I regret to say that the above editor has made it known today that he is leaving the project, and has pointed out some serious problems we have regarding contentious recent topics which have devout supporters and detractors, specifically, the sometimes poor coverage in English or generally in academic journals, and also the sometimes extremely problematic behavior of individual editors regarding those topics. Honestly, I think the most effective way to proceed for cases like this one and others is to try to find some way to bring more uninvolved editors to help decide the matters reasonably, but be damned if I can figure out how to do that. Any ideas? John Carter (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
- Editor Catflap08 is a recipient of the Eddy Award. He is a quality editor that is a bit frustrated with Wikipedia at the present. Let's hope he revives his spirit and returns. . Buster Seven Talk 00:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
- @ user:Buster7, user: John Carter I have decided to retire from editing in Wikipedia as to my mind it has become increasingly dysfunctional. I cleared my talk and user page yesterday. Even though de. Wikipedia, which to my mind is due to its editing policy, runs much smoother, I have decided to stop editing there too. All rules and regulations are useless if the quality and correctness of information on display is no more the prime objective. The ignorant clique like behaviour of some individuals, and I have to say also by some admins, does not help matters either. The areas in which I edited and specialised in are for most parts on the fringe of Japanese Buddhism / Politics / Architecture. Being an academic I am well familiar with research methods and describing facts, lately though (over the past few years) I have noticed that articles that under normal circumstances attract not a high amount of attention can serve as a soapbox and means to advertise personal opinions and views. None of us run around with a halo, but finally being personally attacked and even my nationality ridiculed is a sign for me to leave – this is not what I want my spare time to be used on. The knowledge and expertise I have gathered, also by contributing to Wikipedia, is still there and might be of better use in more serious projects. So thanks to all those who displayed the ability to edit and work together in an amicable productive and most of all respectful manner. I might keep an eye on one or the other article – no idea if I can be bothered to edit them though.--Catflap08 (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sad news indeed. Quality editors such as yourself are the heart-blood of WP editing. I regret that you feel forced to leave a place you love. Any artist will tell you, "We give our critics too much of our time and our mind. We should just nod at them and move on. We don't need to be loved by everyone. We turn away from the LOVE that surrounds us and pay attention to the UN-Love and it gains power over us and we abandon the thing we love. I respect your decision and will continue to hope for your return. . Buster Seven Talk 13:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- I myself, perhaps irrationality, continue to have some sort of hope for a "content committee," rather than just an arbitration committee, being established, which can deal with matters of content, which I believe is probably the main problem which led to Catflap's recent decision. Having said that, I myself have experienced similar doubts and sometimes disgust at how POV pushers, particularly those of a cliquish nature, can continue to keep our content unenyclopedic by their abuse of consensus. And I will also, to the limited degree I as a single individual can, make it easier for editors who might be able to basically function as a "content committee" to help enforce NPOV, even if all that means is being able to make it easier for them to find relevant recent and not-so-recent reference works. Otherwise, I wish @Catflap08: the best of luck with his future endeavors, whatever they may be, and suggest, if he so wants, not knowing the exact nature of his status as an academic, if he would be motivated in the interim to perhaps spend the time he might spend here working for publishing some material relevant to the contentious topics with which he has dealt here, I for one would love to see such publications. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
- Inevitably something fundamental will change (if only because something fundamental always changes with everything eventually): it could be an editorial board or a binding mediation process to rule on content disputes, or the advocacy editors will outnumber the others and shift policies to their liking, which might trigger the WMF to become more selective about anonymous editing, or something else. Whatever does happen, there will be a shift in the editing population, one way or another. isaacl (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- This thread is bs. Catflap appears to have left Wikipedia because he was frustrated in his attempts to post unbalanced OR on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai articles by me and every other user involved, and his attempts to post OR and distortions of sources (nothing to do with NPOV) on the Daisaku Ikeda article. He engaged in several extensive edit wars on these and presumably other articles, and was either unable or unwilling to use article talk pages. Whenever he got the chance he posted on AN and ANI looking to get his content dispute opponents banned or blocked for the minorest of conduct infractions. I have not seen a seriously positive edit on his part, as every article edit he ever made was either a misinterpretation or a deliberate misrepresentation of what he claimed were his sources. I find it ironic that John Carter's recent behaviour has been devoted mainly to fighting with Ret.Prof for this same behaviour, or lambasting me for doing the same. Catflap's constant disruption will not be missed, although it may be a while before it can finally be cleaned up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- What is bs is up to the observer. A study of your edit history including IP edits speaks for itself. Placing attacks and striking them afterwards is a sad state of affairs and reoccurring pattern. This includes the history of your talk page (visible and invisible) and sandbox (visible and invisible). Taking into account that my decision to retire was discussed here without even mentioning your name in the thread is amongst other cases a sign for WP:HOUND … some would describe all this using terms more blunt. Since calling others names like “jackass” and “jerk” seems not to be considered an insult anymore it is for “jerks” and “jackasses” that I consider editing in Wikipedia to be a growingly tedious task. So be rest assured that amongst all the “jerks” and “jackasses” I have come across through the years, the latest incidents, amongst others, were just the final straw. As stated before I do completely understand people who consider en.Wikipedia not to be a reliable source of information at all anymore. If Wikipedia, that is en.Wikipedia, is unwilling to change the current editing policy to allow registered and approved editors only to conduct and clear edits we are facing a problem. So if matters won’t change I fear that en.Wikipedia is left to be a playground (or Kindergarden) for advocates and, concerning the issues I dealt most with, for sectarians and revisionists. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I would only add that so far as I can tell Hijiri has rarely if ever shown any visible interest in this project, and his adding a comment to the effect of the kind he made above to a page which he has, rather clearly, rarely if ever taken part in, might be seen not unreasonably as WP:STALKING in addition to the sort of generally unacceptable hyperbole which he has a regretable tendency to engage in with virtually anyone who ever disagrees with him. I regret to say that if I personally had a choice between keeping Catflap and Hijiri as active editors, I would have no reservations whatsoever in the very quick choice I would make. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd just like to point out that even if John Carter's very broad generalization of my 10-year edit history was accurate (it isn't), it would still be completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Whether or not I have made a worthwhile contribution to the project (I have) doesn't have any significance for the question of whether the project has lost a valuable asset or relieved itself of an unnecessary burden with Catflap's retirement. Catflap's above assertion that my posting here is "hounding" is flawed, given that the thread was started by John Carter and not two weeks ago the latter started an ANI thread requesting I be sanctioned for "hounding" Catflap into then-semi-retirement. I did not hound Catflap off Wikipedia: he left of his own accord because he was tired of 80% of his article edits being reverted as non-neutral, OR and/or misrepresentation sources, and 90% of editors interacting with him on talk pages and project pages agreeing his edits were problematic. (The latest editor to join this chorus was actually not me but User:Snow Rise, on the Kokuchukai talk page, immediately before Catflap announced his retirement.) The rest of the community can review these if they so-choose, but John Carter's attempt to post a one-sided "obituary" for Catflap here, after the latter caused so much trouble for so many users on so many pages, is not helpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure just what "chorus" I am meant to have joined here, but my comments on Talk:Kokuchūkai were mostly concerned with the narrow content issues and the fumbling approach of both parties with regard to the RfC process. I can't see how they could reasonably be construed as an observation that Catflap's edits are overwhelming problematic, or even that they are supportive of the notion that he was the more problematic editor in that discussion.
- I did note that Catflap and Hijiri both had failed to observe WP:C and WP:AGF as strongly as they might have in their dispute (a look at that talk page will quickly illustrate why for any interested parties). But other than that, nearly the entirety of my two postings on that page (the full extent of my comments upon the matter) are concerned with the content issue itself, and in that regard I found myself overwhelmingly in agreement with Catflap's perspective, and felt that Hijiri was insisting on a standard of neutrality that does not reflect policy or community consensus on the matter. After my comments there (I was brought there via the RfC), Hijiri did implement what seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, which Catflap did not seem to object to, but it's worth noting that the approach settled upon is more or less the standard Wikipedia approach to the situation in question and the one that should have been adopted from the start.
- Look, I really don't have nearly a substantial enough understanding of the larger dispute between these two editors to reflect upon who is ultimately the more obstinate and problematic editor, nor was my involvement in the RfC in any way concerned with that issue. But in responding to said RfC and following the attached conflict back some, I did take note of a few discussions (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive876#User:Catflap08, Talk:Daisaku Ikeda, User talk:SilkTork#Catflap's still at it) which, if I'm pressed for an opinion, seem to suggest that A) this feud has been going on for some time now and B) both parties seem to have at times engaged in idiosyncratic approaches to policy that do not fully conform to community consensus and have then been more than willing to overly-personalize the resulting arguments. I'll further note that, just a week ago, it seems that the last administrator to be involved in the issue (SilkTork -- and Silk, my apologies for the obligatory ping from linking to the discussion on your talk page) advised the following:
- "I'd like to look at your contributions history in a week's time and see some positive work on building the encyclopedia or in helping out the project, and not to see you trawling through talkpages talking about personal conflicts. That simply stirs up trouble and wastes people's time as you and they and others then have to deal with the consequences."
- Under any circumstances I would share the perspective of others here that Hijiri's presence in this discussion is hard to interpret as appropriate and good-faith -- and in context of Silk having provided Hijiri this particular piece of advice, it seems like perhaps Hijiri would benefit from refreshing himself on WP:IDHT, a policy which it seems he has several times cited with regard to Catflap. Catflap has decided to retire from the project; if Hijiri's perspective and main concern is that Catflap is a problem editor, then it would seem he could ask for no better outcome here than the one Catflap is voluntarily opting for, so I can't see the benefit in continuing to engage over this matter.
- Regardless, any suggestion that I've joined a list of people who are making concerted and substantial observations that Catflap is a problem editor are, at best, a wishful misinterpretation by an editor with a powerful confirmation bias on this matter or, at worst, a willful misrepresentation of the extent and nature of my perspectives on the editor in question. Snow let's rap 21:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Dennis Brown: and @Buster7:, please remove some of the comments here if you see fit, but do not delete them because I have a feeling I may try to get some attention to this matter. I would also welcome your input regarding whether you believe the conduct here might merit some outside attention, possibly at ANI or RFAR. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I must say the behaviour of the Hijiri person leaves me flabbergasted. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
As you well know John WER is a site that prides itself on not being to quick on the "You can't say that" trigger. So, I'm gonna leave it up to Dennis. Of course, I do not condone the name-calling one bit and could easily remove it without any concern for what anyone might say. But, let's here what Dennis has to input.. Buster Seven Talk 19:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to support John’s plea for this thread to stay visible for a while. The terms “jerk” and “jackass” are not my usual vocabulary – not here nor in life. I used the terms as I was named that way by a user – hence me quoting them. This went unchecked though – which I find to be disturbing. In a last effort I will consider taking some action to end what this thread sadly is a testimony of. In the course of all this I received messages and e-mails which do seem to indicate that the somewhat uncivil behaviour by a certain user has a long history. We all know that we run into conflicts on issues we care about, but this all goes a wee bit too far. It all indicates towards a reoccurring pattern and simply striking personal attacks is just no good anymore. Over all though the project does need to be reassessed in many ways – the number of editors is going down just as well as the number of admins. I’d hate Wikipedia to support pubertal behaviour. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Buster7: The only name-calling that has taken place here is Catflap insisting that because User:JzG, an unpingable IP user and I called him a "jackass" over a month ago we ourselves must be "jackasses". I highly doubt Catflap's name-calling is what is being referred to in JC's proposal. JC and Catflap want my comments to the effect that JC's posting here is a bad-faith attempt to bring back a user who has caused this project nothing but trouble.
- @Snow Rise: Sorry for my ambivalent wording. I could have pinged any one of the dozens of users who disagreed with Catflap's edits in the past few months (seriously: John Carter is the only one who has agreed with him, it seems), and picked you because you were the most recent and si seemed to be "the last straw" so to speak. Your comments on the Kokuchukai talk page appear to be what convinced Catflap that he would never get his way on that or other articles. It might just have easily been my article overhaul, though. But no one could seriously claim that Catflap's final retirement was a result of personal attacks or other users engaged in problematic article edits when literally no one has been defending his edits and no one made anything approximating a personal attack in the preceding three days.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Why do you need to speculate on his reasons for leaving under any circumstances? People retire from the project constantly and I often find the reasons they post explaining the decision to be melodramatic or otherwise suggestive of the possibility that their own approach was a big part of why their involvement in the project was so laden with drama, but I don't feel the need to point it out. No one here made an accusation against you in particular, nor referenced you, nor even specifically referenced a discussion you were involved with, so why does it seem necessary to you (or even appropriate) to show up here and begin questioning the manner in which his departure is being taken? You say that virtually everyone he edits with has problems with him, but I've only seen evidence of this protracted contest between you two (which is very much a two-way street) and the editors who were commenting here seem to think his departure is a loss for the project.
- Maybe Catflap has legitimate gripes and observations or maybe his claims of systemic problems are mostly hyperbole and rationalization -- and maybe everyone here who supports him would only be wasting their time on similar hyperbole -- but even if the latter is the case, it's their time to waste. And regardless, your coming her to nitpick another user's rationale for leaving the project is clearly not producing anything for the project but additional animosity and is very much directly in the opposite direction of the advice you've been getting from an administrator on avoiding unnecessary interaction with a person you clearly conceptualize as an opponent. Frankly, I'd count yourself lucky that Catflap has decided to retire, because given your apparent inability to back of from the issues you have with him (and in particular how little you've internalized and adhered to the directions of an admin on this matter), you'd probably have ultimately been headed for an IBAN or TBAN otherwise. Catflap is retiring and any issues (real or imagined) that you might think he represents for the project will therefore not be of concern. So why are you getting in the way of that process just to make a point? Snow let's rap 03:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- All right kids...why don't you all just have a seat over in the green room...down the hall, third door to the right. Uncle Dennis will be here soon. I think he is still at the April Fools Day Party above. I think you should all know that this is not considered a Conflict Resolution page. And no more name calling or your asses WILL get jacked! . Buster Seven Talk 04:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm confused, Buster, is this meant to be in response to my comments? It was initially posted before my above post, it has been jumping around since and it doesn't seem to be directed in response to my comments, which are neutral with regard to the dispute between these two.Snow let's rap 04:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the confusion. No it was not meant as a response to you. When I did a read after saving I noticed that the time stamp indicated my edit came after yours so I assumed I had placed it into the thread incorrectly (as to time) and so I fixed it. . Buster Seven Talk 04:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, gotcha! Snow let's rap 04:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- People come, people go, people take Wikibreaks, people retire one account and return with another. Thus has it always been. I hope Catflap will be back but individual users deciding to LANCB has never been a reason to change much about anything. Guy (Help!) 07:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I think some things need to be cleared up here so most of this post is not aimed at any one user in particular.
- Given the not-so-subtle references to me in both John Carter's opening comment in this thread ("contentious recent topics which have devout supporters and detractors", "extremely problematic behavior of individual editors regarding those topics") and Catflap's first comment ("The ignorant clique like behaviour of some individuals", "even my nationality ridiculed"), both before I first decided to post here, I find the repeated assertions that I shouldn't be allowed defend myself, or that I followed either Catflap or John Carter here, and that my defenses should be removed, somewhat disturbing. The last quote by Catflap is an outright lie that he has repeated numerous times over the last few weeks (the original "racist" comment is here -- check the following string of comments). Even if John Carter is not directly requesting sanctions on me this time, he very clearly asked for "more uninvolved editors" to continue pushing Catflap's POV on the pages he has been editing recently. The fact is that more uninvolved editors have already spoken on those pages, and that is precisely why Catflap08 retired, by his own admission. Why was this thread even started? It is, as I said first, bs.
- @Snow Rise: Your quoting SilkTork's advice to me is noted, but you and I seem to have interpreted it differently. John Carter commented several times that I was not active enough in contributing content -- something he has repeated above -- to be allowed criticize others (the very much false implication being that I am only interested in getting in fights, not in building an encyclopedia). SilkTork agreed that I should contribute more content. So I did so. You have already commented positively on one of these articles. Now, I don't like prolific content producers saying that I can't defend my more limited edits from people trying to push OR on those articles (it happens often), but when in the past week I've contributed more in terms of article content than either John Carter or Catflap have in an entire year, I think such accusations should most certainly not go unquestioned. As for Catflap08 retiring: if this time it is true, then the better for Wikipedia. If it's yet another stunt like last time, then I'd like to see John Carter stop posting bogus accusations against me and the other 90% of users who have interacted with Catflap every time something like this happens.
- Propose closing I would like to see this whole thread closed, given that it's not going to do the community any good to continue going on, and on, and on about these issues. If Catflap is really gone this time, then we can see if anyone else thinks his edits to the relevant articles were any good and they can continue arguing his points. If not, then so be it.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Edited 11:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC).
- Note: It is Common Practice on this page to allow threads to remain until they are archived. This, of course, dose not include any detrimental behavior or edits. . Buster Seven Talk 15:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- What needs to be cleared up, I regret to say, is your unfailing insistence on denigrating others with virtually every comment you make, as in this edit summary. This regular attempt at "one-upsmanship" through putting others down is a rather obviously transparent stunt, and raises serious questions regarding whether you are capable of interacting in a productive way with virtually anyone. I welcome Dennis' input, as a sitting administrator, whether this regular name-calling and insulting of others, which I believe is rather obviously demonstrated by Hijiri's recent history of editing, is perhaps worthy of being taken to the Arbitration Committee for perhaps requesting of i-bans, and, maybe, asking for the institution of some sort of temporary, quick, i-bans in the future in the event the editor in question continues to engage in insults. And, by the way, I notice the obviously quick expiration of any sort of "peace offering" which the above comment almost exclusively on others demonstrates. Frankly, to my eyes, the comments of Hijiri here are "just another stunt" in his rather obvious insistence that he and his actions cannot be questioned without regular and long-term insults at the people who do so. And, regarding the obvious, rather obnoxious, insult in Hijiri's already linked to edit summary, I do think putting together two encyclopedic sources over at wikisource, including wikisource:Index:A dictionary of the Book of Mormon.pdf, and wikisource:Index:Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature (1911).djvu, as well as wikisource:Index:The Cambridge History of American Literature, v1.djvu, in addition to pretty much all the content of the Bibliography of encyclopedias articles he obviously denigrated, is probably worthwhile and useful, even if he obviously attempted to use it as yet another of his rather ongoing insults at anyone who ever disagrees with him. John Carter (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Reoccurring patterns must say. Who is User:JzG ??? @ Hijiri 88 It is up to me if I decide to come out of retirement and so far I have not edited any articles. You seem to ignore it’s your language that causes the problem … and you continue doing so. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @John Carter: I'm sorry, but I was getting pretty tired of virtually every comment from you being to the effect that "this user never contributes to the encyclopedia". After the fifth or sixth time I decided to look into it: despite having about 30 times as many edits to the encyclopedia as I do, your article edits are about three times mine. And you have only edited one article in the past two years, instead hanging around ANI and the like to harangue other users. So you're in a giant glass house on the matter of "contributing to the encyclopedia". Stop talking about how I never contribute, and stop trying undermine my contributions, and I will stop responding in kind (though in a much less harsh manner).
- @Catflap08: If my language is what causes problems, then why can you not come up with a single instance of my language causing problems in the first eight months of my dispute with you? My dispute with you was not caused by my language; my language was a direct result of your haranguing me for months. Admit it: I did not use any "foul language" at all between June and February. You immediately posted on ANI just for reverting you on the Kenji article. (I know it's not really ANI, but you clearly don't know the difference between AN and ANI, or it's possible as one user speculated that you posted there deliberately so I would be unable to defend myself: not so dissimilar to what you and Johnshu Cartsori are trying to do now.) You outright refused to use the talk page to discuss with me. You inserted your own POV into the article constantly, even after your own RFC told you you were wrong. I asked for you to be TBANned for this disruptive behaviour, and User:Dennis Brown said that while your behaviour was definitely disruptive, a TBAN was not necessary yet because you already needed consensus to be on your side to continuing pushing that edit on the article. You came back a few months later and continued the same POV-pushing, you were opposed by me and User:Dekimasu, so you started another RFC because you were still unwilling to use the talk page to discuss with me. I then went to ANI and asked that you be TBANned again because it seemed very much like it had elevated to the level where Dennis Brown would have changed his stance. You continued to openly lie on the ANI thread, pretending for about the seventh time that you had not used the word "nationalist" on the talk page with reference to your then-current proposed edit. I called you a "jackass" for this constant IDHT behaviour. You have been going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and and on and on and on about this single, very brief instance of "foul language" for the past month, as though there had been no context to my using this word.
- Tell me this is not how things went down. Just try it. Go on. Give the people your version of events.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Catflap08: Also, JzG is, as I said when I pinged him, the other user who directly called you a "jackass". Several other users said other things to similar effect, but JzG is the one who said that I was justified in calling you a "jackass" because you were behaving like one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, Hijiri, I'm going to ask Catflap not to give his version of events and I'm going to ask you, again, to stop giving yours. This is not even remotely an appropriate forum for you to air your grievances at length. You've already taken these issues to ANI last month and then requested yourself that the discussion be closed. The last admin to engage the both of you on these matters has very explicitly asked you not to search out further opportunities to re-ignite these issues through various discussion spaces, which seems to be exactly what you are doing here; the exact word he used was "trawling" and given that no one here mentioned your name or even so much as directly referenced any discussion you were involved with, interjecting yourself here to discuss Catflap and his reasons for leaving the project certainly seem consistent with said admin's interpretation of your inability to not actively prolong this feud. In trying to get a better grip on that contest of wills, I just finished reading every word of the lengthy ANI linked above and reviewing yet more of the related discussions. I do see some indication from other editors there that Catlfap has occasionally engaged in tendentious practices--I needed to hear that from other parties because, quite honestly, I couldn't take it on faith from you, having seen you misrepresent the positions of others here, myself included--but none of that makes your current involvement here useful or appropriate.
- I repeat, this space is specifically reserved for the narrow purpose of discussing means of editor retention, not to discuss content disputes and personal conflicts between editors. If you feel there is an ongoing behavioural or procedural issue that requires community attention, then please take it to the appropriate forum or to an administrator. But please leave this space in peace unless you intend to discuss the topic of editor retention. I'd likewise like to ask Catflap and John Carter not to respond further to the claims you've made in your most recent post. Everyone has said more than their piece and, at this point, neither side is likely to convince the other that they were the "true" aggressors/party whose approach was inconsistent with policy, so this line of discussion can only constitute disruption, which is doing the project (and this space in particular) no good. Snow let's rap 08:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, given Buster7's recent notification on Dennis Brown's talk page, it seems he has made the good-faith mistake of concluding that John Carter, Catflap08 and I are hashing out a content dispute, and that I (we?) don't understand the normal purpose of this page. The content dispute in question was on this article, and is already resolved. My reason for posting here is that John Carter and Catflap08 posted personal attacks against me here and I want said attacks stricken. I will withdraw once said attacks are withdrawn, and set ER back to doing what ER usually does. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, Hijiri, but neither WP:TPG nor any other policy is conditional on your getting the specific apology you think you are due from any of the involved parties. This is not the place for this discussion, period. Further, you've been asked by an admin to disengage from one of said parties and at this point it is hard to construe your activities as anything but WP:hounding. Frankly, I've only hesitated as long as I have to inform said admin of this nonsense because he is clearly exhausted with trying to wrangle you on this issue and I thought I A) try to avoid imposing this drama upon him again and B) protect you from earning yourself a block (seriously, look at the edit summary for that post and then read his comments very carefully). But frankly, at this point, I'm done trying to defuse this situation if you're not willing to let well-enough alone and quite while you are ahead. Snow let's rap 17:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Close
This has evolved into a discussion over editor conduct in a content dispute. Recommend it be closed & archived. GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that is altogether appropriate. First, the opening topic raised here is good-faith one with merit (even if I doubt any major community solutions are going to result from this small thread). The fact that someone has injected a personal dispute into shouldn't be cause to shut-down a meaningful discussion. If that were a standard approach on the project, it would be leveraged to that effect anytime someone wanted to put an end to a given line of discussion or wanted to stimy another editor's efforts. Indeed, in this case, because Hijiri has already tried to force the issue of having the discussion closed, I fear this will, consciously or otherwise, embolden these hassling tactics and he will simply follow these parties to the next venue and find an excuse to insist they are bad-mouthing him there (whether he was in any way mentioned or not -- note that he wasn't here, before he showed up) and start the whole process over again. Buster's worthwhile thread should not be closed just because Hijiri can't let this (very separate) issue go, even in the fact of any administrative warning to do so.
- Just my two cents, anyway. I'm not particularly attached to this headache of a thread, I just think closing it in this context would be bad on principle. But if Buster himself made the request and was giving up on making any headway in his discussion amidst this acrimony, I'd feel better about it. Snow let's rap 17:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The issue of what to do in cases such as this has come up more and more. It's a quandary. In one sense WER clerks have nurtured a sense of tolerance toward "off into the cornfield" type discussions and I, for one, don't like to stop brainstorming. But, in an other sense, there comes a point where brainstorming becomes brain-numbing. I think we have reached that point. Since I'm not sure what the best procedure is (best as to what is best for the WER project, its members, and its history of tolerance). Hatting? Archiving? I'll let one of the other clerks, maybe John since he actually started the thread, decide the best course forward. . Buster Seven Talk 18:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- @ User:GoodDay, User:Snow Rise, User: Buster7 In many ways I support your line of thought. On the other had I do not want this thread , and WikiProject, to be used to carry on a somewhat useless discussion, which in my books has some highly irrational elements, it is like beating a dead horse. An alternative might be to keep the thread visible for at least a wee while (ten days or so) – I’d very much appreciate that. I will change to semi-retirement for the time being as engaging in discussions like this and keeping up the retirement is a bit absurd. I received quite a number of supportive messages especially in respect to a certain group of articles that I usually keep an eye on. I will take it from there. Instead of going into a huff it might be better to at least make some proposals to improve certain protocols. For the current debate my talk page can still be used (if it pops up again) and I never the less would like to thank those who gave their opinion in a constructive manner.--Catflap08 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- In order to close matters I have decide to ask for an i-ban between me and the user in question on Arbcom.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Woops, my bad, misread and thought Buster had opened the discussion. That fact not withstanding, as every single other involved editor has voiced a preference for halting this discussion in the interest of avoiding further disruption, it would seem it would be the best course of action after-all. I'll close it myself, but any other party should feel free to reverse said closure. Snow let's rap 20:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
|