User talk:Christine Bush

'No complaints'

Regarding this: complaints about other project members are grounds for Constabulary intervention, but the Managing Editor's comments on a Council member's proposal are not a complaint about that person's conduct. John Stephenson 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

   Thank you for your prompt explanation. My point, respectfully, is that Managing Editor did not comment on a proposal---he editorialized about a draft. There is a meaningful difference. Put simply, a proposal becomes a proposal when it is proposed, at such time as it is delivered to Managing Editor, and the Council, in the Forum and published as such.

   No. Managing Editor has NOT commented on a Council Member's proposal---he found a draft in a user's namespace and wrote a preemptive editorial in an effort to squash it. He wrote: "I call your attention to a draft proposal, by Christine Bush..." There is no attribution of my role as Author Representative in his editorial. It is inconsistent, if not unfair, to apply one standard of conduct when I have the courtesy to address someone by role, and another to them while they fail to do so.

   Managing Editor has overreached. He has entirely bypassed the courtesy of commenting and gone straight to making a calculated effort to censor. This sets a chilling precedent that Constabulary should consider carefully. I would be satisfied if Managing Editor were cautioned by Constabulary against continuing this trend. We have so many more important things to do than draft and debate proposals to further restrain the activities of the Managing Editor. Christine Bush 00:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As you have approached the Chief Constable over this, I'll leave a final decision to him. John Stephenson 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the managing Editor said nothing that I read as a personal attack, so don't see a case for the constabulary. He may or may not have been unwise in what he said or how he said it, he may have been better advised to stand back for a while, or he may have been wise to let it be known that this issue is one that has been extensively debated in the past. Since I am often unwise it would be unwise of me to be too judgemental about the wisdom of others. I understand why you are irritated, the only balm I can suggest is that you take your irritation as an unfortunate and unintended byproduct of a post that was meant to be informative and certainly not meant to be offensive, even if perhaps it didn't quite come across that way.

My personal views on pseudonyms (as given to Larry) were that they should be allowed (to authors, obviously not editors) under exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the Managing Editor (then Larry). I believe that that was the policy that Larry adopted but nobody applied for an exception (as far as I know). (There was one with what seemed to be cast iron reasons for wanting a pseudonym, but he didn't pursue his application beyond an initial enquiry). I thought and probably still think that real names demand respect, while pseudonyms seem often to invite disrespect. Maybe I was a bit too optimistic about the former and a bit too jaded (from Wikipedia) about the latter. :-)Gareth Leng 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I am responding here at the request of Christine because her comment concerning the Managing Editor on the forum page was commented out by the constabulary while the Managing Editor's less than favorable characterization of work that she was performing in her user space was left unaltered. To her, this appears as a double standard, and more importantly, an abuse of power and an effort to spoil the pot before it was brought to a boil.

As the Chief Constable, I can only speak to the use of the nocomplaints template. As far as I can tell, John's explanation was well reasoned and according to our guidelines, especially since the fora have been moved to the wiki where the constabulary has more responsibility to keep the environment civil. It is important to note that templates were never meant to alter content discussions--just to keep them civil. I encourage everyone involved to continue to discuss issues that elicit a passionate response, because these subjects are no doubt important enough to care about. But, check your weapons at the door and use your best arguments to make your point lest your position be weakened by your inability to practically defend it.

Keep up the good work everybody. D. Matt Innis 02:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

unsolicited comment: For what its worth, I support Christine on this issue, and flag ME's preemptive overreach into author space.Claus Bruentrup 08:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your collective feedback.

A failure to distinguish between thinking critically and complaining is about the most damning failure of a knowledge compendium project I can imagine.

Additional comments regarding this topic are welcome from anyone. Christine Bush 18:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Archives of this page

Archive 1 (2014-10-21)