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, not different disputes. 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: 01:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC).
In case it is preferable for admininistration, the above information is also included in a diff here, for reference. Ancheta Wis 11:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.
This editor has engaged in revert wars in several articles about abstract philosophical concepts: Truth, True, Knowledge, Epistemology. He also removed content from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that it is a "logical fallacy". When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being "obscurantists", of being "vandals", and of violating the NPOV policy. When informed that most users oppose his edits, he responds that this is fallacious reasoning, "argumentum ad numerum".
At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement. When he was informed that this was not the case, he removed the paragraphs from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contradicted his belief.
He has removed other users' comments from talk pages, claiming that they are personal attacks. At the same time, he has called other users names.
DotSix may claim in his response that I removed his comment from Talk:Truth. That is a false claim, I did remove it by accident [22] but I replaced it two minutes later [23]. For days he has been complaining about this perceived violation, although he himself is not above removing other users' comments intentionally.
(provide diffs and links)
Behavior issues
Content issues (for reference)
(provide diffs and links)
Talk to the other party
Given the rejection of a "majority rules" explicated by .6 in the talk pages, it is doubtful that the results of a survey on the issue would have a positive result.
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.
{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.}
<begin summary number one>
The above summary composed by those who are a party to this nasty little personal attack is definitely biased, as shown in the following examples.
re: "The following response from DotSix ..." -- Rhobite
re: "The following response from DotSix was moved here from where he inserted it above in the wrong section" -- Rholite
re: "*
67.182.157.6 (
talk ·
contribs), calls himself "DotSix". Also editing from:"
re: "This editor has engaged in revert wars"
re: "He also removed content from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that it is a "logical fallacy"."
re: "When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being 'obscurantists' ... "
re: "When informed that most users oppose his edits, he responds that this is fallacious reasoning, 'argumentum ad numerum'."
re: "At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement."
re: "He has removed other users' comments from talk pages"
re: "DotSix may claim in his response that I removed his comment from Talk:Truth. That is a false claim, I did remove it by accident [96] but I replaced it two minutes later [97]."
re: "Removed FuelWagon's comment since it was critical of his conduct."
re: "Archiving material as a rhetorical tool" by Mr. Banno:
re: "I posted a comment on the Truth article regarding dot-six's behaviour." -- FoolWagon
re: "For me, the worst thing about .6's behaviour and its consequences is simply the time spent by myself and others in dealing with it. This is time that could have been spent on far more productive activities." -- Banno
If Mr. Banno and company could learn to follow Wikipedia policy and "Comment on content, not on the contributor," and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, that might solve all their productivity problems.
re: Conduct unbecoming an adminsistrator
Here is another good example of conduct unbecoming an adminsistrator: In the middle of this big total thermoneuclear content dispute, Rhobite arbitrarily and capriciously slaps a block on his oponent: Special:lpblocklist 18:18, 2 August 2005, Rhobite blocked 67.182.157.6 (expires 18:18, 3 August 2005) (contribs) (removing VfD tag)
The allegation, "removing VfD tag" is not in accord with the actual state of affairs, the VfD tag was not removed as Rhobite alleges, it was simply moved to the discussion page where it belongs, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace
<end of summary number one>
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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.
I am inclined to agree with
Asbestos that Dot-Six is a troll, but a troll who is being disruptive. My own opinion is that the most serious offense by Dot-Six has been editing a Wikipedia official policy. I am not looking at the detailed definition of vandalism, and so do not want to state positively whether that is vandalism, but multiply editing an official policy to change its content is clearly abusive.
Dot-Six is one of two anonymous editors who are currently the subject of Requests for Comments who illustrate a special problem about disruptive anonymous editors. I agree with Wikipedia policy that anonymous edits should normally be permitted. A signed-in editor who violates the 3RR rule can be blocked. An anonymous editor who violates the 3RR rule cannot be effectively blocked. Since Wikipedia (unlike much of Usenet) is not an anarchy, there must be situations in which the use of anonymity has to be checked. My own suggestion is that there should be a feature allowing an article that has previously been disrupted by anonymous edits more than 3 times in 24 hours to be permanently protected from anonymous edits without the drastic extent of full protection. That is my opinion.
I think that Dot-Six is an anonymous troll who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a philosophical point. I am not exactly sure what point is. There needs to be a way to minimize disruption by anonymous trolls.
Robert McClenon 22:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I had previously agreed with Asbestos that Dot-Six was probably only a troll. I have deleted some of my language from the above because I think that "only a troll" may be a misnomer. It is not important whether Dot-Six is a troll, a "warrior", a vandal, or what. In addition to attempting to alter Wikipedia official policy, Dot-Six has also deleted comments from this RfC. At this point, I think that it is time for arbitration. Unfortunately, in the absence of a feature to protect articles from anonymous edits, it may be necessary to enforce a ban by excluding whole ranges of addresses. Robert McClenon 23:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Well, I consider myself an outside view. I posted a comment on the Truth article RFC regarding dot-six's behaviour. He deleted it, twice. I still stand by that comment, and would add that dot-six's appears unable to respond to criticism of his behaviour as anything other than an attack on his personal character. His deletion of my comment above also includes a comment by him to respect "No Personal Attacks", and "Focus on content, not the editor". I have doubts that he will respond to this any better.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
I would like to say that his views on logical fallacies is, at best, superficial. The arguments he uses are often ridiculus ( Argumentum ad numerum on a policy? The policy isn't valid because many uses it, it is valid because it is policy) to the downright contradictory (falsly accusing a user of a personal attack while making mountains of Ad hominem himself!). Do not be afraid about the fancy-pants latin phrases, this guy has very little understanding about the noble Art of Valid Argument.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Robert McClenon 06:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
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.
{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.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
<Banno comment moed from here to discussion page per above instructions> I am re-inserting this material as .6's edit removed a large portion:
Banno 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
DotSix has a habit of changing his own remarks (as well as those of others), so I can't promise that any of the matters I discuss here will still be mentioned in his Response by the time you read this.
-- Nate Ladd 06:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I assume DotSix created the above project page (original version linked above) as a response to people's explainations of what is meant by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or it was created as a fake piece of Wikipedia jargon to be used in this RfC. Either way, he certainly ought to that the project namespace is to be used for policies and the like, so ought to know by now that it's not a place for rhetoric, nor as a vehicle for complaining that his own POV isn't getting enough weight. It's been nominated for deletion. — Asbestos | Talk 19:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
For me, the worst thing about .6's behaviour and its consequences is simply the time spent by myself and others in dealing with it. This is time that could have been spent on far more productive activities.
The only positive consequence I can see is that in amongst the hundreds of edits, Nathan noticed a genuine problem with the introduction. Perhaps this will result in an improvement.
I'd like to see .6 do a few things. Foremost would be to register, give himself a proper user name and stop using sock puppets. Not only would thins make his own life easier, but it would also make it possible to deal with difficulties with him directly, instead of through the various article talk pages. It would simply be the courteous thing to do.
Next, I think .6 would benefit from reading more extensively before editing. Wikipedia:How to write a great article does a great job of explaining why it is important to research a topic before editing. I think it clear from his comments that he is a novice in philosophy. Having novices around is extremely important - their misunderstandings allow us to improve the articles. But in order to improve the article, one must be able to clearly articulate the problems one sees with it; one can do this much more easily if one is willing to learn about the topic, rather than just to assume that their naive opinion is the one that counts.
Finally, of course, adopting a civil attitude towards other editors would make .6's life easier. People are more likely to accept change when it is presented politely. None of .6's edits on an article have been accepted - I imagine this would be a considerable source of frustration for him; it would be for me. Getting others to accept your edits is part-and-parcel of working on the Wiki.
Again, it is up to .6 to adopt his behaviour. Perhaps he can. If he can't, and it becomes necessary to block his IP addresses, an injustice will have been done to the other legitimate editors who apparently use the same IPs. That injustice would be down to .6, not to the Wiki admins. Banno 00:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Both Robert McClenon and gkhan have suggested moving on to arbitration. 6., you should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration so that you understand what is being suggested. You might consider taking this issue to Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, in order to avoid its going to arbitration. Banno 12:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we wait a day or so to see if .6 is willing to either change his dogmatic approach, seek mediation or arrange an advocate. If there is no progress, then I guess we have done as much as we can, and we can take it to arbitration. Again, I think it needs to be .6 who seeks mediation, since he needs to be committed to the process for it to work and he has previously accused those who object to his edits of collusion. Banno 08:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have commenced arbitration proceedings against DotSix - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DotSix. I encourage all interested users to add a statement. Banno 21:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
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, not different disputes. 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: 01:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC).
In case it is preferable for admininistration, the above information is also included in a diff here, for reference. Ancheta Wis 11:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.
This editor has engaged in revert wars in several articles about abstract philosophical concepts: Truth, True, Knowledge, Epistemology. He also removed content from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that it is a "logical fallacy". When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being "obscurantists", of being "vandals", and of violating the NPOV policy. When informed that most users oppose his edits, he responds that this is fallacious reasoning, "argumentum ad numerum".
At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement. When he was informed that this was not the case, he removed the paragraphs from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which contradicted his belief.
He has removed other users' comments from talk pages, claiming that they are personal attacks. At the same time, he has called other users names.
DotSix may claim in his response that I removed his comment from Talk:Truth. That is a false claim, I did remove it by accident [22] but I replaced it two minutes later [23]. For days he has been complaining about this perceived violation, although he himself is not above removing other users' comments intentionally.
(provide diffs and links)
Behavior issues
Content issues (for reference)
(provide diffs and links)
Talk to the other party
Given the rejection of a "majority rules" explicated by .6 in the talk pages, it is doubtful that the results of a survey on the issue would have a positive result.
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.
{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.}
<begin summary number one>
The above summary composed by those who are a party to this nasty little personal attack is definitely biased, as shown in the following examples.
re: "The following response from DotSix ..." -- Rhobite
re: "The following response from DotSix was moved here from where he inserted it above in the wrong section" -- Rholite
re: "*
67.182.157.6 (
talk ·
contribs), calls himself "DotSix". Also editing from:"
re: "This editor has engaged in revert wars"
re: "He also removed content from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, claiming that it is a "logical fallacy"."
re: "When he uses talk pages, he accuses other editors of using logical fallacies, of being 'obscurantists' ... "
re: "When informed that most users oppose his edits, he responds that this is fallacious reasoning, 'argumentum ad numerum'."
re: "At one point he claimed that the NPOV policy states that all points of view should be given equal placement."
re: "He has removed other users' comments from talk pages"
re: "DotSix may claim in his response that I removed his comment from Talk:Truth. That is a false claim, I did remove it by accident [96] but I replaced it two minutes later [97]."
re: "Removed FuelWagon's comment since it was critical of his conduct."
re: "Archiving material as a rhetorical tool" by Mr. Banno:
re: "I posted a comment on the Truth article regarding dot-six's behaviour." -- FoolWagon
re: "For me, the worst thing about .6's behaviour and its consequences is simply the time spent by myself and others in dealing with it. This is time that could have been spent on far more productive activities." -- Banno
If Mr. Banno and company could learn to follow Wikipedia policy and "Comment on content, not on the contributor," and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, that might solve all their productivity problems.
re: Conduct unbecoming an adminsistrator
Here is another good example of conduct unbecoming an adminsistrator: In the middle of this big total thermoneuclear content dispute, Rhobite arbitrarily and capriciously slaps a block on his oponent: Special:lpblocklist 18:18, 2 August 2005, Rhobite blocked 67.182.157.6 (expires 18:18, 3 August 2005) (contribs) (removing VfD tag)
The allegation, "removing VfD tag" is not in accord with the actual state of affairs, the VfD tag was not removed as Rhobite alleges, it was simply moved to the discussion page where it belongs, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace
<end of summary number one>
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
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.
I am inclined to agree with
Asbestos that Dot-Six is a troll, but a troll who is being disruptive. My own opinion is that the most serious offense by Dot-Six has been editing a Wikipedia official policy. I am not looking at the detailed definition of vandalism, and so do not want to state positively whether that is vandalism, but multiply editing an official policy to change its content is clearly abusive.
Dot-Six is one of two anonymous editors who are currently the subject of Requests for Comments who illustrate a special problem about disruptive anonymous editors. I agree with Wikipedia policy that anonymous edits should normally be permitted. A signed-in editor who violates the 3RR rule can be blocked. An anonymous editor who violates the 3RR rule cannot be effectively blocked. Since Wikipedia (unlike much of Usenet) is not an anarchy, there must be situations in which the use of anonymity has to be checked. My own suggestion is that there should be a feature allowing an article that has previously been disrupted by anonymous edits more than 3 times in 24 hours to be permanently protected from anonymous edits without the drastic extent of full protection. That is my opinion.
I think that Dot-Six is an anonymous troll who is disrupting Wikipedia to make a philosophical point. I am not exactly sure what point is. There needs to be a way to minimize disruption by anonymous trolls.
Robert McClenon 22:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I had previously agreed with Asbestos that Dot-Six was probably only a troll. I have deleted some of my language from the above because I think that "only a troll" may be a misnomer. It is not important whether Dot-Six is a troll, a "warrior", a vandal, or what. In addition to attempting to alter Wikipedia official policy, Dot-Six has also deleted comments from this RfC. At this point, I think that it is time for arbitration. Unfortunately, in the absence of a feature to protect articles from anonymous edits, it may be necessary to enforce a ban by excluding whole ranges of addresses. Robert McClenon 23:42, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Well, I consider myself an outside view. I posted a comment on the Truth article RFC regarding dot-six's behaviour. He deleted it, twice. I still stand by that comment, and would add that dot-six's appears unable to respond to criticism of his behaviour as anything other than an attack on his personal character. His deletion of my comment above also includes a comment by him to respect "No Personal Attacks", and "Focus on content, not the editor". I have doubts that he will respond to this any better.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
I would like to say that his views on logical fallacies is, at best, superficial. The arguments he uses are often ridiculus ( Argumentum ad numerum on a policy? The policy isn't valid because many uses it, it is valid because it is policy) to the downright contradictory (falsly accusing a user of a personal attack while making mountains of Ad hominem himself!). Do not be afraid about the fancy-pants latin phrases, this guy has very little understanding about the noble Art of Valid Argument.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Robert McClenon 06:48, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
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.
{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.}
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.
<Banno comment moed from here to discussion page per above instructions> I am re-inserting this material as .6's edit removed a large portion:
Banno 00:20, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
DotSix has a habit of changing his own remarks (as well as those of others), so I can't promise that any of the matters I discuss here will still be mentioned in his Response by the time you read this.
-- Nate Ladd 06:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
I assume DotSix created the above project page (original version linked above) as a response to people's explainations of what is meant by Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or it was created as a fake piece of Wikipedia jargon to be used in this RfC. Either way, he certainly ought to that the project namespace is to be used for policies and the like, so ought to know by now that it's not a place for rhetoric, nor as a vehicle for complaining that his own POV isn't getting enough weight. It's been nominated for deletion. — Asbestos | Talk 19:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
For me, the worst thing about .6's behaviour and its consequences is simply the time spent by myself and others in dealing with it. This is time that could have been spent on far more productive activities.
The only positive consequence I can see is that in amongst the hundreds of edits, Nathan noticed a genuine problem with the introduction. Perhaps this will result in an improvement.
I'd like to see .6 do a few things. Foremost would be to register, give himself a proper user name and stop using sock puppets. Not only would thins make his own life easier, but it would also make it possible to deal with difficulties with him directly, instead of through the various article talk pages. It would simply be the courteous thing to do.
Next, I think .6 would benefit from reading more extensively before editing. Wikipedia:How to write a great article does a great job of explaining why it is important to research a topic before editing. I think it clear from his comments that he is a novice in philosophy. Having novices around is extremely important - their misunderstandings allow us to improve the articles. But in order to improve the article, one must be able to clearly articulate the problems one sees with it; one can do this much more easily if one is willing to learn about the topic, rather than just to assume that their naive opinion is the one that counts.
Finally, of course, adopting a civil attitude towards other editors would make .6's life easier. People are more likely to accept change when it is presented politely. None of .6's edits on an article have been accepted - I imagine this would be a considerable source of frustration for him; it would be for me. Getting others to accept your edits is part-and-parcel of working on the Wiki.
Again, it is up to .6 to adopt his behaviour. Perhaps he can. If he can't, and it becomes necessary to block his IP addresses, an injustice will have been done to the other legitimate editors who apparently use the same IPs. That injustice would be down to .6, not to the Wiki admins. Banno 00:08, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Both Robert McClenon and gkhan have suggested moving on to arbitration. 6., you should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration so that you understand what is being suggested. You might consider taking this issue to Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, in order to avoid its going to arbitration. Banno 12:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
My suggestion is that we wait a day or so to see if .6 is willing to either change his dogmatic approach, seek mediation or arrange an advocate. If there is no progress, then I guess we have done as much as we can, and we can take it to arbitration. Again, I think it needs to be .6 who seeks mediation, since he needs to be committed to the process for it to work and he has previously accused those who object to his edits of collusion. Banno 08:18, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have commenced arbitration proceedings against DotSix - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DotSix. I encourage all interested users to add a statement. Banno 21:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)