Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/SteveWolfer

message: "The third diff was to the wrong one; it has been corrected. The fourth and fifth are, in fact, what they say they are. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No they aren't. The fourth says that none of the other entries are sourced, so you have no grounds to demand sources in the article for them, despite the fact that you already have them. And the fifth says that all anon deletions of Ayn Rand's work are vandalism, which is a considerably different statment, and arguably justifiable in light of constant removals that were either unjustified or based on the reason that he refuted. -Amark moo! 03:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't refute anything. There are no sources in the article, and the best he's been able to do on the talk page is show that 2-3 credentialed individuals find her interesting and important. I agree that I should have said that Steve is "claiming that all Rand-related deletions by anons are vandalism" instead of "claiming that all Rand-related edits by anons are vandalism," though. In either case, his rationale for thinking this is incorrect. Simões (talk/contribs) 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. There are no sources in the article. For anything. So what justification do you have to demand that he provide sources for his entries? And yes, it's obviously true that a Rand-related deletion by an anon isn't necessarily vandalism, and yes, he shouldn't have said it was. But he was justifiably frustrated by anons constantly removing Rand for bad or no reasons. -Amark moo! 21:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I still don't understand how it could be controversial that some of Rand's works are indeed philosophical, or how that could require any source but the work itself. -Amark moo! 21:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never disputed that her works are philosophical (though Buridan has), only that they're notable outside of popular appeal to lay audiences. This has been the reason for my challenging them and requesting sources demonstrating their notability in philosophical scholarship. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see reputable sources. They're just dismissed as biased, which Wikipedia editors really shouldn't do. But the edit war at List of basic philosophy topics is rather funny, as is Steve's badly veiled attempt to direct an unrelated conversation to inclusion of Rand's works. Since a user conduct RfC isn't really the place to pass judgement on article content, I'll leave it with a statement that, as is usual in edit wars, both sides are doing bad things. -Amark moo! 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on Amarkov's summary 

message: Steve said, "One of them I knew to be an invalid deletion, Rand, I put her name back in with the edit comment, "Restored Rand." I saw it as honoring the previous editors deletion that I didn't have the time to research."
Indeed.  This was List of female philosophers.  I restored the other REFERENCED entry myself.  Whoever is deleting citations clearly has much less respect for wikipedia policy than Steve. KSchutte 04:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's interesting that the IP editor who made this deletion uses the phrase "standard(s) of inclusion" on several of his edits.  Buridan uses the very same phrase on the talk page there. KSchutte 04:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be worth requesting a checkuser on Buridan, then. Simões (talk/contribs) 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Steve didn't restore the other entry, which had the same reference as the Rand entry, as well as an additional one. If Steve "knew it to be an invalid deletion," then it was because he saw that it was referenced. The same, therefore, should have applied to the entry he didn't restore. This is tendentious editing. Simões (talk/contribs) 04:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how partially reverting a vandal could somehow be less appropriate than being the vandal.  It's probable that Steve just didn't want to claim relevance for a figure who he might know nothing about.  KSchutte 05:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that if Buridan is logging out to engage in vandalism, then it is far more serious than what Steve is doing. I'm simply focusing on the present request for comment. Simões (talk/contribs) 05:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not logging out and logging in to commit vandalism.  I keep my account logged in except when i change computers.   Steve has hinted that I am doing this, and that is wrong.  I am not.  If i wanted to do that, I would just create a real sock puppet through a proxy, but I don't do that either.  --Buridan 00:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Respect for sources 

message: I'm rescinding my certification of this RFC. While I still think much is problematic with SteveWolfer's editing practices, I wish to disassociate myself with the actions of my co-certifier, Buridan. And given that much of SteveWolfer's edit warring and involvements in fruitless disputes has probably been more due to the tendentiousness of Buridan than of Steve, I can't justify to myself proceeding here. Hopefully since this RFC has yet to be officially certified, it can be given a quiet and swift death. Simões (talk/contribs) 21:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My tendentiousness?  I have only responded in kind.  When someone said marxism killed millions,i responded with neoliberalism may have killed millions, when someone added rand, i removed rand.  when there were compromises, i made them to be open and inclusive, but I have one limit and that is accurately representing the way the world seems to be in philosophy.  --Buridan 00:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rescinding certification 

message: ::I note that Simoes is 'recinding his certification' so my comments below may not be needed. But I'll put them here just in case.  I too hope this thing dies a swift death. It has been very painful to see myself "up on charges" as it were.
::I'll offer this to Simoes, kind of an olive branch:  Very quickly, I created a small article this morning on Haim Ginott - an extraordinary child psychologist.  The article is still very incomplete and rough, but I wanted to show that I have at least rudimentary skills at putting in sources and cites on an article page.  I didn't apply it in the lists, because they were lists and I was seeing them differently.  I really do want to do the right thing and not cause problems.
 
It seems to me that the best use of this talk page is to solict clarifications where needed.  When charges are repeated or new ones are made then I feel like I have to answer them and then come the rebutals, etc.  I suggest we all say nothing on the talk page that isn't an honest request for clarification of what someone said, or a request for information on this process or asking how to use the page, or a straight-forward reply to one of those requests. Steve 21:23, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Charges - Responses - Talk