Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

This request for comment was filed at 04:17, December 13, 2006. Having been endorsed within 48 hours it has met the threshold for consideration by the community.

---

• Psychohistorian (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

User:Psychohistorian has a persistent pattern of being abusive and uncivil to other users on at least four article talk pages.

Description

User:Psychohistorian has been consistently and repeatedly, despite being warned against it, and even after the latest warnings, attacking the credentials, knowledge, abilities, sanity and character of people with whom he has disputes. He admits becoming unnecessarily frustrated but has not done anything to correct his behavior or apologize for it. He holds some strong views on subjects and seems unable to accept that differing views are the result of anything except character flaws on the part of his opponents, which he feels compelled to point out. This is not a single incident or a problem with one article or person, but seems to follow Psychohistorian across wikipedia. Specifically User:Thulean and User:Fourdee have warned him about this behavior.

The spirit of WP:NPA embodies the logical fallacy and error in rhetoric known as argumentum ad hominem - personal attack. From the wiki:

"An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally argument against the person), personal attack or you-too argument, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is a logical fallacy."

All of the documented statements by Psychohistorian are clearly directed at the person, and are clearly uncivil. He has a long-standing pattern of this behavior and apparently sees nothing wrong with it. Without some censure there is no reason he will not continue it indefinitely. If these are not personal attacks, what would be short of the most obvious and juvenile cases of insults? Fourdee 17:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior

In chronological order and not inclusive of every example:

1. "Go out and take a freshman level class in anthropology. I'm sure your local community college offers one." [1]
2. "However, as this may be too complicated for you to grasp (and an indepth discussion of textual analysis with someone like yourself would be sure to try my patience)"
3. "If this point continues to elude you, we can bring in a third party opinion who may be inclined to simplify these issues to the point where you can understand them" [2]
4. "while I grant that it might seem that way to someone who is not as knowledgable or comfortable with a subject as is the majority of people" [3]
5. Insults education and offers to "put it at your level" [4]
6. Insults editor's education and implies editor has not reached the 11th grade [5]
7. Warned by User:Thulean[6]
8. "Is there any way I can talk you into coming back to work on this article? The fewer educated people we have on it, the easier it is to lose ground due to the 3RR rule." [7]
9. Says editor has "inferiority complex" [8]
10. "Here we have yet another example of someone who, based on his written content, it is obvious never studied anthropology beyond looking at the half naked women in National Geographic, using the word "anthropology" like some sort of authority. This has gone past ludicrous and has become actually pretty humourous" [9]
11. "You claimed my comment was "silly". Oh my god, you are attacking me again! Maybe I should create an RfI! Oh, no wait, I'm an adult." [10]
12. Calls editor "paranoid" and "unreasonable" [11]
13. Insults editor's abilities and is sarcastic [12]
14. Warned by User:Fourdee[13]
15. Accuses editors of "bitching" [14]
16. Calls editors ignorant [15]
17. Restores a number of personal insults which had been deleted [16]
18. Further calls other editors ignorant, insults knowledge and credentials[17]
19. Further insults other editors' education[18]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:CIVIL
2. WP:NPA

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

1. Warned by User:Thulean[19]
2. Told he is commiting ad hominem[20]
3. Warned by User:Fourdee[21]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Fourdee 04:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Thulean 13:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) (Will be using User:Lukas19 from now on because I changed my nick...)

Other users who endorse this summary

If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section.

1. Agree I am against personal attacks. Insulting other user's intelligence or educational background to discredit their views definitely constitutes personal attacks and not incivility.--^DarkTea 19:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Semi-agree Personal attacks are generally bad, but these aren't the worst I've ever seen, and some the cited 'insults' don't seem to be personal attacks. I personally feel that the warnings are enough at the moment, since he's never pushed it far enough to be blocked.. Perhaps a probationary period to keep an eye on his behavoir for a little while? And Psychohistorian, while I'm aware of Thuluan/Lucas, his history is not the issue here, your actions are, so please don't ask me to paint him black on your behalf.--Vercalos 04:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Semi Agree This will be long, sorry. Psychohistorian has been inappropriately rude in three separate posts to me. (1 & 2) On the Illegal Immigration talk page: "What country do you live in, by the way? I'm curious because of the regional difference here which has caused this confusion. -Psychohistorian 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)" This was insulting because I am proud that I am American and also because I am a native Texas as were both my parents and two of my grandparents, the other two legally immigrated to Texas. In a subsequent post on my own talk page Psychohistorian then accused me of "whining" when I confronted him, denied being rude, and discontinued the dicsussion when I did not give in and he realized things were not going his way. He ended the discussion appropriately though. (2) In a post on my own talk page: "This is a good opportunity to ask - what is your academic orientation? I know you aren't trained in anthropology, sociology, political science, history, or economics (as anyone with a decent education at, at least, the junior level of college in these fields would be more than up to speed on dialectical material and circumscription theory - these are really basic things......Psychohistorian 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)" This was also insulting as I do have a degree in Sociology, I have had a "decent" well-rounded education and I recognize that all sociologists do not think alike. I find Psychohistorian's tone to be generally pompous and I have told him so. Sometimes he can ge frustrating to deal with and in my most recent post to him I told him so but also asked him if I was equally frustrating to him and proposed a possible solution to which I am awaiting a reply. Sometimes I believe he engaging in POV, but if one only takes the time to find out why he posted a certain way one will find that he has his own reasons for doing so. I do not always agree with his reasoning, but that is not necessary at Wikipedia because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is all that is necessary here and open dialogue is the only way to solve that. I do not view Psychohistorians posts to me "personal attacks" but as evidence of a person who has a short fuse and lack of impulse control when frustrated. I am able to separate the comments from the commentator and am able to deal with Psychohistorian calmly and in a manner which displays minimal emotions because I do not take his comments personally. Not everyone is able to do that. We all must acknowledge that Wikipedia has flaws because of the very nature of being a wiki where "anyone can edit" and this makes being an editor inherently frustrating to those who care. In spite of these complaints, Psychohistorian retains some positive traits that must also be addressed: (1) He is a dilligent and faithful remover of the POV of others. (2) He is a dilligent and faithful remover of vandalism. (3) He is an intellegent editor which is evident in his posts. (4) He claims he is educated and because we must assume good faith be are obliged to believe him. Because he is educated he is a valuable asset to Wikipedia's voluteer editorial "staff". (5) I have only been editing Wikipedia for a short time, but in that time I have found few editors who are "thinkers" and not "groupthinkers". Psychohistorian is a "thinker" in my estimation and has been a worthy and qualified debator of the issues in which I am interested. Others are easily intimidated by big words and strong arguments. Psychohistorian is not. He is also persistant. His persistance, intelligence, and ability to make strong arguments can be daunting to some and thus they become easily intimidated and react emotionally because they are not able to disconnect their personal feelings. I have observed that it is these emotionally charged responses which in turn frustrate Psychohistorian and make him react in kind, although he has a tendancy to not admit his participation in and/or his initation of the emotional escallation of the discussion. His personal qualities (other than the ones which have brought us here to this discussion) are rare and also make him a valuable asset to Wikipedia's volunteer editorial "staff". (6) I am able to sympathize with Psychohistorian because at one point in my own life I was just like him, perhaps worse. Time, age, constructive criticism of others, and the opportunity to experience life to the fullest has changed those behaviors. Witch-Hunt: Regarding the "witch-hunt" issue. It is unfortunate that Psychohistorian was not made aware of the dispute brought against him two times in a row. This leads one to believe that the intentions of those who have brought these allegations are not above board. This also allows Psychohistorian to skirt the issue of his inappropriate behaviors because his view that he is being persecuted has some creedance. Possible solution: Just because others have pointed out that Psychohistorian does not display the fundamental social skills which are outlined in Wikipedia's Code of Conduct, does not mean that he is unable to exercise them. He should be provided an opportunity to correct these behaviors before any punitive action should be brought against him. He must be given the opportunity to show impulse control and to tone down his "attidude". He must be given the opportunity to display that he can have a discussion without enciting emotional reactions in others, and he must be given the opportunity to display that he can act in accordance with Wikipedia's code of conduct. Chicaneo 18:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Response

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Response by Psychohistorian

{Response, if Psychohistorian desires.}

I won't be responding in any great depth on this issue. I feel that my posts which have been linked to above, when read for content, are their own defense. However, I do want to add that I appreciate those other editors who have endorsed and supported me on this issue. I'm grateful for their continuing support. I would especially like to thank you, Hu, for bringing this RfC to my attention (as you did with the earlier complaint by this user) when this user failed to notify me of this.-Psychohistorian 14:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to consolidate both this RfC and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard#Psychohistorian

_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29 is it possible that we can do this instead of having two seperate complaints covering the same material being brought up by the same people? -Psychohistorian 15:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, a straw poll would indicate that we have Hu, Sugaar, FeloniousMonk, Addhoc, and myself (5 editors) agreeing that this is a "witch-hunt" and an attempt at vexatious litigation.

On the other hand, we have Fourdee, Regebro, and Thulean/Lucas19 thinking that Fourdee has not consistently escalated the conflict (3 editors).

We know that most of the editors I allegedly "attacked" did not post {{npa2}} or {{npa3}} comments in my discussion page (which goes to show whether they felt they were being attacked). We also know that one editor even responded to the alleged "attack" with good natured humor (as evidenced by his "lol"). Finally, we also know that, while Fourdee alleges many incidences of personal attack, there are cases he cites where the person alleged to be attacked can't even be identified (forex. [22]).

Okay, it looks like this particular witch-hunt is not going to go away, so I'll comment further. Besides the lack of {{npa}} tags (either level 2 or 3) for the linked messages, there are additional problems.

First, the easy stuff.. Of the so-called "evidence", 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, are _clearly_ not personal attacks

6 - has already been addressed by another editor - its not an attack 8 - if its a personal attack, who specifically is being attacked? 9 - Yes, this is a personal attack. The other editor attacked me (both via my country and my class) and I responded in defense, though went a little too far 10 - the statement is a statement of fact, not an attack 12 - The user was trying to put his own personal conspiracy theory into the article. I asked for sources. He replied that sources weren't needed and that some giant conspiracy made sources unavailable. So, I brought up paranoia. 15 - the comment was made in the spirit of a good natured challenge and was taken in that spirit 16 - if its a personal attack, who specifically is being attacked? 17 - they weren't personal attacks and editing other peoples' comments in the discussion page is a form of vandalism 18 - I do not believe a factual statement is an attack - that'd be like calling someone who is, in fact, a Nazi, a Nazi 19 - Again, I do not believe a factual statement is an attack

Users who endorse this summary:

Response by Hu

Fourdee's claim here is weak at best and should be dismissed as baseless and hypocritical. An Admin who looked in previously wrote "These don't seem like blatant personal attacks. Incivility, perhaps, but [Psychohistorian]'s still making an effort to discuss the issue at large".[23] Psychohistorian has made conciliatory gestures to Fourdee and users have attempted to work with him, but even though Fourdee at times appears conciliatory, his actions are contrary and belligerent. I think the true source of the problem is Fourdee, not Psychohistorian. (Disclosure: I am a participant editing the Emergence article, the New Version, and the Talk:Emergence, Arch.2 and Arch.3 pages).

Even six hours later, Fourdee had not had the courtesy or the sense of fairness to inform Psychohistorian of his initiation of this process against him. This is the same secretive combative behavior as when he failed to notify Psychohistorian when Fourdee lodged a complaint on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard (failed), and as when he failed to post notice on the Talk:Emergence page when he demanded that the Emergence article be Page Protected (more about the mischaracterizations therein later). In all three cases, I had to discover it and do the appropriate notifying [24][25][26] that Fourdee should have done, even though plenty of time elapsed for him to do so.

Fourdee is using Wiki processes as a club against Psychohistorian (and others). Fourdee has been extremely contentious and disputatious on the Emergence article and its Talk:Emergence pages. His complaint here is actually an escalation of his argumentativeness with regard to the article, which he has latched onto with a fierceness seldom seen on Wikipedia. Editors (myself included) made edits and comments to address his concerns but found that he deleted those edits and used a take-no-prisoners attitude to attempt to gain total control so we had to write numerous and voluminous comments before he would give an inch and we had to deal with his unilateral escalations of process.

Background

Beginning 29 November, Fourdee 1) tagged the article, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, 2) declared an edit war, 3) clobbered edits that began to address his issues, 4) unilaterally and without notice took the article to Page Protection, 5) strenuously argued and got the article frozen, 6) engaged in argumentative discussion on the talk page, 7) took exception to to some remarks by Psychohistorian and deleted them three times, 8) simul-tagged (NPA2 & 3) Psychohistorian and myself, 9) lodged a (un-notified) complaint against Psychohistorian on the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard, which failed, 10) lodged his (un-notified) complaint here after soliciting help from the dubious Thulean/Lukas19.

Sequence in greater detail:

1. Fourdee unilaterally without prior discussion smothered the Emergence article with 52 {{lopsided}}, {{dubious}}, and {{fact}} tags and two (2) {{TotallyDisputed}} tags.[27] He did post a notice [28] 55 minutes before tagging the article, but it was deceptive because he wrote "First I am going to tag sections, then attempt to edit for neutrality. I'll leave the bulk of the article alone for the time being".
2. 50 hours later a user attempted to use humor [29] to reason with Fourdee, unsuccessfully as Fourdee wrote "I don't understand your sarcasm".[30]
3. 58 hours after Fourdee did the heavy tagging, he had made a few minor edits [31] but had made no edits for "neutrality," so I reverted the tags.[32]
4. Psychohistorian's first edit on the Talk page was concilliatory,[33] joining with Fourdee in favor of citations ("Fourdee is challenging us to find sources. I see no reason why we can't do that."). He also asked Fourdee " to provide detailed explanations of his various {{lopsided}} tags so that we can see whether they are worth addressing", but Fourdee has not yet done this, 11 days later.
5. Psychohistorian made a referenced edit to begin to address Fourdee's concerns.[34]
6. Fourdee declared an edit war [35] and four minutes later re-reverted.[36] Because it was angrily or hastily or carelessly done, he clobbered Psychohistorian's edit and had to restore it 24 minutes later.[37]
7. I did not do a further reversion. Instead I judiciously removed a number of the tags, replacing some of them with explanations in HTML comments. Fourdee had objected to the format of citations and references,[38] so I edited the article (tags and cites) to address that issue, making them conform to current Wikipedia Manual of Style. Another editor introduced a reference.[39]
8. Fourdee did a wholesale reversion of all my edits and the other editor's,[40] and left an edit summary that incorrectly claimed it was my edit war and incorrectly asserting that I was deleting his edits wholesale. He then attempted to restore the other editor's edit, but botched it.[41]
9. Fourdee asked us to "work" with him [42], but then two hours unilaterally without any discussion or notification later places a demand to "fully protect" the article.[43] In doing so, he made a personal attack against me, falsely claiming that "Hu believes no citations are needed for a controversial topic", I suppose attempting to make me look stupid or totally opposed to Wikiipedia policy when the exact opposite is true. He also wrongly and harmfully claimed that I had engaged in an edit war, when the record shows that I had essentially only made two edits (when near simultaneous edits are lumped together) [44],[45], and my second edit was dealing with his issues and was not a reversion.
10. Then Fourdee got angry at me for watching his contributions [46] (the only way to know he was litigating behind our backs). I had made a single edit [47] moving a comment from the front to back of a talk page (where it belonged) and he called that "harrassing his edits". He used it as a false claim on the Request page [48] to try to discredit me as part of his efforts to get the article frozen.
11. The editors backed off and stopped editing the Emergence page, which then was frozen into Fourdee's reverted form.
12. Fourdee then called it "unfortunate" (after the fact) that he had got his way and got the article frozen.

From this point there ensued much discussion on the Arch.2 and Arch.3 pages in which a number of editors attempted to pin him down on various issues but were unsucessful. He wrote two essays on "fallacies" that were his own ideas (with no discernable academic merit) and have little or no application to editing the article.

The Nub of Fourdee's Complaint

1. At a certain point, Fourdee took exception to some day old remarks of Psychohistorian and chose to delete them,[49] claiming that they were personal attacks. In the same edit he made a small rebuttal to one of them.
2. Fourdee placed a message on Psychohistorian's Talk page with not one NPA warning but two in a single message, both an NPA2 and an NPA3.[50]
3. I reverted the deletions [51] with the summary message "You may not edit other people's remarks. It is not for you to play censor." In the process, his rebuttal was also reverted (I didn't see it).
4. Fourdee again deleted the remarks [52] with the summary "hu, you are again mistaken about the usual practice on wikipedia, which is to delete ad hominem attacks" (note the use of the word "again").
5. I made a second reversion with a message that pointed to the pertinent page that shows that he was mistaken not me: "Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks is guideline not policy. Further, it "should be used sparingly"." [53]
6. Fourdee deleted them a third time, taunting me and daring me with "care to go for 3?".[54]
7. Fourdee placed not one NPA warning, but two in a single message on my Talk page, both an NPA2 and an NPA3 (same pattern as he did with Psychohistorian).[55]
8. Psychohistorian restored his own [56] comments with the message "please do not edit other peoples comments in the discussion page, it is considered a form of vandalism". (three edits to restore)
9. Ten minutes later Fourdee lodged his complaint against Psychohistorian on the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard.[57]
10. Three hours later Fourdee had still not notified Psychohistorian of his complaint, so I did so, making a refutation at the same time,[58] noting that Fourdee had violated 8 of the guideline's provisions, especially that when such removals are contested, "it's best to let the disputed comment stand, allowing other editors to judge for themselves".WP:RPA.
11. Fourdee's complaint was denied by two editors, one of them an Admin,[59] and the other who refuted each of the claims and finds that Fourdee is "pretty aggressive".[60]

Fourdee's Pattern

• Makes unnotified litigation.
• Takes heavy-handed unilateral actions and then only afterward writes a conciliatory note on the talk page, once his actions are entrenched or frozen in.
• Puts a double warning in a single edit and claims that is multiple warnings.
• Alternatively uses a discredited abuser of NPA warnings (Lukas19/Thulean) as evidence of "multiple" warnings, even after [61] being told this was foolish.[62]
• Attempts to impose conditions on editing the article that no other article in Wikipedia has to endure. (Ph.D. references only, narrow definition of acceptable fields, constraining source writers strictly with narrow fields, even though this topic is inherently cross-disciplinary.)
• Attempts to declare some topics (philosophy) off-limits [63] in the article and then denies having done so.[64]
• Refuses to make a detailed explanation of his tagging, as requested,[65] but issues a blanket assertion [66] which is not quite correct since he has tags on things that are common knowledge like "individual neurons don't think".
• On the other hand makes detailed arguments on philosophical points against Psychohistorian that he admits have nothing to do with editing the article.[67]
• Has only made one small rewrite [68] to the New Version of the article, despite the fact that others (Kyle and myself) have done substantial detailed work.[69],[70]
• Is not interested in adding content to the article,[71] but is ready to disrupt Wikipedia a second time with massive deletions to the article in order to make his point ("my first action will be to delete all [52] uncited and improperly cited statements"), [72], claiming it is policy when it directly counter to policy (Major changes).
• Seeks to deny input from Psychohistorian and others with comments like "Your (incomplete) (non-)credentials".[73]

Psychohistorian's Conciliatory Responses

Mainly on the Talk:Emergence page:

• [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80].
• Gives the last word on a thread [81] to Fourdee who jumps at it [82] and then archives the page.

Psychohistorian makes numerous other conciliatory and cooperative statements in other places.

Conclusion

Fourdee is the prime initiator of the problem right from the beginning with the disruptive tagging and Psychohistorian has been drawn into a vortex that has frustrated all of us and consumed too much time dealing with Fourdee and not enough time editing the article. Psychohistorian has also been under pressure dealing with Thulean/Lukas19.

This complaint against Psychohistorian should be denied.

-- Hu 16:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Hu 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree. Possibly advise that you shouldn't feed the trolls. But that's about it. Addhoc 12:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
3. --Sugaar 18:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by FeloniousMonk

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.

This RFC strikes me as another misuse of WP:DR to cow an opponent in a content dispute. I see no evidence of serial policy violations that warrant an RFC; but I do see a pattern of vexatious litigation on the part of Fourdee here and at WP:PAIN. I urge Fourdee find another way to resolve his content disputes other than with baseless WP:PAIN and WP:RFC filings. FeloniousMonk 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Again, possibly advise that you shouldn't feed the trolls. Addhoc 12:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Agree. Hu 13:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Agree. Alun 10:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree, see talk page. Perel 07:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Report copied from WP:PAIN

Psychohistorian (talk · contribs)

Much more extensive evidence of the long term pattern of personal attacks is given at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Psychohistorian. Fourdee 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Despite being repeatedly warned[83] about ad hominem, user has added [84] blatant personal attacks back to talk page, commiting personal attacks again. Fourdee 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fourdee has not notified Psychohistorian of this report, but I have done so and responded as a semi-involved third party with a timeline and some perspective (notice and discussion). — Hu 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

These don't seem like blatant personal attacks. Incivility, perhaps, but he's still making an effort to discuss the issue at large, as far as I can see. If you can establish this as part of a greater trend, in an RfC, or link to some more severe comments, I may be more inclined to take some action. Luna Santin 08:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick examination of Psychohistorian's contributions indicates a wider pattern of much more abusive and uncivil comments on talk pages, all in the same vein - insulting the editor, or insulting their education. Again calling editors ignorant [85] and accusing them of "bitching" [86], calling editor "paranoid" and "unreasonable" [87], says editor has "inferiority complex" [88], again insulting editor's education and implying editor has not reached the 11th grade [89], education & "put it at your level" [90], etc. Everywhere I look in his talk page edits there is personal abuse, and he has been warned about this previously [91]. He knows the policies on civility and no personal attacks and chooses to disregard them. It seems to me he needs to be corrected by more than a warning. Fourdee 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you are witch-hunting Psychohistorian but I must say he's extremely cold (even too much for my taste). He virtually never engages in ad hominem discussions and many if not all of your alleged PAs can't be seen as such. Example: when he says that he dislikes that editors employ more time "bitching at each other" than working in the article, we can't but agree with him. When he says that "this fact seems to be eluding you", he's not calling the other editor (a pretty aggresive one, btw) "ignorant" as you claim, just expressing his frutration at the fact that he's not understood. When he says that "is a skill you should be pretty competent in by the time you reach 11th grade if you're in a good school system" he's not talking at the other editor but using a common generalistic form in English. Finally warns from Thulean/Lukas19 have no validity: that user has disqualified himself by systematically abusing the PA warn system on any minimal and even many imaginary slip. He doesn't discuss: he provokes you and waits for you to say anything that could even vaguely resemble a PA and then he places one or three warnings in your user talk page.

In brief, you have nothing. --Sugaar 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Although he may be right, he is definitely using a language that is unessecarily confrontative. He should cool down, IMO. --Regebro 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The "inferiority complex" and "paranoid" comments are inarguably ad hominem, and are part of a pattern of being insulting to people's character, sanity, intelligence and knowledge. I am not "witch-hunting" Psychohistorian (I was requested to provide further examples of a pattern of abuse and I did so) although I have admittedly developed a dislike for his style of abusive argumentation and his inability to accept any point of view other than his own. There are even more examples of his habits than the above. He is constantly involved in heated disputes with people for whom he apparently cannot offer the appropriate of civility and respect; there is a distinct pattern to his behavior. Fourdee 20:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I ask that the people who choose to respond to this read the posts in question in context - read the posts before and after the posts that I wrote - before commenting on them.-Psychohistorian 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Even were the context of these comments personal insults against you (which is not the case) they would still be clear ad hominem. Whether or not "argumentum ad hominem" (mostly argumentum ad personam) is the standard for personal attack on wikipedia I am not clear, but the above are crystal clear examples of it. It doesn't matter how "frustrated" you are (which is by your own admission) or how "wrong" or "ignorant" these people are, you are insulting their character, credentials, sanity, abilities, etc. on a persistent basis and it is at the least uncivil and directed at the person - don't know what could be more of a "personal attack" than calling someone paranoid or accusing them of having an inferiority complex. Context is irrelevant. Fourdee 17:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

As I stated elsewhere, I will not be responding in any signficant depth to these issues as I feel that my posts linked to above are their own defense (not to mention that Hu and Sugaar have already done a terrific job of addressing the issues for me - my thanks go out to both of you). I ask only that my posts be read in context before anyone comment on them.-Psychohistorian 18:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are defending your wordings with "context", that is, that you are right and/or others are worse than you or something. That simply is no excuse. You clearly are using agressive and very confrontative language. Don't do that. It's as simple as that. --Regebro 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my disputed posts for context before commenting on them?-Psychohistorian 18:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes. --Regebro 20:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, and which ones of the links above did you view as personal attacks after reading the context?-Psychohistorian 20:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

All of them. Being right is no excuse for ad hominem statements. --Regebro 08:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the context that would excuse personal attacks? Fourdee 19:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at the following which you claimed was an attack, but when taken in context, you find that the user to whom it was directed didn't take it as one, but rather took it in the spirit that it was intended [92]. This is an example of why I am urging everyone here to look at the context, because stripping comments out of context gives an inaccurate view of the discussion in dispute.-Psychohistorian 19:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone trying to take your insults in (supposedly) good humor, in a single case (when there are a great many instances of you being insulting), hardly mitigates the fact of the personal attack. What I find particularly shocking is that you see nothing wrong with your insulting and abusive behavior and have defended it, even continued it, despite complaints and warnings. I guess you see nothing wrong with calling people "paranoid", "ignorant" and saying they have "inferiority complexes"? Why can't you just agree to be more civil, is that so hard? Fourdee 19:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am finding myself being dragged into your drama all over again. I'd rather not be. So, I'm going to respond once to you. I'll respond to others if necessary. The fact is, you are projecting on that editor that he took my comments as an attack. I am pointing out that he took them in humor (given that he wrote "lol"). In fact, if you truly felt the context would support your position, why didn't you provide it? Its because what you've written is a distortion - a distortion which has been recognized as such by most of the people commenting on this. All I've written in my defense is to encourage people to read up on the issue before commenting on it, because I know that when people are informed on it, they'll agree that my posts are their own defense.-Psychohistorian 19:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This listing strikes me as another misuse of WP:PAIN to cow an opponent in a content dispute. I see no evidence of NPA violations; I suggest Fourdee find another way to resolve his issues other than iffy WP:PAIN and WP:RFC filings. FeloniousMonk 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Define personal attack. The definition I am operating under is that of argumentum ad hominem. Attacking someone's credentials, knowledge, abilities, sanity and such are the most crystal clear examples of ad hominem possible short of calling them a poophead. If this kind of abuse and incivility is acceptable I look forward to employing it generously myself. Fourdee 00:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean like when you attacked Psychohistorian's credentials? When you wrote "Your (incomplete) (non-)credentials".[93] I suggest you give up that kind of attack, Fourdee, give up your multiple vexatious litigations and release your death-grip on Emergence. Hu 01:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, excellent Hu, very good tu quoque. Logical error on your part aside, you're right, that does look like argumentum ad hominem. Which apparently is acceptable on wikipedia. I did it once (and very mildly) and psycho historian did it 15+ times and refuses to acknowledge it is wrong in any way. Fourdee 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not a logical error, since it is not meant as a defence, and it was a single example, and it is meant as a request for you to realize that you and Wikipedia would be better off if you looked to your own disruptive behavior and took care of that first. Your continual escalation is not advancing anything and it is just wasting a lot of time. You are being overly sensitive here for effect and you are a stronger man than you pretend to be, and with a little perspective, you can be more gracious too than you believe yourself capable of. Relaxation of your take-no-prisoners attitutude would allow every one to breath more easily and get on with editing. Hu 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note, this particular discussion is quickly becoming the longest one on this page. That is because this page is not being used for its intended use. Read above, "disputes and discussions over reports are not suitable for this page except for such comments left by admins or reviewers describing their actions and/or findings". You shouldn't be adding commentary here unless you are a reviewer/admin (as I understand it, that means Fourdee, Lucas19 (if we are consolidating material from the RfC on the same issue), and myself should stop posting commentary here - we aren't admins/reviewers, but rather participants).-Psychohistorian 01:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep editing here then? This is my report and I was asked by an administrator to further expound on it. Lucas isn't even posting here - it's weird how you fling the term "paranoid" around then see people (other persecutors of you no doubt) who are not even here. Oops, is that permissible to say or not? I have no idea what policy here is, obviously it is not based on ad hominem being prohibited. Fourdee 02:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

(Note: Copied this from WP:PAIN to avoid cluttering up the board. Will note as much, there. Luna Santin 21:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Motion to close

There having been no input for a month, I propose this be archived. Any unresolved differences should probaly be settled through mediation, as the dispute appears to involve only a small number of editors. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree - this should be closed. Addhoc 22:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

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.

Closing comments

This RFC was closed after a period of inactivity as noted in the Motion to close section above. --Muchness (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.