Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 992:
*I think that a week's block is rather excessive in this situation. Yes, Haiduc's edit summary was a personal attack, and a bad move. However, 1of3 provoked Haiduc by callling him a "boylove apologist" (the comment is clearly directed at Haiduc, the primary contributor to that article). 1of3 also completely failed to assume good faith (as can be seen in the discussion at [[Talk:Historical pederastic couples#The intro]]). I think that there's fault on both sides here, and the best thing would be for everyone involved to take a deep breath and try to engage politely. Yes, 1of3, you do have to discuss this with Haiduc and any other interested editors. Wikipedia is based on consensus, and it's all the more important on controversial topics that editors discuss major changes rather than edit warring.<br/>I think that Haiduc's block should either be removed or shortened to about 24 hours — that would seem more commensurate to the offence.<br/>'''Disclaimer:''' I have had past dealings with Haiduc at [[Homosexuality in ancient Greece]] when that article was subject to disruptive editing and edit warring by a persistent problem editor. That editor eventually resorted to a death threat in an attempt to get his way, and was banned. During that (quite stressful) period, Haiduc maintained an even keel and behaved admirably. He also did a fine job providing reliable sources for that article as the problem editor demanded. Based on that experience, I would expect that Haiduc would work to improve [[Historical pederastic couples]] and resolve the NPOV concerns to everyone's satisfaction. It seems to me that 1of3's unilateral approach caused unnecessary drama and tension; I hope that the situation can be resolved without further name-calling or personal attacks from ''anyone''. —[[User:Josiah Rowe|Josiah Rowe]] <small>([[User talk:Josiah Rowe|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Josiah Rowe|contribs]])</small> 07:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
**I've also had a previous encounter with Haiduc and I get the impression that he can be difficult to deal with. Nevertheless, he seems to be a predominantly good contributor (seeing his history) - I agree with you on that. [[User:The way, the truth, and the light|The way, the truth, and the light]] 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
**I take exception to this accusation that I directed any sort of comment at Haiduc. When I said, "I'm not going to be arguing ... with 'boylove' apologists," Haiduc hadn't yet reverted me. At that point he hadn't edited any of the article since my first edit to it, so how was I supposed to know that he was a major let alone the primary contributor? I didn't even know that he was until I read the above comments just now. The two editors who had reverted me at the point I made the "boylove" comment were [[User:Welland R]] and [[User:The Wikipedist]], and without regard to any motives that people might impugn upon me, I was certainly not calling either of ''them'' boylove apologists. As should be abundantly clear from the sentence structure ("I'm not going to be arguing the merits of something that so obviously brings the project into disrepute, especially not with 'boylove' apologists.") the only people I thought might be the apologists were the people who wrote the terribly biased introduction to that article. It is no secret that pedophile activists have in the past knowingly collaborated to bias pertinent Wikipedia articles. Must my assumption of good faith be so broad as to forget everything I know about those incidents and deny that they may ever repeat
Looks like Haiduc lost his temper in any already heated dispute (1of3 was hardly saintly in his use of edit summaries) - it happens. The comment was totally out of line but it was however a first block so I think a week is rather harsh. I agree that 24 hours would seem appropriate. <span style="font-family: Verdana">[[User:WJBscribe|'''WjB''']][[User talk:WJBscribe|scribe]]</span> 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
| |||