Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:26, 29 November 2012

CharlieEchoTango is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Hello. Click here to leave a message. User talk:CharlieEchoTango/header

Faut vraiment faire quelque chose

Salut Charlie. A peine le blocage de Alpha and Omega (film) expiré, l'IP 95.107.224.87 recommance à pourrir la page. Là, je préconise le blocage car j'en ai marre de toujours voir la page vandalisé. Cordialement Supporterhéninois (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Trudeau article

Hi, Charlie. I just want to say that I think it's a pretty tremendous assumption of bad faith to call another editor's attempt to fix a glaring WP:BLP issue "whitewash," period. I live in the United States at the moment and am not involved in Trudeau's campaign at all. My concern with his biography is the same as I would have with any biography of a living person (and have had on numerous occasions in the past with biographies of people from all walks of life). I boiled down the base content without removing any key facts to bring it inline with WP:UNDUE and removed the ridiculous amount of commentary (which isn't appropriate in any case, and is a blatant violation of WP:COATRACK). If you'd like to take a stab at remedying the issues (other than simply reverting), please do so. But in an article of a bit more than a dozen substantial paragraphs, two of its largest should not be dedicated to something that fit in a one week news cycle. It is the very definition of undue. jæs (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies if it came across as rude, I meant to say that the gutting amounted to a whitewash, not necessarily to accuse you of doing it on purpose. That said, when you leave out everything but "Trudeau made comments. He apologized", you are leaving out much of the context of the controvery and how the comments were perceived. Including a balanced selection of these reactions for context is not a WP:COATRACK as you suggest, since they relate directly to the controversy and are not an attempt to sneak unrelated subjects in the article. The argument that the two paragraphs is overblown and lead to excessive focus is covered in WP:UNDUE, which you cited correctly in your edit summary. That's certainly something that can be discussed on the article's talk page -- how much weight should we give this controversy?

Which leads to me to this : two paragraphs might be a bit much given the shallowness of the current article, but the reaction generated by his comments are an integral part of the controversy, so they must be included somehow. If it can be fairly and accurately described in one paragraph, then that's great, but a wholesale removal is not a solution.

P.S. Quite disappointed that you chose to edit war over this. You were bold, I reverted, and now it should have been discussed. You engaged in discussion and before even waiting for a reply you claimed BLP to remove the edit again, that's not in the spirit of BRD at all. I agree with you it was not written in a disinterested way, I myself removed some of the overrhetoric a few days ago, but your claim that the paragraphs are BLP violations is grossly exagerated. Confusing perceived neutrality and WP:UNDUE issues for BLP violations is a dangerous slope. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

My wp:blp concerns weren't "grossly exaggerated," and after reviewing the recent history of the article, I think the situation is actually worse than I originally feared. I've raised the issue at wp:blpn, as a result. Several of your edits have significantly reduced the neutrality of the content of the article, which I think is pretty stunning given your position as an administrator on the project. You should absolutely know better than to make some of the edits you have at that article recently, and if you think undoing my attempt to fix them per wp:blp was even remotely appropriate, you clearly don't understand the wp:blp policy. jæs (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just read your comments re the BLP board. Two of my early edits have not been great and I should have seen earlier that the original writing was clearly not neutral, but your selective misrepresentation of my editing on this article is unwarranted. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't being selective, your edits introduced wp:blp issues. I tried to fix some of those issues, not even knowing that you were the creator of a good portion of them. You then reverted my objective, uninvolved best efforts wholesale. Getting it "half right" or "fixing it later" isn't acceptable with a wp:blp. If there's a bunch of non-neutral language, original research, and undue commentary in a blp, it has to come out until we get it right. What was "unwarranted" was your undoing my edit and calling my attempt to fix the problems "whitewash." I found that to be remarkable at the time, but seeing that you created several significant bits of what I was trying to fix was pretty stunning. I am of the opinion that administrators should be held to a higher standard, but in the case of your earlier edits and your revert today, you wouldn't even have passed the baseline standard for a wp:blp. jæs (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement

On November 23, 24 and 25, 2012, I engaged in biased editing on a biography of a living person, Justin Trudeau, under my own account and IP, as well as this misleading user name, and to a lesser extent this undeclared sock. My partisanship led me to violate the core principles this encyclopedia is built upon. Not content to simply get away with covert editing, I kept digging my hole, in bad faith, up to the very last moment, as evidenced in the section right above this one. Even though my reprehensible actions did not, at any time, involve abuse of administrative privileges, I betrayed the trust of the community and therefore am no longer fit to be an administrator. I have asked that the permission be removed effective immediately. My resignation of the tools is obviously done under a cloud.

I am also permanently disengaging from the Justin Trudeau article. This is not an admission that the gutted version of the article is fair. It omits large parts of the controversy and is essentially a whitewash. Ironically, if the section had been written in a neutral and disinterested way in the first place, it wouldn't have been gutted and the readers of the article would be better served than they are now. So I'm going to have to wear the responsibility for that, too.

With my unreserved apologies,

CharlieEchoTango (contact) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I noticed these events at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Justin Trudeau and at the article itself. I have mixed feelings here. On the one hand I am impressed with your honesty in declaring these sock accounts (which appear to have been used for various politically motivated edits). On the other hand, there is the timing: not just that this comes with jæs calling you out, but that the edits appeared just prior to the by-election in Calgary Centre on November 26, and you waited until November 28 to come forward like this. It gives the appearance of editing in the hopes of influencing the by-election. Trudeau himself said that his comments might have influenced the outcome of the by-election . Is that part of the context here, or am I reading too much into this? Paul Erik 04:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The timing is only relevant insofar as I wrote the section immediately after the scandal broke, the editing was certainly partisan but wasn't done specifically in the hopes of influencing the by-election, and I doubt it would have—this story was the top story on most media outlets and certainly a large number of Calgary Centre voters had already been exposed to it, a lot more than the 10,000 people who read the Misplaced Pages article since then. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. Anyway, thanks for taking responsibility for your conduct and the courage it takes to come forward like this. I agree with Moe's sentiments immediately below. Best wishes, Paul Erik 05:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just took a look at the situation with the edits to the article and the use of your accounts, and yes, it does appear to be a clear-cut case of misuse of alternate accounts. For voluntarily stepping down and disclosing your biased editing, I have a certain amount of respect for, despite how tremendously wrong it was of you for making those edits. It's something you could have kept from the community along with being in a position of power and/or respect and you chose not to, so kudos for accepting responsibility for your own actions, unlike a percentage of the site who would never do such a thing. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I'm going to assume User:74.13.202.11 was also an undisclosed IP which you used to disrupt Fluffernutter's RFA? Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Quite a while ago, but yes. Embarrassing. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 05:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

o_O Well I uh...never knew you cared! But seriously, I do want to commend you on taking responsibility for your recent actions. I saw your post go up on BN and while you know as well as anyone else that your behavior wasn't okay in any way, you've become a member of the small set of people who are willing to own up and atone for going off the rails. I hope you'll stick around and do whatever it is that made you happy enough on Misplaced Pages to join up here in the first place. Get your feet back under you, reconsider what's important. Maybe eat a few (9000?) fluffernutter sandwiches, if you're feeling wild. A mistake needn't be everything, especially if you're willing to go back to working for the greater good :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For admitting your mistakes and resigning, which is the honorable thing to do. Rschen7754 06:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)