Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/214.13.4.151

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), its subject may request for the page to be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:28, 25 December 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections should not edit here.

Description

[edit]

214.13.4.151 has been a major annoyance to various users ever since making an appearance on Wikipedia. This user edits articles pertaining to contraception, and his/her general stance seems to be that none of them are any good (diff, diff). Instead of backing up these claims with reliable sources, webpages (e.g. from the American Cancer Society on cervical cancer) are quoted out of context and in a biased form (diff), and removes NPOV tags (diff).

Various warnings have been issued by various users (e.g. diff), but without any change of note in the user's editing behaviour. I had to warn this user twice before he/she relented on the format of the intro of cervical cancer. JFW | T@lk 01:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:I support this claim. The problem with this IP is that he or she makes all his edits to insert a pov-point into the article, that is namely a pro-life-perspective and in addition to that he or she is trying to discredit all kinds of birth control, in particular condom and pill (he/she is not against natural family planning). Therefore he or she is on many medical articles where the IP distorts wording and statistics to match his or her promotional purpose. On a smaller scale he or she also tries to discredit womens rights and gay rights. Some edits involve vandalism-like behaviour, like inserting nonsense or deleting paragraphs, esp. on intact dilation and extraction This reversions [1] had to be made by several editors after petaholmes, every day.

:Pro-life-POV-insertions on wikipedia do happen, of course. They are usually reverted or some kind of a compromise is found quickly. But in this case the IP insists again and again on his/her change by reverting again and again, often with no effort at discussion at all or just a pretended effort.

:(To show why I got the impression he or she makes no serious effort at discussion see [2]: after having deleted "constitutional" to qualify "womens rights" he or she argued that not all states have a constitution (all states do have a constitution and if I am writing about constitutional rights it's completely irrelevant if all states have a constitution). While this as an individual occurrence may seem like the writer just didn't know, things like that happen again and again with this IP. His arguments almost never answer the point.

:His most recent edits on abortion at the time I am writing this can also illustrate the point: in the main text he claims that most abortions are elective. (the number of miscarriages is by far higher, even at the most conservative estimates) It is hard to believe that IP really inserted this in good faith. And in the discussion of abortion he or she just claimed that 'partial-birth-abortions' are performed legally in the US (they are forbidden). He or she knows that they are forbidden because he or she is also 'working' on the article on partial-birth-abortion. While I am trying to be patient on individual edits, clumsy edits, not-knowing-edits, it is more the whole picture that gives me the impression the editor is just disruptive.--Fenice 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC) due to the bullying by IP 214.13.4.151 and Proto I withdraw my support--Fenice 18:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various interspersed comments by 213.13.4.151 removed by JFW | T@lk 16:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Even the 'response' of the IP is remarkable and in a way shows my point: from all people - there are three so far who have signed this request - he chooses to exclusively attack the only woman.--Fenice 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC) I withdraw my support, see talk--Fenice 18:33, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

All quoted above in context of the complaint
You have made sweeping generalizations - and where you have been specific you have been factually refuted. 214.13.4.151 11:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, folks, but this was a legitimate edit in progress. Its pretty petty to list that as a "blanking". If you look at the history, the editing was in progress and it was never blanked as my final edit. 214.13.4.151 11:45, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to find this on my user page this morning:

"Fenice, at this point, the Pearl index data listed is from extremely "pro-contraceptive" sources. Is there a dispute with the data? What is it? If you do not satisfactoriyl explain the dipsute you have with the actual data - besides it being surprising or disappointing to you - to gain concensus, then I will pursue other means to remove the POV tag you have placed. RIght now its placement violates the rule and spirit of Wikipedia. 214.13.4.151 05:31, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Is there any other way anyone could stop this person from bullying me any further?--Fenice 05:39, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After I have told him explicitely again to leave me alone, (exact wording:I have expressed more than clearly that I want to stay out of this, so stop bullying me. Aren't you ever embarrassed?) in case reading it once was not enough, he goes on:--Fenice 06:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice, you have not expressed anything clearly about what is in dispute about the Pearl index information now posted. It is all properly sourced and, since YOU introduced the Pearl language (or at least pressed hard for it being included) it is so very odd that you now want objective Pearl data obfuscated by placing a POV warning. You are embarassed by the Pearl data, and now want it hidden. Birht Control pills fail quite regularly. You don't want women to know that. How sad. Talk about embarassment.214.13.4.151 06:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Fenice, you are at it again. You don't quit. I tried to dialogue - which is what I thought you hoped I would do before editing. But you flat out refuse to engage in any discourse. I am just amazed at such behavior. I thought Wikipeidans were oopen-minded and thoughtful. Your behavior doesnot comport. I may be new, and leanring how things work here, but I am trying to adapt. You, however, seem to have no use for discourse with those who have a view divergent from your own. 214.13.4.151 07:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Well I guess I will make an exception and respond to this one in lieu of responding to the heap of accusations here: you are at it again is of course a lie. Everybody can check my contributions to see that I did stay away from the articles discussed here.--Fenice 08:10, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Fenice, at this point (since you did not offer any argument against removing the POV tag for the Pearl index info on the birth control pill page) I plan to remove the POV tag. 214.13.4.151 10:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • and then concluding the thread above: defamation in an edit summary [4]a few hours ago: Fenice argued to include Pearl data & now objects to it - the statement given right here above proves that he is doing this in bad faith, because he must have read my above statement of withdrawal which is also all over the place and a little hard for IP to argue to have missed that. --Fenice 14:14, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • She's been making unacceptable changes to Morning-after pill too, some examples:
    • replacing instances of "woman" with "gravida" (which means a woman who is already pregnant): [5]
    • deleting the whole abortion controversy section: [6]
    • replacing instances of "contraceptive" with "abortifacient", describing the pill as "almost exclusively" an abortifacient, and giving its primary effect as interfering with embryo implantation, which is contradicted by among others the FDA: [7]

To be fair, her more recent edits have been improving. DopefishJustin (･∀･) 23:20, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)


list of other tirades in chronological order

[edit]
  • and a few hours ago this one: At present I see that I have so riled Fenice that she is unable at this time to engage constuctively. I will try to be as gentle and polite as possible, but find it hard to tolerate her penchant for presuming facts or rational views that break her paradigm are automatically dubious. Gentle and polite...I wonder what happens if he really starts bullying someone in his view.--Fenice 14:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

WP:NPOV
WP:POINT
Wikipedia:Wikiquette: not respecting other users right to stay away from the conflict as recommended on Wikiquette, and defamation in an edit summary

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

Talk:Abortion will say enough. Many hot issues are the result of 214.13.4.151's partisan editing. JFW
JFW, its humorous that my repeated citations (in talk areas or in posting captions) of factual science and medicine are ignored and considered as a failure to dialogue - when what is really happening here is a certain POV wants to hide these facts. The science I have posted has not been refuted at all. It has been ignored as if it will go away if it is not addressed. Not one person has provided an answer to my claim that medically, a human embryo or fetus must die for an induced abortion to occur. This is medical fact and is so basic that webster's medical dictionary includes that fact in the base definition. But I am accused of inserting POV by icnluding that info in a defintion for abortion. With no attempt at dialogue on point by Fenice, etc. The one person opposed who did dialogue on it eventually agreed that "death" is accurate and ought not be excluded. All others ignored the science. 214.13.4.151 15:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Abortion an actual 'discussion' that has lasted for some time and where IP really is 'participating' is on whether or not the term living human (fetus) or death of the (fetus) can be in the first line of the main text. IP adds this every few hours, and it is reverted, because almost all other editors, as the 'discussion' shows, don't think it is NPOV. It has been reverted by aproximately 30 or so editors in the past few weeks and I'm sure IP has broken the thirteen-revert-rule on that one. The discussion leads nowhere, it is tiring to revert all the time, and the pro-life point is mentioned in extenso elsewhere in the text.--Fenice 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC) withdrawal of support due to bullying, see talk--Fenice 16:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Fenice, but you are misleading/decieving. The fact that many editors share your bias toward a POV in the entry is not what is important. (In fact, just today one of the other editors was convinced to change his mind and agreed that "death" was appropriate to use because the term is used in the medical dictionary.) What is important is that you have not refuted the science nor the fact that what most people would consider to be an objective source (Webster's Medical Dictionary) considers death of the fetus to be part of the basic definition for abortion (spontaneous or induced) - instead you have said "its POV" just becuase you say so. I did not think thats how it worked here. Likewise, with the Pearl index. You wanted to get rid of the Pearl evidence that exposed the very high rate of pregnancy for typical use of the pill becuase you did not like it, not because it was not good science. In fact it was the science of the pro-abortion and pro-contraception AGI that provideds that sicentific data. Come on, folks - lets be adults. Engage when your paradigms are challenged with objective information - even if the info is being dleivered to you by a source you find unfriendly. Its about knowledge - not hiding from knowledge becuase we might learn something from it. I backed off the horse urine thing when you challenged me on it - and I learned something. Why are you afraid to acknowledge that you might have some basic facts wrong - or hidden?214.13.4.151 11:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. JFW | T@lk 18:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Fenice 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)due to IP 214.13.4.151 and user Proto's bullying I withdraw my support[reply]
  3. Evil Monkey∴Hello 10:13, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  4. --nixie 22:57, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Eyeon 13:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Mr. 214 simply does not understand NPOV, and in his frustration, is turning troll.
  6. RoyBoy 800 15:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) – While I initially warned Eyeon this wouldn't be a good idea; the anon's inclusion of knitting needles for traumatic abortion does suggest sanction may be necessary.
  7. --Tznkai 05:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) 214 has not showed any improvement and has acted against growing consensus, notably without adding edit summaries. compare these [8] [9]. I suggest these be moved onto mediation.
  8. Calicocat What's troubling and perhaps unlawful is that this Anon user is from the military. See discussion section at another article Karl Rove, here
  9. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC). User's behavior at Karl Rove echoes the reports here. This user's behavior - including mass deletions, revert violations, anticollaborative behavior and a lack of desire to reach consensus on ideologically-charged articles - is a concern. -- RyanFreisling @ 14:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -asx- 00:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC) It would seem 214's goal has been to shut town topics and collaboration on pages she has an interest in. 214's edits resulted in the Karl Rove page being locked – at a time when frequent updates are needed to keep the page current and accurate.[reply]
  11. --Quasipalm 15:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. --Kyd 17:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

216.186.53.4 19:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) --Defenestrate 22:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

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.

Fenice is upset because his/her POV is being countered with scientific information from solid sources, despite her repeated attempts to bully that information off of Wikipedia's pages.214.13.4.151 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice, please quote all entries that are allegedly POV - you have made sweeping generalizations, and I have posted hundreds of lines in the discussion section, many of which are simply scientific or medical resources, clarifying that what is posted is not POV, but science and medicine - or law.214.13.4.151 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


214.13.4.151 has been a major annoyance to various users ever since making an appearance on Wikipedia. This user edits articles pertaining to contraception, and his/her general stance seems to be that none of them are any good (diff, diff). Instead of backing up these claims with reliable sources, webpages (e.g. from the American Cancer Society on cervical cancer) are quoted out of context and in a biased form (diff), and removes NPOV tags (diff).

The American Cancer Society's only agenda is to prevent all forms of cancer. They do not recieve billions of dollars in revenue by promoting condom use like most other organizations that comment on Cervical Cancer. The American Cancer Society has concluded as I have posted, and it is clearly an unbiased and respected source - unlike any others fenice might want to quote (or misquote). 214.13.4.151 10:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was Fenice who started this, but I see now it is JFW. Well JFW, you point to links about contraceptives, and waht's funny is that you did not dispute the facts I posted, you just don't like them. That no contraception is proven to prevent HPV transmission is apparently something that is not noteworthy. And apparently the proven risks of many serious health conditions caused by ingesting hormones from age 14 through age 35 (as is typical with women on the pill) are to be hushed up? What are your thoughts of hormone treated beef or milk - or frankenfood? Its odd that giving women synthetic hormones to prevent a natural healthy condition (fertility) would be done while hiding or falsely minimizing any any associated risks. That prevents women from making an informed choice.214.13.4.151 12:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Various warnings have been issued by various users (e.g. diff), but without any change of note in the user's editing behaviour. I had to warn this user twice before he/she relented on the format of the intro of cervical cancer. JFW | T@lk 01:20, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice has likewise been warned about her editing behavior by other posters. Apparently she should request comments from herself? 214.13.4.151 10:58, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support this claim. The problem with this IP is that he or she makes all his edits to insert a pov-point into the article, that is namely a pro-life-perspective and in addition to that he or she is trying to discredit all kinds of birth control, in particular condom and pill (he/she is not against natural family planning). Therefore he or she is on many medical articles where the IP distorts wording and statistics to match his or her promotional purpose. On a smaller scale he or she also tries to discredit womens rights and gay rights. Some edits involve vandalism-like behaviour, like inserting nonsense or deleting paragraphs, esp. on intact dilation and extraction This reversions [10] had to be made by several editors after petaholmes, every day. I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changing the word "doctor" and substituting "abortion provider" (your listed example) is not POV. Sorry - that is not extremist. Abortions are often performed by people who are not doctors. In fact, the abortion industry in the USA is lobbying to make that the standard practice. 214.13.4.151 10:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As to intact dilation and extraction, I delted the description of a totally different procedure that was not the subject of that entry. It is misleading, if not dishonest, to include it - and certainly has no place in the IDX entry.214.13.4.151


Fenice has also made a sweeping generalization that ALL of my posts are somehow POV, yet I point to neutral sicence for most of what I post. I have also removed POV others have posted (such as the word baby when it appears). I consistently insert the word embryo whenever fetus is incorrectly used alone (ensuring the truth that many abortions are embryonic is not hidden), and in the medical sections I take great pains to use the term fetus and embryo despite the fact that such terms are just as POV as "baby" is (although the clinical term for the pregnant woman, gravida, is never used, while the clinical term for the baby is ALWAYS used as if it were a scarosanct word choice).214.13.4.151 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Pro-life-POV-insertions on wikipedia do happen, of course. They are usually reverted or some kind of a compromise is found quickly. But in this case the IP insists again and again on his/her change by reverting again and again, often with no effort at discussion at all or just a pretended effort.I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice - you are guilty of this same behavior - reverting again and again! Shameful of you to point the finger at others. And you don't attempt at real dialogue, either. 214.13.4.151 11:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice is a classic pot calling the kettle black: Fenice has tried to define feminism in his/her restricted POV way and has tried to bully others from including a diversity of views - making repeated reverts to exclude a diversity of views.214.13.4.151 12:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


(To show why I got the impression he or she makes no serious effort at discussion see [11]: after having deleted "constitutional" to qualify "womens rights" he or she argued that not all states have a constitution (all states do have a constitution and if I am writing about constitutional rights it's completely irrelevant if all states have a constitution). While this as an individual occurrence may seem like the writer just didn't know, things like that happen again and again with this IP. His arguments almost never answer the point. I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As an expert in law and international law (by the way I have not revealed my gender, so I am not sure why Fenice presumes what it is), I will forgive Fenice for the incomprhensible comment Fenice posted. Apparently Fenice does not understand that feminism is not exclusive to the US, and that not all states (how nations are formally spoken of in international and humanitarian law contexts) have a constitution. 214.13.4.151 10:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly doubt that you are a law expert. What are your credentials? Eyeon 14:25, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His most recent edits on abortion at the time I am writing this can also illustrate the point: in the main text he claims that most abortions are elective. (the number of miscarriages is by far higher, even at the most conservative estimates) It is hard to believe that IP really inserted this in good faith. And in the discussion of abortion he or she just claimed that 'partial-birth-abortions' are performed legally in the US (they are forbidden). He or she knows that they are forbidden because he or she is also 'working' on the article on partial-birth-abortion. While I am trying to be patient on individual edits, clumsy edits, not-knowing-edits, it is more the whole picture that gives me the impression the editor is just disruptive.--Fenice 09:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC) I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenice, facts, please. The article deals primarily (according to what OTHERS have posted) with induced abortion. Fenice's insertion of POV is fine, but is not fact. The common understanding of abortion does not include natural miscarriage. Fenice's point strains credulity.214.13.4.151 11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fenice is factually challenged on this: Evidence of Fenice's lack of facts: I am criticized by Fenice for incorrectly posting that Partial Birth Abortion is legal in the USA, but according to the Washington Post, the ban "was signed last year by President Bush but was not enforced because the three judges agreed to hear constitutional challenges in simultaneous non-jury trials." PBA is NOT forbidden in the USA - in fact even today PBA still kills extremely developed viable fetuses in the USA.214.13.4.151 11:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Even the 'response' of the IP is remarkable and in a way shows my point: from all people - there are three so far who have signed this request - he chooses to exclusively attack the only woman.--Fenice 11:42, 31 May 2005 (UTC) I withdraw support due to the bullying of IP --Fenice 20:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, Fenice posts POV all over the place, and is the last one to make an allegation about finding it in others (although he/she may be an expert when it comes to POV insertion).

214.13.4.151 15:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your interspersed comments in the section above. If you feel these should be considered, please add them in the appropriate place.
Wikipedia disputes are frequently about interpretations of facts, but conflict only develops when there is a breakdown in civility. I have worked with you constructively on oral contraceptive, but on cervical cancer your repeated POV edits without proper backup ("condoms do not prevent cervical cancer" is untrue - they prevent many cases but not all) prompted me to issue this RFC. As Fenice indicates, you have annoyed people on other pages as well.
When you are made the subject of a Request for Comments, there is usually something amiss in the way you are interacting with the community. This is a statistical fact, and I don't think you are an exception. Simply calling the kettle black is a rather poor defence and will just exacerbate matters. JFW | T@lk 16:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing further to respond to the zigzag commentary you have offered. My RFC concerns the fact that you used biased language, even if the science may be correct (but, as always, open to all sorts of interpretation). Others have noticed very similar behaviour elsewhere, which only strengthens my case.
You seem unrepentant. Instead of accusing five different established Wikipedia editors of being biased against you, some introspection may be called for. If you continue the same pattern, this RFC will be the basis of mediation, the next step in the dispute resolution process. JFW | T@lk 11:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

JFW: Its clear how you and Fenice choose to operate. Facts, science, and rational argument from those with whom you are not familiar are unwelcome - because they challenge your paradigm. Clearly not the advertised spirit of Wikipedia. Regardless of your pride in being an estabished wikipedian, your biases are very clear and your lack of openness if evident. You can all clap for yourself if you want, but you are not living up to the claims of Wikipedia. You have opened up an inquisition and then refused to respond to my defenses. You make no pretense of even trying to offer a response. And Fenice is now being vindictive and resorting to name-calling (just look at the abortion entry and discussion) because she has insists on adding language that indicates constitutional law is very important in the "law of philosophy" but is not even mentioned in theWikipedia entry for "law of philosophy". And when challenged on that she replies with no explanation other than "go look it up, my facts stand on their own 'cuz they'r so obvious, and your facts must be proven with citations." You both know how to play the game to win. But I did not think it was about winning - you two have taught me otherwise.

Your responses were mainly aimed at Fenice, and perhaps the formatting was another thing that put me off responding. It seems matters are settled now, but I do urge you to avoid controversy. If you are skeptical about Wikipedia's openness, then challenge the "paradigm" with clear facts. As you may have noticed, I relented on oral contraceptive when you cited serious studies on Pearl indexes, even though they sounded outrageous.
I have encouraged you to get a login name. Editing from your IP is fine, but in my experience the community tends to treat anonymous users as less committed. JFW | T@lk 04:11, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is worth noting that 214 has been asked several times to get a log on name, including myself. [12] (down in the herbal abortion discussion).--Tznkai 16:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

[edit]

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.}

Comment Whilst not directly involved in this situation, I found out today that I have been mentioned by User:Fenice on here as someone who joined with 214.13.4.151 in 'bullying him', and 'attacking him' - it's all rather surreal, and centres around his furious rage at someone actually agreeing with one of the IP's edits, and deleting one whole sentence from a 33k article. Five days later, he's still repeatedyl pestering me on my talk page. Now, whilst I haven't agreed with many (in fact, only one or two) of the edits the IP made on the Abortion page (not qualified to talk on any other pages the IP is associated with), I have found that some users' counter-attitudes towards the IP have not been particularly constructive, have verged on combative at times, and I would suggest that not all the blame for this necessitating RfC lies with User:214.13.4.151. A calming down period on both sides wouldn't hurt. Proto 09:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: this user:Proto has left another note on my talk page today, despite my asking him not to do so. He is also involved and should not be posting under 'outside' view, since he was involved in my last attempt on the talk-page of abortion with the IP discussed here. He tried to heat up a conflict by deleting something without giving a reason (he was not doing this in good faith: see his talk page). He did not succeed in his attempt to stir up the conflict because I left.--Fenice 22:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fenice - you seem to have a real tough time with intelligent people who disagree with you and challenge your paradigms. Please try to address this personal deficiency - it will help you in life, and make you more believable generally. Bullying people into keeping quiet and insisting that you have superior intellect is not really embracing diversity, now is it? Please cese and desist with that behavior and try to engage in a real discussion of ideas, acknowledging that others' ideas may have validity, despite them being counter to your own ideas. Enough already - do you even try to be open-minded? 214.13.4.151 08:00, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I first learned of User 214.13.4.151 when looking at the Wikiquote web page on Abortion. 214's main contribution to that page has been to suggest that the categories of "pro-life" and "pro-choice" be abolished, and have all the quotes mixed together. While I though this was bad for organization (new readers would have trouble finding a pro-life or pro-abortion quote), some other contributions were OK: For example, the suggestion to classify according to author occupation (entertainer, politician, or something like that). Also, 214 suggested that if there were categories, then the anti-abortion (pro-life, under a new title) be first, or preferably that the categories be rotated. It appears the 214 found some useful quotes; also, 214 asked for consensus about changing the organization of the page, and got no answers for four (4) days. Although she was accused of being impatient (and this is true), she nonetheless waited four days and tried to get feedback on a page that had few regular editors. An edit war erupted, due in part to lack of other editors' desire to quickly address her concerns in talk, and partly due to her impatience. Just like in Wikiquote, I think a similar situation developed in Wikipedia: I think 214 is impatient and needs to participate in talk more, but I do not support any ban. While the Wikiquote editors were generally polite, I think some of these editors were a little bit harsh or at least impatient themselves. I think that 214 should create an account, unless her job prohibits her. I read Proto's summary, and it looks just about right.--GordonWattsDotCom 6 July 2005 10:40 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

The behavior alleged of 214. is entirely consistent with the vandalistic and anticollaborative behavior I have witnessed at Karl Rove. This behavior includes multiple 3RR violations, mass deletions of content without response on 'talk', over-politicizing content to an extreme degree, and a lack of ability/willingness to collaborate on the articles with others of differing views.

To learn this RfQ exists and this user has behaved similarly on prior ideologically-charged articles is a concern. I am hopeful it can be resolved, but I am quite concerned by this pattern. RyanFreisling @ 14:16, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have put this page on my watch list and tried to follow a little bit. While I am sure there is some merit to any criticisms, the end result (at the time of this writing) of 214's involvement at the http://En.WikiQuote.org/wiki/Abortion compilation of Abortion Quotations was positive. Although the page did get locked, those who locked and oversaw it came to accept 214's edits, and allowed her (214) to edit a whole lot more. The end result was positive, and I think that her contributions are being overlooked due to "personality conflicts." That is not to say that 214 was not a little bit too impatient. That may be, but the "big picture" and actual "merit" of her edits should be considered in the whole scheme of things. Wikipedia is cool, but it is not all there is to life, so do not worry over this as if it were life-or-death. I understand the need for both "teamwork" and "quality," but if I can get along with 214, then other users can.--GordonWattsDotCom 01:37, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your characterization of what happened on that article is inconsistent with my experience 'battling' 214. 214's edits were not 'positive', in fact they were counter-factual in most instances, and resulted in erroneous conclusions, POV declarations and poorer readability. I articulated 9 or so of them on the 'Talk' page. His/her POV insertion changes have been largely repaired, with days of warning prior, conducted without incident. I would describe the situation as entirely the opposite of your conclusions, in that 214's contribution was negative. -- RyanFreisling @ 19:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration of Ryan's comments, I would withdraw a small portion of my positive feedback, and add that 214's was not only somewhat impatient, but also that she described editors as a little bit more rude than they in fact were. However, I still stand by my initial conclusion that most of her contributions were positive:
  • On the "personality" side, I recall that 214 asked for feedback on the organization, and got an answer in the talk page at this diff at 10:12, 16 June 2005. Then 214 waited four (4) more days for feedback before implementing any changes, as shown by this diff at 08:13, 20 June 2005 on the quotations page. Thus, 214 was not totally impatient or unwilling to be a team player, but she still overreacted to other editors' impatience, which indicates that she (214) was undoubtedly encountering stresses in her life, which we hope are resolved and addressed well.
  • Further, most, in fact, the vast majority of her edits were good. She did make one edit with a "[bracketted]" comment, calling D&E "Dismemberment and Extraction," instead of the more commonly used term "Dilation and Extraction." The term "dismemberment," while not incorrect, is not commonly used, and introduces POV bias. Thus, more positive edits were made, but, 214, like all mere mortals, makes mistakes.
So, in conclusion, I withdraw a little bit of my support as I elucidate above, but clarify.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:28, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/214.13.4.151&oldid=1263015691"