User talk:Dweller/Demi Moore

Addendum: Stuart added a post at Talk:Demi Moore today when we all specifically pledged to honor this mediation and not do so. I'm very, very surprised and disappointed that someone would breach a pledge that way, and I have reverted that disallowed edit. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly, he restored his disallowed post, citing WP:TPO — which specifically says, "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed." Certainly, given that he had pledged, as we all had, not to comment at Talk:Demi Moore, this is such an instance. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenebrae, My pledge (and I quote Dweller) was that " All discussion even remotely regarding the dispute goes on this page." - My post was to say that whilst I had a question in regard to GRuban's point I could only voice it through the mediation process and to give GRuban a link to the mediation should he wish to join it. I did not discuss the material aspect of the dispute - and I did not break my pledge not to discuss the content of the dispute - but it was polite to inform GRuban that I had read his comment even if I could not respond to the material aspect of it. You then promptly removed my comment twice where reverting was specifically part of the pledge "please avoid antagonising/arguing with/reverting other parties, even in matters unrelated to the dispute" (emphasis mine), You have then personally attacked me yet again both here and on Dwellers main talkpage. please abide by the spirit of this mediation not to mention our policies on Civility. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What part of "even remotely regarding this dispute" can you not understand? You must be deliberately baiting me. I find the above a tortured non-rationale for having put a post on that page, and that it is highly disingenuous that anyone would post a comment saying you disagree with GRuban's assertion that Demetria is correct, but you can't say so. Well, you did say so. I found your action a demonstration of unhelpful behavior, and both blatant and transparent besides. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As an act of Good Faith, I will not restore my comment to GRuban until Dweller has commented but WO:TPO lists all the times that a comment may be deleted and this is not one of them. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

No. What you are saying is demonstrably not true. WP:TPO only gives "Some examples [emphasis mine] of appropriately editing others' comments." --Tenebrae (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not quote the third paragraph of WP:TPO without reading the first paragraph; where it says "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below[emphasis mine]—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." - The list is considered to be of specific exceptions (and has been since Oct 2009) not just Some examples. I did not mislead anyone (per your now redacted claim) about the guideline nor did I "post a comment saying [that I] disagree with GRuban's assertion that Demetria is correct, but [I] can't say so." - I have a specific question I would have liked to have asked GRuban that has nothing to do with whether Demetria is correct or not. Clearly you have misunderstood my intent if you can't accept that my comment to GRurban was a good faith one, then I suggest that you refrain from making any other comments about my actions until Dweller has had a chance to weigh in as mediator. Stuart.Jamieson (talk)

RE "Please do not quote the third paragraph": You can't pick and choose which parts of a guideline you agree with and discard the rest. Ultimately it comes down to this: We weren't supposed to comment on anything "even remotely regarding this dispute" outside this page, and yet you did, and you refuse to accept responsibility. Your tortured logic to try to excuse your action is obsessive, and your behavior is no different with this than with the issue we're here to discuss.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

RFC

I see that discussion has sprung up between the I.P. that I now take to be Mythpage88 (mainly because both the I.P made a nearly identical comment to mythpage where both took ownership of a reference that the I.P. had provided) and AndytheGrump - The points that both are making could need discussed here and it seems repetitive both to allow the RFC to continue in parallel with mediation whilst comments there having to be addressed again here. I would like to suggest that a neutrally worded mention of the mediation be placed on Talk Page for Demi Moore, possibly with a suggestion that if participants agree the RFC might be paused until the conclusion of, or superceded by the mediation. Thoughts? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the latest comments at that page are beside the point. We're not doing original research to try to determine what her "real" name is. The issue is to determine the best way to handle the indisputable fact that major, highly reliable-source publications have reported it both ways over the course of decades. (And even if we were doing our own investigation into her name, we'd certainly have to do physical library research for old interviews not on the web. Not even her famed Vanity Fair interview appears to be online.) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I support a notification.--Taylornate (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Taylornate. Tenebrae - The view you give above is certainly one that should be discussed as part of the mediation not a discussion of the process. Simply on the issue of notifying the other participants from the RFC that the mediation is in progress and asking them to consider pausing the RFC until mediation is complete - do you think yes or no? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course I'm in favor of neutral mediator Dweller notifying the talk page that an RfC is going on. It's important that if and when he does so that the topic being mediated is presented precisely. Obviously, I don't believe any of us three editors in mediation should touch that page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Close the RFC

Not sure what the exact purpose of this page is, it seems a bit irregular to be discussing article contents in this fashion outside the articles talk page or at a appropriate noticeboard. But in any case it is probably fair to say that the RFC has run it's course and that it is unlikely that any new editors are going to enter (especially given its length) or any new points will be raised, so can it be closed one way or the other. AIRcorn (talk) 06:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you're proposing to close it. You've said yourself you believe "Demi" rather than "Demetria" is correct, and I and other editors believe "Demetria" rather than "Demi" is correct. I believe RfCs are supposed to be closed by neutral parties. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)