Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 5 January 2007

Intended outcome?

Exactly what is the purpose of this RfC? What is the desired outcome? I seriously doubt that it will result in a change of behavior, expecially if raspor never sees the RfC, or chooses to ignore it. -Amatulic 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

What is amazing is that I think his lack of civility has scared off individuals who might actually provide reasoned discussion of ID. I may not agree with it, but at least it could be discussed logically. Orangemarlin 19:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This RFC may not change his approach but as far as administrative action goes it's a first step. Raspor will either get his act together or be banned from editing intelligent design. Mr Christopher 21:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

...which would only support his conspiracy theory. Where's the value in that?

Yesterday, after some cajoling from me, he agreed to propose specific sentences on the talk page to rewrite rather than engage in edit warring. He did. That was a good first step. I proposed a slight change, with the intent of evolving his proposal, one small thing at a time, into something he could agree with that doesn't conflict with the focus of the article. That is how the process should work. I was disappointed that FeloniusMonk then came along and spoiled the process rather than going along with it.

My point is, Raspor came in here all blustery and we responded similarly, which was not constructive. I think I have demonstrated that he is willing to engage in constructive discussion about specific revision proposals rather than engage in general ranting. I think the regular editors of the article (including myself, who is not a regular) are partly at fault for not treating him respectfully. We should have demanded specific proposals at the outset rather than argue. -Amatulic 21:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I see...Raspor's behaviour is Felonious Monk's fault, or perhaps our collective fault. Thanks for clearing that up, Amatulic. For a minute there I was thinking raspor is responsible for his own behaviour.

Count me out on treating raspor any different than I would treat anyone else. And who cares about his conspiracy theory? He will be banned from the article if he continues, that is not a conspiracy, it's policy. I have never in my life here at Wiki seen somone as out of control as raspor and I have seen some doozies. Go back and read the early notes on the talk page, he was asked for specific ideas and he was given links. And I choose not to assume responsibity for his actions but you are free to blame yourself. Mr Christopher 21:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa there Amatulic. No one treated him unfairly or anything. His initial comments were rude and belligerent, and almost everyone gave him advice to chill out and to be civil. Several of us asked numerous times, "what would you like to add." Instead, he kept reverting the main article. Blaming us for his behavior? Sorry, but I believe everyone should take responsibility for their own actions. Orangemarlin 22:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, Mr Christopher. Anytime. :)

Of course he's responsible for his own behavior. And we should take responsibility for ours. I have dealt with unstable types before. Recognizing that in someone, one can adapt the engagement. I think, in some small way yesterday, I demonstrated that it's possible to engage him constructively, talking about specific sentences for proposed changing, rather than setting him off on a rant. Amatulic 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a psychiatrist nor do I play one on either Misplaced Pages or on TV. That being said, he's wasted our time, and he needs to move along in the world. I appreciate your concern for his behavior, but if you were able to get him to engage constructively, that's fine, but he's worn out his welcome. Besides, just read some of his responses when we reached out. I think the time has passed for the touchy-feely psychology that you've espoused. Not your problem, to be certain, only his. Orangemarlin 22:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a guideline for dealing with disruptive editors: WP:DE. There it describes what constitutes disruptive editing, why it's not acceptable, and provides methods for dealing with cranks, kooks & partisans. It refers to "obvious cranks and aggressively disruptive editors", both of which are apt here. Apart from being a nuisance, these same editors also destabilise perfectly fine articles. Number five of Raul654's laws of Misplaced Pages (User:Raul654/Raul's laws) is that articles with a strong consensus base are crashed into by agenda-pushers. While the disruption takes place, and the new contributors are taught the importance of NPOV, original research and verifiability, the articles look like a shambles and often remain pockmarked by the attempts to accomodate fringe views. Unfortunately, Raspor is utterly resistant to learning, or at least abiding by, our policies. And you can't claim that Raspor hasn't been given every opportunity to settle down and contribute quietly, it's just that he's squandered every one. FeloniousMonk 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor has gotten far better than he's given (or deserved) here. Anyone who can't even be bothered to respond to his own user conduct RFC but instead chose to continue with trollish personal attacks and to continue to crankishly disrupt the very Talk page that earned him the RFC is totally refractory; likely irredeemably so. Luckily the community provides methods for dealing with trolls, cranks and partisans. It is Raspor who has chosen to continue as he has, ignoring and dismissing advice from all quarters. We're here to write an encyclopedia, and there's a limit to how much disruption the community is required to accept before saying 'Enough!' . FeloniousMonk 22:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that raspor has yet to demonstrate an even causual understanding of intelligent design. I don't know how to put it and I don't want to seem rude but he just doesn't get it and seems to think articles are all about original research and "logic". His behaviour also suggests he has not even glanced at any Wiki any policies. Amatulic, there is nothing stopping you from using raspor's talk page as a place where you can tutor him. You said you and he had developed some sort of chemistry (until felonious monk came along and destroyed it according to you) so how about you use his talk page and tutor the guy? Mr Christopher 22:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

All very good points, guys. Raspor merely agreed to propose specific sentence changes and discuss them. Sure, I could do that on his talk page, but such an exercise is futile without the participation of other editors here, because we'd be determining the article's content in a vacuum. Nobody would agree to changes developed that way. -Amatulic 23:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic, you will be delighted to note that raspor has now chosen to comment here. His claims of excellent knowledge show a remarkable inability to grasp the essentials of WP:NOR, which I drew to his attention along with other policies on 29 December. His protestations that he "didnt get any help" ignore repeated attempts to politely advise him on how to achieve his aims. It is of course entirely possible that he is genuinely unable to understand policies or science. However, it crosses my mind that if he is trolling he is doing so very successfully, and causing a remarkable amount of disruption. .. dave souza, talk 00:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

interesting raspors quotes

This quote I found interesting when I read it. All of the sudden, out of the blue, raspor's english became perfect and he was quite lucid.

I guess one thing I am uncomfortable with is the ethnocentrism of the article. For instance Adnan Oktar has been a proponent of ID for a similar length of time as the Amercian counterparts. He is a proponent in Turkey and in Arabic countries. As you know concepts arise many times simultaneous in different areas. The bias I see in this article is implying that ID is an Amercan Right Wing Christian created concept. It simply is not. There does seem to be a bias againt the Arabic cultures in American elete intellectualism. For instance the 'Dark Ages'. There is little mention as to how much scientific development was going on in the Arabic countries at that time. If one would compare the number of Arabic 'proponents' of ID to the American I really think the numbers would be comparable. But the article seems to imply it is an Amercian phenomenon. Also in France there is an ID 'movement' And the term 'movement' is loaded. I did not seem mention of the evolution 'movement' or the Darwinist 'movement' in those articles. There was not even a criticism section in the Darwinist section.

OK at least at bottom line can we mention the Arabic ID 'movement' in the article to give it more balance?

raspor 17:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Then note his comments on Dave Souza's talk page

thanks dave for your comments. somehow you must have gotten aware of the concerns i have with the intelligent design article. as i said there it seems biased. esp the phrase that 'all ID proponents are affiliates of the Discovery Institute' seems to imply that ID is a concoction of the DI and has no merit on its own. I really think for wiki's credibilty the article should be more balanced. I personally found ID to be a viable concept before I even knew who the DI was. I really feel using the word 'all' here is in error. As you know there are very few situtations where it is safe to use it to describe anything. Most scholars will use most, nearly all, to our knowledge etc. And there is a cateogorization error which there is no way to get 'a reliable source' for since it is an internal logic error. And it is not possible to get a 'reliable source' to show that an article has a condemning tone. this is what i see here. I think wiki should try to error on the side of neutrality above all. this should be the deciding factor in differences of opinion on articles. the prime directive. even the appearance of bias should be fervently avoided. certainly is possible to make this article have a more balanced tone without change its content

raspor 20:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to make of it other than he seems quite skilled at speaking perfect english when he wants to, and then he does a very nice what I would call Borat impersonation right afterwards. Please compare the above raspor quotes to others you have read and tell me does this seem odd to anyone else? Mr Christopher 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Borat is funny. Raspor is not. Orangemarlin 07:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That depends on your perspective. For instance, I bet raspor's sides are going to hurt for weeks from all the laughing he has been doing since he showed up here. Mr Christopher 13:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

should this all be on this page. it does not seem right to me.

sometimes when someone is lot smarter than you the things they say seem confusing. sometimes i dont know how far down to bring the level of converstaion here so people like yourself can understand what i am getting at. yes i probably go too fast. and sometimes my concepts are too subtle for many. i will try to go more slowly in the future

raspor 01:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I allowed to comment on this page?

raspor 23:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. Erm, might I suggest that you try to make you comments in a more compact way. You have tended to use blank lines to space your paragraphs, and to add section titles to virtually every comment you have left.

Please, consider formatting your posts as I do, using a colon to start a new paragraph and adding new sections only sparingly.

All in all, feel free to comment. Compactly, if possible. Thanks. -- Ec5618 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed you are Mr Christopher 23:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Educating raspor

At Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Raspor#Raspor's comments an (out of place) query by Ec5618 resulted in a brief discussion and raspor requesting "go to my personal page. and i will answer there". The extensive discussion at User talk:Raspor#astrology is not science??? why?? appears to be an exercise in frustration. It is my understanding that individual tuition is generally out of place at Misplaced Pages, and in my opinion the response given at User talk:Candorwien#whale fossils? was much more appropriate. However it did not prevent further requests at User talk:Candorwien#Remingtonocetidae: very cute pics. where did they get those wonderful snapshots of those creatures? and User talk:Candorwien#you claimed there was a plethora of intermediary whale fossils. i have search for hours and never have seen them. i you have the info share it with the world thanks. These examples suggest that raspor is beyond education, though of course the behaviour is what might be expected from an ingenious troll intent on disruption. .. dave souza, talk 09:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

oh really. well let me ask you this: is astrology falsifiable?

I have noticed that overall the editors here do not have a good understanding of science.

And where are the plethora of whale transistional fossils? hmmm

raspor 13:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking at some of Raspor's edit, I don't think that he is a troll. He does have some views not widely shared on this project, and he doesn't know how to make them heard in a neutral fashion. I'd be glad to volunteer to help him understand some of these things: I think that some of his confrontive messages have been appropriate, and that he may not have a complete understanding of many of the rules, etc. here. --HassourZain 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Procedure question

It's possible that I missed it somewhere, but this is the first time I've ever participated in one of these things. What's the difference between a user who certifies this process and one that endorses it? Thanks. Orangemarlin 16:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

are personal attacks allowed on this page?

some deleted something i said becuz they said it was a personal attack . but obviously i do not have the same rights as the darwinists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raspor (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I promised myself that I'd never respond to you, because you refuse to play along. Let's review what you just did here? We asked you to quit creating section titles to ask a question. You still do it. We asked you to use indents. You don't. We asked you to sign your posts. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. I'm not even going into your insulting lack of spelling skills. "Becuz"? What's that? But where is the personal attack? You are a troll, and we are presenting evidence to your behavior. You have been disruptive, and we're presenting further evidence. Do you expect that we're going to say "You're such a nice guy, and we dislike your POV, so we're mean to you." No, we're pointing out what you have done, we have made many suggestions on how to be a better person on here, and in each case, you ignore us. So, I don't read anything on here is a personal attack, other than pointing out how personally offensive you have been, how disrespectful you have been to fellow editors and to Misplaced Pages, and how everyone has extended an olive branch with suggestions on how to be a better editor. You are blind to what you are, and it is getting boring to read your disrespectful commentary. Orangemarlin 17:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

if you think i am a troll then why do you 'feed' me. i feel that you are very offensive also. and you are blind to what you are. i just understand things better than you do. please do not responde to me anymore. its a waste of bandwidth

this is just the way you get rid of your oppostition instead of trying to be inclusive.

raspor 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Raspor, I do wish you would realize that inanities and insults, and trying to distract users from the point will never allow you to get your way. --HassourZain 18:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

well i was the one that was mistreated when i first got here becuz i wanted a fair article. yes i know this will never happen here. this is mob rule

raspor 19:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If by "mob rule" you mean "not allowing single users to have the run of an article, when consensus is clearly against what they are trying to do", then that's correct. Misplaced Pages is about consensus. --HassourZain 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

no mob rule is when the minority opinion gets absolutely no mention and is censored

raspor 20:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The general rule regarding personal attacks is "play the ball, not the man". A user conduct RFC, on the other hand, focuses on the user's conduct, not her/his ideas. The rules obviously work a little differently in an RFC than in the Main space. Guettarda 20:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said on the subpage of the talk page on intelligent design- Raspor, I understand that this is probably a perplexing process and that you are not as experienced as many of the users here that are taking a position different to your own. Their problem is not with you speaking up and being heard, their problem is the fact that the way you are making yourself heard in articles surrounding Intelligent Design does not conform to the neutral point of view policy. I'm more than willing to help you make your points in a neutral manner on the article, it's just that you have been very confrontive to some other users, which makes the editing process here at Misplaced Pages very difficult to work in. If there'a any way that I can help you, please shoot me a message on my talk page and we'll talk more about this there. --HassourZain 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

all you need is love

raspor is now disrupting the discovery institute talk page. I am going to ask Filll, Amatulic, HassourZain and any others who feel raspor is just in need of a little love and understanding to please step up their rehabilitation efforts. So far your efforts have failed. Perhaps you might try a new approach? Thank you! Mr Christopher 00:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively, someone could just ban him, so that he can find the time to learn some science basics, humility and decorum. -- Ec5618 00:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that will come in time, but for now I was hoping Filll, Amatulic, HassourZain could show raspor some additional understanding and nurturing in the hopes that might cure him. They seem to feel that is the best approach. Mr Christopher 00:05, 5

January 2007 (UTC):::::: fill agreed with me. we both thought that the resource was a bobjob. this is crazy. you atheist have taken over these articles and turned them into bobjobs. nothing can be done. you win. who cares. its obvious what you are doing. emperor with no clothes. you look like fools i know science you should take some time off and study a bit. learn about popper etc. this is too high school for meraspor 00:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)