User talk:Christine Bush

'No complaints'

Regarding this: complaints about other project members are grounds for Constabulary intervention, but the Managing Editor's comments on a Council member's proposal are not a complaint about that person's conduct. John Stephenson 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

   Thank you for your prompt explanation. My point, respectfully, is that Managing Editor did not comment on a proposal---he editorialized about a draft. There is a meaningful difference. Put simply, a proposal becomes a proposal when it is proposed, at such time as it is delivered to Managing Editor, and the Council, in the Forum and published as such.

   No. Managing Editor has NOT commented on a Council Member's proposal---he found a draft in a user's namespace and wrote a preemptive editorial in an effort to squash it. He wrote: "I call your attention to a draft proposal, by Christine Bush..." There is no attribution of my role as Author Representative in his editorial. It is inconsistent, if not unfair, to apply one standard of conduct when I have the courtesy to address someone by role, and another to them while they fail to do so.

   Managing Editor has overreached. He has entirely bypassed the courtesy of commenting and gone straight to making a calculated effort to censor. This sets a chilling precedent that Constabulary should consider carefully. I would be satisfied if Managing Editor were cautioned by Constabulary against continuing this trend. We have so many more important things to do than draft and debate proposals to further restrain the activities of the Managing Editor. Christine Bush 00:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As you have approached the Chief Constable over this, I'll leave a final decision to him. John Stephenson 11:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that the managing Editor said nothing that I read as a personal attack, so don't see a case for the constabulary. He may or may not have been unwise in what he said or how he said it, he may have been better advised to stand back for a while, or he may have been wise to let it be known that this issue is one that has been extensively debated in the past. Since I am often unwise it would be unmise of me to be too judgemental about the wisdom of others. I understand why you are irritated, the only balm I can suggest is that you take your irritation as an unfortunate and unintended byproduct of a post that was meant to be informative and certainly not meant to be offensive, even if perhaps it didn't quite come across that way.

For the record, my personal views on pseudonyms (as given to Larry) were that they should be allowed (to authors, obviously not editors) under exceptional circumstances at the discretion of the Managing Editor (then Larry). I believe that that was in fact the policy that Larry adopted but in practice nobody applied for an exception (as far as I know). (There was one in particular with what seemed to me to be cast iron reasons for wanting a pseudonym, but he didn't pursue his application beyond an initial enquiry). I thought and probably still think that real names demand respect, while pseudonyms seem often to invite disrespect. Maybe I was a bit too optimistic about the former and a bit too jaded (from Wikipedia) about the latter. :-)Gareth Leng 20:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Archives of this page

Archive 1 (2014-10-21)