Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FellGleaming (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 12 April 2010 (→Singer Reverts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Messages

Please put messages at foot. I will delete them when I have read them. If you are replying to a message I left I don't mind where you reply but try to keep conversations together. If you are offering to help with the Schools DVD I would be very glad to hear from you. There is loads to do at present and we are working through the new subject index:

Art Business Studies Citizenship Countries Design and Technology Everyday life Geography History IT Language and literature Mathematics Music People Religion Science

The new selection of articles is about two weeks away. We are still hand checking version numbers (yawn) and still aiming for about 5500 articles to fit on a DVD. Just to update the selection of articles has just moved off wiki to allow a quicker automated run but it will come back. --BozMo talk 06:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars

Thank you for the appreciation which I have moved off as they clutter the page. --BozMo talk 18:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can you defend this edit from an experienced editor on any good faith grounds? ATren (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would I want to defend it? --BozMo talk 06:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Been looking around (briefly) to try to find obvious contradiction to it though and there is a certain accuracy. Not encyclopaedic though--BozMo talk 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, not encyclopedic, blatantly POV, unsourced, and he did it twice. This is inexcusable for an experienced user, it's disruption, plain and simple. Of course, you do realize that edit triggered the uproar which you are blaming MN for, right? MN's response was misguided but it was not the root cause of the disruption. So if you are suggesting a long term ban for reacting to disruption, why are you not suggesting a similar ban for the original disruption? Especially given that the original disruption happened in article space where such edits really are potentially destructive, whereas the reactions occurred on talk pages and noticeboards -- why does the latter deserve a topic ban and the former gets (another) pass?

And let's examine the reaction: (1) He posted a vandalism warning -- really, how far is that edit from vandalism? It's not vandalism by the letter, perhaps, but it is highly suspect in that someone as intelligent and experienced as WMC could have believed that was a good edit. So was it vandalism? No. Could a relatively inexperienced user misinterpret it as such? Perhaps. (2) After some bickering, WMC brought it to the probation talk page. MN responded. Lar asked for diffs. MN provided them. Then WMC accused him of making a "backdoor request" and repeatedly (falsely) asserted that Lar never asked for diffs. Even if you want to call that a backdoor request, I still don't believe a good faith reading of this sequence rises to the level of disruption of the original edit. (3) MN raises a COI/N request against WMC. This was ill-advised, but WMC was adding suspect edits to an article about a book which mentioned him. Is this not a potential COI issue? KC closed that request and accused MN of "forum shopping", which apparently relies on WMC's (false) interpretation of (2) being a "backdoor request".

In addition to all this, MN had a formal ban from filing "compliants" against WMC, but I personally believed that this applied to the enforcement page only, and I think MN had the same belief when he went to COI/N (indeed, maybe the enforcement page only was Geni's intent in the first place, perhaps someone should ask them for clarification?).

So, in summary, what we have here is a series of poor decisions by MN, but they were not the root cause of the dispute, and his reactions can all be reasonably classified as bad decisions made in good faith. But the root cause was a disruptive edit in article space (twice) for which I cannot conceive a good faith reading.

In any case, if you are going to sanction, shouldn't both the original disruption and the reaction be sanctioned equally? Or, if you are going to sanction one side and not the other, what argument can be made that it should be only MN and not WMC, based on the analysis I've presented above? Implicit in this is, how can that original edit by WMC be read as a good faith action from someone as experienced and intelligent as WMC? ATren (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Singer Reverts

Bozmo, I thank you for the warning, and I'm going to take your advice regardless. However, I would like a little clarification on what you consider 'edit warring'. In this case, an editor reverted a claim, saying the source was non:RS. I started a discussion on the talk page, pointing out the source was not a blog, and further, that it linked directly to the original Newsweek article. Editor reverted again, suggesting the original source should be Newsweek. So I complied. End of that issue.

Another editor then changed the well-sourced direct quote of Samuelson's title (contributing editor) to his own interpretation of that title. (freelance columnist). I made one reverts on this issue, both times explaining my reasoning on talk, then left it alone.

I don't see how I've come close to even violating 2RR here, much less the spirit of 3RR. Further, since this is a BLP, I thought the standard for scurrilous, fringe allegations was somewhat higher. The article is clearly a COATRACK, designed to discredit a scientist with a lengthy and varied career, by giving undue weight to one small aspect of that career, and the editors in question have a lengthy history of making similar edits to any and all biographies of similar individuals. FellGleaming (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

and are easily two R. is a third William M. Connolley (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoing is fallacious. The second edit was a direct response to your request to insert the original Newsweek source. The third edit dealt with another issue entirely; it wasn't reinserting the Samuelson article, but correcting his title to the official one given him at Newsweek. FellGleaming (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)