User talk:Lquilter/Archive 005

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

On consensus

Wikipedia:Resolving disputes is the standard for how content disputes should be handled. In general, you use third opinions when only two editors are involved. Where multiple editors have expressed opinions already, the next step is an RfC if the both sides agree that there is a point to gathering more opinions.

The guideline for disruptive editors, on the other hand, is Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. There are three criteria:

• tendentious (much, much evidence)
• fails to cite sources or uses unacceptable sources or misquotes acceptable sources (I've seen some of that, but this needs to be documented
• rejects community input

So I think you should focus on the third - specifically, ask if the other editor is (a) willing to abide by an RfD, and/or (b) willing to participate in mediation (formal or informal), per the first policy cited. The point of this is primarily to see if matters can be resolved, and secondarily, if they cannot, to build a case that the editor will not accept community input. (Of course, if the community actually agrees with him/her, that ends that.)

If the other editor turns down by an RfC and any type of mediation, let's talk further. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 22:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I was investigating this process w/r/t to the other editor when a family crisis came up. Literally, the day you posted this note. So I've been out of pocket for more than a month, but I'm trying to get back into it. Someone else in the meantime has found out that that editor has also been doing a lot of linking to his own editorials in numerous articles, and raised the issue on Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. I offered to try to participate but I now wonder whether I should recuse myself.

Here's why: The situation is becoming difficult, because another editor (User:Yakuman) has joined in on the Nadine Gordimer article. I find that editor to also be incredibly tendentious and difficult to work with, non-responsive to substantive issues, and also throwing out numerous accusations, constantly, 95% of them unfounded. The whole thing is really frustrating! I tried tagging the troublesome paragraph with NPOV and ignoring it, but Yakuman removed the tag, insisting that his version was a consensus. He gave me a 3RR warning for putting the NPOV tag back on after he removed it! It's driving me nuts. ... But because Yakuman has essentially taken 70.23.*'s position on the Nadine Gordimer page, as well as advocated for 70.23.* on 70.23.*'s talk page, I feel bizarrely like I'm somehow conflicted out of the 70.23.* situation. Does that make sense? Through February it was an edit situation with one editor (70.23.*) against numerous other editors over four months. But starting in March, Yakuman and 70.23.* are tag-teaming, and since there are two of them now accusing me of "censorship" etc., I feel I may not be the best person to deal with the 70.23.* situation.

Basically, I would really like to just work on the content of the article, or leave this article alone entirely. But I feel weirdly responsible to all the people who came in on the CFD I started, who also thought it was not notable; and I feel it's possibly irresponsible to just let 70.23.* / Yakuman have the de facto say in the article just because they are more willing to revert, accuse of censorship, and so on. And nobody else is writing about Gordimer's novels! But every time I do anything -- even not related to the paragraph -- it's triggering more from Yakuman, who puts back in the paragraph, and then other editors take it out, and so on. But I also don't like constantly dealing with personal attacks (which are all aimed at me), and I haven't really had to deal with this on anything other than this article, and don't know the process for dealing with it, and I'm tired ... and I'm whining, I guess.

Okay, my core question is: Should I prosecute the case for personal attacks and tendentiousness against 70.23.*, and I suppose also Yakuman, or should I abandon the article completely ??? --lquilter 04:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

a bit of explanation

Maybe this will ease tensions just a tiny bit:

• Believe me, 70.* and I have no ties to one another and we have no conspiracy against you. He and I speak for ourselves. Seriously, don't think we are tag-teaming, although 70 claims you tag team against him. He is not perfect, but I think he's being unjustly accused. You have been on the other side of the fight, so this is probably hard to understand.
• My actions are not "gaslighting" as you may seem to think. What I've said, even if I'm both wrong and an idiot, was said in good faith. My previously stated objections are genuine, as is/was my belief that you will accept nothing but redaction. I cannot answer for the actions of other editors.
• My attempt at compromise is also genuine. I am not attempting to frustrate you personally in doing so. I did take your belittlement of my effort as lacking good faith and a re-attempt at reviving the old cause. Right or wrong, regardless of ideology, I am acting honestly and with good faith. Please do not confuse me with anyone else, as I am acting wholly on my own. Yakuman (数え役満) 04:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort here to resolve conflict. A few points:

• I do have issues with 70.23.*, but it seems like her actions are being noticed by people beyond me, anyway, so I can easily drop out of that one. Let us both agree to not respond to each other regarding 70.23.* any more. We can both deal with that person on our own terms.
• On the Nadine Gordimer article: I did not intend to belittle your attempt to compromise, but it doesn't work as a compromise for the reasons stated on the Talk:Nadine Gordimer page. But really, at this point, I just want to work on the substance of the Nadine Gordimer article, and this dispute is getting in the way of that. I will post (on the talk page) what I imagine are the two core distinctive versions. If we agree that those are the two, then we can post your version, with the NPOV tag, and leave it for a month and/or seek mediation. I'll post this note on the page. --lquilter 04:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm not sure how this content dispute came to my attention, so perhaps the following suggestion is circular, but one place to post (no more than a couple of paragraphs, focusing mostly on content, and only briefly mentioning users) that is likely to get a useful response is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Wikipedia has grown increasingly sensitive to content that doesn't belong in bios, and there certainly are admins that regularly read that noticeboard. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Utopian list

Hello. I posted some responses to your comments on the utopia talkpage. I wonder if you have seen these? I am reluctant to "be bold" with this idea, and would appreciate feedback before I proceed. If you do not wish to contribute, I wonder if you could suggest any other editors who might be interested? Thank you. BrainyBabe 12:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Award

The Editor's Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		I, Awadewit, award this Barnstar to Lquilter for her careful reading of and commentary on A Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

Your message

I'm afraid that I lost patience with him at the end. It seems impossible to get through to him, unfortunately — as you've found out too. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Just saying hi ;-)

Hey, I got your e-mail a while back, and I think we were both having e-mail issues. I hope you are doing well. (Yikes, I just saw the header...I hope things get better for you and your family. If there is anything I can help you with, please contact me.) —Viriditas | Talk 23:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Women writers

I just (finally) submitted the category for review for reinstatement. Fingers crossed. scribblingwoman 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's back on CFD now. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 23#Category:Women writers. I haven't commented yet, I'm thinking. But I thought you'd like a heads-up. — coelacan — 22:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW future?

Hi Lquilter,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)