User talk:Lquilter/Archive 003

Nadine Gordimer

Hi LQ, I just wanted to let you know I am out of town due to family emergency and not keeping up with what's happened on the Nadine Gordimer page! Will rejoin the conversation when possible.DianaW 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR (on Nadine Gordimer, from 70.23.*)

Please stop making misrepresentations as you just did on my talk page, when you insunuated that I had broken the three-revert rule, when you knew very well that I hadn't. Stop obsessively undoing every edit I make on the Nadine Gordimer page. You need to discuss things, not just delete. And stop making personal threats that you are going to have me blocked from Wikipedia, simply because I do not share your politics. Personal threats have a way of boomeranging back at their originators. 70.23.199.239 00:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I gave you a warning that you had hit 3Rs on the same page. I have discussed things ad nauseum on the Talk:Nadine Gordimer page as the edit history attests. I have never made personal threats of having you blocked; I've given you warnings only after you repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL and engaged in edit warring. --lquilter 00:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with problem editors

I noticed that you posted this, then deleted it. It's a good question; I want to offer some thoughts.

I would also like outside commentary on & suggestions for my interactions with this editor. I am stressed by the ongoing inability to have a dialogue about the substance of issues, and keep getting sucked in by the pointless accusations the editor makes about other editors. I would prefer to disengage entirely, but what is my responsibility to deal with the issues? This is a community ...?

• First, some editors simply don't respond to constructive comments. My standard is to give them one chance, then to basically ignore them. By basically ignore, I mean that once I've asked them to pleae follow (say) WP:CIVIL, it's not worth repeating.

• Second, if a posting on a talk page is an egregious violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, it may be worth simply deleting the offending language and citing the policy violated, in the edit summary. I always also cite Wikipedia:Talk Page and WP:TPG, because those say what a talk page should be used for; if nothing else, incivlity and personal attacks violate those guidelines.

• Third, you absolutely want to avoid going point-to-point with a disruptive editor when he/she attacks you or others; that just feeds the fire. Simply saying "I think the above comments are not in keeping with WP:AGF and I urge you and others to focus on discussing the article, per (cite talk page guidelines]] is a flat, factual statement. If an editor says "X is racist", don't argue that X is not; just say that the editor is off-topic and please observe (cite policy).

• Fourth, at the risk of being redundant, you want to defend the process from getting bogged down in personalal/behavioral issues, if possible, not defend individual editors. Assume they have thick skins (something everyone should cultivate), and remember that this isn't the real world. Report blatant attacks (obscenities, shouting via caps, etc.) at WP:AN/I and otherwise restrict yourself to flat comments (above). If you are concerned about how other editors feel personally about attacks, put a note on their talk page saying that you think they're a constructive member of Wikipedia; that you're sorry that there are other editors who don't seem to want to work on improving the article; and that you hope they will continue to contribute and will largely ignore such attacks.

-- Hope that helps. If questions, just drop me a line. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John Broughton - this is helpful, especially the last point. --lquilter 00:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. (I added a couple of words that I mistakenly omitted on the first posting.) -- John Broughton ^(♫♫) 19:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nadine Gordimer / misleading edit summary

One of your recent edit summaries in the article Nadine Gordimer did not accurately describe your edit. Changes to the content of articles should be accurately described in the edit summary. --lquilter 13:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC) (content copied, by 70.23.199.239, from warning message Lquilter placed on User talk:70.23.199.239)

Nonsense. I simply used YOUR misleading edit summary, word for word. If you didn't like it, you shouldn't have used it, in the first place.

Statements placed on editors' talk pages should not mislead readers unaware of the political agenda motivating the statements. 70.23.199.239 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The edit summary I used was "(Reverting recent assault info per discussion at talk page.)" The discussion at the talk page was overwhelmingly in favor of not including that information -- hence the use of the word "per". The use of the same edit summary to describe the opposite behavior is confusing; nobody would understand from looking at the talk page how the information was put back into the article "per" the talk page. Please see [1] which defines the usage as "in accordance with". (crossposted at User talk:70.23.199.239 --lquilter 14:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

"The use of the same edit summary to describe the opposite behavior is confusing; nobody would understand from looking at the talk page how the information was put back into the article "per" the talk page."

No. People who oppose the politically motivated censorship of essential information, and who take their irony supplements -- the kind who live in the spirit of the First Amendment -- will not find it at all confusing. 70.23.199.239 05:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Material Yakuman deleted without archiving

Below material was on User talk:Yakuman [2] and removed ont 2007/3/16

"3RR" on Nadine Gordimer

Yakuman, in your edit summary on Nadine Gordimer article, you reversed a change I made, commenting "Reversion of 3RR violation" (diff). Could you please explain how you characterize my three quite different edits (diff1 (deleting paragraph), diff2 (adding dispute tag), diff3 (deleting one word but leaving sentence)) as a 3RR violation, but manage to avoid so describing your own 5 edits in the space of 36 hours (diff1, diff2 (restoring exact same content), diff3 (variant added), diff4 (restoring variant), diff5 (restoring variant))? --lquilter 21:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the 3RR policy document, it doesn't make exceptions for the sort of distinctions you make. In the interest of AGF, I will not purse a block in this instance, though I may have to do so in the future. Thanks. Yakuman 21:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, by all means, please do go ahead and attempt to document a 3RR on me. I've given you the diffs, so it should be pretty easy. I would really like to see an administrator look at this history of edits and conclude that *I* am the one who has violated 3RR. (Even at its most basic level, I have to point out, 3RR is more than 3 edits in 24 hours ....) And you have yet to explain how your edits would not constitute even more of a "violation" of 3RR than mine ...? --lquilter 21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Please don't abuse my acts of diplomacy. Please be civil and avoid personal attacks. While a block isn't due yet for this in my opinion, you're doing yourself harm by causing yourself to look uncivil in the eyes of others here, and your reputation on Wikipedia is far more important than your block history. If you have questions, please feel free to ask, but read the policy first. I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Take care, and have a good day! Yakuman 22:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to not engage in protracted discussions, but you have now several times implied or stated that I've violated 3RR, without substantiating your claims; for this to be a serious and constructive warning, then substantiation is needed. Regardless, administrative review is a good thing: Pressing personal matters have kept me from taking the Nadine Gordimer page to mediation, but that shouldn't stop you. (-8 --lquilter 23:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I have no the interest in an edit war, nor do I enjoy being drawn into debates like this. Article talk pages are to discuss the content of articles. Don't waste time and talk page space spreading your campaign to every related talk page. Not only is this tiresome, it is a violation of Wikipedia policy. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Yakuman 23:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR Warning: Nadine Gordimer

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. You are in danger of being blocked for violating WP:3RR. Please stop and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As Yakuman well knows, she is removing a NPOV tag without resolving the dispute, and I have replaced it because the dispute is not resolved. That is not a WP:3RR matter. In fact the tag is there to avoid revert warring as Talk:Nadine Gordimer demonstrates. (Scanning Yakuman's talk page and history (because she deletes her talk page warnings and messages) shows that she has done this sort of inappropriate warning before.) --lquilter 14:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR is 3RR. BTW, I have no complaint against your/her archiving the warning. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of [Nadine Gordimer] has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Andyparkerson 23:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

More Yakuman deletes

Nadine Gordimer page / NPOV tag

Yakuman, I've responded to you on the Talk:Nadine Gordimer page. But just so you know: Simply combining two disputed versions does not eliminate the source of the dispute in this case, since the source of the dispute is the inclusion of race, which in my (and others') view is unnecessary and not neutral. So the NPOV-section tag still needs to be on that section until that dispute is cleared up. Please discuss on the talk page.

By the way, I see that you have cleared off your talk page without archiving it. User talk pages are not owned by users, but are places where the wikipedia community can see a record of conversations, responses, and warnings about the user. While it's not required for all comments, it's a good idea to archive your talk page, which means to copy the material to a subpage. This leaves it more easily accessible for other users and administrators (and yourself) without having to track through a sometimes confusing edit history. I note that we are supposed to archive any warnings and administrator messages rather than delete them. See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. --lquilter 13:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Race is something you are born with. That's as neutral as it gets. In other words, it is a plain fact. Are people to believe that the woman was robbed by Hispanics? Asians? Swedes? You have no case to keep that tag alive. As far as talk pages go, I just had this discussion. See above. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm cc:ing your response to the Nadine Gordimer talk page and responding there. --lquilter 14:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you started the discussion here, please carry it on here. Stop this campaign to revive a dead dispute. Do not include me in your disruptive war of words. Yakuman (数え役満) 14:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

April 6

diff

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nadine Gordimer. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. -- tariqabjotu 01:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually edit warring. In fact, I made a compromise, but one party refuses to accept. Thank you for trying to ensure good faith. I have not violated 3RR however, nor I am making disruptive. If this canned template message was a prelude to sone sort of block or other sanction, I insist you to retract. Thanks, Yakuman (数え役満) 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[rewritten as] I'm not actually edit warring. In fact, I made a compromise, but one party refuses to accept. Thank you for trying to ensure good faith. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's try something new. Let's not comment or describe each other's good faith or lack thereof; numbers of revisions; possible sock-puppet or censorship; etc., etc. Instead, let's just respond to the substantive points that are raised. We have a substantive dispute, but let's try to work on that substantive dispute. Deal? --lquilter 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out what I posted to your talk page. That may help. Yakuman (数え役満)

April 7

diff

Please quit edit-warring on Nadine Gordimer; take the matter to the talk page. Note that you have been reverting against a version that was accepted on the talk page by Andyparkerson (talk · contribs) and Lquilter (talk · contribs). I suggest you either respect (see Talk:Nadine_Gordimer#seeking_rapprochement). I suggest you either respect that position or you make a note of position on the page. Either way, edit-warring is not the answer. -- tariqabjotu 14:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

April 7a

Removed at diff

Nadine Gordimer

It is fair to say that the discussion on what to include (if anything) about the robbery of [Nadine Gordimer] has gone on for several months and has gotten us nowhere. Each side is still arguing its original points, and there seems to be no spirit of cooperation here, or willingness to compromise on key issues. Lquilter has repeatedly mentioned that mediation might be a good idea, and I must agree with her. Mediation is a voluntary process, and its results are non-binding. If both sides do not agree to the mediation, then it will not occur, for its results would then be meaningless. It is, however, the next step toward Arbitration, which is binding. The goal of mediation is to arrive at a solution that is acceptable to all parties. It is not to force one viewpoint on others. It is very important that all sides agree to this mediation. I am in the process of drafting the Request for Mediation. If you have a problem with mediation, or do not wish to participate, please speak up now at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Andyparkerson 23:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No wikilawyering please, I'm English.

Mediation simply drags out a silly dispute longer. One problem is that Stix was chased off and has no say in any of this, so I get to do twice the work. I also don't see to have the inordinate amount of time to fight over one issue that LQ seems to have. You seem to basically agree with her on everything anyway, Andyparkerson.

If you think Wikipedia is supposed to be a bastion of sensitivity, see Crystal Gail Mangum, where the entire article raises more issues than our disputed paragraph. Good grief, its an African-American female rape accuser illustrated with a mugshot! If y'all want to dispute, go fight over that one.

The very fact that there's a dispute is evidence that there's political ramifications to the incident, which deserve coverage. Otherwise, the article is a banal hagiography anyway. We don't really need more wikilawyering over this. Let the readers read what I provided and let them make their own conclusions. Reply at Talk:Nadine Gordimer#Mediation. Yakuman (数え役満) 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Decline mediation as there is nothing to mediate. WP:WL Yakuman (数え役満) 01:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay; then stop messing around with the article. You don't want to mediate. You don't want to come to a compromise, even though Andyparkerson attempted to do that through his recent reversions. (No, this is not a compromise, but rather a re-wording of what you put). If you can't help but edit war on the article, move on. There are over 1.7 million other articles from which you can choose. I have no idea where you get the impression wiki-lawyering is occurring, because there's none to be found here. -- tariqabjotu 02:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you're walking a thin line with your recent incivil comments on Talk:Nadine Gordimer. -- tariqabjotu 02:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation is entirely fair. On the article's talk page, for example, I just said I would accept Andyparkerson's current edit. Yakuman (数え役満) 02:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I read what you put on the talk page, which is why I said that this is not a compromise. Compare to this and this, which are. Alternatively, compare to your versions, which are 100% equal to each other. -- tariqabjotu 02:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to advocate, please don't invoke admin powers while you do it. I was not uncivil and saying "you're walking a thin line" is both threat and personal attack. If you're going to bullly me, you will run the risk of losing admin privileges via arbitration or other procedure. I am determined to defend my reputation and integrity.Yakuman (数え役満) 02:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The irony of that statement is killing me. I'm not advocating anything (except perhaps talking this out). Your incivility comes from implying that Andyparkerson is a yamnut and a sockpuppet (or at least a meatpuppet). -- tariqabjotu 02:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your interpretation is entirely fair. I neither said nor intended any of those things. I copied a piece of a commentary, decribing the futility of deletion campaigns. In the original, this is an explanation for why people create *puppets. Do not insult me on my own talk page! You invoke admin status, so you're held to a higher standard.Yakuman (数え役満) 02:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

<- [indent removed] Surely you could see how it might sound like that. In fact, even after your explanation, it still sounds like that. Why did you post that to the talk page then? I'm not insulting you; I'm refuting your points. I have not invoked admin status at all; anyone can warn you for edit-warring and anyone can warn you for incivility. That I was the first to do both has nothing to do with being an admin. -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not walking a thin line, I'm not being uncivil, and I'm not about to violate 3RR. I'm not edit-warring; I'm trying to end a pre-existing dispute. Yakuman (数え役満) 03:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

April 10

diff

70.23.199.239

Hey, there's been been heat on both sides. I don't claim to speak for 70 -- and I understand the admin's mission to enforce policy -- but I feel that this action only worsens existing hurt feelings. Please, please reconsider. Yakuman (数え役満) 16:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia project, not a schoolyard brawl. The language contained in this diatribe [3], and in several others, is not acceptable and is a gross violation of WP:CIVIL. The same user has had the policies patiently explained to him and he has only gotten worse. The "heat" has not been on both sides, as you indicate (and if anyone else has used similar language they should get a block too). The editor has been extremely disruptive and the block is intended to prevent further "hurt feelings" by those who this editor keeps attacking. -Will Beback · † · 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This dispute has clear ideological overtones, plus this guy has been wikistalked and chased from page to page for some time. Discussing policy seems a bit tiresome if it is only enforced in one direction. Yakuman (数え役満) 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, if anyone else has used similar language they should also receive a block. Many disputes on Wikipedia involve ideology but we still require editors to act in a civil fashion. -Will Beback · † · 16:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There's bigger issues involved here. He claims an group of editors follows him around, reverting his edits for months. That might make one a bit testy. Right or wrong, he should be allowed to say it, especially on his own talk page. This month-long block just reinforces the conflict. Also, since you have fresh edits on William Shockley, J. Philippe Rushton, Kevin B. MacDonald and several other race-related articles, he can easily say that the block was ideologically motivated.

To lurkers: To clear up confusion, let me repeat that I am not 70.*. For one thing, I'm not in Brooklyn, NY. Besides, if I were COI, I could simply slip my own clips in among thousands of other edits across a wide variety of topics. I have, however, advocated for him. While I am not AMA, I have a good faith desire to resolve this dispute. Yakuman (数え役満) 17:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the language used by this editor is acceptable? Do you beleive that he has not violated WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL:? -Will Beback · † · 17:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the punishment fits the crime. Since it was 70's own talk page, policy requirements, while still there, are looser. Also, the other major statement was on a noticeboard and deleted for length, so I'm not sure that it counts. I understand your frustration, yet I also understand his. There must there be a better way to handle this. Does he need a whole month? How about seven days? Yakuman (数え役満) 17:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the incivility is located. There's been plenty on pages all over. The block needs to be long enough to change the behavior. The three previous, shorter blocks did not result in any improvement If he sends me a note saying he regrets his former incivility and promises to mend his ways I'll unblock him immediately. -Will Beback · † · 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

He can point to incivilities directed against him (vandal, racist, sockpuppet, etc) and ask why you never acted there. Or why you never did anything about the obvious instances where 70 was chased from page to page (wikistalking). He can even probe your unusually large number of edits on race-related articles. I hate to say this, but one might question whether you really want anything to change. (He would.) In fact, it seems as if if you are trying to push him hard enough, so that he will respond in a way that gives you the rationale for a permanent block. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what "he can point to". He has been given many opportunities to resolve disputes and has instead inflamed them by his rhetoric. If you can provide evidence of him being stalked then we can deal with that separately. Likewise if you can assemble evidence of personal attacks against him those too can be dealt with. None of those are defenses of his own behavior. I take offense at your assertion that I pushed him into his use of crude and uncivil language. My dealings with him have been entirely circumspect and proper. He is responsible for his own actions. -Will Beback · † · 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm guess I should gently bring up the AGF issue on your part, which I question. You clearly have some interest in this, which goes beyond mere adminship. If he drew up evidence (again) and posted it, I suspect you would take his conclusion -- that a cadre is wikistalking him -- as a personal attack and justify that permanent block. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Since you are now questioning my good faith and honesty I won't keep this discussion going. If you'd like to ask other admins to look into the block it has been posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks by 70.23.199.239 -Will Beback · † · 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, since you are central to all this, you have some responsibility here. If there is some downward spiral, maybe you have contributed to it. I regret your inflexibility. Yakuman (数え役満) 19:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk Pages

See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nadine_Gordimer&diff=prev&oldid=121629375 Talk:Nadine Gordimer for the same posting. But, btw, I've never heard that standards are looser on a talk page for one's own userID. The talk pages are wikipedia conversation about the user; I see no reason why we are freer to have personal attacks and be uncivil on those pages. The talk pages are not our personal property. --lquilter 18:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

About the talk page, 70 wasn't hurling insults as a substitute for explaining "what is wrong with an edit and how to fix it." Nor did he threaten anyone, post personal details, or make legal threats. His rhetorical hyperbole, however ill-advised, fails the test. He shouldn't even be blocked. Yakuman (数え役満) 18:53, 10 April 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)

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)

Request for Mediation (Nadine Gordimer)

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Nadine Gordimer. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Attacks in the article User talk:Lquilter/NG7023history

Please do not make personal attacks as you did at User talk:Lquilter/NG7023history. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Yakuman (数え役満) 09:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that was created as an attack page. Since mediation was refused the logical next step is either a user-RfC or a RfArb. That page appears to be evidence for such a case and not intended as an attack. However if Lquilter isn't planning any such action it'd be best to retire the page. -Will Beback · † · 09:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A record of events is not an attack page. Whether or not an RfC or an RfArb eventuates, it seems to me entirely legitimate to keep such a record, and also seems to me to be in the spirit of Wikipedia's transparency. FNMF 09:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on it. I admit I took a few hours off to work on non-wikipedia stuff, eat, and sleep. <g> It's a lengthy history, so it will take a while. --lquilter 12:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gordimer and policy

Hi. I've taken a strong line over the last few hours in relation to the BLP, NOR, and NPOV violations at the Gordimer entry. As a consequence the entry has been blocked for a week by user Durova (who did not take a position on the dispute). If you read through the section "BLP and notability" on the Gordimer talk page, you will see how I understand the policy issues. It is my belief that, having established the violations, it is up to editors to insist on enforcing policy correctly. I thus do not favour mediation, in particular given the lengthy history of the dispute. I have also referred the entry to the BLP noticeboard. I hope you will examine my arguments, find them convincing, and support enforcement of policy at this entry. FNMF 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I really liked your approach, and am glad you referred it to BLP; John Broughton had referred me to BLP earlier but I didn't understand, and you've made it very clear. Thanks. --lquilter 12:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Glad you liked by approach. Please see my comment here. Thanks. FNMF 13:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: the cheetah is the fastest land animal. This is a fact, but you wouldn't mention it the Gordimer article. Why not? Because it is not notable in relation to the subject of the entry. Whether something is a fact or not is not what determines whether it should be included in an entry or not. Notability in relation to the subject is what determines that. And for BLP entries, where controversy is involved, it is very important not to include facts unless there is sufficient supporting sources establishing the notability of the fact for the subject of the entry. Even facts that seem non-controversial, such as discussion of the crime situation in Johannesberg. It is because editors do not pay sufficient attention to this aspect of BLP policy that they wind up arguing about the wrong things with disruptive editors for months on end. I strongly urge adhering to this principle in order to resolve this problem. This will prove more effective than any mediation process, so long as editors enforce the policy. FNMF 14:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)