Here's my take on Glkanter. He seems to be not so much a wikipedia editor as a Monty-Hall Problem groupie; 99% of his editors are of the Monty Hall Problem talk page, and he's frustrated that he can't convince everyone to throw out Rick Block and his approach and do it differently; he's not alone in this, and I tend to be closer to his side than to Ricks, and my attempts there have been to find the some compromise to settle the arguments that have been going on for over a year. I've given up on that more than once now, most recently due to the toxic reaction from Glkanter.
The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of this edit by Glkanter, which initially looked to me like malicious disruption of somebody's serious attempt at a chronology. Before I actually did the revert, I did realize that it was his own work that he was editing, but that, to me, was not enough reason to not revert, and as I say in my edit summary here, I took it to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." I took one additional step to convert his "pointy" chronology to somethat that might be worth discussing, here, and finally a bit of cleanup and response to the point here. Whatever one may think of my attempt to patch up the chronology, which was his work, his subsequent reactions were way over the top, culminating in gross incivility, which he repeated both on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no apparent purpose. So I just left that article as intractable and didn't worry about any more until Rick told me was filing this conduct RfC, which I obviously agree with.
ps. my "obviously incorrect" statement referred to the positioning of the paragraph "Devlin and many others write articles and text books as reliably sourced references using only the unconditional solution. They make no mention of Morgan or conditionality." before the publications of any of the relevant articles by von Savant, Devlin, or Morgan.
Dicklyon ( talk) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If you were in my shoes, you would not agree that Dicklyon and I acted equally uncivil. To me that's what the msm does sometimes, it's a 'false equivalency'. I think I acted in self defense to a mugging. Then I started yelling that I had been mugged. Now with this un-called-for RfC, I'm getting arrested for disturbing the peace - by the very guy who mugged me! Read the section involved, as it is now, that I had just created new, and that Dicklyon changed just moments later. All that's missing is his deletions that I replaced. I read his user page discussing his various edit wars. I turned the other cheek and begged for mercy 3 times. What else was I supposed to do to avoid trouble? And that whole Dick Cheney thread, while very sarcastic is wholly supported by the diffs. Sometimes honesty isn't pretty. The 'Cheney' diff wasn't posted until 10 hours after the incident began, and 2 1/2 hours after peace had been restored..
Oh, one last quick thing. Rick Block wasn't involved in this incident in any way. That means that he and Dicklyon didn't meet the requirements for filing this RfC. Glkanter ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that there are differing levels of fault between Dicklyon and Glkantor; they have not acted equally uncivil. However, acting less uncivil than another editor is not a defense for acting uncivilly. Taking a deep breath before posting would be advisable on both sides of the MHP issue.
- I do believe the RfCU was properly certified as Rick Block attempted to resolve the dispute as evidenced by diffs 18-22. Please note that I am not expressing an opinion as to whether the RfCU was called for. Eastshire ( talk) 20:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The only incident I have ever been involved with that included Dicklyon occurred on 12/7/2009. Rick's diffs 18-22 are from very different dates (some are November), and cover a multitude of different topics. On 12/7/2009, Rick, as I said in the RfC, had no involvement whatsoever. Please review the instructions at the top of the RfC. Thanks. Glkanter ( talk) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Eastshire meant by "Both sides of this issue appear to be treating the article's talk page as a battleground and have acted in an uncivil manner." If I (or Rick) did something uncivil, I'd like to have it pointed out; I certainly was never battling against Glkanter, and my "refactoring" of his proposed timeline was well intentioned, attempting to support his position, preserving the meaning where it was meaningful and removing the parts that were evidently errorful, meaningless, or appeared to be intended as a pointy disruption. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for the "battle" on the talk page, it has been ongoing for way too long, due to dug-in polarizing positions of Rick Block on the one side and Glkanter and a few others on the other side. Rick has prevailed largely, by being scrupulously civil, listening to the concerns of others, and sticking to arguments based on policies. Glkanter, on the other hand, has been ranting on the verge of incivility for a long time, and has recently stepped way over the line. The "battle" would have a better chance of convergence if he would not drive away people who try to work on finding a middle ground, like me. I don't expect that this RfC/U will have much effect, based on my past experience, but if there's some way to get him to acknowledge that his behavior was bad and to agree to not do that any more, that would be awesome. As for my mistake in editing his talk, I agree it was bad (but not incivil) and won't do that again. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, here's a classic from Rick. This is included in his 'official' comments voting against the proposed changes. Meow, Meow December 4, 2009 Glkanter ( talk) 02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, a specific uncivil act I see on your part is accusing Glkanter of vandalizing his on talk contribution. This is a separate issue than the actual editing of the contribution. You've acknowledged your error in editing the contribution, which is good. You should consider what people infer from you labeling Gklanter's edit of his on contribution as vandalism. Gklanter, you do need to take a deep breath before you post and ask yourself if you are being civil. Eastshire ( talk) 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I said in my edit summary, to explain my action, included the phrase "bordering on vandalism". How is this explanation incivil? Can you suggest a better way to express my reasoning than my edit summary of (Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW))?
Dicklyon (
talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of vandalizing their own thoughts is, to me, uncivil. The incivility of it stems from covering an unacceptable behavior on your part (editing someone's talk page contribution) by accusing that person of vandalism. That point is largely moot at this time because you have acknowledged your error. Eastshire ( talk) 14:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I said in my edit summary, to explain my action, included the phrase "bordering on vandalism". How is this explanation incivil? Can you suggest a better way to express my reasoning than my edit summary of (Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW))?
Dicklyon (
talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, your comment,
Dicklyon Revert1: on the diff reads: "(Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW))" Is that consistent with your new explanation of 'refactoring' a brand new section of a talk page 38 minutes after I had written it?
Glkanter (
talk) 22:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, your comment,
Dicklyon Revert1: on the diff reads: "(Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW))" Is that consistent with your new explanation of 'refactoring' a brand new section of a talk page 38 minutes after I had written it?
Glkanter (
talk) 22:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, your original response to this RfC (see below) says, among other things, 'revert' 3 times, 'a bit of cleanup and response to the point ', and 'pointy addition'.
- "The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of this edit by Glkanter, which initially looked to me like malicious disruption of somebody's serious attempt at a chronology. Before I actually did the revert, I did realize that it was his own work that he was editing, but that, to me, was not enough reason to not revert, and as I say in my edit summary here, I took it to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." I took one additional step to convert his "pointy" chronology to somethat that might be worth discussing, here, and finally a bit of cleanup and response to the point here. Whatever one may think of my attempt to patch up the chronology, which was his work..." Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now you're claiming this was "My error was with respect to the conventions of WP:RTP." Dicklyon (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I have stayed very quiet in the face of all the 'disruptive' and 'POV' and whatever other opinion-based complaints in this RfC.
The facts are simple. In October, 2008 I posted this Monty's Action Does Not Cause The Original Odds To Change using an IP address.
I have not wavered from this. I have been insistent that this is how the article should be framed, which is 180 degrees contrary to how it was back in October, 2008. At the time, I was the gadfly.
In February, not having received the 'Welcome Kit', I posted this on the MHP talk page Conventional Wisdom explaining how I hoped to one day change this article. I made no friend in February, I can assure you. Despite the fact I was advocating for the original published source's solution, upon Rick's request for support, I was insulted repeatedly, and my knowledge of the topic was impugned by the best of them.
I took 2 breaks since then. One for 2 months, the other for 4 months, ending roughly around Thanksgiving. I did not post to anything Monty Hall related at all for over 4 months. When I returned, I found some like-minded editors had come aboard. And I jumped right back in, full force.
And today, as there has been for nearly 3 weeks, there is a clear consensus to modify the article in much the way I've been proposing. Two members of that consensus are Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin. Rick Block and two others are wielding some form of veto. I don't mix it up much in the discussions, either. I let those guys go on at length about formal probability statements, and variants, and Morgan, and their own OR, etc. I usually start new sections that logically prove why the consensus for change is on the side of 'right'.
So, I've been insistent, brusque, redundant, etc. etc. I could say all the same things about Rick Block. And he's been at it on the MHP a lot longer than me. I really don't know how else we would have gotten to where the consensus is filing for Formal Mediation against the current content of the article. The FA article.
But foremost, I've been honest. Honest to the sources, honest to the diffs, honest to myself and honest to the other editors. Glkanter ( talk) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for all those claims of me being disruptive and annoying to the other editors, and my ideas are unfounded or 'way out there', here's what Rick Block had to say on the
Request for Informal Mediation from the Cabal that he submitted on December 6, 2009:
- What is the dispute?
- "A collection of editors have been unhappy with the article Monty Hall problem for a long time (Martin and Glkanter, and recently Jeff). In particular, there are mathematical sources (such as the Morgan et al. reference cited in the article) that criticize the popular "unconditional" solutions as not necessarily addressing the question the problem asks (see Talk:Monty Hall problem/FAQ) and explicitly say the problem should be addressed using conditional probability. These editors have argued (for years now) that this is a minor point that most readers do not care about and that the article should either ignore these sources completely or the points they make should be relegated to a section on variants..."
- Rick's description, in ths RfC, of the affects of my long term consensus buiding seems contradicted by his own claims in the Informal Request. The fact that we're about to file for Formal Mediation contradicts Rick's accusations, too. There's perhaps 7 editors or more who support the consensus to make changes to varying degrees. To me, there is an editor on the MHP who is obstructionist, owning, with a POV that has made its way into the article, but it's not me. Glkanter ( talk) 21:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
So, if you consider:
- that I work toward a consensus rather than edit war, which is a good thing
- Rick was not involved in the the Dicklyon incident. Therefore this is an invalid claim.
- Dicklyon has acknowledged initiating the incident this RfC is based upon
- I begged for mercy 3 times before Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin made a peace
- Dicklyon has his edit wars on his user page, but wants mine removed as a remedy
- the claims of repeated incivility are an opinion
- the claims that I do nothing constructive are an opinion
- the claims that I am disruptive are an opinion
- the claims that I work against the consensus are an opinion
- I am actually a vocal, constructive member of the consensus that Rick Block and Dicklyon accuse me of disrupting
- Rick's unfathomable 'meow, meow' uncivil attack on me (the rest of that diff was tremendously over the line as well)
- Rick Block is not a member of the consensus
- The consensus has decided to file for Formal Mediation. RfCs like this delay any such filing, by diverting the editors.
- Rick is at risk of losing his only FA article due to substantial changes via the consensus
How can I not conclude this was a form of harassment? How would I pursue this concern?
Glkanter (
talk) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- When I said "The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of this edit by Glkanter" I didn't mean to admit full responsibility for "initiating the incident", since my revert was a reaction to your edit that I took to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." Maybe you can own up to your part? In any case, that was not the sort of provocation that would normally drive any sensible wikipedia editor into the sort of spasm of profanity that you unleashed on us. Maybe you need to own up to that, too. Rick was involved in the sense that he was a part of the conversation, the person your edit was presumably addressed to, or against. The mediation is still a good idea; I have not been asked to be a part of it, since I resigned my involvement in that article, and that's fine. I agree you've been a vocal participant, but "constructive" is what I would argue against. I hope you do get to be constructive, but I think you can only get there by opening up a bit and respecting Rick's POV and seeking a compromise consensus. Your efforts so far only keep the discussion polarized. That's the only remedy I care about. If you want to keep your statement "Oh, and who the fuck do I think I am? Fuck You! That's who the fuck I am!" on your talk page, and things along that line including those that curse me, I have no quarrel with that, but if you want to get over being seen as incivil, you might want to rethink that. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- You defend this RfC with this: "Rick was involved in the sense that he was a part of the conversation, the person your edit was presumably addressed to, or against."
- That explanation doesn't meet the requirement as per the top of the RfC form. Besides, the truth is that I often start a new section, based on a 'proof' I want to try out. The long 'I'm right, you're wrong' arguments get old, fast. I keep hoping a logical proof will carry the day. The section you edited was one of these. It was the first draft of a chronology of events that I was in the midst of fleshing out. Rick had nothing to do with it, before, after or since, and there was never anything from him in terms of admonishing my behaviour because of it, as required for an RfC. There are no diffs from Rick on this incident, despite what Rick and you presented in the RfC. As some of Rick's diffs provided were from the prior month, that's either deceptive or careless. Until this RfC, there had not been a single complaint from any editor or reader since I wrote about this incident on my talk page. Even with the salty language. Glkanter ( talk) 11:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your approach to talk by forcefully presenting so-called "proofs" gets old fast, too. These proofs are nothing but your made-up long-winded justifications for your position, often disconnected from the issues that relate to wikipedia guidelines and to reliable sources. By arguing some certain sources are just wrong, based on your proofs, all you do is continue a pointless argument in a pointless direction. The real issue is how to make a balanced presentation of what's in reliable sources about the topic. I don't agree with the balance that Rick is pushing, but it's not constructive to fight it the way you have been for over a year. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- The above paragraph seems pretty aggressive, bordering on mean spirited, maybe even 'uncivil'. I'm defending myself against what I see as a spurious RfC based on an incident where I perceived myself as the 'victim' in the first place. If Dicklyon hadn't edited my talk page comment, there would be no basis for his involvement in any RfC against me. Now, he's free to use all kinds of put downs against me? I guess the incivility requirements are only for the benefit of certain people? Why not me? Rick and I disagree. That doesn't make his opinion right. Dicklyon is defending his actions. Why do I have to be attacked again by Dicklyon, another Wikipedian, in who's opinion, apparently, I am, among other things, 'long winded', 'just wrong' and 'disconnected from the issues'. That's downright insulting. And not supported by the facts. Martin Hogbin and many other editors don't agree with Dicklyons POV of me. Which Wikipedia policy is superseding the 'civility' policy, and why? Dicklyon has acknowledged he leans toward my argument more than Rick's. How wrong can I be then, anyways? The contentious MHP debates started long before I got there. It now seems on the verge of correction. I contributed to that. A lot. As for Dicklyon leaving the article in April? He had been arguing primarily with Nijdam about Bayesian probability theory. Believe me, no matter how Rick or Dicklyon make it sound, no one would accuse me of disrupting those discussions. Glkanter ( talk) 05:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Rick, as you know, I have questioned whether or not this RfC meets the following requirement:
- "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 Glkanter ( talk) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)."
It appears to me that, despite being the foremost admin on the MHP talk page, the diffs clearly indicate you had no involvement whatsoever with the 'Is this Chronology Correct' section dispute involving Glkanter, Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin.
It also appears to me that other than this incident, there are no diffs showing Glkanter and Dicklyon having a discussion of any type whatsoever, certainly since April, 2009.
Could you please clarify for me how the above facts are consistent with your claim that this RfC can somehow "...involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes..." Glkanter ( talk) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The topic of this RFC is NOT simply your recent spat with Dicklyon, but
- 1) your long history of tendentious editing of talk:Monty Hall problem
- 2) your lack of nearly any editing here OTHER than your argumentative posts at this talk page
- 3) your DISRUPTIVE edits at this talk page which have directly contributed to several editors leaving the discussion. Dicklyon is only the latest, you also effectively drove away user:C S (a math PhD from wp:WikiProject Mathematics), see this archived thread, and then this one, and then this one. You chronicled this exchange on your talk page, [1], titling the section "This guy is a POS". Another example is your exchange with Nijdam, who is a professor of mathematics at a university in the Netherlands, who became so frustrated with your belligerence he basically refuses to engage you in "discussion" any more, see Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 9#Experts.
- 4) Your consistent approach over the last year of treating editing here as a personal battle to be chronicled on your talk page. I have been the primary target of your attacks for over a year and have mostly simply ignored them, with a few notable exceptions (e.g the "meow" edit you have copied here and there, and reference above as well). Yes, I'm human. If you provoke me for long enough I will react.
- The "dispute" the RFC addresses is your pattern of editing, not the single instance with Dicklyon. -- Rick Block ( talk)
- You and Dicklyon have never discussed any common issue with me. That's a requirement: "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes..."
- But this is actually a good thing. It's a perfect example of the very first thing I wrote in my original response to this RfC, "Since I started editing on the MHP talk page 14 months ago, Rick Block and I have seen things 180 degrees apart. Always. Every issue. I can't explain it. It just is." Glkanter (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- How many editors have you chased away in all the years since I shepherded Monty Hall problem through the Wikipedia:Featured articles process and still try to help folks understand it as your user page highlights? Your personal opinions about my editing style, or my refusal to back down, are your business. Not mine. Keep it that way, please. Glkanter ( talk) 05:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I was not very familiar with Glkanter's history, but looking at Rick's links, I agree with him that the recent stuff is all part of an old pattern, and it's all part of the same content dispute. Glkanter's "This guy is a POS" and "C S, you are garbage" are exactly the kind of personal attacks and incivilities that have no useful or civil part in wikipedia content disputes, just like his more recent "fuck you" that finally prompted Rick to ask for comments. Furthermore, if you look back at Rick's "desired outcome", it's hard to imagine why Glkanter wouldn't just say OK, I agree, and try to move forward. Gl, is there some part of that desired outcome that you disagree with, or that you'd like to amend?
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, if as you say immediately above: "I was not very familiar with Glkanter's history..." until Rick Block just added those 10 month old diffs, then why did you join this RfC in the first place, and write: "So I just left that article as intractable and didn't worry about any more until Rick told me was filing this conduct RfC, which I obviously agree with." in your Dicklyon's comments about what's going on? You've been gone since April, immediately after discussing Bayes with Nijdam. I was not party to those discussions.
- Why didn't I just say OK? Because you and Rick, in my opinion have acted like bullies and have been, and continue to be, dishonest with this whole RfC. Glkanter ( talk) 05:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dishonest? When I suggested a compromise for the content issue (which, again, is not the point of the RFC) you first questioned my standing to even offer a compromise [2] and when I suggested you were being disruptive [3] this was your response [4]. You knew about the draft of this RFC when I asked you if you'd delete the objectionable material from your talk page ( [5]). Your response was "mu" [6]. Slightly more polite than this or this, but I got the message. What's dishonest is your claim that anything about this RFC is dishonest. You've engaged in long-standing, persistent disruption. What you need to do is stop. Deleting "This guy is a POS" (referring to user:C S) and "Who the fuck does this guy think he is?" and "How you like me now, Bitch!?" (both referring to Dicklyon) from your talk page would be a good start. -- Rick Block ( talk) 06:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- And we continue to disagree, on everything. I stand by the diff that says it's illogical for someone against the consensus to be the lead editor. That doesn't make me disruptive. That makes you conniving, underhanded, and duplicitous. There would be no trust in your intentions. But I didn't say any of those things on the talk page.
- You continue to have a problem separating fact from your opinion and your personal interpretations. You've shown it very clearly with nearly every word you typed in this trumped-up RfC. I guess rather than answering your pointless question with 'mu', I should have simply not responded, much like your buddy Nijdam. After nearly a week, Nijdam has not shown the courtesy to respond to 'Does Anyone Object To Formal Mediation?' He's hurting all the editors, the MHP article, and Wikipedia's readers with those antics, not just me. Glkanter ( talk) 14:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- To Gl: I endorsed the RfC because I agreed with Rick that your conduct needed to be examined and because I told Rick I would; it was I to whom you addressed your "fuck you", was it not? I don't believe I said you had anything to do with my first leaving of the article in April after trying briefly to help, but you certainly caused me to leave it again more recently. When I said it was "intractable", I wasn't aware that it was also at times incivil, but you've added that problem, and now I see you've added it several times over the last year. Your failure to admit the incivility, or to realize that it was an off-scale reaction to a minor provocation, baffles me, and does not bode well for your continued involvement. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, you just acknowledged above that you were not qualified to be the 2nd certifier on this RfC:
- "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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..."
- You and I and Martin went around on arcane WP policies on one occasion. After begging for mercy, I stayed out of it until Martin Hogbin had admonished you twice. Only after your faux 'Of course; I hope I didn't do anything that hinted otherwise.' incivility denying response to Martin did I write anything critical of you. Rick is trying to demonstrate a pattern of improper behaviour on my part. You have never both 'counseled' me on the same topic, as required. Glkanter ( talk) 15:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Let's talk about questionable language, In February, I wrote: 'C S, you are garbage.' on the MHP talk page. The guy ridiculed me constantly for my inability to understand why the conditional solution was a 'requirement' for the MHP. Without saying so, he was also criticizing every math professor, including Selvin who wrote the original, who had published the simple solution. He convinced me to admit I was wrong, and to quit editing. The next thing he writes is 'I didn't mean to imply it had to be solved conditionally'. I asked him about that, and if I recall correctly, he didn't respond in a timely fashion to my question. So, on the MHP talk page I wrote a little summary piece, praised Rick Block and called C S garbage. On my talk page, I set up a new section called 'This guy is a POS'. Then, verbatim, and without comment, I copied each of his edits that were addressed to me or the article onto my talk page. This same guy had responded to Rick's call for help in what I considered a prejudicial manner, in so many words declaring Rick 'golden' and me a 'heathen'. (What a coincidence! Rick deleted the garbage line from my talk page comment. I put it back in. That was the first and only other time my comments have been distorted intentionally.) He and Rick complained about the garbage comment and the whole POS section. It stayed up. When he couldn't muster up support against me, and knew he was wrong about the MHP, C S left, conveniently scapegoating me. He's semi-retired from Wikipedia now. I guess I was too much for him? Or maybe he was quitting anyways, and enjoyed the drama and blaming me. And Rick, 'How you like me now, Bitch?' is not directed at Dicklyon. Can you guess who?
- The first F-bomb in December was pre-meditated. A certain supportive editor posted his thoughts on the MHP. With his posting, I realized there was no more legitimate opposition to fixing the Article. So, I celebrated with 1 F-bomb on my user page.
- All the rest came many hours after the brief 'one-sided Dicklyon edit war.' After committing his inexcusable actions, he continued to blame me and deny any responsibility. You've seen the diffs, or the whole section on the MHP talk page. Just as he continues to do on this RfC. Then he took it a step further, and on my talk page, right beneath a February compliment from Rick Block thanking me for being more civil, he continues to agitate by posting this Backsliding. This was apparently in response to the sarcastic, but complete true, honest, and necessary 'Thank you Dicklyon' that I wrote.
- And I'd had enough. After being violated, begging for mercy, and then him brazenly and with a smirk replying to Martin's comment this discussion has remained completely civil with this passive aggressive classic Of course; I hope I didn't do anything that hinted otherwise. showing no remorse whatsoever, only missing the <wink>. I was human, too. Notice, none of the bombs were directed at any people. The first one introduced the subject with, 'Who the F--- does this guy think he is?' (a question I am asking more and more.) F---, of course was spelled out. Then I got into a blog mood, and started channeling Joe Pesci, Chili Palmer, and David Mamet. So, it followed logically then, that I would ask, 'And who the F--- do I think I am?' then I answered, 'I'll tell you who the F--- I am, I'm an honest man, mother-f-----, that's who the F--- I am'. Later, still 'in character' I wrote, 'here's a variant (look at the MHP to see how I love variants)', and then,'Who the F--- do I think I am? F--- You! That's who the F--- I think I am.'
- This all took place 6 hours after Martin got Dicklyon to say I could make my edits, and he wouldn't change them. Rick Block, super-admin, where were you? Dicklyon wasn't accepting any responsibility or showing remorse. I felt I had no other recourse to the unprovoked 'mugging' I received, and vented on my talk page. Where nobody said a word of complaint or comment, until this RfC over 2 weeks later.
- Regarding my silence about Dicklyon's editing of your "history" section at the time, I frankly considered deleting the entire section as yet another pointless disruption. Per the 2nd sentence of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.. Your "history" section was a misuse of the talk page since you were not suggesting a change to the article and were not responding to someone else's suggested change to the article. I know I rub you the wrong way so thought it best to simply say nothing rather than support Dick's edits. If anyone was mugged here, it certainly wasn't you. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- No surprise here. Somehow, by me just editing in good faith, you decide that Wikipedia rules about talk page edits don't apply to me. And that some sort of vigilante can vandalize me, but since it's Glkanter, I deserve it. Good grief, man, the section was titled 'Is this Chronology Correct?' I guess a better contribution would be yet 'another variant that is not quite exactly the MHP', and then you guys could argue for days. How many of those have you posted over 6 years? How recently was the last one? And you often post them rather than answer a direct question about the paradox. Still, no one interrupts, or deletes your propaganda nonsense on the talk pages. We respect each other's right to post on a talk page. But my new attempt at a logical 'proof' of 'what is the paradox?' Rick Block says that's not protected. I wasn't mugged? Your interpretations of reality become less and less recognizable each day. Enough. You're an admin, so you should know and apply the rules evenly, based on the facts, not your personal likes and dislikes. This is why I think you're a phony. What happens next with your RfC? Glkanter ( talk) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying it's OK to say "Fuck you" to another editor, call one "garbage", and another "bitch"? That's the point of this RfC; it's not OK. As for you assertion that I "vandalized" your comments, or made "inexcusable actions," I find that too to be absurd; if anyone else reads it that way, I'd like to hear about it. But even if I did, and even in light of my acknowledgement of the mistake of repairing the mess you made on the talk page, your actions in response made no sense, and were in flagrant violation of WP:NPA and all norms of civility. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- F--- you!, and 'Bitch' came at the end of blog-like monologues on my own talk page. They were NOT part of a discussion with any editor, nor were they on any article talk page. You and Rick are probably the only people who ever saw them, until now. There were no links to them, anywhere, previously. Rick doesn't even know who 'Bitch' was was referring to. You probably didn't either. 'C S you are garbage' is not a profanity, and as far as I can tell, it is accurate. It was a single sentence that had no further elaboration with it, not part of any so-called 'pattern'. But go ahead and continue to describe my actions, as well as defend your own actions, in your own personal style. The diffs don't lie. They can be manipulated by the clever, but the audit trail is always there. Glkanter ( talk) 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Does this affect this RfC in any way? Glkanter ( talk) 18:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's my take on Glkanter. He seems to be not so much a wikipedia editor as a Monty-Hall Problem groupie; 99% of his editors are of the Monty Hall Problem talk page, and he's frustrated that he can't convince everyone to throw out Rick Block and his approach and do it differently; he's not alone in this, and I tend to be closer to his side than to Ricks, and my attempts there have been to find the some compromise to settle the arguments that have been going on for over a year. I've given up on that more than once now, most recently due to the toxic reaction from Glkanter.
The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of this edit by Glkanter, which initially looked to me like malicious disruption of somebody's serious attempt at a chronology. Before I actually did the revert, I did realize that it was his own work that he was editing, but that, to me, was not enough reason to not revert, and as I say in my edit summary here, I took it to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." I took one additional step to convert his "pointy" chronology to somethat that might be worth discussing, here, and finally a bit of cleanup and response to the point here. Whatever one may think of my attempt to patch up the chronology, which was his work, his subsequent reactions were way over the top, culminating in gross incivility, which he repeated both on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no apparent purpose. So I just left that article as intractable and didn't worry about any more until Rick told me was filing this conduct RfC, which I obviously agree with.
ps. my "obviously incorrect" statement referred to the positioning of the paragraph "Devlin and many others write articles and text books as reliably sourced references using only the unconditional solution. They make no mention of Morgan or conditionality." before the publications of any of the relevant articles by von Savant, Devlin, or Morgan.
Dicklyon ( talk) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
If you were in my shoes, you would not agree that Dicklyon and I acted equally uncivil. To me that's what the msm does sometimes, it's a 'false equivalency'. I think I acted in self defense to a mugging. Then I started yelling that I had been mugged. Now with this un-called-for RfC, I'm getting arrested for disturbing the peace - by the very guy who mugged me! Read the section involved, as it is now, that I had just created new, and that Dicklyon changed just moments later. All that's missing is his deletions that I replaced. I read his user page discussing his various edit wars. I turned the other cheek and begged for mercy 3 times. What else was I supposed to do to avoid trouble? And that whole Dick Cheney thread, while very sarcastic is wholly supported by the diffs. Sometimes honesty isn't pretty. The 'Cheney' diff wasn't posted until 10 hours after the incident began, and 2 1/2 hours after peace had been restored..
Oh, one last quick thing. Rick Block wasn't involved in this incident in any way. That means that he and Dicklyon didn't meet the requirements for filing this RfC. Glkanter ( talk) 20:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that there are differing levels of fault between Dicklyon and Glkantor; they have not acted equally uncivil. However, acting less uncivil than another editor is not a defense for acting uncivilly. Taking a deep breath before posting would be advisable on both sides of the MHP issue.
- I do believe the RfCU was properly certified as Rick Block attempted to resolve the dispute as evidenced by diffs 18-22. Please note that I am not expressing an opinion as to whether the RfCU was called for. Eastshire ( talk) 20:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- The only incident I have ever been involved with that included Dicklyon occurred on 12/7/2009. Rick's diffs 18-22 are from very different dates (some are November), and cover a multitude of different topics. On 12/7/2009, Rick, as I said in the RfC, had no involvement whatsoever. Please review the instructions at the top of the RfC. Thanks. Glkanter ( talk) 21:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what Eastshire meant by "Both sides of this issue appear to be treating the article's talk page as a battleground and have acted in an uncivil manner." If I (or Rick) did something uncivil, I'd like to have it pointed out; I certainly was never battling against Glkanter, and my "refactoring" of his proposed timeline was well intentioned, attempting to support his position, preserving the meaning where it was meaningful and removing the parts that were evidently errorful, meaningless, or appeared to be intended as a pointy disruption. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:48, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for the "battle" on the talk page, it has been ongoing for way too long, due to dug-in polarizing positions of Rick Block on the one side and Glkanter and a few others on the other side. Rick has prevailed largely, by being scrupulously civil, listening to the concerns of others, and sticking to arguments based on policies. Glkanter, on the other hand, has been ranting on the verge of incivility for a long time, and has recently stepped way over the line. The "battle" would have a better chance of convergence if he would not drive away people who try to work on finding a middle ground, like me. I don't expect that this RfC/U will have much effect, based on my past experience, but if there's some way to get him to acknowledge that his behavior was bad and to agree to not do that any more, that would be awesome. As for my mistake in editing his talk, I agree it was bad (but not incivil) and won't do that again. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, here's a classic from Rick. This is included in his 'official' comments voting against the proposed changes. Meow, Meow December 4, 2009 Glkanter ( talk) 02:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, a specific uncivil act I see on your part is accusing Glkanter of vandalizing his on talk contribution. This is a separate issue than the actual editing of the contribution. You've acknowledged your error in editing the contribution, which is good. You should consider what people infer from you labeling Gklanter's edit of his on contribution as vandalism. Gklanter, you do need to take a deep breath before you post and ask yourself if you are being civil. Eastshire ( talk) 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I said in my edit summary, to explain my action, included the phrase "bordering on vandalism". How is this explanation incivil? Can you suggest a better way to express my reasoning than my edit summary of (Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW))?
Dicklyon (
talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Accusing someone of vandalizing their own thoughts is, to me, uncivil. The incivility of it stems from covering an unacceptable behavior on your part (editing someone's talk page contribution) by accusing that person of vandalism. That point is largely moot at this time because you have acknowledged your error. Eastshire ( talk) 14:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- What I said in my edit summary, to explain my action, included the phrase "bordering on vandalism". How is this explanation incivil? Can you suggest a better way to express my reasoning than my edit summary of (Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW))?
Dicklyon (
talk) 05:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, your comment,
Dicklyon Revert1: on the diff reads: "(Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW))" Is that consistent with your new explanation of 'refactoring' a brand new section of a talk page 38 minutes after I had written it?
Glkanter (
talk) 22:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, your comment,
Dicklyon Revert1: on the diff reads: "(Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW))" Is that consistent with your new explanation of 'refactoring' a brand new section of a talk page 38 minutes after I had written it?
Glkanter (
talk) 22:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, your original response to this RfC (see below) says, among other things, 'revert' 3 times, 'a bit of cleanup and response to the point ', and 'pointy addition'.
- "The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of this edit by Glkanter, which initially looked to me like malicious disruption of somebody's serious attempt at a chronology. Before I actually did the revert, I did realize that it was his own work that he was editing, but that, to me, was not enough reason to not revert, and as I say in my edit summary here, I took it to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." I took one additional step to convert his "pointy" chronology to somethat that might be worth discussing, here, and finally a bit of cleanup and response to the point here. Whatever one may think of my attempt to patch up the chronology, which was his work..." Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Now you're claiming this was "My error was with respect to the conventions of WP:RTP." Dicklyon (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I have stayed very quiet in the face of all the 'disruptive' and 'POV' and whatever other opinion-based complaints in this RfC.
The facts are simple. In October, 2008 I posted this Monty's Action Does Not Cause The Original Odds To Change using an IP address.
I have not wavered from this. I have been insistent that this is how the article should be framed, which is 180 degrees contrary to how it was back in October, 2008. At the time, I was the gadfly.
In February, not having received the 'Welcome Kit', I posted this on the MHP talk page Conventional Wisdom explaining how I hoped to one day change this article. I made no friend in February, I can assure you. Despite the fact I was advocating for the original published source's solution, upon Rick's request for support, I was insulted repeatedly, and my knowledge of the topic was impugned by the best of them.
I took 2 breaks since then. One for 2 months, the other for 4 months, ending roughly around Thanksgiving. I did not post to anything Monty Hall related at all for over 4 months. When I returned, I found some like-minded editors had come aboard. And I jumped right back in, full force.
And today, as there has been for nearly 3 weeks, there is a clear consensus to modify the article in much the way I've been proposing. Two members of that consensus are Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin. Rick Block and two others are wielding some form of veto. I don't mix it up much in the discussions, either. I let those guys go on at length about formal probability statements, and variants, and Morgan, and their own OR, etc. I usually start new sections that logically prove why the consensus for change is on the side of 'right'.
So, I've been insistent, brusque, redundant, etc. etc. I could say all the same things about Rick Block. And he's been at it on the MHP a lot longer than me. I really don't know how else we would have gotten to where the consensus is filing for Formal Mediation against the current content of the article. The FA article.
But foremost, I've been honest. Honest to the sources, honest to the diffs, honest to myself and honest to the other editors. Glkanter ( talk) 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- As for all those claims of me being disruptive and annoying to the other editors, and my ideas are unfounded or 'way out there', here's what Rick Block had to say on the
Request for Informal Mediation from the Cabal that he submitted on December 6, 2009:
- What is the dispute?
- "A collection of editors have been unhappy with the article Monty Hall problem for a long time (Martin and Glkanter, and recently Jeff). In particular, there are mathematical sources (such as the Morgan et al. reference cited in the article) that criticize the popular "unconditional" solutions as not necessarily addressing the question the problem asks (see Talk:Monty Hall problem/FAQ) and explicitly say the problem should be addressed using conditional probability. These editors have argued (for years now) that this is a minor point that most readers do not care about and that the article should either ignore these sources completely or the points they make should be relegated to a section on variants..."
- Rick's description, in ths RfC, of the affects of my long term consensus buiding seems contradicted by his own claims in the Informal Request. The fact that we're about to file for Formal Mediation contradicts Rick's accusations, too. There's perhaps 7 editors or more who support the consensus to make changes to varying degrees. To me, there is an editor on the MHP who is obstructionist, owning, with a POV that has made its way into the article, but it's not me. Glkanter ( talk) 21:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
So, if you consider:
- that I work toward a consensus rather than edit war, which is a good thing
- Rick was not involved in the the Dicklyon incident. Therefore this is an invalid claim.
- Dicklyon has acknowledged initiating the incident this RfC is based upon
- I begged for mercy 3 times before Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin made a peace
- Dicklyon has his edit wars on his user page, but wants mine removed as a remedy
- the claims of repeated incivility are an opinion
- the claims that I do nothing constructive are an opinion
- the claims that I am disruptive are an opinion
- the claims that I work against the consensus are an opinion
- I am actually a vocal, constructive member of the consensus that Rick Block and Dicklyon accuse me of disrupting
- Rick's unfathomable 'meow, meow' uncivil attack on me (the rest of that diff was tremendously over the line as well)
- Rick Block is not a member of the consensus
- The consensus has decided to file for Formal Mediation. RfCs like this delay any such filing, by diverting the editors.
- Rick is at risk of losing his only FA article due to substantial changes via the consensus
How can I not conclude this was a form of harassment? How would I pursue this concern?
Glkanter (
talk) 04:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- When I said "The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of this edit by Glkanter" I didn't mean to admit full responsibility for "initiating the incident", since my revert was a reaction to your edit that I took to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." Maybe you can own up to your part? In any case, that was not the sort of provocation that would normally drive any sensible wikipedia editor into the sort of spasm of profanity that you unleashed on us. Maybe you need to own up to that, too. Rick was involved in the sense that he was a part of the conversation, the person your edit was presumably addressed to, or against. The mediation is still a good idea; I have not been asked to be a part of it, since I resigned my involvement in that article, and that's fine. I agree you've been a vocal participant, but "constructive" is what I would argue against. I hope you do get to be constructive, but I think you can only get there by opening up a bit and respecting Rick's POV and seeking a compromise consensus. Your efforts so far only keep the discussion polarized. That's the only remedy I care about. If you want to keep your statement "Oh, and who the fuck do I think I am? Fuck You! That's who the fuck I am!" on your talk page, and things along that line including those that curse me, I have no quarrel with that, but if you want to get over being seen as incivil, you might want to rethink that. Dicklyon ( talk) 06:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- You defend this RfC with this: "Rick was involved in the sense that he was a part of the conversation, the person your edit was presumably addressed to, or against."
- That explanation doesn't meet the requirement as per the top of the RfC form. Besides, the truth is that I often start a new section, based on a 'proof' I want to try out. The long 'I'm right, you're wrong' arguments get old, fast. I keep hoping a logical proof will carry the day. The section you edited was one of these. It was the first draft of a chronology of events that I was in the midst of fleshing out. Rick had nothing to do with it, before, after or since, and there was never anything from him in terms of admonishing my behaviour because of it, as required for an RfC. There are no diffs from Rick on this incident, despite what Rick and you presented in the RfC. As some of Rick's diffs provided were from the prior month, that's either deceptive or careless. Until this RfC, there had not been a single complaint from any editor or reader since I wrote about this incident on my talk page. Even with the salty language. Glkanter ( talk) 11:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your approach to talk by forcefully presenting so-called "proofs" gets old fast, too. These proofs are nothing but your made-up long-winded justifications for your position, often disconnected from the issues that relate to wikipedia guidelines and to reliable sources. By arguing some certain sources are just wrong, based on your proofs, all you do is continue a pointless argument in a pointless direction. The real issue is how to make a balanced presentation of what's in reliable sources about the topic. I don't agree with the balance that Rick is pushing, but it's not constructive to fight it the way you have been for over a year. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- The above paragraph seems pretty aggressive, bordering on mean spirited, maybe even 'uncivil'. I'm defending myself against what I see as a spurious RfC based on an incident where I perceived myself as the 'victim' in the first place. If Dicklyon hadn't edited my talk page comment, there would be no basis for his involvement in any RfC against me. Now, he's free to use all kinds of put downs against me? I guess the incivility requirements are only for the benefit of certain people? Why not me? Rick and I disagree. That doesn't make his opinion right. Dicklyon is defending his actions. Why do I have to be attacked again by Dicklyon, another Wikipedian, in who's opinion, apparently, I am, among other things, 'long winded', 'just wrong' and 'disconnected from the issues'. That's downright insulting. And not supported by the facts. Martin Hogbin and many other editors don't agree with Dicklyons POV of me. Which Wikipedia policy is superseding the 'civility' policy, and why? Dicklyon has acknowledged he leans toward my argument more than Rick's. How wrong can I be then, anyways? The contentious MHP debates started long before I got there. It now seems on the verge of correction. I contributed to that. A lot. As for Dicklyon leaving the article in April? He had been arguing primarily with Nijdam about Bayesian probability theory. Believe me, no matter how Rick or Dicklyon make it sound, no one would accuse me of disrupting those discussions. Glkanter ( talk) 05:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Rick, as you know, I have questioned whether or not this RfC meets the following requirement:
- "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 Glkanter ( talk) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)."
It appears to me that, despite being the foremost admin on the MHP talk page, the diffs clearly indicate you had no involvement whatsoever with the 'Is this Chronology Correct' section dispute involving Glkanter, Dicklyon and Martin Hogbin.
It also appears to me that other than this incident, there are no diffs showing Glkanter and Dicklyon having a discussion of any type whatsoever, certainly since April, 2009.
Could you please clarify for me how the above facts are consistent with your claim that this RfC can somehow "...involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes..." Glkanter ( talk) 15:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- The topic of this RFC is NOT simply your recent spat with Dicklyon, but
- 1) your long history of tendentious editing of talk:Monty Hall problem
- 2) your lack of nearly any editing here OTHER than your argumentative posts at this talk page
- 3) your DISRUPTIVE edits at this talk page which have directly contributed to several editors leaving the discussion. Dicklyon is only the latest, you also effectively drove away user:C S (a math PhD from wp:WikiProject Mathematics), see this archived thread, and then this one, and then this one. You chronicled this exchange on your talk page, [1], titling the section "This guy is a POS". Another example is your exchange with Nijdam, who is a professor of mathematics at a university in the Netherlands, who became so frustrated with your belligerence he basically refuses to engage you in "discussion" any more, see Talk:Monty Hall problem/Archive 9#Experts.
- 4) Your consistent approach over the last year of treating editing here as a personal battle to be chronicled on your talk page. I have been the primary target of your attacks for over a year and have mostly simply ignored them, with a few notable exceptions (e.g the "meow" edit you have copied here and there, and reference above as well). Yes, I'm human. If you provoke me for long enough I will react.
- The "dispute" the RFC addresses is your pattern of editing, not the single instance with Dicklyon. -- Rick Block ( talk)
- You and Dicklyon have never discussed any common issue with me. That's a requirement: "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes..."
- But this is actually a good thing. It's a perfect example of the very first thing I wrote in my original response to this RfC, "Since I started editing on the MHP talk page 14 months ago, Rick Block and I have seen things 180 degrees apart. Always. Every issue. I can't explain it. It just is." Glkanter (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- How many editors have you chased away in all the years since I shepherded Monty Hall problem through the Wikipedia:Featured articles process and still try to help folks understand it as your user page highlights? Your personal opinions about my editing style, or my refusal to back down, are your business. Not mine. Keep it that way, please. Glkanter ( talk) 05:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I was not very familiar with Glkanter's history, but looking at Rick's links, I agree with him that the recent stuff is all part of an old pattern, and it's all part of the same content dispute. Glkanter's "This guy is a POS" and "C S, you are garbage" are exactly the kind of personal attacks and incivilities that have no useful or civil part in wikipedia content disputes, just like his more recent "fuck you" that finally prompted Rick to ask for comments. Furthermore, if you look back at Rick's "desired outcome", it's hard to imagine why Glkanter wouldn't just say OK, I agree, and try to move forward. Gl, is there some part of that desired outcome that you disagree with, or that you'd like to amend?
Dicklyon (
talk) 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, if as you say immediately above: "I was not very familiar with Glkanter's history..." until Rick Block just added those 10 month old diffs, then why did you join this RfC in the first place, and write: "So I just left that article as intractable and didn't worry about any more until Rick told me was filing this conduct RfC, which I obviously agree with." in your Dicklyon's comments about what's going on? You've been gone since April, immediately after discussing Bayes with Nijdam. I was not party to those discussions.
- Why didn't I just say OK? Because you and Rick, in my opinion have acted like bullies and have been, and continue to be, dishonest with this whole RfC. Glkanter ( talk) 05:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dishonest? When I suggested a compromise for the content issue (which, again, is not the point of the RFC) you first questioned my standing to even offer a compromise [2] and when I suggested you were being disruptive [3] this was your response [4]. You knew about the draft of this RFC when I asked you if you'd delete the objectionable material from your talk page ( [5]). Your response was "mu" [6]. Slightly more polite than this or this, but I got the message. What's dishonest is your claim that anything about this RFC is dishonest. You've engaged in long-standing, persistent disruption. What you need to do is stop. Deleting "This guy is a POS" (referring to user:C S) and "Who the fuck does this guy think he is?" and "How you like me now, Bitch!?" (both referring to Dicklyon) from your talk page would be a good start. -- Rick Block ( talk) 06:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- And we continue to disagree, on everything. I stand by the diff that says it's illogical for someone against the consensus to be the lead editor. That doesn't make me disruptive. That makes you conniving, underhanded, and duplicitous. There would be no trust in your intentions. But I didn't say any of those things on the talk page.
- You continue to have a problem separating fact from your opinion and your personal interpretations. You've shown it very clearly with nearly every word you typed in this trumped-up RfC. I guess rather than answering your pointless question with 'mu', I should have simply not responded, much like your buddy Nijdam. After nearly a week, Nijdam has not shown the courtesy to respond to 'Does Anyone Object To Formal Mediation?' He's hurting all the editors, the MHP article, and Wikipedia's readers with those antics, not just me. Glkanter ( talk) 14:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- To Gl: I endorsed the RfC because I agreed with Rick that your conduct needed to be examined and because I told Rick I would; it was I to whom you addressed your "fuck you", was it not? I don't believe I said you had anything to do with my first leaving of the article in April after trying briefly to help, but you certainly caused me to leave it again more recently. When I said it was "intractable", I wasn't aware that it was also at times incivil, but you've added that problem, and now I see you've added it several times over the last year. Your failure to admit the incivility, or to realize that it was an off-scale reaction to a minor provocation, baffles me, and does not bode well for your continued involvement. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, you just acknowledged above that you were not qualified to be the 2nd certifier on this RfC:
- "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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..."
- You and I and Martin went around on arcane WP policies on one occasion. After begging for mercy, I stayed out of it until Martin Hogbin had admonished you twice. Only after your faux 'Of course; I hope I didn't do anything that hinted otherwise.' incivility denying response to Martin did I write anything critical of you. Rick is trying to demonstrate a pattern of improper behaviour on my part. You have never both 'counseled' me on the same topic, as required. Glkanter ( talk) 15:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- OK. Let's talk about questionable language, In February, I wrote: 'C S, you are garbage.' on the MHP talk page. The guy ridiculed me constantly for my inability to understand why the conditional solution was a 'requirement' for the MHP. Without saying so, he was also criticizing every math professor, including Selvin who wrote the original, who had published the simple solution. He convinced me to admit I was wrong, and to quit editing. The next thing he writes is 'I didn't mean to imply it had to be solved conditionally'. I asked him about that, and if I recall correctly, he didn't respond in a timely fashion to my question. So, on the MHP talk page I wrote a little summary piece, praised Rick Block and called C S garbage. On my talk page, I set up a new section called 'This guy is a POS'. Then, verbatim, and without comment, I copied each of his edits that were addressed to me or the article onto my talk page. This same guy had responded to Rick's call for help in what I considered a prejudicial manner, in so many words declaring Rick 'golden' and me a 'heathen'. (What a coincidence! Rick deleted the garbage line from my talk page comment. I put it back in. That was the first and only other time my comments have been distorted intentionally.) He and Rick complained about the garbage comment and the whole POS section. It stayed up. When he couldn't muster up support against me, and knew he was wrong about the MHP, C S left, conveniently scapegoating me. He's semi-retired from Wikipedia now. I guess I was too much for him? Or maybe he was quitting anyways, and enjoyed the drama and blaming me. And Rick, 'How you like me now, Bitch?' is not directed at Dicklyon. Can you guess who?
- The first F-bomb in December was pre-meditated. A certain supportive editor posted his thoughts on the MHP. With his posting, I realized there was no more legitimate opposition to fixing the Article. So, I celebrated with 1 F-bomb on my user page.
- All the rest came many hours after the brief 'one-sided Dicklyon edit war.' After committing his inexcusable actions, he continued to blame me and deny any responsibility. You've seen the diffs, or the whole section on the MHP talk page. Just as he continues to do on this RfC. Then he took it a step further, and on my talk page, right beneath a February compliment from Rick Block thanking me for being more civil, he continues to agitate by posting this Backsliding. This was apparently in response to the sarcastic, but complete true, honest, and necessary 'Thank you Dicklyon' that I wrote.
- And I'd had enough. After being violated, begging for mercy, and then him brazenly and with a smirk replying to Martin's comment this discussion has remained completely civil with this passive aggressive classic Of course; I hope I didn't do anything that hinted otherwise. showing no remorse whatsoever, only missing the <wink>. I was human, too. Notice, none of the bombs were directed at any people. The first one introduced the subject with, 'Who the F--- does this guy think he is?' (a question I am asking more and more.) F---, of course was spelled out. Then I got into a blog mood, and started channeling Joe Pesci, Chili Palmer, and David Mamet. So, it followed logically then, that I would ask, 'And who the F--- do I think I am?' then I answered, 'I'll tell you who the F--- I am, I'm an honest man, mother-f-----, that's who the F--- I am'. Later, still 'in character' I wrote, 'here's a variant (look at the MHP to see how I love variants)', and then,'Who the F--- do I think I am? F--- You! That's who the F--- I think I am.'
- This all took place 6 hours after Martin got Dicklyon to say I could make my edits, and he wouldn't change them. Rick Block, super-admin, where were you? Dicklyon wasn't accepting any responsibility or showing remorse. I felt I had no other recourse to the unprovoked 'mugging' I received, and vented on my talk page. Where nobody said a word of complaint or comment, until this RfC over 2 weeks later.
- Regarding my silence about Dicklyon's editing of your "history" section at the time, I frankly considered deleting the entire section as yet another pointless disruption. Per the 2nd sentence of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.. Your "history" section was a misuse of the talk page since you were not suggesting a change to the article and were not responding to someone else's suggested change to the article. I know I rub you the wrong way so thought it best to simply say nothing rather than support Dick's edits. If anyone was mugged here, it certainly wasn't you. -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- No surprise here. Somehow, by me just editing in good faith, you decide that Wikipedia rules about talk page edits don't apply to me. And that some sort of vigilante can vandalize me, but since it's Glkanter, I deserve it. Good grief, man, the section was titled 'Is this Chronology Correct?' I guess a better contribution would be yet 'another variant that is not quite exactly the MHP', and then you guys could argue for days. How many of those have you posted over 6 years? How recently was the last one? And you often post them rather than answer a direct question about the paradox. Still, no one interrupts, or deletes your propaganda nonsense on the talk pages. We respect each other's right to post on a talk page. But my new attempt at a logical 'proof' of 'what is the paradox?' Rick Block says that's not protected. I wasn't mugged? Your interpretations of reality become less and less recognizable each day. Enough. You're an admin, so you should know and apply the rules evenly, based on the facts, not your personal likes and dislikes. This is why I think you're a phony. What happens next with your RfC? Glkanter ( talk) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying it's OK to say "Fuck you" to another editor, call one "garbage", and another "bitch"? That's the point of this RfC; it's not OK. As for you assertion that I "vandalized" your comments, or made "inexcusable actions," I find that too to be absurd; if anyone else reads it that way, I'd like to hear about it. But even if I did, and even in light of my acknowledgement of the mistake of repairing the mess you made on the talk page, your actions in response made no sense, and were in flagrant violation of WP:NPA and all norms of civility. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
- F--- you!, and 'Bitch' came at the end of blog-like monologues on my own talk page. They were NOT part of a discussion with any editor, nor were they on any article talk page. You and Rick are probably the only people who ever saw them, until now. There were no links to them, anywhere, previously. Rick doesn't even know who 'Bitch' was was referring to. You probably didn't either. 'C S you are garbage' is not a profanity, and as far as I can tell, it is accurate. It was a single sentence that had no further elaboration with it, not part of any so-called 'pattern'. But go ahead and continue to describe my actions, as well as defend your own actions, in your own personal style. The diffs don't lie. They can be manipulated by the clever, but the audit trail is always there. Glkanter ( talk) 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Does this affect this RfC in any way? Glkanter ( talk) 18:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)