Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Commodore Sloat (talk | contribs) at 00:43, 28 August 2007 (→‎regarding Commodore Sloat's request for closure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Random thoughts

I think it's pretty clear by reading the outside views that csloat could do with a little more restraint and thought with the comments he makes, but the RfC is part of some sort of content dispute. I'd rather that issue get resolved instead of wasting time on an unneeded RfC. --waffle iron talk 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When is this over?

I am not sure why this RfC was not speedily dismissed. As I pointed out, it does not seem consistent with Wikipedia policy governing RfCs. We don't have evidence of two users trying to solve the same dispute; we have evidence of at least three different disputes. And I agree with waffle iron that these disputes are much more about content than about conduct. While I have gone over the line a few times - and usually apologized when called on it - I don't believe I have been violating wikipedia rules. Ron's and TDCs main claim seem to be that my post to User:172's page was a form of "stalking"; I think I pretty well refuted that claim. So does anyone know how long until someone decides whether or not I should be sanctioned for the charges made in this RfC?--csloat 00:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is a Wikipidia ministry or subministry that deals with this problem. --CSTAR 21:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to delist

According to official WP policies Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/All#Deleting_uncertified_user_RfCs this page should be delisted. I will wait one hour; if the page's status is unchanged by then I will delete it.--CSTAR 22:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from bigglove to CSloat (moved by csloat)

  • Comments:
  • The ADL comment about antisemitism was there when I got to the page. I ultimately actually took it off, becuase I found it offensive and inexact, prefering to let the quote from the newspaper in question speak for itself. I am not sure why this user is saying that I "hurled" any accusation of antisemitism against INFOCUS. It is simply not true.
  • The two Jewish papers CSloat mentions in the diffs above and his reply are different from the INFOCUS paper. Neither is financially dependent on a larger advocacy organization and neither is published out of the offices of an advocacy organization. WP:CORP may apply to this paper and not to the others. HOWEVER, this is irrelevant. Logic such as this simply not be the basis for attacking other users with epiphets like Islamophobia and making comments like, "you don't like Muslims."
  • CSloat's needs to own the fact that he did call two other editors "Islamophobes" and that this is simply not cool not matter how much he feels justified in doing so. His apology to date has only really been to explain why it is perfectly fine for HIM to use this kind of language.
  • I really do invite this user to make a summary my personal attacks. I feel it would be instructive for this user to list what he thinks I have done in terms of personal attacks and to examine it.
  • WP:NPA is supposed to be a core policy. The policy does not read, "no personal attacks UNLESS you have really good justification for making it". It just doesn't. Bigglove 12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what else the above user wants. I apologized and acknowledged my comment was inappropriate and I explained its context. Apparently s/he wants me punished for explaining the context. I am not going to nitpick about the paper here, and I am not going to belabor the discussion with a list of things bigglove did wrong. This RfC is completely uncalled for. csloat 16:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that my reply to CSLOST comments should be on the main page. I will put it back there. (striking incorrect remark I made about policy. CSloat was correct to move my comment to this page)

Reply from Bigglove to User:Verklempt

    • Comment: Thanks for noticing the RFC and commenting, but please note that CSLOAT has apologized for, "any offense taken" but not for saying "you hate muslims", ie calling me an Islamophobe. Also, he has said several times that he defends his action of calling me an Islamophobe, so this is not something that was done in the heat of the moment. Bigglove 00:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the end of the paragraph you are quoting from makes pretty clear that I am apologizing for my actions, not just the offense taken, but I have added an additional paragraph to clear it up further: I apologize. csloat 03:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you will admit to and apologize for the personal attack you made against me, I promise to call it a day. Bigglove 13:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply to User:RyanFreisling

    • Question: Do you think it is ok for one editor on Wikipedia to call another editor an Islamophobe?
    • Plea for close reading of the project page: CSloat has not retracted the attack. He actually apologized for "offense taken" and not for the action itself, which he still defends.
    • Comment Please note that what I want here is a true acknowledgement and behavior change. The RFC page is very clear in asking editors to make specific requests for a remedy. I looked at CSloats user page and saw some short blocks, so I basically picked this out of a hat by suggesting something longer---one week. Bigglove 01:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bigglove. Here's my response.
  • No. An apology is completely appropriate for a comment like that. We can disagree strongly on encyclopedic merit, factual accuracy, etc., but labels and names aren't helpful. In my view, personal attacks are by definition not acceptable on WP.
  • The comment is inappropriate and so I don't think a non-apology apology as a response is appropriate. I'll read more closely along these lines and revise my statements accordingly.
  • I think a return to good faith dispute resolution by csloat, armon, isarig and yourself (and other interested parties like me, TDC etc.) is far more appropriate response to what appears to be an evenly acrimonious series of conflicts between these users. I think dispute resolution rather than blocking is more appropriate especially since in this specific case the suggestion is to block the 'opposition' viewpoint (which effectively stops all discussion). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for this very reasonable reply. I just noted that on your comments on the main page you are still asserting that there was a real apology given here. I honestly would not have brought an RFC if CSloat had apologized for his comment to me that I "hate muslims" and edited based on "Islamophobia". Please note that these remarks, and the similar one to another user, plus the defense of these personal attacks based on bad-faith assumptions is the basis of this RFC. I feel I have shown clear evidence that CSloat has violated Wikipedia policy. If this user feels I have attacked him, I invite him to systematically and specifically lay out the details of this attack for me and give me the opportunity to apologize to him as well. Bigglove 02:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll re-review my comments and edit those sections appropriately, pending what I think would be a constructive apology by csloat. If the RfC leads to constructive improvements by csloat and prompts all those involved to engage in dispute resolution, this RfC will be a good thing. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Bigglove 02:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSloat wrote on my user page, "you hate muslims". Do you think this was ok? (It is ok to say yes if that is what you feel). Bigglove 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Rude. How does anyone know what is in another's heart? Valid edits focus on content, not contributors. Apology definitely required. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Could you consider clarifying your comment on the main page based on your comment above (you mentioned the title only)? Bigglove 02:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, for now I think I'll leave my comment as is since I revised my comment since only part of csloat's comment (plus it's title) were over the line. He was obviously exasperated and at his limit and other parts of his comment were indeed attempting to remain constructive, as I recall.
Overall, the RfC can be constructive if it leads to a renewed attempt at dispute resolution, and so rather than parsing every last comment of csloat's (or mine) in this fashion, I am hopeful the subject and certifiers will concentrate on the big picture of renewing dispute resolution efforts. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will forgive me one more "parse" (please give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not trying to irritate you, I just a systematic person and want to get this right). Telling another editor, "you hate muslims" = calling them an islamophobe. I agree that the title he wrote was pretty rude, but it was not the topic of the RFC and is not something I would have brought an RFC about. I understand that he may have been very exasperated, but I don't feel that this is an excuse for violating an important policy. If it your opinion that "you hate muslims" is not a personal attack then I accept that 100% as your opinion; if you think that it is a personal attack then I would request that you give me the honor of ammending your statement. Bigglove 02:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I amended my statement already. Not sure what specific words you object to but again I'd ask you to focus a bit 'bigger picture', await an apology and engage in dispute resolution in good faith. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in the ideal world, I would like you to address specifically the "you hate muslims" comment, as that and the other Islamophobia comment were why I brought the RFC. However I appreciate that you were willing to have this dialog. I am hearing you on the rest. Bigglove 02:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When all editors are well-intentioned, constructive dialog is the only way to get past these kinds of disputes, so no problem! :) Anyway I thought about it, looked at it again and altered my statement accordingly. Thanks :)-- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with the above in my apology but let's be clear -- I did not write "you hate muslims" on bigglove's user page. He's paraphrasing out of context the following sentences: "I'm sorry, but you need to stop the nonsense on the Southern California InFocus page. You don't like me, fine. You don't like Muslims, fine. You don't like Muslim newspapers, also fine. But that is no reason to disrupt Wikipedia like this." Now, I did say "you don't like muslims" (not "hate"), as well as made other comments about motives, and I am very explicitly apologizing for those statements, but let's not turn my statements into something I never wrote. Thanks. csloat 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Sloat is absolutely right and I apologize for my mistatement. He did not say, You hate muslims". He said, "you don't like muslims". Still a personal attack warranting an apology in my opinion. Bigglove 13:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for highlighting, but please explicitly say that you made a personal attack and apologize for it on the main page and we'll be done. I am not being unreasonable here. I am only asking for an adherance to policy. Bigglove 14:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Armon to User:RyanFreisling

Neither is averting one's eyes to sloats problematic behaviour -which is exactly what you are doing. I honestly think that you aren't doing your friend any favours by ignoring the problem here. Because of your attempts to dismiss the problem, sloat has taken as a license to continue his bad behaviour. I think that a week ban for his ongoing and long term disruption is both reasonable, and much less that what he will get if this goes to arbcom. Sloat needs an unambiguous wake up call that his approach is not acceptable. <<-armon->> 01:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ignoring nothing. And what exactly does that link have to do with me? Nothing. So I'm ignoring nothing again. Csloat needs to shape up, as do you all. Armon, please resume dispute resolution. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 01:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify what the diff has to do with you. He characterizes this ANI report as "laughed off" due to you ignoring the related issues I raised there. You are an admin now, so you're expected to act for the good of the project, rather than simply protecting your friend. <<-armon->> 02:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm an admin? When did that happen? If I were an admin, that would be a classic logical fallacy by attacking your opponent instead of their words... and I am allowed to express my views whether I am an editor or an admin. As is stands, I'm not an admin. And Armon, I didn't ignore anything then either... I'm quite proud of those links in which I am 1. advising him to keep calm 2. offering him support, and 3. urging him to avoid 3RR. Right now, I honestly believe I am acting in the good of the project by pointing out the aborted dispute resolution between you and csloat and seeking to resolve the dispute with WP process. Why not pick that process up with Durova? -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Outside view by User:Durova

Please note that CSloat has not apologized for saying on my user page, "you don't like muslims". This is an accusation of Islamophobia, and a personal attack. Personal attacks are an infraction of Wikipedia policy. I would like an admission from CSloat that 1) this WAS a personal attack and that 2) he apologizes for this personal attack and that 3) he promises not to make personal attacks like this again. I appreciate the apology, and I am not doubting its sincerity, but I would like an apology directed specifically at the complaint. Thanks for hearing me out. Bigglove 13:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, CSloat has apologized for making a "hyperbolic comment": "you don't like muslims." If he admits that this was a personal attack and apologizes, we're done. He has not done so yet. Bigglove 14:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on other users' Responses or Outside Views

Bigglove, I recommend that you do not place your request to csloat inside his response [1]. Perhaps it's better placed in your certifying statement, along with a reminder to csloat via talk if you're concerned he didn't see your response to his latest apology. RfC policy is there to give everyone a chance to make their views heard without interference - and while I know you're not intending to interfere with csloat's statement, purposefully placing a comment in his response could be seen as denying him the right to make an unhindered response. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, but I don't know how else to get him to see it. I asked above, in my statement, where I felt it belonged, and the next thing I know he is asking for an admin to come and close when this has not been completely resolved. This is not really in the spirit or letter of apology. Do you want me to move it? I will, but hopefully he will see it before this is closed prematurely. Bigglove 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In short, 'I' don't want anything except for this RfC to be as productive as possible for all concerned. Accordingly, I would advise you that you should avoid any perception that you are hindering csloat's response by leaving any of your comments there (unless you endorse his view) - that's just policy. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I removed the short note asking the closing admin to look here. Bigglove 18:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see it, the issue is resolved. I don't see the need to re-parse my apology yet another time just because you demand that I do so. If you re-read the apology, you will see that I have apologized for the comments in question. The debate about whether I intended a particular phrase as hyperbole or literal is neither relevant nor constructive. csloat 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commander, please consider steadying your tone. Hyperbole means exaggeration or amplification, and a "hyperbolic comment" is an overblown one. This refers to the "size" of the comment, but not the category it is in---ie complementary statement, statement of disagreement, personal attack, etc. If you explictly said anywhere that your remark was a personal attack and that you apologize for it, then I apologize for missing it. Bigglove 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My tone appears to be quite steady. Your interpretation of the phrase "hyperbolic comment" is interesting, but not relevant. I accept your apology - can we now please move on? csloat 20:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding Commodore Sloat's request for closure

I do not feel that this RFC has been completely resolved.

I very much appreciate the spirit of the apology, but would like an adjustment in the substance. I do not think this RFC should be closed without an admission that this user made a personal attack against me and agaist Isarig in violation of WP:NPA. He has apologized for a "hyperbolic comment" towards me. This is not the same thing. Given his very agressive failure to admit that he had done anything wrong first on the talk page of the article and then here, I do not think it is too much to ask. Bigglove 18:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reflect for a moment with a bit of dispassion. While you moved 'some' of your comment from csloat's response, you have left a comment there against the rules of RfC [2]. I know you're trying to resolve the issue amicably and don't mean to stifle or inhibit csloat from responding - but someone else who didn't understand your goals (or who didn't care) might consider that an 'aggressive failure' to follow RfC policy. I suggest you leave csloat's response entirely unfettered and show by example the kind of flexibility and willing compliance you want from csloat - or you similarly allow him some latitude in complying with your request for a renewed apology. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'll take it off completely. But, respectfully, as I said before, if he hadn't asked for closure while there were outstanding issues despite my request I would not have posted there. Bigglove 18:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are entirely 1000% entitled to your point of view and I'm hopeful csloat chooses to discuss it further with you, in order to resolve any remaining issue that you may have with the completeness (or incompleteness) of his apology. Cheers. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When CSloat says that he made a personal attack instead of a "hyperbolic comment" I will then wholeheartedly accept his apology. He has refused to do so, and has now actually accused me of widening the RFC. This is a misrepresentation. The original RFA is quite clear on the issue of personal attacks. I added addendums in response to CSLoats's claims that he had already apologized; these were for clarification only and made in good faith. Bigglove 19:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have apologized Bigglove; your objection to the fact that I made the original comment hyperbolically is only leading to growing suspicion that you are not sincere about resolving this dispute. If you wish to avoid creating such suspicions, it would be a good idea to accept my apologies and let us all move on. csloat 19:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I'm writing again to make this perfectly clear only and not to argue or inflame or belabor. I do not object to "the fact that [you] made the original comment hyperbolically". I object to the fact that you label it as a "hyperbolic comment" and not a "personal attack". Here is the text of your apology (with my emphasis):

"I apologize for attributing unacceptable motives to Bigglove, Armon, and Isarig, including the hyperbolic comment "you don't like muslims," which I wrote on Bigglove's user page. This apology stands whether or not these users are found to be sock puppeteers, and independently of any other abuses or perceived abuses committed by these users or any others. As I said above, bigglove is correct that it isn't my role, or any other editors, to psychoanalyze him or her, and I apologize for questioning their motives. I am apologizing for my actions here, not just for any offense taken. And I will see to it that I don't make such comments again. I hope this clarifies the nature of my apology on this issue. csloat 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)"

It would not take you much for you to ammend this to say you made a personal attack and you apologize for it. If your intention to apologize is sincere, I am not sure what is holding you back. At this point, I feel like you are again assuming bad faith by referring to a, "growing suspiction that [I am] not sincere about resolving this dispute," and even threatening me when you say, "If you wish to avoid creating such suspictions it woudl be a good idea to accept my apologies." Please be assured that I want to end this RFC. I have already said I do not insist on a block, etc. I think I am within my rights to request an apology explicity for what I made the complaint about, personal attacks. Bigglove 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification but I already understand your objection; the problem is that it has no merit. My comment was meant hyperbolically as I have explained. I have also apologized for it. I have not denied that it was a personal attack. If you want the RfC to be finished, all you have to do is say so, as you are the only one holding it up at this point. csloat 20:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please just say it was a person attack explicitly, which you have not done, and as far as I'm concerned we're done. I'm not sure what your objection is to that. Your response that my request is "without merit" is not especially helpful as this was the whole basis of the RFC I filed. (and actually, it is insulting). Bigglove 23:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have got to be joking. What benefit is there to continuing this nonsense? I apologized over and over already for the personal attack. I have not denied it was a personal attack; you want me to say it was a personal attack? Fine - it was a personal attack, one which I have apologized for over and over, unconditionally and without reservation. This is getting tedious, and it is your actions, Sir or Madam, that are insulting here -- not just to me, but to everyone who takes this RfC process seriously. I have done everything you have asked for even though I am under no requirement to do so. csloat 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Commodore_Sloat&oldid=154069447"