Talk:Southern California InFocus

Protected

In response to an apparent edit-war and a request on WP:RFPP, I've protected the article for 4 days. Please use the time to discuss the dispute here on the talk page and try to reach consensus. If there's agreement on the issues before the 4 days are up, you can request un-protection at WP:RFPP. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, here is what Sloat wrote in his request, "protect. Edit warring, esp. drive-by reverts by users who refuse to participate in discussion or whose participation is limited to cryptic non-sequiturs. csloat 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)". I would like to note that I find the above comment to misrepresent the process on this talk page. Bigglove^talk 01:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, his characterization is patent nonsense. Also, he put in his request just after edit-warring to his preferred version and then he and the IP editor cause disruption on another page. Mea culpa though, I shouldn't have mentioned the other article. <<-armon->> 02:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that I protected the page does not endorse his summary as being correct in any way; it just means that I felt that protection was an appropriate remedy. Similarly, the "wrong version" is always the one protected. It's not permanent, and there's no deadline. If you can't reach consensus and the protection expires, then it might be appropriate to pursue the steps listed in dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 02:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong at all, even if I do happen to think it's the wrong version ;). <<-armon->> 03:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Neither version is right or wrong. There is one version that contains information that violates WP:V, and there is another that does not. (2) Calling into question motives here is entirely inappropriate (and I will remind both Bigglove and Armon that they brought RfC against me for that very action). I wish they would stop. My only motive is to keep these articles accurate and encyclopedic. (3) Calling my comments patent nonsense is an unnecessary insult that does not belong here. I think my comments fairly captured what was going on here. (4) Hopefully, the protection will help bring editors to the discussion that have been edit-warring in a drive-by manner. If you are not responding to arguments in talk, you should not be reverting. csloat 04:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you yourself (sloat) refused to participate in meaninful discussion on the talk page and thereby created the situation where out of frustration several other editors reverted to another version. You say above, "If you are not responding to arguments in talk, you should not be reverting". Well, that is EXACTLY WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING!!!! I find your complaint above to be completely hypocritical. Armon's calling it "patent nonsense" may not be the most civil characterization in the world, but unfortunately I have to say that I find it accurate. I also find it really bizarre that you would call this a personal attack, because you have said above that this kind of statement, (when you yourself have made it), is NOT a personal attack. In another set of mischaracterizations, Armon above has made a statement of fact concerning your edit history; you did one thing (revert to your preferred version) and then you did somethig else (ask for page protection). This is not really the same as questioning your motives. He also had had nothing to with bringing the RFC against you. Please consider dropping this pattern of mischaracterization and going back to answer the questions posed to you in all of the discussions above in a thoughtful collaborative manner. This will allow us to move on. Bigglove^talk 12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Stop yelling at me. (2) What argument have I not answered? I have been participating in talk. (3) How is my argument patent nonsense? You are wrong about that as I have established. (4) Armon was a party to the RfC because I had insulted him too, and I rightfully and unconditionally apologized to both of you. It would be great if you guys would apologize just once for the heaps of abuse you have launched at me, for no apparent reason. (5) What question have I not answered? Perhaps you missed my participation in the conversation above. Just do a search for "csloat" and you will find my contributions. csloat 16:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for the caps, but they convey my high levels of exasperation and I have come by that quite honestly. Armon signed the rfc, but he did not "bring" it as you said he did above. So did many others who did not "bring" the RFC. Neither of us have abused you. As for your participation, you have certainly written something back in response to every comment, but mainly to dismiss, deny, and restate. We are all very clear on what you think should be in the article, but there is no evidence that you've heard anyone else's opinion. Bigglove^talk 21:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Both you and Armon have been extremely abusive towards me in this conversation on this page. I am sorry you are exasperated but I think if we maintain civility of discussion we may be able to see each others' points of view more clearly and perhaps reach some kind of stability on this page. You say that I have only written back to "dismiss, deny, and restate." In fact, I have written back to explain and refute -- explaining (sometimes to the point of tedium) when you ask questions or don't understand the argument, and refuting where you have made arguments in response to my arguments. I apologize for being dismissive -- perhaps I went too far by saying your arguments lacked substance. But I feel that I have substantively refuted every argument that you made, and that we still have at least six reasons why this ADL material should not be on the page. csloat 21:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would invite you to show examples of abuse or stop claiming that it has happened. I'm taking a few days off for the beginning of ramadan now, take care. Bigglove^talk 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have given you examples and you ignored them; I don't see the point of giving you more - I don't want to talk about your behavior; I want to talk about the issues. So let's try to stick to that when you come back. csloat 00:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, you have amply demonstrated you DO want to talk about behavior by (frivilously) accusing me of abusing you above in this section. I invite you to file a conduct RFC. It will take some work. YOu need to give examples, tie them to policy, show evidence that you've tried to resolve, etc. It would probably be instructive for you to go through this process. Bigglove^talk 00:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, my statements were not frivolous. I have given you examples, and you ignored them. I am not interested in wikilawyering, and I resent your invitation to do so. I am interested in improving this article. If you are not interested in that, please stop holding up progress on this page. Thanks. csloat 02:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Page protection is supposed to facilitate discourse on the talk page. I think it is best if we use the opportunity to discuss the issue here rather than wait until it is unprotected so we can start edit warring again. I'm particularly interested in whether we can move past the current impasse. csloat 16:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, and there has been no discourse. Editors wishing to add this material simply ran out the clock on the protection. Tsk, tsk. -- 146.115.58.152 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)