User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 77

Archive 70

←

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

April 2013

Courtesy notification

Resolved

 – Dealt with at Gatoclass's talk page.

Your name has been mentioned here: [1], and not in a nice way. Perhaps it is an April Fool joke.

Too bad their rules will not allow you to respond to it.

—Neotarf (talk) 13:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've addressed this at User talk:Gatoclass#Borderline personal attack. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Good, it disturbed my enjoyment of my own retirement as well. The remark was uncivil and unsupportable—and unprofessional. Sometimes even experienced editors can do with a reminder. —Neotarf (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You quite reasonably objected here to the unnecessary inclusion of remarks directed at you in a post by another editor. So in your response you make exactly the same kind of remarks about me, to which I, equally reasonably, strongly object. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you were offended, Peter. What exactly is the issue, though? I said that you're a good, not disruptive editor. I observed that you're in a long-term, intractable disagreement with me (and not me alone, nor you alone) over a style issue that you feel as certain and unwavering about as I do. How is that inaccurate? It does take two to argue. And there is no actual doubt as to the fact that your position on that style matter would seem stronger and less opposed if I am increasingly censored, and other MOS regulars take that censorship as a warning to "STFU or else" (which quite a few of them certainly do, and have told me so personally). I was even careful to make it clear that I was not suggesting you were consciously using that fact to make trouble; I simply observed that it's true. Is there something in particular you wanted retracted? — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 11:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe myself as "offended"; certainly annoyed. The basic issue is that there was no more reason for you to have mentioned my name than there was for Gatoclass to have mentioned yours. I'm not going to get into a detailed dispute about the words you used but in context they were not neutral, factual descriptions (particularly "vested interest"). Just do what Gatoclass failed to do: discuss the issues, not the people involved. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I understand what you mean. To be clear, I mentioned you by name only because you posted, by name, at that AE thread against me which is at issue in Gatoclass's comments; you were thereby the most recent example of what I was talking about with regard to non-disruptive users having complaints. Gatoclass makes a generalized claim that Wikipedians broadly find me intolerable, when in fact I can demonstrate that to date the only complaints at all are mostly from habitual disruptors whom I and others deal with via ANI/AE, and (in a few specific cases like yourself) good-faith editors who simply have long-standing disagreements with me. I did not mean to imply any motive by "vested interest", simply that you are an example of someone invested in the issue, not a random by-stander. Normally I wouldn't bother, but I was, just before that AE case, subjected to further harassment at AE for not specifically naming parties. I'm sure you can see the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position this puts me in. I would certainly prefer to talk about issues, not editors, but Gatoclass, Sandstein, etc., are essentially forcing me to, by either threatening me with direct sanctions if I attempt to generalize, or making broad accusations against me that can only be responded to accurately with specifics. It's an entrapment game, and is a part of why I'm preparing a RFARB. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

By "consistently good editors like Peter coxhead" I took it to mean someone who engages in legitimate disagreement, rather than someone who is just stirring the pot. No one wants MOS or TITLE to get clogged with disruptive noise, that prevents the kind of discussion needed to air and resolve genuine issues. SMcCandlish has taken some strong leadership in this area, to the benefit of the Project, and has done so without the protection of being an admin. —Neotarf (talk) 06:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

S, I am not familiar with the particulars of the long-running dispute with Peter, but I miss your contributions to style issues. I find myself agreeing with you more often than with him; I think of him as part of an anti-MOS camp, though that may be too broad a characterization. I hope you get through the current troubles and get back to helping WP have a consistent and professional style. I don't see what the "tends to alienate" comment was about. Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Dicklyon: please don't take the following as specific to me. My shoulders are broad; I am not put off joining in debates by SMcCandlish's or anyone else's comments. I also miss his contributions. But it's very clear to me that other editors have been put off getting involved in discussing and editing the MOS (i.e. are alienated) by some regular MOS editors who have been all too ready to personalize discussions and attribute motives to those who disagree with them. Thus to describe editors as either "pro-MOS" or "anti-MOS" on the basis of disagreements over the content of the MOS is unhelpful (to say the least). SMcCandlish and I agree on many issues (e.g. we would both prefer the MOS to encourage more use of BCE/CE rather than BC/AD, for which sadly there's currently no consensus). We disagree on some issues (e.g. as to whether the MOS should support only a single approach to the case used for the common names of species or endorse more than one approach). This doesn't make either of us "pro" or "anti" the MOS itself.

What I do support is efforts to make discussions on the MOS talk pages more collegial in tone. The fact that some of these efforts seem to me to have been unnecessarily heavy-handed (and indeed uncollegial) doesn't negate the desirability of the original intent. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Peter, even if your feelings that various editors have been "put off" participating in certain debates by various other editors who are regulars in them (which is probably an accurate description of every single contentious article subject and internal Wikipedia process page on the entire system, actually, from Talk:National Rifle Association to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion), I hope you understand that this is no justification for the bordering-on-conspiratorial multi-editor (and multi-admin) three-month long campaign of harassment against me in particular, and that you realize that this is precisely what has been happening. My pillorying is a trial balloon by the "camp" that Dicklyon alludes to. For the record, I've never considered you among them. I can't say anything further right now or some lurking stalker will surely accuse me of engaging in an MoS-related debate in violation of Sandstein's bogus topic ban. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I stand by what I said even more now, in light of these later remarks by Peter coxhead. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 16:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)