Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Libertas

This is a talk page and should not be deleted. I was having trouble getting it to save as a new page.

Libertas

Reply to Libertas, explanation

 * I so certify. Some of the above may be overstated, but there are substantial violations of policy too. Note that I have chatted with this user on a limited subset of the topics, and was inclined to give Libertas benefit of the doubt. I am disappointed to see that the problem is wider than I thought, and includes much more problematic behavior than I initially saw. --Improv 12:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Improv, can you please explain how you tried and failed to resolve a dispute with me. I believe you tried and succeeded to resolve our pretty minor dispute on IRC and we both walked away happy. Have I missed something? Libertas Fair and Balanced
 * I reply on the discussion page of this article. --Improv 18:38, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There's more than one issue here. Reviewing the conversation we had on 4 January 2005, ending at 03:35am EST (I log everything, but tend to keep the actual text of conversation confidential. Because you brought it up, I'll summarize here), we focused largely on the article on the Soviet Union and what belongs there. We also talked about the nature of POV and moral judgements, civility towards other editors (especially 172), and then digressed into an actual discussion of the soviet system and other parts of world politics. We then returned to discussing the particular points under dispute in the Soviet Union. Finally, we talked a bit more about 172, and I ran out of time and had to go. The reason I certify is that I feel that the actual article on the Soviet Union is, based on the other evidence here, just the beginning of a problematic pattern of behavior. I had hoped that I had convinced you to try to be more civil to 172, and that we had come to an understanding on NPOV. Looking at the further evidence here, it looks to me that not only have you not, but you've been doing problematic things elsewhere. The actual text of the Soviet Union is only part of what we talked about -- the civility and policy issues we spoke about are another important and large point, probably more important. Understand that this RfC is just that -- a request for comment. I hope we can still work together, on IRC and elsewhere, to keep things civil and fix the issues raised here. I suggest, as a first step, that you revert the extremely POV changes you made to the article on the Republican Party of the United States -- they suggest, among other things, that the Democratic Party of the United States is pro-slavery. It can be hard for the wide variety of people on Wikipedia to work together sometimes, given the diverse viewpoints we all have. NPOV isn't always easy. Civility can be tough too -- there have been points where I've had to struggle not to be rude to certain users. I think you know that you've stepped over the line in some areas. Try not to be discouraged by the RfC, but also try to be more humble. --Improv 19:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

My reasons for disbelieving "deliberate troll" and "sockpuppet".
For the record, I don't believe that Libertas is a deliberate troll (as can be seen from my comment that another quoted as evidence) or a sockpuppet. I do believe that this user is new and unique, from various remarks she has made regarding herself and the consistency of her demeanour. Libertas appears to be very familiar with Wikipedia, but I believe this is due to the inundation of explanations of, and links to, policy. Her familiarity with Wikipedia seems to have evolved in step with the offered information. (I must note that her behaviour has not evolved in step with the offered information; rather, the information has been incorporated into her "interactions" with other users.)

As for what I believe to be the source of the apparent trollish behaviour, I believe that Libertas believes that her point of view is "correct". What convinces me of this most is that she assumes that anyone taking issue with her behaviour or her edits must invariably be far-left or Marxist ( [second paragraph], ). Further, she espouses an enthusiastically USA-centric point of view, endorses (what I interpret as) the USA's manifest destiny, signs as "Libertas Fair & Balanced" with "F&B" linked to her Usertalk page, and identifies a politically-right, Cold-War-era President as her moral and political guide. These, combined with her inability to identify consensus against her as anything other than Marxist collusion, give me reason to believe that Libertas believes her POV is central, neutral, and correct, and further that this is the source of her "trollish" behaviour rather than deliberate trolling. A fine distinction perhaps, yet relevant nonetheless to the charges presented. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 22:43, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your respoonse, Sax.


 * I'm agnostic on the sockpuppet issue (other than JackStack which I think is quite likely) and did not intend to allege it as fact in the RFC, but I do think it provides important context for mine and other's reaction to Libertas's initial edits, which closely resembled those of Chuck, and then of Reithy. I do, however, take issue with your statement concerning "various remarks she has made regarding herself and the consistency of her demeanour." "Her" demeanor and statements regarding herself have been far from consistent.


 * I didn't introduce this in the RFC because I don't know of any policy it violates, but it's worth comparing Libertas's initial comments and editing patterns (e.g. ) with Libertas's more recent expressed support for hawkish right-wing politics, which began only after discovering the politics of other editors with whom she disagreed. Also, several of the comments Libertas has made about herself were made initially only as the surprisingly convenient basis for attacking other users. They also don't square very well with one another, or with the IP Libertas has edited from, which would collectively paint a portrait of Libertas as a right-wing Republican, a devout Buddhist, and an American expatriate of recent Russian extraction presently living in Latin America. Then there's also the matter that "she" took quite some time to correct other users references to "herself" as a "he", again only doing so in an edit making nasty accusations against another user (which I'm too tired to find right now).


 * RadicalSubversiv E 09:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * That's as may be, and I can only speak of my impressions. I grant that what I believe is necessarily limited and that I'm as likely to be mistaken in seeing a faint pattern as anyone. On consistency, I would first offer the counter that a very narrow perspective would account for all Libertas' edits, and she ("she" for the sake of convenience and assuming good faith, for all it's worth at this point) has expressed disdain for Libertarians and Marxists both. I would secondly say, though, that it may very well be an elaborate and skillful troll, or some other combination of trickery and subterfuge, for all I know. I'm leaning more to disbelieving Libertas' assertions on herself and her politics than I was before, now that you suggest an other way of looking at it. I'll let my words stand, though, as an alternative view, with the hope that it will suggest a variety of angles on this user when taken beside your own interpretation. Thanks for that&mdash;more angles to consider is a good thing. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 10:12, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with you overall: the more perspectives the better. Just one thing -- I think you're missing the point in the edit I'm linking to, which is that Libertas stated expressed agreement with Paul's staff calling Bush and the GOP nasty names (like war monger). That's not consistent with her present (stated) views. RadicalSubversiv E 02:26, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. That's... very interesting. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 03:03, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

"Cmapm" vs. "Crapr"
Oh, and I have to add a caveat (unrelated) to the allegation that Libertas lacked good faith by calling Cmapm "Crapr". As Cmapm notes on their user page, "Cmapm" is a close Latin-alphabet approximate of the Russian word &#1057;&#1090;&#1072;&#1088;&#1090;. It is arguable that "Crapr" is also a close Latin-alphabet approximate and that Libertas could have been using it without deliberately intending the unfortunate resemblance to "crapper". Remembering that Libertas has claimed to be from the territory of the former USSR, this familiarity with the language is plausible and highly likely, considering that one unfamiliar with Cyrillic would be unlikely to think of that Latin form on seeing "Cmapm". That the resemblance to "crapper" was unintentional is (I think) a stretch, as I can't think of any other reason to use that form in light of the obvious alternative, but my inability to think of an alternative (good faith) motive is not evidence of bad faith. Further, Libertas is free to enlighten us in this matter. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 00:38, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll add a note about this in the RFC pointing here. RadicalSubversiv E 09:13, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration
I am requesting arbitration, based on Libertas's behavior here, response to this RFC, and subsequent sockpuppetry (primarily Salazar and Ollieplatt). I would invite other interested parties to join in making the request, and, if it is accepted, in offering evidence. RadicalSubversiv E 09:15, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)