Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ash

This is an RfC on BLP, nothing more.

Per Delicious carbuncle's comments here, it seems plain that there are more issues being addressed here than have been laid out in this RfC. If Dc would like to address more issues than Ash's BLP contributions, they should be processed through the proper dispute resolution channels (i.e.: spelled out clearly in this Rfc, to start). Otherwise, this can be perceived as WikiHounding. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can "perceive" in one hand...Bali ultimate (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...while giving the finger with the other? The outcome of this RfC will pertain to the issues addressed in the Statement of the Dispute, and nothing more. Should more changes be desired, they should be addressed directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.230.164 (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other having a troll deliberately misrepresenting what I've written, I don't see any cause for concern here. This RFC is about Ash's misuse of citations. The fact that I expect that there will eventually be an ARBCOM discussion relating to the topic area of gay pron performers and editors involved in it -- including me -- is immaterial. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash stated that you "accused (them) of being a fraud, liar and accusing others of homophobia. Characterizations such as "seeing Fred Phelps around every corner" are inflammatory, misrepresent my statements make me seem ridiculously hysterical."

You replied: "For the record, you seem to be attributing to me comments I have not made, but all of it is better dealt with at the RFC." None of which is actually addressed in this RfC. Correct? Correct. So how, exactly, were you misrepresented? 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ash's comment was much longer than what you quoted, hence the "all of it" in my reply. I'm tired of your trolling now and you show no signs of going away, so it is time for you to be sent on your way: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rusty Trombone. Bye. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note moved from main page

Note: Tarc's comment above is in no way an expression of endorsement of Bali's summary in any way and should appropriately be moved to the talk page of this project. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the above from the main page to this. This IP anon has already pestered me on my talk page to move my initial comment (I declined, as it is specifically addressing points made in the section), and no sees fit to place comments under my own, which IMO is the sort of thing that actually does belong on this page. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate evidence to support this RFC/U

The comment added by XinJeisan (talk · contribs) relate to edits I made in 2006 and 2008. Considering that Delicious carbuncle's examples were from 2009, could anyone tempted to comment please note that I made over 8,000 edits in 2010. In any dispute resolution process consideration should be given to editor's improving the nature of their contributions over time. Any evidence that is years out of date does not help the issue under discussion and is likely to be dismissed as irrelevant for this reason alone. Ash (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answering request for diffs on charges made against DC by Ash

Ash requested diffs. Some of the most egregious were made, i believe, on Ash's since deleted User page (at his request) but many people saw the claims none the less. As for some claims that can be backed up with diffs. This talk page header [1] originally named DC, later removed it but it was clear who was being referred to, as making "personal attacks" "unsubstantiated complaints" "continued lobbying" against Ash, and then below that you referred to a vague "particularly nasty personal attack" that involved "bullying your way into censoring." Clear implication was that DC was some kind of villain here, but of course without diffs. Here [2] is an allegation by Ash of DC and others belonging to a conspiracy involved in "a direct or indirect form of canvassing or lobbying against gay-sexuality related articles" (in fact, the articles had to do with porn, not gay sexuality, but whatever) which is essentially an accusation of homophobia. Here [3] you make a patently false claim that an edit by DC "appears to be a deliberate act intended to cause offence and inflame argument." Here [4] is a long screed by you, in the context of your dispute with DC, in which you write "If I was abused on the street in such a blatantly nasty, personal and homophobic way such an act would be covered in the UK by the hate crime legislation" and "MedCab et al should advise members of minority groups to vigilantly keep their accounts anonymous for this reason, a fact that was not made clear to me when i registered" and "It should be made clear to all contributors that they should be prepared for direct personal attacks if they contribute to Wikipedia and advise as to what steps members should take to keep themselves safe, particularly if they are member of a minority group." The whole tone of this is that you're under some kind of threat because your gay (it's actually a transparent attempt to play the pity card in trying to get the upper hand in a garden-variety dispute about sourcing.) Here [5] you can be found accusing DC of a "campaign" against "LGBT articles that I have created or added citations to" (again, gay porn, not really encyclopedic stuff about gay rights, human sexuality, etc... but, again, whatever.) Here [6] you write "I am left unsure of at what stage repeated ANIs & RFCs would be considered harassment or a misuse of process. As far as I understand it, Delicious carbuncle is free to use these tactics indefinitely for any contributor to LGBT articles s/he takes up such a campaign against. His/her track record of successfully getting people to leave Wikipedia or spend most of their time in defending themselves is impressive."Bali ultimate (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your diffs one at a time seems a reasonable way to respond to these serious allegations against me, please take the time to read my reply as many of these allegations have been covered previously:

Old version of my user talk page header - this was discussed and resolved on ANI. This is old history, Delicious carbuncle was satisfied at the time. You are inferring claims of homophobia that were never made.
Old ANI (the link does not seem to take me to the right place, but I think I remember the relevant discussion) - you are reading the text as "essentially an accusation of homophobia", it was not. There is a massive difference from off-wiki lobbying against gay pornography related articles and homophobia. I made no accusation of homophobia.
Sockpuppet investigation raised by Delicious carbuncle - I objected to the titling of the SPI. So what? I assumed good faith by assuming that Delicious carbuncle was making a correct statement when s/he stated "(Note: Although there appears to be no actual User:Rusty Trombone, I am using that identifier to keep the SPI cases together)". I cannot be held responsible for Delicious carbuncle making mistakes. You will note that saying that something appears to be inflammatory or offensive is not the same thing as saying someone is homophobic.
Extract from an old version of my user talk page - You are objecting to the "tone" of my user talk page. So what? Who cares? This was nothing to do with Delicious carbuncle and was not a personal attack, in fact you would have to really bend over backwards to make it appear to be a personal attack. As far as I recall Delicious carbuncle made no complaint about this text.
LGBT studies comment - Asking for advice from project members is not a personal attack. Accusing someone of being on a deletion campaign is not an accusation of homophobia. You are seeing Peter Tatchell around every corner.
LGBT studies talk page - Yet again not an accusation of homophobia or even an implication of such. My statement seem entirely accurate in that (a) I am unsure at what stage repeated use of DR processes would be misuse, (b) Delicious carbuncle appears to be free to continue to use these processes indefinitely, (c) it is impressive how much time I have spent defending myself against accusations by Delicious carbuncle.

Your comments are off-topic for this RFC/U and as Delicious carbuncle is not pursuing such a claim of personal attack I am left wondering why you are insisting on getting involved and intent on following me around on ANI and here. I have answered your "evidence" at length, perhaps you could leave me alone now? Ash (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment on the project page speaks for itself. I would like an undertaking from you that you won't launch such serious personal attacks against DC, or anyone else, again (unless you have strong evidence for your allegations, which would make them something other than personal attacks). I've grown tired of false, unsupported claims thrown around to tar editing opponents, far too often here (not just by you). I have no power to compel you stop, or even promise to stop, of course. If the problem comes up with you in future this RFC will stand in evidence and i suspect such unsupported allegations and insinuations will be dealt with more strongly.

I'll give you a recent example. I'm a fairly tough customer, so i don't really care, but you just played the insinuation game in response to me on the project page. You wrote: "I ask that Bali ultimate show my family some respect and strike these unsupported hurtful allegations, his/her inappropriate speculation about these matters and use an appropriate dispute resolution process or ANI if they want to make a complaint and not take this RFC/U off-topic." Your family? What on earth to they have to do with anything. I wish you and your family health, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. I respect both you and your family's fundamental rights, whoever ya'll are. But bringing up your "family" in a context where your wikipedia editing behavior is in question, is sort of a ridiculous red-herring. "Oh, no. Bali ultimate is dissing his family!" What hogwash. If you don't like being called on your behavior here, then change your behavior here. Finally, bringing up your conduct at an RFC about you is entirely appropriate. Oh yeah, all the quotes i attributed to you are verbatim.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are a diversion from the issue that Delicious carbuncle wanted to get feedback on. If Delicious carbuncle had wanted to make claims about an "insinuation game" part of this RFC/U then they were free to do so. I have addressed the diffs you provided, there seems nothing else I can do to make you happy as you appear unable to appreciate my point of view and determined to assume bad faith on my part. If this discussion does count as "evidence" then it is clear than I have made good faith attempts to discuss your concerns here and similarly when the same points were raised in other forums. Ash (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of other editors appear to disagree with you. See the project page.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what happens now?

This being my first RFC/U, I had expected that there might be a more clear ending or resolution. If I am expected to do something (like rebut Ash's statement, for example) can someone please let me know? If not, how does this matter get resolved? This is a very cut-and-dried case, so I'm not sure what more needs to be said. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they typically run for a month or so, then someone "univolved" closes and often sums up the general tenor of the debate. Nothing conclusive beyond that ever happens. If problems crop up again you just have proof that the RFC/U hoop was jumped through.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"this account" - starting new account for editing?

I was just browsing this thing and haven't reviewed the issues (I was involved with the similar Jagged 85 RfC on citations not supporting added text), but I noticed on Ash's page that he might continue to discuss policy and such under this account but wouldn't be editing (permalink). This seems to imply that he might start another account. I don't know if that's a reasonable interpretation on my part, but it seems obvious that (1) ~~it isn't technically allowed~~ and (2) technically it would be fairly easy to start a new account and start editing fresh unnoticed. Maybe it's assuming bad faith on my part to suspect this, but I urge Ash to stick with this account. II | (t - c) 05:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but unless an account shows up making the same kind of troubling edits there isn't alot we can do about it. I'd also note that Ash indicated he had suffered a loss and was in the midst of planning a funeral, so he may still be dealing with aftermath of that. AniMate 05:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, looking at Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses, I was wrong. A clean start under a new name is allowed. That sounds sort of reasonable although it sucks that someone who has a reputation for poor fact-checking (to say nothing about other behavior) could suddenly be dropped from our radar. The clean start provision was added back in November 2007 with no real discussion about it. II | (t - c) 20:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]