Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fawcett5 (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 16 October 2005 (innappropriate and unapproved removal of my comments will not be tolerated). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

makeing changes to certified statements

It doesn't seem proper to me to make changes to text over the certification of others, and which the respondent has already responded to. I don't think the certifiers have given others a blank check to produce anything they want over their signatures. If corrections need to be made, in response someone, they should be made in a separate section that preserves the context of the respondents remarks. I suggest something akin to the custom on the ARBCOMs evidence pages.--Silverback 15:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any rules and norms precluding cosigners from modifying the contents of an RfC. While that would be a given for a paper document, this is a Wiki. The timing of all the changes can be traced in the page history. If modifications are unsatisfactory, they can be reverted by other cosigners. For now I'm under the impression that updates to RfCs are expected. But if I am wrong, I'd appreciate being directed to the relevant policy pages. 172 | Talk 15:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Whoops that last revert was me. I got logged out somehow. Modifying information above someone elses signature is wrong, I presume you wouldn't modify someone elses comment on a talk page, and it would be an even more serious violation on an RfC where you are doing it over several persons signatures. Those certifying the RfC are vouching for all the information in it, how can they do that if you go change it again after they've signed it? Furthermore, once I have responded you are changing the context of my response, and making it look like I was lying. The proper thing to do is to correct or amend the RfC in a separate section, and then who ever wants to can certify that. I don't know if there is a specific policy, it is basic civility and fairness. I don't care if policy allows such behavior, I wouldn't do it and wouldn't tolerate it.

If there is a policy against it, I would guess that it is the vandalism policy, that is what I would report the violation as.--Silverback 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Every RfC I have ever been involved in, even peripherally, included modification and elaboration of statements by involved parties during the course of the discussion. An RfC is not something to be set in stone once, but something that evolves as more research is done and/or in response to additional/modified statements by involved (or outside) parties. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some may have allowed adding of evidence, but they should not have allowed any modification of the charges, and no deletion of evidence that had been discussed by the respondent already. Any major changes should would have to be approved by all signatories, and the respondent, or else made in a new RfC. --Silverback 16:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I hereby give blanket authorization for 172 (or any other WP editor) to make whatever changes they wish to the statement(s) I have certified or endorsed in this RfC. If I come to feel a statement is no longer accurate and/or feel external circumstances have changed, I reserve the right to withdraw my endorsement by placing it under strikeout. This authorization is exactly what everyone gives by default by participating in an RfC, FWIW. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:38, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing up the matter. That's what I thought, as this is a wiki. Silverback would, of course, have a point if we were working with paper medium. 172 | Talk 16:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

No it is vandalism. . "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia " and "Changing people's comments Editing signed comments by another user to substantially change their meaning (e.g. turning someone's vote around), except when removing a personal attack (which is somewhat controversial in and of itself)"--Silverback 16:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, please don't insist on preserving minor errors in amber and preventing minor updates. Cosigners can be assumed to keep an eye through the convenient watchlist feature. Your policy quotes don't fit the case very well: "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia"...? "substantially change their meaning, like in turning someone's vote around...? Here's a quote for you: Misplaced Pages is not a system of law. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you classify removing a charge that you got wrong, and that I have already responded to as "minor"? --Silverback 16:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The apology thing was hardly a 'charge that I got wrong' in the first place. Technically you might have apologized for the March sockpuppet allegations this month before the RfC; but you did so in a post that went on to continue to bait me for being 'an apologist for dictators.' So it hardly does much to change the tone. 172 | Talk 16:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Leave it in there and defend it then. You can argue that what your really meant was that it wasn't the right kind of apology, you didn't find it satisfactory, or that you demand more apologies before you accept any. And it wasn't just you that got it wrong. Each "certifier" got it wrong. --Silverback 17:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

There is also the matter of the charge that I didn't even apologize to El_C. What was wrong with that apology? He accepted it then, is he taking back that acceptance now?--Silverback 17:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I invited El C to take a look. If it's the content is incorrect, El C can let me know. Then I'll change it. For now I think the two of us should keep our distance on this RfC. I'm not interested in more disruption, like this "severe vandalism" report of yours on WP:VIP. 172 | Talk 17:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You told me to go ahead. Changing the meaning puts it in the severe category.--Silverback 17:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The level of minutiae above scares me a little. I will reply fully to Silverback's direct question to me, but here's notice that I'm not coming back to this talkpage, I've nothing more to say on it. Silverback, I call the apologies in question a minor matter because I think they are. They're a tiny, minute, microscopic part of the whole, they make no difference to the case because they're churlish words of form. I might as well quote them and be done with it:

I sincerely apologize for any harm that careless question may have caused you". --Silverback 00:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) "BTW, I also intend to apologize for which ever of the suspicions I expressed which turn out to be false. But just because they are false does not mean they were groundless".--Silverback 00:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And this:"Well, I was mistaken in the sockpuppet accusation, we never did find that admin. I apologize. But that isn't a long history. You certainly don't think the apologist for dictators accusation was bizzare do you?" I don't think I've seen the words "I apologize" offered in a less apologetic way. Does that really pass for an expression of regret, in your view?

Anyway, don't you want these details corrected? I don't understand why you seem to prefer them to be misstated. Modifying your own statement accordingly, for example to insert I see you have changed it now, but here's what you said to begin with surely wouldn't have been one tenth of the trouble of all these reverts and threats for the purpose of preserving them. Bishonen | talk 17:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The <first quoted> apology was to El_C, the groundless statement was in regard to a different issue. And was a technical point. I think you are certifying a whole lot of stuff you know nothing about.--Silverback 17:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

And I think you're divorcing the first half of my post from my sig, please don't do that. If somebody should in turn respond to yours, it'll become impossible to see what I said (that very thing happened with your interlined post on my talkpage). I've moved your reply down from its interlined position, I hope you don't mind. Bishonen | talk 17:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I find that disciplined indenting keeps things straight and allows comments closer to the relevant text. However, indented quotes can make it problematic sometimes.--Silverback 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I am hoping to stimulate a discussion of this issue on wikien-l email list, to increase awareness of what is going on. --Silverback 19:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Silverback, I have reinserted my comments, and I certainly don't approve of you removing them in the first place, even though they were struck. DO NOT remove them again. They were neither "Illegal" or "vandalism" - editors "certifying" the Rfc were people who tried to mediate a solution before the Rfc, there is nothing "certified" about the text of the Rfc per se. The only thing innappropriate going on there is the subject of an Rfc removing comments from the Rfc page. THAT is vandalism, and if you keep it up, I'll block you myself. Fawcett5 22:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)