Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Midge Potts

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why I am disagreeing for now[edit]

The reason I am disagreeing is because of the inaccurate and insulting portrayal of both what the Manual of Style states and my position on the issue:

One side says Potts should be called a she, per the Manual of Style, and how Potts is referred to,while the other side says Potts should be called a he, because Potts hasn't officially undergone a sex-change or taken "official" hormones.

The WP:Manual of Style immediately states:

Let's pay attention to some of those Wikilinked words:

  • guideline: "less rigid rules of thumb that are generally accepted by consensus to apply in many cases"

WP:MOS and specifically WP:ID are not rigid policy (though others have tried to falsely portray them as such, even going so far as arguing that alleged wide consensus makes something equal to policy).

  • common sense: "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule."

Common sense says that Potts is a man. He has the genitalia of a man and the hormones of a man (if his obvious 5-o'clock shadow is evidence of anything). Basing pronoun usage on what he "self-identifies" as in his head and/or on superficial things like clothes, hair style and make-up is not common sense. His thoughts do not change his body anymore than David Koresh's thoughts changed him into Jesus Christ.

  • occasional exception: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it."

Ignoring the non-policy MOS is not a mortal sin (as some would try to have us believe).

  • consensus: "When there are disagreements, they are resolved through polite discussion and negotiation on talk pages, in an attempt to develop a neutral point of view which everybody can agree upon."

So what the heck does an editor do when an attempt is made to reach consensus, but no one responds to that attempt in a week or more? Exactly how long must an editor wait for others to respond before making changes to articles? Is a week not long enough? Is there some official policy or even a widely agreed upon guideline to cover that? It's blatantly obvious that others must have been aware of my posts to the talk page for this article since when I eventually made my edits, other editors suddenly came out of the woodwork and the edits were quickly reverted with no meaningful discussion (i.e. lame, policy-ignoring arguments about consensus being reached "months ago").

Finally, the quotation marks around "official" is insultingly inaccurate. The word I used was "unproven," which is completely factual and accurate when it comes to the FDA's official position on herbal medicines (see here for an example). Jinxmchue 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of thing sounds like exactly the reason to undergo mediation, to me. SamBC(talk) 23:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. We've been unable to reach a consensus through "polite conversation" on the article talk page. And ignoring rules has gotten people banned, so lets not go there. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's weak. Have a page that tells people that they can ignore the rules in certain circumstances, yet ban people for ignoring the rules. Jinxmchue 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's kind of hard to proceed with said mediation when it starts out with erroneous information. Jinxmchue 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any misrepresentation. Guidelines have exceptions to a greater extent than policies, but those exceptions must be based on a consensus. Guidelines give points that can be ignored where there is consensus to do so, but there is no specific consensus needed to follow the guideline. Do you believe there is a consensus to make an exception to the MoS in this case? SamBC(talk) 00:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked, double-checked and triple-checked both WP:Use common sense and WP:Ignore all rules and I don't see any mention of anything to do with them being based on consensus. Is it just invisible to me? Jinxmchue 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you think its erronious, replace what I put your side of the story to what you want for your side of the story. Otherwise, the page is going to stay locked for quite a while... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start the request. I shouldn't have to correct it. Jinxmchue 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it."
Jinx is directly ignoring a guideline in order to explicitly not work with others. Citing WP:IGNORE to push an agenda is a form of disruptive editing. He does not seem interested in improving Wikipedia, but more in aggressively countering a perceived bias and pushing his own agenda.--ZayZayEM 04:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I'm dignifying this with a response of its own, but see below. Jinxmchue 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jinx's refusal means no mediation, so back to the drawing board... SamBC(talk) 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Jinxmchue 14:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I gave you an out[edit]

Did I not say I was disagreeing for now and then spelled out why? That should've clued you in as to what to do to get me to change my disagreement to agreement. Instead, you continued to misrepresent my position and make up wild reasons (violating WP:AGF) of why I disagreed (see Zay's ridiculous comment just above). Why should I agree to anything if (1) you're going to start out by misrepresenting my position and (2) after I explain why I'm temporarily disagreeing, people misrepresent my motivations? It seems AGF and NPA only apply to me (while the rest of you can hide behind SPADE). Jinxmchue 14:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, someone said "just edit the representation of your side of the argument", which you were free to do. SamBC(talk) 14:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't start the process, so it's not my responsibility to get the statement of my position right. Not that it matters anymore. I'm through with all this. Jinxmchue 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want your side to be told as you want it, then its your responsibility. Otherwise, I could be biased towards you. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF is a "behavioural guideline". And it is not indefinite. I ahve extended good faith to you more than others have only to have it thrown back in my face (Re:Ann Coulter vs PZ Myers[1]). Replying to extensions of good faith with sarcasm and hostility is teh best way to lose it. Rather than addressing my accusations and explaining why they are wrong, you just belittle it as "ridiculous". You are pushing WP:IGNORE as an excuse to evade consensus, this contrary to the outline of WP:IGNORE guideline. --ZayZayEM 04:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Midge_Potts&oldid=1137451123"