| Revision as of 15:19, 5 January 2008 editScolaire (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,739 edits →Statement by Scolaire: clarify← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:54, 5 January 2008 edit undoCoren (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,492 edits →Statement by Scolaire: reNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ==Statement by ]== | ==Statement by ]== | ||
| The template makes no provision for a statement by non-neutral party that is not ''pro'' or ''anti'', so I must make it on the Talk page. Clearly I cannot endorse R. fiend's response, because that would mean accepting that he can do as he pleases, but neither will I endorse the proposal, because of the way it has come about. Of the two parties in a dispute that ranges across several articles, R. fiend is by far the more reasonable: he argues every one of his points in a coherent and reasoned (if occasionally caustic) manner, and is receptive to any coherent or reasoned arguments that are put to him. In return he has been subjected to persistent bullying and abuse (as have I, whenever I have attempted to mediate). The opposing party knew well that if they taunted and goaded him enough he would do something stupid, and they would be able to bring him down. And ''that'' is how this RfC has arisen. Censuring R. fiend here will sent a message back to these people that bullying ''will'' work, that it is approved of by editors and admins alike, and that they are now free to OWN whatever articles they are working on. Diffs from ] alone: examples of aggressive behaviour are here, here, here, here, here, here (love the edit summary!), here, here, here and here. Examples of gratuitous taunting are here, here and here. Typical edit summaries are here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. On the face of it, these edit summaries are a model of restraint compared to the "fascist censorship" summary of R. fiend, but used over and over in this way, without regard to the reasoned arguments put forward by the other editor, they are an insidious form of bullying aimed at the editor's self-esteem, and specifically designed to drive him over the edge. In my case its effect was to drive me out of WP altogether for six weeks – and if it's not addressed I won't be staying long on this occasion either – in R. fiend's case it has led directly to this RfC. And before you dismiss this as conspiracy theory, here it is in black and white, outlined to a fellow-editor in December. When the infamous Vintagekits arbitration was initiated in August 2007 I stated that "to come down hard on somebody who doesn't know where to draw the line, while those who know how to "play the game" get off scot-free, would be very unfair" That view was endorsed when the arbitration was re-named ] and the behaviour of all the involved editors was examined. I am saying that this case is exactly the same and that exactly the same injustice is in danger of being done. I accept and respect that those who brought and endorsed this RfC did it for the best possible motives (with a couple of exceptions in the case of endorsers), but I ask every one of you to carefully consider the consequences of your actions. ] (]) 13:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | The template makes no provision for a statement by non-neutral party that is not ''pro'' or ''anti'', so I must make it on the Talk page. Clearly I cannot endorse R. fiend's response, because that would mean accepting that he can do as he pleases, but neither will I endorse the proposal, because of the way it has come about. Of the two parties in a dispute that ranges across several articles, R. fiend is by far the more reasonable: he argues every one of his points in a coherent and reasoned (if occasionally caustic) manner, and is receptive to any coherent or reasoned arguments that are put to him. In return he has been subjected to persistent bullying and abuse (as have I, whenever I have attempted to mediate). The opposing party knew well that if they taunted and goaded him enough he would do something stupid, and they would be able to bring him down. And ''that'' is how this RfC has arisen. Censuring R. fiend here will sent a message back to these people that bullying ''will'' work, that it is approved of by editors and admins alike, and that they are now free to OWN whatever articles they are working on. Diffs from ] alone: examples of aggressive behaviour are here, here, here, here, here, here (love the edit summary!), here, here, here and here. Examples of gratuitous taunting are here, here and here. Typical edit summaries are here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. On the face of it, these edit summaries are a model of restraint compared to the "fascist censorship" summary of R. fiend, but used over and over in this way, without regard to the reasoned arguments put forward by the other editor, they are an insidious form of bullying aimed at the editor's self-esteem, and specifically designed to drive him over the edge. In my case its effect was to drive me out of WP altogether for six weeks – and if it's not addressed I won't be staying long on this occasion either – in R. fiend's case it has led directly to this RfC. And before you dismiss this as conspiracy theory, here it is in black and white, outlined to a fellow-editor in December. When the infamous Vintagekits arbitration was initiated in August 2007 I stated that "to come down hard on somebody who doesn't know where to draw the line, while those who know how to "play the game" get off scot-free, would be very unfair" That view was endorsed when the arbitration was re-named ] and the behaviour of all the involved editors was examined. I am saying that this case is exactly the same and that exactly the same injustice is in danger of being done. I accept and respect that those who brought and endorsed this RfC did it for the best possible motives (with a couple of exceptions in the case of endorsers), but I ask every one of you to carefully consider the consequences of your actions. ] (]) 13:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Actually, you are welcome to make a new section explaining your view on the matter by simply copying and modifying another - RfCs are rarely black-and-white and it's expected that views other than the original concern and its response may add to the list. — ] <sup>]</sup> 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:54, 5 January 2008
Question for R. fiend
I wondered if you had a reply to my suggestion here? The thread was closed before you had a chance to reply, perhaps? Apologies if you already replied and I missed it, but I thought my suggestion made sense. --John (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Easter Rising
Alison, on the Easter Rising article, there were two occasions were the page was protected, and on both occasions the page block was breached. The first occasion was here, protected by Luna, the protection was then breached here, with this comment on the talk page. Having pointed that they were told not to edit the page I got this response. There was a storm of protest on the talk page, if you notice there were two changes made. There was no agreement at all on the first of them, and it materially changed the whole context of the statement. This is outlined here and here in a rather long thread. The thing is, they knew what they were doing. They knew there was no agreement, and made me out to be a liar. I explained this and Fozzie checked it out, and agreed I was right. So while Jj137 page protected the article again the somewhat trivial edits take on a whole new aspect? So you have two breaches of page protection, despite the problems created. I just seems on the RfC, that the two have become mixed up? Thanks again, and I left a post here for you as well.--Domer48 (talk) 11:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Scolaire
The template makes no provision for a statement by non-neutral party that is not pro or anti, so I must make it on the Talk page. Clearly I cannot endorse R. fiend's response, because that would mean accepting that he can do as he pleases, but neither will I endorse the proposal, because of the way it has come about. Of the two parties in a dispute that ranges across several articles, R. fiend is by far the more reasonable: he argues every one of his points in a coherent and reasoned (if occasionally caustic) manner, and is receptive to any coherent or reasoned arguments that are put to him. In return he has been subjected to persistent bullying and abuse (as have I, whenever I have attempted to mediate). The opposing party knew well that if they taunted and goaded him enough he would do something stupid, and they would be able to bring him down. And that is how this RfC has arisen. Censuring R. fiend here will sent a message back to these people that bullying will work, that it is approved of by editors and admins alike, and that they are now free to OWN whatever articles they are working on. Diffs from Easter Rising alone: examples of aggressive behaviour are here, here, here, here, here, here (love the edit summary!), here, here, here and here. Examples of gratuitous taunting are here, here and here. Typical edit summaries are here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. On the face of it, these edit summaries are a model of restraint compared to the "fascist censorship" summary of R. fiend, but used over and over in this way, without regard to the reasoned arguments put forward by the other editor, they are an insidious form of bullying aimed at the editor's self-esteem, and specifically designed to drive him over the edge. In my case its effect was to drive me out of WP altogether for six weeks – and if it's not addressed I won't be staying long on this occasion either – in R. fiend's case it has led directly to this RfC. And before you dismiss this as conspiracy theory, here it is in black and white, outlined to a fellow-editor in December. When the infamous Vintagekits arbitration was initiated in August 2007 I stated that "to come down hard on somebody who doesn't know where to draw the line, while those who know how to "play the game" get off scot-free, would be very unfair" That view was endorsed when the arbitration was re-named The Troubles and the behaviour of all the involved editors was examined. I am saying that this case is exactly the same and that exactly the same injustice is in danger of being done. I accept and respect that those who brought and endorsed this RfC did it for the best possible motives (with a couple of exceptions in the case of endorsers), but I ask every one of you to carefully consider the consequences of your actions. Scolaire (talk) 13:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, you are welcome to make a new section explaining your view on the matter by simply copying and modifying another - RfCs are rarely black-and-white and it's expected that views other than the original concern and its response may add to the list. — Coren 15:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)