Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jamesdennis

This RfC has been withdrawn because Jamesdennis has responded to the requests of the person making it, so the underlying dispute has been resolved. betsythedevine (talk) 20:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC).

Jamesdennis (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Jamesdennis started and has continued to escalate a series of attacks on User:Betsythedevine, who edits Wikipedia under her own identity. When User:MarkBernstein very politely asked him to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, he proceeded to insult Mark Bernstein as well. Meanwhile he denies being uncivil, denies making personal attacks, and accuses others of attacking him.

Desired outcome

Unfair allegations that Jamesdennis made on Talk:Dave Winer and on his own talk page should be removed.

In more detail, I posted the following to JamesDennis on his talk page. betsythedevine (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I filed the RfC to seek the removal of false claims, made by you about me, now enshrined in Wikipedia. I am not defending Dave Winer's reputation, I am defending my own reputation as an editor of integrity. If you look at the RfC in question, the only remedy I am seeking is to have your false claims about me removed. False claims:

1) If you want to say that you believe my friendship with Dave means I have a conflict of interest, that is fine with me. You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to express your opinion as a self-evident truth that I should ashamed to ignore, when the talk page history makes it clear that others who edit the biography considered the friendship and the potential conflict of interest at length in 2007 and agreed a) that the degree of friendship does not constitute a conflict of interest, b) that my edits have been constructive and fair, and c) that my future edits there were welcome if they were good ones. I have been editing the page occasionally, not frequently, in the light of others' agreement that I was welcome. You are entitled to disagree, but you are not entitled to try to shame me for abiding by the judgment of people I trust and respect. Expressions like "if you had any integrity at all" come to mind.

2) That I made "dubious" edits "without discussion" or "without proposing them on the talk page." The two edits you object to were both proposed on the talk page. They were non-controversial with others who have this article on their watchlist. When I removed the lawsuit material, one day after proposing it on the talk page; nobody objected to my edit until you showed up more than a month later. In contrast, when you re-added the lawsuit material, two different people who have the article on their watchlist showed up within six hours to disagree with your reasoning and with that edit.

3) That I made an "absurd claim" that Dave Winer's blogging of his own lawsuit is "secondhand hearsay." I made no such claim. The word "gossip" which I used has a much more common meaning than the one you chose--I used "gossip" to mean "trivial scandal-mongering." Furthermore, I used the word to emphasize the material's inappropriateness in Wikipedia, not to describe its appearance in Dave's blog. Furthermore, all the conclusions you drew about my irrationality and prejudice from my making the "absurd claim" that I never made--

4) That I am upset only because you "challenged" my edit and "pointed out" my friendship with Winer. See 1, 2, and 3 above.

5) That my filing an RfC justifies your belief that I am devoted to Dave Winer's reputation. This RfC is not about Dave Winer's reputation, it is about my own.

An RfC is not a wall of shame. It is a way of trying to resolve a conflict. The conflict here is that you have been working to damage my reputation as a Wikipedia contributor with integrity, a reputation that is tied to my own real name. I tried to resolve this one by posting my own responses and explanations to the false claims you made about me. But this did not work, because each time you just follow up with denials and/or new allegations, for example that I am laying a groundwork to get you banned from Wikipedia. Can we resolve this conflict and get back to some more constructive editing? betsythedevine (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing this RfC now, since Jamesdennis has removed his complaints as I asked and in general behaved in a generous way by apologizing for the misconception that I was removing longtime material from the bio. I hope that Jamesdennis and I will now work collaboratively together to make Wikipedia articles better. I am not sure how to end this RfC, but I think that first I will add this comment and then I will blank the page. If anyone thought worse of Jamesdennis after reading my comments here, please don't continue to do so. My intention was not to call him a bad person, and I am sure he working sincerely to improve Wikipedia. Misunderstandings can happen to anyone. betsythedevine (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Description

According to WP:BLP, anybody can remove poorly-sourced negative material from anybody else's biography. At some point a few years ago, somebody added a paragraph to the bio Dave Winer about Dave Winer's former lawyer having sued him. The case was settled. No big deal, either way. But in August, 2008 I noticed that the only source for the lawsuit given was Dave Winer's blog. I tried to find some better source to cite for it, but I couldn't find any. I did find a snarky Valleywag blurb whose only source was also that blog. It seemed to me that this was pretty non-notable if no real news media had paid attention. So I asked for feedback on the talk page, didn't get any, and then removed the material. Nobody commented on my comment or on my edit at all. For more than a month.

This problem started on October 1, when Jamesdennis decided to put the lawsuit back in. On the talk page, instead of defending his edit on its own merits, he indulged in wild speculation about my motivation for removing it, asking rhetorically if I had secret conversations with Winer about it and asserting that I'm "far, far too close" to be allowed to edit the bio. In his edit summary he alleged that I had made my edit "without discussion."

(In parentheses: My friendship with Dave Winer back when he lived in Cambridge, MA in 2003 - 2004 has taken on a zombie life of its own in the archives of Wikipedia talk pages and EyeOnWiner-type sources. I have not even talked to Dave for more than a year. I do consider him a friend, in the sense that I like him and if he came to the Boston area I would enjoy having lunch with him. I don't think most people would consider that 'far, far too close.' " (In fact, the consensus in 2007 among other editors on Dave Winer was that the degree of our friendship is not a conflict of interest and that my edits have been appropriate.) )

I asked him to stop attacking me, but he just ratcheted up his attacks both on the Dave Winer talk page and even more so on his own talk page.

User:MarkBernstein very civilly asked him to "assume good faith and strive for -- if not harmony -- at least civility." [1] Instead, he started being uncivil to Mark Bernstein.

Jamesdennis doesn't seem to listen to what people are complaining about. Instead he claims that people are attacking him by asking him to stop attacking them.

Even in his response, Jamesdennis continues to claim that the only issue is his "challenge" of my friendship with Dave Winer. Not so. I am complaining about his repeated false statements and misleading innuendo.

He falsely claimed that I made two different edits (replacing a photo, removing sentence about a lawsuit) without raising them on the talk page. In both cases, page histories show I proposed and explained the edits before I made them. In both cases, the consensus of page editors other than Jamedennis was that my edits were appropriate. But he keeps making the same false claim again and again: "The fact that a five-year friend of Dave Winer makes questionable edits to his page without proposing them on the talk page is relevant information."

He repeatedly scolded me for an "absurd" claim I never made. I described the lawsuit material in the bio as "gossip", meaning that it was trivial, snarky scandal-mongering. The "absurd" claim which he finally condescended to clarify was a claim I never made -- that material in Dave's blog is "secondhand hearsay." The meaning he chooses to assign to "gossip" is not even one of the top five definitions in FreeDictionary.[2] But not only does he rudely exhort me to "Look up the word", he builds on his own misinterpretation of what I said as an example of my "highly misleading" effort to justify dubious edits.

After being corrected on his original wildly overstated guesses about my friendship with Dave Winer "far, far too close", he shifts his ground to harp on my "five years" of friendship. His repeated claim that I "frequently" edit Winer's biography "to protect his reputation" are not supported by page histories. Any edits I have made to the bio have received normal Wikipedia scrutiny from other editors, often (but not always) being discussed on the talk page before I make them. It is unfair and misleading to complain about my making "questionable" or "dubious" edits when every one of my edits has stood up to scrutiny from other editors here. It is unfair and misleading to accuse me of editing in defiance of COI issues, when the COI issue was discussed on the talk page and editorial consensus in 2007 was that I could continue editing here. betsythedevine (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior

[3] On October 1, Jamesdennis added material about a trivial lawsuit that received no attention from notable media, with the summary "Reinstated lawsuit reference removed without discussion by one of Dave's personal friends." This edit summary misstates both the motivation and the process of my edit way back in August. The material was not notable and not sourced, as I explained in the talk page section [4] which I created one day before making the edit I was proposing. [5]. No "discussion" ensued because that edit was uncontroversial -- until October 1, when Jamesdennis showed up to object to it.
Within six hours after this edit by Jamedennis, two other editors besides me expressed consensus that the lawsuit material was non-notable [6]. Another six hours later, I re-removed it [7] with an edit summary "Re-remove non-notable lawsuit based on consensus of three editors on talk page." Jamesdennis characterizes this edit as "I did try to correct it; you reverted my edit within hours" [8]
In a comment on that talk-page section, [9] , Jamesdennis made extravagant speculations about my (greatly exaggerated) closeness to Dave Winer: "Did he ask you to remove this information? Has he made comments to you about the Wikipedia page? You should back off and let neutral people edit it. You're far, far too close to the subject."
[10] Taking his allegations to a different section fo the Dave Winer talk page: "it's worth pointing out that Betsythedevine is one of Dave Winer's friends and she frequently edits unflattering information out of his page here to protect his reputation." Betsy says: The flaw in this logic is that unflattering and inappropriate material gets added to many Wikipedia bios, including Dave Winer's. If people were adding inappropriately flattering stuff, I'd remove that as well.
[11] "You've acknowledged that Dave Winer has been your personal friend for five years. Your edits to his bio have often shown questionable judgment, in my opinion. If you genuinely believe in NPOV, it's time to back off this page, post your advice on the Talk Page and let neutral people decide whether to implement your suggestions." (Betsy says: The consensus of other editors doesn't agree with him.]
[12] Jamesdennis to Mark Bernstein: "Pointing out Betsy Devine's conflict of interest is neither incivil nor a personal attack. The fact that a five-year friend of Dave Winer makes questionable edits to his page without proposing them on the talk page is relevant information. I have contributed in the manner prescribed by this site, using this talk page, and have not engaged in a revert war. As for the lawsuit, you do not understand what occurred. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Winer&diff=prev&oldid=242561156] James Dennis to Mark Bernstein: "Why do you persist in mischaracterizing the lawsuit? First you said that the lawsuit was just "preliminary steps," and now you suggest that court hearings never took place. Both are false."
[13] (Edit summary: Last word on Betsy Devine's conflict of interest.) "Now that I've read more of your absurd rationalizations for your improper behavior, I can see it's a waste of time to engage you on these points. People like you are the reason Wikipedia has a lousy rep among casual editors. Of thousands of subjects you could be contributing on, you choose to edit your personal friend's biography page, coming up with expansive reasons to add positive edits and narrow reasons to allow negative ones. Who do you think you are fooling? No one with any integrity at all would be editing a friend's page in this manner. Any future posts you make on my Talk Page will be ignored."
[14] Jamesdennis replaces his talk page with "It's pointless for a casual editor of this site to challenge an active editor whose behavior is inappropriate. People who live on this site make all the rules, except when they need to break them. This is Reason No. 1 why Wikipedia is a joke. "

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Betsy Devine addresses Jamesdennis's claims on the Dave Winer talk page. [15]
Betsy Devine addresses Jamesdennis on his talk page, detailing the personal attacks she is objecting to and asking him to stop: [16]
Mark Bernstein asks him to "assume good faith and strive for -- if not harmony -- at least civility." [17]
Mark Bernstein clarifies his request: [18] "Discussing what you think is a COI is not uncivil, but repeatedly calling her opinions "absurd" might in some circles be seen as less than gracious. I'm not sure why you harp on her friendship, which she says amounts to four or five casual meetings over a course of some years. As to the court case, a complaint was filed, the parties met, and the complaint was withdrawn; the issue never got to court. A business asset was sold, the sellers initially disagreed over how the proceeds should be divided, and then ultimately did agree. No coverage in WSJ, NYTimes, Financial Times; no books, no academic papers address the subject. These things happen all the time: "dog bites man". Wouldn't our time and effort be better spent adding coverage of Winer's current R&D work, as betsythedevine suggested above, rather than rehashing this? "

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

Jamesdennis on the Dave Winer talk page: [19] "Betsy's most recent edit to this page has the summary "Stop attacking other editors." Her repeated characterizations of my comments as attacks are, in themselves, a personal attack. She's attempting to characterize me as a troll because I've pointed out her conflict of interest and objected to one of her edits here. I can only assume she's attempting to build a case for my removal from editing this site. If you go back over what I've said here, I've been fair. She has overreacted to my challenge to her actions -- a challenge that would happen to any personal friend who removed negative information from that friend's page on Wikipedia."
Jamesdennis on his own talk page: [20] "Now that I've read more of your absurd rationalizations for your improper behavior, I can see it's a waste of time to engage you on these points. People like you are the reason Wikipedia has a lousy rep among casual editors..." etc. etc.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

User:Betsythedevine User:MarkBernstein MarkBernstein (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

This disagreement was premised on a mistake on my part about Betsythedevine's edits to the [Dave Winer] page. If I had realized she was removing an unsourced and negative edit by an anonymous IP, I would not have complained on the talk page about her actions. I apologize for the misunderstanding, and apologize to Betsy for the harshness of my response. I should have viewed the logs instead of relying on my faulty recollection of what the page contained.

Users who endorse this summary:

Jamesdennis (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Incivility, assumption of bad faith, posting allegations including COI about users who edit under their real names.