User talk:Chrisobyrne
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Mediation
I'm still in the process of figuring out what Wikipedia is (after the Comet Halley debacle). I'm reading things in Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset like "be bold in your edits", "Ignore all rules if it discourages you from improving Wikipedia" and "Verifyability" which confirm to me that my actions were correct, and "Assume good faith", "Be liberal in what you accept", as well as some astonishing POVs that you have about what an encyclopedia should be which suggest that your actions were incorrect. I'm guessing that the two of us are "done" in terms of trying to sort it out between us, so I'm considering mediation? Chrisobyrne 10:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Great. Mediation for what? —Wknight94 (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- On one side of the mediation would be me, and on the other side would be Wikipedia and/or you (I'm not sure - that would have to be decided in the mediation). Basically, I'm still quite shocked over some of the assertions you (a Wikipedia administrator) made in the talk page on the comet, and I totally disagree with some of your actions, and I want to tease out the question of just how representative of Wikipedia your assertions and actions were. If they were representative of Wikipedia and what it is about, then it's between me and Wikipedia. If they weren't, then it's between me and you (and possibly you and Wikipedia). In either case, my guess is that mediation is necessary at this point in time. Chrisobyrne 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- And what would you want done on your side of the mediation? For the record, I've done nothing admin-related on that page. Duja (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) performed the only admin-related action there. If you want to contest the move, bring it up with xyr. You'll want to read over WP:NC and the relevant subpage(s) if you want to be heard well by xyr. If you want to discuss the policies and guidelines in general, go to WP:VPP. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- What I would want done on my side of the mediation would be that I would want what I consider to be your abusive editorial behaviour to stop. Your behaviour, and the bizarre beliefs behind it, has left me reluctant not only to correct the article on the comet, but also to contribute to any article anywhere. I'm not interested (in this instance) in contesting the move. As for policies and guidelines - I need to know just how representative your beliefs and behaviour are of wikipedia before I can even figure out what (if anything) it is about wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I would like to contest. Chrisobyrne 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The "abusive editorial behaviour" I assume you're referring to is the single edit I've made to that single article?! I'm not even going to respond to that. Go ahead and change "North Korea" to "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" throughout that article and see how well that goes over. And I'll be interested to see how well your argument holds up at WP:VPP. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- As for North Korea / DPRK, partly as a result of your behaviour, I've decided that for the time being I will not engage in any more editing (you will be glad to hear, I suspect). And yes, I consider totally obliterating someone elses contribution while they are busily gathering together citations for a fact tag that was added only thirty two f*cking minutes beforehand, thereby forcing them to have to enter into a revert war, to be abusive. Chrisobyrne 20:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- The "abusive editorial behaviour" I assume you're referring to is the single edit I've made to that single article?! I'm not even going to respond to that. Go ahead and change "North Korea" to "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" throughout that article and see how well that goes over. And I'll be interested to see how well your argument holds up at WP:VPP. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- What I would want done on my side of the mediation would be that I would want what I consider to be your abusive editorial behaviour to stop. Your behaviour, and the bizarre beliefs behind it, has left me reluctant not only to correct the article on the comet, but also to contribute to any article anywhere. I'm not interested (in this instance) in contesting the move. As for policies and guidelines - I need to know just how representative your beliefs and behaviour are of wikipedia before I can even figure out what (if anything) it is about wikipedia's policies and guidelines that I would like to contest. Chrisobyrne 16:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- And what would you want done on your side of the mediation? For the record, I've done nothing admin-related on that page. Duja (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights) performed the only admin-related action there. If you want to contest the move, bring it up with xyr. You'll want to read over WP:NC and the relevant subpage(s) if you want to be heard well by xyr. If you want to discuss the policies and guidelines in general, go to WP:VPP. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- On one side of the mediation would be me, and on the other side would be Wikipedia and/or you (I'm not sure - that would have to be decided in the mediation). Basically, I'm still quite shocked over some of the assertions you (a Wikipedia administrator) made in the talk page on the comet, and I totally disagree with some of your actions, and I want to tease out the question of just how representative of Wikipedia your assertions and actions were. If they were representative of Wikipedia and what it is about, then it's between me and Wikipedia. If they weren't, then it's between me and you (and possibly you and Wikipedia). In either case, my guess is that mediation is necessary at this point in time. Chrisobyrne 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm just after reading the edit summary you added when you made your last comment above, namely "abusive editorial behavior"?! Yes, now we're done...". So I presume we are now both in agreement that we're done, and that this now needs to go to mediation? Because I am not going to enter into an edit/revert war with you (or anyone else) on the Comet Halley page, and I think it is quite clear what your views are about what a Wikipedian may and may not say about the naming of this object, and that you are very willing to use "force" to support those views. Chrisobyrne 10:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I want the outcome to be regarding the content on the page. I want the beginning of the article to announce the comet as "Halley", and give its designation as "1P/Halley". Because the name "Halley's" is in such common usage, the very next sentence should mention "Halley's", and mention that it is a name that astronomers officially do not use. Because the issue isn't a simple one, I guess that sentence should say "see below for more information", which would be duly provided. Then, the rest of the article should be change so as to not use the officially unused name for the comet (ie "Halley's") - EXCEPT when the name "Halley's" appears in the context of a quotation from someone who actually used that name (eg Homer Simpson talking about "the time that Halley's Comet hit the moon"). Acceptable? Chrisobyrne 11:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- If you start a poll for this matter on Talk:Halley's Comet and announce the poll on the appropriate WP:RFC page (WP:RFC/SCI I suppose) and wherever else seems sensible; and you get a quorum and consensus for the change, then you're good to go as far as I'm concerned.
- As far as your previous posting here, esp. your belief about my use of "force", those are your words, not mine. All I've done is a one-time revert to Halley's Comet to remove changes that I believe are consistent with neither Wikipedia guidelines nor community opinion. I've done nothing more than an anonymous user could have done so I don't know how "force" has entered into the issue - but those types of quantum leaps in reasoning are what have caused me to stop discussing this with you. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'm well aware of your beliefs, and I find it extremely difficult to believe that they are reflective of community opinion. They certainly go against any conception of the meaning of "encyclopedia" that this community member can fathom. As for the word "force", I was referring to my belief that if I were to correct the article, you would revert my changes. So whereas the word "force" may not be an appropriate description, it sounds like my prediction of your response is correct. Chrisobyrne 13:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm taking you up on your "RFC" suggestion. Chrisobyrne 14:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I suggested you take the argument to Talk:Halley's Comet where the general community would be more likely to see it. The question is whether your astronomer/physics-focused naming convention should take precedence over that of the general world view - why would you take it only to a physics-focused Wikiproject? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- This issue must surely affect far more than just this comet, and I suspect that scientific (and probably geographic) articles are most likely to suffer the effects. Maybe you are correct in that it should also be taken to a geographic-focused wikiproject. Now that I think about it, chemistry-related articles probably also suffer naming-related issues. In any case, a lively discussion has started on the wikiproject, which I think can only be a good thing. Chrisobyrne 19:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
