Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmaguir1

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC).

Kmaguir1 (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

To make a WP:POINT, Kmaguir1 has ignored WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLP on several articles. Issues of WP:CIVILITY as well. 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Description

Editor continues to insert criticism sections on living authors, specifically those of contemporary political philosophers. Some editors have tried to work with his edits and improve them, and in two cases, on Judith Butler and bell hooks, this has resulted in text that remains in the articles. In the case of Michel Foucault, Kmaguir1's changes were not salvageable. After negotiation of content, or establishment of consensus against inclusion of his material, Kmaguir1 has continued to insert the same poorly written paragraphs repeatedly, failing to garner any support (much less consensus) for them. Subsequent to prior 3RR block, he has been careful not to violate 3RR on bell hooks, but instead inserts the same paragraph approximately once daily. Kmaguir1 does not respond to constructive criticism, and instead replies by expressing (1) the wish that we all go to hell, (2) the claim that we do not care about the morals of the authors we read, (3) the speculation that all users who are offended by his actions must have a personal connection. Mostly, he doesn't reply, and instead continues to insert his disputed paragraphs. This seems like a disruption of wikipedia to make a point.

Evidence of disputed behavior

For context, see Talk:Bell_hooks, Talk:Judith_Butler.

Diffs:

incivility: [1]
incivility: [2]
incivility, and subsequent multiple blanking of text to hide it: [3]
anti-consensus at bell hooks: [4]
anti-consensus at bell hooks: [5]
anti-consensus at bell hooks: [6]
anti-consensus at bell hooks:[7]
failure to gain consensus, falsely represented as lack of consensus: [8], context here
WP:POINT that Kmaguir1 admits he is trying to make: "Bell Hooks is a nut." [9]

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

No response to editors' concerns about bell hooks criticism section
Example of two editors improving Kmaguir1's criticism at Talk:Judith_Butler#Criticism.2FNussbaum
Followed by Kmaguir1 nonetheless reverting, with meatpuppet, until he got blocked: Talk:Judith_Butler#Kmaguir1.27s_vandalism
Example of editors reminding Kmaguir1 of WP:CONSENSUS: Talk:Judith_Butler#Playing_well_with_others
expression of willingness to work with him after his block expired: [10]
Last-ditch recent attempt to remind Kmaguir1 of willingness to work with him: [11]
Rejected by Kmaguir1: [12]
csloat implores on user talk page for Kmaguir1 to stop disrupting the bell hooks biography page: [13]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Other Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Overall position : stativity; basically, nothing here has happened which requires an rfc, so the rfc should be stopped, and a third opinion should be sought, and then mediation, and then, if we're still in the same place, back to rfc.

I will address merely their so-called 'evidence', and go one by one as much as is possible, to show all of those in the community my true intentions as an editor, which have always served the wikipedia community for the better, including writing an essay on why I feel academic bios should be limited to just academic criticism but should be opened in nearly all cases for popular criticism. I rebut totally their collective persecution of me, their johnny-come-lately whining that they actually have to engage in a dispute. The history of this is deep. They blocked me for ten days for sockpuppetry, with absolutely no evidence, and the sockpuppetry was proved conclusively false by the continued addition of the person they accused of sockpuppetry, under another name. Only one of the 3rr blocks was appropriate, the first one, which I violated out of ignorance to the rule (the warning came as the block came), and the second of the blocks was predicated on the accusations of sockpuppetry, which again, have been proved false. So the block log is of no help in this case--they basically blocked me to stop me from editing under the guise of sockpuppetry allegations. I am, in short, a contributor to wikipedia, and have never been a vandal. They also, whatever you determine, have not proceeded to obtain third opinions from people uninvolved in previous debates, nor have we been through mediation. On this basis alone, any RFC should be speedily denied. Let us begin with their accusations by Anthony Krupp, to which four users have agreed, all of whom have been involved in edit disputes dating back to the beginning of the edit disputes, and none of whom have any involvement in obtaining third opinions. In fact, they back citation, but then run away when I actually find the citation. How ridiculous.

As to Diff 1, incivility: this is hard incivil--it's an unfinished rhyme, there is no obscenity nor is there anything that even remotely contains any that's a problem. Even if I had written "go to hell", unless it stood alone or was without another comment, I don't see how this is incivil. I have always maintained a civil tone in speaking on wikipedia. As to Diff 2, incivility: stating possible bias in the face of extreme consensus, which there is for deletion on the Raymundo Baltazar article, is not incivil. I think one would have to be biased to think that that article should stay. There have been no further requests for keeps there. As to Diff 3, incivility and then blanking: this is the closest to incivility, but I think it's still a far ways off. I delete it because I thought it might be a personal attack, not incivil. And they kept adding it back! So much for changing our minds and trying to wratchet things down. And again, that's what it asks--to keep cool. That's what I was doing in amending it. To say I was 'hiding it' is ridiculous, and to say that they were constantly adding it back to stick it to me, that's more accurate. However, let me say this, there is absolutely no way that this shows a pattern of incivility. I believed that Kilo-Lima's 10 day block of me was very unjustified, I was not able to make comments as a result of it, and again, remember, this all traces back to the sockpuppetry case, which has been proved false. And yet none of the accusers have been taken to task on it. Kilo-Lima, I believe, is a renegade admin who does not realize the consequences of the actions taken. And it seems as if actions have been in conjunction with requests, as in there's a bit of 'buddy-buddy' going on. As to Diff 4-7, anti-consensus: there was no consensus on the article because they stopped talking to me. I state this repeatedly. They don't want to acheive consensus. I have been the one to go out and get Hooks' book, to modify their alterations of marxist wannabe-ism that goes outside the realm of acceptable behavior. They have been anti-consensus. At at a point recently there was consensus they would add back the disputed portion of the Hooks article, if I found the original cite from her book and put it in context. I did that. And then now they say it's not notable--and the quote is "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder", which was a criticism made by David Horowitz of her in a hugely popular bestseller, 101 Dangerous Professors. And there's no way that's not notable and the fact she had a poetry book published by a minor publisher in 1978 is notable. So they have consistently been frustrating me. They have stalked my contribs, which I'll get to later. The section of disputed articles stayed on for as long as a month, with others reviewing them (I have evidence of that) and still no changes. They seem a radical bunch that wants to defend the author, and keep authors for those who like them. Unfortunately, I read all of these people at a point (not much of Hooks), and I didn't like them. And I can still edit to my heart's content, within Wikipedia regs. Part of the problem here is that while I respect them as academics, they do not respect them. They are academic segregationists, in that they want an ability to give more freedom and ability to say stuff that is notable and controversial than the average person has. Lulu has written an article in favor of this, which I strongly oppose. But bottom line is, there has been no consensus--we are still working through our problems, with the help of shazbot, and others, and so, there shouldn't be an rfc when a matter is close to being closed. I'm confident we'll come to consensus with the new Hooks cite and some reasonability, within at least a week. As to Diff 8, false consensus of some sort: I wasn't attempting to gain consensus there, just inform them about a change they had made. In fact, as Krupp himself knows, in order to do that, I had to read his criticism of the word 'Criticism', and accept it, which I did. So yes, I did want people to see the rationale behind the edit changes I was making and why I agreed that it should not be called 'criticism'. As to Diff 9, trying to make an underlying WP:Point: No, that's not what I was doing. Being very careful, I stated that to me, those statements by Hooks made her look like a nut. And I suspect that's why they had a problem with them on the page, too. Again, they're sourced, and that's what's going on--so there's really no debating she said the stuff. If she looks like a nut, or a genius, to a given person, that's fine, that's subjective. But what she said is no longer subjective--it is sourced from the hard print of her book, which I took 1h 30m to go get in a library that I'm not even supposed to have access to.

second set:

Not going to even touch Diffs 1-4, they were prior to a block, by Krupp's admission at Diff 5, and so, my defenses are present on those pages and are not going to be of help here. As to Diff 5, I do not agree that that shows much of anything, except that they'd be wiki-stalking me, looking at all my user contribs and going around to see if I disrupted their favorite philosophers, or, in Butler's case, rhetorician, Foucault's case, poor historian, and in Hooks case, I don't know what they hired her for. I am willing to participate in consensus, but that's a two-way street, and they never give an inch. I absolutely am dissatisfied with their insistence I give notification of upcoming changes, like a child asking his parent if they can stay out past 12. I won't do that. I'm not going to be a baby just because they think because I'm not a scholar, I can't comment on the article. As to Diff 6, it wasn't last ditch at all. This is a problem I've noticed on Wikipedia. What happens is that no one warns of anything, in the real sense of warning. I still have some animosity about all the blocks, none of which were justified, even the first, where again, I got a warning and a block at largely the same time. I wish people said this, and only this: "If you do x, I will block you", and then, I'm not going to disobey an admin who says that. But it looks like people only operate about how 'currently fed up they feel', and I sympathize with that. I was very, very upset after this hooks mess, with everyone involved. But I'm a good guy. I mean, come on. If I am told, "We will block you unless you do that", I won't do it. Authority, as is typical, has not been authorized, and so, where it's not clear who the authorities are, and what they're saying, it's hard to follow commands. If they get an admin to do things like this, after third opinion, after mediation, after this, I'm not going to disobey the direct warning. A loose "warning", like "if you do this, we'll initiate this and you'll have to defend yourself here", it's hard to make out. I really have never gone through a request for comment--I know nothing of it. I learned 3rr, sockpuppetry (what a crock all that was!), all of this stuff, on the fly. People need clear boundaries to be outlined to them, and that is not done on wikipedia. As to Diff 7, this could not be read as a rejection--merely saying that if they refuse to do what they want me to do, they're abandoning consensus. If they want me to follow different standards from that which they've set up for themselves, that's ridiculous. As to Diff 8, this is addressed above with the same comments.

Let's also go over what I've been subjected to in this ordeal: repeated and improper, targeting of my user contribs, where they found that I had edited bell hooks properly in the first place, various personal attacks, including calling me satan (Krupp), called a drunk (Agnaramasi), someone who doesn't pick up books (Lulu), etc., etc. Their condescending attitude really knows no bounds. Just because they have a degree, they think they're the only ones who can comments about subjects who have degrees. Lulu has been particularly ridiculous. She edits everything I do--everything, everything, even legitimate minor edits. She has an arrogance that is unbelievable, that she won'[t allow things--well, she's not an administator. She has a gaggle of supporters who come to her defense when she asks--and all of these users are included in that. If Lulu doesn't ask someone to come in, I wouldn't never have been blocked in the first place--none of my blocks. She is an indisputable troublemaker with a bad reputation from the capitalism page, who isn't as smart as she thinks she is.

So again, as to the larger issue, this has been almost solved on the bell hooks page, so an rfc is largely inappropriate. Let's see where the hooks goes, and then if we don't like it, go to a third opinion, and then if we don't like that, mediation, and then, finally, as a last resort, rfc. -Kmaguir1 08:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary: -Kmaguir1 09:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by User:Shazbot85

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I agree with Kmaquir1 in that calling someone (a) satan is inflammatory. Your intention may have been to use it in reference to an alternate view [a Judaic one, not an "alternate" one -Anthony Krupp 22:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)] of the adversarial character in the book of Job, but, as per the illustration Kmaquir1 uses, that doesn't mean he'll take it that way. As for Kmaquir1 and the issue of the information being excluded or included on the bell hooks page, Anthony Krupp has consistantly tried to work with you towards the inclusion of the material you set forth, and you strongly object to his suggestions in the same consistant manner. I suggest that you take his criticisms in good faith and work towards the inclusion of the material, which he seems to agree is important enough to include. Remember that a wise man accepts correction, and it is a fool who rejects it. If he has a criticism of your sources, give him reason to believe otherwise and if you can't, move on in a constructive manner, it's not the end of the world (Copied from Kmaguir1's Talk Page)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Shazbot85^Talk 07:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-Kmaguir1 05:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Krupp 22:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC), as long as Shazbot is watching over Kmaguir1. I don't yet trust that Kmaguir1 will behave well if this RfC is simply revoked. Am willing to accept any decision by a neutral administrator.[reply]
Not sure if i'm supposed to comment but I support this viewBagginator 05:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Addhoc

I wasn't involved in this article or associated debate, so my comments are only based on the evidence of disputed behavior:

incivility: 1 - Kmaguir1 was accused of sockpuppetry and was a bit grumpy. Nothing too serious.
incivility: 2 - this wasn't very civil and didn't show good faith either. [Note: That was addressed to LotLE by an unsigned Kmaguir1; it might appear to be LotLE signing, but it isn't. I agree with Addhoc's assessment of Kmaguir1's comment as not being very civil and not showing good faith either. Anthony Krupp 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)][reply]
incivility, and subsequent multiple blanking of text to hide it: 3 - removing other users comments is blanking, removing your own is usually considered ok. The comment related to accusing another user of sock (or possibly meat) puppetry. Again, not too serious.
anti-consensus at bell hooks: 4
anti-consensus at bell hooks: 5
anti-consensus at bell hooks: 6
anti-consensus at bell hooks:7 - all four of these demonstrate using appropriate secondary references, to make comments in a criticism section. Not a very serious concern.
failure to gain consensus, falsely represented as lack of consensus: 8, context here - confusing failure to gain consensus and lack of consensus isn't very serious.
WP:POINT that Kmaguir1 admits he is trying to make: "Bell Hooks is a nut." 9 - Kmaguir1 says he interprets a citation to imply "Bell Hooks is a nut", which isn't too serious.

Overall, I don't consider this RfC has proved significant unilateral wrongdoing by Kmaguir1.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by User:Brianyoumans

I looked at the talk pages for the articles involved, and the specific diffs cited above. On the whole, I thin User:Kmaguir1 needs to learn how to work better with others - instead of simply reverting things, he needs to rewrite his contributions and work with people until he finds something that will work. On the other hand, I think that the editors he is trying to work with seem to have this idea that these academics should be discussed solely on the basis of their work, and not as human beings or (sometimes) controversial cultural figures. I'm glad to see that the Bell hooks article seems to have settled into a state that everyone can live with.

I think Kmaguir1 should be admonished to try to work more sensitively on articles which people may be emotionally and politically attached to; if Kmaguir1 cannot do so, then other measures may be necessary.

Userw who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.