User talk:Psb777/draft: Difference between revisions
On being called a racist |
proposed statement |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Statement== |
|||
Tkorrovi is a lying troll. I am guilty of baiting a troll. Nothing more. |
|||
==Tkorrovi's evidence== |
==Tkorrovi's evidence== |
||
Revision as of 22:12, 7 April 2005
Statement
Tkorrovi is a lying troll. I am guilty of baiting a troll. Nothing more.
Tkorrovi's evidence
- 18:14, 13 Mar 2004
- Content. Unexplained deletions on controversial article. Removed more than 60% of the article, replaced removed paragraphs with keywords, like "spatialization", "analog I", "analog Me", "excerption", "conciliation" and "narratization". Reverting this change resulted in series of extensive changes. [1].
No charge to answer. All edits made in good faith. Most explained in the edit comment or on the Talk page. Some discussed prior to the change. "Edit boldly", they say. I did. And I improved the article. By contrast here is a set of deletions made by Tkorrovi (without rational explanation, the edit comment also makes a typically false accusation) which get reverted by Darien.
- 21:07, 13 Mar 2004
- Possible use of sock puppet, later named User:Ataturk, now there is no such user [2] [3].
See #Sock puppet.
- 00:42, 25 Apr 2004
- Personal viewpoint. A paragraph including a reference to children's book about Pony the Merrylegs, [4].
No charge to answer. It was a link to the book "The Discontented Pony", a popular children's story which I used as a reference to make a relevant point. The link no longer seems to work.
- 00:00, 3 May 2004
- Personal attack. "screw loose", a longer text [5].
This is humour. That a thermostat is conscious is a point which has been seriously made. I provided a reference. Tkorrovi, if the cap fits, wear it. Matt Stan, vehemently opposed to the thermostat is conscious argument, did not take offense.
- 12:05, 3 May 2004
- Personal attack. "That Tkorrovi consistently misrepresents the facts is well established" [6].
Good old Tkorrovi! What a great link he supplies and it is a good example of my assertion. In #Tkorrovi_consistently_misrepresents_the_facts I (will) have a comprehensive list but I suggest we just start with his supplied link. Tk had removed text supplied by me re David Chalmer's claim that a Thermostat can be considered conscious. (Chalmer's is a well respected figure in the field.) Tk then supplies a quote from Chalmers which he says shows he is saying the opposite. No! Chalmers effectively says it is difficult to argue against the proposition that a T is C. But Tk is vehement that his reading is correct. I say his interpretation is wrong, he misrepresents the facts.
- 17:23, 3 May 2004
- Personal attack. "You are a dishonest troll, tkorrovi. Please go away", [7].
By this stage Tk has taken to saying he did not say that which he has written. He is being tiresomely argumentative. Ugen64 remarks on this. I need to find some references for this.
- 23:53, 3 May 2004
No charge to answer as ignorance of Wikipedia policy is not a punishable offense. But I was not ignorant and I knew what I was doing. 1st example is not an edit made by me but it seems a good one. 2nd is a definite improvement. 3rd is my NPOV edit. I had tried and tried and tried to keep it neutral. Even the 2nd example was reverted by Tkorrovi. My reasoning I gave and Tk quotes it above.
- 00:10, 4 May 2004
- Personal attack. "You are not an asset to Wikipedia", longer text [11].
This heartfelt criticism of Tkorrovi I still agree with. I do not think it qualifies as an unwarranted personal attack as documented at personal attack. insert description of surrounding events here.
- 11:35, 4 May 2004
- Personal attack. "Tkorrovi's persistent trolling and dishonesty destroys any good will", [12].
- 14:25, 4 May 2004
- Personal attack. "he's paranoid", [13].
He is paranoid. Every edit is taken as a personal affront. Please see the edit history comments for 4 May.
- 14:42, 4 May 2004
- Personal attack. "That is correct. Tkorrovi is worthless troll", [14].
- 15:05, 4 May 2004
- Personal attack. "Tkorrovi caught out again in another barefaced lie. If he can twist the facts to support his view he will", [15].
Assertion made by me is demonstrably true.
To see what is going on here, to see the frustratingly mindless edits of Tkorrovi, to understand the circumstances please look at the edit history for May 4 and read the edit comments. Look at the edits!
- 15:34, 6 May 2004
- Personal attack. "So you say but you are not an authoritative source", [16].
Ugen64 explains why this is not a personal attack. See here.
- 00:27, 7 May 2004
- Removing a paragraph with reference to the article, the only explanation was that it doesn't belong to his "Genuine AC POV", [17].
No, this is another misrepresentation of the facts. Just a casual look at the Talk page shows [|this], a comprehensive attempt to get Tkorrovi to explain his sentence (not "paragraph"). This he has difficulty doing and the sentence remains deleted. But this misrepresentation here, in evidence, by Tkorrovi seems deliberate as his next point is this:
- 15:50, 7 May 2004
- Personal attack. "When in a hole, stop digging", [18].
This extract is from the discussion he claims was not had in the above point. And I deny this is a personal attack.
- 19:05, 10 May 2004
- Personal attack. "You are a pain in the neck to deal with", longer text, [19].
- 07:35, 11 May 2004
- Personal attack. "That's the paranoia I mentioned earluier", [20].
- 13:51, 2 Dec 2004
- Ignorance of Wikipedia policy concerning the NPOV label. Putting NPOV label back without a comment or explanation, the label was removed after all requirements necessary for removing it, provided by the Wikipedia rules, were met, [21], diffs of the last necessary changes to comply with NPOV label removing requirement [22] [23] [24] [25].
- 07:42, 8 Dec 2004
- Personal attack. "A correct argument is a valid argument where the premises are correct. Neither test applies, of course, when the argument is submitted by Tkorrovi", longer text, [26].
It's all Logic 101. That Tkorrovi seems not to have a grasp of this is demonstrated by him. I just point it out. That I bother to do so is not a personal attack. He says A implies B, C implies D. A. Therefore D. That I am sarcastic I admit, but see the surrounding circumstances. Getting a simple logic error recognised so as to allow faulty reasoning NOT to be represented in the article was like pulling hen's teeth. References needed here.
- 17:52, 8 Dec 2004
- Personal attack. "Tkorrovi, let someone else have a go with "your" article", [27].
No charge to answer. Not a personal attack. Tkorrovi deserves censure and was censured for not allowing others to edit "his" article, for claiming some sort of master editor privelege.
- 20:21, 8 Dec 2004
- Personal attack. Cimon Avaro talk page, discussion about mediation. "Tkorrovi is a pest", "Tkorrovi's understanding of the Wikipedia common procedures and standard editing behaviour is as warped as his understanding of his pet subject", longer text, [28].
Of course, that this is the truth is a valid defense against the charge. My language could be dressed up in weasel words: I could have said, "I find Tkorrovi awkward to deal with." And, "Tkorrovi should be encouraged to consult the Wikipedia documentation and to ask for help as his editing seems to display a severely distorted sense of the Wikipedia common procedures as well every bit as much as his uncompromising and opinionated view of AC, the only article to which he contributes." It seems more temperate for me to phrase it that way, it is more difficult to complain about, but it is every bit as much a criticism. But, however I phrase it, it is not "personal abuse". Of course, this is stuff said in mediation, in any event, and in the real world would be "without prejudice" and unavailable as evidence in court. Please, as ever in Tkorrovi's evidence, do actually follow his link and see if the conclusion he draws from his evidence is valid.
- 21:48, 8 Dec 2004
- Personal attack. "Edit boldly. Ignore Tkorrovi. That is what is necessary", [29].
- 05:53, 11 Dec 2004
- Personal attack. "You remind me of that", with a picture of monkeys in a car, yelling to the passing pedestrians "Bastards! Homo Sapiens!", meant me as a monkey. On Cimon Avaro mediation page, during the mediation [30].
- 07:40, 28 Mar 2005
- Consensus. Didn't want to allow me to edit the article by reverting my changes (I made different changes every time), without agreeing to explain or discuss, writing an absurd edit summary "remove non-grammatical, non-sequiter addition by Tkorrovi which is UNFIXABLE" concerning the text which was exactly copied from a scientific paper, more explanation in my comment in the arbitration request, [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36].
- 22:38, 28 Mar 2005
Questionnable or wrong edits by Paul Beardsell: [39] [40]
[41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]
Paul Beardsell forced into the article the term "Strong AC", or "Genuine AC", never used by any scientist before. This caused problems on the whole structure of the article, to accommodate his view, as a compromise to have "NPOV". as he interpreted it. [47]
Some of the underlying reasons of this "conflict" [48].
I submitted an arbitration request against Paul Beardsell [49]. I didn't see any provided evidence in what I am accused before starting the case, why the case was made against me, in addition to Paul Beardsell?
Concerning the evidence by ugen64:
(ugen64 was asked by Paul Beardsell to provide evidence here [50] [51])
4 April 2005
- I did not argue so much about the headers or other miniscule issues, if Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard did not change the headers, and move the text within talk page so frequently, and emphasize the miniscule issues.
- The only thing I said, was "anonymous, please register", I don't understand how this can be interpreted as preventing the anons from editing, or "taking to own the articles".
- I inserted a sentence without sources, it is not said anywhere that all sentences in the articles, like logical conclusions, must have sources. But, after this sentence was disputed, I removed it at [52].
- 13 March 2004 I don't see it as trolling, that prediction is an aspect of consciousness was argued at [53], which is a peer-reviewed paper, as said earlier. What Paul Beardsell states, is something which I only heared Paul Beardsell to say, and it doesn't even seem to be a logical conclusion based on any source.
- 13 March 2004 This edit war started from Paul Beardsell removing most of the content of the article, I mentioned earlier. I was a new Wikipedia user then, with not much edits, and therefore I had not much experience to deal with such conflicts correctly. But in the end, the article was protected in a version favourable for Paul Beardsell, by ugen64.
- Sorry, couldn't find that from the history, the history is only 500 changes deep, and the earlier conversation is not there. Don't remember saying that, but this is also not an attack against any person in particular.
- 30 March 2004 This was one of the series of major changes, which followed removing the content by Paul Beardsell. I would not describe it as a "wholesale revert", rather ugen64 added a lot of content, which I partly replaced with almost the same amount of content, these both were major changes.
- 30 March 2004 The user mentioned, an anonymous user 80.3.32.9 deleted the whole talk page of the article [54], which I think nobody considers a "good faith". I thought it was a sock puppet of Matthew Stannard, as it was created just then, and appeared together with Matthew Stannard, though later I had some doubts about that. There is no common definition of trolling, but the trolling by Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard I mentioned, is how I call this [55], ie an exercise of winding up a user, including the personal attacks both by Paul Beardsell and Matthew Stannard. I don't remember saying exactly that, but I considered to submit a request for arbitration, talked about it, and said exactly that -- I shall submit a request for arbitration, if there will be no alternatives, so this was not a threat.
- But see Wikipedia:Trolling 81.155.14.34 22:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see that I deserve any punishment, or ugen64 is going to double punish me for edit war almost a year ago, when, as I said, I was a beginning user with not much edits, and measures against me (protecting the article [56]) were already taken. I though consider it necessary to ban Paul Beardsell, because now already almost a year he did not want to settle the dispute, and his hostile behaviour didn't change even recently. This arbitration request by me was the last resort, no measures taken earlier, or in a civil way not responding to his attacks, didn't change Paul Beardsell's hostile behaviour. In Wikipedia I have almost only edited the Artificial consciousness article, and because of personal attacks, even this has been severely hindered.
Other users (81.155.14.34) started to edit my evidence [57], they should stop doing that.
Work in progress: My response
This is the new main page now the case is officially open: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell
Commentary from the original pre-opening page: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell/Proposed_decision Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tkorrovi_vs._Paul_Beardsell/Evidence
Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_1 The start of the "dialog" between Psb777 and Tkorrovi. Note how I try hard over many postings to try and discuss the original issue: The definition of AC. I eventually make the change I want to. Tkorrovi then says I was wrong to do so, says that his definition comes from an external source. I check: The external source is a forum he dominates. He claims the term AC was first used in 1996, I find that this is not true. I point out a contradiction in his reasoning. He adds an external link to an unpublished article which has not been peer reviewed and which reads badly. I later determine Tkorrovi wrote the article! I remove the link, he takes offense! I ask him to substantiate his contributions. He declines. I then say I am going to remove the word "all" from a sentence, I give my reasons also. I later do so. Once again he reacts like a stuck pig. I declare my frustration and ask for external review at the requests for review page. I re-rehearse all the args on the Talk page, Tkorrovi once again shows an unmistakable inability for logical thought together with a marked sensitivity for taking everything personally.
Sock puppet
Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_2 Talk showing me attempting to reason with Tkorrovi, Tkorrovi having taken to reverting all changes of any type made by me to AC. I logged out and made changes anonymously but Tkorrovi "ruled" that anonymous contributions were not allowed and started to revert all of those too. I was thus forced to adopt an alternative identity in order to continue to contribute, I did so, inventing Ataturk. My sock puppet Ataturk was then able to make the same edits without being reverted by Tkorrovi.
Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_5#Who_is_Ataturk? Here I admitted to being Ataturk 17 Mar 2004 At the time I was acutely well aware of the Wikipedia:Sock_puppet article which says sock puppets cannot be used without good reason. In this testimony I believe I have already demonstrated my good reason.
Hidden talk archive
Link to this is mysteriously missing from the talk page: Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_4_(Summarized_Materials)
Tkorrovi consistently misrepresents the facts
The many examples will be listed here.
For starters the accusation of vandalism (#Abuse of process by Tkorrovi) contains a barefaced lie.
Abuse of process by Tkorrovi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/archive06072004#Paul_Beardsell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalism_in_progress/archive06072004#Paul_Beardsell_2
What others have said about Tkorrovi
ugen64 and Matt Stan saying that Tkorrovi is not a good Wikipedian: User_talk:Psb777#Artificial_Consciousness
Not quite anon comments from Chinasaur who provides a reasoned argument for his conclusion that Tkorrovi "is a troll or very misguided" User_talk:Ugen64/Archive_1#Master_Editor_-_Artificial_Consciousness
On being called a racist
[[58]] and my talk page.