User talk:Til Eulenspiegel

Welcome!

Hello, Til Eulenspiegel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

--Danski14^(talk) 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Responding to months old comments on talk pages

Doing so is fairly useless and will not be seen by anyone. If you wish to bring up a new issue, start a new section. —Centrx→talk • 18:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

NPA ("No Personal Attack") concerns, indeed... (moved from Talk:Noah's Ark by User:KillerChihuahua)

1. With this edit, User:Orange Marlin referred to me as "some highly POV editor" without exactly knowing what my private views are, because I had restored the statement detailing what religions the belief in Noah's Ark is found in.
2. With this edit, User:Filll wrote: If an obscure minority extremist religion like the "Mormons" venerates the Ark story and declares it to be "true", this proves nothing, and some might take it as a very serious strike against its veracity, given the Mormon track record on many other issues. (Underscoring mine.) This is a reportable violation of Wikipedia policy, and betrays open hostility.
3. With this edit, User Filll wrote: :It is too bad that you are incomprehensible. Oh well. I guess I did not expect much else. This is also an ad hominem personal attack. In the same edit he added: gallons and gallons of blood have been spilt by people with your kind of viewpoint. Without even exactly knowing what religion I belong to, if any, he feels confident enough to spread accusatory, reportable slander against my person, in default of any kind of logical argument.
4. He continued the blatant ad hominem with this edit where he stated: Hmm...And I guess that assuming you subscribe to a religion is some sort of terrible slander against you, equivalent to spitting on you. In such case, it is best that I leave you alone in your reveries and fantasies.
5. Not to be outdone, User:Orange Marlin, in denying that User:Filll had made apersonal attack against me, then referred to me as "pathetic" in this edit: [1]
6. Orange Marlin then made this very strange edit, stating: It's amusing that their faith is so weak that any challenge to their view of the universe, obviously means their faith has no meaning. Well, obviously their faith was weak to begin with. This is very strange, because as I have never revealed whether I have any faith and if so, that would be strictly private and none of your business, just as whatever faith you choose is none of my business. But the remarks clearly reveal some kind of innate hostility against those in the world who do profess some sort of faith, or an express desire to weaken or deride that faith.
7. I, Til Eulenspiegel, having noted all of these and also several other comments of theirs, fairly made the observation at WP:LDS that these editors do not hide their hostility against people of faith. And just for that, you come in as if with authority of judge, jury and executioner all in one, and inform me that I am in violation of NPA. This is truly a sad day in hypocrisy, wikipedians. Til Eulenspiegel 23:06, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved this here as article talk pages are not the best place for resolving disputes concerning anything but content of the article itself. Neither is the LDS Wikiproject. I am certain you saw that I admonished the other editors as well (and you may find reassuance in the knowledge that on at least one previous occasion, I removed one of OrangeMarlin's posts, without even moving it anywhere for discussion.) Personal attacks and incivility are best handled through other venues; counter-attacks and escalation serve neither the injured editor nor the project as whole. While I understand your frustration, I suggest you take a little time to consider what your primary goals here are. If you are here to promote a particular point of view, you are in the wrong place. I suggest one of the Christian Wikis instead. If you are here to become mired in flame wars, UseNet will be a more tolerant venue. If you are here to help write an encyclopedia and ensure accuracy and neutrality of the content, you are not going to acheive those goals by sinking into mud-slinging and ad hom wars, nor cries of censorship, suppresion, or complaints of executioners. Please let me know if I can help you in any way here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs).

Formal Complaint

• Yes, there is something I need help with, actually. I would like to press a formal complaint against User:Filll for making this statement in blatant violation of policy: [2] "If an obscure minority extremist religion like the "Mormons" venerates the Ark story and declares it to be "true", this proves nothing, and some might take it as a very serious strike against its veracity, given the Mormon track record on many other issues."

The fact that you chose to admonish only me and AllenRoyBoy, but not User:Filll, does not exactly inspire great confidence in your impartiality as an admin -- so I will be seeking another admin who is truly impartial. Your impartiality is especially in question considering that you also removed the Book of Mormon from among the list of Scriptures that Mention the Ark, with your opinion that "The Mormons are a small minority and including their views here violates Undue weight. Gain consensus for desired changes before making them. This is FA, not Cleanup, level article". My only intention from the beginning was to list Book of Mormon among all the other Scriptures where the Ark is specifically mentioned, which it is, not to write a religious tract or preach or push any religion whatsoever on non-believers. But the forces of intolerance have prevailed. Human history has repeatedly demonstrated in spades that whenever intolerant demagogues start spouting such language as "an obscure minority extremist religion like the ___", it would be very wise for that minority in question to leave the country quickly for their own safety. This is the language of intolerance, when what is sorely needed in the world now is tolerance for people who might believe differently or have different beliefs from ourselves. Is this not the fundamental reason that Wikipedia even has these basic policies in place, expressly forbidding such verbal attacks in the first place? Yet as admin, you chose not to warn him for this alarming statement, but rather to warn and threaten me, and only for actually daring to notice. So much for your supposed neutrality. I now demand that this incident be investigated by some higher authority than you. Til Eulenspiegel 12:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The first step in dispute resolution is always to attempt to resolve issues with the other party, not to "press a formal complaint" against them. I did not admonish "only me (Til) and AllenRoyBoy", I admonished you specifically, and everyone else collectively. Feel free to seek a second, or even a third opinion, or request uninvolved administrators examine my actions at the Administrator's noticeboard for incidents. That you have utterly failed to gain consensus, or indeed make a coherent case on talk, for your desired changes does not constitute "intolerance" in the least, nor is it an attack. One thing which seems to be a recurring theme with you is your quickness at attacking others who do not agree with you or even those who do not understand your points, accusing them of supression, censorship, hostility to religion, bias, and so on ad nauseam. This is not productive in the least, and I wonder why, after having been informed several times that you are merely coming across as an argumentative, hostile, accusatory self-proclaimed victim that you are not attempting to find an approach likely to meet with more success. Your "demand" that someone with "more authority" than myself is utterly useless - no such person exists except for Jimbo or the Arbcom, and neither will be interested in your complaints. Instructions for opening an Rfc against me are here. And finally, you accuse me of threatening you. Please either provide a dif of where I have done so, or retract this accusation. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I felt threatened by this where you wrote "Also, please note that Til has combined his concerns for accuracy with an unwarranted and completely unacceptable personal attack, accusing editors who disagree with his desire to include a specific paragraph about the LDS of "hostility to all forms of faith." Til, I remind you again, please comment on the content, not the contributor. If you feel an edit is inappropriate, address the edit, not the editor. Consider this a NPA warning."

The fact that you saw fit to warn only me, when to this date I have not made any personal attack, and wrote "Consider this an NPA warning" seems to indicate that you are ready to block me for the slightest pretext when I haven't done anything wrong. The others were engaging in much personal attacks and ad hominem against me as detailed above, and I was not responding in kind, but trying to address the actual argument. The words of mine in question, "hostility to all forms of faith" were an observation I made on the WP:LDS project, and a fair one, since they had both just broadcast their opinion that "all religion is myth, because it isn't scientific" and many, many similar comments. The conversation on your talk page clearly shows that you hold your buddies whom you yuck it up with and slap on the back, to a much lower standard and look the other way when they call me "pathetic", call Mormons "extremist", etc. but at the same time you hold me to a much higher standard, officially warning me just for complaining on the WP:LDS project as you saw from my contrib list. The double standard suggests that perhaps you know that your friends would never be able to meet the same high standard you hold me to, because they just can't help themselves from being offensive, so it's allowed for them, but not allowed for me to notice or say anything when they do. Since your clear pattern is to benefit and make excuses for your friends who share your opinion, while coming down harshly on those who you even suspect might hold a different opinion, I can only conclude from all this that you seem to be one of the worst and most biased sysops in all of wikipedia, and that disagreeing with you is downright dangerous. Til Eulenspiegel 16:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. I am "one of the worst and most biased sysops in all of wikipedia, and that disagreeing with you is downright dangerous"? I give up. This is beyond nonsense. I have better things to do with my time. I have tried to assume good faith with you, but this is absurd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, it is true that while Wikipedia does have higher management, they refuse to deal with these simple issues, administrators like myself and Killer are the only people who you really get to deal with in this situation, so relax now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 15:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm just dropping by from WP:3O. I would say that editors on both sides of the issue need to take a deep breath and reread WP:CIVIL. Also, the paragraph in question does not violate Wikipedia:Undue weight. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to join the discussion on Talk:Noah's Ark about the content dispute. As far as civility, a reminder to "editors on both sides" to be civil is not particularly helpful in this instance. Both sides of what? Which editors? If you are speaking of the civility issues Til listed above, that was all on Talk:Noah's Ark, and the situation there has calmed and there have been no futher incivilities. None of those editors, so far as I know, are reading this (Til's) talk page, so reminders to them to follow a policy are not going to reach the intended party. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. Sorry for not being more helpful. I was thinking of Filll and Til Eulenspiegel in particular, so if there are no longer ill feelings between these editors then great. I do think that calling you "one of the worst and most biased sysops in all of wikipedia" is an overreaction. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, after I posted my admonishment on Talk:Noah's Ark, Filll posted on my talk page an acknowledgement and his intentions to "be good"[3] and has done so - there is now no further hostility or civility issue there. In that respect, I feel my actions on the article talk page have been successful. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

They have been. Til Owlsmirror needs to chill a bit and stop playing the martyr card. •Jim62sch• 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can criticise me all I want, but I know I have done nothing wrong, so your what is your criticism accomplishing? Why do you seem to spend so much of your time criticising people who have done absolutely nothing wrong, while applauding and cheering those who openly flout the rules of civility, is what I want to know. Something is very very rotten here when people can slap me right in the face, and I am immediately the one perceived to be at fault because I do not offer my other cheek. There have to be some kind of standards that apply to everyone without such arbitrary whim, corruption and favoritism, and this sorely needs to be addressed. I want many, many more admins to see this talkpage and take note of what is really going on here and who is involved. Til Eulenspiegel 23:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Relax

Owl dude. You're heading for a massive coronary at this rate. Killer Chihuahua is one of the better editors around for making certain WP:NPOV is not violated. Your comments could be classified as uncivil, so you should just relax. KC does not play favorites. KC keeps the peace in more edits than you can imagine. And frankly, Mormonism is really a small religion, and we don't have the bandwidth to write about the viewpoints of every Christian sect that may be out there. And given the LDS church's stance on Evolution, I doubt you'd find much dispute about this article with the LDS leadership. Orangemarlin 23:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your unsubstantiated opinions to yourself. I am not headed for a coronary, I am in fine health thank you. I have not been uncivil even once; others have been uncivil toward me without cause and so far I have alone been reprimanded and demonized when I am innocent, innocent I tell you. Whatever wrongdoing it is you are criticizing me for now, I didn't do it. It seems like rules such as WP:CIVIL are not there to apply to you or Filll, because you have some kind of special card, or perhaps know the right people, that allows you to call any editors whatever names you want, and blast off hate speech about groups of millions of people all you want, with total impunity. No, the rules like WP:CIVIL, as I am learning from this incident, only apply to the editors like me, who are not so privileged as you. This is favoritism plain and simple but I wouldn't expect you to be the one to admit it. Til Eulenspiegel 00:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My unsubstantiated opinions about what? I tried to be nice, and you react in the same way. I don't call anyone a name, no one plays favorites, and you really need to get off this point. Orangemarlin 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you can try to deny it but the permanent record is there and it says differently. Either the rules apply evenly to everyone, and not just for some, or this is all a big sham and there's no point in having any rules. This has got to be resolved. Til Eulenspiegel 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, I came here from WP:3, and while I don't feel that is the right forum for this issue, and I'm not comfortable removing the request there. Still, I do think it's inappropriate to comment on another user in the method above. It's rather demeaning at best. While it's certainly laudable to try to defuse an issue, that choice of language is unlikely to be effective. I take no stance of anything else being said, I merely find it ill-advised to speak of another user's health like that. It's highly personal, and likely to be seen as an offensive intrusion. Mister.Manticore 04:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - There are plenty of appropriate avenues for seeking outside help with these issues, but WP:3O is not really one of them. For one thing, you apparently have more than two parties involved. I suggest WP:RFC or WP:RFM. Adrian M. H. 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already suggested Rfc, I also suggested AN/I since he complains I am a bad administrator, and frankly, RFM is not appropriate. There is nothing to mediate. As a member of the mediation committee myself, I can tell you this will not be accepted. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Hmm, I'm thinking it might be best if folks just dis-engaged a bit. I think that further discourse at this stage might just make for more trouble. Mister.Manticore 02:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm missing the part where I found Til being highly disruptive and insulting on Talk:Noah's Ark, I posted asking him specifically to abide by NPA, and admonishing other editors en masse. The other editors immediately responded by ceasing any and all potentially argumentative and personal posts, and have been concentrating on the content, not the contributor. Til has responded as you see above. He seems utterly clueless that his continually inflammatory and hostile rantings are not acceptable nor, which is more to the point, has he ceased his disruptive pattern of posting elsewhere. If I "disengage" as you put it, I am saying, basically, "Ok, this one is rude, hostile and violates CIVIL and NPA continually, but because he has chosen me to be his nemesis and accused me of being a poor administrator, I'd better just let him go on his rude, hostile, trolling way and leave him alone." In what way does this benefit this user, who has not yet learned we value civility here, or the project as a whole? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear, but to repeat myself I'm not taking any stance of anything else being said except the specific comment above. I was simply saying that a statement like "You're heading for a massive coronary at this rate" is unlikely to defuse a tense situation, and that given my observations here, it might be best to dis-engage a bit for all sides. Having a problem is one thing. Resolving it? That's another. Yes, I know it's important to not allow personal attacks, coercion and bullying to occur, these are very important and valuable things, and I'm quite concerned about them myself. (I've seen quite a few, they disturb me every time) But it's also important to make sure that the response to it is effective in resolving the problem. Speaking for myself, I know it's a hard road to travel sometimes, but that doesn't make it any less valuable. And in this case, the above statement, which I replied to, isn't likely to resolve anything, but rather to give offense. Does this apply to anything you've said? I don't know, but given what I see just in this section (let alone the page) I am concerned about escalation here. Thus I suggest all sides disengage a bit. This applies to you, and to Til Eulenspiegel, and to everybody else. If you do see something of further concern, perhaps you might care to contact someone else and let them speak on it? I'd be willing to do so if you wish. Mister.Manticore 21:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so at this point. Til ignored my advice to take it to AN/I, although he stated explicitly he wanted other administrators to take a look. He went to Jimbo's talk page instead, apparently assuming that I told him that was inappropriate for his views due to some convoluted idea that I was trying to avoid examination of my posts. However, on Jimbo's talk page, he finally posted a diff to a post when I asked, and I clarified for him, explaining how his interpretation was inaccurate. He has not since directly posted to me, but he has also ceased his baseless attacks on me. I believe that he may be "seeing the light" and reconsidering his interpretation of events. I have hope. :) At this time, I think it would be best to wait and see how he approaches his interactions with others from this point forward. And I hope I have made it clear that if he wishes clarification on anything, or if I can help in any way, I am available. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, never mind. He's now stated that if he doesn't get an answer from Jimbo himself, it is proof that Wikipedia is "a place where all kinds of bigotry is not only rampant but encouraged by the administration, as long as the target is not one of the "favoured" groups." and he plans to spam the world with that breaking news. I give up. Have at if you think it will do any good at all. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Regarding Noah's Ark & Jimbo's talk page. I have not followed the debates you have been involved in about Noah's Ark, an outside editor invited me to have a look at the discussion thread on Jimbo's talk page. Let me say that some of the comments directed at you may have been a little out of line. However, the correct response to that is not to lash out publicly for the slight against you/your church. More effective would have been a calm, private note to the user involved, asking him/her to tone down his/her rhetoric. Even more effective, it is sometimes best to just ignore such personal slights, and carry on with working on the encyclopedia. As to the general attitude toward religion on wikipedia -- I have never found this to be a place where I have been discriminated against for my faith, or found open hostility (except in cases that represent the minority) toward religion. What is requested is that facts about religion be presented in a neutral tone, based on verifiable information from reliable sources. How I describe a given fact about religion/faith on Sunday morning is very different than how I describe it in this community. Simply put, the standards here are specific and set -- and I agree to abide by those standards when I edit. The standards here more closely represent how religion is described in academic settings, rather than how it is described in religious settings -- and that can be a big adjustment for people who haven't studied religion in an academic setting. Please calm down, and consider whether or not your current actions are producing the desired results. If they are not, perhaps it is time to try a different approach -- an approach that is a little calmer and a little less accusatory. If you would like to talk about this current situation, please feel free to leave me a note any time. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 19:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)