Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Fayenatic london: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Recent dispute: thank you Pseudofusulina, this is very helpful
Line 287: Line 287:


::Re AGF: In the above, I was explaining why I thought my message about "''ulterior motive''" was not making things worse than they were already. You've helpfully taken the matter back to the underlying trigger, which I now see was when I wrote ''"To be honest the balance of evidence is making it difficult for me to WP:AGF. It looks to me as if you made a series of edits claiming to be implementing policies but actually pursuing a POV agenda. ... – Fayenatic 18:38, 31 January"''. I see now that that was wrong of me, and whether or not (but especially if) I am made an admin, a higher standard is required. It took a few days for CD to explain his edits in a way that I understood, but in the meantime it was my failure to AGF that inflamed the situation. I do owe CD an apology.
::Re AGF: In the above, I was explaining why I thought my message about "''ulterior motive''" was not making things worse than they were already. You've helpfully taken the matter back to the underlying trigger, which I now see was when I wrote ''"To be honest the balance of evidence is making it difficult for me to WP:AGF. It looks to me as if you made a series of edits claiming to be implementing policies but actually pursuing a POV agenda. ... – Fayenatic 18:38, 31 January"''. I see now that that was wrong of me, and whether or not (but especially if) I am made an admin, a higher standard is required. It took a few days for CD to explain his edits in a way that I understood, but in the meantime it was my failure to AGF that inflamed the situation. I do owe CD an apology.
:::Yes, in this instance, after reading the entire affair, this is what it came down to, your failure to assume good faith made a tricky situation bad. I did not think you would see it, but I think your willingness to go head on and discuss the situation was initially sufficient to show good faith on your part in accepting the negative feedback I gave. [[User:Pseudofusulina|Pseudofusulina]] ([[User talk:Pseudofusulina|talk]]) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

::Re BLP: when I left that edit summary on 29 January, I was reading the deleted text as signifying merely that two named individuals worked for the new organisation having worked for the old one. I took those statements as unexceptionable, given that (i) they could still be demonstrated from other pages within the organisations' websites, and (ii) the dead citation had been checked in the past, by myself as well as by the editor who had added the citation in the first place (that's what I meant when I later described the dead link as verified even though not currently verifiable). If that had been the whole significance of the deleted text, and it was therefore neither contentious nor likely to be challenged, then I still think (but am open to correction) that it would have been sufficient to tag the link as dead, prompting a search for a replacement citation. However, CD subsequently demonstrated to me that the text had additional significance which was potentially more sensitive. I think I demonstrated respect for BLP by not reinstating the deleted text again after 29 Jan while I was asking what was sensitive about it. But feel free to keep going, this is very helpful. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|(talk)]] 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
::Re BLP: when I left that edit summary on 29 January, I was reading the deleted text as signifying merely that two named individuals worked for the new organisation having worked for the old one. I took those statements as unexceptionable, given that (i) they could still be demonstrated from other pages within the organisations' websites, and (ii) the dead citation had been checked in the past, by myself as well as by the editor who had added the citation in the first place (that's what I meant when I later described the dead link as verified even though not currently verifiable). If that had been the whole significance of the deleted text, and it was therefore neither contentious nor likely to be challenged, then I still think (but am open to correction) that it would have been sufficient to tag the link as dead, prompting a search for a replacement citation. However, CD subsequently demonstrated to me that the text had additional significance which was potentially more sensitive. I think I demonstrated respect for BLP by not reinstating the deleted text again after 29 Jan while I was asking what was sensitive about it. But feel free to keep going, this is very helpful. – [[User:Fayenatic london|Fayenatic]] [[User talk:Fayenatic london|(talk)]] 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
:::This is the purpose behind the policy, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—''whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable''—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (I added italics.)
:::With BLPs it's more important to remove the unsourced material first and ask questions later. Once CD removed the material, it was clear that he considered the material contentious, and that is sufficient under Wikipedia's BLP policy for complete removal of the material. As a matter of policy in editing, CD's removal was correct, and you should not have reverted any of the material. The article or user talk page (depending up the nature of the removed material) can be used to discuss ''before'' reverting material with an edit summary about a BLP violation.
:::If the material is contentious, then it requires a reliable outside party reporting it, not an organization's website. For a BLP, remove the text, find a solid reference with a working link, then add the text back if it is otherwise appropriate to the article. [[User:Pseudofusulina|Pseudofusulina]] ([[User talk:Pseudofusulina|talk]]) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:12, 12 February 2012

Statistics

As of 19:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Username:	Fayenatic london
User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer
First edit:	Jun 18, 2006 18:06:44
Unique pages edited:	19,218
Average edits per page:	2.15
Live edits:	39,070
Deleted edits:	2,222
Total edits (including deleted):	41,292


Namespace Totals
Article	26332	67.40%
Talk	2311	5.92%
User	440	1.13%
User talk	2788	7.14%
Wikipedia	1886	4.83%
Wikipedia talk	215	0.55%
File	152	0.39%
File talk	3	0.01%
MediaWiki talk	1	0.00%
Template	428	1.10%
Template talk	145	0.37%
Help	5	0.01%
Category	4118	10.54%
Category talk	211	0.54%
Portal	27	0.07%
Portal talk	5	0.01%
	

Month counts2006/06	5	
2006/07	19	
2006/08	5	
2006/09	41	
2006/10	115	
2006/11	132	
2006/12	472	
2007/01	962	
2007/02	656	
2007/03	862	
2007/04	475	
2007/05	402	
2007/06	343	
2007/07	402	
2007/08	580	
2007/09	640	
2007/10	578	
2007/11	578	
2007/12	817	
2008/01	738	
2008/02	508	
2008/03	512	
2008/04	539	
2008/05	927	
2008/06	666	
2008/07	141	
2008/08	503	
2008/09	760	
2008/10	1413	
2008/11	593	
2008/12	411	
2009/01	539	
2009/02	707	
2009/03	802	
2009/04	474	
2009/05	607	
2009/06	414	
2009/07	322	
2009/08	425	
2009/09	853	
2009/10	411	
2009/11	192	
2009/12	189	
2010/01	458	
2010/02	301	
2010/03	619	
2010/04	920	
2010/05	752	
2010/06	551	
2010/07	801	
2010/08	942	
2010/09	398	
2010/10	333	
2010/11	407	
2010/12	617	
2011/01	243	
2011/02	51	
2011/03	170	
2011/04	384	
2011/05	683	
2011/06	1637	
2011/07	1360	
2011/08	1630	
2011/09	911	
2011/10	711	
2011/11	380	
2011/12	817	
2012/01	939	
2012/02	322	


Top edited pagesArticle
139 - Faye_Wong
120 - Christian
110 - Shrivastava
74 - Faye_Wong_discography
64 - John_3:16
61 - Chartered_Accountant
59 - Zechariah
58 - Rajmohan_Pillai
56 - Nathan
54 - Zack

Talk
41 - Faye_Wong
17 - Christian
17 - Rajmohan_Pillai
13 - Varshney
13 - Three_wise_monkeys
13 - Faye_Wong_discography
12 - Chapters_and_verses_of_the_Bible
12 - John_3:16
12 - David_C._C._Watson
12 - Institute_of_Chartered_Accountants_of_India

User
138 - Fayenatic_london
41 - Fayenatic_london/Sandbox
34 - Fayenatic_london/ToDo
18 - Fayenatic_london/Sandbox2
18 - Fayenatic_london/Sandbox3
14 - Fayenatic_london/monobook.js
6 - Fayenatic_london/vector.js
6 - Fayenatic_london/Sandbox4
4 - Fayenatic_london/Sandbox6
3 - Fayenatic_london/BMA_Entertainment

User talk
70 - Fayenatic_london/Archive06
48 - Fayenatic_london/Archive03
45 - Fayenatic_london/Archive04
45 - Fayenatic_london/Archive05
23 - Monika_London
23 - Fayenatic_london/Archive01
23 - Fayenatic_london/Archive02
22 - Fayenatic_london
18 - DGG
17 - Timrollpickering

Wikipedia
52 - WikiProject_Anthroponymy/Home_backup
40 - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_18
40 - WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Christianity
37 - Categories_for_discussion/Speedy
23 - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_22
19 - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_13
19 - Requests_for_page_protection
18 - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_5
17 - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_10
17 - Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_14

Wikipedia talk
41 - WikiProject_Anthroponymy
25 - WikiProject_Star_Trek
19 - No_original_research
16 - WikiProject_Albums
7 - WikiProject_Christianity
5 - WikiProject_Literature
5 - WikiProject_Multi-sport_events
5 - WikiProject_Star_Trek/to_do
4 - WikiProject_Fictional_characters
4 - External_links

File
7 - FayeNoEvil.jpg
7 - Cocteau_Twins_promo_sheet.jpg
6 - Smileangel.jpg
5 - Only_Love_Strangers.jpg
4 - YesAsia_logo.gif
4 - RethinkMentalIllnesslogo250_250.jpg
4 - Faye_Wong_Fable.jpg
4 - Faye_Wong_(1997_album)_coverart.gif
4 - Li_Lili_1930s.jpg
4 - MilkAndKisses.jpg

File talk
3 - Train_scales_vert.jpg

MediaWiki talk
1 - Spam-blacklist

Template
28 - Prophets_of_the_Tanakh
8 - Adult_model
7 - Prophets_in_the_Qur'an
7 - Housing_associations_in_London
7 - FictionSetDecade
6 - Judges
6 - Kings_of_Judah
6 - Hebrew_Bible
6 - Prime_Ministers_of_South_Korea
6 - Afdnotice2/doc

Template talk
54 - Did_you_know
15 - Prophets_of_the_Tanakh
8 - Christianity
7 - Housing_associations_in_London
7 - Did_you_know/South_Africa_Conciliation_Committee
6 - Books_of_the_Bible
4 - Wiktionary
4 - Cfr
3 - Hebrew-Bible-stub
2 - Zh-j

Help
2 - Section
1 - Page_history
1 - Minor_edit
1 - A_quick_guide_to_templates

Category
8 - Christian_martyrs_of_the_Early_Modern_era
8 - Catholic_martyrs
7 - Films_set_in_the_future
7 - Betazoids
6 - Cardassians
6 - Fictional_females
6 - Lists_of_songs_about_a_city
6 - Anglican_cemeteries
6 - Hebrew_Bible_templates
6 - People_from_Smara

Category talk
8 - Shakespearean_phrases
5 - Early_Hebrew_Christians
4 - Books_about_regions
4 - Christian_martyrs
4 - Surnames
4 - Fantasy_books_by_series
3 - British_television_miniseries
3 - Arab
3 - Arabic_languages
3 - Adaptations_of_works_by_William_Shakespeare

Portal
3 - Religion/Categories
3 - Contents/Glossaries/Culture_and_the_arts
2 - Star_Trek
1 - Star_Trek/Browsebar
1 - Food/Food_lists
1 - Star_Trek/Featured_article_September
1 - Star_Trek/Featured_article
1 - Religion/Selected_biography/20
1 - Palestine/Opentask
1 - England/Selected_Picture/12_2007

Portal talk
2 - Star_Trek
2 - Discworld
1 - England

Recent dispute

I recently had a dispute with user:Cusop Dingle ("CD") which spread over various talk pages. I am not proud of the exchange, but chose to proactively bring it to the attention of the RfA as the most questionable piece of my recent conduct which should not be overlooked in assessing my suitability.

Pseudofusulina raised legitimate questions about it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Fayenatic london#Oppose and invited me to reply.

I was not the only editor who interpreted a series of edits by CD to Christian Concern on 28–29 January as giving an appearance of motivation to remove criticism of the subject from the article, or who found his subsequent messages offensive; see [1]. The main discussion was at NPOV Noticeboard, where I was specifically frustrated as I did not understand CD's explanation of why he had cited BLP in this edit. He explained it there on 3 Feb. After that, nothing more was said on that page, and we resumed discussion constructively on the article talk page.

Pseudofusulina asked me about my accusation on 1 Feb of "ulterior motives", perhaps seeing that as a throwaway remark adding fuel to the fire. It was not – CD and I both knew that it was the main point of that discussion on my talk page. Likewise, as for good faith, that was what I and another editor had been questioning all along. He had not answered my follow-up question about BLP so I thought he had something to hide. At that point on 1 Feb I still thought that CD had made POV edits and was maintaining a public denial of that, which is why I thought there was no point continuing the discussion. Meanwhile he thought he had explained himself and was angry at the continued questioning. Only on 3 Feb, when I repeated my specific question and he explained his reliance on BLP, did we move on.

The entire context is spread over various pages: NPOV Noticeboard, my talk page, SPI, article history and article talk page. No doubt I could have expressed myself in a more conciliatory way. Nevertheless IMHO my conduct does not rule out my fitness to be an admin, otherwise I would not have accepted the nomination. – Fayenatic (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Concern&diff=next&oldid=473715221 Edit summary:] (→History: rm per WP:BLP, source cited has gone 404), subsequent edit summary: (→Controversy: source cited has gone 404).
Is it your understanding of BLP policy that "Dead links only need to be tagged, not removed," and that tagging a dead link, but not removing the associated text, complies with WP:BLP?
"We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
I think that showing other editors assumed CD was acting in bad faith does not establish bad faith on the part of CD, and it seems you are attempting to justify your assumption of bad faith.
It seems to me that the reason behind "Assume Good Faith," is that, even if the other editor is acting in bad faith, your assumption that they are acting in good faith prevents you from inflaming the discussion. It's not about correctly identifying the real bad faith;[2] it's about how your own actions can keep a situation from becoming worse. Even if you have proof that the other party is acting in bad faith, even if they declare they are acting in bad faith, even if everyone else sees they are acting in bad faith, your moving forward under the assumption that they are acting in good faith gives you a professional attitude that can keep things cool. It keeps you in charge of your own actions during a heated discussion and does not allow you to assign responsibility to others when your own actions are the only thing you can control.
Do you see how I can consider this to be a very important quality in an administrator? Why not? is not sufficient, in my opinion. If you want to be an administrator, be one of the people making en.wiki a better to edit. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding. I think we look at this differently, and I think you will create problems as an administrator by your understanding of assume good faith, and I think your implementation of BLP will be a problem. This is my opinion. I am fine if you do not continue this discussion, it's up to you (obviously!) Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this follow up. Yes, I do see. I'm still learning, and this is valuable training that I will not forget. It's going to be useful that it will always be here.
Re AGF: In the above, I was explaining why I thought my message about "ulterior motive" was not making things worse than they were already. You've helpfully taken the matter back to the underlying trigger, which I now see was when I wrote "To be honest the balance of evidence is making it difficult for me to WP:AGF. It looks to me as if you made a series of edits claiming to be implementing policies but actually pursuing a POV agenda. ... – Fayenatic 18:38, 31 January". I see now that that was wrong of me, and whether or not (but especially if) I am made an admin, a higher standard is required. It took a few days for CD to explain his edits in a way that I understood, but in the meantime it was my failure to AGF that inflamed the situation. I do owe CD an apology.
Yes, in this instance, after reading the entire affair, this is what it came down to, your failure to assume good faith made a tricky situation bad. I did not think you would see it, but I think your willingness to go head on and discuss the situation was initially sufficient to show good faith on your part in accepting the negative feedback I gave. Pseudofusulina (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re BLP: when I left that edit summary on 29 January, I was reading the deleted text as signifying merely that two named individuals worked for the new organisation having worked for the old one. I took those statements as unexceptionable, given that (i) they could still be demonstrated from other pages within the organisations' websites, and (ii) the dead citation had been checked in the past, by myself as well as by the editor who had added the citation in the first place (that's what I meant when I later described the dead link as verified even though not currently verifiable). If that had been the whole significance of the deleted text, and it was therefore neither contentious nor likely to be challenged, then I still think (but am open to correction) that it would have been sufficient to tag the link as dead, prompting a search for a replacement citation. However, CD subsequently demonstrated to me that the text had additional significance which was potentially more sensitive. I think I demonstrated respect for BLP by not reinstating the deleted text again after 29 Jan while I was asking what was sensitive about it. But feel free to keep going, this is very helpful. – Fayenatic (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the purpose behind the policy, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (I added italics.)
With BLPs it's more important to remove the unsourced material first and ask questions later. Once CD removed the material, it was clear that he considered the material contentious, and that is sufficient under Wikipedia's BLP policy for complete removal of the material. As a matter of policy in editing, CD's removal was correct, and you should not have reverted any of the material. The article or user talk page (depending up the nature of the removed material) can be used to discuss before reverting material with an edit summary about a BLP violation.
If the material is contentious, then it requires a reliable outside party reporting it, not an organization's website. For a BLP, remove the text, find a solid reference with a working link, then add the text back if it is otherwise appropriate to the article. Pseudofusulina (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]