Talk:Juan Cole/Archive 13

message: A user  who has never participated on this page before reverted my last changes with the summary "Cole's response too long".  Here is the relevant edit.  First, he lengthened a quote by Stephen Smith that I had shortened because it seemed to ramble and add nothing to the Yale discussion.  Can anyone see any reason to keep that part of the quote in?  I don't see the point of non-notable speculation about the "contents of Cole's mind" that doesn't even specify what the author thinks those contents are.  Teens! edit summary certainly doesn't address this change at all and it looks like he was just reverting me in order to do so.  
The second change - I had included more of Cole's response to Karsh.  I think the whole quote should be included rather than a bad paraphrase.  Simply saying Cole dismissed karsh's comments as "propaganda techniques" only tells half the story.  He called them scurrilous, and we should not hide that fact.  I also included the sentence "No serious person who knows me or my work would credit his outrageous insinuations for a moment."  The sentence is accurate and in no way defamatory.  Can someone tell me why this was removed?  "Cole's response too long" is not an explanation -- this is a page about Cole. csloat 20:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On closer inspection, I note that the user in question recently removed comments from his talk page that indicated a history of trolling specifically by "altering pages with the intent to start edit wars." csloat 20:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean this user did what you did here, and here, and here and here, and here? Am I the only one that finds your comment just a tad hypocritical? Isarig 20:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck are you talking about?  He can remove whatever he wants fromn his talk page but I was simply pointing out that he was trolling.  Calm down Isarig and stop personally attacking me.  It's annoying. csloat 22:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not attacked you. Seriously, you need to review WP:NPA as you have no idea what a personal attack is. Isarig 22:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was at least an ad hominem attack, as you were insinuating that csloat's comment be taken less seriously due to an unrelated issue with his character (that he is "disingenuous"). Chris Cunningham 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was indeed an attack on his comment, which was hypocritical, and in my opinion, should not be taken seriously. It is as much an ad hominem attacks as sloat's comment that   is a troll, and thus should not be taken seriously. That, however, is not a personal attack, and contrary to your claim, says absolutely nothing about his character. Perhaps you, too, should take a look at WP:NPA, which makes that distinction quite clear. Isarig 15:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means that between choosing to (1) discuss why sloat was wrong and (2) engage in an ad hominem attack, you chose the second. Unless you were disagreeing with him and suggesting that Teens! is a credible user, which it doesn't seem you were doing, it means you were interested in furthering a subject that does call his character into question but doesn't immediately relate to the content of the article. If this goes to arbitration it will be because of the adversarial behavior like that above, which only complicates and inflames everyday content disputes. Abbenm 16:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where csloat has actually made arguments, I've responded to them at length, as a cursory examination of this Talk page shows. In this instance, he was not making an argument, but engaging in an ad hominem attack on another user, in a hypocritical manner, and I responded in kind. For some reason you don't see his diruptive behavior here, and on the mediation page,  as adversarial. Isarig 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  I wouldn't call this an everyday content dispute: it's a sustained and co-ordinated effort to skew topical articles by gaming a system which requires the assumption of good faith. Arbitration can't come fast enough. Chris Cunningham 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When you are done reading WP:NPA, please review WP:AGF  as well. Isarig 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I said, "gaming the system". The attempts to hide behind procedure (in particular the petulance of simply pointing at a policy page instead of making an effort to indicate where it is being contravened) are as transparent as they are cynical. WP:AGF states in bold: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Arbitration can't come quick enough around here. Chris Cunningham 20:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since you insist on being spoonfed, here you go: WP:NPA clearly says "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions". Additionaly, it says "when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack."  I described his actions, said nothing of his character. WP:NPA is not that long, and those sentences are not hidden in small print. I gave you good advice - familiarize yourself with the relevant policies, and be aware that your own flagrant disregard for WP:AGF is likely to feature prominently in the arbitration you are pushing for. Isarig 20:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Your change is fine, I don't know what the deal is with this Teens! person either, probably a random troll. - Merzbow 20:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm going to AGF and apologize. But you must understand our reticence here... usually when a new account comes along and makes a major edit in the midst of a complex and on-going controversy, suspicions get raised. I do agree with your statement that accusations/responses should be roughly balanced. - Merzbow 21:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree with that statement.  Sometimes there is more evidence in the response than the accusation.  In such cases, if WP imposes "balance" by censoring one side, as happened in this case, then WP is both taking a side and stacking the deck.  That is extremely problematic, to say the least. csloat 12:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  last edit by "Teens!" 

message: All of this looks horrible. The persistent efforts to add gossipy reporting of arguments on weblogs to this article to the apparent neglect of more notable (in real terms, not current Web activity) information are turning this and other articles into wasteland. Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine. The claim that it is acceptable to include such chatter so long as it is adequately sourced is a bad-faith argument, as WP:RS does not state that adequate sourcing is the only criterion for inclusion, and WP:NPOV does not state that swiftboating is acceptable so long as refutations are given equal standing. Chris Cunningham 09:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cross-blog chatter