Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:17, 15 February 2011

Removal of notices

Because it's come up several times, I'd like to direct everyone to the guidelines on removal of talk page warnings. In short, besides a few exceptions which have not arisen in this case, deleting talk page messages on one's own talk page is considered acceptable and should not be considered evidence of wrongdoing. This comment has no bearing on the validity of the other evidence presented. Best, Danger (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with this. However, corequisite to removing warnings from one's talk page is that the editor should have taken the hint regarding the problematic behaviour (from WP:OWNTALK, "the removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user"). In many of these cases, Bidgee hasn't taken the hint. -danjel (talk to me) 16:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I've clarified to ensure that there is no misunderstanding that I am objecting to his/her removal of the notices, only that the issues weren't taken on board. -danjel (talk to me) 16:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing warnings, in isolation, is not the issue. It is edit summaries that go along with such removals and subsequent actions that indicate a problem.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A wise person would have backed off here, not doubled down on the templating - if that person actually was making a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. Bidgee had made it quite clear that Danjel's messages were no longer welcome and continuing to post on his talk page verges on Wikihounding. I would suggest that Danjel take a good hard look at the way he interacts with other editors so that disputes are resolved and not escalated. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

After repeated refusal to remove a personal attack, a template would seem to be justified. However, I cannot speak for Danjel's motives or frame of mind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Response to Outside view

Nick Thorne has suggested that the responses seem like they're from "people with an axe to grind against Bidgee". Whilst I cannot speak for the other editors involved, I'm not aware that I've previously had a dispute with Bidgee, and if I ever have, it must have been so minor that I've forgotten about it. However, the other editors have demonstrated that my concerns about how Bidgee has responded on the Cairns article (forcefully asserting his arbitrary opinion that 'notable effect' = 'severe damage' and then employing expletives and personal attacks when he doesn't get his own way) have not been unique to my experience in dealing with him.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to use an editor's name as a section header on the talk page of an RFC about a different editor. I have no objection to my comments being the subject of your post, but I am not the subject of this RFC. My comments BTW were based upon the appearance of the way other editors interacted with Bidgee. As I stated, it appears to me that Bisgee has been in effect set up. Also, as I said, that does not excuse his behaviour, but a little more self awareness and a little less stone throwing by his critics may well be in order. - Nick Thorne 09:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me assure you, Nick, I have no axe to grind, As I do not have the time to hold grudges etc. I have been active on Misplaced Pages for just over a month, I am your normal everyday editor, who unfortunately had a 'crash course' with Bidgee. Prior to the disputes, I had always thought of Bidgee as one of the leaders, editors look up to. Well s/he is most definately a leader, not the kind I would like to look up to. I had even mentioned this in a apology e-mail to Bidgee. I only met Bidgee just over a week ago. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Nick, I just wasn't sure what to call the section, in reference to your comments.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You can call it "Response to outside view by..." but it's not appropriate to just use the username in the header. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty then.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Look, editors, we all want the same thing. That is for all of us to be civil towards eachother. We have to get to the bottom of this, one way or the other. Sorry if this sounds blunt, but it is true. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what Nick wants. I was informed of this page, came here and gave my opinion. The fact that my opinion coincides with a few other opinions is not my fault. I have no grudges againts this user, I have barely encountered him in the past. But if a few unrelated editors (at least I have never encountered any of them before) have similar opinions, perhaps it would be wise for this user to take notice. Moreover I would advise Nick to take back his accusation of stone throwing. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Mattinbgn's statement about removing template warnings, see the section above. To reiterate, the problem there was not that the templates were removed, but the conduct that continued.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, I had not previously been aware of the WP:DTTR essay. In any case, as I stated at the ANI, where it was suggested to me to raise the RFC/U, I would not even have considered the ANI necessary if the dispute at the Cairns article didn't seem to be part of a broader pattern.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be a pattern of behaviour by Danjel as demonstrated by his edits to Pdfpdf's talk page. This suggests that there is an issue with the way that Danjel attempts to resolve disputes and is worthy of discussion here. An RfC has the scope to investigate the conduct of all parties involved, not just the named party. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of RfC

I've got to say this RfC looks a little premature to me. Has anyone run through any attempts to resolve this? (See Misplaced Pages:DR#Resolving content disputes) It looks like an entire step of dispute resolution has been skipped out. As such, I expect this will be deleted in an hour and a half per Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct#Minimum requirements. Perhaps an RfC/U will be necessary, but there's other steps to go through first. Perhaps mediation? Worm 09:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I only raised the RFC at the suggestion of User:Strange Passerby. Maybe it's not entirely necessary? However, there is some inappropriate behaviour that is outside of the scope of the article dispute itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that, and it may be just that the RfC is malformed - as it's just a copy paste of the ANI thread. But unless someone can provide diffs of trying to resolve the conflict (and that's not just diffs of the conflict itself - but some sort of resolution like a 3O or mediation), an RfC seems premature. Just my opinion. Worm 09:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this RfC/U is massively premature and is using a sledgehammer to crack an nut. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is possible, but I had sent the defendant Bidgee an apology aswell as an explanation of my side of my statement, if possible admims (?) may be able to see that message as I sent it via Misplaced Pages. If it is not possible , may i reveal the contents here? There has been no reply from Bidgee (not that I would appreciate one anymore)... But that will show that I atleast attempted to set things straight between us. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of the term "defendant" here is somewhat revealing of the intent of the parties raising this RfC. This is not a court and Bidgee is not on trial. The conduct of all parties here is up for consideration. The goal of any RfC is not to punish any editor but to resolve an issue. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

In defence of MelbourneStar, I believe she has only been on wikipedia for a couple of months, and has not yet participated in an RfC/U, associating it with a trial is not un-natural. As Mattinbgn has pointed out, this isn't a trial, and punishment should not be an intended goalWorm 10:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My 3O request is indicated in my statement.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

It may just be a malformed issue, Jeffro77, you may want to provide diffs of attempted 3O and it failing in the appropriate sections. MelbourneStar, I personally can't see a problem with you copying your own words onto wikipedia, I know you're not meant to reveal emails sent to you, but since the text is something you want to write, that shouldn't be an issue. However, I don't think it can be used to confirm dispute resolution. Worm 10:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)