Revision as of 14:48, 5 August 2005 editKatefan0 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,081 edits →Moving for a third time← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:00, 5 August 2005 edit undoBenjamin Gatti (talk | contribs)2,835 edits →Moving for a third timeNext edit → | ||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
"any speech questioning the intellectual honesty and moral principles of any person is considered illegitimate." (And ought to be removed) The purpose of Wikis' is not to question people's motives, it is to discuss and question ideas. (Think of how easy it will be to present this complaint to Arbcom.) ] | "any speech questioning the intellectual honesty and moral principles of any person is considered illegitimate." (And ought to be removed) The purpose of Wikis' is not to question people's motives, it is to discuss and question ideas. (Think of how easy it will be to present this complaint to Arbcom.) ] | ||
::I did nothing any worse or different than what you did by disclosing other peoples' conflicts of interest. After all, conflicts of interest must be disclosed, right? If you're trying to suggest that you're going to bring me before Arbcom for pointing out your own hypocrisy and concomitant whitewashing, all I can say is do what you feel you need to do, but please stop threatening me in the meantime. · ]<sup>]</sup> 14:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | ::I did nothing any worse or different than what you did by disclosing other peoples' conflicts of interest. After all, conflicts of interest must be disclosed, right? If you're trying to suggest that you're going to bring me before Arbcom for pointing out your own hypocrisy and concomitant whitewashing, all I can say is do what you feel you need to do, but please stop threatening me in the meantime. · ]<sup>]</sup> 14:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC) | ||
:::Kate, you're not being threatened. I believe your comments directly impuned character. You could have expanded disclouse in an NPOV manner if you felt it was relevent - but you did not stop there - you wrote the conclusion as well - and that is where your comments cross the line. Why don't you revise the comment in a manner consistent with good policy and we'll move on - otherwise - I'm going to insist. As for Hypocrisy - show me where my comments cross the line. and see below ] | |||
:?!?!? Did you see my comment about hypocrisy above? And why do you need to keep copying Katefan0's text here? Is once not enough? — ] | ] 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | :?!?!? Did you see my comment about hypocrisy above? And why do you need to keep copying Katefan0's text here? Is once not enough? — ] | ] 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
::Sorry perhaps I didn't - allow me then to respond. First - its a text move - not a delete - i can be accused of refactoring - but not of censoring. As to Hypocrisy - its very simple for complex minds, and very complex for simple ones. Katefan is dragging history from another page into this one like a one-note samba in order to accuse me of having alterior motives. - That is simply an inappropriate Ad Hominum attack. I on the other hand - did not impune the motives of the two editors - I demonstrated that they were involved '''On this very Issue''' and that they had failed to disclose their direct involvement as required by Policy. ] |
Revision as of 15:00, 5 August 2005
Irrelevent Comments
- Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. · Katefan0 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't delete other users' comments. · Katefan0 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. · Katefan0 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Katefan sees fit to staulk - I find the personal attack more closely related to another matter - so I've removed it to discussion,. If Katefan has a comment on the substance of the article - she is welcome to particpate. Benjamin Gatti
If you could, please show me how I have "staulked" you. Otherwise you may prefer to modify your remarks. Two in-common articles is hardly "stalking." I have a right to comment on a VfD just like everybody else. I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my words, but I felt like it was necessary since the discussion was already on the subject of potential conflicts of interest. Also, I never made a personal attack against you -- I never said you WERE currying favor, or that I thought you were currying favor, or anything approaching it -- I said it could have that appearance, which is far from a personal attack. On the other hand, capriciously painting comments you dislike as personal attacks can be construed as itself a personal attack, though I won't press this issue. I will, however, insist on my comments being left intact -- a stance at least one other editor seems to feel proper. · Katefan0 21:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
You have the right to comment on other pages without people impuning your motives without cause - and I think you should extend the same courtesy. Benjamin Gatti
- Did you extend me courtesy when you said I'm "stalking" you by participating in two of the same articles out of tens of thousands? How about when you called my pointing out something unflattering about you a "personal attack?" Or how about deleting my comments on a talk page three times? · Katefan0 05:21, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Benjamin, this seems to be unduly hypocritical. You commented on the VfD "...both of whom failed to disclose that they are engaged in an arbcom petition against Ed Poor - that is that they clearly Oppose the policy. ... items are being voted for deletion by vested parties as a means of censoring ideas with which they take exception". i.e. you "disclosed" something about two editors, impugning their motives for the VfD and the vote. You can hardly then tell Katefan0 that you have "the right to comment on other pages without people 'impuning' your motives" and disclosing equally (ir)relevant information about you, as this was precisely what you did in the first place. — Asbestos | Talk 12:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Text move (Again)
Once Again Personal attacks are not a valid reason to delete a page. Whether or not one editor of several "could appear" to be harboring a bias (which way is disputed) is simply irrelevent to the question of whether or not the WikiSpace ought to include a particular entry. Benjamin Gatti
:::::Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. And in the interest of my own full disclosure, I am also involved in this particular mediated dispute, which is why I have not voted on this particular VFD. · Katefan0 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't delete other users' comments, Benjamin. · Katefan0 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Moving for a third time
:::::Observers might be equally interested to know that User:Benjamin Gatti has been involved in a dispute being mediated by Ed Poor (see Price-Anderson Act); this particular bit of disruption could be seen as a way to curry favor, were one so inclined. And in the interest of my own full disclosure, I am also involved in this particular mediated dispute, which is why I have not voted on this particular VFD. · Katefan0 21:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Please don't delete other users' comments, Benjamin. · Katefan0 21:25, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm going to stick with my objection. According to WhatIsIllegitimateSpeech "any speech questioning the intellectual honesty and moral principles of any person is considered illegitimate." (And ought to be removed) The purpose of Wikis' is not to question people's motives, it is to discuss and question ideas. (Think of how easy it will be to present this complaint to Arbcom.) Benjamin Gatti
- I did nothing any worse or different than what you did by disclosing other peoples' conflicts of interest. After all, conflicts of interest must be disclosed, right? If you're trying to suggest that you're going to bring me before Arbcom for pointing out your own hypocrisy and concomitant whitewashing, all I can say is do what you feel you need to do, but please stop threatening me in the meantime. · Katefan0 14:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- Kate, you're not being threatened. I believe your comments directly impuned character. You could have expanded disclouse in an NPOV manner if you felt it was relevent - but you did not stop there - you wrote the conclusion as well - and that is where your comments cross the line. Why don't you revise the comment in a manner consistent with good policy and we'll move on - otherwise - I'm going to insist. As for Hypocrisy - show me where my comments cross the line. and see below Benjamin Gatti
- I did nothing any worse or different than what you did by disclosing other peoples' conflicts of interest. After all, conflicts of interest must be disclosed, right? If you're trying to suggest that you're going to bring me before Arbcom for pointing out your own hypocrisy and concomitant whitewashing, all I can say is do what you feel you need to do, but please stop threatening me in the meantime. · Katefan0 14:48, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
- ?!?!? Did you see my comment about hypocrisy above? And why do you need to keep copying Katefan0's text here? Is once not enough? — Asbestos | Talk 13:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry perhaps I didn't - allow me then to respond. First - its a text move - not a delete - i can be accused of refactoring - but not of censoring. As to Hypocrisy - its very simple for complex minds, and very complex for simple ones. Katefan is dragging history from another page into this one like a one-note samba in order to accuse me of having alterior motives. - That is simply an inappropriate Ad Hominum attack. I on the other hand - did not impune the motives of the two editors - I demonstrated that they were involved On this very Issue and that they had failed to disclose their direct involvement as required by Policy. Benjamin Gatti