In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:09, July 21, 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
Ste4k is an especially energetic and prolific editor, ammassing more than 3500 edits within 5 weeks. Unfortunately, her overall impact on Wikipedia so far has not been productive. Her edits have been strongly contested and her attitude has alienated many. She started by edit warring over material that she inserted fraudulently to settled an off-WP dispute. After that introduction, in one topic after another, she has irritated other users through edit wars and confrontational talk page postings. She has exhibited a condescending attitude towards other editors, takes offense too easily, and insists that she is always right. Much of her participation in this project can be described properly as "trolling".
To her credit she has also done some helpful maintenance work, though even that has caused controversy. She has also done a good job of editing some articles, such as Allerton High School. She is clearly intelligent and can be a good editor when she chooses. Community input could help this editor become an asset instead of a problem.
This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor: Curse, Big Brother (Australia series 6), A Course in Miracles, Greek Statue, gender, and her user talk pages. Several editing-tag revert wars are omitted for brevity, while non-topical behavior problems are covered under "General".
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
Ste4k's first known edits were to add material on "Cursed newsgroups" to Curse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The material was sourced from a single Usenet posting on June 5 [1] by "Rrock". On June 16, the material was placed in the "Curse" article for the first time by an account with the same IP number. [2] Six minutes later "Rrock" boasted of the material on alt.religion.angels. [3], and then again several times later. [4] [5] [6] Those postings make it appear that the entry was created as ammunition in on off-Wiki dispute. (The same user has Google Groups profiles for various spellings and has made several hundred postings a month since at least October 2005. As Ste4k became involved with Wikipedia Rrock's activity on Usenet has either dropped off considerably. There is ample additional evidence confirming that Ste4k and Rrock are the same person or inhabit the same household, which needn't be presented here. It would not matter except that this editor has acted deceitfully.) RRock may have indicated an intent to bring Wikipedia into disrepute and to engage in further mischief, either on Usenet or Wikipedia in this ambiguous posting. [7]
In the subsequent edit war at Curse, the material and/or behavior was described by other editors as "vandalism" [8], "crazy" [9], "silliness" [10], "nonsense" [11]. She reverted the material about 19 times in three days, and removed article tags as well. [12]
Some of her comments that contradict her later editing philosophy, yet are equally preachy.:
And that same first day she filed a mediation request over the newsgroup posting. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-18 Cursed Newsgroup - self-published source?. (In the end, the page was protected, the mediation never occurred due to mediator drop-out, and Ste4k moved on to other topics.)
It is clear, for a variety of reasons, that Ste4k is the same person as the Usenet poster "Rrock". Rrock wrote something on the Usenet to denigrate a supposed troll with whom he had had a long term battle. Then he came to Wikipedia, added it to an article, revert-warred over its inclusion, denied the fraud, lectured the editors who removed it, and trolled various talk pages about her poor treatment. Yet Ste4k never admitted that she was the original author of the underlying source and had a vested interest in its inclusion. Even recently she has complained about the "unjust" treatment that she, and her self-sourced material, have received. [18]
Ste4k sought to delete every single article connected to A Course in Miracles, using {db} tags, PRODs, and AfDs, using incorrect reasons in most cases to support the nominations. Yet she has repeatedly professed complete neutrality about the topic. However the Rrock profiles have posted thousands of messages to religious newsgroups, some of which include clear beliefs that are at odds with the religious elements of this subject. Considered in addition to this user's strident behavior on this topic, it appears that she is acting to further a POV.
Speedy delete tags: (There may be others which were deleted and so are not evident.)
PRODs
AfDs
She has also listed images used in the articles as copyright violations [23] [24] [25] (then, strangely enough, uploaded an ACIM-related photo using the same "fair use" claim that they others had [26]). She started an AfD at Wikiquotes for material related to ACIM. [27]
Subsequently she wrote "My interest is not to delete all ACIM related articles." [28]
Separately, she decided that the variations in the text of "A Course in Miracles" were sufficient that it was impossible to know which version was begin referred to. She created a disambiguation page among the verisons (only one of which has an article) and redirected many links to it. [29] In other instances she stated that references to the book had to be deleted since it wasn't clear which version was meant, or that we were referring to the "wrong" version. In one case she implied that a subject might bring a lawsuit due to an internal link to the "wrong" version. [30]
She insists that "ACIM" is a trademark or an "affiliated brand name" rather than a convenient abbreviation of "A Course in Miracles", and therefore any use of it is advertisement. [31] [32] Insted she insists that the book be referred to as the Course when a shorter version is desired. Though many editors have explained, with proof, that the trademark was cancelled by the Patent and Trademark Office and the matter is irrelevant, she remains convinced that she is right. [33] Even while insisting that other editors should not get stuck on topics, she keep harping on this issue, and seems to have decided that her interpretation prevails. [34] [35]
In the case of Charles Buell Anderson and Endeavor Academy she nominated them for deletion together, which resulted in "no consensus". [36] Then she promoted a merge with Endeavor Academy [37] [38] [39]. Once the merger was completed she said she didn't think that Anderson had anything to do with the Academy, and therefore the material should be deleted. [40] [41] [42] She even implied that it was libellous to mention Anderson. [43] Similarly, she merged artices into A Course in Miracles, then deleted their contents from there.
Complains of an ACIM "advocacy group". [44] [45] [46] [47]
Beginning on Jun 19 she moved 90% of the " A Course in Miracles" article, about 5000 words, to the talk page. Other editors objected and restored the material which begain a short revert war. Then she created a strawpoll which other editors complained was poorly worded. She sought outside supporters, but after only two days she declared that the poll closed and that the outcome showed users preferred to delete the material, which was totally unsupported by the discussion.
Ste4k nominated this article for deletion after engaging in much discussion on the article's talk page. The result was speedy keep. When it was suggested that this nomination was in bad faith, Ste4k responded irrationaly.
The articles Greek statue and Sculpture of Ancient Greece had been marked for a merge for almost a year, but the merge templates did not describe which way the merge was required [48] and [49]. Ste4k ( talk · contribs) then carried out the merge on the 14th July ( [50], [51]) and removed double redirects, carrying the merge out properly. Then, Nscheffey ( talk · contribs) reverted the merge on Sculpture of Ancient Greece [52], disputing the merge in his edit summary. At this stage, Ste4k ( talk · contribs) should have taken her dispute to the talk page, but a slow-running revert war ensued:
The edit war stopped, leaving the article in its pre-merge form, and a discussion which had been started on the talk page by Nscheffey ( talk · contribs) in response to the merges (and which had been ignored by Ste4k) was continued by Martinp23 ( talk · contribs) following a WP:3O request by Nscheffey. Talk page here. Ste4k then responded [59], claiming that the merge was not disputed and accusing Nscheffey of distrupting WP work flow and harrassing her. Clearly, the fact that the merge was reverted even once by Nscheffey should have indicated to Ste4k that it was disputed and the edit war should not have ensued. Ste4k also accused Nscheffey of making a POV fork in reverting her merge, but when a function itself is disputed (ie the merge), then a split to revert that merge is not a POV fork.
Comments were then left by JzG ( talk · contribs), Martinp23 ( talk · contribs) and JChap2007 ( talk · contribs) ( [60], [61] and [62] who unanimously agreed that the article be merged at Sculpture of Ancient Greece. Ste4k then responded, describing that the direction of the merge didn't concern her - but she didn't want the article to be orphaned following the revert of her merge [63]. Following this consensus, Martinp23 completed the merge from Greek statue to Sculpture of Ancient Greece ( [64] and [65]). He then left a message on Ste4k's talk page and on the article discussion page informing that the merge had been completed. ( [66] and [67] ). Following this, Ste4k left a comment on Martinp23's talk page [68] informing him that he had omitted some information from the original article. When Martinp23 asked Ste4k what he had missed, he was told to look more carefully( [69] and [70]). In the intervening period, Steak reverted the merge on Greek statue but not on Sculpture of Ancient Greece (orphaning Greek statue), leaving dispued merge templates on both ( [71] and [72]), prompting Will Beback ( talk · contribs) to ask what the problem was on the article talk page [73]. Martinp23 then looked for what he had omitted and put a missed picture in the article and left a message on the talk page awaiting a response from Ste4K [74] . When a response was left, it said that a sentence had been missed from the first paragraph and comlained that Martinp23 had used overly harsh words in describing her actions (the use of "accused"). [75]. In response to this, Nscheffey, in a further attempt to defuse Ste4k's arguement, left a question on the talk page to clarify her position on the merge [76]. Martinp23, in anticipation of a response from Ste4k, added the information he had omitted and posted an apology on the article talk page ( [77] and [78]). Then he removed the disputed tags and reverted Greek statue to his previous redirect version. ( [79] and [80]). No further dispute was raised by Ste4k.
The users involved felt that Ste4k's behaviour in the circumstances had been inappropriate:
(provide diffs and links)
This editor is a very smart person with experience in cyber communities and computer systems. We request that she stop the problematic behaviors listed above and instead contribute Wikipedia in a more positive, less confrontational manner.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
( Work in progress ) ( markup added for emphasis )
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.
This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor.
There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them.
1. Will Beback 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Nscheffey( T/ C) 00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. mboverload @ 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Who123 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Antireconciler ◊ talk 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
4. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[223] Note: There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.
This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~.
10. Mango juice talk 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
6.
MichaelZimmer (
talk)
00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (as it relates to my interaction here
[243])
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Meh, I didn't know where to comment, so I'm putting it here, as I haven't been as heavily involved in problems with Ste4k as other users have been. While Ste4k's way of conducting herself on Wikipedia causes many disputes, it can clearly be seen in quite a few of the things that she does that she is acting in good faith, and in Wikipedia's best interests; even if her choice of actions are a bit extreme, or cause conflict. That said, she has over-reacted in other situations, and had she acted differently some things may not have happened. From what I've seen on Ste4k's talk page of the last few days, her attitude towards other users has changed tremendously, and she's been acting more positively towards other users. If Ste4k can continue to demonstrate this sort of attitude towards articles and other users, I don't think there'd be much of a problem in a few weeks time. -- JD don't talk| email] 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I think this has gone too far, and a resolution is already more than clear. Everybody just needs to drop everything, stop all the conflict, all the communication, everything; and start again. This isn't going to get any better while it's the way it is, because the situation is irreparable. Everything should be forgotten, and everybody should start over. Or, better yet, don't even do that. Everybody should just edit on their articles, and should they encounter somebody they don't like, they should have a proper discussion that goes no further than the talk page, and where the topic discussed stays the same through the whole conversation. This isn't so difficult to do. -- JD don't talk| email] 14:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
In addition to endorsing JD_UK and Mboverload's comments above I would say this:
Ste4k is, I think, a bit too inclined to take things personally. Also she is enthusiastic. I strongly believe that with help, support and guidance she will continue to make valuable contributions to the project. Having seen so much hard work from her, in articles where there is little hope of thanks, I am not inclined to be particularly critical. Put the Wikitrout away. Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Although I understand why people have problems working with Ste4k, it is unfair to say that her net effect has been "not productive" or that the conflicts she has been involved with were entirely her fault.
I am concerned by her apparent insertion of bad information into the Curse article, which I had not been aware of previously.
The deletion nominations for the ACIM mentioned in the RfC were met (and are still being met) with unwarranted accusations of bad faith. What is not mentioned is that most of the articles were deleted or at least merged. Only a few of the articles were kept. Ste4k seems still unconvinced that the movement is really all that notable. While I do not agree with that judgment, this is a disagreement on the merits, not bad faith.
Likewise, Big Brother Australia 6 seems more like a simple newbie (Ipse dixit.) mistake than bad faith. Ste4k asked me about it at the time, with the classic, "Britannica wouldn't have an article about this..." line of argument.
Ste4k is a great help to the project, doing a lot of thankless and noncontroversial tasks (such as cleaning out the merge backlog), so it seems unfair and inaccurate to suggest that she's here primarily to push a particular point of view on Curse or ACIM. She should derive satisfaction from all the hard work she has put in here.
She has been subject to inexcusable personal abuse. [245] Unfortunately, she also has a tendency to seek out or heighten conflict or controversy. [246] [247] [248] [249] She needs to develop a thicker skin and try to diffuse, rather than heighten, these matters.
She also can get lost in her zeal for policy enforcement. For example, a lot of editors spent a lot of time trying to find a source that she would accpet as reliable for a fact that was never seriously in dispute: that Charles Buell Anderson is the head of Endeavor Academy. Her application of WP rules and policies needs to be leavened with some common sense. In fairness, though, the ACIM-related articles read more like tracts than encyclopedia articles, so some zeal was warranted.
I hope that this talented, hard-working editor will continue in the project, learn from some of the mistakes that she has made and be treated more civilly by other editors on the project. JChap ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
lol, this has got to be the funniest thing i've seen all week. lol. ROFL. You got my attention now, calling my wife a dick...several times, evidently, and then you got the nerve to haul her up in front of your supreme court where the first sentence on the page says:
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.
LOL, this is the part that's funny....
Then here i am reading this deal written by some, hmmm, if you call my wife a dick, can i say bozo and not get censored here? lol, well anyhow, here i am reading this thing and one of the first things it says is:
This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor: Curse, Big Brother (Australia series 6), A Course in Miracles, Greek Statue, gender, and her user talk pages. Several editing-tag revert wars are omitted for brevity, while non-topical behavior problems are covered under "General".
All i can say, to the clowns that wrote this is, learn to read. lol, gimme a break. So what else have we got here...
You start talking bout me in Curse section there and you act like you know me or something. So you've read all my posts since nearly a year ago, huh? Well, i appreciate the fandom but i doubt you know much about that group and my posting habits. But since your an expert and all, i think it'd be just peachy to see some real stats. And while your at it, i was just reading what started all of this and some guy named sdedeo says:
Ste4k, the passage you keep reverting claims that there is a real, existing curse on a newsgroup. This is very silly. The rest of the article discusses notable "curses" in a dispassionate fashion. I have reported you for violation of 3RR. When you come back from your block, please try to address our concerns: importantly:
Sdedeo (tips) 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Now pay attention here, but it looks to me that in this section you've got on "Evidence of disputed behavior" that the first thing you go and do is reference a couple posts of mine in a newsgroup. I'll tell you what. If you can call that evidence, then I'll believe you when you go talk to sdedeo and get his approval, lol. Or better yet, why don't you go over to the curse page and explain it all there. Or even better still, lol, go ahead and include the stuff about the newsgroup being cursed since basically all your proving with your evidence is that my wife was right in the first place. HAHAHahahahaha. too much. no wonder you clowns got her all confused.
so what else you got here...
lol, this is good... and whoever wrote this is a serious bozo. lol...
Says here that, "However the Rrock profiles have posted thousands of messages to religious newsgroups, some of which include clear beliefs that at odds with the religious elements of this subject."
ROFL... now what exactly are you trying to say here, bozo. That has to be the most contorted line of propaganda i've seen in quite awhile. And HEY! guess what, according to you i happen to be an expert on UseNet, so don't be real quick on the trigger there and hear me out on this...
First of all i don't have an inkling about any religious elements of "this subject", but nevertheless, i think you ought to put your words where your mouth is and tell me right here what exactly you think that my religious beliefs are. You are claiming to be an expert on my posts and you are trying to say that my opinions reflect on my wife. So let's hear it from you real plain and clear instead of some sort of rigamaroll about UseNet newsgroup topics that have literally thousands of different posts made by literally thousands of different users every DAY, just exactly what it is about my beliefs that are at odds with the religious elements of this subject. That's a direct request. That's not a question. That's a demand. I think that anyone that calls my wife a dick should be able to put their words where their mouth is.
what else you got...
i don't know anything about the rest of this stuff, so i'll speak my last piece here. If you got problems with me then come over to my turf and quit picking on my wife. That's got to be the most cowardly thing i've seen in quite awhile.
next
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:09, July 21, 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC).
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}
Ste4k is an especially energetic and prolific editor, ammassing more than 3500 edits within 5 weeks. Unfortunately, her overall impact on Wikipedia so far has not been productive. Her edits have been strongly contested and her attitude has alienated many. She started by edit warring over material that she inserted fraudulently to settled an off-WP dispute. After that introduction, in one topic after another, she has irritated other users through edit wars and confrontational talk page postings. She has exhibited a condescending attitude towards other editors, takes offense too easily, and insists that she is always right. Much of her participation in this project can be described properly as "trolling".
To her credit she has also done some helpful maintenance work, though even that has caused controversy. She has also done a good job of editing some articles, such as Allerton High School. She is clearly intelligent and can be a good editor when she chooses. Community input could help this editor become an asset instead of a problem.
This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor: Curse, Big Brother (Australia series 6), A Course in Miracles, Greek Statue, gender, and her user talk pages. Several editing-tag revert wars are omitted for brevity, while non-topical behavior problems are covered under "General".
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
Ste4k's first known edits were to add material on "Cursed newsgroups" to Curse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The material was sourced from a single Usenet posting on June 5 [1] by "Rrock". On June 16, the material was placed in the "Curse" article for the first time by an account with the same IP number. [2] Six minutes later "Rrock" boasted of the material on alt.religion.angels. [3], and then again several times later. [4] [5] [6] Those postings make it appear that the entry was created as ammunition in on off-Wiki dispute. (The same user has Google Groups profiles for various spellings and has made several hundred postings a month since at least October 2005. As Ste4k became involved with Wikipedia Rrock's activity on Usenet has either dropped off considerably. There is ample additional evidence confirming that Ste4k and Rrock are the same person or inhabit the same household, which needn't be presented here. It would not matter except that this editor has acted deceitfully.) RRock may have indicated an intent to bring Wikipedia into disrepute and to engage in further mischief, either on Usenet or Wikipedia in this ambiguous posting. [7]
In the subsequent edit war at Curse, the material and/or behavior was described by other editors as "vandalism" [8], "crazy" [9], "silliness" [10], "nonsense" [11]. She reverted the material about 19 times in three days, and removed article tags as well. [12]
Some of her comments that contradict her later editing philosophy, yet are equally preachy.:
And that same first day she filed a mediation request over the newsgroup posting. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-18 Cursed Newsgroup - self-published source?. (In the end, the page was protected, the mediation never occurred due to mediator drop-out, and Ste4k moved on to other topics.)
It is clear, for a variety of reasons, that Ste4k is the same person as the Usenet poster "Rrock". Rrock wrote something on the Usenet to denigrate a supposed troll with whom he had had a long term battle. Then he came to Wikipedia, added it to an article, revert-warred over its inclusion, denied the fraud, lectured the editors who removed it, and trolled various talk pages about her poor treatment. Yet Ste4k never admitted that she was the original author of the underlying source and had a vested interest in its inclusion. Even recently she has complained about the "unjust" treatment that she, and her self-sourced material, have received. [18]
Ste4k sought to delete every single article connected to A Course in Miracles, using {db} tags, PRODs, and AfDs, using incorrect reasons in most cases to support the nominations. Yet she has repeatedly professed complete neutrality about the topic. However the Rrock profiles have posted thousands of messages to religious newsgroups, some of which include clear beliefs that are at odds with the religious elements of this subject. Considered in addition to this user's strident behavior on this topic, it appears that she is acting to further a POV.
Speedy delete tags: (There may be others which were deleted and so are not evident.)
PRODs
AfDs
She has also listed images used in the articles as copyright violations [23] [24] [25] (then, strangely enough, uploaded an ACIM-related photo using the same "fair use" claim that they others had [26]). She started an AfD at Wikiquotes for material related to ACIM. [27]
Subsequently she wrote "My interest is not to delete all ACIM related articles." [28]
Separately, she decided that the variations in the text of "A Course in Miracles" were sufficient that it was impossible to know which version was begin referred to. She created a disambiguation page among the verisons (only one of which has an article) and redirected many links to it. [29] In other instances she stated that references to the book had to be deleted since it wasn't clear which version was meant, or that we were referring to the "wrong" version. In one case she implied that a subject might bring a lawsuit due to an internal link to the "wrong" version. [30]
She insists that "ACIM" is a trademark or an "affiliated brand name" rather than a convenient abbreviation of "A Course in Miracles", and therefore any use of it is advertisement. [31] [32] Insted she insists that the book be referred to as the Course when a shorter version is desired. Though many editors have explained, with proof, that the trademark was cancelled by the Patent and Trademark Office and the matter is irrelevant, she remains convinced that she is right. [33] Even while insisting that other editors should not get stuck on topics, she keep harping on this issue, and seems to have decided that her interpretation prevails. [34] [35]
In the case of Charles Buell Anderson and Endeavor Academy she nominated them for deletion together, which resulted in "no consensus". [36] Then she promoted a merge with Endeavor Academy [37] [38] [39]. Once the merger was completed she said she didn't think that Anderson had anything to do with the Academy, and therefore the material should be deleted. [40] [41] [42] She even implied that it was libellous to mention Anderson. [43] Similarly, she merged artices into A Course in Miracles, then deleted their contents from there.
Complains of an ACIM "advocacy group". [44] [45] [46] [47]
Beginning on Jun 19 she moved 90% of the " A Course in Miracles" article, about 5000 words, to the talk page. Other editors objected and restored the material which begain a short revert war. Then she created a strawpoll which other editors complained was poorly worded. She sought outside supporters, but after only two days she declared that the poll closed and that the outcome showed users preferred to delete the material, which was totally unsupported by the discussion.
Ste4k nominated this article for deletion after engaging in much discussion on the article's talk page. The result was speedy keep. When it was suggested that this nomination was in bad faith, Ste4k responded irrationaly.
The articles Greek statue and Sculpture of Ancient Greece had been marked for a merge for almost a year, but the merge templates did not describe which way the merge was required [48] and [49]. Ste4k ( talk · contribs) then carried out the merge on the 14th July ( [50], [51]) and removed double redirects, carrying the merge out properly. Then, Nscheffey ( talk · contribs) reverted the merge on Sculpture of Ancient Greece [52], disputing the merge in his edit summary. At this stage, Ste4k ( talk · contribs) should have taken her dispute to the talk page, but a slow-running revert war ensued:
The edit war stopped, leaving the article in its pre-merge form, and a discussion which had been started on the talk page by Nscheffey ( talk · contribs) in response to the merges (and which had been ignored by Ste4k) was continued by Martinp23 ( talk · contribs) following a WP:3O request by Nscheffey. Talk page here. Ste4k then responded [59], claiming that the merge was not disputed and accusing Nscheffey of distrupting WP work flow and harrassing her. Clearly, the fact that the merge was reverted even once by Nscheffey should have indicated to Ste4k that it was disputed and the edit war should not have ensued. Ste4k also accused Nscheffey of making a POV fork in reverting her merge, but when a function itself is disputed (ie the merge), then a split to revert that merge is not a POV fork.
Comments were then left by JzG ( talk · contribs), Martinp23 ( talk · contribs) and JChap2007 ( talk · contribs) ( [60], [61] and [62] who unanimously agreed that the article be merged at Sculpture of Ancient Greece. Ste4k then responded, describing that the direction of the merge didn't concern her - but she didn't want the article to be orphaned following the revert of her merge [63]. Following this consensus, Martinp23 completed the merge from Greek statue to Sculpture of Ancient Greece ( [64] and [65]). He then left a message on Ste4k's talk page and on the article discussion page informing that the merge had been completed. ( [66] and [67] ). Following this, Ste4k left a comment on Martinp23's talk page [68] informing him that he had omitted some information from the original article. When Martinp23 asked Ste4k what he had missed, he was told to look more carefully( [69] and [70]). In the intervening period, Steak reverted the merge on Greek statue but not on Sculpture of Ancient Greece (orphaning Greek statue), leaving dispued merge templates on both ( [71] and [72]), prompting Will Beback ( talk · contribs) to ask what the problem was on the article talk page [73]. Martinp23 then looked for what he had omitted and put a missed picture in the article and left a message on the talk page awaiting a response from Ste4K [74] . When a response was left, it said that a sentence had been missed from the first paragraph and comlained that Martinp23 had used overly harsh words in describing her actions (the use of "accused"). [75]. In response to this, Nscheffey, in a further attempt to defuse Ste4k's arguement, left a question on the talk page to clarify her position on the merge [76]. Martinp23, in anticipation of a response from Ste4k, added the information he had omitted and posted an apology on the article talk page ( [77] and [78]). Then he removed the disputed tags and reverted Greek statue to his previous redirect version. ( [79] and [80]). No further dispute was raised by Ste4k.
The users involved felt that Ste4k's behaviour in the circumstances had been inappropriate:
(provide diffs and links)
This editor is a very smart person with experience in cyber communities and computer systems. We request that she stop the problematic behaviors listed above and instead contribute Wikipedia in a more positive, less confrontational manner.
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
( Work in progress ) ( markup added for emphasis )
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.
This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor.
There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them.
1. Will Beback 21:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Nscheffey( T/ C) 00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
5. mboverload @ 00:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Who123 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Antireconciler ◊ talk 04:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
4. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
[223] Note: There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.
This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~.
10. Mango juice talk 13:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
6.
MichaelZimmer (
talk)
00:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC) (as it relates to my interaction here
[243])
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}
Meh, I didn't know where to comment, so I'm putting it here, as I haven't been as heavily involved in problems with Ste4k as other users have been. While Ste4k's way of conducting herself on Wikipedia causes many disputes, it can clearly be seen in quite a few of the things that she does that she is acting in good faith, and in Wikipedia's best interests; even if her choice of actions are a bit extreme, or cause conflict. That said, she has over-reacted in other situations, and had she acted differently some things may not have happened. From what I've seen on Ste4k's talk page of the last few days, her attitude towards other users has changed tremendously, and she's been acting more positively towards other users. If Ste4k can continue to demonstrate this sort of attitude towards articles and other users, I don't think there'd be much of a problem in a few weeks time. -- JD don't talk| email] 02:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
I think this has gone too far, and a resolution is already more than clear. Everybody just needs to drop everything, stop all the conflict, all the communication, everything; and start again. This isn't going to get any better while it's the way it is, because the situation is irreparable. Everything should be forgotten, and everybody should start over. Or, better yet, don't even do that. Everybody should just edit on their articles, and should they encounter somebody they don't like, they should have a proper discussion that goes no further than the talk page, and where the topic discussed stays the same through the whole conversation. This isn't so difficult to do. -- JD don't talk| email] 14:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
In addition to endorsing JD_UK and Mboverload's comments above I would say this:
Ste4k is, I think, a bit too inclined to take things personally. Also she is enthusiastic. I strongly believe that with help, support and guidance she will continue to make valuable contributions to the project. Having seen so much hard work from her, in articles where there is little hope of thanks, I am not inclined to be particularly critical. Put the Wikitrout away. Just zis Guy you know? 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Although I understand why people have problems working with Ste4k, it is unfair to say that her net effect has been "not productive" or that the conflicts she has been involved with were entirely her fault.
I am concerned by her apparent insertion of bad information into the Curse article, which I had not been aware of previously.
The deletion nominations for the ACIM mentioned in the RfC were met (and are still being met) with unwarranted accusations of bad faith. What is not mentioned is that most of the articles were deleted or at least merged. Only a few of the articles were kept. Ste4k seems still unconvinced that the movement is really all that notable. While I do not agree with that judgment, this is a disagreement on the merits, not bad faith.
Likewise, Big Brother Australia 6 seems more like a simple newbie (Ipse dixit.) mistake than bad faith. Ste4k asked me about it at the time, with the classic, "Britannica wouldn't have an article about this..." line of argument.
Ste4k is a great help to the project, doing a lot of thankless and noncontroversial tasks (such as cleaning out the merge backlog), so it seems unfair and inaccurate to suggest that she's here primarily to push a particular point of view on Curse or ACIM. She should derive satisfaction from all the hard work she has put in here.
She has been subject to inexcusable personal abuse. [245] Unfortunately, she also has a tendency to seek out or heighten conflict or controversy. [246] [247] [248] [249] She needs to develop a thicker skin and try to diffuse, rather than heighten, these matters.
She also can get lost in her zeal for policy enforcement. For example, a lot of editors spent a lot of time trying to find a source that she would accpet as reliable for a fact that was never seriously in dispute: that Charles Buell Anderson is the head of Endeavor Academy. Her application of WP rules and policies needs to be leavened with some common sense. In fairness, though, the ACIM-related articles read more like tracts than encyclopedia articles, so some zeal was warranted.
I hope that this talented, hard-working editor will continue in the project, learn from some of the mistakes that she has made and be treated more civilly by other editors on the project. JChap ( talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
lol, this has got to be the funniest thing i've seen all week. lol. ROFL. You got my attention now, calling my wife a dick...several times, evidently, and then you got the nerve to haul her up in front of your supreme court where the first sentence on the page says:
In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users.
LOL, this is the part that's funny....
Then here i am reading this deal written by some, hmmm, if you call my wife a dick, can i say bozo and not get censored here? lol, well anyhow, here i am reading this thing and one of the first things it says is:
This RfC includes information on several separate disputes involving this editor: Curse, Big Brother (Australia series 6), A Course in Miracles, Greek Statue, gender, and her user talk pages. Several editing-tag revert wars are omitted for brevity, while non-topical behavior problems are covered under "General".
All i can say, to the clowns that wrote this is, learn to read. lol, gimme a break. So what else have we got here...
You start talking bout me in Curse section there and you act like you know me or something. So you've read all my posts since nearly a year ago, huh? Well, i appreciate the fandom but i doubt you know much about that group and my posting habits. But since your an expert and all, i think it'd be just peachy to see some real stats. And while your at it, i was just reading what started all of this and some guy named sdedeo says:
Ste4k, the passage you keep reverting claims that there is a real, existing curse on a newsgroup. This is very silly. The rest of the article discusses notable "curses" in a dispassionate fashion. I have reported you for violation of 3RR. When you come back from your block, please try to address our concerns: importantly:
Sdedeo (tips) 23:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Now pay attention here, but it looks to me that in this section you've got on "Evidence of disputed behavior" that the first thing you go and do is reference a couple posts of mine in a newsgroup. I'll tell you what. If you can call that evidence, then I'll believe you when you go talk to sdedeo and get his approval, lol. Or better yet, why don't you go over to the curse page and explain it all there. Or even better still, lol, go ahead and include the stuff about the newsgroup being cursed since basically all your proving with your evidence is that my wife was right in the first place. HAHAHahahahaha. too much. no wonder you clowns got her all confused.
so what else you got here...
lol, this is good... and whoever wrote this is a serious bozo. lol...
Says here that, "However the Rrock profiles have posted thousands of messages to religious newsgroups, some of which include clear beliefs that at odds with the religious elements of this subject."
ROFL... now what exactly are you trying to say here, bozo. That has to be the most contorted line of propaganda i've seen in quite awhile. And HEY! guess what, according to you i happen to be an expert on UseNet, so don't be real quick on the trigger there and hear me out on this...
First of all i don't have an inkling about any religious elements of "this subject", but nevertheless, i think you ought to put your words where your mouth is and tell me right here what exactly you think that my religious beliefs are. You are claiming to be an expert on my posts and you are trying to say that my opinions reflect on my wife. So let's hear it from you real plain and clear instead of some sort of rigamaroll about UseNet newsgroup topics that have literally thousands of different posts made by literally thousands of different users every DAY, just exactly what it is about my beliefs that are at odds with the religious elements of this subject. That's a direct request. That's not a question. That's a demand. I think that anyone that calls my wife a dick should be able to put their words where their mouth is.
what else you got...
i don't know anything about the rest of this stuff, so i'll speak my last piece here. If you got problems with me then come over to my turf and quit picking on my wife. That's got to be the most cowardly thing i've seen in quite awhile.
next
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.