User talk:67.182.157.6
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Hello
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as probative, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text borrowed from web sites. For more information, take a look at our policy library. Happy editing! --Cryptic (talk) 20:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- What are you on about, specifically? To what copyrighted text are you referring? -- 67.182.157.6 12:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Dot-Six
[edit] Arbitration being considered against Dot-Six
Arbitration is being discussed as a remedy for disruption of Wikipedia by an anonymous editor known as .6 or Dot-Six. The details are in the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix. Robert McClenon 21:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
From that page: 6., you should read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration so that you understand what is being suggested. You might consider taking this issue to Wikipedia:Mediation or Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance, in order to avoid its going to arbitration. Banno 08:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Despite our differences, I am also open to mediation. Would you agree to have this dispute mediated? Rhobite 08:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- You mean now jump immediately to the FIFTH STEP (see chart), retain a mediator to, quote, "strive to achieve conciliation through negotiation" in our content dispute? According to policy (see chart) striving to achieve conciliation through negotiation concerning our content dispute should have been STEP ONE, instead of you exercising the nuclear option of resorting to an ad hominem personal attack/poisoning the well RfC, shouldn't it? Apologize for so quickly abandoning step one, and cancel that ad hominem personal attack/poisoning the well RfC you posted, then we can return to step one and talk about our differences concerning content, certainly. I think you will find me a reasonable person totally in favor of Wikipedia policy, consensus decision-making.
- Remember, instead of rushing to have straight majority rule, whoever can get out the most votes wins, here in Wikipedia content disputes the policy is consensus decision-making (general agreement meeting everyone's needs):
It has been said that true consensus involves "meeting everyone’s needs." Consensus decision-making is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices. --Consensus_decision-making#Purpose
- Could there possibly be a better example of an individual voice than yours truly, --67.182.157.6? Best regards, --67.182.157.6 19:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- ...<Ad hominem personal attack by Banno deleted. Wikipedia:no personal attacks says comment on content, not the contributor]]> Banno 20:58, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
-
- At no stage has a vote been used, or even suggested, as a solution to this problem. ...Banno
-
-
- The only real "problem" here is dispute resolution concerning various content disputes. Banno should stick to that, or not post anything at all here. Banno is simply trying to change the subject, make the character of his opponent the issue, but that is just ad hominem personal attack/poisoning the well. --67.182.157.6 21:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- This is absurd. It's like a Monty Python sketch. I have told you many times that I am willing to discuss the dispute privately or mediate through a third party. IRC would be best, e-mail is fine, talk pages are fine. You have ignored every one of my requests, but you continue to complain that we are not attempting "principled negotiation". I would genuinely like to discuss the content of articles with you. Rhobite 01:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Is this the five-minute argument, or the full half-hour? ;-) Banno 08:18, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
If you are really interested in following policy, and discussing the content, not the contibutor, simply drop this ad hominem personal attack, then go to any of the talk pages and dive in. Let's see if we can make consensus decision making really work here. No hard feelings. People get hot under the collar sometimes and we all make mistreaks. 8^) We're only human. Best regards. --67.182.157.6 05:56, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, it's not within my power to delete the RFC or control anyone else's conduct, but as I've said before I'm willing to give you another chance. So let's start. I have some general questions for you: Should the content of Wikipedia's articles always be logically consistent? Even if we are merely describing what someone else believes? There are many irrational points of view in this world. You seem to believe that they should be removed from the encyclopedia. Why? Rhobite 08:55, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- You say, "Well, it's not within my power to delete the RFC." I didn't ask that you delete it, sir.
-
- All you have to do to show good faith is remove your endorsement of it, explaining your reason, that you would prefer to return to honoring the policy of discussing the merits of the particular content, not the character of the contributor, as per Wikipedia:no personal attacks. Then we can discuss content of Wikipedia all you want, in the various article discussion pages. Fair enough?
-
- For instance, please take a look at the bias currently being editing into the article on epistemology, that "THE MOST INFLUENTIAL WRITING ON KNOWLEDGE IS the Theaetetus account [Knowledge is belief]" attributed to Plato. That is clearly ADVOCACY, which is prohibited. See Wikipedia:Consensus.
-
- Will I see you over there in talk:epistemology joining me in taking exception to such advocacy? --67.182.157.6 16:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed truce
I pledge to stop commenting on your conduct, and to strike through my endorsement from the RFC, but only under some conditions: That you agree...
- not to move VfD tags from an article's main page to its talk page,
- not to remove other users' comments from talk pages,
- not to remove content from (or attempt to write) policy pages,
- not to violate the three revert rule,
- and not to call other users names like "Foolwagon" and "Banana".
- My last condition is that you sign up for and use a Wikipedia account. It is very hard to discuss things with your multitudes of IP addresses.
Optionally, I will also agree to abide by the Wikipedia:One-revert rule on philosophy- and truth-related articles, if you do the same. Either one of us may pull out of this agreement at any time.
How does that sound? Rhobite 20:07, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I will take it under advisement, consult with my people, and get back to you the first part of next week, okay?
Meanwhile, as a show of good faith from each of us, if you will go ahead and strike your endorsement of the RfC, and explain that you agree with the policy that we should be spending our time discussing CONTENT, rather than the character of the CONTRIBUTOR, then I will pledge to try not to accidentally eliminate other editor's comments (due to being too quick on the "save page" button, neglecting to merge my comments properly with those of others), and will try to avoid making typos like Foolwagon for Fuelwagon, and Banana for Banno. Fair enough sir?
- I do agree that it is best to discuss the content of an article. However if a user's conduct becomes a problem, we have no choice but to discuss solutions. Please consider the terms above and get back to me. Rhobite 00:55, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Blocked
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours for removing the VfD tag from Wikipedia:Tyranny of the majority. Rhobite 18:19, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Come come now, It was not removed, as you allege, it was merely moved to the discussion page where it is supposed to be, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace, right?
-
- VfD tags are always supposed to be on the article's page. Look at every other article which is listed for deletion. As I said before, I'm done putting up with your games (but I'm still willing to mediate). I find it curious that you continue to promote "principled negotiation", while ignoring all of my requests to resolve this conflict amicably. Rhobite 19:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- You insist, "VfD tags are always supposed to be on the article's page." You are mistaken, Wikipedia:Categorization#Wikipedia_namespace says it belongs on the discussion page, right?
-
-
-
- Also, I resent you characterizing my pointing out why you are mistaken on these various points as "games." That is just more ad hominem personal attack/poisoning the well on your part (in place of limiting your comments to content, per policy, you still persist in comenting on the CONTRIBUTOR instead), isn't it?
-
-
-
-
- First of all, the page you refer to is for categories not VfD tags. You were completly wrong in removing it.
- Second, can you please stop saying that things are ad hominem. If you have knowledge in the field of logic and correct argument like you say you do, you should be aware that no attacks which I have seen against you have been ad hominem. Rhobite said that he was done putting up with your games. This is a comment on actions, you playing these games, not on your character. However, calling someone names ("Bananas" and "Foolwagon" for instance) most certainly is ad hominem. As is calling someone an obscuranist. I looked through your entire response on the RfC and every time you accuse someone of violating WP:NPA you are incorrect, they are always commenting on your actions. I challenge you to find a single valid personal attack against you, if you do, I will sternly reprimand the user on his talk-page. Deal? gkhan 12:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You say, "The page you refer to is for categories not VfD tags" but the page specifically mentions VfD tags as an example of what it is talking about:
-
-
-
Categories relating to the Wikipedia namespace should be added only to the talk page of articles. For example, tags suggesting the article is needs work, or is listed on VfD would be placed on the talk page as they are relevant to editors, not an aid to browsing in the way ordinary categories are. Please use {{wpcat}} on the Category description page to show that it is a Wikipedia-namespace category.
-
-
-
-
- So you are mistaken, right?
-
-
-
[edit] Arbitration
I have commenced arbitration proceedings against you - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DotSix Banno 09:13, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Blanking Vandalism
[1], [2], [3] Please stop removing content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
--Mysidia 17:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
And [4]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. --Mysidia 17:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Notification
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.
[edit] Truth
Hi, your edit(s) on the article mentioned above is(are) considered to be vandalism. Repeated vandalism on Wikipedia will result in a ban from further editing. --Veratien 17:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
DotSix, you have violated the 3RR rule at Truth. I am listing your actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. — Asbestos | Talk 17:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Your side had more than three, so to be fair, my side should get just as many as your side.
- Apologies, as of this message, you had reverted exactly three times, not over, so there was nothing to report. But the notion of "sides" is irrelevent. 3RR is for individual contributors, not "sides". — Asbestos | Talk 17:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's now 4 reverts -- DotSix' reversions for today now reported on 3RR, and a link added to RFAr. Ancheta Wis 19:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
You are not permitted to vandalise Wikipedia 3 times in a day. You are not permitted to do so even once. Reverting obvious vandalism (e.g. blanking an article) is allowed as many times as it takes, whether or not that is more than 3. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 19:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Nobody blanked anything, moron. Can't you read? It is a redirect to true. 'Truth' is a term derivative of the term, 'true', so a redirect to true makes perfect sense.
- You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR on Truth. When you are unblocked, please do not revert without reaching a consensus. Carbonite | Talk 23:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Here is another clear case of tyranny of the majority. Your side got more than three reverts. How long do you obscurantists figure you can continue to get away with such tactics, tactics that are against policy? 67.182.157.6
- Excuse me? What is my side? You were aware of the three revert rule and chose to keep revert warring. I waited until there were five or six reverts, so this was well within policy. Carbonite | Talk 23:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't stutter, I said "your side." You are siding with the tyrannous majority in this case (which is against policy), aren't you? --67.182.157.6 18:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
- Due to multiple evasions of the block (the latest being [5]), the block has been reset. Carbonite | Talk 18:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
So you refuse to discuss the issue, you will just join the crowd and continue to stick to this kind of ad hominem personal attack/poisioning the well, which is against the Wikipedia policy, comment on the issue, not the character of your opponent?
[edit] Majority Concept
Truth is absolute. I agree. However, in human society, there has to be some way of making decisions. The usual ways to make decisions are either by majority rule, or by some sort of corrupted form of majority rule, or by having a king. If you do not agree that Wikipedia can use majority rule for some issues (not all), then please explain who appointed you as king.
Wikipedia does have a king. He is a constitutional monarch, and he is usually in favor of majority or super-majority rule, rather than of arbitrary claims to Truth.
Are you the king? If not, then you need to accept the king's parliament. Robert McClenon 01:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reply to McClingon, point by point
- Truth is absolute. I agree.
Did I ever say, "Truth is absolute," or are you just making up quotes like this as you go along now, putting words in my mouth to suit your own agenda?
[Please remember that I don't even agree with the point of view that truth is a property of statements, something (some thing) that one might have a theory about, much less something (some thing) that might be said to be 'absolute' (whatever that might mean in such a case). We are just discussing statements about the actual state of affairs in any particular case. Attaching the phrase, 'is true' to such a statement, P, does not in any way add anything to statement P, nor does it in any way serve to increase my confidence in statement P, it is simply redundant.]
- Are you the king?
This kind of nasty ad hominem/poisoning the well type wisecrack implying that I might think I run things here does not even deserve a reply. I suggest that you read wikipeddia:no personal attacks, then follow policy: limit comment to content, not wisecracks about the contributors.
Let me just say the following about the Wikipedia policy on what is the FIRST STEP in resolving CONTENT disputes here in Wikipedia:
It appears that those on your side might have the wrong idea about the Wikipedia policy on what is the FIRST STEP in resolving content disputes here in Wikipedia. It is not "Whichever side can muster the most people gets to control the content of an article, and gets to bully the minority until they give up in disgust and leave" (tyranny of the majority), it is consensus decision-making through principled negotiation in which "BOTH POINTS OF VIEW NEED TO BE INCLUDED to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (emphasis added):
Principled negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
In consensus decision-making we find, "True consensus involves meeting everyone’s needs (which in the case of Wikipedia means appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article). Consensus decision-making is intended to deemphasize the role of factions or parties and promote the expression of individual voices."
See the diference between that and the point of view of those on your side, that tyranny of the majority is okay, that those of the majority point of view should control the content of an article through force of numbers? (See the recent history of truth and talk:truth for example.) --67.182.157.6 20:57, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- Your defence against supposed ad hominem arguments itself contains ad hominem attacks on others. What does that tell you, .6? Notice also this bit from Ad hominem: Ad hominem is fallacious when applied to deduction, and not the evidence (or premise) of an argument. Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy. Because of your behaviour, you lack credibility. You have failed to convince even one other person that your perspective on truth is even valid. Not one person has defended you in the RfC or the RfA. Will any of the edits you have made on the Wiki be here a week after your departure?
- If you want to make a difference to the Wiki, try giving the reasons for your desired changes on the talk page, instead of simply reverting and expecting us to accept your edits. Argue your case. Follow the requests I put forward at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix#Restitution and I will happily consider your edits. Banno 22:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removing attacks
Ad hominem comments by Sasquatch deleted. Admins should know that the policy is comment on content, not the contributors.
I recommend that you try to learn how to stick to discussion of the issues. Argument ad hominem is just another form of the logical fallacy of trying to create a diversion away from the issues genuinely under discussion. See informal logic.
Now, to be fair, how about announcing in talk:truth that I can't be involved in discussion today because those on your side have blocked me again?
- The community already did comment on the content and it went against you, when you decided to enforce your view against consensus anyways, that forced us to take action against you as you went against the policy. And also please point out which of my comments were person attacks. I asked you to cool it (which I think any other here will deem reasonable). Again, don't use sockpuppet IPs and do not try to evade this 3RR block any further. Also, only remove comments that are CLEAR personal attacks. I'm going to be nice and not revert what you did on this talk page but you have been warned. Sasquatch讲看 03:18, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
- Also, I suggest you read the examples section under no personal attacks and you will see none of your removals remotely fall under those comments. Also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI who has had ArbCom action taken against him for refactoring what him, and only him, saw as personal attacks. If you think anything was a personal attack I suggest you ask someone else to judge it and then let them remove it. Again, this behaviour is not tolerated on Wikipedia and I suggest you cease and decist. Sasquatch讲看 03:26, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Fastest revert
Here's a new Wiki game, folks. See who can revert .6 in the shortest time. i just did one after 7 minutes [6]] - can you beat that? [[User:Banno|Banno] 21:45, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ad hominem
- "Vandal" is just argument _ad hominem_ ....
The point you are trying to make might be slightly more convincing if you had not called me a moron in your edit summary. Perhaps the term ad hominem doesn't mean what you think it does.
- This is just another content dispute, like many others....
And like many others, the dispute is between a very marginalized, extreme viewpoint lashing out at an accepted, mainstream viewpoint. Please read our WP:NPOV policy, and I mean really read it from top to bottom. In particular, this part:
- Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties....
Func( t, c, e, ) 01:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"Vandal" is just argument _ad hominem_ on these obscurantists' part, moron. I assure you I am not a vandal. This is just another content dispute, like many others, and this organized group of obscurantists are set on controlling the content of several related pages, true and truth andknowledge and epistemology included, by force of numbers. When challenged, they mounted their argument _ad hominem_ personal attack instead of honestly dealing with the issues. You seem like you might have the potential to become a useful bright young man. Don't make the mistake of falling for the sophistry of the obscurantists.--67.182.157.6 00:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] WP:3RR
You only get 3 reverts per 24 hour period. Please stop reverting Epistemology. Uncle Ed 23:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
- 23:22, August 16, 2005 BaronLarf blocked "User:67.182.157.6" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR on Epistemology; continuing bad behavior. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DotSix)
To be fair, one side must get just as many reverts as the other side, otherwise we are stuck with tyranny of the majority, which does not comport with Wikipedia policy, consensus dispute-resolution, in which individual voices are encouraged, control by force of numbers is discouraged, and the needs of all parties are insured. Revert battles would become a thing of the past, because a tyrannous majority would no longer be able to gang up on the minority and control content by force of numbers. Principled negotiation would become the standing rule, instead of the de facto rule by force of numbers we have now. (You do the math.)
-
- Ah, but we're not trying to be fair about our processes. ... Uncle Ed 18:03, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
Says you and your obscurantist cabal who want to get away with your unfair process of controlling Wikipedia content through sheer force of numbers. But Wikipedia says something quite different about the correct process. See the chart outlining the process of dispute resolution to the right? Note step one? It calls for, NOT control of content by force of numbers, but by a cooperative process of principled negotiation:
Principled Negotiation is a cooperative process whereby participants try to find a solution which meets the legitimate interests of both parties, which in the context of Wikipedia usually involves appropriate mention of all points of view in an article thus improving the quality of the article. Compromising or "splitting the difference" is generally inappropriate if it means departure from generally recognized points of view, both of which need to be included to achieve Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
Get it now, Knuckle 'Ed? 8^)--67.182.157.6 18:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Donald R. Alford aka DotSix aka The Donald claims to be 67.182.157.6. He is an impostor, obviously.
There is a new user here using the handle, 'Donald R. Alford' and posing as 67.182.157.6. He is an impostor, obviously. It is a dispicable act, and if you obscurantists had any balls at all you would be working to see that the impostor is permanently banned, rather than wasting everybody's time with this elaborate ad hominem personal attack/poisoning the well process of yours, right?--67.182.157.6 18:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Hey, Route Sixty-Six
Hey, Route Sixty-Sick, the sun is KNOWN to exist, old boy, because there is proof, where proof is the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance, or the process of establishing the validity of a statement by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning. Why would you think belief (synonym faith) is a factor?--67.182.157.6 19:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Block
I have blocked you for violation of the ArbCom injunction as well as continuing to edit in the same POV fasion against consensus. Sasquatcht|c 00:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] History on the web
This individual has history in the alt.atheism google group of absolutely unceasing repetition of the same discredited ideas over and over, and of ignoring any and all attempts at influencing such antisocial behavior. This has been going on since 1999 under hundreds of different aliases. It is an historical certainty that the only solution for Wikipedia is going to be a permanent ban on editing any page from any IP address. Unfortunately, it seems this may take a one-person full-time effort (or equivalent), for the rest of the life of this individual (evidently one Donald Alford, age 65). --4.157.92.149 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I have honored you
By revising the agnosticism back to your last edit. May God save the Queen.
 | This is the discussion page for an anonymous user, identified by the user's numerical IP address. Some IP addresses change periodically, and may be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. [WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • Traceroute • Geolocate • Tor check • Rangeblock finder] · [RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean] |
