Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/October 2006/Attilios

Wikipedian filing request:

• Attilios (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• Fastifex (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• all user:Fastifex's edits

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

• Answer:Yes.

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: Fastifex continues to contribute to Wikipedia without taking minimally account of policies, style, etc. His talk pages is fully of three-reverts accuses, copyvio inquiries, requests for more congruence in what he adds, etc. He adds especially articles from Catholic Encyclopedia and 1911 Britannica, but without any attempt to edit them, to update statistics, to verify these sources, etc.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

• Answer: other users and I tried to making him notice the above problems many times. It seems his conduct has never changed minimally.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: To make him understand he should attain to the same rules that other users try to follow. To let him understand the minimum standard a Wikipedia article should have. That he should sometimes listen to what other users tell or ask from him.

Discussion:

Hello, Attilios! I've looked over the case, and as I see it the main issue is Fastifex's neglect to follow policy and style. Since requesting this case, has the situation lessened or grown?

I'll write to him and see if I can iron this out. Would you like to discuss this here, or in private? Would you like to invite Fastifex to this page to mutually discuss the matter? Regards, — Editor at Large^(speak) 03:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have written to Fastifex and have requested his presence here while we sort things out. Until then, I'll present my view of the case.

Fastifex's edits, although many are helpful, also consist of many cases of added information which is outdated or fails to follow Wikipedia style guidelines. Fastifex has been notified of this, but the problem continues.

From what I've seen on Fastifex's talk page, many of the messages left for him have been a bit abrasive. The overwhelming amount of complaints he is recieving would not encourage me to change my ways, were I in his position. If someone kindly explained the situation to me I would be more willing to cooperate than if someone was constantly attacking me; psychologically, people are more willing to co-operate than oppose if they are treated fairly and with respect.

People innately do what they are told they can't or shouldn't do by what they deem to be authority figures: Mom tells son not to look under the bed, and leaves room. What is the first thing son is going to do? Mom tells daughter not to go out with Slick or else. What is daughter going to do? However, if Mom tells son he shouldn't look under the bed because there is nothing there to see and shows him, son is going to leave the room and not care. If Mom tells daughter not to go out with Slick because he dumped her best friend when she didn't have enough money to go to Vegas with him, and Mom brings best friend in to talk to daughter, daughter will dump Slick. People need explanations for why what they are doing is wrong, and what good will come from changing their ways.

I think the best course of action at the moment is to provide a comprehensive compilation of Wikipedia style guidelines and policies and show Fastifex how his edits can be improved. We should attempt to work with him to correct the problems and be patient if it takes a while. This all, of course, depends on Fastifex's cooperation, without which a block may prove to be the only possible course of action. However, we should try to avoid this at all costs. I am willing to put the time and effort into this, and ask for the cooperation of all involved parties in solving this dispute.

Some questions: Has anyone tried quietly discussing the problem at hand and figuring things out with this user? Has Fastifex responded to any of the messages, and if he has, was the answer positive or negative? Has he stopped any actions after having them brought to his attention? — Editor at Large^(speak) 20:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

No. I seem he replied me sometimes ago, but it seems that it had stopped. i must tell you that is confusing and disrupting additions are continuing. Did he reply you? I imagine he didn't. I seem he won't at all. There are probably no ways to make him reason. I'm thinking the only solution is to block him (I've contacted other users, they agree on the move). Let me know. --Attilios 00:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Arbitrator, although I don't consider Attilios or any of the repeat-complainers authority figures, you do have a point that conflicts often have a psychological component: the more aggressive the tone, the more likely it is to get no result or even an adverse reaction; I try to control that emotional tendency, a human weakness that tends to sneak in, especially when under watchlist-time presure, but sometimes it may get the better of me, regrettably. In Attilios' case, the style and tone of his comments (including edit summaries, far more numerous then talk contacts, on both sides) suggested to me -it remains a guessing game, of course- a Latin hot head even before he mentioned his living near Rome (I love Italy and like the Italians in general, but consider the southern temper a bit of a downside, well outweighed by upsides; obviously these generalisations are just that, not a prejudice applicable as such). While I have a thick hide when it comes to insults directed at my person -who has recourse to that demonstrates a lack of valid argumentation; a watchlist over 9800 without reactions would be worrying- I do take offense at his repeated, almost consistent grossness concerning the subject of Ecclesiastical history which he keeps calling 'stupid', as it literally makes no sense (only people are stupid or intelligent, not facts), offends over a billion of Catholics, suggests utter disregard for two milennia of history and apparently is 'justified' in his eyes by a systematical prejudice against anything taken from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. I don't mind people making constructive, plausible edits, on the contrary, but when one pretends to know better then a proper source (there is a large-scale project going on to incorporate in Wikipedia the nearly 12,000 CE articles, it's not exactly an erratic pet project of mine) I do expect major changes to be backed up by other serious sources; if anything undermines the credibility of the majority of edit(or)s in my eyes, then it's almost systematically not sourcing. The bulk of his objections with by editing concerns what is actually a minority of my output: diocesan histories, mainly from the CE (Attilios seems tot hink of me as a Catholic zelot, but most of my contributions don’t concern church or religion at all, in fact I’ld be quit happy when in a number of years the CE get completely integrated, and sincerely regret there is no similar copyright free teasure house for other religions); I usually create these as new sections in existing pages on the city which is the eponymous episcopal see (he seems to specialise in Italian cities; most of my similar contributions on non-Italian sees suffer no Attilian type attacks), often working in a good deal of CE data into other sections (e.g. secular History, Sights), most of which he seems to be happy with, perhaps because it’s secular in nature; although I believe a section on Ecclesiastical History the best home for those data in most cases, I have come to accept as a modus vivendi that he (and sometimes someone else, such as Olivier, mostly regarding French sees) splits off the ecclesiastical section as a diocesan article (a good thing in the rare cases someone wants to actually elaborate that beyond ecclsiastical history), NOT however his tendency to make deletions in the process, often even including the sourcing: God forbid CE gets credited, I guess, but not crediting a spurce actually is a capital sin of the academical variety; the utter butt of his fury are the statistical subsections on the situation in the early 20th century- he keep raving on about updating, and in the extremely rare cases anyone (not counting some of my own updatings based on GigaCatholic, something that should be done systematically after the CE project is finished, but in that order: the CE data are static, Giga changes; since these are extremely rare, I gues there is practically n odemand fort them, and/or very little recent data found by those interested) actually contributes some more recent data I’m only to happy to welcome them, as additions, but personally I don’t care enough for the present numbers (a zelote would) to go hunting for them myself- not to long before the Second Vatican Council actually seems to me a fairly fortunate timing: the end of the era when the Catholic church still had a major impact on many countries’ society in general.

You have a very good point that explaining WHY something would be better is precisely what's most likely to get better results as its suggests a constructive attitude. After all, wiki-conventions are just guidelines, not enforceable legislation or 'the divine will', and that's how I approach them: suggested means, not an end in themselves. If that constitutes an intolerable attitude in se, kill me (well, Fastifex) now: it will never change. If you attach, like me, more importance to the actual content presented to our readers, which should be the measure of all things Wiki, then I hope you judge my record base don the actual content contributed, not individual opinions (obviously conflict generates far more evidence then approval, except in mutual admiration societies), and may be able to make some constructive suggestions, preferably with rationale.

Fastifex 08:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for responding! I hope that I can be of use in making clear what the issue is without causing any of my own.

The main problem is the addition of out-of-date information. Although old information may be better than no information in some areas (and information is always appreciated -- as long as it's up-to-date!), for an encyclopedia it unfortunately is not. To illustrate what I mean, I'll provide an example situation:

Say I wanted to look up who the first famous European to set foot in North America was. The person who wrote the article couldn't find modern information readily available, so they used an older (pre-1950) encyclopedia they had on hand, which stated that it was Christopher Columbus. So, I read this, trust Wikipedia as a reliable source, and put this information on my school paper. Well, we know now that it was Leif Ericson, and although this information may not have been available to the author, it was available somewhere and the older information shouldn't have been inserted. I fail my paper because I added incorrect facts.

You can see in this example how it would have been better to leave the article without the information, when new info was unavailable: then, in finding that Wikipedia lacked the information I was looking for, I would have looked somewhere that may have the correct facts I was looking for. — Editor at Large^(speak) 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply by Attilios

First, I want to clarify I have nothing against Catholicism and Catholic zealots (by the way, I wrote several articles of saints, churches, abbeys etc. without any problem). When I wrote "stupid", I referred to the material it was added, i.e., mainly the way it was shown. I repeat, I've never read any encyclopedia with additions like those by Fastifex, as for their format as for the info contained. He calls mine a "prejudice" against CE, but when he adds names of cities no more existing, places reached by trains that no more go, confused list of bishops of no historical importance, things clearly written with Catholic POV (ie, monarchs killing martyrs where often depicted as "cruel, ruthless, disgusting, revoltant", preachers are invariably "caring, exceptional" etc.) what to do? I continue to say that it is clear that he refuses not only to follow (phrases like "I will never change" show well his way to think), but, in my opinion, even to give a glance to the guideline pages here. I repeat, I have nothing against CE material in itself, but if he tried to rewrite it in an acceptable way for Wikipedia he'll spare me and other editors the time lost to do it in his lieu. Thus, I'm still motivated to start the procedure of banning of Fastifex if he will continue in this way. I think I will have the consensus (however, I'm still unable to find where to start... can you help me) from other editors. Bye.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilios (talk • contribs)

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

• Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

• Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

• Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: open

Advocate Status:

• Accepted by — Editor at Large^(speak) 03:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)