Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/172

message: As a note to all, I am in no way commenting on the quality of 172s edits or of VeryVerily's. That is not the point. The point is that they got in a revert war that went on for 50 reversions each. That conduct is what I'm objecting to - I have no opinions one way or another on the edits as such. I have opinions on the conduct of the editors in making them. Snowspinner 00:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: As the other certifying party, I join Snowspinner in this statement. He says it better than I could say it myself. --Michael Snow 02:56, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

message: If your interested in saving time and preventing foolishness, I suggest you (172) start obeying policy and respecting fellow wiki's. I have yet to have an incounter w you, or even seen you involved in anything, which didn't leave me pissed off w how arrogant, judgemental, and dubiously you were behaving. Take the plank from your own eye, and give a good deal more thought to the impression you have on others. Sam [Spade] 06:57, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Squandering Time

message: In my opinion, this kind of problem can not be solved by actions against the individual contributors – which is not to say that actions against them should not be taken. The important thing is to consider whether we are prepared to see Wikipedia detoriate by this kind of behavior making serious and knowledgeable contributors to leave the project more often than the ignorant and them who get a kick out of virtual warfare. If we are not, then we must agree on some change(s) in Wikipedia's function, that make this unwanted behaviour less rewarding. I've a few times proposed to use long-term protection of articles that are controversial and has passed the stub-level. This has maybe not been endorsed with enthusiasm, but I've also not seen any other proposals that would accomplish this.
--Ruhrjung 08:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make a good point. We need meta changes, and arn't going to be able to ban our way out of this. Sam [Spade] 08:46, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the Problem Users really the true problem? 

message: Since Wik has been penalized for going over a three-revert limit, it seems like 172 and VeryVerily ought to be held to that standard. Reverting any good-faith edit is a act of laziness that shows contempt for other editors; I believe that 99% of them are done simply to avoid discussion, in the hopes that the person whose work was reverted will give up. 172 has gotten pretty habitual about it, on top of which his circular discussion style is maddening and unproductive - see Talk:Vietnam_War#Section movement for a fruitless attempt on my part to discuss instead of reverting. Stan 23:55, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three-revert limit 

message: I started off with Talk:Augusto Pinochet. I will soon chronicle all his slanders against me so that people stop falling for these attacks and finally let me get back to work. 172 07:36, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: #VV 05:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

text: A particularly comical example of this is in Talk:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War/Archive_1 under the rule under section 6, where 172 declared "proof" that I was "trolling" because I did not respond to his comment within thirty-one minutes! Anyway, 172 is playing dumb here; if he really had reread the comments, he would have seen the extensive discussion on this point, the most reason one involving him, Cadr, and me. But what trolls do is post inflammatory content to provoke more and more responses. That's why he wants me to keep repeating myself. -- VV 11:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Surely you've seen the weeks' worth of discussion, and how little fruit it's brought with 172, who dismisses all criticisms and says it's "too bad" if you don't like his version. I and several other users have worked out consensus versions of the intro, but 172 will only tolerate his own. I do consider this trolling; he is deliberately adding inflammatory misinformation over several users' wishes, knowing it will provoke a response; that is virtually the definition. -- VV 00:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Passive aggression

message: :#VV 05:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/172]]

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Augusto_Pinochet&diff=3666291&oldid=3663433
I'm not saying you're 172's friend. I'm saying his friends started swarming. As an intellectual you should recognize this as the affirming the consequent logical fallacy. I'm aware of your general feelings about 172 and me, although I still don't feel I understand them completely despite our first conversation. VV 20:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A particularly comical example of this is in Talk:Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War/Archive_1 under the rule under section 6, where 172 declared "proof" that I was "trolling" because I did not respond to his comment within thirty-one minutes! Anyway, 172 is playing dumb here; if he really had reread the comments, he would have seen the extensive discussion on this point, the most reason one involving him, Cadr, and me. But what trolls do is post inflammatory content to provoke more and more responses. That's why he wants me to keep repeating myself. -- VV 11:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Surely you've seen the weeks' worth of discussion, and how little fruit it's brought with 172, who dismisses all criticisms and says it's "too bad" if you don't like his version. I and several other users have worked out consensus versions of the intro, but 172 will only tolerate his own. I do consider this trolling; he is deliberately adding inflammatory misinformation over several users' wishes, knowing it will provoke a response; that is virtually the definition. -- VV 00:16, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Augusto Pinochet]]

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Snowspinner&dummy=1&diff=0&oldid=3684534
Hey Snowspinner, I understand your concerns about the three-revert rule, but you may not know my history with it. I did stick to the rule for a while in my dealings with 172, and he never did. The quickpoll system in force, I tried to use that to bring up one of 172's more egregious revert attacks (five in ~one hour against two users, trying to erase a week's worth of edits) - and the community shrugged it off. 172 does not consider himself bound by this rule - or any rule - and my edits and efforts will simply be destroyed if I do not do battle. I hope you realize I really have tried everything I can think of - RfC pages, 3rd party interventions, long, long, long attempts to talk to him on Talk and User talk pages - and nothing but reverting back has worked. 172 lacks basic respect for others and the Wiki process, and the community lacks the will and coherence to control him. VV 06:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User talk:Snowspinner]]

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Eloquence&diff=0&oldid=3694570
Well, I saw no indication 172 was getting the discussion on track, and time has borne this out. To me attacking 172's behavior is not a personal attack (e.g., saying "172 keeps inappropriately reverting the article"). Calling me a "little bitch" or an "ignorant fuck" is. Anyway, you might have noticed there are RfC pages on us now, and the threat of arbitration. Perhaps you will chime in; I hope at least you can validate my claims about 172's conduct, whatever your other sentiments. VV 23:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User talk:Eloquence]]

message: Hey Ed Poor, you might want to refer to the extensive discussion about this meaningless and irrelevant "poll" if you haven't been checked lately. And anyway, as you and Michael Snow both pointed out, the poll binds nothing, and, of course, it is tainted by 172's campaigning. VV 12:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: User talk:Ed Poor

message: One major difference between my "rollback" and 172's is that his last one was done after the page was protected, which I as a non-admin could not equal. If this was intentional, it would be his fourth violation of protection policy (that I know of!), but I conjecture it was not, since for one it was before the msg:protected went up. (I think reverting would be appropriate since admins should not have extra personal dispute power.) Since "admin rollback" is marked as minor it seems it should not be used for run of the mill content disputes, but this may not be policy. Also, Snowspinner, you missed the edit war at Joseph Stalin! I urge users to see for themselves the nature of the edits which 172 felt he should use ~50 reverts, without comment, to prevent me from making. VV 08:26, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions]]

message: After seeing the collection of VV's comments, I'm ready to nominate him for sainthood - despite 172 repeatedly dumping the profanity and ad hominems on him, the worst VV seems to be able to say is "rogue". If I'd had to put up with all that from 172, I'd have been foaming at the mouth, and probably would have quit Wikipedia. Stan 12:54, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye. Matthew 7:1-5. 172 21:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen! Stan 04:31, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

text: Should we start Wikipedia:Nominations for Wikisainthood?Snowspinner 18:16, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try :image:barnstar.png. Martin 19:22, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sainthood for VV 

message: (Moved from the main page)
It is no coincidence that most of the "other users who endorse this summary" (Sam Spade, VeryVerily, Nat Krause) do nothing on Wikipedia except spew rightwing POV into articles, and never show any attempt toward serious scholarship. RickK, at least, is an overall productive user, but he seems to think that anyone to the left of Atilla the Hun is a Stalinist, explaining why he is always ready to attack me every chance he gets, even for things he blatantly does himself all the time. This isn't a statement of my contributions or personality attributes, but rather a listing of rightwing POV users. If others jump into this witch hunt, it'll say more about them than it does about me. 172 09:20, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, anyone who wants can look at my contributions to see if they agree with your characterization of my edits (I noticed that there was also a similar note from Spade briefly on your talk page).  And your preemptive attack on anyone who might critique your behavior here in the future is not very classy.  I suppose you would have us believe that Snowspinner and Michael Snow are also right-wing trolls?  Regardless of what you might think, your actions are what's at issue here -- VV has his own requests for comment page.  Quit trying to change the subject. - Nat Krause 12:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

text: A modicum of respect would seem to be a sine qua non for a wiki project like this.  Personally, I've never seen a Wikipedian act as disrespectfully to fellow editors as 172 has (although there are some Wikipedians I've had the good fortune not to encounter so far).  I'm not aware of anyone else referring to another Wikipedia user as a "little bitch".  I'm not aware of anyone else saying to another Wikipedia user: "You fucking coward. You didn't have the balls after all."  Don't all contributors deserve respect?  Or does that requirement not apply to 172? - Nat Krause 08:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You have made this absurd and uninformed pronouncement before, but let me remind whoever that the issue is not 172's politics but his well-documented patterns of personal abuse and bullying tactics.  If you (G-Man) really have been watching these conflicts, you know this to be true.  (And it's only fair to note 172 has been actively recruiting the far-left "cabal".)  (The "rightwing cabal" claims are ridiculous; who drove away Daniel Quinlan, Ark30inf, etc.?) VV 18:41, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: So Mr. G-Man, do you think it's OK to call other editors "little bitch" and "fucking coward", and to revert an article 50 times in a row? All this talk about rightwing and leftwing is just a smokescreen to distract from the original point, which is about acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Stan 05:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I am in no way right wing. Snowspinner 14:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to the users actually deliberately trying to add fuel to the fire, not meddlesome but earnest third parties. I assume that G-Man was referring to the same users. I know absolutely nothing about the political leanings of either you or Michael Snow. Incidentally, I know nothing about either of you other than the fact that you both appear really eager to further entangle and complicate things regarding these RCF and now arbitration pages. 172 15:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Try behaving like an adult more often. Stan 05:48, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of main summary

message: I'm bothered to see so many people endorsing 172's unacceptable behavior. What's the point of having all these rules about reverting and personal abuse if rulebreaking is going to be condoned? I can see I made the right decision in avoiding all the articles that 172 touches. Stan 06:43, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  People OK with 172's behavior!?