User talk:BostonMA/Natalinasmpf KDRGibby Mattley

This is an archive page. Please do not edit this page without permission. If you would like to comment, please do so at User talk:BostonMA. Thank-you.

Deletion of talk page comments on Talk:Communism

You might have asked me about it, you know. I didn't mean to delete them and did so by accident. Assume good faith, BostonMA

I did not attribute a motive for your deletion of my comment on the talk page. In the talk page, I merely pointed out that it should not be done, and when asked if anyone had done so, I simply pointed to the facts. I accept your statement that the deletion was an accident.

particularly in the case of editors who have spoken up on behalf of edits you made and attempted to get other editors to give them more attention [1].

I assume that your speaking up on behalf of edits I have attempted is due to at least partial agreement with those edits. I don't see that I owe you any more or any less assumption of good faith based upon agreement that you may or may not have with my POV.

You may feel hard done by some editors on Communism,

The top of the page I am currently editting reads:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

It appears as though there is a bloc of editors in Communism that believes they have the right to prevent others from editting.

but I am surprised you feel you have a problem with me.

You seem to be a member of the bloc of obstructionist editors, in part because of your reversions, and in part because you do not speak up against these reversions and in part because you have shown an unwillingness to agree to abide by principles that are designed to avoid edit wars.

I'm also very surprised that you want to make common cause with User:KDRGibby whose edits show a completely different set of concerns to your own.

One of my concerns is that articles develop NPOV. User:KDRGibby expresses a minority point of view. If his POV is significant, then it seems that it is entitled to, and deserves representation. I am concerned that the editors of Communism are insufficiently concerned with NPOV, and wish to exclude alternative POV's from expression.

KDRGibby is engaging in a full-scale revert war:

KDRGibby introduced new text. The revert war was initiated by those who reverted.

your edits are getting caught in the cross-fire. Be patient and we can all discuss them. I have said before that I think there is merit in your alternate version, and I think many of your changes ought to be included. However, first we need to get some stability back on the article. Mattley ^(Chattley) 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is good that you wish stability in the article. One of the ways stability might be achieved is by establishing NPOV. Reverting the expression of minority POV's, which you condone and practice, makes it difficult to achieve NPOV. (BostonMA 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Wikiquette

Hi Mattley. Recently, you asked Gibby to remove some items from his personal page. I would like the discussion to stay focused on NPOV, bias in content, etc. rather than be sidetracked on issues of etitquette. Therefore, I'd like to help resolve the issue you have with Gibby's personal page. If you could clarify which items you would like removed, I would be happy to relay that information to Gibby, together with an expression of my opinion that it would be helpful in keeping the discussion focused on substantive issues, if these items were removed from his page. (BostonMA 12:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

The sections I was referring to on KDRGibby's user page are those where he names several editors, User:Natalinasmpf and User:Electionworld who he feels he is 'up against':

On Wikipedia, Gibby is up against a few historical revisionists in the article liberalism (electionwood)who insist that issues such as the failure of markets in the great depression are a factual given and should not be questioned. Upon adding an alternative explanation as given by Hayek and Friedman those posts are deleted and called "biased"; an ironic accusation for anyone who understands what the word means...

On Communism Gibby is up against logically inconsistent editors (Natalinasmpf) that can't come up with a reason to delete a section on free trade communists while also defending why other sections like Maosim, or Lennism should remain.

Whether these constitute personal attacks may be a moot point. They are certainly not grave insults. However, they do not show a very constructive attitude on Gibby's part. It never helps to denigrate named wikipedians on one's talk page and it is worrying that Gibby sees himself as being up against particular users. I'm afraid that I don't share your optimism about resolving the dispute with Gibby and I question his motives. Comments like this [2] and this [3] do not bode well. As for Gibby's stated concern to work towards NPOV and his committment to NOR, have you seen what he did to Globalization and Its Discontents? Mattley ^(Chattley) 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for resonding. I would be happy to let Gibby know that I think it would help keep the discussion focused if he removed the two names from the comments you have listed. Regretfully, I must ask you to partially release me from the word I gave you. I cannot in good conscience ask him to remove the comments themselves, just the names. I think the comment with regard to Communism is acccurate. I think the justifications offerred for blocking Gibby's edits are logically incoherent. As for being "up against" the editors, I think that is accurate as well. Furthermore, I think it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Based upon the title of your comment "No personal attacks" and its content "Gibby, please remove the personal attacks from your user page" I had expected something altogether different. So I would ask you to allow me to express my opinion to Gibby as follows: that removing the names would help keep the discussion on content issues rather than issues of etiquette.

I must also say, that although I do think it will help the cause of avoiding the side issue of etiquette for Gibby to remove the names, in part I am convinced that is so because Gibby did not start the practice of naming other editors on his user page, but continued the practice after his name appeared on the user page of one of the parties involved. I am also convinced that it helps the cause because negative remarks about Gibby have been made by a number of Communism editors, and it only helps his case to be more pro-active, more willing to bend over backwards to work toward resolution than the other editors seem to be. So, for that reason, I would ask Gibby to remove the two named editors.

On a final note, it is worrisome to me that you find Gibby's (imho) correct observation that he (and not only he) is "up against other editors" worrisome. If you would like me to document the comments which lend credence to such a belief, I would willingly oblige. (You may wish to look at your own comments in this thread to see where such ideas might arise.) (BostonMA 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

I do not agree that User:KDRGibby's behaviour is a side-issue. It is certainly not a side-issue at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby, where the whole point is to invite other wikipedians to comment on his conduct. If you feel that content disputes cannot be resolved you can list them under "Article content disputes" here [4].

I am concerned about Gibby's comments because they are characteristic of problem editors that I have encoutered in the past. I hope Gibby will not become a problem editor, but he does seem to be fitting into that groove quite comfortably at the moment so far as I can see. That's all speculation, but you asked. You obviously do not agree with any of this, of course. I wonder what makes you think you are an appropriate person to mediate, given that you have clearly aligned yourself with KDRGibby and that you have almost no experience of this project. Why not try some editing and see how wikipedians interact with one another. Mattley ^(Chattley) 19:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I'm going to avoid answering your comments. If my avoidance is an issue, let me know. (BostonMA 23:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No, it is not problem. Thankyou for your clarifications regarding the Maoist cabal business. If you say that isn't what you meant I'm happy to take your word for it. I do find it all a bit legalistic, though. You did state that a group of editors were 'preventing edits from being made ... by individuals outside their group' and that the edits of this group were 'consistent with the POV of the Maoists', so I think you can see where I might have got the idea from. As for cooling off, I appreciate your concern but I am perfectly cool already. If you have a look at my contributions you will see that I spent much of the evening carefully working towards an informative, NPOV, referenced version of Globalization and Its Discontents, an article I believe I mentioned to you before. Mattley ^(Chattley) 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to go and pull out rediculous quotes from the stiglitz book for you and then pull quotes from free market books to show how he built a straw man out of markets. You people will abuse any wiki rule to get stuff you dont like out.

calling free market advocates ideolouges, fundamentalists, and part of a washington consensus (Which in and of itself is stupid...dont even get me started) is framing the issue as a straw man. End of story!

Saying the IMF is neoliberal is just as stupid. The man wrote this book to make money not to educate anyone. It is so filled with holes...the IMF is the most keynesian oriented of the BW sisters! (Gibby 07:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

sorry for the delay

I am incredibly busy with fixing other articles. One of the reasons I didn't respond to you at first because of a running accusation that Wikipedia is a cabal, etc. editors are conspiring to keep their POV in - this is not the case. Stress also makes me rant and inhibits me from providing a satisfactory explanation in terms of reasoning why Gibby's entire section shouldn't be in the Communism article. But you seem particularly more civil than Gibby, so I am glad to discuss the article with you. Perhaps you could mediate this dispute between us and Gibby.

The actual thing is section editing and classification of information. It's sort of abstract to explain, but then there's Template talk:main - ie. articles are arranged from most general to most specific, and Gibby's observation of one country isn't exactly a general observation, so...

To me, what should happen, is cut the entire tone, rewrite the passage, and adapt the content to the current article, ie. rather than dumping a disjunct section. That was my main complaint. I can see the observation that a lot of current communist countries do not really have communist economies (although from the pure Kropotkinist point of view the Bolsheviks intended and were state capitalist all along, but that does not need to be mentioned)...just append this observation to the current "communism today" section. There's really no need to rant on about how special China's economic zones are - just state it has these, and this is a common feature in many "communist states". That, I will accept, and preferably just a general strengthening of a paragraph or so, perhaps with further needed elaboration at the communist state article. -- Natalinasmpf 20:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

your vote

I tried posting here earlier, but apparently it didn't go through. I am here to clarify several aspects of your vote on my RFA, which I have replied to. You might want to see it.

Firstly, it is not my nature to edit war. As I explained on the mediation cabal page, I usually perform reverts because it was my perception that the current revision threatened the immediate quality of the article to passing visitors. Furthermore it is appreciated if the factual disputes are only in one section, then it section-dispute tags only be used. Furthermore, justification for the new revision was not used. It is the current guideline that new, sweeping changes justify their change on the talk page if it is disputed, not the other way round. As I saw it, the burden was not on me to establish proof. I have never treated Gibby or you as a vandal, although I have personally perceived Gibby as a sort of a troll who liked to use personal attacks. As of 25 December, 2005, he has failed to respond to my request for mediation, a request which I initiated. I dislike discord. I dislike warring. I have always tried to resolve disputes with reason, concern and abide by guidelines and policy. I am certainly aware of the guidelines. Any violation of 3RR occurred purely out of mistake because of my perception that consensus backed the revert, and I was impatient for what eventually, would have been other editors' reversions of the page. As you see, I have not made this mistake today with User:GMB.

I have a huge backlog and workload to work on as administrator, especially concerning vandalism (which I do not list content disputes as), and copyright violations. These are all pressing issues to Wikipedia. I pledge not to violate my priveleges in any way, such as using them against users I have disputes with, or protecting pages I am currently involved in a dispute in. I will certainly not unblock myself. Administrators are as subject to all community review as anyone else. In short, I ask, if not entreat you to change your vote, as a fellow Wikipedian, in the hope that you will understand my plea, especially as my violation of the 3RR was shortsighted and will never happen again. -- Natalinasmpf 02:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf

Hi, I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but the end result was the you accidentally duplicated the whole section. I reverted your edit, so please edit the change you wanted on that page. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Natalinasmpf just fixed it. Owen× ☎ 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for fixing this. I apologize for screwing it up. I'm not sure exactly what happened. Tried to fix it, but you guys beat me to it. Thanks. (BostonMA 04:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

RFAr against KDRGibby

I am in the process of filing an RFAr against KDRGibby. You may or may not, wish to be listed as an involved party. I have no idea what stance you will take, but his behaviour has thoroughly degenerated, in my opinion, to the extent of calling certain Wikipedians "assholes", and now has rejected mediation, twice. Let us put aside our past differences, and with 172 and agree that this behaviour is generally abrasive and unacceptable? Please correspond to me on this matter concerning your wish to be involved or not. -- Natalinasmpf 07:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was 2 admins who blocked me for not violating wiki revert rules. I've carefully read over them multiple times and have found that undeleting sections in disagrement is not vandalism, and that the definition of revert tells us that the page must be returned to a previous state...thus editing sections is not a violation of this rule. The namecalling, while inappropriate, flares out after you Nati, put an NPOV on my section, refused to discuss it, then had me blocked 10 minutes later on tenuous grounds. Editing to make a section fit is not a 3revert violation.

If you don't see why I dont want mediation with you or anyone else, let me fill you in. It is because you all violate the rules so blatantly, abuse privilages, and use thuggish ganglike behavior to overwhelm dissenting opinions with reverts...I wont get a fair mediation. Not to mention you (nati) have failed to come up with a logically consistant reason why my section should not be included and have in the last month made no attempt to continue any discussion or compromise beyond complaining about me. Period end of story. (Gibby 09:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Gibby is again trying to twist the definition of a "revert", which is clearly undoing another editor's actions, which deletion is comprised thereof. A mediation is done by a third party. I have given what I feel are legitimate objections to the material using guidelines (Wikipedia:Summary), but of course Gibby may call it logically consistent just because Gibby obviously wants his section to be included. I have avoided making personal attacks but I think it is time I say that it is Gibby, not me, who has a vested interest. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalinasmpf, you raise several issues that I would like to address. I'm in somewhat of a rush, so I will not provide diffs, but if you would like, I will add diffs later.

The first issue I'd like to address is the 3RR. Please put aside Gibby for a moment and just think of the rule. If editor A makes an edit, then editor B deletes it with an objection, then editor A makes a new edit which he/she believes in good faith satisfies the objection raised by B, and say this process is repeated, perhaps with new editors reverting A's edits and making new objections, would A be violating the 3RR rule upon his/her 4th edit?

172 made a valid observation (diff) that editors may have a number of objections to a particular edit and that it is not necessary that those editors voice all of their objections at once. That is valid. However, the other side of the coin is that an editor who is attempting good faith compromises should not be held to have made reverts merely for introducing "objectionable" edits for which the objections have not yet been raised.

Do you agree with this reasoning or not? Again, I would like for the moment for you to put aside Gibby, and just try to focus on the reasoning I just gave.

The second issue I'd like to address is the issue of personal attacks. I would like you to again set aside your opinions of Gibby, and for the moment at least, set aside the question of whether any particular comment warrants administrative actions under the no personal attacks rule. Isn't the essence of a personal attack the making of a negative comment about an someone as an individual? Now, you say that you have made no personal attacks against Gibby. That may or may not be true according to the rules of Wikipedia. However, haven't you made negative remarks about Gibby as an individual? For example, do you see that stating the Gibby has a vested interest is a negative remark? I would like to know your opinion on the meaning of personal attacks. Again, I'd like you to set aside whether you think Gibby has made personal attacks and ask yourself whether you have made personal attacks against Gibby? I would also ask whether you think 172 has made personal attacks, or Mattley? (I apologize for the lack of diffs).

What is it that you are trying to accomplish with your request for arbitration? You may ban Gibby, but I would guess that until the communism article is written in a way that all POV's are satisfied, there will be more editors who want to change it. Some may be more abrasive than others. Do you expect to fight this fight forever? Why not take advantage of the present conflict, not to make the point that rude language should not be tolerated, but to incorporate another POV into the article?

I believe that a step in the right direction would be to put an NPOV tag in the article itself. What do you say to that?

--BostonMA 13:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is a content or stylistic dispute, not a neutrality dispute. If anything, a cleanup tag perhaps. Anyhow, the supposed content has already been integrated. Yet Gibby still continues to want to antagonise me. I have never accused Gibby of vested interests until that point, and that was only because to demonstrate my fatigue of him accusing me of vested interests of, I don't know, fifty times? Perhaps, that was a WP:POINT, but a very minor one as I see it. I have refrained from using any ad hominems, unlike Gibby has done. I have made very little attacks on his character, although I have heavily criticised his statements, which I feel are not personal attacks. He in contrast, calls me an "illogical editor" and "logically inconsistent" while I have always addressed him in content. I feel that Gibby is an exception: I have had many disputes on the communism article before, but I have always resolved them peacefully, and they have not escalated to a level such as this. I am going to corroborate this request on a user subpage. I have not seen any reason why not to file an RFAr. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Mediation Cabal request re. Communism

Dear BostonMA: I have been recently looking over the Mediation Cabal case queue, and noticed no further mediator comments on the Mediation Cabal request page for this issue. Is there still an active dispute? A cursory glance over the Communism article does not, to me, appear to indicate any current content dispute. I would be most grateful if you would please let me know whether mediation is still required or not. The Mediation Cabal request page is at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 12 2005 Natalinasmpf on Communism. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KDRGibby

The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#KDRGibby. You may, or may not, want to make a statement. I'm very, very, sorry it had to turn out this way. Had it been on communism alone, I would have tolerated it, but I see many other users are antagonised by his behaviour too. As a third party, you may have insights into the dispute. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:olive branch with Gibby

My rationale for arbitration was to force some sort of action for Gibby to change. Remedies are not merely blocking: they may include placing mentorship or parole, or limiting the editor to one revert every 24 hours on certain pages, except for vandalism. Arbitration is again, just dispute resolution, and consequences and a judgment of the dispute. Sometimes the law doesn't put drug addicts in jail, or does so very minimally, but sends them on forced rehabilitation.

Unless the editor is absolutely inconstructive, a total ban is unlikely to occur. It is a form of tough love, arguably. By "we" I meant all the editors he listed as "bullies", etc. He's calling us out, so I wanted to declare we were not trying to bully him, and it would be very sad if he indeed left the project because he has legitimate complaints. He just brings them up in the wrong manner. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]