Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/DotSix - 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 Oskar Sigvardsson (talk | contribs) at 08:14, 29 July 2005 (→Outside view from FuelWagon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:14, 29 July 2005 by Oskar Sigvardsson (talk | contribs) (→Outside view from FuelWagon)(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, 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: 12:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC).


207.200.116.* block of IP addresses:


172.19*.* block of IP addresses:

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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, claiming that it is a "logical fallacy". When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being "obscurantists", 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".

At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement. When he was informed that this was not the case, he removed the paragraphs from Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view which contradicted his belief.

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 but I replaced it two minutes later . 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

  1. Removes several comments from Misplaced Pages talk:Neutral point of view:
  2. Repeatedly removes parts of Misplaced Pages: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:
  3. Removes User:FuelWagon's comment from Talk:Truth:
  4. Removes User:Ancheta Wis's comment from Talk:Truth, calling it an "irrelevant diatribe with threats of reprisal"
  5. Calls User:Banno "banana", a personal attack:
  6. Removes the lead section of Truth, reverts to own version repeatedly in violation of 3RR
  7. Repeatedly attempts to redirect True to wiktionary:true. Not only is this technically impossible, he violates the three revert rule in the process:
  8. Random sampling of him calling other users "vandals", "obscurantists", and erroneously accusing them of using logical fallacies: "obscurantist jihad" , "argumentum ad numerum" , "revert to eliminate vandalism"
  9. Removal of comments by User:Banno from Talk:true, , ,
  10. Removes User:Robert McClenon's outside response from this RFC:
  11. Demanding that Wiki policy be ignored when it doesn't conform to his desires. ,
  12. Repeatedly adding an NPOV tag without explanation. ,,,,
  13. Adding a NPOV tag to a lead paragraph that he had written himself.
  14. Falsely accused others of threatening him.
  15. Repeatedly inserts his responses to the this RFC in the wrong sections. There is no doubt that he understands the prinicple of confining one's remarks to the appropriate section because one of his complaints (while inserting comments in the wrong sections) was that someone else had inserted comments in the wrong section!!!!!
  16. Removal of other user's comments from this RfC
  17. Referring to User:FuelWagon as "Foolwagon" in this RFC

Content issues (for reference)

  1. 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.
  2. Repeatedly removes sections of Knowledge and Epistemology, claiming that they exhibit "the fallacy of conflation of knowledge and belief":
  3. Repeatedly adding a link to a page that simply redirects to the original page. ,
  4. Repeatedly tried to introduce the subject of Truth with a sentence that introduces philosophy. See edits from through . Note how others tried to explain to him what the problem is.

Applicable policies

  1. Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks
  2. Misplaced Pages:Civility
  3. Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines (removing other users' comments)
  4. Misplaced Pages:Three revert rule

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. 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.
  2. Ancheta Wis attempts to explain why it is not OK for DotSix to add POV to Truth: DotSix also removed this comment.
  3. 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.
  4. FuelWagon responded to an RfC about Truth, and addressed DotSix's conduct: DotSix immediately removed FuelWagon's comment since it was critical of his conduct.
  5. Banno set up an RfC to seek outside opinion on .6's behaviour. The RfC was placed in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#Miscellaneous instead of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment#General user conduct precisely to give .6 the benefit of the doubt . That we are now involved in this RfC shows that the attempt failed. Banno 12:15, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  6. 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. ,,,, ,,, , , and all edits from through
  7. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts notice 23 July

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Rhobite 01:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  2. Ancheta Wis 02:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. Nate Ladd 04:01, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  4. Banno 06:39, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  5. JimWae 08:32, 2005 July 27 (UTC)
  6. WhiteC 17:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. 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.
  2. 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.

{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.}

<begin summary number one>

The above summary composed by those who are a party to this nasty little personal attack is definitely biased, as shown in the following examples.


re: "The following response from DotSix ..." -- Rhobite

1. What proof do you have this is from the accused?
2. What gives you the right to edit THE RESPONSE SECTION, unless you are the accused, or among those who think that the dispute is unjustified? Didn't you read the instructions, above, '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'? Shall we take it that you are now changing sides, giving up your nasty little personal attack/vendetta on this newbie, which is conduct unbecoming an adminstrator? If so, please sign in in the endorsement section below, per instructions, 'Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign'. -- 172.191.129.191 16:09, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

re: "The following response from DotSix was moved here from where he inserted it above in the wrong section" -- Rholite

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)


re: "*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


re: "This editor has engaged in revert wars"

Is there a policy prohibiting reasonable reverts which are based on sound reasons explained in the relevant discussion page?

re: "He also removed content from Misplaced Pages: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


re: "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 (or obscurantist, as the case may be). -- 172.191.129.191


re: "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


re: "At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement."

Citation?
The accused never said anything like "EQUAL PLACEMENT," did he? Isn't it the actual state of affairs that the accused has consistently quoted the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages usually involves APPROPRIATE MENTION OF ALL POINTS OF VIEW in an article thus improving the quality of the article." -- 172.191.129.191 (emphasis added)


re: "He has removed other users' comments from talk pages"

Isn't this another case of the pot calling the kettle black? Rhobite has removed another user's comments from a talk page. See below.

re: "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 but I replaced it two minutes later ."

The proof 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 EVIDENCE ) is clearly evident in the diff just BEFORE the one you like to cite
The comment you replaced, , is not the comment we are discussing, it's this other one that you deleted permanently: .
How long will you continue to cite the wrong diff? How many times will you have to be reminded that it is not the diff you cite that we are discussing, IT IS THE ONE BEFORE IT, , where you are shown deleting a comment you never replaced?

re: "Removed FuelWagon's comment since it was critical of his conduct."

That isn't true, is it? Here is the relevant diff:
As you can see, the ACTUAL REASON STATED for removing it was that it was a personal attack, which is prohibited by policy, Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor?

re: "Archiving material as a rhetorical tool" by Mr. Banno:

  1. 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.
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:
... Yes, .6 did not mention Ramsey ... Banno 11:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
So your testimony that RAMSEY WAS CITED as the reason for taking exception to statements made in the lead section at the time, that testimony was not in accord with the actual state of affairs? Thank you Mr. Bananas, that was the only question the defense had for you. --172.193.218.186

re: "I posted a comment on the Truth article regarding dot-six's behaviour." -- FoolWagon

Hasn't anyone informed you of the Misplaced Pages policy, "Comment on content, not on the contributor."? Shortcut
  • ]

<end of summary number one>

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. ~~~~

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 from FuelWagon

Well, I consider myself an outside view. I posted a comment on the Truth article RFC regarding dot-six's behaviour. He deleted it, twice. I still stand by that comment, and would add that dot-six's appears unable to respond to criticism of his behaviour as anything other than an attack on his personal character. His deletion of my comment above also includes a comment by him to respect "No Personal Attacks", and "Focus on content, not the editor". I have doubts that he will respond to this any better.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. FuelWagon 22:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Outside view from Gkhan

I would like to say that his views on logical fallacies is, at best, superficial. The arguments he uses are often ridiculus (Argumentum ad numerum on a policy? The policy isn't valid because many uses it, it is valid because it is policy) to the downright contradictory (falsly accusing a user of a personal attack while making mountains of Ad hominem himself!). Do not be afraid about the fancy-pants latin phrases, this guy has very little understanding about the noble Art of Valid Argument.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. gkhan 08:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

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.


Archiving material as a rhetorical tool

<Banno comment moed from here to discussion page per above instructions> I am re-inserting this material as .6's edit removed a large portion:

  1. 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.
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)

Banno 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Rebuttal to DotSix's Response above

DotSix has a habit of changing his own remarks (as well as those of others), so I can't promise that any of the matters I discuss here will still be mentioned in his Response by the time you read this.

  1. Allegation that Rhobite deleted one of DotSix comments on a talk page. DotSix, using one of his sock puppets, improperly deleted a comment that was critical of his behavior. In the same edit he added a brief paragraph elsewhere on the page and added a sentence to the beginning of a paragraph that he had previously put on the page under a different IP. When Rhobite reverted this, quite appropriately, the two additions were, of course, removed. Two minutes later, Rhobite noticed the removal of the brief paragraph and restored it. He did not spot the sentence added to the beginning of a paragraph. Hence, it wasn't restored. I hope the breathtaking scope of DotSix's hypocrisy is clear: Not only has he himself repeatedly edited other people's comments both before and since making this complaint about Rhobite, but the very comment whose deletion he is complaining about was added by him while he was in the process of deleting someone else's comment. By the way, Rhobite was under no obligation to restore either of those remarks anyway. When he is reverting someone else's improper deletion, he is entitled to revert it whole. He does not have to hunt through it looking for sub-parts that would be proper if entered by themselves. When DotSix, or any of us, violates a policy, we put all parts of that same edit at risk of reversion.
  2. Allegation that Rhobite edited the Response section of this RfC It was me, Nate, not Rhobite, who moved DotSix's first response from the section where he has improperly put it and moved it to the Response section. In the same edit, I added the note explaining what I was doing. Please note DotSix's stuptifying hypocrisy: The you-edited-the-wrong-section complaint is about an edit that was made in order to correct HIS editing of the wrong section.
  3. Did DotSix claim that all points of view must be treated equally? Yes, he did at and . It was pointed out to him that, although Wiki policy requires that all points of view be mentioned fairly, it explicitly rejects the idea that all points of view have to be treated equally. He responded by editing the policy page itself in an attempt to unilaterally reverse the policy. He didn't get away with it. DotSix's claim, in this Response, that he did not ever assert that all points of view have to be treated equally is dishonest.
  4. Did DotSix archive an ongoing discussion? Yes, he did. It was a discussion that concerned the philosopher Ramsey, as Banno noted; but what it concerned is irrelevant. What matters is that DotSix effectively shut it off by archiving it. This point seems to be lost on DotSix. Indeed, he seems to think that whether or not he mentioned Ramsey in his contributions to the discussion is the issue. But, of course, what matters is what he did with the discussion, not who he mentioned in it.
  5. Is there evidence that the IPs above are all be used by DotSix? DotSix says there is "no proof" that he is using these IPs. Notice he is not denying that he is behind all of these IPs, he is only claiming that there is no proof of it. In point of fact, there is ample evidence. See the comments, diffs, and links above in the list of IPs he has been using.
  6. Allegation that FuelWagon made a personal attack on DotSix. FuelWagon's remarks are here: . It is criticism of DotSix's behavior, not a personal attack. Moreover, it was appropriate since it came as part of an RfC.
  7. Allegation that DotSix's opponents use the Fallacy of Appeal to Popularity DotSix says that his opponents argue thus: "P must be true, because it is the opinion of the majority here." In fact, no one has made such a ridiculous claim. Rather, we have argued "P is not commonly accepted, therefore, to be consistent with Wiki policy, it should be mentioned fairly, but it should not have as much prominence as other views." (This distinction was explained to DotSix before at , but he has ignored it.)

--Nate Ladd 06:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)