Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:25, 21 June 2007

Citizen Don's statement

(copied from RfC) The instructions at the top of this page state "Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Since Citizen Don already signed two of the outside views below, it seems that he should not be editing this section. Can someone please confirm this. Rhode Island Red 15:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that the only thing that should be on the RfC are statements and endorsements. I've moved Citizen Don's statement down to its own section, and Red's related comment here (above). This probably handles things, though if anyone disagrees, please let's talk about it here. --Elonka 16:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, it is inappropriate to frame this comment by Citizen Don as an outside view because it contravenes the instructions for comments on the RfC. Citizen Don is a signatory to and primary complainant in the Statement of Dispute in this RfC. As such he is not supposed to add addtional comments in the Ouside View section. The instructions state: "This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view." Since Citizen Don is involved in the dispute, his comments should only be posted on the discussion page. Citizen Don's orignal comment follows. Rhode Island Red 13:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to comment on my attempts to improve the Juice Plus article with RIR. I've made consistent efforts to suggest improvements to the article over the past four months. I've spent hours and hours researching the references and I've made 0 edits because of RIR dilligent efforts to control the supposed neutrality of the article. I respect the consensus and I think all of the regular editors on the Juice Plus page are extremely frustrated with RIR. Most editor say they just want a good article while RIR has made this impossible. RIR has become a gatekeeper of sorts, ignoring all opposition with a barrage of verbose responses and threatening language. In my short time as an editor on the Juice Plus page, I've received multiple warnings on more than one occasion on my talkpage and the Juice Plus talkpage from RIR. I consider this to be quite rude considering my repeated attempts to treat RIR with civility. I've seen RIR repeatedly call other's POV into question while rebuffing others attempted to understand why RIR spends what must be hours a day on this one article. Despite all this effort on RIR's part, RIR was the sole person to decline Mediation in a recent attempt. I don't sell Juice Plus but I know enough about it to know it's not being accurately represented. With RIR's continued and dominant presence on the Juice Plus page, I question the long term quality of the article. I suspect the problems with the article will only get worse.Citizen Don 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not framed as an outside view, it is framed as a View. And Rhode Island Red, it is completely inappropriate for you to be deleting other people's comments from your own RfC. Please try to stay out of the process here, and just follow it without trying to direct the discussion. This is an opportunity for you to listen to what others are saying, not to argue about process. It is also bad form for you to be endorsing statements. I'm not going to be deleting your comments, but please be aware that to outside observers, these kinds of edits of yours are not helping your case, and if this situation proceeds to ArbCom, any disruptive behavior here at the RfC will be used as evidence. If you have concerns about process here, the proper thing to do is to bring them up here at the talkpage, not to take any action yourself. --Elonka 15:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I would argue that as a primary complainant in this RfC it is completely inappropriate for you to reframe another user’s comment as an Outside View when it was not originally posted as such. And to correct you, you most definitely did re-post Citizen Don's comment in the Outside View section. Furthermore, and most importantly, the instructions on the page are very clear that those who are directly involved in the dispute and are signatories to the complaint (i.e. signed the Statement of Dispute) should not be adding additional comments in the Outside View section of the RfC. The Outside View section is for other editors not involved in the dispute to comment. I noticed that you removed all other comments from other users and moved them to the discussion page, while you highlighted Citizen Don’s comments as an Outside View. The instructions are clear. Kindly remove Citizen Don’s comment from the Outside Views section. Rhode Island Red 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is excessively bureaucratic. The truth of the matter is that Citizen Don had nothing to do with the framing of the original language of the RfC, and as such, I think it's completely appropriate that he be allowed to post his own statement. In terms of where his signature is, it's currently under "Users certifying the basis of this dispute." If we move his signature down by two lines to under the heading that says, "Other users who endorse this summary," then will that make everyone happy? --Elonka 17:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It would not matter whether or not Citizen Don was directly involved in writing the text outlining the dispute, since he is directly involved in the dispute itself. As such, his comments do not belong in the Views section. The WP instructions are completely unambiguous in outlining that editors who are directly involved in the dispute should not add comments to the Outside Views section, which is reserved for comments from outside editors. The instructions for the Outside Views section state:

"This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view."

A user conduct RfC is a guided forum that has specific rules governing how arguments are to be presented, and the template should not be altered on a whim. It seems highly inappropriate for Matthew to arbitrarily create a new “Inside Views” section to highlight Citizen Don’s comment. This section should be removed and Citizen Don’s comment moved to the Discussion page. Such a clear cut issue really should not lead to this much arguing and edit warring. Rhode Island Red 01:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, Rhode Island Red - From these and other recent interactions it appears that you are having difficulty working together or even discussing things productively. Maybe a little break from dealing with each other would help? Shell 02:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Shel, I agree that this discussion has been sadly unproductive, and I wish to heed you advice to disengage, but this issue appear to be so straightforward and unambiguous that I cannot for the life of me figure out why any argument was necessary. My reputation is on the line and all I am asking is that the other users involved in the conflict that led to this RfC play by the rules and not cheat to make their case. This is not an issue of being excessivley bureaucratic, as Elonka claimed, but rather a simple request for participants to follow normal established procedures. The instructions for the RfC are straightforward and explicitly stated on the main page; comments from those who are involved in the dispute that are not part of the Statement of Dispute or Response belong on the Discussion page…end of story. Aside from the Statement of Dispute, there is no section in the RfC project page template for comments from users directly involved in the conflict. Furthermore, I looked through more than a dozen examples of past RfCs and could not find a single instance where a participant arbitrarily created a new section, such as Matthew did when he created the Inside Views section to showcase Citizen Don's highly negative comment against me. Unless someone can cite a precedent for making such an arbitrary change to the RfC template, this issue seems totally cut and dried -- the comment should be moved to the Discussion section immediately. This seems to be bordering on a violation of WP:NPA. Rhode Island Red 01:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Red, on a Request for Comment, the main rule is, that everyone gets their say. Don was not part of the original drafting of this RfC, and as such it is completely appropriate that he be allowed to post his own view. This isn't a case of a vote or quantity of text, this is a case where everyone gets to comment, including you, in a structured format. If you've looked through the archives, I'm sure that you've seen that there are variable styles. Some people write "outside view," some write "inside view", "Semi-involved view," "view," etc. The exact heading is not that important, really. If you want precedent for an "inside view" format, see Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Piotrus. It doesn't have perfect formatting either, but the goal of an RfC is not to be perfectly formatted -- it's to let people try to hear what each other are saying, and to get a sense of who agrees with whom. And, in a truly ideal situation, someone would post a view that both sides would be able to agree with. So please, just let the RfC run its course, and try to listen to what people are saying, with an open mind. --Elonka 22:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Shell edited out "How pathetic that Rhode Island Red is the only person who agrees with positive comments about him/her/it. Time to put the issue or editor to rest" because she had concerns. Or is it that Shell and Toothbar are the only two people in favor of allowing ONE single subject editor to control an article. Concerns Shell? The only concern should be to protect the neutrality of wiki. my comment should stay and be considered when sanctioning Red! don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.71.28.186 (talk • contribs) 14:08, June 20, 2007 (UTC)

I support Shell's deletion, because the comment was a violation of WP:NPA and was placed by an anon single-purpose account. If you, 65.71.28.186, can figure out how to phrase your comment in a more civil way, then you're allowed to comment. Or if you're actually willing to identify yourself, that too would give your comment more weight, but to be honest, using the word "pathetic" is just going to make most people ignore your comment anyway, so it doesn't really matter if it's deleted or not. Comments from anons and SPAs are also usually given very little weight. For best results, try to keep comments calm, civil, and articulate, as those have much more weight on Misplaced Pages. Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~ to datestamp them, thanks. --Elonka 16:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments like this anonymous IP's insulting and un-civil language do not help the position that s/he is advocating. I will consider your comment, 65.71.28.186. I have mentally noted it as, "anonymous, rude SPA feels that all those who disagree with their position are biased." When discussing the issue of sanctions such as these - removing an editor from an article, and letting other people edit it instead, the accused editor's actions are important to consider. However, I will also look at the context and the other editors. If, say, one editor looks bad but the other editors look worse, removing one editor wouldn't fix the problems. In this case, 65.71.28.186 looks to be the sort of editor that I would not like to see working on this article. Bhimaji 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Don's statement (moved from project page)

I would like to comment on my attempts to improve the Juice Plus article with RIR. I've made consistent efforts to suggest improvements to the article over the past four months. I've spent hours and hours researching the references and I've made 0 edits because of RIR dilligent efforts to control the supposed neutrality of the article. I respect the consensus and I think all of the regular editors on the Juice Plus page are extremely frustrated with RIR. Most editor say they just want a good article while RIR has made this impossible. RIR has become a gatekeeper of sorts, ignoring all opposition with a barrage of verbose responses and threatening language. In my short time as an editor on the Juice Plus page, I've received multiple warnings on more than one occasion on my talkpage and the Juice Plus talkpage from RIR. I consider this to be quite rude considering my repeated attempts to treat RIR with civility. I've seen RIR repeatedly call other's POV into question while rebuffing others attempted to understand why RIR spends what must be hours a day on this one article. Despite all this effort on RIR's part, RIR was the sole person to decline Mediation in a recent attempt. I don't sell Juice Plus but I know enough about it to know it's not being accurately represented. With RIR's continued and dominant presence on the Juice Plus page, I question the long term quality of the article. I suspect the problems with the article will only get worse.Citizen Don 04:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Salaskan's view

The 9 other edits to which Salaskan referred were on the WP article on oxidative stress and did not include any "negative comment about Juice Plus", or for that matter, any comment whatsoever about Juice Plus. Can you please acknowledge this error in your previous statement? Rhode Island Red 20:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure, my apologies for not thoroughly looking at those edits. I still stand by my point that you are way too focused on the Juice Plus article, though. SalaSkan 22:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Shell's endorsement of Rhode's response

This better explains what I meant by misleading statements used to open this RfC. The claims made are highly dramatized and the hysterics by Mike Halterman below just add to the atmosphere. Shell 19:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree with my comments, and that's fine, but I backed them up with a diff so please do not try to discredit me by calling my comments "hysterics." It's not polite and I do not appreciate it. Thank you. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe we strongly disagree on the meaning and contents of the diff you provided. Using hyperbole like "revenge RfC" and "deplorable" in your statement was what I was referring to as hysterics. I apologize if the characterization offended you. Shell 04:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to Shell's outside view

Shell, I would like to comment on your statement that "There also seems to be a push to revisit issues discussed very throughly in the previous months; since there are now more proponents of JuicePlus on the talk page, a great deal of the text is being systematically white-washed and even removed all together."

I view this as part of a cleansing process. Many of RIR's edit over the past year have led to a biased feel to the article (I have just documented in some detail the SN/AEMS example on the Juice Plus talk page), so it is only natural that some issues are going to be revisited. It's not a matter of white-washing, more a case of the pendulum swinging back towards the middle - a healthy process, surely?

We also need to ensure that it doesn't swing the other way! This is why I have not endorsed the call for a ban on RIR from editing the article. If the RfC results in a change of attitude (i.e. editing practice) on RIR's part, then it will have served a useful purpose. TraceyR 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Gender

I see that I'm referring to Rhode Island Red as male, and Tbooher is referring to Rhode Island Red as female. If I have RIR's gender wrong, I do apologize. RIR, would you be willing to confirm your gender, or at least indicate which types of pronouns that you would prefer used, in reference to yourself? Thanks, Elonka 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought Tbooher was RIR's sock-puppet? or meat-puppet at any length. Matthew 08:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Red, I see that you still haven't replied to my "gender" question. Would you please do so, or at least explain why you don't want to reply? Thanks, Elonka 23:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This is really getting completely out of hand. Please do not make drive-by sock/meat puppet allegations that serve to do nothing other than inflame a situation that is obviously not being resolved by this RfC. And it should be pointed out that Misplaced Pages, in general, strongly discourages attempts to force contributors to reveal private information. This line of questioning is completely inappropriate. Shell 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)