Link to Parent Page Here
Talk Page
This page is where differences in opinions about RocWiki pages are resolved, and notes are left from one contributor to another related to content.
Talk about the parent page:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2007-12-06 17:19:21 On 2007-12-06 10:33:33 badfish wrote "Phil — quit the sarcastic little comments following MissGia. You look like a jackass. —BadFish"
And you are what? missy's bitch? —MrPhil
2007-12-07 01:45:47 Re: Phil — I have not had the time to look through all of the comments he has made, so I cannot say whether or not he he has said anything way out of line. That said, I understand that many of MrPhil's comments are not entirely appropriate or contributing anything useful to the wiki, but if we police him than it only encourages him to take it further, and he also has not done anything completely out of line (from what I have seen; if you think he has, show me an example and I'll throw my two cents at it). The fact of the matter is, we had a rule that said not to edit or delete other people's comments and we broke that rule. I think that, beyond vulgarities, we should not break that rule. I think people who read the wiki are intelligent enough to decide for themselves what comments are or are not useful. Policing every little change is a road we do not want to go down. Let's keep the spirit of the wiki here. —StevenDibelius
2007-12-07 01:24:04 Re Phil — The problem is that the policy at the time said don't delete or edit other people's comments, and that policy was broken. The policy did not have a caveat saying if the comment is off topic you can delete it. At the time, it said:
One of the formerly "unspoken rules" of RocWiki is that each user's comments are their own. Nobody else should edit those comments. If you disagree with an opinion expressed in a comment, just add a comment with your own opinion. This of course implies that it is also inappropriate to edit other users' comments for grammar, spelling, etc. The only acceptable edit to someone else's comment is to "wikify" page names if another page was mentioned in the comment. This enhances the interconnectedness of the wiki. Malicious editing of other users' comments is potentially a bannable offense.
By the policy that was in place at the time, there was no excuse for deleting another user's comments. Perhaps we should consider changing the policy, but that's a separate issue from this specific incident because any policy change would occur after the incident. Personally, I feel that comments should pertain to the page they are on, but if that's going to be the policy then let's put it in place AND somehow notify all members of the community that policy has changed. —StevenDibelius
2007-12-07 09:51:39 Wow, bringing personal information out for an attack? I don't really have a side in this current drama, but that was pretty lame.
This community has some serious issues. —LanceReed
2007-12-07 10:35:13 FWIW pulling out personal information and work addresses in an attack is:
a) An abuse of priveleges, assumably you got that location from looking at IP information
b) Makes you no better then anyone else thats mounting attacks/trolling.
If these things are left alone they usually fizzle on their own, when a spotlight is put on it it just ignites the fire. Everyone just needs to drop it. —DarrenKemp
2007-12-07 10:45:51 Phil's work address is readily available on the website linked from his user page, but the rest of the information, even if it's available somewhere, is harder to find, and I think it was unnecessary to use any of that information in an attack. I found several of Phil's responses to be childish and rude, but there's no need for threats. Let's all try to calm down and settle disputes with civil discussion. At future meetings, hopefully we can revise some of the guidelines about wiki etiquette so that conflicts like this don't arise in the future. —RachelBlumenthal
2007-12-07 10:48:28 Good point, not an abuse of priveleges, but still unnecessary. —DarrenKemp
2007-12-07 10:51:19 Darren - Calm down. HE posted links to that info right here on Rocwiki. Everyone on this site has the same access as I do.
Rachel - There was no threat, just an offer to talk face to face. He tried to call me a bitch here so if he would like the opportunity to do it in person, no problem. —BadFish
2007-12-07 16:08:59 Badfish....it does come off as a threat when first read. Maybe you and he should address your issues privately off the Wiki to avoid any further misunderstandings? —PeteB
2007-12-07 17:46:31 on 2007-12-07 09:28:18 BadFish wrote
Don't try and weasel out of it Phil. You want to make snide comments hiding behind a keyboard? Would Pam be proud of that? What about Austin? Would you like your clients to see this or do you only represent criminals who would think it is funny? What do you think voters would say if you made another try at it? Maybe they knew you acted like this. I originally was going to ask you when I could stop by 72 Long Pond today to see if you wanted to try and call me a bitch to my face but I figure you would twist that into some sort of threat and call the police and claim to be the victim. If you want to try and take the same tone with me in person, let me know and I will call you to set up an appointment to come on over. . . .
My neighbors have my back. —MrPhil
2007-12-07 18:21:31 This thread with MrPhil needs to stop NOW. Just walk away. —DaveMahon
2007-12-07 20:14:25 I would like to re-iterate the point I made that I DO NOT intend on seeing MrPhil face to face without a willing invitation from him! If you don't understand anything else here, please understand that.
Late for dinner, gotta go. —BadFish
2007-12-08 00:50:07 At 2007-12-07 10:45:51 RachelBlumenthal said - "At future meetings, hopefully we can revise some of the guidelines about wiki etiquette so that conflicts like this don't arise in the future."
Just a thought, but I would think you'd want to discuss the fact that there's really no place for ad hominem here. Correct me if I'm wrong, but RocWiki is about information, not personal discussion, and especially not about one individual attacking or belittling another.
I think that if it was stated that ad hominem was against the acceptable use policy, there would not have been any issue regarding the removal of those comments and this wouldn't be happening now. —RichChiavaroli
2007-12-08 01:38:54 Could you clarify your latest comment to make it clear that you have no desire or intent to harm financially, socially, physically, mentally, emotionally, or otherwise, Phillip R Hurwitz or his friends and family and property thereof? And that, through no fault of your own or anybody else's, an otherwise valid editorial exchange escalated out of hand?
Thanks. —DaveMahon
2007-12-08 11:23:25 Thanks BadFish, i appreciate you saying something to Mr Phil. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be working because he still is seeming to follow me around here and make snide and off color comments. Just wanted to let you know it was noticed and appreciated. :o) —MissGia
2007-12-08 12:52:27 Snide and off-color remarks? Following you around? Good lord woman. Have you been to any good operas lately? —MrPhil
2007-12-08 15:20:53 Correct me if I'm wrong, but RocWiki is about information, not personal discussion, and especially not about one individual attacking or belittling another.
I think you're absolutely right. I don't know if a policy against ad hominem is the right solution, but this is a vitally important point. —RottenChester
