Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Benapgar

message: What is this obsession with Ann Coulter?  He seems to be using the same bullying tactics (surprise surprise), but does anyone understand the issue better? Dunc|☺ 22:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Ann Coulter]]

message: Benapgar altered the Evidence section , striking out the times, dates of the evidence and adding his comments/responses to it. I've reverted it as this section is reserved for presenting evidence, not responding to it. Benapgar can re-add his comments and responses to the evidence presented in the "Response" section, which is there for his use. 
This is an example to Benapgar's general unfamiliarity combined with his aggressive editing style that prompted this RFC in the first place. FeloniousMonk 23:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Benapgar's altering of the evidence section

message: :Since there is no place for me to post this on the main RFC page, I'll do it here.
:Ben has stated on this page that: A short while later, Ec5618 reverted again simply saying both he and FM disagreed and that "the last post was hardly clinching.".
:I'd like to clarify: I did this for the simple reason that the edit in question was being discussed, and no course of action had been agreed upon. Adding a disputed statement to an article is hardly a wise or constructive thing to do.
:He also states that FeloniousMonk had told him to "learn to abide by consensus,"
:FeloniousMonk may be making a general statement about he basic principles of the Wiki, and I agree with it atleast. Edits are made to the article by consensus. A simple edit may be implemented without discussion. Either someone disagrees, and will revert, or the edit will remain and concensus will be in favour of the edit. A greater edit should be discussed prior to implementation (which Ben neglected to do) and consensus should be abided by. 
:An important point here may be that consensus can be shaped. By assuming that no-one was willing to listen to his arguments, Ben chose to ignore te concept of consensus editing, and made a controversial edit. Had he tried to explain his motives better, he might have found an ally or two. 
:I don't care for this quarrel. In my view, Ben is trying to do too much, too fast, and is a smart aleck. Throwing policy around, citing ownership, and things like 'Wikipedia is not a chatroom', and seeking arbitration for a dispute with a single editor, less than two weeks after becoming an editor. This is rash.
:The most amazing thing is that Ben seems to trying to make a single point, but as yet I've no idea what it is. Nor, to be frank, do I feel intirely compelled to try to re-read his posts to find out. Ben has been coarse and disruptive. -- Ec5618 00:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ec5618 

message: 1 trying to insert content that is POV 
:* Undecidable.  This issue requires an agreed NPOV to judge against, which I do not believe we have.
2 trying to insert content that is original research
:* Not proven.  Ben's content did not appear to be original research. 
3 disruptive
:* Proven. Ben has conceeded this, and claims he was provoked, which I can accept.  
4 broken 3RR
:* Proven. Ben has conceeded this, but claims he was acting in good faith.  I accept that Ben mistakenly though that he was within the letter of the law.  Even if he were within the letter of the law, 3RR is described as an absolute maximum, not a priveledge; even 3 reverts in a 24 hour period would have been against the spirt of the law.  At the same time, I do not see that it would have damaged wikipedia to have extended Ben the priviledge of leaving a good-faith edit in place while its reversion was discussed.
5 unwilling to accept consensus
:* Proven.  However, consensus must be reached in good faith and I'm not convinced that a good faith effort was made to address Ben's concerns, as below.
6 unwilling to assume good faith
:* Not proven.  I do not believe good faith was extended to Ben.  To choose only the nearest example, I myself cannot find good faith in this response, which I think is not atypical: "That you have difficulty in understanding [this is not] surprising considering this is your first RFC in the 2 weeks and 2 days you've been at Wikipedia".  This is discourteous to me, off topic, and least importantly, wrong.  While I am only reg'd for nearly 3 weeks, I have been an occasional user of wikipedia for over 6 months, and while I am not proud of this fact, this is the 2nd RFC that I have stumbled into.
7 launching personal attacks 
:* Proven.  However, on this count, much as on good faith, my sense is that Ben is more sinned against than sinning.  I see a passionate man trying, and failing, to remain reasonable in the face of a consistent and apparently organised barrage of oh-so-polite taunting and outright abuse.
The question I have is what would I recommend be done?  Does anything need to be done?  Comment has been requested, and made, and will continue be made.  Neither party has emerged with honour completelly intact.  
Blocking anyone would seem less valuable than extracting a commitment from all concerned to meet in a neutral area, list their differences, and deal with them one difference at a time.  This page has degenerated into a free for all that is raising more problems that it is resolving.  
How to eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.  Trying to RFC on everything about ID and each other at once was a bad idea.  
I suggest all parties making a list of thier disagreements, and deal with them, one at a time, without dragging in all the other disagreements and dislikes that make rational conversation a fond memory.  
That's my opinion.  I have tried to communicate to you how and why I formed that opinion.  My opinion may be wrong.  I may have failed in my attempt to help you understand why I hold it.  But I have tried the best I can.  That's all you can expect of me.
I wish you the wisdom of Solomon.
Regards, Ben Aveling 02:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'truth' according to ''me'' 

message: Per Benapgar's "demand" above, I've corrected the typos in the evidence descriptions. FeloniousMonk 00:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Corrections to evidence descriptions

message: Following the agreement about the 3RR (Ben accepts he broke it, now understands the rule, promises not to do so again) the next point at issue is "consensus" and/or disruption.
My view of this is that after hitting your 3RR barrier, and being reverted by several people, then you need to back off and discuss things on talk (rather than, say, using your 3RR every 24h continuously). *If* you're being reverted by a variety of people, then trying to re-insert your changes in this way just amounts to disruption. If you're sure your edits are correct, then you need to persuade people of this on talk, or find some other people to help you.
If Ben is prepared to accept this, then we could probably regard the consensus issue as settled, and move on to dispose of the incivility, which should be fairly easy to handle. William M. Connolley 17:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus 

message: Please indicate whether you support closing the RfC.
====Support====
#Support. FM does not seem interested in it anymore and noone else has shown up to mediate. I don't want to keep checking this page. I admitted I unintentionally broke the 3RR. I admitted that I made a non-serious personal attack and was generally acting confrontational. Unless FM has more to say, then I would like to close the RfC and get on with my RfA against FM and find out if it is accepted.--Ben 23:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ben shows no sign of accepting or even acknowleding the comments which have been given." What an interesting statement. --Ben 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I will not drop the matter of the RfA, nor will I give up my right to re-file. That request is quite inappropriate. --Ben 01:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's unfortunate, because with the recent rejection of your RFAr, you could have put this matter behind completely behind you and moved on. My terms are appropriate, aimed at avoiding further disruptive behavior. Certainly less inappropriate than you trying to end your user-conduct RFC prematurely. The offer remains on the table should you change your mind. FeloniousMonk 03:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not. For just one reason, I'd be giving you and Duncharris free reign to personally attack me (not that I can give you that anyway). Your terms are stupid. I agreed to stop being disruptive. I'm going to put this behind me and move on anyway. I'm walking away. Goodbye.--Ben 23:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclude the RFC?

message: #Support. FM does not seem interested in it anymore and noone else has shown up to mediate. I don't want to keep checking this page. I admitted I unintentionally broke the 3RR. I admitted that I made a non-serious personal attack and was generally acting confrontational. Unless FM has more to say, then I would like to close the RfC and get on with my RfA against FM and find out if it is accepted.--Ben 23:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # FeloniousMonk 03:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Object

message: # Ben does not seem to realize that an Rfc is a "Request for comment" and as this Rfc is "Benapgar" it is a request for the community to comment on Ben's conduct. There are two formal comments, and both support the majority of the charges against Ben's conduct, as does most of the less formal commentary here. Related discussion of the conduct of others involved has resulted in some criticism of their behavior, but not exoneration of Ben's behavior. Ben's motive in closing this has not been "I appreciate everyone's input and time, and I see where I have run afoul of the WP community and its guidelines" but rather "Let's close this so I can continue the war elsewhere." I would support a close if Ben were either a) willing to accept the comments given, or b) wanted to de-escalate to some other form of mediation. As it is, I see neither happening. However, I cannot vote "Object" because I don't see any signs anything will result from this. No new editors have responded to this request, and Ben shows no sign of accepting or even acknowleding the comments which have been given. Keeping this going seems to serve no purpose, closing it seems to give the wrong message. KillerChihuahua 14:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Ben shows no sign of accepting or even acknowleding the comments which have been given." What an interesting statement. --Ben 00:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abstain

message: I'll have no objection to closing this RFC so long as Ben agrees to stop his disruptive behavior, but if it starts up again, I reserve the right to reopen it, and if Ben agrees to drop the matter of his rejected RFAr against all those named, and any plans to re-file it. If Ben agrees, we can close this matter completely. FeloniousMonk 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will not drop the matter of the RfA, nor will I give up my right to re-file. That request is quite inappropriate. --Ben 01:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's unfortunate, because with the recent rejection of your RFAr, you could have put this matter behind completely behind you and moved on. My terms are appropriate, aimed at avoiding further disruptive behavior. Certainly less inappropriate than you trying to end your user-conduct RFC prematurely. The offer remains on the table should you change your mind. FeloniousMonk 03:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, they're not. For just one reason, I'd be giving you and Duncharris free reign to personally attack me (not that I can give you that anyway). Your terms are stupid. I agreed to stop being disruptive. I'm going to put this behind me and move on anyway. I'm walking away. Goodbye.--Ben 23:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Benapgar just made this edit to the intro of Animal rights: "The animal rights movement mostly consists of morally bankrupt violent extremists intent on spreading propaganda throughout the liberal media, while those opposed to their views are generally nihilist sociopaths, more generally evangelical Christians waiting for the apocalypse." 
This kind of editing makes it hard to assume good faith. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV to the point of vandalism

message: #  22 November, 2005 --religious personal attack
#  12 December, 2005 --religious personal attack
#  14:51, 12 December 2005 --personal attack
#  00:51, 13 December 2005 --renewing personal attacks during a 48 block for WP:NPA
#  00:54, 13 December 2005 --incivility, reverting removal of personal attacks, deleting NPA warning
#  01:06, 13 December 2005 --reverting removal of personal attacks, deleting NPA warning
#  01:10, 13 December 2005 --reverting removal of personal attacks, threats, bullying, deleting NPA warning
#  01:55, 13 December 2005 --reverting removal of personal attacks
#  14:46, 15 December 2005 --creating a personal attack list against various editors on user page while under NPA block 
#   18:35, 16 December 2005 --personal attack, language, while under NPA block 
#  13:11, 27 December 2005 --personal attack
#  14:00, 27 December 2005 --personal attack
#  15:25, 26 December 2005 --personal attack
#  03:02, 4 January 2006 --personal attack
#  19:11, 4 January 2006 --Disruption. Specifically, by encouraging others to be disruptive. Made while blocked for WP:NPA and WP:3RR
#   23:35, 26 January 2006 false allegations of being harassed
#  00:09, 27 January 2006 personal attack, language
#  20:10, 17 March 2006 --Personal attacks, disruption, POV pushing
Clearly Ben has benefitted little from the community's comments about personal attacks. In fact, his personal attacks have only gotten worse, though less frequent. Ben needs to rethink his strategy if he is to continue at Wikipedia. Religiously framed ad hominems are personal attacks of the worst sort. FeloniousMonk 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I call it a religious personal attack when you call Christianity atheist.  Whatever your belief system is, it doesn't allow you to make those sorts of accusations in Wikipedia.  Guettarda 21:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This is really crossing the line:
# you're actually a meatpuppet or a troll and just pretend to be Christian so you can help the agenda-driven Atheists here" - Guettarda 22:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: And it continues 
# You're either a piece of shit trying to troll me, or a piece of shit with an agenda. Either way: Piece of shit. - Guettarda 22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional, recent personal attacks

message: I submit that I did not bite a newcomer. Once an editor begins referring to Wikipolicy, especially in a manner which infers they believe they understand it (ie: WikiLawyering), they immediately cease to be a "newcomer". I concede my comments were unproductive, but I could not help my bemusement at the constant rule breaking Ben alleged as a result of his edits being rebuffed. As I found his comments unhelpful, tangential and unproductive I responded in kind, and in brief. - RoyBoy 800 22:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biting Newcomer?