Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 27 April 2008

Discussion of Outside View

User:Baseball Bugs asked if there had been edit warring in this dispute. There has been, e.g. and , and , and . --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting for the sake of reverting is not necessarily a good thing. But this RFC is trying to condemn a user for violating a "rule" that isn't even a rule. It's a "guideline". This all strikes me as being rather petty. Baseball Bugs 10:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The date-unlinking guy I referred to earlier is User:Lightmouse. Example: Baseball Bugs 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The RfC is not about condemning anybody. WTF. It is about discussing Ed's conduct, and determining how to go forwards when people (including Ed) are being wound up by it. And will you please desist from trotting out Ed's straw man argument. We do not rest on the MoS as rules. We look at his formatting changes, do not like them, and ask him to reconsider. He comes back with straw man arguments and dismisses our concerns as lame, whilst writing essays and edit warring in regard to his right to enforce his preferences over plural objections. This RfC is about Ed's refusal to compromise and determination to have his own way. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to advance any straw man arguments. I just don't want to see somebody get banned from Misplaced Pages over the issue of punctuation. Baseball Bugs 15:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

you have, perhaps inadvertently, advanced exactly the same straw man argument as Ed. Meanwhile, no one is trying to get Ed banned. RfC - at least for me - is not about that sort of sanction. it is about the community discussing an issue and seeking a resolution - which in this case might be to get Ed to recognise that he might be less dogmatic, more accommodating and less dismissive of the views of others. Getting Ed banned is, thus, another straw man argument :( --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You might consider it a straw man argument, but to me it was a legitimate concern. It appears you have now dismissed that possibility, so we're good. Baseball Bugs 15:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

2nd Certifier view

There are for me two elements of the dispute:

1. Ed's preferred format. It just does not work for me - specifically emboldening of things other than the title of the article.
2. Ed's sanctimonious arguments in support of his position. In short, in an essay at User:Ed Fitzgerald#Some things I've noticed... and in Talk:A Matter of Life and Death (film)#Bolding he sets out arguments in support of his actions and the importance of being allowed to act as he does; but he's quite prepared to seek to trash other's arguments against his actions by straw man assertions (we're mistaking the MoS guidelines for rules) and by stating that to argue against his position is lame . I find Ed's argument to be so much humbug - something that is important enough to write essays about & edit war over, is at the same time lame if raised for further discussion. How does that work? --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald relocating clean-up templates

Ed got into the same type of trouble before with cleanup templates in July 2007. See: July 2007 on AN/I. See these user talk page discussions where many users tried and failed to get through to him: . Note, I tried to help Ed, but he wouldn't listen to anyone. This is the same situation. Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Off RfC discussion - Tagishsimon & SilkTork

For the record, there was an off-RFC discussion about this RfC at User_talk:SilkTork#Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Ed Fitzgerald. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Bzuk

I'm disappointed that Bzuk would consider me so immature as to use the RfC as a pissing contest. I had backed down about the italics, but when I found Ed expanding his horizons, so to speak, I felt I had to act. Admittedly, I didn't lose any sleep over any annoyance it might cause him, but that was just a perk, lol.

I find it ironic that Ed objecting to UziBLASTER7 doing exactly the same thing! And amusingly enough, I don't consider UziBLASTER7's edits as a violation of WP:MOSFILM. "award-winning" doesn't establish context, but IMO "Academy Award-winning" does. Be that as it may, I agree that Uzi7's methods are way out of line (remind you of someone?). Clarityfiend Clarityfiend (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's only ironic if you view my activity from (again!) an absolutist viewpoint, and think of me of someone who has no respect for consensus or interest in following the guidelines. In truth, that's very much not the case. In the vast majority of instances, I want to know what the recommended format is, and I follow it once I know it. There are only a small number of things (again, in the scope of things on Misplaced Pages, very minor things) in which I believe that the Manual of Style lags behind and does not represent the very best way for information to be presented.

I think the impression may have been given that I'm some sort of wild man, following my own drummer come hell or high water, but a glance at some of the many articles that I've started or those I've brought from stub-status to somewhat-better-than-stub-status would show them to be prefectly normal articles, laid out in the same way as most other Wikpedia film articles, with a couple of very slightly different formatting choices regarding extremely minor matters. I doubt most readers would even notice the differences, given the wide variation in Misplaced Pages articles, (which does not mean that the differences are not worthwhile to pursue -- readers in general don't notice most things about layout and formatting, but they can have a significant effect on their ability to easily take in the information in an article) and I would think that the majority of editors who did notice them -- although they might be tempted to revert them if they reconize them as differing from the MoS -- would find them to be the beginning of a slippery slope which ends up in Wikipedian editing anarchy! I find it extraordinary, in fact, that such a fuss is being made over such relatively unimportant considerations.

What's important to me is not that my variations be recognized as being better, but that they be given the chance to fail or succeed on their own by not being squashed to death before anyone even sees them. If they are given that opportunity, and, over a reasonable amount of time, are rejected -- well, I'll be disappointed, but that's fine, that's my idea of how "consensus" should work. Not the immediate opinion of a small number of editors looking out for chances to rush here or there to comment on their hot button issues, but the collective opinion of editors who are exposed to various choices and, over time, make their choice of what the best option is. That's the natural marketplace of Misplaced Pages ideas not sullied by a reflexive rejection of anything even slightly different.

If the point of this RfC is to get me to acknowledge that the Manual of Style and other guidelines represent Wikipedian consensus as developed over time, I'm quite happy to affirm that belief, because it's one that I've held since I first started thinking about the nature of this project. It would be nice, though, if in return I could get from Clarityfiend an affirmation that the Manual is a guideline and not a set of inviolate, absolute, and inflexible rules, and to acknowledge that consensus can change over time. To me, these should be uncontroversial statements, because, in a sense, they lie at the core of what Misplaced Pages is about, and without them, Misplaced Pages cannot grow and change for the better. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Insufficient evidence

There is insufficient evidence of trying, and failing to resolve the dispute, as well as of the dispute itself. Therefore, this Rfc is likely to be deleted within 24hrs if there is no change to the evidence in these 3 sections. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added the diffs. Viriditas (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I've looked at the modified version. I've thought about it, and maybe this Rfc may be worthwhile after all, despite it being somewhat premature (particularly with the very small quantity of evidence presented of the disputed behaviour). I've decided to have a look through it and give my view (or some of it) sometime soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The diffs that have been offered represent less than half of those available, and the dispute itself spans multiple articles and includes many editors who expressed their dissatisfaction with Ed's edits, so I have to disagree with your assessment. Out of curiousity, who are you and why are you acting like you have some kind of authority here? I've been here for almost four years and I've never seen your user name before. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a pity if less than half of the evidence has been provided. I would think that an editor, after being here for 4 years, would be capable of foreseeing that an Rfc requires a fair amount of evidence, if not all, so uninvolved editors are well-informed of the dispute, and can comment. You'd be kidding yourself to expect entirely uninvolved editors not to dismiss an Rfc as premature, when the users certifying the basis of dispute are unwilling to provide enough evidence to warrant an Rfc in the first place. In effect, it defeats its purpose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are really strange comments, but I'll chalk them up to immaturity. First, I've had nothing to do with the development and the creation of this Rfc. I came here after seeing it advertised on a users talk page. Second, you make the accusation that users are "unwilling" to provide evidence. I don't see that at all. I just see you, someone I have never seen before on Misplaced Pages, moving goalposts. At which point will there be enough evidence to satisfy you, and why do you have to be satisfied? Again, who are you and what kind of authority do you have here? I'm guessing that you used to go by another user name, because your contribution history shows that you arrived here knowing exactly how Misplaced Pages works from day one. Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make myself more plain, though no doubt, it seems, you will keep chalking away when an editor disagrees with you. First, by being an editor certifying the basis for this dispute (or someone who forms the complaining party), you are as much a part of the Rfc, regardless if you had anything to do with its creation or development 4 days ago. I will not gain or lose anything (except time), if the complaining party failed to submit all relevant evidence to substantiate and verify the nature and extent of the dispute. Nor will any other editor, administrator or arbitrator - none of whom wish to spend/waste time going through an Rfc that appears meritless. Second, the point at which evidence will be satisfactory for me is when all evidence relevant to this dispute is given, and the evidence shows;

1. the user who is the subject of the Rfc engaged in a clear and continued pattern of disruptive editing and/or unseemly conduct and;
2. that the editors involved in the dispute have taken steps to try to resolve the dispute, and have failed in these attempts and;
3. the pattern of behaviour continued thereafter, at least, up until this Rfc was opened.

Third, I would suggest you take care to avoid making any further such remarks here concerning any uninvolved editors, such as myself, as there is no desire to be in a dispute with you, and I'm sure you don't want more trouble than whatever you may already have. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you had bothered to actually read the Rfc, you would have noticed that all three of your conditions have been met. If you disagree, then I suggest you bring your concerns to the appropriate place as I'm not sure why you think you are in charge here or why you think you have some kind of authority. I have no evidence that you are "uninvolved", and most of your comments towards me have been completely off the wall, so your judgment is already in question. Like I said, you just showed up here out of the blue, and I've never even seen your user name before. Did you go by another user name in the past? Oh, and don't ever threaten me again. Viriditas (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh it wasn't a threat - it was a first and final warning, but I will be explicit this time: stop with your unfounded (indirect and direct) accusations that you've levelled so far if you don't wish to be reported . An uninvolved editor in an Rfc or ArbCom case is one that showed up out of the blue (not being involved in the dispute), wondering if there appears to be a case (not at the time - hence this talk page note titled 'insufficient evidence') and whether it is worth commenting on (and then commenting on it, or not). As an editor certifying the basis for this dispute, it is curious that you have no evidence of me being involved - I'll give you a hint; the common sense explanation is the answer. You don't know me, I don't know you, and looking at your comments here, I prefer to keep it that way. If you feel otherwise, or that I am involved, then you are obliged to consult the Arbitration Committee prior to saying anything else that may also constitute incivility and/or assumptions of bad faith. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case

Just in case the RfC is deleted, I wanted to say that it's been an interesting experience. When Clarityfiend told me that he planned on filing one, I was, to put it mildly, apprehensive, never having been through one before, or even participated in one. But, as a result of this RfC, I've found that...

• I am "a great editor has a lot to offer this project."
• I "have the good of the project at heart"
• I "have excellent ideas"
• I am "someone that people can talk with, and considered what people are saying to me"
• I am "eminently challenging, demanding, refreshing ... comports himself as a gentleman"
• I am "a positive force for good"

...all of which is a definite jolt of egoboo!

(Please note that I work in the theatre, and if there's one thing we know how to do it's extract the best possible remarks from mixed or negative reviews!!)

On a more serious note, I'd like to address the question of compromise. I would have to say that two of the lowest points in my my Misplaced Pages experience were two times when I offered to compromise on something I felt strongly about, and my offers was roundly rejected. The first time was a discussion over the placement of tags that Viriditas has already referred to. Viriditas did indeed offer his services as a mediator in that discussion, and was helpful in a number of ways, including his convincing me to hold off on my activities while the discussion was underway. However, when I approached my main antagonist in that conversation with an attempt to find some kind of compromise, I was told that there was no compromise possible. Her way, in other words, was right and mine was completely wrong. Now, I was quite willing to admit of the possibility that I was in some respect in the wrong, hence the offer of compromise, but I did not think (then or now) that I was so totally and absolutely wrong that some intermediate position could not have been arranged, if only my compatriot had been willing to entertain the idea.

The second time this occured was in my discussion with Clarityfiend about using italics for character names in cast lists. Once again, I was interested in short-circuiting what had become a wearying and worrisome debate, and I offered a compromise, and once again I was rejected. I was told there was no room for compromise, that I was just plain wrong, and Clarityfiend was right, absolutely. This time, despite the rejection, and the failure of my opponent to even talk about reaching some kind of mutually satiasfactory solution, I unilaterally instituted the compromise I had offered, and I have stuck to it ever since.

Despite some of the claims made here, I do not put myself above the consensus of Misplaced Pages's editors past and present, but I do hold on to the distinct possibility that, at least on occasion, that consensus may not be serving the project in the best possible way. It could, in fact, be wrong, and it's possible for a single editor, having taken stock of the situation and put his or her best thought into it, to be right -- or, at least, less wrong. Even in the short 3 years I've been editing here, I've seen consensus shift, and that's encouraging, because it means the system is capable of self-correction, which is good. It can't do that, though, if too many editors continue to defend the current status quo as being absolutely right.

I have no objection to compromise, I simply ask that my ideas be considered, seriously, and that they be discussed without prejudice. In turn, I try to do the same to the ideas of my compatriots, and, if I disagree, to give solid, substantial and intelligent reasons for doing so.

I thank everyone who has participated here, pro and con, for sharing their thoughts and feelings. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) 07:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)