MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 thread(s) (older than 5d) to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive118. |
Obiwankenobi (talk | contribs) Undid revision 491333881 by MiszaBot II (talk) unarchive |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
= Active discussions = |
= Active discussions = |
||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line and below all other reports. --> |
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line and below all other reports. --> |
||
== BrownHairedGirl - advice on personal attacks == |
|||
<!-- Do not change this line. Your report should go below this line. --> |
|||
<!-- Including yourself, list editors that are involved, copy and paste the template if more than 2 editors are involved. --> |
|||
* {{userlinks|Karl.brown}} |
|||
* {{userlinks|BrownHairedGirl}} |
|||
<!-- Please note that you must manually notify every user mentioned above. You may place the following template on their talk page to notify them. {{subst:WQA-notice}} --> |
|||
<!-- Place the names of involved articles or tag pages in this section --> |
|||
* {{lw|Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 30}} #Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism |
|||
* {{lw|Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17}} #Category:Unionism |
|||
* {{lut|BrownHairedGirl}} #knock_it_off |
|||
<!-- Place a description of your situation below this line. As appropriate, include links and diffs to aid WQA volunteers in understand the situation. --> |
|||
I've been bothered by a series of continued attacks on my experience and intelligence by BrownHairedGirl in various CfD discussions. You can see some of the results above - but the latest here [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism]] is where I think she really went too far. |
|||
Some quotes from that discussion: |
|||
#"Congratulations to Moonraker for his use a mocking tone. This is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned. |
|||
#"I'd ask again that you stop disrupting CfD by posting this comic nonsense. I do not intend to post the necessary long explanation, because it's hard to know where to start. Googling for snippets to quote at CfD is no substitute for your lack of a wider understanding of the history." |
|||
#"PS The nominator's rationale that the "titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation" would be hilarious if it wasn't all so time-wasting, because it reveals a fundamental ignorance of the issues involved; ethnicity is a central factor in unionism." |
|||
* What I did wrong? |
|||
I sometimes responded too quickly, and also made factual errors in my comments. I also admit to getting frustrated sometimes, and I also have acted at times in an uncivil manner, but I'm trying to address that from my side. I have made nominations for category changes in areas which are not my primary area of expertise, like British/Irish history, and categorization tree of Ireland. However, any claims I have made have been backed up by sources, and while of course it's possible that some of my claims were erroneous or misinformed, that is not an excuse for personal attacks. BHG has opined on a number of category discussions over the years; I find it hard to believe that she is an expert in all of those fields, and she has even opined on CfDs which are in *my* area of expertise, but I did not resort to name calling in spite of the incomplete understanding her posts showed. I'd like to request the same courtesy from her. In this discussion [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law]] I was frustrated and used a sarcastic tone, and for that I apologize. |
|||
* What have I done to try to fix the situation? |
|||
As you can see from the discussion here [[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism]], I asked her several times to stop the personal attacks, but she continued to belittle me. I also asked her to stop the personal attacks on her talk page, but she refused to apologize, and closed the conversation: [[User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#knock_it_off]] |
|||
* What I want? |
|||
BHG is an experienced admin, with (perhaps) deep knowledge in certain subject areas which also interest me. But, frankly she has a sharp tongue, and I've already seen other editors chide her for this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_15&diff=prev&oldid=488325757]. I'd like her to cease making personal attacks, i.e. describing other editors or their actions as silly, childish, ignorant, foolish, useless, etc. I will agree to not use such uncivil language in my interactions with her and others, and will ease up on long responses to CfD while awaiting inputs from others. --[[User:Karl.brown|KarlB]] ([[User talk:Karl.brown|talk]]) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: I'm going to wait for BrownHairedGirl to respond before attempting to resolve this matter. I've read the three threads and have a couple of questions to ask you, KarlB. Have you had prior contact with BrownHairedGirl outside of CfD? You admit to having made factual inaccuracies. While the thread shows BrownHairedGirl's condemnation for your proposals they are surprising. By 'long history' this seems to show that the matter has gone on for an extended period of time. How long have you been a part of CfD? [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 22:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::No prior contact that I recall. Not really a long history either - there are three contentious nominations that I recall, I think I first met her on the [[:Category:Hospitals in Ireland]] category discussion. Have been on CfD about 1 month, but stalking on wikipedia for a lot longer. As for factual inaccuracies, I certainly have not made errors on purpose however, but of course I may have said things that turn out to be incorrect or poorly understood on my part, but I think that applies to all of us... --[[User:Karl.brown|KarlB]] ([[User talk:Karl.brown|talk]]) 22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::: CfD and other areas which you have participated in tend to be areas where cautiously treading is the best option. Judging from your talk page I think the best matter would be to watch CfD for awhile and gather consensus before moving or repopulating a category; it is an area of Wikipedia in which is unlike other areas simply because the ability to damage is far greater then other sections. Certain areas of Wikipedia, chiefly categorization, certain matters of being bold are held to different levels of 'oops' then others. Sadly even I got to hear about the Anthony Zuzzio afd simply because these are newbie errors and are typically the most serious of proposals next to categorization. Quite frankly, a mistake there means a lot more then a typo, an awkward edit or other typical edits. It is best to be cautious and not rock the boat. BHG was being uncivil, but given your recent edits and mistakes she should have responded more like Yasht101. The area of Wikipedia you are most active in is a touchy area where mistakes and ignorance of policies and procedures receive more negative attention because of their environment, while it is not an excuse, I believe BHG was rising to the incivility because of frustration. [[User:ChrisGualtieri|ChrisGualtieri]] ([[User talk:ChrisGualtieri|talk]]) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks. I know I made a mistake by de-populating the hospitals in Ireland category, but what I was really doing was just diffusing to subcats; my error was unlinking the two top-level cats, which I professed in the CfD nom in any case. But I take your points about being cautious, and appreciate the advice. I do note that I have made a number of CfD nominations which have been accepted, and relatively uncontroversial. In reviewing my history of CfDs with BHG, the main ones where she seems to start sniping are those having to do with Ireland/UK; in many other conversations our interactions have been cordial and professional.--[[User:Karl.brown|KarlB]] ([[User talk:Karl.brown|talk]]) 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
: ''"But, frankly she has a sharp tongue"'' |
|||
: Agreed. I've had a dose of that myself, where my only interaction (AFAIR) was at the many Old Harrovians CfDs. Any disagreement with her seems to be seen as a bad-faith attempt at [[WP:POINT]]. I found this particularly galling as I still regard her salami-slicing attempt to rename a vast number of related cats ''for the same reason'', but sneaking them in small batches and leaving the contentious ones until last, as a pretty blatant attempt at gaming the system on her part. Still, she's an admin and thus Infallible and not to be questioned. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== Fæ and MBisanz == |
== Fæ and MBisanz == |
Revision as of 07:26, 8 May 2012
Welcome to wikiquette assistance | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||
Additional notes:
| ||||||||||
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
|
Active discussions
BrownHairedGirl - advice on personal attacks
- Karl.brown (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 30 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) #Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_17 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) #Category:Unionism
- User talk:BrownHairedGirl ( | user page | history | links | watch | logs) #knock_it_off
I've been bothered by a series of continued attacks on my experience and intelligence by BrownHairedGirl in various CfD discussions. You can see some of the results above - but the latest here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism is where I think she really went too far.
Some quotes from that discussion:
- "Congratulations to Moonraker for his use a mocking tone. This is the latest in a long series of CfD nominations by KarlB which betray a huge ignorance of the topics concerned.
- "I'd ask again that you stop disrupting CfD by posting this comic nonsense. I do not intend to post the necessary long explanation, because it's hard to know where to start. Googling for snippets to quote at CfD is no substitute for your lack of a wider understanding of the history."
- "PS The nominator's rationale that the "titles thus mix issues of ethnic identity with political affiliation" would be hilarious if it wasn't all so time-wasting, because it reveals a fundamental ignorance of the issues involved; ethnicity is a central factor in unionism."
- What I did wrong?
I sometimes responded too quickly, and also made factual errors in my comments. I also admit to getting frustrated sometimes, and I also have acted at times in an uncivil manner, but I'm trying to address that from my side. I have made nominations for category changes in areas which are not my primary area of expertise, like British/Irish history, and categorization tree of Ireland. However, any claims I have made have been backed up by sources, and while of course it's possible that some of my claims were erroneous or misinformed, that is not an excuse for personal attacks. BHG has opined on a number of category discussions over the years; I find it hard to believe that she is an expert in all of those fields, and she has even opined on CfDs which are in *my* area of expertise, but I did not resort to name calling in spite of the incomplete understanding her posts showed. I'd like to request the same courtesy from her. In this discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_27#Category:Healthcare_law I was frustrated and used a sarcastic tone, and for that I apologize.
- What have I done to try to fix the situation?
As you can see from the discussion here Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_30#Category:Irish_unionism_and_Category:Scottish_unionism, I asked her several times to stop the personal attacks, but she continued to belittle me. I also asked her to stop the personal attacks on her talk page, but she refused to apologize, and closed the conversation: User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#knock_it_off
- What I want?
BHG is an experienced admin, with (perhaps) deep knowledge in certain subject areas which also interest me. But, frankly she has a sharp tongue, and I've already seen other editors chide her for this [1]. I'd like her to cease making personal attacks, i.e. describing other editors or their actions as silly, childish, ignorant, foolish, useless, etc. I will agree to not use such uncivil language in my interactions with her and others, and will ease up on long responses to CfD while awaiting inputs from others. --KarlB (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to wait for BrownHairedGirl to respond before attempting to resolve this matter. I've read the three threads and have a couple of questions to ask you, KarlB. Have you had prior contact with BrownHairedGirl outside of CfD? You admit to having made factual inaccuracies. While the thread shows BrownHairedGirl's condemnation for your proposals they are surprising. By 'long history' this seems to show that the matter has gone on for an extended period of time. How long have you been a part of CfD? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- No prior contact that I recall. Not really a long history either - there are three contentious nominations that I recall, I think I first met her on the Category:Hospitals in Ireland category discussion. Have been on CfD about 1 month, but stalking on wikipedia for a lot longer. As for factual inaccuracies, I certainly have not made errors on purpose however, but of course I may have said things that turn out to be incorrect or poorly understood on my part, but I think that applies to all of us... --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- CfD and other areas which you have participated in tend to be areas where cautiously treading is the best option. Judging from your talk page I think the best matter would be to watch CfD for awhile and gather consensus before moving or repopulating a category; it is an area of Wikipedia in which is unlike other areas simply because the ability to damage is far greater then other sections. Certain areas of Wikipedia, chiefly categorization, certain matters of being bold are held to different levels of 'oops' then others. Sadly even I got to hear about the Anthony Zuzzio afd simply because these are newbie errors and are typically the most serious of proposals next to categorization. Quite frankly, a mistake there means a lot more then a typo, an awkward edit or other typical edits. It is best to be cautious and not rock the boat. BHG was being uncivil, but given your recent edits and mistakes she should have responded more like Yasht101. The area of Wikipedia you are most active in is a touchy area where mistakes and ignorance of policies and procedures receive more negative attention because of their environment, while it is not an excuse, I believe BHG was rising to the incivility because of frustration. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I know I made a mistake by de-populating the hospitals in Ireland category, but what I was really doing was just diffusing to subcats; my error was unlinking the two top-level cats, which I professed in the CfD nom in any case. But I take your points about being cautious, and appreciate the advice. I do note that I have made a number of CfD nominations which have been accepted, and relatively uncontroversial. In reviewing my history of CfDs with BHG, the main ones where she seems to start sniping are those having to do with Ireland/UK; in many other conversations our interactions have been cordial and professional.--KarlB (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- CfD and other areas which you have participated in tend to be areas where cautiously treading is the best option. Judging from your talk page I think the best matter would be to watch CfD for awhile and gather consensus before moving or repopulating a category; it is an area of Wikipedia in which is unlike other areas simply because the ability to damage is far greater then other sections. Certain areas of Wikipedia, chiefly categorization, certain matters of being bold are held to different levels of 'oops' then others. Sadly even I got to hear about the Anthony Zuzzio afd simply because these are newbie errors and are typically the most serious of proposals next to categorization. Quite frankly, a mistake there means a lot more then a typo, an awkward edit or other typical edits. It is best to be cautious and not rock the boat. BHG was being uncivil, but given your recent edits and mistakes she should have responded more like Yasht101. The area of Wikipedia you are most active in is a touchy area where mistakes and ignorance of policies and procedures receive more negative attention because of their environment, while it is not an excuse, I believe BHG was rising to the incivility because of frustration. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- No prior contact that I recall. Not really a long history either - there are three contentious nominations that I recall, I think I first met her on the Category:Hospitals in Ireland category discussion. Have been on CfD about 1 month, but stalking on wikipedia for a lot longer. As for factual inaccuracies, I certainly have not made errors on purpose however, but of course I may have said things that turn out to be incorrect or poorly understood on my part, but I think that applies to all of us... --KarlB (talk) 22:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- "But, frankly she has a sharp tongue"
- Agreed. I've had a dose of that myself, where my only interaction (AFAIR) was at the many Old Harrovians CfDs. Any disagreement with her seems to be seen as a bad-faith attempt at WP:POINT. I found this particularly galling as I still regard her salami-slicing attempt to rename a vast number of related cats for the same reason, but sneaking them in small batches and leaving the contentious ones until last, as a pretty blatant attempt at gaming the system on her part. Still, she's an admin and thus Infallible and not to be questioned. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Fæ and MBisanz
- MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Fæ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
I opposed a proposal of Fæ's in the AN thread linked above, commenting that it was contrary to a position he had taken in an email to me in January in a different situation. I immediately received a second email indicating he believed I had violated his privacy by referencing the earlier email on-wiki. I responded by indicating that I did not believe I had violated his privacy and was forwarding to AUSC/OTRS-admin/Steward/Ombudsmen so that they could investigate the allegations that I violated his privacy. I did not disclose any content of either of his emails on Wikipedia or otherwise use my advanced permissions to access information on him. He continued to object via email and I indicated I did not desire to receive emails from him. He continued to object in the thread above, indicating I was being uncivil, disrespectful, and acting violation of my duty of confidentiality as a trusted user. He requested I withdraw the requests for review by the referenced authorities and I refused. He has continued to say I am acting in an uncivil and disrespectful manner, have violated his privacy, and otherwise made serious allegations as to my reputation as an editor and trusted user.
I filed the request at Arbcom, where he continued to accuse me of acting in a manner in violation of my duties as a user with access to advanced permissions and that I acted wrongly in not removing my original comment on AN. He has also accused me of new violations of his privacy in stating that he gave me permission to contact certain individuals in his earlier email as a means to rebut his accusation that I forwarded his email without their permission. Arbcom has opined that the matter is premature for want of prior DR and none of the responses I have received from the reviewing authorities indicate an interest in reviewing my conduct. However, Fæ mentioned this forum as the one he considers appropriate to review my conduct and the allegations he has made concerning it. I do not believe my conduct violated any WMF/WP policy nor can I find anything in my posts to him that would demonstrate the alleged incivility and disrespect (I haven't called him any names, used profanity, mocked him or the like). However, he has made extreme allegations as to my character as an editor and user of advanced permissions, so that's why I'm here. I would hope this process could determine if my conduct was wrongful and if his allegations were appropriate. MBisanz talk 16:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please note The arbitration request Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Fæ and MBisanz has yet to close, currently running at a vote of 9 to 0 to decline his arbitration request. This WQA case has consequently been raised out of process. MBisanz's multiple case raising behaviour, when he knows I am in the middle of preparing to travel for the rest of the week is now verging on becoming a misuse of process for the purposes of hounding. Don't be a dick seems highly good advice here for a trusted user who absolutely no excuse not to be an expert on dispute resolution processes and to my mind appears to be deliberately choosing to misuse them as I can not think of any other rational explanation for his behaviour. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Right, they rejected it as premature in the DR process with 9-0, meaning it is an impossibility to accept. I have no interest in hounding you, but you have made extreme accusations as to my character as an editor and I request a determination by some authority to clear my name, unless you are willing to withdraw your allegations of abuse of my trusted status. I understand you are going on a trip, but letting the allegations lay on the table and further sully my name is unacceptable. MBisanz talk 16:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, I do not represent them. I have, however, read their public policy and it is mathematically impossible to achieve a net four vote that would create a case. Therefore, I am following the advice they have given and beginning the earlier parts of the dispute resolution process, as described in policy. Why will you not engage in dispute resolution with me after you have thrown down the extreme accusations about my character? MBisanz talk 16:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- For the reasons explained above. This WQA is not valid. How can a bureaucrat not understand how dispute resolution works or judge when they are hounding and harassing someone for issues that they created by their behaviour in the first place? Leave me alone for Christ's sake, you seem totally obsessed. Go away. Push off. Find something meaningful to do with your time rather than stalking me. I cannot believe you are a trusted user. I am busy travelling until Saturday, so don't expect me to indulge you in your stupid war game. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- To Hipocrite: First, I only forwarded it to individuals who have the same level of exceptionally advanced permissions. Second, I do have a duty to to maintain your confidentiality and if you emailed me asking for oversight, you're right, I should not disclose the existence of that. However, if you emailed me a link to a news story about Barack Obama, my saying "Hipocrite emailed me." would not implicate a duty to keep the existence of the email secret. The emails Fæ sent me could not be reasonably interpreted to be a request for or notification related to Oversight or Stewardship or OTRS.
- To Chris: Thank you. If the process needs to be kept open for formal reasons, I'm fine with it. I'm just looking to get a determination to clear my name.
- To Hasteur: I know people are allowed to change their minds and that is not why I am here. Fæ has said I breached my duty to maintain his privacy and that I have been uncivil and disrespectful to him. I would like it to be determined if I have done so. MBisanz talk 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- To FutPerf: I would like some decision on if I abused my advanced permissions and if the other allegations made by Fæ regarding my reputation as a trusted user are valid. I remember what Lar and SlimVirgin went through years ago when their dispute was allowed to fester, with either party being able to bring up that no one had decided on those allegations and therefore the other person was wrongful, until Arbcom finally decided that case. I don't want to spend the next several years dealing with these allegations when someone can make a determination now. MBisanz talk 17:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- It wasn't a good idea to use content from an old email to characterize another editor's position in a current dispute. That said, I'm not seeing evidence of any significant privacy breach; therefore I don't see any sanction beyond saying "MBisanz, please don't do that again" as necessary or desired. Nobody Ent 18:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Chris and Ent. I appreciate your independent feedback and evaluation. MBisanz talk 18:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Let bygones be bygones then? Apologies and a cup of tea/coffee/beer all around just to clear the air? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
As Arbcom have confirmed by email that the still open, parallel, Arbcom request opened by MBisanz is to be interpreted in such as way that my comments may represent Wikimedia UK rather than just myself as an editor of Wikipedia, I am unable to comment here until I have reviewed the situation with the Wikimedia UK Chief Executive. This is unlikely to be until next week. In the meantime I have struck my existing comments. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Any objection to closing this alert? Nobody Ent 23:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- To WereSpielChequers: My apologies to Fæ for placing him in such a position. I was, inarticulately, trying to demonstrate to him that I perceived hypocrisy in his proposal to require people he disliked to disclose their off-wiki activities when acting here, given his use of unsolicited, undisclosed email to discourage my mere editing. Ched, in the same thread, stated it much more clearly without putting him in such a position. MBisanz talk 17:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- To OID: After reviewing the January email, I remain convinced that it could not be interpreted by any reasonable person as involving my advanced permissions. It does not mention the use of or request the use of any userrights I possess or any of the processes and policies associated with this userrights. It specifically indicates I may contact a different individual not identified to the Foundation to discuss the contents of the email. It was entirely about me as an editor. MBisanz talk 15:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Uninvolved responses
Okay, let's take a step back and relax. If ArbCom refuses to accept because process has not been followed then we can consider this a proper step in the process. Given that real-world activities will constrain the process here, it may be best put on hold, but I will try to keep this matter open so that if it comes to an end quickly, it will be preferable. Mbisanz has made his point, Fæ could you please respond about the situation, just to have your view on the matter? I'm not talking about the taking of it to ArbCom, but specifically how MBisanz's actions affected you. (Disclosure: I've spoken a few times to MBisanz for matters on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin page. Not even an acquaintance, but I have spoken to MBisanz before.) ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
MBisanz - as a user with exceptionally advanced permissions, you may, at times, receive information in confidence that you really really want to tell someone else. It is not appropriate to tell someone else who lacks the level of exceptionally advanced permissions you have this information, regardless of why you think you want to tell someone else. Even obliquely, if you have a duty to maintain the confidence of other users, you are duty bound to maintain said confidence, even if other users use that against you.
You further have stated "none of those roles indicate a duty to keep the existence of communication private." This is dramatically and factually untrue. You are a "Oversighter." If I were to email you or the oversight email list and say "such and such an edit reveals my IP address, please oversight it," you would have a duty to maintain my confidentiality. Please confirm that you understand your duty to maintain said privacy. In the absence of said confirmation, I think it is imperative on you that you renounce your oversight tools.
Fae: You are overreacting. No substantial private information was disclosed. Hipocrite (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)*3 Suggestion: How about both of you drop it? Seriously. People are allowed to change their minds from time to time. The fact that Fae held one viewpoint in one context is not damning evidence of a problem in annother context. So please try starting fresh with a clear statement of what the problem is (or with a new instance of a conduct problem) as both of you appear to be posting more on the emotional side than on the intelectual side. Hasteur (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I cannot see how anything good could come from spreading this conflict into this or indeed into any other new forum, for either of the parties. Honestly, MB, what do you expect from this process? There is an obvious solution here, and that is simply for both parties to step away from the issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fae has run into this problem repeatedly. He sees an issue which he blows out of proportion, makes wild accusations about them, and then disprupts any attempts to deal with them through consensus. He seems incapable of dealing with the Wikipedia community in a consistently constructive and civil way which assumes good faith. Fae's problem is more serious because he is an Admin. His behavior must stop.LedRush (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Seeing Fae's name pop-up in several noticeboards recently, it seems to me that he concerned in taking offense at / creating drama because of harmless stuff than he is in improving the Wiki. Maybe it's time to consider whether the drama/time sink he creates for productive volunteers is worth the marginal benefits of having one extra admin doing routine stuff (welcoming users, twinkling/huggling, etc...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see that MBisanz has made any errors here. It appears that Fae contacted MB, and then tried to use that fact as a way to compromise him. I'm not saying that was the intent, but rather the effect. Given the multitude of various threads (RfC/U, Jimbo's talk, multiple AN and AN/I posts etc.), I'd rather think that this will eventually need to culminate in either a community "ban" discussion, or a Arbcom case in respect to a desysop procedure. In defense of Fae, I think it was wrong to post any of the personal identifying information that was apparently found/researched "off-wiki"; I have seen that done on at least 2 occasions. I can easily understand any feelings of being unjustly outed he (Fae) may have in that respect. I will say however, that simply because one or two people show poor judgement - that doesn't mean that all, or a majority of the community have either been unjust or misused any permissions. Hopefully Fae will find a way to step away from the drama in the near future, and find a way forward in a productive manner. — Ched : ? 10:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- I haven't seen the Email in question, so I can't judge MBisanz's comment "this proposal runs counter to the position Fæ took in an email on January 26 in a different situation" in terms of whether I'd see the situation as similar, or indeed the position as similar. So in my view MBisanz put Fae into a needlessly difficult position. If the situation were to recur, or more realistically if anyone else was to get into a similar situation, then I'd suggest an email would have been more appropriate; That would have given Fae the opportunity either to point out what made the situations different to him, or why he'd changed his mind. MBisanz would of course still have been free to argue publicly against Fae's proposal, but not to publicly levy a charge of inconsistency without being able to substantiate it with a diff. As for resolution, I would suggest that MBisanz should apologise to Fae. ϢereSpielChequers 13:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
- Fae's apparent and substantial incivility above might make people question his position as a rimary spokesperson for Wikipedia in the UK. No need for MBisanz to apolgize. And such incivility is exceedingly common nowadays on Wikipedia, viz. [2] with the edit summary of MJ YCSI which needs no translation if one has seen chatspeak, although the writer asserted it was "random keys." [3]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to clarify or refine your comment, which at first glance appears to suggest that Fae is somehow related to that conversation on Hipocrite's talk page.--KarlB (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's ok, he's just trying to score points against me for some unknown reason. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well whatever the issue is, I'd strongly suggest to keep it off this particular page. --KarlB (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Not "trying to score points" about anyone - the issue is gross incivility on Wikipedia, and I suggest telling anyone to "YCSI" is, in fact, less than civil. Clearly Hipocrite does not think so, but I do not care about his ability to make random obscenities on Wikipedia :). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well whatever the issue is, I'd strongly suggest to keep it off this particular page. --KarlB (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's ok, he's just trying to score points against me for some unknown reason. Hipocrite (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- You may want to clarify or refine your comment, which at first glance appears to suggest that Fae is somehow related to that conversation on Hipocrite's talk page.--KarlB (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- No, the issue is assisting MBisanz and Fae to come to a mutually agreeable solution. You're welcome to start a distinct assistance request if you wish to discuss an issue with another editor. Nobody Ent 18:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Observation: From what MBisanz "revealed" from the private correspondence between MBisanz and Fæ, all that became public was that Fæ has previously requested help from MBisanz by email in a way which led MBisanz to believe Fæ is not in a good standing to raise the proposal. The amount of information made public is absolutely minimal, and certainly does not include any personally identifying information. I think this incident is just a fight between the two of them, the resolution of which has little significance to the rest of the community, because it would be bizarre if Wikipedia started making rules about confidentiality of off-wiki correspondence! Deryck C. 12:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- This is an uncomfortable situation for all involved, which was avoidable on all counts. Both parties should be trouted - because this incident reflects poorly on both M and F. There is little point in elaborating on the finer detail now because what's done is done, and that will complicate matters further rather than settle them...best thing to do is avoid each other, and further allegations with respect to each other - which led to this situation. It's not particularly satisfactory for either party, but given how far this matter has been inflamed already by the both of you, you both should be grateful that such resolution is so readily available in this case. And for the sake of clarity, the reality is that allegations neither stop nor start just because of a single determination, but at least you two can control the ones you make in relation to one another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Response on MBisanz's duty
Since MBisanz wants commentary on whether or not he abused his position, I'm making this sub-section to address that one specific matter. Personally, I do believe that MBisanz has indeed made a minor point on WP:PRIVACY under 'Private correspondence' because while no community consensus exists, ArbCom has once stated that private correspondence should not be posted on-wiki.' This is not the message itself, only a brief mention on the stance. This is not 'outing' and should not be taken as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- Per WP:EMAILABUSE the matter is basically moot against MBisanz, while this seems to be pointed towards regular users, it still applies to all. I believe that the unusual situation did not require the disclosure of the existence of an email was necessary, but not wrong. The case basically involves what Fae doesn't want known and what MBisanz knows to be unusual. If you take a position and then change it the matter should be disclosed, but since it was private, its a murky area. While nothing explicitly prohibits the action, Fae's response is a classic case of Streisand effect, rather then simply taking it privately, the resulting explosion forced MBisanz to defend himself and send it (as required) to additional people. MBisanz may have hit upon a sensitive issue and only lightly pointed out a possible COI, but did not divulge the information itself. While not the best action, it doesn't seem overly egregious or actionable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect its arguable (and no doubt someone will) that referring to the general (or even a minor specific) thrust of an private email constitutes 'posting correspondence' on-wiki. I only really have one question for MBisanz - was the original email in any way related to your position(s) or was it directed to you as a wikipedia editor? If the latter, then imo no abuse took place. MBisanz isnt responsible for what Fae says in email. While he should respect Fae's privacy, this does NOT extend to taking personal attacks. And making accusations of abuse and then complaining because the accused wants to defend themselves to the relevant authorities - I consider it a gross form of personal attack. The alternative is MBisanz has to suffer his reputation being sullied publically. It should also go without saying, if you take a public stated position contrary to a private one - complaining about it afterwards is not going to encourage people to take up your (ambiguous) position Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- The difficult thing in this instance is that we don't know whether Fae is being inconsistent, or whether MBisanz sees two situations as similar whilst Fae sees them as different. Of course if the Email was published then we could all draw our own conclusions, but that would require EMAILABUSE. Hence IMHO it would have been better if MBisanz had not publicly alluded to what he perceived as a different position in a private email. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well this is a bit offtopic given the section header but RE inconsistency - which is frankly in my opinion, Fae's problem not MBisanz. If you are emailing people espousing one position, then publicly seeking comment saying you support the other, you should expect whoever you have emailed to call you on it. 'That was a private email' is not a defense for public deception of multiple people. I would expect anyone of good character to do the same in MBisanz position. Leaving that aside, Fae laid some very hefty allegations of abuse at MBisanz. It was Fae that brought his 'trusted' position into it. Even if we disagree on the merits of disclosing the existence of an email in the first place, I think it should at least be affirmed that this was not an abuse of his position and that accusations of that need to be substantiated or withdrawn. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- The difficult thing in this instance is that we don't know whether Fae is being inconsistent, or whether MBisanz sees two situations as similar whilst Fae sees them as different. Of course if the Email was published then we could all draw our own conclusions, but that would require EMAILABUSE. Hence IMHO it would have been better if MBisanz had not publicly alluded to what he perceived as a different position in a private email. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I suspect its arguable (and no doubt someone will) that referring to the general (or even a minor specific) thrust of an private email constitutes 'posting correspondence' on-wiki. I only really have one question for MBisanz - was the original email in any way related to your position(s) or was it directed to you as a wikipedia editor? If the latter, then imo no abuse took place. MBisanz isnt responsible for what Fae says in email. While he should respect Fae's privacy, this does NOT extend to taking personal attacks. And making accusations of abuse and then complaining because the accused wants to defend themselves to the relevant authorities - I consider it a gross form of personal attack. The alternative is MBisanz has to suffer his reputation being sullied publically. It should also go without saying, if you take a public stated position contrary to a private one - complaining about it afterwards is not going to encourage people to take up your (ambiguous) position Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Agreed. If anything, MBisanz hit upon a sensitive issue by revealing that such an email existed, but it appears Fae had already been told to take the matter (and concerning that stance, off-wiki). MBisanz, according to policy, did nothing wrong as noted by Fae's comment and MBisanz's own response. The existence of a counter position is allowable on Wiki and such a email, if what can be inferred and stated is true, Fae had already taken a stance and MBisanz was merely citing the existence of an email in which that previous stance was most memorable. If MBisanz had chosen a diff of that stance would this matter be here? Taking piece by piece, MBisanz only has one major concern, does revealing the existence of an off-wiki e-mail violate policy? As no policy specifically says otherwise and given the nature the e-mail, did Fae have a reasonable objection to its disclosure of its existence? Maybe, but when Fae explicitly details the contents and forces MBisanz to action the matter and the resulting further spread of said email is out of MBisanz's responsibility. Without seeing the matter in context we do not know the full details and should refrain from condemning MBisanz entirely because of it, only to say that it might be best to err on the side of caution and not mention it. This is independent of a COI and the flags which said position switching details, which probably could be handled in other ways.
- If anything, when someone asks that off-wiki disclosure and canvassing be transparent, wouldn't MBisanz be responding to that transparency as permission to reveal the existence of that counter stance is proper. Though such a change of heart begs the question, why? The claim of public deception of a stance is well... concerning and MBisanz may be well justified in simply acknowledging the existence of that stance, even in an email which seems to not have been private and pushed off-wiki by recommendation. (According to Fae's comments) If someone says I am against X previously and sometimes 'privately' yet says the opposite publicly is the disclosure proper for procedure and in the interest of Wikipedia as a whole? Admin's aside, one would expect that such a 'change of heart' be disclosed properly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm staying out of this matter in the future. There is a history of problems that I dare not look into. I prefer not to delve into the matter any further. Consider this my withdrawal from this section. The matter is too complex and beyond the scope of WQA when viewed as a whole and I am not going to bring it up. I want no part in this conflict outside of MBisanz's post. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Chris and Only in Death. You both seem to be assuming that MBisanz was correct in seeing a contradiction between the stance in the January Email and on wiki in April. But unless you've seen the email you can't be sure of that. If we could see the Email then we could make up our own minds whether one or other was right or whether there was some ambiguity that could lead to two people jumping to opposite conclusions. But we don't have access to that email. ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- Does it matter? I think the (tentative?) consensus is:
it would have been better if MBisanz hadn't disclosed the email existence,- some editors think it would have been better if MBisanz hadn't disclosed the email existence, others see nothing wrong in the disclosure,
- it's not a clear violation of any policy that requires any sanctions beyond "please don't do that again"
- there's nothing about this that MBisanz's roles other than editor. Nobody Ent 23:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with the first two points Ent but will bow to consensus. However I feel quite strongly that if MBisanz is being advised it was not the best to reveal the existence of the email, likewise Fae should be advised that resorting to accusations of power abuse at the drop of a hat is not acceptable without some serious evidence to back it up. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's my intent here to summarize, not dictate, consensus -- I've updated the first point accordingly. (I've previously commented on Fae as a certifier of an RFC and, in the spirit of stick have chosen to recuse myself from commenting on his contributions.) Nobody Ent 11:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies, didnt mean to imply you were dictating, I was referring to the comments above as a whole, I should perhaps have said in addition to your summary. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's my intent here to summarize, not dictate, consensus -- I've updated the first point accordingly. (I've previously commented on Fae as a certifier of an RFC and, in the spirit of stick have chosen to recuse myself from commenting on his contributions.) Nobody Ent 11:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Does it matter? I think the (tentative?) consensus is:
Since the first point is struck, the second which I also have issues with should be labeled with the following note. WP:EMAILABUSE covers mostly harassment, but states 'questionable' and Fae's about-face on the matter could be 'questionable' to MBisanz. As this is important information about an editors previous public stance, does the existence of a private e-mail (which Fae disclosed far more information) really cross a line? Fae's current stance is that the disclosure of off-wiki canvassing be made, shouldn't Fae have legitimate expectation that mere existence of a communication be known? Its the 'I want transparency!' claim and when someone else discloses a problematic position they choose to attack the individual responsible for its disclosure. Didn't MBisanz oblige Fae's current stance for the sake of Wikipedia? Why attack MBisanz when Ched's comments specifically state the ironic nature of the matter? Fae's previous on-wiki statements ARE known, the only thing MBisanz did was reveal the existence of the e-mail. And existence of an e-mail is exactly the what Fae wanted, perhaps not against himself, but it is what one should expect when they call for transparency on off-wiki canvassing. I really cannot fault MBisanz because nothing states 'don't do this'. It was only bad given the circumstance which occured afterwards, but still hindsight is 20/20 and the existance of such an email should probably have been avoided. It would have been best if Fae took the matter up privately with MBisanz and MBisanz quietly removing it, I believe that would have been the best recourse for Fae. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Requesting assistance with an edit dispute involving myself and one other editor
- Williamsburgland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- H. 217.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Nifelheim#Controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Talk:Nifelheim#Controversy ( | article | history | links | watch | logs)
This dispute is regarding the above entry. User:H. 217.83 made this edit, doing two things: the first was to add "Were said to have said" before a statement they were quoted as having made in an interview, thus questioning it's validity, and added statements from an interview in a Fanzine. I reverted several times over a several month period before posting this on his wall last week explaining that I could not find any reference for the interview and very, very little on the Fanzine and that I did not feel it met WP: Reliability as it was a fanzine (it later came to light that the issue in question had been republished in a book by a well known publisher and this became the ref, which I felt does meet WP: Reliability). From the word go the users responses were aggressive, uncivil, laden with foul language and at no point sought any resolution other than his way. I lost my temper, an edit war ensued and we were both blocked for a 24 hour period. He sought help from at least two other editors, so I sought outside help as well, albeit the wrong way and came off as canvassing. I regret doing this without reading the rules, as well as losing my temper and edit warring (I knew this was wrong and admitted to it). I do, however, feel that the user selected other editors he has had positive interactions with to bring in on the issue, and that they sided entirely with him.
In the end I proposed a compromise on his talk page, and later on the article's talk page. This was also proposed by Jeraphine Gryphon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), one of the users he solicited and the one that was the most active. In essence, the proposal was that material from all three sources remain, even though information from Slayer Fanzine seems to contradict what is written in the other two articles, albiet without the weasel words indicating that Blabbermouth and Sweden Rock Magazine are unreliable.
The proposal has been met with hostility on his part, and at this point I've said that I can no longer directly interact with him without losing my temper once again. I would very much appreciate it if someone could put a fresh set of eyes on this and help bring it to an amicable conclusion I would be most appreciative. Because I am appealing to an anonymous group of editors, I have no way of expecting one outcome or another, so I don't feel this is canvassing.
Thank you. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- I may reply since I am the other party and some things aren’t correct in that version.
- I don’t believe in the user’s good faith. The user started with accusing me of referring to “a fake statement purported to be from the band shortly after they made the initial comments which apologized for them”, and of blending “direct quotes with your own POV”. People on this project seem to forget that it is not only by calling another user an “asshole” or a “worthless moron” (as Williamsburgland did) or calling the other user’s accusations “bullshit” (as I did) that you can be uncivil, but also by accusations of being “POV-pushing” or a “genre warrior”; yet both is quite usual on this project, and I had to face both false (and, at least to me, very offensive) accusations. You may consider my reaction to be exaggerated, but you shouldn’t forget that Williamsburgland’s initial post on my talk page wasn't acceptable either.
- It is also wrong that it only “later came to light that the issue in question had been republished in a book by a well known publisher and this became the ref”, which Williamsburgland, as they claim here, “felt does meet WP: Reliability”. I referred to the book on my talk page, before other users got involved, but Williamsburgland kept on denying the importance of the Slayer fanzine and went on pretending the interview I referred to was fake.
- Yes, my were “aggressive, uncivil” and “laden with foul language”, but it isn’t civil to accuse me of lying and doing what they accuse me of. And the way Williamsburgland works doesn’t really motivate me to work with them, which should be understandable. I sought help from two other editors, because I knew one of them (Jeraphine Gryphon) to be able to moderate and mediate, and the other one (Dark Prime) to be interested in Black Metal, whereas Williamsburgland contacted all users that wrote on my talk page and had conflicts with me in the past. It is wrong that the users I contacted sided entirely with me, as Jeraphine Gryphon also considered my replies to be very rude and just did “what is right” (see Nifelheim talk page).
- Williamsburgland did propose what they consider to be a compromise on my talk page, but I replied that I consider to to be hypocritical because of my former experience with the user (which makes me sceptical about the good faith thing), and because their version, as I understand it, implies that the material posted on Blabbermouth (claiming to refer to Sweden Rock) was true and that from Slayer wasn’t, whereas mine leaves the choice to the reader (“according to Blabbermouth, […]” version 1, “later, in Slayer”, version 2; see Nifelheim article’s history for my older version); at this point, I should add that I know Blabbermouth to have spread wrong information in the past, like when Jon Nödtveidt died (Blabbermouth referred to an Expressen article but wrongly reflected its content). So the proposal has been met with hostility because I can’t directly interact with that user either. --217/83 03:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
One of the challenges in working this issue out, and on of the things that have been most frustrating to me, is the user above's blending and mixing of facts and statements. He opens the entry above saying I accused him of using a fake statement. While he does selectively quote the comment I left on his wall, he neglects to note that the comment was a link to an article stating that a fake apology had been sent out, and that the band wanted to clarify that they had never apologized, and that they meant everything they said and approved those statements before the issue containing their interview was published. I accused him of nothing - I said that the words he was using sounded like the statement. That's all.
In regards to the sources themselves, I can't overstate this enough - this users position seems to be that he doesn't trust blabbermouth and therefore they should not be trusted, and he hasn't seen the Sweden Rock Magazine interview, so it must not exist (ironically, my initial position on Slayer Fanzine).
Is there anyone else who can act as a mediator here and share their opinion? --Williamsburgland (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- H.217.83, You say you consider it to be hypocritical because of your experience with Williamsburgland, had the suggestion come from someone else would you give it more consideration? Given that Williamsburgland does appear to be attempting to seek a compromise with you, could you both perhaps put aside your previous interactions in order to go forward.
- Regarding the sources, personally I would have issues with both as Slayer is a self-identified 'fanzine' and fanzines objectivity can be coloured by the closeness to their material (positively and negatively) and Blabbermouth does not appear much better, but Metal fans (I prefer Rock myself) appear to accept its reliability. And having spent the last hour taking a look on the net into Slayer, likewise. In my opinion weak sources are better than no sources. In the event it turns out either are wrong the article can be re-written accordingly. Given you both appear to be able to speak civilly, you should be able to work out a wording that incorporates all three (remember lack of access to a source is not reason by itself to reject it).
- Williamsburgland, as the section stands I do share some of H.217.83's concerns with the first paragraph of the controversy section. "when members of the band made inflammatory remarks in Sweden Rock Magazine". It is too definitive given they subsequently appear to deny making them (in Slayer). Seems a bit jarring given the following paragraph. I would lean towards a rewrite of something like "in an interview in Sweden Rock Magazine, they were reported as making inflammatory remarks about deceased Metallica bassist Cliff Burton as well as deceased Dimebag Darrell." The subsequent paragraph with the Slayer reference then clearly gives the opposing interview. We (wikipedia) are still saying they were recorded/reported as making the remarks, but we are not saying they definitively DID make the remarks. It leaves it open for the reader to look at the sources and draw their own conclusion.Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- First, I would like to thank you for your comment. I would probably have had a problem with the same compromise from another user, but if I hadn’t had such problems with them before, I wouldn’t have considered the compromise to be hypocritical. And if you followed the conflict you may understand it is hard to put aside my previous interactions.
- It is true that fanzines “can be coloured by the closeness to their material”, but so can big commercial magazines (who may be “coloured” for commercial reasons, whereas underground media are rather more dedicated to their work and what they cover, and therefore often have better information). --217/83 09:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hard but not impossible eh? Your personal opinion on them aside, Blabbermouth & Sweden Rock appear to be reliable for metal fans, as well as Slayer. And since in your response to Williamsburgland above you are not disputing the existence of the articles/interviews, they really should be in that section in the format they currently are due to the timeline. Its just the wording that concerns you? I would support a slight rewrite (as above) to the first paragraph for the reasons stated. When Williamsburgland responds we can hear his thoughts on that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, it’s the wording, since Williamsburgland’s implies the Blabbermouth statements were true (which implies the band lied when interview in Slayer fanzine). You may take a look at the Nifelheim article’s history and see how I edited the article (without deleting content as Williamsburgland did). And I really am not sure about “[h]ard but not impossible”; I was sceptical but accepting when another user I had problems with proposed to “work towards having a positive working relationship”, but the conflict with Williamsburgland turned out even worse and I am therefore even more sceptical. --217/83 10:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hard but not impossible eh? Your personal opinion on them aside, Blabbermouth & Sweden Rock appear to be reliable for metal fans, as well as Slayer. And since in your response to Williamsburgland above you are not disputing the existence of the articles/interviews, they really should be in that section in the format they currently are due to the timeline. Its just the wording that concerns you? I would support a slight rewrite (as above) to the first paragraph for the reasons stated. When Williamsburgland responds we can hear his thoughts on that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- So to start, H, are you saying that you've done nothing wrong here? That I've unequivocally been the aggressor and you the victim? From my perspective your attitude, for the first reply you made to me, to every response, edit summary and interaction has been aggressive, uncompromising and utterly rude. I've admitted my mistakes, several times. You have yet to admit any error, because as far as I can tell, you genuinely believe that you've done nothing wrong. Only in Death - I suggest you not only research our interactions, but this users interactions with other users on Wikipedia. He's generally rude to most of the people he seems to interact with, the exception here is that I lost my temper with him in a way that most users did not - again, I've admitted that. I've also made extensive efforts bring this issue to a conclusion and move on, but the user above assumes bad faith, as he did from the get go.
- As far as your compromise, I think it's agreeable with one caveat - saying 'According to (abc source)' plants the idea with the reader that the source is not reliable. If we do this for SRM and/or BDN, I feel it's only fair to use the same wording with respect to Slayer. My suggestion, again, would be to simply reflect what each source reported. While H's concern seems to be that it overtly implies that the band is/was lying, I feel it allows the reader to come to their own conclusion whether the band is lying, one of the sources is lying, or if there was simply a misunderstanding. To be clear, while H feels Blabbermouth is out to get this band, he has no evidence that they made this up, and frankly, the statement made by the band doesn't explicitly say "We didn't say that". It says it bothered them, and that it was spammed out over the internet. That doesn't mean their position is it's made up, I read it as "this got out of hand."
- I too appreciate your input, and thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Well from looking at the talkpages of the article (and the user talkpages) you both seem to have blown up a bit. Since you are both being civil here, how about putting that behind you and going forward on some sort of re-write thats acceptable to both. Since they were both quoted directly in SRM and Slayer, start with saying that. I will post my suggestion on the article talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Irresponsible editing
- Katafore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Demdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Philosophy in Malta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Manwel Dimech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Demdem is consistently making changes, sometimes major ones, with articles s/he is evidently knowledgeable of. S/he arbitrarily removes information which I know to be perfectly correct, especially with the above-mentioned articles, the subjects of which I am a university lecturer.
I wrote to Demdem personally in his/her talk section. However, it seems that the person is quite decided to continue to make changes which s/he does not like, without supporting the changes with necessary evidence or by giving reasons which clearly demonstrate that s/he does not know what s/he is talking about.
This is very irksome, since I have to keep checking the articles mentioned ever so often to see what has been changed next.
I consider this to be very irresponsible of Demdem, and would like you to take the necessary actions to stop this nonsense immediately.
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katafore (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2012
- All edits I have made I have explained, the more substantial edits were all preceded by my opening a thread in the talk page, allowing enough time for responses and proceeding only when there were none. Despite the impression given the edits were very constrained considering that the articles in question pose serious problems in terms of WP:ADVERT and WP:ORIGINAL.
- Thanks Demdem. You say all your substantial edits were preceded by your opening a thread in the talk page. I have looked at Talk:Philosophy in Malta and Talk:Manwel Dimech but I see no such thread started by you. Could you provide a couple of diffs to serve as examples of where you have opened a new thread as a precursor to making a substantial edit? Dolphin (t) 08:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
- Manwel Dimech: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manwel_Dimech&diff=479348002&oldid=459737664
- Francis Saviour Farrugia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Francis_Saviour_Farrugia&diff=482855754&oldid=459965566
- Confraternity of Good Christians: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Confraternity_of_Good_Christians&diff=482916004&oldid=453674233
- All changes to Philosophy in Malta were consequential to changes to the main article following the changes made in the articles mentioned above. The only other edit to this article was a removal of a part which violated WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philosophy_in_Malta&diff=491126632&oldid=491059911).
- Kindly note there has been no enagement ever on the substantial issues by Katafore except to call my points "ignorant", "amateurish" and "stupid" which he appears to feel entitled to do in view of his (allegedly) holding some university post and feeling more knowledgable about the rest in violation of principle that everyone is free to edit Wikipedia(WP:FIVE).
I see some evidence of Katafore asking Demdem not to edit articles on subjects about which his knowledge is inadequate - see example 1 and example 2. This is a sentiment often seen from new Users but, in fact, it has no basis here. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are no membership requirements, no qualification exams, and no need to hold formal qualifications in anything. Consequently, if we want a User to desist from making edits on a particular subject we must find some rational grounds for requesting that. Simply telling a User that he isn't qualified or welcome to edit an article, or articles on a particular subject, is invalid. Dolphin (t) 13:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)