Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sharavanabhava (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 13 October 2007 (→Discuss in a mature and reasoned manner??). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

My experience: An informal view with no diffs

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

• I have been stunned at how aggressive and anti-science Whig is. He seems angry at everyone and everything. He charges around like a bull in a china shop here. He seems to be completely clueless about WP:NPOV, about WP:NOR, about WP:RS, about WP:UNDUE, about WP:CON, and about WP:FRINGE. He seems not to understand science, or statistics, or experimentation at all.

• He engages in serious quote-mining to try to push his narrow pseudoscience views.

• He just seems to want to dictate to others and throw tantrums if he does not get his way.

• My experience with him has been extremely poor. He said that since I had not edited the article, I must agree with its present state, when I have repeatedly said that I am not happy with its present state, over and over, on the talk page and on the GA review page.

• He will not take the advice of senior WP editors or even admins with vastly more edits and experience than him. He insists on demanding his way in the face of all the evidence to the contrary.

• He is willing to engage in insults, disruptive editing and edit warring to try to bully others.

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

Discussion by User:Sm565

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

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

Wanderer57's Comments

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

Thank you, WDM. I believe my comments are much more about the discussion itself and the attitudes of the editors toward the subject matter than they are about the article. These are relevant to the matter of editor Whig’s role in the discussion. I would appreciate your feedback about the substance of my comments. Wanderer57 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with some of your points about the homeopathy article and all of these things are in the process of being fixed. I also agree that not all of the problems with the discussions on that article and th edit warring are the result of one person, however the fact is that Whig is probably the most important aspect of it. I don't want to get into discussing the actual points of the Homeopathy article as that's off topic, and can be done on the articles talk page. Wikidudeman 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig's Comment

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

Huh? Wikidudeman 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Huh? OrangeMarlin 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Whig's statement is very terse but not totally impenetrable. I believe the point is that he thinks the questions being asked about him, and the process he is being subjected to, ought also to be applied to the editors who submitted the RfC. Wanderer57 22:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Then let him do so, passive aggressiveness is not exactly an attribute that most people find pleasing. In addition, note the deafening silence of nonsupport of Whig's attitudes and behavior. OrangeMarlin 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I did notice that. Very difficult to miss. I tried in my comments to point out that there were some mitigating factors in the discussion itself that made the whole mess a bit more understandable. I am disappointed that the only thing my comments seemed to do was stir up a small controversy about whether the stupid comments were in the right place. Wanderer57 02:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The deafening lack of support of Whig is really odd considering who you'd think would support him. I don't see you for example endorse his statement. OrangeMarlin 16:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Despising this process... "

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

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

I think we're meant to discuss in a mature and reasoned manner how this situation came about and what to do to avoid it arising again. However, that is unlikely to happen without input from non-involved people and critical self-examination from participants. Tim Vickers 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll speak for myself, and SA can speak for himself. This process, to me, is marginally of any merit whatsoever. I think we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to save edit-warriors and others who do not help the project grow--Whig and others should be receive a community ban quickly and efficiently. Read this statement by one of the most respected admins and editors on this project. What is particularly galling is that there are individuals who use this system against perfectly reasonable editors, drive them off the project, and leave behind individuals like Whig. However, since this process exists, I will participate to make sure that the POV-warriors are thrown out. OrangeMarlin 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

I think that the massive amount of consensus against Whig and his response to this RFC could go far if we ever decide to take it to arbitration, if this RFC solves nothing. Wikidudeman 13:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I will strongly encourage you to go to arbitration, then. Whig 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Do I have to? I don't want to. Arbitration is a LAST resort and it's not a pretty process. Are you claiming that you will not take anything from this RFC? That you won't acknowledge that your fellow editors see your editing habits as problematic? Wikidudeman 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, you don't have to do anything. But you are welcome. Whig 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like I don't have a choice. You've said that you refuse to acknowledge the consensus of your fellow editors concerning your behavior and to apologize for the edit wars, threats and insults. This means that if you continue your disruptive editing habits then I will be forced to use go to arbitration. Wikidudeman 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think this process has gone as far as it can.  – ornis⚙ 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Let's not beat around the bush. Lets get rid of the disruptive elements here.--Filll 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

What would you suggest? Wikidudeman 19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

This is an NPOV dispute

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

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

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

Whig's Second Comment

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

IMHO, the complaints in this RfC do not go near far enough to painting a suitably accurate picture of Whig's negative behaviors and attitudes. His gloating and cavalier approach to insulting others and inability to compromise approach legendary levels and have not served him well in this venue.--Filll 02:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from his attempt to coax me into starting an arbitration, he hasn't actually done any edit warring nor has he made any especially disruptive remarks. Perhaps he's heeded the consensus from this RFC. I surely hope so. Wikidudeman 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this a disruptive remark? Whig 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Please define disruptive remark and provide an example. Whig 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Discuss in a mature and reasoned manner??

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

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

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

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

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

I have made my response. Whig 17:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)