| Revision as of 07:54, 13 December 2005 editLa goutte de pluie (talk | contribs)22,509 edits Justification of my complaint← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:54, 13 December 2005 edit undoLa goutte de pluie (talk | contribs)22,509 editsm →Justification of my complaint: fmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| BostonMA, I will attempt to address several points you raise that I think will clarify the reasons I brought up this RFC. This also addresses Feco's points slightly. | BostonMA, I will attempt to address several points you raise that I think will clarify the reasons I brought up this RFC. This also addresses Feco's points slightly. | ||
| '''Quote''': " Yes, the use does want to add his or her own interpretations. There is nothing wrong with attempting to have minority points of view expressed in wikipedia articles. According to NPOV | '''Quote''': " Yes, the use does want to add his or her own interpretations. There is nothing wrong with attempting to have minority points of view expressed in wikipedia articles. According to NPOV ... "Misplaced Pages policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" | ||
| "Misplaced Pages policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable" | |||
| '''My response''': This is Gibby's view, not the views of a minority. We have a policy of ]. When minority views are represented, there has to be external evidence that supports that there indeed are a group of people making such a representation. Finally, all views should be represented factually. NPOV is not, ''stating different views'', but rather ''reporting on'' different views. This is what people have been trying to communicate to KDRGibby. We have been trying to cite policies to Gibby and explaining them what they mean, but Gibby rejects all our explanations. To me, a resolution would have been to get Gibby to acknowledge policy, or to have Gibby and other editors come to a compromise that would have suited policy. Gibby shows no intention to follow actual policy at all, and instead tries to cunningly find loopholes in them. It is nearly impossible to have Gibby come to a compromise with anyone, and he continually attacks other editors. We have notified him about his behaviour, and showed him policy about civility and personal attacks. Gibby has made no effort to resolve the dispute - when other editors have made all the effort to try to find a solution to his grievances. | '''My response''': This is Gibby's view, not the views of a minority. We have a policy of ]. When minority views are represented, there has to be external evidence that supports that there indeed are a group of people making such a representation. Finally, all views should be represented factually. NPOV is not, ''stating different views'', but rather ''reporting on'' different views. This is what people have been trying to communicate to KDRGibby. We have been trying to cite policies to Gibby and explaining them what they mean, but Gibby rejects all our explanations. To me, a resolution would have been to get Gibby to acknowledge policy, or to have Gibby and other editors come to a compromise that would have suited policy. Gibby shows no intention to follow actual policy at all, and instead tries to cunningly find loopholes in them. It is nearly impossible to have Gibby come to a compromise with anyone, and he continually attacks other editors. We have notified him about his behaviour, and showed him policy about civility and personal attacks. Gibby has made no effort to resolve the dispute - when other editors have made all the effort to try to find a solution to his grievances. | ||
Revision as of 07:54, 13 December 2005
Comments by Rd232
I don't want to be drawn into discussion of the user's wider behaviour, by I remark briefly on my encounter with him on Marketization. In particular, I find it odd that he said (on Talk:Marketization, 7 December) "i've been on here for 2 years...got an account 2 months ago." when his KDRGibby account has made no contributions before 1 December. My impression is that the latter is a better indication of how long he's been around, given that he thought he could change part of Marketization and then be able to make an unsigned claim that I'd misquoted it as if it weren't easy to go back to the history and (a) disprove that and (b) show who claimed that. His attitude was also often rather unnecessarily confrontational. Rd232 14:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
- I don't find it odd that someone posted to wikipedia long before they obtained an account. I only obtained an account when I found that I was unable to make changes to a particular article without virtually immediate reversion. (BostonMA 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC))
- Read the passage in question again. What Rd232 finds odd is KDRGibby's claim that he got an account two months ago, when his account was only 6 days old at that time. Mattley 18:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Justification of my complaint
BostonMA, I will attempt to address several points you raise that I think will clarify the reasons I brought up this RFC. This also addresses Feco's points slightly.
Quote: " Yes, the use does want to add his or her own interpretations. There is nothing wrong with attempting to have minority points of view expressed in wikipedia articles. According to NPOV ... "Misplaced Pages policy is that articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias. According to Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable"
My response: This is Gibby's view, not the views of a minority. We have a policy of no original research. When minority views are represented, there has to be external evidence that supports that there indeed are a group of people making such a representation. Finally, all views should be represented factually. NPOV is not, stating different views, but rather reporting on different views. This is what people have been trying to communicate to KDRGibby. We have been trying to cite policies to Gibby and explaining them what they mean, but Gibby rejects all our explanations. To me, a resolution would have been to get Gibby to acknowledge policy, or to have Gibby and other editors come to a compromise that would have suited policy. Gibby shows no intention to follow actual policy at all, and instead tries to cunningly find loopholes in them. It is nearly impossible to have Gibby come to a compromise with anyone, and he continually attacks other editors. We have notified him about his behaviour, and showed him policy about civility and personal attacks. Gibby has made no effort to resolve the dispute - when other editors have made all the effort to try to find a solution to his grievances.
Quote: The "other editors" reverted the edits of the user within a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds. The justification offered is that the user's edits had various faults. I agree that the user's edits contain some original research, and have other weaknesses as well. However, these weaknesses are found in the Communism article generally, and are not specific to the user's edits.
My response: It was the general consensus among editors that Gibby's edits contributed no new information, ie. it is already mentioned that China has a free market in many articles which are linked from Communism. We explained on the talk page why adding an entire section did not suit the article. This is different from an edit that adds new information to an article.
Quote: The "other editors" have shown amazing energy in attempting to prevent edits from being made to the Communism article by individuals outside their group.
My response: I absolutely contest this. This statement labels "other editors" into a cabal, I do not think is a useful comment in RFC.
Quote: However, when blatant instances of "original research" have been pointed out to them, when requests have been made for verifiable sources for dubious statements, when bias has been shown in the application of their adherence to Misplaced Pages guidelines, they seem to have no energy for correcting such things. In fact, they block the correction of instances of "original research" and remove edits which provide verifiable sources. The appearance is that the "other editors" are conducting a POV crusade against "outside" POVs.
My response: Can you please give us diffs citing where original research was added, or at least quotes from the Communism article? The criteria for original research is quite clear: it is backed up by sources and can be verified externally. The sections in contest before the dispute had the consensus that they are historically accurate, and are further backed up in the articles linked in the section. Most of the disputes in Communism often pertain to criticisms, the future, and the like, and the history is rarely disputed.
Quote:' For example, consider the phrase "Russia, the modern world's first effort to build socialism or communism on a large scale". The subject of the phrase is "the modern world". It appears to me very doubtful that statements of this sort would appear in scholarly work. Even if they do appear in scholarly work, I would hope that such words would be represented not as fact, but as the opinion of some scholars, else a question of NPOV arises. // The "other editors" claimed to be against "original research", and it was therefore reasonable the the user in qustion attempt to remove text which suffered from that defect.
My response: This has nothing to do with Gibby for the time being, but I will respond that before then, the Paris Commune only took place on a city-level, rather than the entire nation.
Quote: There is quite clearly factual and NPOV disputes involved with the Communism article. I put up "disputed" and "NPOV" templates myself. There is a section in the discussion devoted to NPOV, and other sections raise the issues of factual disputes. Although the other editors don't want warning templates on the website, they have not presented serious arguments that such disputes do not exists. Adding warning templates is a reasonable and legitimage activity.
My response: See Misplaced Pages:Templates. Firstly, there is a template called Template:totallydisputed, it is general policy not to add both types of templates to an article because of the space it consumes. I contest the statement that we did not present "serious arguments". These kinds of comments are not helping the RFC. We both want to resolve this dispute. We are both pretty serious. I want to assume good faith about Gibby, but his behavior of attacking other users and suspecting them of having entrenched interests prevents me from doing so. In the process, other editors shoudl assume good faith when we come up with responses. Many editors such as myself and 172 provided what we thought were policy-based and logical reasons why the templates should not be included. I contest the statement that we were not serious about it.
Quote: The "other editors" have not acted in good faith, by removing edits within minutes of their first appearance. Nor have they acted in good faith in the consistent application of their alleged policies. When requested to abide by the guideline of improving edits rather than reverting them, as per Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes ... none of them has expressed a willingness to abide by such a policy.
My response: I maintain that this is no excuse to make personal attacks. There is the concept of staying cool when the editing gets hot. Removing edits is not assuming bad faith - rather they had been originally posted days ago, and not removed "minutes after they were first posted". It should also be noted that guidelines are not policies.
Quote: My understanding is that he did not violate the WP:3RR rule because he had not reverted the public page. (By the way, the "other editors" have clearly violated the WP:3RR rule, and did so in a flaunting manner, after they had been warned by Misplaced Pages administrators.
My response: One user copying and pasting the same thing after it has been removed by a variety of users multiple times is effectively a revert, since it effectively restores it to a previous version.
Quote: I don't see what is wrong with copying something to one's personal talk page...I fail to see an abuse of privilege in editing one's own talk page.
My response: If it starts hindering other people's ability to communicate with the user about him, or to other users, it is not something explicitly wrong, but it is a sign of disharmony with the community. Deleting opposing comments from one's own talk page without archiving or responding to them can be seen as rude. There is of course, no problem in ignoring a user's attempt to discuss a matter with you, but then it clearly shows hostility and lack of willingness to resolve a dispute with that user.