Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/DotSix

italicized instructions on RFC page

 * DotSix, you should note the italicized instructions on RFC page. A transgression against these instructions is treated as direct evidence for the proceedings. Ancheta Wis 11:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What italicized instructions on RFC page are you talking about? Please explain.

Copy of allegation on project page
I am including the following information from the RFC page in case it is better form to have this information on the discussion page. 11:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * , calls himself "DotSix". Also editing from:
 * note the similarity of annotation to 172.195.53.33: no personal note except a simple IP address, clearly a platform from which to launch messages. Also, note his 7/23/05 annotation "...in accord with the actual state of affairs" is terminology used by 67.182.157.6 and no other party to the dispute. See this diff| Also, 23:33 22 July 2005 diff shows 207.200.116.133's usage of "...you boys..." terminology in concordance with DotSix's usage, "...you boys..." appearing 15:33 16 July 2005 |
 * talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133
 * talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133
 * talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133
 * talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133
 * talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133
 * talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133
 * talk page announces a battle: "You may fire when ready, Gridley." note the similarity of annotation to 207.200.116.133

Archiving material as a rhetorical tool

 * 1) Material directly relevant to the discussion of redundancy was removed to an archive the day after it was posted, thereby ending an attempt to reach a reasonable compromise. The discussion concerned the philosopher Frank Ramsey whose redundancy theory was the reason cited for .6's NPOV complaint; .6 did not enter into the discussion of Ramsey's work, instead archiving the discussion, prematurely ending it.
 * Banno 20:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Banno does not report the actual state of affairs. The accused never mentioned the name, "Ramsey" at all. Repeat, the accused never mentioned Ramsey. If anyone disagrees, please post a link to the page where he did here:


 * The logic of this response escapes me. Yes, .6 did not mention Ramsey; indeed, this was despite being asked several times to do so. Ramsey is the originator and main advocate of the redundancy theory of truth that .6 used as the basis for his POV dispute. So, in order to solve the dispute in good faith, discussion of Ramsey would be essential. Instead, .6 failed to address the issue and hid the discussion by archiving it. My point was precisely that .6 avoided discussion of Ramsey by archiving relevant material. Banno 11:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would we need Ramsey or anybody else to tell us that your statement, "'3 is less than 4' is true" is redundant?


 * Three IS less than four. Period. That is the definition of the term, 'three': "One less than four." Truth has nothing to do with it.


 * The term, 'truth' refers to a statement that is in accord with the actual state of affairs. "'Snow is white' is true" suffers from redundancy; suffice it to say simply, "Snow is white" since that statement is in accord with the actual state of affairs. --172.193.154.102

Removal of VfD
From Deletion policy, When you list a page on Votes for deletion, it is courteous to let people know it might be deleted. The suggested way is to place (not  ) above the page's content, The emphasis is in the original. Banno 20:41, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Vandalism
The article on Vandalism is being blanked from various anonymous IP addresses, one of which is a Dot-Six address. I have listed them on the Vandalism in progress board, as well as included them as evidence in the RfC. Robert McClenon 12:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Any proof the accused was involved?
 * If Dot-Six is not the vandal, then I would advise Dot-Six to create a user account to log in so that they will not be blocked by an admin against the vandal.   Robert McClenon 22:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Another Update
I also added the diffs from Dot-Six's 3RR war over a VfD tag as evidence. Robert McClenon 12:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Aren't you deliberately lying? Wasn't it made clear that the VfD tag just being moved to the talk page where it belongs, per policy, not deleted as you allege?


 * If the allegation is false, the diffs will show that. --63.231.15.66 21:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, isn't the three revert limit inherently unfair, in that the obscurantists, being so well-organized, can easily muster enough soldiers to always outnumber their oponents, and always get their way on how any page is worded? Isn't this just another form of tyranny of the majority? Look at the articles truth knowledge and epistemology, for example, where the obscurantists are currently having their way, conflating knowledge with belief, a form of the fallacy of equivocation.
 * Wrong again. The doctrine that knowledge is justfied true belief does not equate knowledge with belief. If it did, it would still not be a fallacy because doctrines cannot commit fallacies, only arguments can. If it were an argument and it were a fallacy, it would not be a fallacy of equivocation. The latter involves giving the SAME WORD two different meanings in two places in the argument. Whether or not two things are equated has nothing to do with the fallacy of equivocation.

Deleting Allegation of Blanking Vandalism Page
I deleted the following because I see no evidence that it is DotSix's work. Whoever blanked the page is a jerk, but there are a lot of those on Wikipedia. I don't believe either of the IPs has ever been associated with DotSix in the past.


 * Other addresses:




 * Blanking article on vandalism (from two addresses, one a previous Dot-Six address) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=20254179&oldid=20157266  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVandalism&diff=20157203&oldid=20154687

The first address, 67.182.26.29, has been associated with DotSix. If you will check the talk page for the IP address, you will see that I posted a statement on it. However, we do not know that it is DotSix. Maybe DotSix should create a user account rather than using pages that are also used by stupid vandals. Robert McClenon 01:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say it "has been associated with DotSix". It looks to me like you are the only person who has thought it was DotSix. That IP only has 3 edits and although they are all vandalism and one is racist, it doesn't look like DotSix's work. --Nate Ladd 01:55, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I thought it was a Dot-Six address. If no one else agrees with me, I may have made a very minor mistake. There are more than enough proven Dot-Six addresses. Robert McClenon 21:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Deleted Charge of Removing VfD
I deleted the following material because at the time .6 was doing this, there were conflicting policy statements on where the VfD tag should be placed. A little over a year ago someone (mistakenly) used VfD as an example of a tag that goes on discussion pages, not the article page. This conflicts with Wiki's page deletion policy and it has been corrected. (DotSix, predictably, is reverting the correction.) But since the policy statements were conflicting, I don't think we can "charge" DotSix with moving the tag improperly.


 * Revert war deleting VfD tag, leading to 3RR violation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20022173&oldid=20004945  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20054034&oldid=20023378  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20118246&oldid=20062634  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20135259&oldid=20129094  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATyranny_of_the_majority&diff=20138465&oldid=20135951

I respectfully disagree, but will allow the deletion to stand. I think that the effort to move the VfD tag was not vandalsim, but the fact that it was moved five times is a 3RR war.

There are enough charges against DotSix that do not have any technical defenses so that I agree this one can be deleted. Robert McClenon 01:50, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

arbitration commenced
I have commenced arbitration proceedings against DotSix - see Requests for arbitration Banno 09:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)