Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Lovelight

Lovelight blocked
As was just blocked for two weeks, someone will have to cross post his responses to the RfC from his talk page if and when he chooses to author a response. A few people may want to keep an eye on his talk page in order to help wtih that. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 17:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It might make more sense to unblock him (if a deal could be worked out with him, which I doubt), or to wait until his block expires. Thoughts? --Guinnog 01:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I truly wish there was a way to unblock for specific pages only. There would have to be an agreement that he will only edit on his talk page, this RfC, and the Community sanction noticeboard.  With that, I'm not sure if admins are really allowed to impose that sort of restriction without ArbCom sanction.  From Lovelight's own postings on his talk page, it is obvious he doesn't take this RfC seriously, so I'm not sure it is worth the effort.  Very likely, this will end up at ArbCom no matter how the community sanction turns out. --StuffOfInterest 11:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A study in how not to treat suspected POV pushers
If this RfC continues, I would suggest looking at this episode, which Lovelight is right to emphasize as context for the degeneration of his behaviour. While it is obviously unacceptable to call someone a "stupid little shit", he may have gotten the idea when he was called "both cute and pathetic" by someone who had announced he was going to "tear his theory down" for "fun". I'm not taking sides here (like I've said elsewhere, Lovelight is going to be hard to defend, if he even wants to be defended), I'm just suggesting the sorts of issues the RfC might consider.--Thomas Basboll 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did demolish the theory, and it was pathetic how he responded, but cute in the way that an abused puppy keeps running back. *shrug* It was the perfect response to his incredibly superior statement of how he is a person of "classic education", when he couldn't discuss facts without making a fool of himself.
 * Should I have made the statement? Probably not. But this RfC is less about his attacks and more about his blatant disregard for consensus. And you are correct, he doesn't seem to want to defend himself or be defended, he just wants to rail blindly against the world. --Golbez 23:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look at the discussion, the problem goes beyond that particular statement; ask yourself whether you would still consider him just "cute", whether you still "love" to discuss these issues with "fools". If so, why file an RfC on him? I don't think he wants to rail blindly. His remarks are often sharp, witty and good-natured. He is arguably having "fun" with it, which is one way to use the talk pages you have suggested to him.
 * No, because back then, if I recall, he was mostly confined to the talk page. However, his arguments have gotten old and tired, and have been demolished more times than I care to count. He has nothing new to offer. --Golbez 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The alternative was not just to not make that silly statement. It was to simply not engage in this way. The issue being discussed is straighforward from a policy perspective: "secondary explosions" are proposed for inclusion. The sources are four YouTube links. That doesn't meet RS. Please come back when you have a more reliable basis for including this information. If that request is met, you can then discuss "undue weight", perhaps notability, the scope of the article and the use of daughter articles. At no point is it necessary to "demolish the theory". You seem to have done that just for kicks, not to improve the encyclopedia.--Thomas Basboll 06:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are we kicking around something I did 9 months ago? And I don't see anything wrong with ably demolishing his theory, he wanted it (and attempted to) add it to the article, when it was very easily shown to be incorrect. What should I have done, patted him on the head and said, "Well that's very interesting, son, just be sure to show your work"? And I wasn't aware that Youtube videos were not suitable for RS. However, I'm not entirely sure he would have accepted that. "Youtube videos aren't allowed? Oh, okay, I'll go about my way. Bye!" No, I doubt it. --Golbez 14:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You think it is great fun demolishing conspiracy theories and Lovelight seems to think its great fun promoting them. This just isn't the place to have that kind of conversation. We don't assess the truth of claims here, we decide whether or not they belong in encyclopedia articles. Since his claims, even if true, were not presented in a Wikipedia way, there was no reason to show him that what he believes is wrong. I don't know if he would have gone away, but you wouldn't have had reason to insult him, and he wouldn't have reason to keep presenting his theory. These are elementary Wikipedia principles. The fact that you can easily refute a claim has nothing to do with whether it should be included. He obviously thinks he has refuted any number of claims in the article. The reason the episode is interesting is that it explains (but does not excuse) his behavior. It helps us to understand Mongo's important observation Lovelight mildly disruptive and has now become a real problem.--Thomas Basboll 16:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether Golbez responded in an ideal fashion is not the subject matter of this request for comment, and User:Lovelight is not a victim. As to no reason to show him that what he believes is wrong, this is an encyclopedia, thus we discriminate between reality and fantasy, science and folklore, reliable sources and misinformation, etc. Peter Grey 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting victimhood. I am suggesting that Lovelight worked himself into "the spirit of things" as they are normally done in re CTs here at WP. What we should be doing is to assess the suitability for inclusion of various bits of information: we don't "demolish" people's "theories" about how the world works. Not just because it is isn't nice, but because we don't want to use Wikipedia as a forum for such discussions.--Thomas Basboll 15:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As I see it, it bordered on a violation of WP:CIVIL, but it was factual, and was in response to Lovelight's disregard for both consensus and evidence. (So it was better than an accusation of malicious vandalism.) The exchange also demonstrates Lovelight's narcissism, hypocrisy, fundamental lack of understanding of the subject matter, and unwillingness to engage in reasoned discussion. Peter Grey 12:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)