Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/GoodDay: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:25, 12 December 2011

Under the microscope

Truth is, I have & will continue to have no concerns about any political sensitivities on the British & Irish politicial articles. I don't & won't apologize for my neutral approach to these articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that this problem stems from political senstivities regarding British and Irish articles? GoodDay, I'm afraid that blinkered viewpoint is not going to improve the situation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also concerned, that Skyring (at his talkpage) is threatening to re-start his Governor-General is Head of State campaign. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This Rfc is about your behaviour, not Skyring's. Don't try to derail the discourse. I suggest that you address the issues which directly concern you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a group-ownership around those articles. An editor has just restored the change I attempted at First Minister of Scotland, I hope he'll be treated with less commotion. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was there consensus for your change and did you discuss it beforehand?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was it vandalism? GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is accusing you of vandalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeanne. Here [1] in the link within that section by one of the certifiers of this RFC/U. "I see that your vandalism spree continues...". In fact, for an RFC/U the certification is particularly poor. Certification is supposed to demonstrate attempts to resolve disputes but looking at them they are just critical attacks talking about GoodDay's vandalism & trolling. I cannot see the "attempt to resolve" just the desire to persuade GoodDay to leave the articles alone. Leaky Caldron 15:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm bewilderd by this Rfc/U. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I'm sorry to see it come to this but you were forewarned. Please read what people are saying. You are not being attacked; however your editing is being evaluated and found wanting. The ball is now in your court. I suggest that you accept mentoring.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept a mentor, as long as he/she doesn't advise me to 'stay away' from the British & Irish political articles. But rather helps me when I'm involved with such articles, as I've no empathy for other editors political sensitivities. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, it's your editing at these articles which has landed you here. The mentor would perforce insist that you stay away from those articles. A topic ban is likely to be imposed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I haven't vandalized those articles. A topic ban would be OTT. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warriors often wreak more havoc than vandals who typically attack a wide range of pages and are quickly spotted.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't edit-warred (i.e. breach 3rr). GoodDay (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time factor

This Rfc/U buisness has already distracted me 'too much. I'm getting back on to the editing track. GoodDay (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you made a constructive edit on the Derry article! That's a step in the right direction, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mentor

How does one get assigned a 'mentor'? GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

The impression I'm getting from this Rfc/U, is that some of the editors want to skip mentorship & go straight to topic ban. Am I correct in this? GoodDay (talk) 07:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't need either. Surely, from your own inner resources, you can think to yourself, "What would my mentor say to me about this edit I'm about to hit 'Save page' on?" And then act on this wise voice from within? Or better yet, not even go to topics where you know you will have to think twice.

There's a string of editors all saying the same thing about your participation. What they say is resonating strongly with my own experience with you. Why not listen to what is about as solid a consensus as I've ever seen? You aren't stupid, you aren't evil, you do good work when you have a mind to. It shouldn't have come to this, and even if community sanctions are imposed, without a change from within they won't work. If you don't think you can change, then give up right now. --Pete (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept a mentor, if that's what the participants (here) want. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cough, cough

Could the certifying users fill in the section "Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute" please. Also Snowded if you are stepping in to certify you should add some info on how there were attempts to resolve the disputes you mention in your part of the "Statement of the dispute" in the appropriate section. This will help Outsiders evaluate the issue & comment.
Also, with reference to this please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users:

While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes.

An RFC will not bring about sanctions in and of itself, and should be undertaken in hope of a resolution of conflict--Cailil ^talk 15:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying for years (literally) will trawl through my talk pages for some examples. --Snowded ^TALK 16:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Cailil, As we have claims of people who might certify this RfC, but as of yet haven't, I'm intending to remove it from the Certified disputes on the template and stick it back in the "Candidate Pages" Hasteur (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having added material post Cailil's request, perhaps you would help me out and tell what is needed that has not been provided? --Snowded ^TALK 19:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above those who want to certify this need to fill in the section "Users_certifying_the_basis_for_this_dispute" (ie sign it). At least 2 of the 3 of you must. Barryob really should have done this at the start, and unless Mais oui! is actually going to present evidence they shouldn't be called a certifier (this *will* cause confusion later unless it's sorted out)--Cailil ^talk 01:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK done - thanks for the clarification. Never done one of these before and too a bit of time deciding if I wanted to join in --Snowded ^TALK 04:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette

FWIW, I was never taken to Wikiquette. That should've been the first place to go, before this Rfc/U. GoodDay (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can be abrupt and offensive, but no more than a good many other productive editors. The views expressed here regard your behaviour as an editor, promoting your own sometimes odd notions without taking mind of concerns expressed and authorities given. In many cases repeatedly inserting the same erroneous material after being corrected. You should read carefully the comments made by other editors and address their concerns. --Pete (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should've been taken to a Wikiquette, first. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, having been around the project for over 6 years you shouldn't need Wikiquette, nor indeed Rfc/U, but here we are.Endrick Shellycoat 08:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's wiki-life. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its way past that GoodDay, and has been from sometime. You have already been taken to ANI once, and it will likely end up there again. Are you taking up the mentor option proposed here? --Snowded ^TALK 10:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said all along, I'd accept a mentor. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, please accept the mentoring. It's the best road to take.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already agree to accepting mentorship. But so far, I haven't acquired one yet. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Too late for WQA and the mentor option is your best bet. However, as an alternative, no matter how you dislike it, why not just leave the national articles alone? You know perfectly well that in common with hundreds of geo-political articles they are effectively controlled by a small number of experienced editors, with national symbolism dripping from their User pages. Do you realistically think that you can succeed in making other than trivial changes to those articles? After all, historically there is nothing new to say about Scotland & Wales. All you can do is tweak things a bit, there is nothing more encyclopaedic to write so just leave it to those who happily edit articles associated with their declared national allegiances. When editor's start blaming you for edits that you did not even make, not only is it an act of extreme bad faith but a sure sign that any contributions you make will never be welcome. Weigh a doubt against a certainty and walk away. I'm not able to act as your mentor but if you would like me to preview any particular change you can give me a nudge, although I'm no more welcome there than you! Leaky Caldron 13:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't voluntarily stay away from those articles, if & when I have concern about their accuracy. I just need somebody to help me formulate my concerns (i.e. posts) so that I don't get OTT heated reactions. There were times when I felt like a referee at a British soccer game. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe anything has been decided as yet on whether you should stay away from those articles or not, though that is the least that should happen in my opinion. There is also a strong feeling that you should perhaps be permaband. The question that has to be asked is this. Do you understand the concerns raised here or do you still believe you have done nothing wrong, even after all the diffs showing otherwise? If you are still of the opinion that people are just out to get you then you have learned nothing from this and the final decision may not be to your liking. If you take a mentor without any understanding of what is being expressed here then I don't see it working. Carson101 (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no basis for perma-band, as I'm not a vandalizer, sock-master or a chronic civility-breaker. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That has yet to be decided by someone else. GoodDay, it would be nice if you could answer my questions on what you have so far learned from this. Carson101 (talk) 18:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't let my 'lack of empathy' for politicial sensitivites at those articles, show in my future posts there. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Any editor who seeks a perma-band of me (at this stage), won't succeed. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments like that worry me. Take more time looking at what you are doing wrong instead of bragging that no-one can touch you here as far as perma-banning. I can't see a mentor working well with you at this stage. Carson101 (talk) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"controlled by a small number of experienced editors, with national symbolism dripping from their User pages". Like this you mean, Leaky ? Your remark, whilst intending to lend support to GoodDay, merely betrays your own issues with regard to how this place works. The process of contributing to any Wiki article is a very straightforward one; subject matter supported by references, extracted from reliable sources, consolidated into a format readily available to all readers is what this place is about. The only contentious issues should be the agreed format and what constitutes a WP:RS; these being resolved through concensus. This place is not about endless POV pushing by those who see things differently from the majority and who, when challenged, consistently fail to support their own arguments with anything close to a WP:RS. Editors having 6+ years experience should not need to be dragged here to be reminded of the basics! Endrick Shellycoat 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To add further. You, Leaky Cauldrin, are not helping GoodDay in any way. If you really want to help you could advise him to take everything on board, try to understand why his editing style has brought him here, and help him down a road that will aid him. As I said before, he doesn't appear to think that he has done anything wrong so the more people that can explain it to him the better. That should include you if your intention is to help him remain editing on wikipedia in the long run. Carson101 (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 :::::::::::PS: Any editor who seeks a perma-band of me (at this stage), won't succeed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
+::::::::::::Comments like that worry me. Take more time looking at what you are doing wrong instead of bragging that no-one can touch you here as far as perma-banning. I can't see a mentor working well with you at this stage. [[User:Carson101|Carson101]] ([[User talk:Carson101|talk]]) 18:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 ::::::::''"controlled by a small number of experienced editors, with national symbolism dripping from their User pages"''. Like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GoodDay this] you mean,  [[User:Leaky_caldron|<span style="color:Black;font:bold 8pt kristen itc">Leaky </span>]]? Your remark, whilst intending to lend support to GoodDay, merely betrays your own issues with regard to how this place works. The process of contributing to any Wiki article is a very straightforward one; subject matter supported by references, extracted from reliable sources, consolidated into a format readily available to all readers is what this place is about. The only contentious issues should be the agreed format and what constitutes a [[WP:RS]]; these being resolved through concensus. This place is '''not''' about endless POV pushing by those who see things differently from the majority and who, when challenged, consistently fail to support their own arguments with anything close to a [[WP:RS]]. Editors having '''6+ years experience''' should not need to be dragged here to be reminded of the basics! [[User:Endrick Shellycoat|<font face="american uncial" color="red"><b><i>Endrick</i></b></font>]] [[User talk:Endrick Shellycoat|<font face="american uncial" color="red"><b><i>Shellycoat</i></b></font>]] 17:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)