User:A Fellow Editor/sandbox/User conflict/archive

Century formats

Re: Alcohol laws of New Jersey. If you have a problem with centuries being spelled out (nineteenth and twentieth instead of 19th and 20th) you probably shouldn't have pointed to a policy (WP:CENTURY) that allows either form (in this case spelling it out) only requiring that usage be consistent. Claiming that the official title of a legislative act (TEA-21) that uses 21st (one mention that is not our writings and is something out of our control), is grounds for reverting 6 others in an article that is already "internally consistent" as you put it, that is disingenuous and some would consider it disruptive editing. If you have any further comments, raise it on the talk page. This is not a matter of ownership, it's just that these petty format issues (whether it be dates, centuries spelled or numbered, etc.) are aggravating and unnecessary, and it's audacity to insist upon it when your claims for it are baseless. This contact is a courtesy and will be my one and only time. If you continue to revert, this will become a matter for WP:ANI. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for saying this (#WP:OWNERSHIP_reminder), as if the above wasn't also proving the point. Daniel Case (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Case, you're most welcome. I appreciate the feedback. Finally getting around to responding to CH and found it nice to see an encouraging word. Feel free to read and respond to my following link as well.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 18:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding mySelf, User:ColonelHenry, and the Alcohol laws of New Jersey page

The above link started out as a cry for {{Help me}} and proceeded to morph from there. It's rough, verbose, and wanders at points, but on the plus side it's fairly thorough and should provide an idea of where I'm coming from and where I stand with plenty of room for some general brainstorming and specific response.

ColonelHenry I'd recomend a few even breaths before diving in, but fear not, my mood improves as it goes on. Not that it's that bad to start when compared to some. Definately warms as it goes though. It's a sort of map of a journey I suppose. I'll see if I can figure out that 'whisperback' template as per your page.

Your continued comments regarding ColonelHenry

It is neither necessary for you to answer questions directed to me on my talk page, nor to continue hounding CH who is blocked and either quietly considering his own options, or doing something more productive. It smacks of kicking a man when he's down to keep posting on his page that way, ensuring that every time he even looks at Wikipedia, he has another "you have new messages" alert to hound him. Please find something else to do. There are a multitude of other ways to contribute to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 03:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• "...you to answer questions directed to me on my talk page..."

I'd consider it [1] a statement of concern not a question but, moving past semantics, User:Newyorkbrad had made reference to his comment as part of what was essentially a public (many were weighing in) dialog on another page.[2] However, I have no objection to your having deleted my response. It's your talk page after all.

I thought my preamble was pretty clear[3] and would convey that I was unsure of protocol (once again, I'm fairly new to the inner working here at WP). Would it have been better to have posted to Newyorkbrad's talk page with a whisper back on yours so as to allow you to comment as well? Hmm, actually now that I think of it, it might have been best to have responded at #Comment as the statements being referenced were further up that page. Along with a whisperback to you, Kafziel, as a courtesy.

I was hoping you'd comment on whether the interpretation I offered[4] was anywhere 'close to home'. I suppose I should have asked explicitly. I was making an effort to be concise (which can be a challenge for me). Also, I was hoping that you might have an opinion on my thoughts about clearly demarcating instances of 'official' admin action[5] and perhaps even pass some ideas on to other admin's for consideration. Where would be a good/appropriate place to post those ideas?

---

• "...nor to continue hounding CH..."?

I'm a bit confused by your choice of "hounding"? I can see that this interjection might be construed as 'hounding', especially after CH pointed out my error. However, I swiftly ackowledged my mistake and even added an explicit apology less than an hour later. Otherwise, I don't know to what you are refering to. Following his block notice I made a single entry on his talk page encouraging him to reconsider his statements about leaving Wikipedia. As others had also done before me.

I'm fairly certain that all other direct communication between User:ColonelHenry and myself took place on pages in my own personal user space (much of it on a sub-page). And further, I'll note that the dialog was initiated by CH himself when he posted to my account's talk page. So once again I'm a bit confused about your using "continue[d] hounding". Please consider rephrasing (or perhaps retracting) it and/or explain further.

Ah, I was doing a bit of reading and found the 'WP:HAR' page within which I discovered 'Wikihounding'. I suspect you may have been using the term "hounding" in this context, as 'Wiki-speak', as opposed to a more colloquial use. And, yes, I can see now how my dogged persistence might be seen as flirting with 'WP:HOUND'. Sorry, I'm still learning the ropes around here. --Kevjonesin (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've now taken note of 'WP:CANVAS' as well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 23:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

---

• Some thoughts regarding "Please find something else to do":

"...a long editing history between the two of us... ...We've met in real life, I've helped him out many times along the way here... ...Because I consider him a friend."

The preceding quotes are obviously excerpted out of context (from here), but, all the same, it led me consider whether your earlier hesitancy to discipline ColonelHenry may have been influenced by some bias/conflict-of-interest. You seem (to me) to have a desire to sweep it all under the rug and see it go away. Understandable I supppose as bringing oneself to the point of disciplining someone one considers to be a friend is likely to cause dissonance and discomfort. I'd like to suggest, however, that withdrawing yourself from the dialog might be an option to asking others to withdraw. After bringing the affair to the attention of a neutral admin of course.

[Note: Upon rereading, the preceding paragraph it struck me as heavy handed/accusatory in tone. And frankly contrived and 'pissy' for the most part. Apologies for that. I by no means wish to imply that you had any ill intent. You've seem to have been striving to do well in both action and intent. --Kevjonesin (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)]

I have yet to come across any instance in which ColonelHenry has offered anyone an explicit apology or even indicated that his conflicts with others may be due, in part, to his own actions. One would think that receiving two block notices in three days might inspire some introspection but it would seem that introspection is an area in which CH is particularily challenged. Failing to note the irony in complaining about others making reverts while he himself was making reverts 'willy-nilly' would make a good example. When I saw that he had used the word "hypocrites" in his initial response to being blocked[6] for 3RR I almost laughed out loud.

Respectively,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

p.s. I actually thought I was 'done with it' (issues surrounding ColonelHenry) just before you blocked him. But events and commentary which folllowed recaptured my attention. Taking an active interest has taught me/allowed me to discover much about Wikipedia. (And, as a bonus, a bit more about humanity and myself as well. : } )

I nearly let the attitudes of entrenched editors scare me off a few times and have since come across statements asserting that alienation of new editors is a reoccurring issue at WP. But as for myself, I'm glad to have stuck it out. I love Wikipedia.

p.p.s. How do I activate/implement a 'table of contents' section on my/this talk page? [Found WP:TOC]

Oh, and once again, thank you for your time and attention, Kafziel, --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

p.p.p.s...

"The fact that evil gets its own article while good is a disambiguation page... ...just might say something about the world."[7]

Made me wanna' laugh as well (and maybe cry a bit too). Quite poignant. : } --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW (For What It's Worth), or A few notes for the casual reader regarding the previous subsections.

Drama and embroglio can be unsightly and may leave taint and tarnish upon all involved. I can't say I'm pleased that some of the first items on my talk page deal with a muddied muddle. But I choose to let them stand for now as they may serve as a reference to myself and others.

I want to note for both those who may read them in the future and for those who've been actively following, or involved, with editorial and user issues which were discussed within that I'm fairly new to active editing (going beyond fixing typos) and that before receiving User:ColonelHenry's message above I'd only directly interacted with two other Wikipedians.

User:Huon helped me (via Wikipedia IRC) to look into page issues surrounding a heavily linked name redirect which had been converted into an article page with a different usage of the title term. And User:CactusWriter (via his talk page) helped me recover a page I'd accidently flagged for removal (I'd intended to remove a draft).

Let's just say that having the first direct message on my talk page (one which wasn't an auto renderered template) conclude by introducing me to the term "WP:ANI" rattled me a bit. And it certainly didn't help that ColonelHenry had been slipping ad hominem remarks into his edit summaries on the ALONJ page moments before posting on this one.

Looking back and knowing what I do now I think that I may have been overly concerned, but at the time... well, the phrase "Toto we're not in Kansas anymore" comes to mind.

Had ColonelHenry also chosen to cite "WP:3RR" in addition to "WP:ANI" so that I had some idea of why reverts might become an administrative concern I imagine that, while still concerned, I'd have been much less inclined to be spooked as I'd have been dealing with a known hazard with defined boundaries rather than an unkown murky threat.

Anyway, as I've documented previously, after taking a look through previous entries on associated pages I concluded that I might be dealing with active hostility and proceeded to seek advice from others before returning to the comment.

A silver lining in all this, for me, is that I am now much more informed and experienced about resources and guidelines available for Wikipedia editors and have had the privelege to come across a variety of new people and their associated views.

A bit of an adventure.

Thanks goes out to all who've been patient with my bold baby steps and a general be well to all!

:  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

egalitarian process vs. editorial content

I find cause for concern in that established members of the editorial community were recently offering commiseration to a blocked editor for his plight without also addressing the fact that the editor's infractions (and attitude) had led to his predicament. Well meant attempts to smooth ruffled feathers may be construed as coddling or endorsement when presented in isolation.

I'm left with the impression that it's 'ok' (acceptable) to be a wp:dick as long as you provide plenty of content and rub elbows in the proper circles. That quantity of past contribution will trump presently professed ideals.

If questing for perfectly consistent accuracy and style takes priority over the ideals of consensus based open collaboration why not simply do away with the open community model and form a strict hierarchal bureaucracy and be done with it? (Of course many such already exist and one would be competing with established organizations)... Please pardon my rhetorical rambling. On to a metaphor...

Personally, I'd rather recieve a tasty organic peach with a bit of mud on it and and perhaps even an organic worm inside over a pristine mass produced mechanically washed possibly wax sealed mega-grocery bio-sculpure which tastes like cardboard. While apparently a perfect model of form and symmetry, it may well contain a plethora of questionable farm chemicals and have a dubious genetic history.

For me, one of the advantages of the muddy organic one with the risk of a worm is that the obvious bit of mud reminds me to wash it myself— who really knows where that mega store peach has been on it's convoluted journey and/or who it's been fraternizing with? —and reminds me to pay attention while I'm eating it, to excersise my own discernment. And if I do find I've eaten a worm, well, at least it was an organic one. Better surprise protein than carcinogenic poison, IMHO.

At times when I've been exploring a topic on Wikipedia, following links from one article to another, I've found that two articles making reference to the same event will clearly have a different editorial bias. I'm not talking about blatant inappropriate spin, just simpler things like the choice of what to mention and where to go into depth. I find this to be one of Wikipedia's strengths because it reminds me that everything is written with particular points of view (i.e. by diverse humans) and that all should be tempered by my own knowledge and experience. Subject to a few grains of salt and a bit of scrutiny. A great boon I've received from Wikipedia is that I'm now much better at remembering to question most anything I read. To scrutinze a bit for editorial bias and covert agendas. I believe Wikipedia has made me a better reader.

Sincerely,

--Kevjonesin (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Reflection I

Sorry, Kafziel, looking back at my long response to a short (fairly mild rebuke) it strikes me that I was still feeling rather defensive. As I've expresssed, I had felt threatended when pounced on by another editor and seem to have slipped easily back into a threat/defense paradigm when rebuked by you. Trust is an issue here I think. I certailny was disinclined to trust the other editor after reviewing their recent history, but perhaps overly so. I may have given to much consideration to his recent conflicts with others and hence lost sight that my personal interraction intially involved a small sampling and likely, while justifying scrutiny, may not have justified strong conclusions. That my conclusions (WP:DICK basically) were confirmed may well have involved an element of self fulfilling prophecy.

Trust with the process, with the Wikipedia community in general, is at issue as well as I have limited experience at this point. I was traipsing along as a blissful little edit monkey when suddenly out of the blue I received a swat and a growl from a cantankerous WP:Gorilla [note: I made that up off the cuff but decided to run it through a wikisearch incase it was a pre-existing WikiFauna. Low and behold I discovered Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils] --a cantankerous ape. I think it was the first time I'd ever had an edit questioned and the person doing so had blatantly indicated (in their edit summary) that they were not assuming good faith. I much prefer to be corrected than rebuked. Getting scolded when I meant well pushes my buttons and, sorry to say, blood flow begins to divert from my forebrain and work it's way back towards the brain stem (i.e. fight-or-flight mechanisms start to kick in). Getting scolded without an explaination exasperates this further. [Hmm, it comes to mind that we'd both come to the editorial pages at that time initially to address some recent (blatant) vandalism. I suspect we were both 'primed' accordingly.]

The hesitancy of many peers to plainly tell the offending user "You're being rude. Play nice." led me to be unsure of the environment/culture as well. Not that I've been a complete angel. Looking back I detect a bit of cageyness, if nothing else.

--Kevjonesin (talk)

Reflection II

Are the highfalutin' quality standards of an article so threatened by how a few dates get rendered that it justifies throwing out the standards of process? As the other editor kept offering me responses referring to the content I fear that I failed to convey to him that my issue was not, at it's core with his content, but with his process. Using aggressive and insulting language conveyed to me a possessive attitude of unquestionable authority and a unilateral viewpoint.

Sadly from what I've seen from most of those responding to his getting blocked— [and the accompanying "ooh, I'm leaving forever" dramatics (I took it as a cry for attention. He seems, to me, to have overextended himself in his attempt to live up to the honor/privilege of working on a TFA and was left wanting). If he was really 'through with it' he'd have simply stopped posting. That he feels compelled to make a dramatic 'exit' seems to imply that more is at play. Is there a 'have a cookie' barnstar?] —anyway, I digress... From what I've seen in comments from most who've offered responses a Machiavellian attitude seems to prevail. That the quality/quantity of a users editing overrides shortcomings in said user's interactions, said user's approach to others. No wonder I've been coming across references to a shrinking editorial pool and alienation of new editors. I don't see how one can maintain broad and diverse input while maintaining a de facto privileged 'old boy/girl' network, an empowered mutual admiration society circle jerking itself into extinction. Not saying things have progressed (fully) to that point at present, but the concern is there and the language was fun to render. :  }. 'I don't want to be part of any revolution where you're not allowed to dance.' Was that Abbie Hoffman who said that? I'm probably paraphrasing, regardless...

I realize that the other editor was eventually reprimanded (blocked) and admonished by an admin but the hesitancy to do so and the lack of a strong admonishment/rebuke before it came to that concerns me. And how others in responses afterwards seemed ready to overlook the fact that infractions had actually incurred. Instead of "Poor thing, I feel ya'.", something like "You're a really good editor and we'd hate to lose you. Please, give some thought to how you address and affect others so that we can welcome you back into the fold/let you get back to work". It seems to me that unless the editor is able to grasp that he himself had contributed to his plight the cycle will be per-ordained to repeat itself in some form. I think it would be productive for peers and authorities (admins) to suggest alternate ways of handling things to him (and me for that matter) which might avoid conflict in the future.

Once again, I'm fairly new to this process/community and am expounding from limited experience. And I feel that it is important/useful to do so. To share some ideas and impressions before I myself become fully acculturated. Because alienation of new users has repeatedly been expressed as a primary concern regarding the Wikipedia project both internally and externally I feel that my very inexperience may give me something to offer.

As for myself, I now realize that if I'd gone to the article talk page for discussion in response to my edit being snappily reverted rather than adding an enhanced edit summary and reverting the revert things may have played out differently. And if the edit summary on the revert which overturned my edit hadn't contained a petty rebuke I'd most likely have done so. I'll note that I did post a general reminder on the talk page for all to keep WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:AGF in mind. Another revert (with another rude edit summary) was quickly followed by a post to my personal user_talk page, rather than the article's, which introduced WP:ANI into what had seemed a fairly innoccuos edit conflict. At this point I concluded that while the edit may have been fairly innocuous, the other editor might not be and proceeded to seek advice from others.

I may have placed too much weight on the other editor's past conflicts with others. In retrospect, I suppose I could have tried once more to turn the other cheek-- I'd only been slapped three times at this point and had one in reserve --and tried to both make a case for my edit and address his language in a response to his message. But as one of the accusations another had raised against him had been 'WP:HAR' stalking activity I felt I was out of my depth and chose to seek guidance instead.

--Kevjonesin (talk)

I'll likely clear most of the above within a few days.

A great deal of it seems to have evolved into self reflection and writing exercises. Much redundancy and rough draftness along with some insights and food for thought. At present I think some parts are more unsightly than informative. Some generalized questions may arise to be addressed later in other venues. It's likely unaproachably extensive to many and at this point unecessary. We'll see. May well be a few gems and enlightening fossils in the coal heap when re-addressed at some later point.

archived to a sub-page is likely the way to go. Not a very useful or attractive 'talk' page at present. Mostly me talking to myself at present. :  }

--Kevjonesin (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking Back

What no one seemed to be grasping was that I wasn't all that concerned as to how a date was displayed in an article, and I didn't have an interest in seeing User:ColonelHenry blocked— admonished yes, but blocked no.

I simply wanted an apology (from ColonelHenry) and some clarification of Wikipedia guidelines and culture (in general). He need not have apologised to me specifically. An offer of something indicating that he understood that his actions and communication affect others (and the response he receives from them) would likely have sufficed. A show of empathy and/or consideration.

It may be worth noting that rather than rather than offering an apology or indicating any understanding of personal responsibility— beyond "I have been pissed this week" which seems more an attempt at justification)[8] —ColonelHenry has posted an advance notice to his user page to advise other's in advance that he feels it his prerogative to respond as a WP:DICK whenever he sees fit. Or so it reads to me. Judge for yourself. In his own words— "[ColonHenry] can become an asshole quickly". --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)