172.191.129.191 (talk) Rhobite's accusations are not in accord with the actual state of affairs |
|||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
---- |
---- |
||
*{{user|67.182.157.6}}, calls himself "DotSix". Also editing from: |
*{{user|67.182.157.6}}, calls himself "DotSix". Also editing from: |
||
::You have no proof of this, it is empty allegation with no basis in fact that you can point to. I move for summary dismissal of Rhobite's nasty little [[no personal attacks | personal attack/vendetta]] against someone he just does not like, which is conduct unbecoming an administrator. -- [[User:172.191.129.191|172.191.129.191]] |
|||
**{{user|207.200.116.67}} |
**{{user|207.200.116.67}} |
||
**{{user|207.200.116.133}} note the similarity of annotation to 172.195.53.33: no personal note except a simple IP address, clearly a platform from which to launch messages. Also, note his 7/23/05 annotation "...in accord with the actual state of affairs" is terminology used by 67.182.157.6 and no other party to the dispute. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATruth&diff=19562885&oldid=19428635 See this diff] ... ...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Truth&diff=prev&oldid=19407589 Also, 23:33 22 July 2005 diff shows 207.200.116.133's usage of "...you boys..." terminology in concordance with DotSix's usage, "...you boys..." appearing 15:33 16 July 2005 ] | |
**{{user|207.200.116.133}} note the similarity of annotation to 172.195.53.33: no personal note except a simple IP address, clearly a platform from which to launch messages. Also, note his 7/23/05 annotation "...in accord with the actual state of affairs" is terminology used by 67.182.157.6 and no other party to the dispute. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATruth&diff=19562885&oldid=19428635 See this diff] ... ...[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Truth&diff=prev&oldid=19407589 Also, 23:33 22 July 2005 diff shows 207.200.116.133's usage of "...you boys..." terminology in concordance with DotSix's usage, "...you boys..." appearing 15:33 16 July 2005 ] | |
||
Line 20: | Line 23: | ||
=== Description === |
=== Description === |
||
This editor has engaged in revert wars in several articles about abstract philosophical concepts: [[Truth]], [[True]], [[Knowledge]], [[Epistemology]]. He also removed content from [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], claiming that it is a "logical fallacy". |
This editor has engaged in revert wars in several articles about abstract philosophical concepts: [[Truth]], [[True]], [[Knowledge]], [[Epistemology]]. He also removed content from [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]], claiming that it is a "logical fallacy". |
||
::Articles based on logical fallacy have no place in a modern encyclopedia. There is enough of that in the Bible, The Washington Times, etc. -- [[User:172.191.129.191|172.191.129.191]] |
|||
⚫ | |||
When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being "obscurantists", ... |
|||
::Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, don't be surprised when people conclude that you might actually be a duck. -- [[User:172.191.129.191|172.191.129.191]] |
|||
... of being "vandals", and of violating the NPOV policy. When informed that most users oppose his edits, he responds that this is fallacious reasoning, "argumentum ad numerum". |
|||
::It IS logical fallacy to argue, "P must be true, because it is the opinion of the majority here." This is one of the main objections to [[the consensus theory of truth]]. Google argument _ad numerum_ (appeal to the popularity of a particular [[bias | point of view]]). -- [[User:172.191.129.191|172.191.129.191]] |
|||
⚫ | |||
::The accused did not say EQUAL PLACEMENT, did he? Isn't it the actual state of affairs that the accused has consistently quoted the Wikipedia Policy that Principled [[wikipeedia:negotiation|Negotiation]] is the method of choice to resolve content disputes, "Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article." -- [[User:172.191.129.191|172.191.129.191]] |
|||
He has removed other users' comments from talk pages, claiming that they are personal attacks. At the same time, he has called other users names. |
He has removed other users' comments from talk pages, claiming that they are personal attacks. At the same time, he has called other users names. |
||
Line 80: | Line 95: | ||
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.'' |
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.'' |
||
:The following response from DotSix |
:The following response from DotSix ... |
||
{comment: You have no proof this is from the accused, Rhobite. And you have no right to edit the Response section, unless you are the accused, or among those who think that the dispute is unjustified. Shall we take it that you are now changing sides? -- [[User:172.191.129.191|172.191.129.191]] 16:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)} |
|||
... was moved here from where he inserted it above in the wrong section: |
|||
:::You mean where the evidence that you, Rhobite, were caught in conduct unbecoming an administrator (deleting the comment of another, and then not telling the truth about it when confronted with the fact) was presented, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Truth&diff=prev&oldid=19428635 the diff just before that one]? Why don't you just drop this nasty little [[wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack/vendetta]] of yours, Rhobite? [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|Biting the newbies]] is also conduct unbecoming an adminstrator, wouldn't you say, old boy? -- [[User:172.192.66.3|172.192.66.3]] 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC) |
:::You mean where the evidence that you, Rhobite, were caught in conduct unbecoming an administrator (deleting the comment of another, and then not telling the truth about it when confronted with the fact) was presented, in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Truth&diff=prev&oldid=19428635 the diff just before that one]? Why don't you just drop this nasty little [[wikipedia:No personal attacks|personal attack/vendetta]] of yours, Rhobite? [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers|Biting the newbies]] is also conduct unbecoming an adminstrator, wouldn't you say, old boy? -- [[User:172.192.66.3|172.192.66.3]] 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:09, 28 July 2005
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC).
- 67.182.157.6 (talk · contribs), calls himself "DotSix". Also editing from:
- You have no proof of this, it is empty allegation with no basis in fact that you can point to. I move for summary dismissal of Rhobite's nasty little personal attack/vendetta against someone he just does not like, which is conduct unbecoming an administrator. -- 172.191.129.191
- 207.200.116.67 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.133 (talk · contribs) note the similarity of annotation to 172.195.53.33: no personal note except a simple IP address, clearly a platform from which to launch messages. Also, note his 7/23/05 annotation "...in accord with the actual state of affairs" is terminology used by 67.182.157.6 and no other party to the dispute. See this diff ... ...Also, 23:33 22 July 2005 diff shows 207.200.116.133's usage of "...you boys..." terminology in concordance with DotSix's usage, "...you boys..." appearing 15:33 16 July 2005 |
- 207.200.116.14 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.130 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.196 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.7 (talk · contribs)
- 207.200.116.198 (talk · contribs)
- 172.195.53.33 (talk · contribs) talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133
- 172.191.98.226 (talk · contribs)
- 172.192.66.3 (talk · contribs)
- 172.197.102.120 (talk · contribs)
In case it is preferable for admininistration, the above information is also included in a diff here, for reference. Ancheta Wis 11:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.
Description
This editor has engaged in revert wars in several articles about abstract philosophical concepts: Truth, True, Knowledge, Epistemology. He also removed content from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that it is a "logical fallacy".
- Articles based on logical fallacy have no place in a modern encyclopedia. There is enough of that in the Bible, The Washington Times, etc. -- 172.191.129.191
When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being "obscurantists", ...
- Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, don't be surprised when people conclude that you might actually be a duck. -- 172.191.129.191
... of being "vandals", and of violating the NPOV policy. When informed that most users oppose his edits, he responds that this is fallacious reasoning, "argumentum ad numerum".
- It IS logical fallacy to argue, "P must be true, because it is the opinion of the majority here." This is one of the main objections to the consensus theory of truth. Google argument _ad numerum_ (appeal to the popularity of a particular point of view). -- 172.191.129.191
At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement.
- The accused did not say EQUAL PLACEMENT, did he? Isn't it the actual state of affairs that the accused has consistently quoted the Wikipedia Policy that Principled Negotiation is the method of choice to resolve content disputes, "Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article." -- 172.191.129.191
He has removed other users' comments from talk pages, claiming that they are personal attacks. At the same time, he has called other users names.
DotSix may claim in his response that I removed his comment from Talk:Truth. That is a false claim, I did remove it by accident [1] but I replaced it two minutes later [2]. For days he has been complaining about this perceived violation, although he himself is not above removing other users' comments intentionally.
Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
Behavior issues
- Removes several comments from Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view: [3]
- Repeatedly removes parts of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that they are "logical fallacies". The NPOV policy is non-negotiable and may only be edited at the direction of Jimbo Wales: [4] [5] [6]
- Removes User:FuelWagon's comment from Talk:Truth: [7] [8]
- Removes User:Ancheta Wis's comment from Talk:Truth, calling it an "irrelevant diatribe with threats of reprisal" [9]
- Calls User:Banno "banana", a personal attack: [10] [11]
- Removes the lead section of Truth, reverts to own version repeatedly in violation of 3RR [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]
- Repeatedly attempts to redirect True to wiktionary:true. Not only is this technically impossible, he violates the three revert rule in the process: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
- Random sampling of him calling other users "vandals", "obscurantists", and erroneously accusing them of using logical fallacies: "obscurantist jihad" [23], "argumentum ad numerum" [24], "revert to eliminate vandalism" [25]
- Removal of comments by User:Banno from Talk:true, [26], [27],
- Removes User:Robert McClenon's outside response from this RFC: [28]
Content issues (for reference)
- No other users have supported DotSix's version of Truth. DotSix's edits have been reverted by Banno, Nathan Ladd, Ancheta Wis, Rhobite, JimWae, Byped.
- Repeatedly removes sections of Knowledge and Epistemology, claiming that they exhibit "the fallacy of conflation of knowledge and belief": [29] [30] [31][32] [33] [34]
Applicable policies
- Wikipedia:No personal attacks
- Wikipedia:Civility
- Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines (removing other users' comments)
- Wikipedia:Three revert rule
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
- I (Rhobite) have twice suggested that DotSix contact me via e-mail or IRC so we can sort this out. These requests have gone unanswered. [35] [36]
- Ancheta Wis attempts to explain why it is not OK for DotSix to add POV to Truth: [37] DotSix also removed this comment.
- I attempt to discuss how DotSix's contributions violate the manual of style, and warn him about editing other users' comments. He has continued to edit comments since I warned him. [38]
- FuelWagon responded to an RfC about Truth, and addressed DotSix's conduct: [39] DotSix immediately removed FuelWagon's comment since it was critical of his conduct.
- Banno set up an RfC to seek outside opinion on .6's behaviour. The RfC was placed in Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Miscellaneous instead of Wikipedia:Requests for comment#General user conduct precisely to give .6 the benefit of the doubt [40]. That we are now involved in this RfC shows that the attempt failed. Banno 12:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~~~~)
- Asbestos 19:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC). I was only involved briefly in the events at Truth, so don't think I was involved enough to sign the section above. Personally I think DotSix is a mere troll, but trolls can at times become too distruptive to counter by mere starvation, and action must sometimes be taken.
- Robert McClenon 21:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.
- The following response from DotSix ...
{comment: You have no proof this is from the accused, Rhobite. And you have no right to edit the Response section, unless you are the accused, or among those who think that the dispute is unjustified. Shall we take it that you are now changing sides? -- 172.191.129.191 16:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)}
... was moved here from where he inserted it above in the wrong section:
- You mean where the evidence that you, Rhobite, were caught in conduct unbecoming an administrator (deleting the comment of another, and then not telling the truth about it when confronted with the fact) was presented, in the diff just before that one? Why don't you just drop this nasty little personal attack/vendetta of yours, Rhobite? Biting the newbies is also conduct unbecoming an adminstrator, wouldn't you say, old boy? -- 172.192.66.3 18:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view by McClenon
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
I am inclined to agree with Asbestos that Dot-Six is a troll, but a troll who is being disruptive. My own opinion is that the most serious offense by Dot-Six has been editing a Wikipedia official policy. I am not looking at the detailed definition of vandalism, and so do not want to state positively whether that is vandalism, but multiply editing an official policy to change its content is clearly abusive.
Dot-Six is one of two anonymous editors who are currently the subject of Requests for Comments who illustrate a special problem about disruptive anonymous editors. I agree with Wikipedia policy that anonymous edits should normally be permitted. A signed-in editor who violates the 3RR rule can be blocked. An anonymous editor who violates the 3RR rule cannot be effectively blocked. Since Wikipedia (unlike much of Usenet) is not an anarchy, there must be situations in which the use of anonymity has to be checked. My own suggestion is that there should be a feature allowing an article that has previously been disrupted by anonymous edits more than 3 times in 24 hours to be permanently protected from anonymous edits without the drastic extent of full protection. That is my opinion.
I think that Dot-Six is an anonymous troll who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a philosophical point. I am not exactly sure what point is. There needs to be a way to minimize disruption by anonymous trolls. Robert McClenon 22:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
Further complaints and evidence about DotSix
- Refusing to respond constructively to attempts by others to meet him/her halfway. For many of these the attempt to reach out to DotSix comes in the edit annotation. [41],[42],[43],[44], [45],[46],[47], [48], [49], and all edits from [50] through [51]
- Demanding that Wiki policy be ignored when it doesn't conform to his desires. [52],[53]
- Repeatedly adding an NPOV tag without explanation. [54],[55],[56],[57],[58]
- Repeatedly adding a link to a page that simply redirects to the original page. [59],[60]
- Adding a NPOV tag to a lead paragraph that he/she had had written himself/herself. [61]
- Repeatedly tried to introduce the subject of Truth with a sentence that introduces philosophy. See edits from [62] through [63]. Note how others tried to explain to him what the problem is.
- Falsely accused others of threatening him. [64]
--Nate Ladd 08:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Archiving material as a rhetorical tool
- Material directly relevant to the discussion of redundancy was removed to an archive the day after it was posted, thereby ending an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise. The discussion concerned the philosopher Frank Ramsey whose redundancy theory was the reason cited for .6's NPOV complaint; .6 did not enter into the discussion of Ramsey's work, instead archiving the discussion, prematurely ending it.[65]
- Banno 20:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Banno does not report the actual state of affairs. The accused never mentioned the name, "Ramsey" at all. Repeat, the accused never mentioned Ramsey. If anyone disagrees, please post a link to the page where he did here:
- The logic of this response escapes me. Yes, .6 did not mention Ramsey; indeed, this was despite being asked several times to do so. Ramsey is the originator and main advocate of the redundancy theory of truth that .6 used as the basis for his POV dispute. So, in order to solve the dispute in good faith, discussion of Ramsey would be essential. Instead, .6 failed to address the issue and hid the discussion by archiving it. My point was precisely that .6 avoided discussion of Ramsey by archiving relevant material. Banno 11:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)