Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Commodore_Sloat

THIS RFC HAS BEEN ARCHIVED DO NOT EDIT IT Bigglove 00:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Commodore Sloat (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

This user has accused me of being Islamophobic and fails to accept that his remarks violate Wikipedia policy.

I would like this user to be blocked from editing Wikipedia for one week and watched for further violations of the policies listed below.

A further note, since Commodore Sloat feels that I have asked for too much with a one week block here. I only came up with the above because I was asked to name something and this seemed reasonable for violation of WP:NPA. I believe anyone would find accusations of Islamophobia be an insulting attack; that much should be straighforward. The essense of what I want is for this user to admit that this WAS an attack, that he should not be attacking other users rather than offering explanations of why he felt perfectly justified in the attack and then sidestepping into other accusations. Bigglove 14:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I raised notability concerns on the talk page of a Wikipedia article by listing relevant notability criteria point by point and asking other interested editors to discuss.

Commodore Sloat replied with an assumption of bad faith: "I'm not going to fight about this with someone who appears to be bent on making a case against it" quickly followed up with comments regarding my motivations in violation of WP:AGF.

He later described my initial notability discussion above as "tendentious claims about a lack of notability".

Later, he left a note on my user page accusing me of Islamophobia User talk:Bigglove#what the hell is your problem? in violation of WP:NPA.

He defended his accusation of Islamophobia becuase of what he calls the, "hypocrisy of launching a full-fledged jihad on a community newspaper entry while leaving virtually untouched another community newspaper entry that suffers from exactly the same problem you think this one suffers from." He earlier accused me of "hypocritical jihad" citing evidence that I did not raise similar concerns about two Jewish papers: The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles and The Forward.

This kind of flawed logic is hardly the basis on which to justify attacking another editor as a hater of an entire religious group.

1. Accusation of Islamophobia User talk:Bigglove/Archive Aug 2007#what the hell is your problem?, "you don't like Muslims, fine"
2. similar accusation against another editor as editing based on "Extremist Islamophobia".

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:AGF

(provide diffs and links)

1. Bigglove asks for an apology for Islamophobia accusations
2. CSloat fails to apologize, saying he was justified to make these comments
3. Bigglove further tries to clarify "Please note that you are very freely throwing around strong and insulting epiphets based on very little evidence"
4. CSloat defends his use of personal attacks "I made those statements because I was exasperated by your behavior - but I stand by my interpretation of these behaviors, at least until you demonstrate otherwise"

Addendums

1. • Comment: A few people commenting below have said that CSLOAT has retracted or apologized for the accusations of Islamophobia. Please note that he has not retracted this statement or apologized for it, he has only apologized for "offense taken". If you read the diffs above, which I know you will do carefully if you are commenting here, he actually defends his actions. (strike what is no longer relevant given CSLOAT's addendums below)
   • Clarification Please note that CSloat has not admitted that saying "you don't like Muslims" on my user page was a personal attack. This accusation of Islamophobia is a personal attack and I would like 1) an admission that this was a personal attack and 2) an apology for making this personal attack rather than an apology for a "hyperbolic comment" that I have received. Bigglove 13:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   • Procedural comment: Please note that this characterization of Sloats remark "you don't like muslims" as a personal attack IS EXACTLY the nature of my complaint in this RFC and that I have not changed the nature of the RFC in any way, except to request a much less stringent penalty for CSloat in response to his and Ryan Friesling's requests. Bigglove 12:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE COMMENT, CLARIFICATION, and PROCEDURAL COMMENT above in the addendums section are added, with time stamps after some signatures below. The signatures of endorsement apply only to material added before the time stamps. The comments are added for clarification only. Bigglove 19:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Isarig 18:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bigglove 03:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC) (I'm signing afer 48 hours just in case I had to; I created the page originally and didn't know I had to sign here)[reply]
3. <<-armon->> 11:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Durova^Charge! 00:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Uninvolved in the dispute and disappointed the problems have continued so long. Content disagreements are not an excuse for rudeness.[reply]
5. like several of the editoes above, no dog in this particluar fight, but Sloats poor behavior needs to be corrected. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 00:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. User:Biophys I would add that Sloats repeatedly deletes perfectly referenced material if it contradicts his point. Evidence can be provided if needed. During my work in WP, I met only two people all negotiations with whom were absolutely useless, and Sloats is one of them. Biophys 17:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As Commander Sloat has admitted to making personal attacks and assuming bad faith and promised to try to avoid similar in future, I will concur with him that this RFC can now be closed. Bigglove 02:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'd like some feedback on my proposal before we close this, but I'll go with the consensus. <<-armon->> 03:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as thought the consensus is to close, so I will do that now. It looks like a few people are in favor of your proposal and it would be worth revisiting in future if the situation recurrs of exacerbates. Bigglove 23:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Agreed. Close this RfC, and move on to dispute resolution or (gads) ArbCom. The focus of such resolution efforts should include all the disputants of these content edit wars, and the range of remedies must be wider than one editor, if the situation is to resolve in WP's interest. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. csloat 03:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with Ryan. If this dispute continues, it should be taken to dispute resolution/ArbCom and filed in a way that highlights all involved editors' behavior toward one another. Italia^vivi 19:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Verklempt 02:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I apologize for any offense taken. It is encouraging that the user who started this RfC finds the accusation of Islamophobia troubling, as it suggests he or she does not consider being anti-Islam to be a good thing. I don't find the accusation any more troubling than the accusation of anti-semitism this user is hurling at the newspaper in question using very tendentious quotes from a self-published ADL website. But I am glad to see the user does not want to be Islamophobic. The user has still not explained the contradiction between his/her actions regarding the Muslim paper and the Jewish paper, as I pointed out clearly in my comments. To me that points to an anti-Islamic position. But the user is correct that it isn't my role, or any other editor's, to psychoanalyze him or her, and I apologize for questioning his or her motives.

That said, I find this user's behavior unacceptable. The basis for this RfC is thin at best, and he/she was engaged in severely tendentious and abrasive edit warring and bickering on the talk page. The suggestion that I be blocked for a week for this comment is ludicrous, and filing an RfC calling for such a block is truly an abuse of the Wikipedia RfC process and a waste of everyone's time who participates in this. I have apologized for the offense, and, as I said several times on the discussion page, this conversation about that comment is unproductive -- much better to drop it and move on. I could list the personal attacks and abuses of the process that Bigglove engaged in throughout the discussion and start an RfC on him/her too, but I prefer to edit Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not as a battleground. csloat 07:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. csloat 07:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. From my outside perspective, the evidence offered shows only a momentary expression of frustration, for which the user has apologized. I see no justification for an RFC in the evidence given above.Verklempt 22:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take Ryan's excellent advice from my talk page and here, and make my apology more clear and explicit: I apologize for attributing unacceptable motives to Bigglove, Armon, and Isarig, including the hyperbolic comment "you don't like muslims," which I wrote on Bigglove's user page. This apology stands whether or not these users are found to be sock puppeteers, and independently of any other abuses or perceived abuses committed by these users or any others. As I said above, bigglove is correct that it isn't my role, or any other editors, to psychoanalyze him or her, and I apologize for questioning their motives. I am apologizing for my actions here, not just for any offense taken. And I will see to it that I don't make such comments again. I hope this clarifies the nature of my apology on this issue. csloat 03:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the basis for this dispute has at this point been resolved; I'd like to ask an admin to close the RfC. Thanks. csloat 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is up to people who certified the basis of this dispute by their signatures. I think we should wait and see if the behavior of Csloat has indeed been improved. So far, he filed an WP:ANI report to a person who initiated this RfC. This does not look encouraging.Biophys 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the complainant who filed the RfC in the first place has asked for closure I think the above red herring is moot. csloat 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to proliferate addenda, but I must object to the expansion of this RfC beyond its parameters. The user who began this RfC, Bigglove (talk · contribs), instead of accepting my apology and allowing us to move on gracefully, has added an additional demand to the [project page] in which he would like to parse the wording of my apology further, and demand that I characterize a particular hyperbolic statement as literal. This sort of action could invalidate the RfC, as it appears the goal post is being moved after I have made important and strong steps to resolve the problem at hand. The apology above is unconditional and unreserved, and I have specifically apologized for the statements this user claims to be concerned about. His additional new demand that I state that the phrase was not hyperbolic is unreasonable -- I'm the one who made the statement; I'm the final authority on the question of whether I meant it literally or hyperbolically, and his demand that I state something other than what I believe on the issue appears to be a violation of the very same principle he accuses me of violating in this RfC -- that we should not attribute adverse motives to other editors when interacting with them. In addition, another user, Biophys (talk · contribs) has added several claims against me that are not identified as part of this RfC. An RfC against a user is not a chance for everyone who has ever had a problem with a user in the past to demand that user defend his/her actions in every dispute. It must focus precisely on this particular dispute. Biophys' comments concerning a dispute I had with him on Operation Sarindar are not relevant here, nor is his complaint that I raised legitimate suspicions about possible sockpuppetry.

Again, I have responded to the issue at hand in a forthright and honest manner. My apology for the violation of Wikipedia policy was explicit and unconditional. I believe it is time to put the matter to rest. csloat 19:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to paste the following sentence from the discussion on the talk page here and I have been assured that after this is posted the user who created the RfC will finally be satisfied that I have apologized enough: "it was a personal attack, one which I have apologized for over and over, unconditionally and without reservation." Again, I respectfully request that this RfC be closed. csloat 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I find this comment unnecessary and worthy of an apology [1] and have placed an outside view here rather than concur directly with his response. Csloat should have apologized for it (and since has done so unconditionally) since the comment is a personal attack in the form of a hypothetical and a faux expression of sympathy. In addition, csloat should apologize for his comments on Bigglove's talk page, since attributing beliefs of any kind to another editor can be interpreted as an unacceptable edit (to say nothing of attributions of racism being a serious personal attack).

However, the block request accompanying this RfC is unjustified. I am not involved in the current dispute but this RfC is unsurprisingly brought and certified by a familiar crew (csloat's long time 'cadre' of nemeses) from prior edit battles, including the patently hyperbolic outside statement by TDC, below. And in the course of their ongoing edit wars and aborted dispute resolution, the behavior I have seen by at least two of the certifiers and TDC have been equally, if not more, openly belligerent and combative than csloat's - as even the most cursory edit review makes clear. That is why a week's block for offhandedly implying someone an 'islamophobe', an attack for which the user has aplready apologized, is not a fair-minded or balanced way to approach this conflict.

Irrespective of the block request, and focusing on the point of user conduct RfC's in general, Csloat's edits reveal him to be a passionate editor, and guilty of all the same human frailties as the rest - but his edits are factual and clearly explained, often defending his perspective in a 'two- or three-against-one' situation, like this one. I have not known him to be a willing user of personal attacks despite the acrimonious nature of many of the exchanges he has endured with Armon and Isarig. Whatever happens, I've counseled my friend csloat again to constantly make civility and a productive editorial mindset his #1 priority on WP and I suggest Armon, Isarig and csloat (and other involved parties) resume dispute resolution, perhaps with Durova as before, in good faith. Blocking only one participant in an ongoing multi-page, multi-editor edit war for a week (on the basis of these two retracted comments on his part) is not the way to act wisely to improve the encyclopedia. Csloat apologized and the editors should renew dispute resolution, whether with Durova or via another path. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. User:RyanFreisling @ 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. csloat 03:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Verklempt 02:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. R. Baley 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

To say that Sloat violates WP:NPA and WP:AGF in nearly every other edit he makes would not be an overstatement of his wiliness to casually resort to personal attacks. Sloat treats nearly every controversial article he is involved in as a battleground. This RfC should serve as a wake up call to him to modify his behavior or be dealt with much more harshly by ArCom

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. <<-armon->> 11:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Biophys 16:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Commodore Sloat for the apology posted above and hope things move forward productively. As a note to all parties here, this dispute is perilously close to arbitration. The energies that have gone into it could have raised several pages to featured articles. Please refocus on the positive and maintain polite distance if cordial collaboration is impossble. Durova^Charge! 09:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. csloat 13:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. (I am grateful for the partial apology which has been given in good faith) Bigglove 12:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely. There is a worryingly 'fractal' nature to the dialogue between the parties, wherein after a dispute is raised about article content the focus moves quickly from content to contributors, becomes increasingly acrimonious and the process of improvement to WP's article content is utterly derailed. This ongoing cycle reveals real issues in communication between ALL the parties and I second Durova's call for them to maintain distance or resume dispute resolution. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. The apology is a step in the right direction. Hopefully it will be followed up with more olive branches. As Durova said, the next step if this dispute escalates could be Arbitration, and that would be bad all around. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Please also see my statement. <<-armon->> 01:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Csloat filed an WP:ANI report blaiming Bigglove of sockpuppetry [2], perhaps in reply to this RfC. This is hardly consistet with the cordial collaboration spirit mentioned above.Biophys 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a very trivial offence indeed, far more serious allegations, provably false, have never even been retracted, let alone apologised for.

And this complaint looks suspiciously like a cloak to conceal something much more serious possibly going on here - the nominator in this case is credibly accused of being a sock-puppet of a proven sock-master User:Isarig. I urge the community to deal with known (and suspected) really serious abuses of the project first before even considering tainted (and apologised for) allegations like this one. PalestineRemembered 08:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

In the larger scheme of things, this particular personal attack is minor, but it's indicative of a larger problem. I will be signing on to Durova's statement, however, I think there are a couple of key points which need clarification.

1. This RFC is an attempt at dispute resolution. Many other attempts have been made to no avail. The only other option at this point is arbcom and I'm disappointed that sloat doesn't seem to realize that not taking this to arbcom, even after all this time, is actually an olive branch.
2. I have a difficult time squaring the circle between his apology, and his wikilawyering about it, and his accusations that Bigglove is a sock. To me, the apology itself is unimportant, what I would like to see it some evidence that he "gets it", that WP is not a battleground, and I'm sorry, but I don't.
3. If sloat were to be blocked for a week, or under some other arbcom sanction, I'm afraid we'd be only be delaying the inevitable with this user unless some real change takes place. To that effect, I 'd like to suggest a similar solution to to what's being tried with Isarig. I believe such a dual mentorship would be for the good of the project and everyone concerned. <<-armon->> 01:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bigglove 01:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. 6SJ7 01:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.