| Revision as of 22:20, 10 January 2006 editDuffer1 (talk | contribs)1,637 edits →Disagree (mediator is not damaged)← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:05, 10 January 2006 edit undoDtbrown (talk | contribs)3,682 edits →Disagree (mediator is not damaged)Next edit → | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
| *Is this still an issue? Steve is doing a good job of what he has volunteered to do: mediate; he's also doing it without overstepping the confines of un-official Wiki mediation guidelines. Central, if this was official mediation you would stand a good chance of getting blocked on top of getting edited. ] 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | *Is this still an issue? Steve is doing a good job of what he has volunteered to do: mediate; he's also doing it without overstepping the confines of un-official Wiki mediation guidelines. Central, if this was official mediation you would stand a good chance of getting blocked on top of getting edited. ] 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * ] 23:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 23:05, 10 January 2006
JWs Talk page and vandalism
Stevenwmccrary58, can you explain why you keep vandalising whole pages of user's comments, not from a main article page, but in this Talk discussion? You know the policy on Vandalism, and yet you are doing to worst kind of vandalism of all, by hacking to death people's discussion comments, changing their words, re-orderings their statements and distorting their presentation and argumentation, and all of this in a Talk discussion, not a main article! If you alter even one word, let alone massive paragraphs as you have been doing you are bastardising their thoughts, and manipulating the debate in a totally unethical and unacceptable manner. This kind of vandalising is totally unacceptable, especially when people are trying to resolve and edit a complex subject with all their information, presented the way they choose.
Would it be acceptable to rip out pages of books, and replace them with others just because we did not like what was written in them? Is it ethical to alter history to something else and present this as a factual representation? If you have a problem with someone's phrasing, or words, then make a comment below their post objectively, but please stop vandalising post and changing all their words. Once you have touched their Talk comments and messed about with them, altered them, moved bits and deleted others, mutilated it, it is no longer a valid post, and does not represent in any way what they said and the way they wanted their ideas and disputation expressed. You have marched in with strong-arm tactics and done a massive amount of corrupting of people's paragraphs, mine being the most messed up and altered of all. Again, if you object to any wording, then please post an objection below the text. Please stop this outrageous bastardising and hacking up of people's valid talk posts. This is not a main page, this is a discussion page about an edit, which will have each person's point of view, and their wording expressing their arguments and thoughts in their own manner. You are unfortunately destroying the whole point of a resolution page discussion with your actions. If you carry on with this spoiling, the whole point of the discussion will be void, as all the points will be lost in a deluge of censorship and bastardisation, therefore any conclusion will be unreasonable, manipulated and invalid. Central 17:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Central, thanks for the protest.
- I am trying to follow the suggestions on Misplaced Pages:Civility especially those under the subsection on Rephrasing disputants comments. My intent is to keep the tone civil and on topic on the Mediation page. The notes that remain in the Mediation text points the users to deleted text, so if they still want to read it, they can go to the history.
- I do not favor, nor does the Mediation Cabal, admonitions, so I try to avoid those.
- I am taking a little liberty on the Mediation page, since it is mediation, albeit informal. Your protest is so noted.
- I do not have the authority, not do I want the authority, to "zap" history. It is all still there. The edits on the main page are not unreasonable, nor are they manipulation. If you believe they are censorship, then restore them by addressing them to me. But please, assume good faith, even in my edits of your posts.
- Please note that this is the "discussion" page for the mediation. The other page is the mediation "project page."
- To the issue, early in the article, I requested certain demeanor on the page, especially asking that both sides address their edits to me, not to each other, and to avoid bloviating. The edits of other users posts were to eliminate deviations from those requests. If you believe that I have "bastarized" one of your posts, please restore it in a civil fashion, again addressing me, not the other users. As you can tell, your's are not the only edits being "toned," most of the parties in this dispute could use some lessons in concise edits, staying on topic, assuming good faith, and following protocol.
- Again, if you believe that your edits are "bastardized" please change them, but following the requested protocol.
- Again thanks for the notice, SteveMc 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) added clarifications. SteveMc 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Reply from Cobaltbluetony
Steven, I accept the terms under which you are making these changes, but I would offer the caveat that, in the past, there is no such thing as a "little" liberty, or a "little" anything here. Large or small, certain editors will invariably (and predictably) raise a fuss until everyone else feels physically nauseated. - CobaltBlueTony 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Mediator is damaged?
Greetings, How many of you believe that I have damaged my ability to complete the mediation of this dispute by editing the posts of others? (Please read the complaint above.) I will gladly step aside and let someone else finish this mediation.
Please vote below. SteveMc 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Agree (mediator is damaged)
Disagree (mediator is not damaged)
- I had one of my posts removed. Lesson learned. George 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Is this still an issue? Steve is doing a good job of what he has volunteered to do: mediate; he's also doing it without overstepping the confines of un-official Wiki mediation guidelines. Central, if this was official mediation you would stand a good chance of getting blocked on top of getting edited. Duffer 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)