Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Brahma Kumaris/Evidence

Sethie[edit]

If all other users are being asked to be engaged then Sethie should also be called as they are making entire page revisions and influencing the page, I believe, outside of their area of speciality. 195.82.106.244 12:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asked to be engaged? I am single and plan on staying so. Outside the area of my speciality? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Making "entire page revisions"- well- tell only half the story if you want to.... you know full well the reverts I did were in accordance with the agreement we came up with on the talk page.

My concern right now is not with the article, but with trying to create an atmposphere in which we can work on the article. I have made no significant changes to the article, minus a revert in alignment with the talk page. Sethie 17:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That revert did in my opinion not foster an atmosphere in which we can work on the article. Andries 19:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. I sought to dialogue with you on the talk page and you didn't respond to my questions or thoughts. Hence, I don't understand what you are hoping to accomplish by engaging in dialogue about it here? Sethie 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sethie,

I am concerned with your the trivial "Asked to be engaged?" approach to this arbitration and believe that you should remove your posting in Andres evidence as it would seem inappropriate and in the wrong place. Now, if you are not going to take these proceeding serious than please recuse yourself at this juncture. I will be submitting my evidence and I do not want any comments that only serve to make fun/ridicule the process as you have done with Andies.

It is true that I did not take the above "If all other users are being asked to be engaged then Sethie should also be called as they are making entire page revisions and influencing the page, I believe, outside of their area of speciality" seriously at all, because:

A) I have never heard the expression "asked to be engaged" to mean included in a project.

B) I have not made a single "entire page revision"- not even sure what that is.

C) I don't think I have made a single edit to the page, minus a revert in accordance with talk page guidelines, and wikifiying one word.

D) Even if I was participating how is "outside my area of speciality" an issue?

So I do not take the above statement serioulsy, at all. However, I do have high hopes for this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethie (talk • contribs)

Sethie's QUOTE in Andries evidence:

I'm honestly pretty surprised you would state this as evidence and not present the full story Andries.

Whether you agree with it or not, would you be willinig to include an explaination of why he took the approach of reverting it and using undisccused and no-concensus?

As far as not being willing to talk about it- yeah that's a different and actual relevant issue.Sethie23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)END QUOTE[reply]

TalkAbout 00:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for my post under Andries quote, it may be totally out of place. Maybe it is against the rules to post under someone else's posted evidence- if so, I was very much in error.

Regardless, Andries is VERY well aware of VERY SPECIFIC reasons why the user in question did the reverts that way. We as a page reached a consensus- no substantial edits without disucussing first. Andries knows this, yet, for some reason, chose to leave that out in his presentation of evidence. This means, he is being punitive to someone for following concensus we reached on the talk page!

It is the equivolent of accusing someone of murder and conveiently leaving out that oh yes, someone was charging towards them with a knife! Not in terms of the magnitude of the crime, but in terms of presenting a SERIOUSLY lopsided accusation.

If asking him to be really honest, not to present things in a very skewed way and really disclose the full facts is "to make fun/ridicule the process" then please count on more ridicule and making fun from me, not just here, but all over wikipedia.

If there is a specific policy that I violated by posting under Andries- please point it out.

Thank you for expressing your concerns.Sethie 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read through the pages and see that it is requested to not put edits under others evidence, so I will move my concerns. Sethie 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to hold the opinion that repeatedly removing new well-sourced non-substantial additions without making any comments on the quality of these new additions is disruptive behavior. May be you should all be blamed for making agreements that violate WP:OWN, not just Riveros. Andries 17:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree you hold the opinion- although you did not respond to my queries to discuss it on the talk page- you have stated it twice on this page and once on the other arbitration page.

I agree with you that the changes were not substantial. I posted this on the talk page. However, it is my understanding that neither your, nor my opinion is king.

I agree that non-discussing the reversions is not helpful. I just included that in my evidence.

I fail to see the usefulness in placing blame on anyone.... Regardless I still don't don't see why you would blame Riveros for a consensual decision?

You have affirmed multiple times the agreement we reached violates WP:OWN. Saying a thing, even with repitition, does not make it so, I have re-read WP:OWN and don't see our agreement as violating it- would you please express HOW it violates WP:OWN, from your perspective?Sethie 18:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the agreement violates Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Boldness Andries 18:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you think that. When I read WP:Editing policy-boldness, I see no mention that a talk-page can't create consensus on an issue. Would you please state exactly HOW you think it violate WP-EP-B?Sethie 20:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The agreement contradicts the following sentence from Wikipedia:editing policy "Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress. ". I think that an agreement that contradicts Wikipedia policies is a violation of WP:OWN. Andries 21:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down sport. I agree hole-heartidly that if an agreement contradicts widikpedia policies would be, well a violation of wikipedia policies.

However, I read that sentence, and now I am reading it again. And I am still not finding where this sentence says that a talk page cannot make an agreement to only allow substantial changes after consensus. Sethie 01:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The changes that I made were non-substantial which your admitted yourself [1], but they are reverted and reverted and reverted because they allegedly violate an agreement that all changes have to be discussed first. Andries 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to talk with you about whether they were non-substantial or not.... later.

Right now the topic is your belief that a consensual agreement violates one sentence in WP:OWN, "Virtually no one behaves as though previous authors need to be consulted before making changes; if we thought that, we would make little progress. " I am still waiting to hear how this is so.Sethie 15:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An encyclopedia can make no progress if well-sourced non-susbtantial new additions are repeatedly removed by a user (in this case Riveros) without making any comments on the quality of the new additions. I think I have made my point clear. Let the arbcom now decided if my evidence is convincing or not. Andries 17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have not made your point clear at all. In your last two responses you have tried to change the topic.

I am a ONE THING AT A TIME kind of guy. So if you are ready to drop your contention that the agreement violates wiki policies, I would be happy to discuss something else (like your claims of Non-substantial, and your claim that non-disucssion was an issue). However, I would like to complete this first.

If you wish to conceede you were wrong, that the concensus does not violate any Wiki policies, I will be happy to disucss the new subjects with you, once we finish this one. Sethie 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to hold the opinion that your or Riveros' interpretation of the agreement that non-substantial well-sourced new additions can be repeatedly reverted because the new additions are undiscussed violates Wikipedia policies. I do not think that much is to be gained from repeating my opinions on this matter. Andries 23:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you keep repeating your belief, that's true. And when I question the reasons why you think it is true (i.e. your evidence for your belief) you get silent or change the topic.... that is true... and now you think that I agree with Riveros' USE of the agreement. That's a new one!

So. It seems that you are dropping the contention that the AGREEMENT violates any wiki policies but how Riveros used it (and how you think I interpret it) does violate wiki policy? Is that the page we are on now?Sethie 15:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]