Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whig 2

message: 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 Wikipedia. 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)
thread_title: My experience: An informal view with no diffs

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Talk• Contributions 06:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion by [[User:Sm565]] 

message: 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 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wanderer57's Comments 

message: Please consider this RfC as applied to the submitters. Whig 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Wikidudeman (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Huh?  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Talk• Contributions 23:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Talk• Contributions 16:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whig's Comment 

message: I note that ScienceApologist and Orangemarlin both despise this process.  I have not been around Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 Talk• Contributions 23:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 (talk) 13:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will strongly encourage you to go to arbitration, then. Whig 17:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, you don't have to do anything. But you are welcome. Whig 17:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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 (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this process has gone as far as it can.  – ornis⚙ 17:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's not beat around the bush. Lets get rid of the disruptive elements here.--Filll 19:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you suggest? Wikidudeman (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone would just unban him if that happens, we don't want to do the same thing we did with User:Profg or else it won't last. If he is truly unwilling to admit any fault or make any compromise and will continue to make edits similar to those he has been making in the past few weeks then an arbitration is in order, not a "community ban" which runs the risk of being reversed in a few days by another administrator. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you waiting for, then? Whig 18:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:   "Despising this process... " 

message: 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)
thread_title:  This is an NPOV dispute 

message: Please verify the facts underlying this complaint, and do not take them as accurate in their portrayal. Whig 01:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this a disruptive remark? Whig 04:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Please define disruptive remark and provide an example. Whig 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whig's Second Comment 

message: Quoting from Talk:Homeopathy:  "So stop playing word games in a language you do not understand and please go away to harass someone else.--Filll 01:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever.  Filll is a perfectly direct editor.  My opinion...move on.  You seem obsessed with this RfC.  There are other things to do in life.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How many edits has Orangemarlin made to this RfC and associated pages? Whig 03:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Between the RfC and its talk page, 20, versus 11 by wanderer. On the other hand, OM has made a total of 206 edits to homeopathy and its talk page compared to only 36 by wanderer. OM's right, wanderer should probably find some articles to edit, given that he's only made 37 mainspace contribs, it is rather odd he should spend so much time here.  – ornis⚙ 04:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Message: Go away? Whig 04:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not my message.  But obsessing over this RfC certainly should end.  BTW, out of nearly 200 edits to Wikipedia that I have made since this RfC went up, less than 10% have been to this RfC.  Kind of high, but then again, there are a lot of postings to it, and I read them all.  I'll probably make 1000 edits this  month.  This will be a very minor part of my numbers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a high scoring competition, you know. If you want to stop obsessing over this RfC, then just leave it alone. I've asked Wikidudeman if he'd like to consider withdrawing it, as I think it was improvident. Whig 09:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civility 

message: Wikidudeman explains how he thinks NPOV works. Whig 19:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right. Notable people at least. You seem to agree. Wikidudeman (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check your passive voice. Whig 20:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by "my passive voice"? I'm saying that if we can find notable people who call it "quackery" then we say they call it quackery and reference them. You agreed. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read what Mercury is telling you. Whig 20:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He also agrees. However the discussion is how to properly cite numerous people without using weasel words. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mercury is correct, that is how we get to NPOV. Whig 20:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The idea is that you provide evidence which demonstrates the concerns you have. Not that you provide a piece of evidence and then go off complaining about other things that your evidence doesn't demonstrate. -Amarkov moo! 21:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My only concern is the NPOV dispute. Whig 21:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a user conduct RfC. If you have problems concerning some other user's conduct, or have evidence against the allegations of your misconduct, feel free to bring it up. But this isn't going to help solve the NPOV dispute. -Amarkov moo! 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not acknowledge user misconduct. Whig 21:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine. But it doesn't make this the right place to decide what the article content should be. -Amarkov moo! 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is relevant evidence. You don't care much for evidence anyway, I understand. Whig 21:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no it isn't. You just said that you do not acknowledge the thing which the evidence must be relevant to. And as I've said, if you're going to allege that I've ignored the evidence, you must provide this evidence that I've ignored. -Amarkov moo! 21:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the evidence is relevant to my response. I do not regard this as a valid RfC. Whig 21:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Then why is someone else's opinion of NPOV, which you agree with, relevant? -Amarkov moo! 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with Wikidudeman's opinion of NPOV. Whig 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so you don't agree with putting it in the passive voice. That's still completely irrelevant to complaints about your conduct. -Amarkov moo! 22:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not acknowledge any misconduct on my part. Whig 22:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And how does that make his opinion of NPOV relevant evidence? -Amarkov moo! 22:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read my formal response. This is an NPOV dispute. Whig 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we're getting somewhere. Now please substantiate the assertion that his preference towards the passive voice is the problem, and not your conduct. -Amarkov moo! 22:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no defense to offer because I have done nothing wrong. Whig 22:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I understand that you think you've done nothing wrong. But you have to explain why the examples that have been given of wrongdoing on your part are faulty. -Amarkov moo! 22:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't. You should actually look at those examples and see if they are as represented. Whig 22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you don't think you have to explain yourself, and can instead just tell anyone who disagrees to look at the evidence, then we're done here. Enjoy the block you'll get soon. -Amarkov moo! 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Bring down the hammer! Whig 21:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whig's Evidence 

message: Whig is almost certainly trolling, and even if he is not, he is clearly being very disruptive. Can we just skip to the block? -Amarkov moo! 21:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We need to go through procedure. An Arbitration is a nasty and time consuming matter but I guess that we have little choice in the matter. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We definitely don't need Arbcom. Right now, the list of people who support him numbers one, with someone else kinda half-supporting him. If we had to go to arbitration every time someone disagreed with an assesment as disruptive, nobody would have time for anything else. -Amarkov moo! 21:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet what choice do we have? If we simply notify him to the Admin noticeboard, it's unlikely that anything will be done and if something is done (such as him being blocked), he will likely be unblocked by someone else, uninvolved in any of these disputes. This is what has happened before. Though I guess it's worth a try. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I actually deserved to be blocked, I suppose you wouldn't worry about me being unblocked. Why do you continue to abuse process? Whig 22:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common sense 

message: RfC's are not to be used to abuse editors over content disputes. Whig 22:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whig's Fourth Comment 

message: This discussion on ANI will likely interest people here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Whig. JoshuaZ 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You made a false accusation in that thread. I did not accuse the present RfC submitters of bad faith. Whig 23:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your attempt to block me is abusive. Whig 23:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you notice, I gave the link and the context should make clear that was about the prior RfC. Nevertheless if you insist, I'll be more explicit. As for blocking, if you think it is abusive, you should say so on ANI and explain why. JoshuaZ 00:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Be very explicit. Whig 00:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Now that you have partially corrected it, why is the fact that a bad faith RfC was brought against me two years ago relevant? Whig 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What is relevant is that you've had issues with editors in the past and are very quick to accuse them of bad faith. The context of your new comment on your talk page right under the old one hardly inspires confidence...JoshuaZ 00:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You accuse me of being too quick to accuse bad faith, when I have accused nobody of bad faith who submitted this RfC. Would you like to make some more false accusations? Whig 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  And again, if you think my comment on ANI isn't relevant the place to say so is in the ANI discussion not here. JoshuaZ 00:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You brought it here. I don't feel a need to participate there. Whig 00:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I made a mention here for interested editors. You might see a difference between that having "brought it here" (whatever that means). I strongly recommend you comment there, since it looks like a topic ban is going to occur. If you don't give some defense or explanation there, that topic ban will almost certainly occur at minimum. JoshuaZ 00:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on ANI 

message: Filll left this threat on Wanderer57's talk page. Whig 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's that got to do with you?  Oh, NOTHING!  And it wasn't a threat, Wanderer's harassment of other editors has gotten out of hand.  But you are getting very funny.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, what harassment of other editors? I could just be missing it, but I don't see any. -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I looked at Wanderer's edits and they looked fine. Whig 05:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It has a chilling effect on the process when participants are threatened with RfC's for their participation. Whig 05:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What were you referring to, Filll? What did Wanderer57 do? Wikidudeman (talk) 06:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It is directly relevant to your attempt to chill participation in this RfC. Whig 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whig's Second Evidence 

message: Orangemarlin left this message on Wikidudeman's Talk page calling Sm565 (who endorsed my response) "pathetic" and also calling me "mean spirited," proposing to subject Sm565 to this same kind of abusive RfC. Whig 17:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third evidence that you should be banned?  and that Sm565, who I believe has been blocked again should be banned?  You got me.  Wow, you DO have a sense of humor.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Abuse of RfC and personal attacks. Whig 17:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whig's Third Evidence 

message: Reading Wikidudeman's claim above that "an Arbitration is a nasty and time consuming matter", I feel moved to protest. It's true that the arbitration committee is having one of its periodic bouts of bogged-down inefficiency, and is in fact taking a long time over everything; but arbitration still doesn't absorb anything like as much time, effort, and frustration from the regular users as RFCs do. This is a fairly well-kept secret, but I'm hereby outing it. And the most important function of the arbcom, as I pointed out in my  Outside View, is precisely to protect productive editors from the timewaste and attrition caused by disruptive editors. I mean, come on, people! Look at this small selection of comments made in this RFC—you wrote them yourselves, voicing exasperation, frustration, perhaps burnout: 
* ...this user has failed to make any attempts to resolve the disputes in a constructive manner... this user has also had a previous RFC with essentially the same things brought up but for other topics and by other users: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Whig. ...this user has replied with threats and filibustering when attempts to resolve disputes were made...
*...the discussion between Whig & everyone else can be summarized as follows:
:Others: We can only use reliable sources in this article.
:Whig: Fine. My sources are reliable.
:Others: What we mean by "reliable sources" are sources written by scientists, published in peer-reviewed publications.
:Whig: My sources are reliable.
:Repeat the above until you want to pound your head at a wall. 
*...stubbornness alone, without any attempt to address the concerns of the other side, is just being disruptive.
*He has claimed that it does not matter if others have concerns.
From the talkpage:
*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.
*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.
I strongly suggest you dump this abysmal waste of time in the arbcom's lap. That's what we keep them for.  Bishonen | talk 23:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Arbcom should deal with complicated issues. This one is pretty one-dimensional. If it continues to be a problem we can simply get a community patience ban. JoshuaZ 23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I love being quoted by Bishonen.  It's like getting a cookie with my newspaper in the morning.  Not guessing what WDM means, I think what frustrates me is that Whig has abused the system to keep from getting blocked for a long period of time or even banned.  Arbcom requires a lot of information, and gives the appearance that it protects editors like Whig, Ferrylodge and Profg.  They should be executed without prejudice.  No loss to Wikipedia.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: In my experience, arbitrations are indeed time consuming, energy consuming, frustrating, and inefficient processes. I think that there needs to be at least 10 more arbitrators before anything can be changed. The arbitrators are overworked and the previous RFA that I was involved in, which was initially started mainly as a RFA against a specific user mainly didn't even mention him in it's final decision but just re-stated policy and warned a few small fish disruptors. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  <intemperate comments I made refactored>  Skinwalker 13:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Filll, for some reason, I think Bishonen is a woman.  That's why I use the neutral "they" whenever I'm not sure.  But I could be wrong.  :)  WDM, by the way a Marlin is a big fish.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My dad caught a marlin once.  It didn't taste very good.  Cheers, Skinwalker 01:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I live 1200 miles from the nearest ocean. Having gotten that out of the way, let's not waste any more of our (or arbcom's) time on this matter. User:Whig is on topic ban, 1RR, and civility parole. If he stays within those bounds -- which he seems to have done so far -- great. If he doesn't, he gets blocked. In the meantime let's all get back to writing articles. Raymond Arritt 01:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not going to remove it from my watchlist, but I think it is time to move on.  This RfC will of course be very useful if a community ban is necessary.   Whig is staying within those bounds, though he's pushing it with comments on Talk:Homeopathy.  But since I rarely read talk pages, I'm fine with that.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration isn't a nasty and time-consuming matter