkanter (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that there are differing levels of fault between Dicklyon and Glkantor; they have not acted equally uncivil. However, acting less uncivil than another editor is not a defense for acting uncivilly. Taking a deep breath before posting would be advisable on both sides of the MHP issue.
- I do believe the RfCU was properly certified as Rick Block attempted to resolve the dispute as evidenced by diffs 18-22. Please note that I am not expressing an opinion as to whether the RfCU was called for.Eastshire (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The only incident I have ever been involved with that included Dicklyon occurred on 12/7/2009. Rick's diffs 18-22 are from very different dates (some are November), and cover a multitude of different topics. On 12/7/2009, Rick, as I said in the RfC, had no involvement whatsoever. Please review the instructions at the top of the RfC. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Eastshire meant by "Both sides of this issue appear to be treating the article's talk page as a battleground and have acted in an uncivil manner." If I (or Rick) did something uncivil, I'd like to have it pointed out; I certainly was never battling against Glkanter, and my "refactoring" of his proposed timeline was well intentioned, attempting to support his position, preserving the meaning where it was meaningful and removing the parts that were evidently errorful, meaningless, or appeared to be intended as a pointy disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for the "battle" on the talk page, it has been ongoing for way too long, due to dug-in polarizing positions of Rick Block on the one side and Glkanter and a few others on the other side. Rick has prevailed largely, by being scrupulously civil, listening to the concerns of others, and sticking to arguments based on policies. Glkanter, on the other hand, has been ranting on the verge of incivility for a long time, and has recently stepped way over the line. The "battle" would have a better chance of convergence if he would not drive away people who try to work on finding a middle ground, like me. I don't expect that this RfC/U will have much effect, based on my past experience, but if there's some way to get him to acknowledge that his behavior was bad and to agree to not do that any more, that would be awesome. As for my mistake in editing his talk, I agree it was bad (but not incivil) and won't do that again. Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, here's a classic from Rick. This is included in his 'official' comments voting against the proposed changes. Meow, Meow December 4, 2009 Glkanter (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, a specific uncivil act I see on your part is accusing Glkanter of vandalizing his on talk contribution. This is a separate issue than the actual editing of the contribution. You've acknowledged your error in editing the contribution, which is good. You should consider what people infer from you labeling Gklanter's edit of his on contribution as vandalism. Gklanter, you do need to take a deep breath before you post and ask yourself if you are being civil. Eastshire (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Glkanter's 'Defense' - Where Is The Monty Hall Article Consensus Today?
I have stayed very quiet in the face of all the 'disruptive' and 'POV' and whatever other opinion-based complaints in this RfC.
The facts are simple. In October, 2008 I posted this Monty's Action Does Not Cause The Original Odds To Change using an IP address.
I have not wavered from this. I have been insistent that this is how the article should be framed, which is 180 degrees contrary to how it was back in October, 2008. At the time, I was the gadfly.
In February, not having received the 'Welcome Kit', I posted this on the MHP talk page Conventional Wisdom explaining how I hoped to one day change this article. I made no friend in February, I can assure you. Despite the fact I was advocating for the original published source's solution, upon Rick's request for support, I was insulted repeatedly, and my knowledge of the topic was impugned by the best of them.
I took 2 breaks since then. One for 2 months, the other for 4 months, ending roughly around Thanksgiving. I did not post to anything Monty Hall related at all for over 4 months. When I returned, I found some like-minded editors had come aboard. And I jumped right back in, full force.
And today, as there has been for nearly 3 weeks, there is a clear consensus to modify the article in much the way I've been proposing. Two members of that consensus are Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin. Rick Block and two others are wielding some form of veto. I don't mix it up much in the discussions, either. I let those guys go on at length about formal probability statements, and variants, and Morgan, and their own OR, etc. I usually start new sections that logically prove why the consensus for change is on the side of 'right'.
So, I've been insistent, brusque, redundant, etc. etc. I could say all the same things about Rick Block. And he's been at it on the MHP a lot longer than me. I really don't know how else we would have gotten to where the consensus is filing for Formal Mediation against the current content of the article. The FA article.
But foremost, I've been honest. Honest to the sources, honest to the diffs, honest to myself and honest to the other editors. Glkanter (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
The following is NOT permitted: RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary
So, if you consider:
- that I work toward a consensus rather than edit war, which is a good thing
- Rick was not involved in the the Dicklyon incident. Therefore this is an invalid claim.
- Dicklyon has acknowledged initiating the incident this RfC is based upon
- I begged for mercy 3 times before Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin made a peace
- Dicklyon has his edit wars on his user page, but wants mine removed as a remedy
- the claims of repeated incivility are an opinion
- the claims that I do nothing constructive are an opinion
- the claims that I am disruptive are an opinion
- the claims that I work against the consensus are an opinion
- I am actually a vocal, constructive member of the consensus that Rick Block and Dicklyon accuse me of disrupting
- Rick's unfathomable 'meow, meow' uncivil attack on me (the rest of that diff was tremendously over the line as well)
- Rick Block is not a member of the consensus
- The consensus has decided to file for Formal Mediation. RfCs like this delay any such filing, by diverting the editors.
- Rick is at risk of losing his only FA article due to substantial changes via the consensus
How can I not conclude this was a form of harassment? How would I pursue this concern? Glkanter (talk) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)