Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/InternetHero

Comment on interaction with InternetHero
I've never before been involved in a process like this, so I hope I do it right and in the right place. I gather from the project page that comments there should have to do only with the al-Haytham/telescope questions, and I've not been involved in exactly that situation.

My involvement with InternetHero has been at the article Sense of time and the following sections of that article's talk page: Reference instead and Two threads moved here, where they belong for context, from Hordaland's user talk page.

The "slow edit war", as I'd call it, involved (mostly) the grammar, syntax and content in InternetHero's "sentence":


 * "Those lack of proper estimations are generally attributed to the idea that the more neurotransmitters active in our brain, determines the ratio to which our conscious and sub-conscious selves can perceive perception in relation to time."

I made little headway in my efforts to improve the grammar and received unacceptable (to me) explanations about what this sentence is supposed to mean or whether the source supports it in any way. Another editor came in and, after some discussion, managed to get the grammar cleaned up. Knowing that editor to be concerned about good grammar and interested in medical articles, I had asked him/her to take a look.

This explanation of the reasoning behind InternetHero's wording in the "sentence" quoted above was particularly mystifying: "This page was pretty laid back so I suggested an easily readable version of the article."

I was also accused of copyvio, but after an explanation of what is not copyvio, InternetHero gave up that discussion.

I believe my first work on the article, including the first time I removed the offending sentence, was here on the 14th of July.

The difficulty in communicating with InternetHero has been primarily getting long, repetitive answers which do not answer the questions posed. I was feeling that a sort of "playing dumb" was intended to make me give up and go away. That feeling was enhanced when InternetHero wrote on my talk page: "Hello (discussion over?) Hello. I take it by this edit that you agree with discussion? If I don't hear anything, I will revert to my version once the weekend is over. Happy drinking. InternetHero (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)"

InternetHero did once accuse me of being disruptive, here, but quickly revised that comment her/himself.

I hope that this is an appropriate comment here, and I am, of course, willing to answer any questions. --Hordaland (talk) 14:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above comment has been revised twice by me. --Hordaland (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the problems here is that InternetHero often retracts comments when directly challenged, but then goes on to create new conflicts the very next day. When challenged about his wikiquitte, he usually brings up that he's been editing here longer, so can not the cause of the conflicts.  -- Mark Chovain 21:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is this not being polite and assuming good faith. I tried to follow that flow-chart thing and when they became rude, I contacted 2 admins (who completely agreed with me). I don't care about Mark, but to whomever this may concern: "how is this NOT being polite and resourceful"??? Anyway, thats my arguement; I'm done with this.
 * Hordaland, I thought we were getting along but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You should try as well: I proposed that we both edited the disputed content, yet you failed to mention that. For the record, you probably didn't understand my replies because I made a mistake. We know that DNA changes the synaptic plasticity: different types of Brain-derived neurotrophic factors are involved in this. I simply offered the thought that white-matter (i should of said gray matter--they don't have much here though: it is said that autistic kids who can't lie have a gray mater difficiency) neurons could have been involved or mirror neurons. Thanks anyway. InternetHero (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Copied the statement of dispute to main page - as I read it, the outside views go there as part of the case to be endorsed or dismissed, while discussion and related issues go here. I hope that that move is ok. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 1 week for incivility after continuing after final warning.

WQA
Just in case anyone wants to look at the full WQA without stepping through the edit history, here is a link to the newly archived full discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Response
Comments moved here from the "Response" section by me -- Mark Chovain 21:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

''All Comments moved here from the "Response" section by me -- InternetHero (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Who r these people. Am I the only what who has better things to do? I wasn't even talking to you. I was refering to FoBM and DigitalC. I wasn't even talking to them; I was talking to User:Chovain. If you want to talk about etiquette:
 * I made many compromises (I left out 2 of my contributions for the history of the telescope article and the optical telescope article---politely labeled here and here), and I just want to be seen as a contributer that has the right to edit freely on Wikipedia (with references of course). I think the problem also resides in them thinking I'm not assuming good faith: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (3rd para).


 * This coming from some1 who thinks that a consensus is overrided by verifiability... You're defending a person who probably has some psychological issues---trust me. I ask you: "Who spends their time helping a troubled youth on Wikipedia"? Some1 who I am going to put on alert for stalking---thats who. He keeps (1, 2, and 3)following me and this DigitalC guy is starting to as well. This will probably be dubed as "a personal attack," but you guys need to find more constructive uses of your time. I'm only 23 and I go to school (not now) and work as a janitor...
 * This whole facade is just to try and think that the way I'm doing things is wrong, but that would leave out my integrity---something they probably hate seeing that the community has spoken against them. I tell you: "Please try and find another way to vent your frustration". I won't go as far as to say you need councelling or something, but you (DigitalC) should try and find a better way to vent other than trying to degrade ppl. Absolutely no offence, but you should try this website.
 * Anyway, the sandbox-edit prepared by DigitalC is completely out of context considering much of my "personal attacks" were in the confines of them having to stalk my history logs to even find it. In addition, the other "bad things" I did was probably in respect to deleting their editing on my user-page, and to a much more laughable extent: editing non-sourced material or "material not found in the source". My reply to this is: "Why in the heck would I need to source to verify that Al-Haytham was alive during the Middle Ages". Regardless, I can see the bit about canvassing.
 * In reply to the other stuff found in the next (very large and particularly misleading/indiscriminant) sandbox-edit: "this is where I lost my patience in the Dispute Resolution process and sought help from 2 admins (who completely agreed with me)". Read at least half of it and you'll see what I'm dealing with here. I hate to spend so much time for this nonsense, but I don't want my account to be labeled as "compromised" in any way shape-or-form. Sincerely, InternetHero (talk) 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Express Refusal to Curtail Aberrant Behavior
InternetHero has demonstrated a commitment to discordant behavior -continuing to cast aspersions/abuse on users with opposing opinion, speculating on the integrity of users on article talk pages and in edit tags for articles; consistent denial, rationalizations, emotional justifications, and expressed contempt have answered pleas to curtail this behavior. The main change to the user's behavior in response to input has been to couch statements in increasing layers of equivocation and caveat. I doubt devoting more energy to the cause of behavior modification will be productive.

Is there any effective sanction option?Mavigogun (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Seicer when s/he says: "I am inclined to believe that InternetHero has no concept of what he has done wrong"..."  I really don't believe, still, that the intention is "discordant behavior" though that is, of course, the effective result.  IH understands and accepts that facts need sourcing.  He does not understand, as far as I can see, that one needs look at each article (sometimes each group of related articles) as a whole and try to avoid trivia and undue weighting.  There are many other points (lacking civility, consensus more important than verifiability, lacking will to collaborate, etc), but that one is basic: what should an encyclopedic article look like?  Many people have tried to explain in different ways, and I have seen no progress.


 * To your question, tho I have no experience in such matters, it seems that theoretically the next step should be mediation. That requires voluntary participation of all involved.  I don't see that happening, but perhaps it should be offered.  Thereafter, ArbCom is all that's left, right?


 * My question: should the points in your first paragraph be illustrated/documented with quotes and diffs, or is that not necessary? Regards, --Hordaland (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think that mediation is an appropriate step here. Mediation implies an isolated (although usually complex) problem, which if solved once, would stay solved.  The needs here look more like mentoring (that is, close supervision).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The user's behavior is well documented on the RfC.  The user has previously refused to accept a mentor, rejected mediation when the third party opinions solicited did not match his.Mavigogun (talk) 11:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that mediation is not likely to work. Just suggesting one last good faith offer of it.  Ditto for offer of mentor.
 * I'm happy to not have to find more documentation, but was willing if it seemed necessary. Glad to hear existing documentation is sufficient.
 * IH has "threatened" to quit Wikipedia altogether, but has also now a sort of fan club urging him to stay, so the situation is not likely to solve itself. --Hordaland (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Chovain brought up mentorship shortly before this was filed, but InternetHero declined. Given that the same sort of abusive behavior continues and the subject has stated a lack of interest in and respect for these proceedings, does anyone see this being resolved without a block (for edit warring or incivility or RS or whathaveye)? If he can be convinced to follow policy, great, but is this likely? - Eldereft (cont.) 17:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hordaland, you should not believe such "threats". People who make such threats almost never quit.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Given his refusal to take this seriously, and inability to understand the rules around here (what's with his comments like "Just join the consensus"; and the idea of an 8/4 split being close to consensus is laughable), make me suspect even a block will not do the trick. His behaviour is disruptive, and even a number of uninvolved editors telling him "he's doing it wrong" will not convince him. I've made many good-faith attempts at solving this problem (I'm not even involved in any disputes with IH), and I see this ending with a ban, be it through ANI or ArbCom. -- Mark Chovain 22:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that you're right about the editor not understanding the way Wikipedia works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Communications update
I thought I'd mention some recent communications involving IH:
 * I brought up the minor edit thing again, and IH replied positively. His use of the minor flag has since improved considerably.  This is a really positive step forward.
 * Inspired by the successful communication, I've re-raised the "mentor" suggestion.
 * In response to IH calling another editor "clueless" in an edit summary, I've left a final NPA warning.

No, I'm not proud of the tone I've taken on in these recent communications, but I'm losing patience, and nothing else seems to work. -- Mark Chovain 22:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that IH responded to my final NPA warning with a rude remark, implying that I'm only involved in this case because I'm physically attracted to him. He has been blocked for a week as a result, so is currently unable to comment here. -- Mark Chovain 00:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since he's blocked, we might put this RfC "on hold" for a few days (that is, that editors avoid writing new complaints for the next few days, at least if it would be easy for you to save your comments for when he's back). It can be very frustrating to users to find that they are unable to respond to criticism during that time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep - I absolutely agree. -- Mark Chovain 01:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Norse colonization... protected for 2 days
Exploding Boy has protected Norse colonization of the Americas: "A revert war seems to be brewing, with essentially no discussion, except in edit summaries. I have protected the article for two days, during which I strongly encourage those involved to attempt to discuss their issues with the content and reach a consensus regarding the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)"

in response to InternetHero's ANI. --Hordaland (talk) 09:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Closing?
has made no edits for three weeks. Shall we mark this as stale and move it off the RfC/U page? - Eldereft (cont.) 11:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Can, if need arises, always be referred to, right? If so, closing now seems appropriate.--Hordaland (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. The link would not even change, it would just be moved off the main page. I will do that tomorrow if nobody nobody objects or does it before then. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)