User talk:Lobsterthermidor/Discussion

Discussion between SilkTork and Lobsterthermidor

Good morning, SilkTork, I'm logged on and ready to start the discussion.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Good morning User:Lobsterthermidor. (Edit conflict - I started this earlier, then was briefly called away)

This is a continuation of discussions between User:SilkTork and User:Lobsterthermidor that are mainly on User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 58 and User_talk:Lobsterthermidor#Talk:Manor_of_...._and_general_Descent_concerns. To summarise what we have so far. You have an interest in "notable historic estates", and have been editing in that area on Wikipedia for over ten years. During that time there have been a number of disputes with other editors regarding some of the material (text mostly) you've been putting on Wikipedia. The disputes have revolved around the appropriateness of the material in terms of the length and content, interpretation of sourcing (WP:Original research and WP:Synth), notability, where to put the material, and what to name it. There was a discussion in 2013 (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements/Archive_3#Manorial_histories) in which you agreed not to insert lengthy and detailed manorial/estate history into village or otherwise related articles, but to include an appropriate summary, and if more detail is warranted due to the notability of the topic, then a stand alone article on the manor/estate history could be created.

We first met on Tottenham House, and then later on Manor of Tottenham, Wiltshire - the discussions are at Talk:Tottenham_House. I was made aware by several editors of the editing disputes you have been involved in, and - having glanced at your contributions (I recall seeing a Good Article, though can't find that now - was I mistaken?) - I felt that you were a productive and enthusiastic editor who had much to offer Wikipedia, but were currently in dissonance with some of our procedures and guidelines, and so felt it would be helpful to discuss with you ways in which you could contribute in harmony with the community. We have made progress, but it has been slow and patchy. This discussion today is to hopefully enable better progress and clearer understanding. SilkTork (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

My first question for you is regarding your recent comment to me: "I do not consider myself to be a disruptive editor". In my experience no disruptive editor considers themselves disruptive. And that includes me when I started and I was disruptive. I felt I was the one who was right and that everyone else was wrong. No productive user is deliberately disruptive. Only vandals are deliberately disruptive, and they are soon blocked. Those who are disruptive are being disruptive largely because they are unaware they are disruptive. Would you agree that you have come into dispute/disagreement with other editors? SilkTork (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not looking for detail, just a simple yes or no. SilkTork (talk) 10:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I think I have a very good record on wikipedia, only one 3RR violation in 9 years, about 630 subtantial articles created, thousands of great images uploaded to commons, and a low edit revert rate by other users. This particular topic has involved me in some disputes, the purpose of this discussion is I hope to find a way forward so we can create a guideline for writing about descent material that everybody will be happy with. I hope we can proceed in that direction.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes. However, it would help us both if you followed the direction I take and trust me, so just bear with me on this. You acknowledge there have been disputes. Have these disputes inhibited or disrupted your editing of Wikipedia? SilkTork (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I can stretch this discussion to 12.30, after which I have other things I must do. Remaining focused on this page will assist both of us to make progress on this discussion. SilkTork (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry SilkTork, you threw me somewhat of a curve ball there, had to give my response some thought. I was hoping to be discussing finding a way forward so we can create a guideline for writing about descent material that everybody will be happy with. I hope we can proceed in that direction. Maybe it would be helpful if we could agree a brief formal agenda for the purpose of this discussion? It seems to have taken a very sudden and heavy legalistic turn. If that is your intention, that discussion might best be held elsewhere in a more formal setting. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

You are diverting. This is, I note, a tendency you have, and we can perhaps discuss why you do that at a later date. But for now I want to make some progress here. What I am hoping to do is raise your awareness of the issues so we can both come at this with more understanding. You have potential to be a very useful and trouble free contributor, but in order to do that we need to make some progress here. There is nothing legal about what the community do on Wikipedia. We are a self-governing community which makes its own rules. The only legal entity here is WMF, and they are not involved in this at all! Please, just answer the questions so we can move on. SilkTork (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

To refocus us, I'll repeat the question for you: Have these disputes [with other editors] inhibited or disrupted your editing of Wikipedia? SilkTork (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork, I was called to this discussion with the purpose of finding a way forward regarding writing about descent material, so I assumed in good faith. The word is discussion. Not interrogation. I will be happy to respond to such legalistic questions in the appropriate setting, if that's what you wish to do. I wish for this discussion not to be diverted from the topic I assumed to be on the agenda to a quasi-disciplinary hearing, so I am not diverting, far from it, I'm keeping it on track. Please let's establish a brief formal agenda else I think we may both be wasting our time.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We have been working toward a solution, but as we have been doing so it has become apparent that part of the issue is that you don't see that there is an issue, and what I want is for you to have have more empathy with the community, and a little more understanding of how things work here. Doing that will help in us making progress. That you feel that you are not a disruptive editor is a significant part of the issue. That you want to ignore that you are disruptive is at the heart of this. That you have a dispute with Wikipedia's procedures is not unusual. We all encounter that at various points in our engagement with Wikipedia. When we get into a dispute, someone points out the procedures, and we accept that and move on. Where you differ, and fall into the camp of the disruptive editor, is that your editing dispute has been going on for ten years, and you are still not aware of it. Now, that dispute will cease either when you take steps to fit in with Wikipedia's procedures, or you are inhibited formally by the community from editing in a manner that is disruptive. I have opted to take the course of helping you take steps to fit in with Wikipedia's procedures. The other route is to take this to AN/I. The issue, though, is quite subtle and complex, and I'm not sure that the community would wish to take the time to find an appropriate editing solution, so the most likely outcome would be a topic ban. I am doing this discussion to help you, not to inhibit you. I have said that a number of times. I do have a reputation on Wikipedia for being an honest and fair person. People trust me. I have twice been elected to ArbCom, and have also been appointed a Bureaucrat - see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. I am not the sort of person to trick you. What I am aiming to do with the conflict question is to allow you to see that the editing dispute inhibits you, and then to make you aware that in the way that the dispute inhibits and disrupts your editing, your own editing inhibits and disrupts others. The aim was to get you to gain some understanding that ignoring consensus and ignoring agreements and doing your own thing impacts others in the same way that you would feel you are being inhibited. Does that make sense? SilkTork (talk) 11:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

We are running out of time here. Just to let you know - not as a threat, but for transparency - that if this talk breaks down, that I will be consulting with those users you have been in conflict with in order to get information on your editing, and what steps have been taken to bring your editing in line with consensus. And if appropriate I will take the matter to AN/I. I know you feel uncomfortable when I talk in that way, but that is my responsibility as an admin. I am not your enemy, but nor am I your friend. I am an experienced and neutral admin trying to resolve this issue. My preference (which would be the community's and WMF's preference) is that we together find a solution. But what I can't do, if a solution can't be found, is just walk away and ignore it. Your insertion of largely original research and unreadably dense material not in line with Wikipedia's guidelines cannot continue. Either we find a way for you to do it appropriately, or we must stop you from doing it by using sanctions. SilkTork (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

SilkTork, a lot of that makes sense. I think my record's good over 10 years. I'm not perfect, always trying to improve. The 10 year dispute you mention is with one user the history of which is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818, section 41(31 October 2013 - 9 November 2013). When he was admonished at the conclusion, he privately approached the admin concerned and asked him to "please level things up a bit" and pleaded that he had an unblemished track record. We were both told "The consensus appears to be that you should both go away, act your age, leave one another alone and get on with editing". I can't be blamed for a one-sided 10 year dispute - I followed the advice of Kim Dent Brown to the letter, still am doing so today, but the other party did not, so on his part the dispute has continued (only last week he criticised my Latin grammar on King's Langley, totally absurd and obsessive), and he's expert in roping in others as proxies. That's where the real disruption is coming from, in my opinion. My work is well sourced, what is "largely original research", you can't just throw out such broad accusations without expecting me to have my say. What are you referring to?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

What I have been trying to impress upon you is that in order to make realistic progress (not simply paper over the cracks, but to actually solve the issue) is for you to first of all accept that your attitude and behaviour is a significant part of the problem. Once we have addressed that we can make progress. Move away from any thoughts that I am making you out to be a bad person, or trying to trick you into a confession that will lead to you being hanged at dawn. Wikipedia is a tricky place to work in. Most people make mistakes. I have made mistakes. Making mistakes is not seen as a problem. It is the refusal to accept you are making mistakes that leads to conflict. See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You are again shifting away from responsibility from the mistakes you have been making for ten years, and are blaming others. I am not here to talk to you because you are not making mistakes. I am here because you ARE making mistakes, and my aim and intention is to stop you making those mistakes so that you can edit in harmony with the community.

I initially thought that we could talk about the best way forward for what you wanted to do, and how best to fit your aims into Wikipedia. But as we went on, I could see that you were resisting suggestions, bringing out complaints about Wikipedia, missing the point, not responding for days, avoiding the questions when you did respond, going off at a tangent, presenting me with dense walls of text, etc. You are still doing it now. But I would still prefer to work with you than see you sanctioned. That's because I don't think you are a bad person, and I think you have much to offer Wikipedia. But for this discussion to work the first step is for you to acknowledge that there have been problems, and that at the very least some of these problems have been because of what YOU are doing, rather than entirely because others are being vindictive.

As an example. You pinged me on my talkpage. I let you know that there was no need. You accepted that, and learned something. This is what happens on Wikipedia. The formatting is complex and we all make mistakes, and we all help each other out. Job done. But if you had ignored me and continued to ping me on my talkpage, and then ping other people on their talkpage, and people told you that you didn't need to do that, but you carried on anyway, then there would be an issue. That only one person decides to persevere in getting you to stop pinging people on their talkpages does not negate that pinging people on their talkpages is not what we do. I am just using the pinging as a random example of the point I want to make. The example itself doesn't matter. It's the point that I hope you will focus on. The point is that you are not always editing in line with our guidelines, and despite being told about it, you continue to do so.

I do hope you will reflect on this. SilkTork (talk) 09:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reflected on the discussion we had yesterday and why it went wrong. I think it is largely my fault. I had called the discussion, but I hadn't prepared the ground or set up the expectations. I then went straight in on what appeared to be an attack. My tone was clipped and could be said to have been hostile or even aggressive - pushing you into a corner. I can see now that I made mistakes. I apologise for that. SilkTork (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

By the way, have you read this: SOME NOTES ON MANORS & MANORIAL HISTORY by A. Hamilton Thompson. Looks useful. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I really appreciate that SilkTork, you are a big man. There are right and wrong ways of informing people of their errors. I think you've got it right. Unfortunately when one is subjected to a 10-year barrage of endless criticism from one very determined, forceful and senior person concerning full stops in the wrong place to Latin grammar, to ..... well you name it he's done it, one soon realises it's due to personal animosity and unhealthy obsession, not to helping to build wikipedia, and one switches off and simply stops reading the endless vicious comments which keep popping up on one's talk page. Eventually I had to mute (or attempt to do so). He then switched to using proxies to continue his endless battle against me.

This factor has made my entire wp career very difficult, here is the real disruption to wp, in my opinion. You can see how he tries to blow up minor issues (King's Langley) into full disciplinary matters, by roping in other people (you), by building up dossiers, etc. He always "strikes while the iron is hot" - so when I'm involved in any editorial dispute (actually quite rare for me) he'll jump in and fan the flames (look at Manor of Knightshayes). That is disruptive behaviour. Why has he received no sanctions? Why have all my complaints met with stony silence? (not quite true you did helpfully suggest to him that he should not post on my talk page, much appreciated). You might possibly respond that I'm trying to divert, I'm just telling you how it looks from where I stand. And again stating my point of view for the record. He was told to quit it in 2013, having apologised to me on my talk page for his behaviour he followed that advice for about 6 months then started again, twice as virulently. I have stuck to the advice.

I appreciate that you have your own concerns about my work, as you have expressed, and I'm not trying to say that you're being manipulated, I expect that would be a hard task, so I want to resolve your concerns in a productive manner. OK so that's my "full mug of murky brown tea" moment with you - you asked for it!

As for SOME NOTES ON MANORS & MANORIAL HISTORY by A. Hamilton Thompson, thanks for digging that up, it does look fascinating, maybe it can play a role in finding a way forward - but possibly it's mainly about manorial rolls and the administration of a manor. If this can return to a productive discussion about how best to fit this topic into wikipedia, that's something I want to contribute to. As far as I see it depends on 1: agreeing that the topic is noteworthy and appropriate; 2: criteria for notability/inclusion; 3: name of article; 4: tipping point when text needs to be split-out from article on village into own article, etc. I think we need a formal agenda to deal with each issue separately. But nothing can progress until q.1 is answered. I'm still not sure of your position on that.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Lobsterthermidor. I am aware of the animosity between yourself and SmallJim. These things happen on Wikipedia. What I have asked you both to do is to refrain from making personal attacks on each other as that will divert and distort discussions. Factual comments are acceptable - evidence of edits that you feel have impeded you, but statements such as "personal animosity and unhealthy obsession" are unnecessarily personal. Annoyance at what others do is really quite common on Wikipedia. I experience it as well. What I tend to do is type out my anger and frustration, but not post it. I then edit it down so it becomes neutral, and the post it. Sometimes, having typed out my rage, and spent some time editing it down, I don't bother posting it because I have got it out of my system. I recommend you do the same. Take this as a low key friendly warning. If the comments had been stronger I would have given you a formal warning. Let's not go down that route. I'll re-engage with the discussion shortly. SilkTork (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2020 (UTC)