Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Ste4k - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mangojuice (talk | contribs) at 16:22, 24 July 2006 (→Outside view by []: endorse). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:22, 24 July 2006 by Mangojuice (talk | contribs) (→Outside view by []: endorse)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:09, July 21, 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 20:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}

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

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

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

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Curse

Ste4k's first known edits were to add material on "Cursed newsgroups" to Curse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), using the IP address user:72.128.30.205. The material was sourced from a single Usenet posting on June 5 by "Rrock" who uses IP 72.128.30.205 On June 16, the material was placed in the "Curse" article for the first time. Six minutes later "Rrock" boasted of the material on alt.religion.angels., and then again several times later. Those postings make it appear that the entry was created as ammunition in on off-Wiki dispute. (The same user has Google Groups profiles for various spellings and has made several hundred postings a month since at least October 2005. As Ste4k became involved with Misplaced Pages Rrock's activity on Usenet has either dropped off considerably. There is ample additional evidence confirming that Ste4k and Rrock are the same person or inhabit the same household, which needn't be presented here. It would not matter except that this editor has acted deceitfully.) RRock may have indicated an intent to bring Misplaced Pages into disrepute and to engage in further mischief, either on Usenet or Misplaced Pages in this ambiguous posting.

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

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

  • Please help verify instead of simply refuting without basis, thank you.
  • Removing POV warnings and Nuetrality warnings. Neither have been justified in discussion.
  • Blanking, the removal of all or significant parts of articles is a common vandal edit.
  • 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
  • Please do not remove content from Misplaced Pages; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

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

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

A Course in Miracles

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

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

PRODs

AfDs

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

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

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

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

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

Complains of an ACIM "advocacy group".

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

Big Brother (Australia series 6)

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

Greek statue

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

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

Comments were then left by JzG (talk · contribs), Martinp23 (talk · contribs) and JChap2007 (talk · contribs) (, and who unanimously agreed that the article be merged at Sculpture of Ancient Greece. Ste4k then responded, describing that the direction of the merge didn't concern her - but she didn't want the article to be orphaned following the revert of her merge . Following this consensus, Martinp23 completed the merge from Greek statue to Sculpture of Ancient Greece ( and ). He then left a message on Ste4k's talk page and on the article discussion page informing that the merge had been completed. ( and ). Following this, Ste4k left a comment on Martinp23's talk page informing him that he had omitted some information from the original article. When Martinp23 asked Ste4k what he had missed, he was told to look more carefully( and ). In the intervening period, Steak reverted the merge on Greek statue but not on Sculpture of Ancient Greece (orphaning Greek statue), leaving dispued merge templates on both ( and ), prompting Will Beback (talk · contribs) to ask what the problem was on the article talk page . Martinp23 then looked for what he had omitted and put a missed picture in the article and left a message on the talk page awaiting a response from Ste4K . 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"). . In response to this, Nscheffey, in a further attempt to defuse Ste4k's arguement, left a question on the talk page to clarify her position on the merge . Martinp23, in anticipation of a response from Ste4k, added the information he had omitted and posted an apology on the article talk page ( and ). Then he removed the disputed tags and reverted Greek statue to his previous redirect version. ( and ). No further dispute was raised by Ste4k.

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

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

User talk page

  • Edit warred over talk page comments.
  • Imposed a "new messages at top" posting requirement.
  • Formatted her talk page with unreadable small maroon text on a black backrogund. Complaints about it:
  • Edit warred over that formatting.
  • Deleted criticism and warnings as personal attacks or taunts.
  • Called apparently personal messages "spam."
  • Added dismissive headers.
  • Set conditions before another user can post to the page.
  • Stated that she will ignore users.
  • Placed a notice that only admins could post messages.

General problems

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

Negative personal comments

  • "I'm not originally from the U.S. I was born in Kharkov. In our country, we beat liars, and if one wants to eat, they work. The only POV in that article I wrote was that I wanted to find out the truth, did research, marked it with citations for verifiability, refused to consider any source that came from some primary provider, and all I found out for my trouble was that this encyclopedia isn't even worth quoting. You should be ashamed to have your familiy member's name on this medium. "
  • "You still haven't apologized for pretending to be a n00b then turning around to slap a POV "delete" on the article. Do you think I am stupid, too? I already told you that insults don't make enemies, but if you want an enemy, then you should reconsider your choice, imho."
  • "the environment here is not conducive for editors like me to put any effort on this. Happy editing."
  • "Maybe you should speak to the other side. I tried myself, and found him to be less than a troll, imho."
  • "I am very tired of his bickering, and trolling. He is uncooperative and anti-productive."
  • "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. "
  • That's two articles, now Will, that you and your boy have successfully run me off of. later."

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Other comments from editors

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

Input requests involving Ste4k

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 Misplaced Pages in a more positive, less confrontational manner.


Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

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

Other users who endorse this summary

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

First of all, Will, thank you for the kind remarks in the description of your dispute. I don't want to be accused of "wikilawyering", especially in this RfC you have brought up, but I believe that you should actually have tried to resolve a dispute using discussion before writing up an RfC. Had you done so, perhaps, you might have found that your original perceptions were askew. For example, you have never approached me about any hoax before, but had you asked, I would have told you that my husband as well as both of my teenage children use the computers in the house. Your dispute on the whole appears to be a mixing of all sorts of various disputes, many that have been resolved, and I have learned from each one. It almost appears as if you are digging up dirt to rekindle flames instead of allowing wounds to heal. Much of your evidence points to early portions of conversations and fails to show how they turned out. I will try and narrow down for you here, what your apparent dispute actually seems to be, to me. I don't believe that this is the correct venue for me to provide long lists of evidence or to counter each point, etc., but to hear you out in your point of view formally. If I am incorrect about this, then please let me know. I am quite capable of researching even though several people would like for editors to believe otherwise.

You state, "Unfortunately, her overall impact on Misplaced Pages so far has not been productive. Her edits have been strongly contested and her attitude has alienated many...she has irritated other users through edit wars and confrontational talk page postings. She has exhibited a condescending attitude towards other editors, takes offense too easily, and insists that she is always right. Much of her participation in this project can be described properly as "trolling". To those statements, I will answer in the order you stated.

Per my overall impact being productive: Will, I think that if you would like to see more productivity from me, then you should probably try to do so in a positive manner, rather than a negative. I did find your compliment "is an especially energetic and prolific editor" probably one of the first compliments I have received on my overall impact and productivity. I have received several compliments about various little things in the few weeks that I have been here, but this is actually the first compliment that I think has addressed my own decision about whether any of the work I have been doing is worth the effort. When you notified me about an RfC, I expected to see something much more hideous. So, overall then, I appreciate the compliment, and as you know, all of our efforts are volunteer.

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, except perhaps the Greek Statue section. But I never contested anything at all about that. It was a merge along with 50 other merges I performed. I told the other user that if he didn't like the merge, to fix it. Instead of fixing it, he orphaned an article. Since that particular user has such a strong obsessive fixation with me, and because there are other actions pending about that user, I will say no more about it at this time.

About "condescending attitudes", they seem to be very run of the mill around here. I won't point any fingers at anyone, but you have mixed that part of your dispute with "takes offense too easily". In that regard, below in the General problems section, you only list one incident. That incident occurred between myself and one other user whom had failed to give any regard to me personally before making major disruptive changes to my talk page. 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 Misplaced Pages, then I think that I had every right to believe at that time that Misplaced Pages is not the place where I'd like to contribute.

About some of the general problems you have addressed here, Will. When Andrew Parodi first contacted me, he was already on the verge of leaving. His first comments to me were that he refused to discuss the article on the article's discussion page because it was too ugly and he was tired of arguing about things. If you go check the date and times of the statements you will see that I hadn't even engaged in article conversation with Andrew when he mentioned that. About Scottperry, if not mistaken, he is having a break for his wedding and that was mentioned by him as well as Who123 in discussion pages of A Course in Miracles. Who123 hasn't mentioned anything to me about leaving at all. Who123 has, however, made quite a few interesting edits and disparaging remarks toward me without any provocation.

About reporting 3RR's, Will, you should probably have contacted William Connolley before what looks to be expressing his opinion. You mentioned JD_UK and Bhouston but those reports have nothing to do with William Connolley's comments you listed below. William Connolley, actually helped me learn about how 3RR works to begin with, and helped me again, in a positive manner, recently in regard to Bhouston. And JD_UK and I have had conversations in e-mail and we've been getting along just fine.

About editing articles that I "don't know anything about", Will, and the example you gave, that isn't enitrely true. One does not need to have read a book to edit an article about a book, nor does one need to have met a person to do their biography. Having not read the particular book you mentioned, but having read all of the court proceedings and reviews on the book gives me a NPOV more than if I had become attached to the book in some religious fashion and shared my editorial comments in the article.

Regarding the list of AfD's, Will, I think that you should have mentioned that as many as thirteen editors voted to delete some of those, and there are quite a few other articles which I have nominated for deletion, AfD for Next Door Nikki, AfD for Pickled Dick, AfD for Arthur's_Missing_Pal, AfD for DIPPR, AfD for Kim Mizuno and Michael Bisco, to name a few.

About the "irrational conclusion" to the poll, I think that if you had done any analysis on whom has actually been "deleting" and "destroying" material in that article, (like I have checked on), that you would find my conclusion is completely rational. I don't believe that this is the correct venue for me to point any of that out, but perhaps I should say that most of that data is available to anyone by request. I think you could have asked me. I respond better to questions than to collusion. ,,,. I've been here a month now, and as an admin, yourself, do you really think all of that was necessary? Assuming good faith is about intentions, Will.

Many of your other remarks are very biased, and opinionated, and had you provided examples of those, perhaps they would have shed more light on your reasoning. Again, Will, I think that you should address issues as they come along, and discuss them first rather than compiling a large mix-matched set of things that you have made conclusions about without ever asking me to explain them.

About the Remedy, Will, "We request that she stop the problematic behaviors listed above and instead contribute Misplaced Pages in a more positive, less confrontational manner." I would suggest that for you personally, you differentiate between user conduct and article content. I don't believe that this is the correct venue to be using to achieve goals of your own regarding two particular articles. You mention one quite a bit in your substantiating evidence; "A Course in Miracles", but you have completely avoided listing the other article "Endeavor Academy" except as an example of article for deletion. I will not address the section about "A Course in Miracles" at all, however, because that article and Endeavor Academy will be treated by either an RfM or an RfC which will be filed, in the future, under the section, "Articles", rather than "Behavior".


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ste4k 01:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by JD UK

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Outside view by User:JzG

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) Wikitrout?
  2. Mangojuice 16:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of User-multi error: "JChap" is not a valid project or language code (help).

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Kickaha Ota 16:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Antireconciler 04:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Rrock

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

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

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

so what else you got here...

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

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

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

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

what else you got...

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

next

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.