Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wiarthurhu

Response to Abcdefghijklm

I should note that I laid aside all user conduct issues (outside of ANI posts and Wikiquette alerts), and specifically did not pursue action or attempt to use them as leverage in mediation for the duration of mediation in an attempt to resolve this as strictly a content dispute and de-escalate the conflict from a user conflict to a content dispute. However, the user in question has demonstrated a lack of interest in the content dispute in favor of personal attacks (as evidenced by his rewriting of the RfM), and in the last days of the mediation ceased participation in favor of continuing to edit and insert the content in dispute.

I am currently engaged in discussion with the user on his talk page over a distinct (but related) content dispute that has not yet made its way to the article space and which I hope through discussion to keep from escalating into an edit war. However, that leaves unresolved the current content dispute, which is ongoing for 3 weeks, is currently spread over at least 5 distinct articles, and for which mediation has stalled.

Furthermore, as can been seen on his talk page, he has been counseled on all rules and policies in question and continues to break them after such counseling. There was a previous (and ongoing) dispute with the user with respect to a different content matter, and it can be seen in past deleted comments [1] that he has previously been counselsed about sources as well. I will not bring in that matter except to note that he has been counseled with respect to that matter both on sources and personal attacks, both prior to June 30. This conflict largely started around that point and has continued for the last 2 weeks. His statement "A source is a source, Not being reliable is only a problem if it's wrong" was in response to advice that forum posts did not constitute reliable sources. These are not isolated incidents that can be rectified with a friendly word - many such words have been said, including on his talk page, to little effect.

--Mmx1 20:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to Wiarthurhu

I will let the refactored MedCabal case stand as evidence to the ability of either editor to back up their assertions in a mediated setting, and the use of sources by both parties. --Mmx1 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Second Response

Won't attempt to fisk it for readability issues; besides, I think his comments speak for themselves. I'd like to point out that despite the issue of source reliability being pointed out to him again and again, he is still unconcerned with WHY forum and usenet posts are not considered reliable, but instead with whether or not there's a rule against their use. For reference, there is such a guidelineWikipedia:Reliable Sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet and it explains clearly why those are not reliable sources.

Secondly, the assertion that the F-15 was the first "air superiority fighter" was the original language of the article before even I touched it, as you can see in the history [2] - click on any edition prior to my edits.

Furthermore, is it self-inflated to evaluate the reliability of sources? Am I saying I'm smarter or a better businessman than Bill Gates if I refuse to take his statements at face value? Wiarthurhu does: "I accept facts as face value," except, what he calls "facts" are assertions. Wiarthurhu believes, apparently, that superior credentials should be accepted without question, which is perhaps why he places such importance on them.

And lastly, (I should have mentioned this in the RfC), he is incapable of nuance. To him, either an aircraft is designed to be the most maneuverable in the sky or it isn't. The possibility (and reality) that there is a spectrum of tradeoffs between the two extremes is incomprehensible to him, as his statements indicate. The argument has basically been:

1. . F-14 was designed to be most maneuverable fighter in the sky.
2. . F-14 was designed as an "air superiority fighter" which implies unmatched maneuverability (established in mediation that the correlation does not exist).

My attempts to rebut these superlative statements have been interpreted as assertions of "F-14 was designed to be not maneuverable" rather than "F-14 was not the most maneuverable fighter" --Mmx1 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And the two assertions were equally dispelled OR not proven - it was shown that as of 1969, the F-14 was one of the better aircraft in the US Navy arsenal but not necessarily the most maneuverable fighter in the sky, it was designed for what at that time was the Navy's air superiority mission, but air superiority and maneuverability are not mutual traits in an aircraft depending on the mission profile. So on and so forth, anything beyond that, you can really go read the case. :-) CQJ 04:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Response to JChap

Several corrections:

1. I have never given the crendential comparison any credence by reciprocating in a similar listing of my resume, or claiming that I deserve more credence on the basis of my credentials, so please do not insinuate that I participated in any dick-measuring contest. I have pointed out that the requested information is easily available on wiki (it's a userbox on my user page!) so the speculation about my lack of education is not in good faith, and furthermore dug a few well-deserved barbs at the more bizarre of the "credentials" that should rightly raise eyebrows. I have consistently been open to the discussion and comparison of sources and have made my arguments based on a comparison of sources.
2. I was defending the validity of content that I wrote 4 months ago on the basis of comprehensive research (I undertook a major rewrite); unfortunately I didn't fully footnote everything (this is before I discovered the cite template) and had to reconstitute the research as I had to go back to the library and get them. Even with footnotes, it's a bit obtrusive to source every sentence or even every paragraph, so I can hardly be blamed for not knowing offhand which source I used 4 months ago. The resulting fight was a result of me making the mistake of trying to refute everything Wiarthurhu had to say on the basis of a few glaringly wrong statements, particularly his additions, not my attempt to source any of my own new additions to the article.
3. Furthermore, I will freely admit that my opinions are shaped by hearsay from Naval Aviators and defense analysts[3]. While not citable, it does not consitute original research as these are very credible primary sources, and furthermore I have stated explicitly that I do not add such information unless backed up by a published source. I do, however, use such primary sources as a guideline to sort between contradicting sources.

Contemporary military technology is a difficult topic to reconcile with sources as industry, amateur, and most open literature regularly contradicts itself in listing aircraft as "unprecendented", "unchallenged", and other superlatives. If you'd read them all without skepticism, you'd come away believing every aircraft was the best, and unparalleled in every department. Wikipedia, unfortunately, is often subject to the same bias. Not all modern aircraft can be head and shoulders above everybody else - that is clearly self-contradictory. The truth is much more nuanced than that, and sorting out these contradictions requires a careful evaluation of sources.

Reliable sources are usually classified or more simply not disseminated, though they often later see public light. Though officers and defense analysts alike will have open discussions on unclassified characteristics, that doesn't mean the Navy's about to put out a report saying (X is better than Y for reasons A,B,C). They have no professional reason to tell the world how they rank their own systems, except when it comes time to justify funding to civilian oversight. This is usually the source of most reliable publications (E.g. the Australian report on alternative purchases to the JSF), and also one of the reasons why there's a preponderance of data on western systems - the Soviets didn't need to justify their military spending to as general an audience.

What this means is that this is not about simply citing sources; as I can probably find a (not necessarily reliable) source that will say the opposite. Something good about an American device? I'll go pull up a russian paper that says it sucks and the Russians are light years ahead. Something good about an Israeli device? I can pull up a Boeing press release that says they've got a product light-years better. This is evident on the talk page as the sources contradict themselves on the topics under dispute. This preponderance of poor information is a result of poor and largely speculative sources going largely unchallenged by reliable sources, which usually do not publish the matter publicly.

Unfortunately, this means that any advocate of their favorite aircraft can wave a company flier that touts its "unparalleled capabilities" as a source that it is the best, and refuse to engage in a careful analysis against contradicting sources.

I have made the mistake of getting carried away in trying to refute everything Wiarthurhu says. But I have demonstrated a careful analysis of the sources - in many cases I have demonstrated that sources say the opposite of Wiarthurhu's reading of the google search result. That's what alarmed me about Wiarthurhu; he was in many cases directly posting google results (i.e. the synopsis that google returns), without actually reading his sources. In some egregious cases, google-inserted ellipses created quite badly out of context quotes where "F-14" and "maneuverability" were in wholly different paragraphs. This is what initially threw up the warning flags to me - his unskeptical treatment of sources and poor research technique.

--Mmx1 01:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response to my Outside View and for all the hard work you obviously have put into these articles.

1. & 3. I'm sorry you didn't like the term "dick-measuring contest." It was a (perhaps ill-conceived) attempt at levity. But I note that you are still discussing credentials when you talk about the conversations you have with Navy aviators. That would be like me basing a statement on my experience practicing law, rather than on a case or a book. If something isn't citable, it isn't a useful source, as it is not subject to verification by a third party. WP:RS and WP:V work in tandem. You are in the position of many an expert who has spent his life reading about a topic and can certainly write a simple encyclopedia article on it, but is challenged by those who are less knowledgeable than himself because they don't understand the choices he has made. It can obviously be frustrating and I don't know that there is a good solution to the problem other than patience and close citation.
2. Which once again proves my theory, "Germans love David Hasselhoff." Er, "Always cite your sources on Wikipedia." Yeah, that's the theory. I believe you when you say you did the research and just didn't cite, but the problem is that someone going over the article and its history does not know that. Citing your sources gives you the high ground because someone wishing to change the article then has to prove that the source is wrong.

One final thought: it is good to be skeptical of your sources and I'm glad that you are so. JChap (talk • contribs) 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair comments. --Mmx1 21:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthuhu's comments on ApolloBoy

Note that I have found the behavior of Apolloboy to be simiarly distressing even before I ran into Mmx1, both are characterized by going around reverting or erasing perfectly good edits, and even cited edits, making it quite impossible to remove egregious errors, in the case of Autos, that the Dodge Spirit did not replace the nearly identical Dodge Aries, or that the Chevrolet Cavalier which was GM's first wildly successful small did not replace the Chevette, which had replaced the Vega, but the miniscule selling specialy Monza. I presented several citations, which ApolloBoy, similar to Mmx1 only reversed the thesis, rather than presenting contradicting or directly supporting citations. The original positions, as was the case with MMx1 were in fact, unverifiable POV, constructed from non-supporting articles. He even removed a reference to a Christian song, saying it wasn't even in WP, when it was merely mispelled. ApolloBoy habitually removes any reference to a movie or toy that hasn't been in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. ) He regularly engages in edit wars rather than letting people make their edits. --matador300 22:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

My response to Wiarthurhu's comment about me, and about my conflict

Since I do not wish to irate Wiarthuhu any further, and in order to maintain my civility, I will let his comments about me speak for themselves. Anyway, I've been advised by Mmx1 to expand on my issues, so I will. The whole thing between me and him began when Wiarthurhu began adding in original research and POV to the AMC Matador and Eagle Premier articles. When he confronted me about it [4], he claimed I was removing legit information when I explained to him that what he was doing was original research. I eventually brought up the issue to the people at WikiProject Automobiles, where they concured with me [5]. When asked to provide sources, he brought up four sources, one of which was examined and was found that it didn't say anything what Wiarthurhu was claiming. During this dispute, he used his two IP addresses (User:71.112.5.20 and User:131.107.0.81) to attack me and add in his claims, the former of which he used to call me a "menace" and a "nuisance" [6]. We have also been recently involved in disputes concerning the Chevrolet Cavalier [7] and Dodge Spirit [8] articles, in which the sources for his claims were examined and found to be very flimsy. Conduct-wise, he has harassed me on my talk page, after I mistook someone's edits for vandalism when he removed redundant categories [9]. Wiarthuhu has also labeled me as a "bad guy" [10] for taking User:93JC's stance on removing unnotable information concerning AMC toy cars. He has also repeatedly challenged my knowledge due to my age (he has done this to me too many times to count), and he says I am a "jerk" and that I "intimidate other editors and make life miserable for them" [11]. --ApolloBoy 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside view of Scheinwerfermann

Wiarthurhu seems to have extreme and violent difficulty accepting evidence that his position is not correct, repeatedly digging up sources of questionable or zero veracity and using them to justify repeated insertion of his guesses, opinions and preferences -- even when an authoritative source has been cited refuting Wiarthurhu's assertion. It appears less important for Wiarthurhu to strive for accuracy than it is for his text be contained in articles, and that does not seem compliant (or, indeed, compatible) with Wikipedia's intent. The lengths he will go to in an effort to have his text included are fairly spectacular, e.g. impugning all Wikipedia editors except himself, and all citations except his own, and positing imaginative scenarios to buttress his assertions with no apparent basis in fact, e.g.: I see, on the basis of my previous experience with shoddy Wikipedia research standards, that there is a way that none of these documents contradict another. As 50 years explains, the program was started to replace the K-cars. Then planners decided to NOT replace the Reliant, at least not right off the bat. Thus the statement to dealers that it will replace the car just departed, not the K-car[...] (from talk:Plymouth Acclaim).

He typically responds to civil, factually based discussion with vitriol, attacks and repeated reversion to his pet version of an article. See, for example, talk:Plymouth Acclaim and talk:Dodge Spirit. He has posted a manifesto (or screed) on user:Wiarthurhu in which he implies that his possession of a degree from MIT imbues his viewpoints with veracity. More troubling than that nonsequitur is the overall tone of the manifesto, which looks disturbingly like an assertion that Wiarthurhu is right, and the rest of the world is wrong. More alarming yet is the ease with which he engages in personal attacks and provocation on his own User talk:Wiarthurhu talk page as well as others' talk pages and in edit summaries (Amongst copious examples, see "Go ahead. Make my day."", Plymouth Acclaim, 23:17, 2006 July 28). This is not appropriate, civilised or helpful behaviour.

Furthermore, he regularly quotes his flawed understanding of Wiki rules and definitions as justification for his edits, but does not hold himself to the editing standards he sets for others. He seems not to understand the difference between original research and sources-based research, for he frequently accuses of the former those who have clearly done the latter. In addition, he apparently does not wish to acknowledge that the struggle towards accuracy in an encyclopædia article is not a popularity contest or counting game to see who can come up with the greatest number of citations supporting his particular pet viewpoint. The notion of source quality vs. source quantity appears lost on him, and the effective result is that with his repeated reversions and rants he makes undue work for other editors who are striving for the greatest possible article accuracy with the highest-quality sources. It does not appear he is ignorant of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, rules and goals. Rather, it seems he chooses to disregard them and/or twist them to suit his expedient desires. Scheinwerfermann 14:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: abuse, threats

Wiarthurhu's difficulty behaving coöperatively seems to be worsening. In talk:Plymouth Acclaim, he has written the following:

empowered by truth, justice, and God, I hereby declare this issue changed on the basis of new information and new blood. Things are going to change around here. People are going to get some manners, they're going to be shown how to do real research like going to the library or buying books or watching videos, and how to do non-faulty logic [...] You will be nice, or else.

Furthermore, he continues to assert that his edits are of greater value and/or veracity than those of what he calls "amateur" editors. Here on Wikipedia, there is no such distinction (Maybe there should given the quality of some of the stuff that shows up here) as he seems to perceive. His edits, in short, are of no greater or lesser value on here than are those of any other editor.

Wiarthurhu would do well to look carefully at his behaviour in general on Wikipedia.It seems his almost every edit sparks a controversy which he evidently takes delight in escalating. That is really not helpful to the goal of Wikipedia, which is not to aggrandize oneself or foment baseless squabbles, but to strive for articles of the greatest possible veracity, accuracy and precision. Scheinwerfermann 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Wiarthurhu's vandalism in this RfC

Wiarthurhu interspersed a great many parenthetical comments with my text above, making my text impossible to read. This is such a basic violation of proper procedure on a talk page, in which quoted text must needs remain intact and new text should be added below, not above the quoted text, that bad faith must be considered as a possible motive. I have extricated Wiarthurhu's parenthetical remarks from my text, and placed below in sequential order. If Wiarthurhu wishes to organise them into a new block of text, no problem, but it's important not to "drown out" what others have to say on a talk page, please. Thank you. Scheinwerfermann 01:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(Mr. S did reversion to HIS pet incorrect / incomplete version of the article) (And you went to what school?) (What if I am? I was right, and chose to fight Mmx1 rather than back down and leave the F-14 in the sorry state that it was) (According to Mr. S, allpar, partstrain, Consumer guide, Standard Chrysler Catalog, and fifty years, and the entire non-Wikipedia space is wrong) (egovandalism?) (removed incorrect, but cited information?) (Standing up to bullies is rarely appropriate civilized behavior) (Not deleting sourced edits is flawed? Replacing unsourced edits is flawed? Using automotive reference books is flawed? Complaining about the use of the word "vandalism" for a good faith edit is flawed? Including all sources, including the internal chrysler document that nobody can verify is flawed? Standing up to Mmx1, who admitted he was wrong on the two major counts, is flawed??) (I'm still looking for the original source, the 2nd source is nice, but still does not prove the original reverts were sourced) (Yeah, I cite original sources, and the original position had no cited sources for any previous reverts) (I'm the first freaking guy to put ANY references in the article for chrissake!) (which is why I don't mind going againt the crowd) (A reasonable person wouldn't require this many, an unreasonable person would reject 5, count them 5 valid citations) (A marketing piece that explains why they can't replace the Aries just right now does not explain the corporate / engineering motive for creating a car) (Of Mr S or Mr W?) (or just kicking down other editors with less energy) (See reliable sources, it says a reference books is as good as it gets. Interpretation of a marketing memo by an amateur is original research. Citing what a book says is sourced based research. Declaring a book to be faulty is not. Mr. S clearly does not have an understanding of this) (Yeah, no calling edits vandalism, don't delete sourced edits, don't dismiss reference books as unreliable etc.) (See above) (Well, it seems pretty clear to me who is twising the rules, and conforming to the list of despicable Wikipedia tactics already listed on my user page) (References to websites are routinely dismissed "amateur") (except when they're right) (As well as the current people. It's apalling. It's like walking into a bar room brawl for pete's sake) (it shouldn't) (Mr. S. is only to quick and enthusiastic to pounce, interestingly) (or jump all over other editors) (why not compromise on the edit that I have that incorporates both the narrow view of Mr S. and every other non-WP source out there) (--matador300 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

Wiarthurhu has also edited other users comments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles - to the point where it's quite hard to restore them to their original state and figure out who said what. This is quite unacceptable. SteveBaker 22:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Coöperative behaviour from Wiarthurhu

See talk:Plymouth Acclaim#Compromise. Wiarthurhu has made what appears to be a genuine effort at adopting an appropriately coöperative attitude towards this particular debate. That's definitely much better and more productive. Let us all hope to see more of this grownup behaviour and less of the bombastic vitriol that seems to repeatedly run him into conflicts with other Wikipedians (and Chrysler dealer employees, as it seems...?) Scheinwerfermann 01:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiarthurhu's response to Scheinwerfermann

Yet another problematic editor complaining about a fellow who is not afraid to stand up against bullies. This fellow, like Mmx1 has no problem dismissing all supporting citations, including two 10 lb automotive reference books, and a website by the same organization. Like Mmx1, he uses incomplete information to construct "The Spirit/Acclaim was not designed to replace the Aries/Reliant". His citation was placed on the talk page, not in a reference, and not produced until after he had started policing this position as an unsourced position. Furthermore, it is an internal corporate document not accesible to any researcher. It does not even contradict the position which has been forbidden by Scheinwerfermann, as one book explains, the Spirit could not replace the K because K sales were allowed to continue, so it can both be true that the Spirit was meant to replace the K, but it instead replaced the 600, which had already departed. Mr. S. simply continually deleted SOURCED EDITS because in his judgement, as an amateur, he is a more reliable source than the professional editors of two automotive reference books, and outweighs the judgement of at least 3 editors who have attempted to reverse this questionable position. Mr. S. also leaves comments "revert egovandalim" which constitutes uncivil behavior because according to WP rules, edits made in good faith are never vandalism, and there are alternatives to simply deleting information, which if made in bad faith (and evidence appears to be Mr S. is a man of much bad faith), is vandalism. WP permits immediate removal of unsourced edits. I have not seen the part about immediately removing 5 sourced edits including two reference books and 3 highly regarded websites. The appropriate action would be to call into question the validity of using automotive references, or providing a contracting source, which he chose to not do, preferring to immediately revert with an insulting comment. He prematurely removed information supporting the new edits, and was called on this by other editors. In general, the actions of most of the people supporting Mmx1 is suspect, and their siding with Mmx1 in itself should be instructive of the motives and behavior of those signing. A similar thing happened to me at Kirkland Chrysler Jeep, a petition was circulated complaining about my behavior. When management got wind of it, all of the people involved got a very stern talk about doing such a thing. I am apalled that such conduct is not only tolerated, but condoned on Wikipedia. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

matador300 23:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Gang Activity on Wikipedia

What do you call it in the real world when 7 or 8 people work together to hinder one person? (just look at all the people responding to this rfc) The other guy in the F-14 mediation admitted he was completely wrong on most points. Isn't that not jus t one bully, isn't that called a gang? Not that I would accuse any of the people I've interacted with here of doing that, oh no, that's not allowed. Now I'm getting beaten up and blocked by so many people and 14 and 16 yr old kids, half of whom openly swear and launch personal attacks in violation of WP policy, I can't keep count. Keep it up guys, I'll have a real story to talk about when I write this up and offer it to real newspapers and magazines. It just gets more interesting each day. I assume it can and will get much worse than this. Everything you do is recorded right here for the whole world to see, remember that. --matador300 22:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Matador300

There is a new user called User:Matador300. Wiarthurhu may have created himself a sockpuppet. That may be just what we need to get him blocked again.

Indefinite block

It looks like someone has slapped an indefinite block on both Wiarthurhu and his Matador300 sockpuppet - I'm not sure what triggered it - but it's definitely justified. Hopefully it's all over and we can get back to writing an encyclopedia. SteveBaker 18:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We can consider this case closed, as Wiarthurhu is gone from Wikipedia. Karrmann 19:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)