Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Johan Magnus, Ruhrjung, Tuomas

This is an intermediary response. I place it here as a sign of it not having reached any kind of maturity or final status. Yet, I am eager not to appear as if I think a RfC is something that can be ignored.

It's not quite clear whether this RfD can be taken seriously.

It can, however, be noted that while Peter above poses as a newbie, and really has some reason to complain about not having been treated quite in accordance with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, this may at least to some extent be explained by him not being a newbie, which he actually also stated at Talk:Scanian language#Anonymous revert, and also by from the beginning appearing as an experienced Wikipedian in command of Category:Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than as a newcomer.

My chief experience of trying to work together with Peter is one of overwhelming confusion. This experience is not language dependent, but constant both in our common mother tongue, Swedish, and in English. When I've discussed matters with Peter, I most of the time feel as if the meaning of what we write gets heavily distorted on the way between writer and reader. My perception from March (User talk:Johan Magnus#Swedish) hasn't changed much at all.

I also feel that Peter has an unlucky talent for calling forth opponents and perceived enemies where there really ought not be any to find. Also when he agrees[1] to what has been many times proposed, he manage to do this with wordings that make people feel targeted[2]. I am not quite sure this interpretation of Peter's intentions was lucky, but it demonstrates the strange phenomenon that not only do Peter feel bullied, but he is perceived as a bully himself.

Without yet having gone back to check the somewhat messy edit histories, I would propose that Peter chiefly has been asked to do three things:

1. to change one detail or aspect per edit when he disputes the factual content of articles that may be far from "finished" but that have "stood the test of time"
2. to give clear hints which detail he disputes, at least in the edit summary, and maybe also on the actual talk page, which would be facillitated if not too many controversial changes were combined in edit edit
3. to use wordings that attribute opinions and judgements to authoritative sources when possible, since such edits would be less likely to get reverted by someone who perceived his edits as too rash

It's undisputabel, I believe, that Peter has been asked, with increasing gravity, to support his edits or to use more Wikipedia:verifiable wordings when content that has "stood the test of time" has been removed or altered by him in ways that have resulted in essential changes of meaning. It's similarly true that by Peter requested references to scholarly works have not been produced as speedy as Peter would have wished. And in this situation there clearly has been a conflict between one contributor who argues that his unsupported alterations are more credible than the old wordings and three other contributors who have had more faith in longstanding versions than in Peter's knowledge.

This situation was not improved by Peter emphatically declaring him being convinced of different details that no-one else believed in and that Peter often sooner rather than later would abandon.

I intend to return with demonstrating diffs. --Johan Magnus 23:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)