User:Keithbob/Didn'tHearThat

I Didn't Hear That

Sometimes WillBeback's passion for his POV has prevented him from hearing what others are telling him

SPI Resolution

Despite ArbCom resolution on the TM SPI based on an analysis of editor behavior (see below), WillBeback seems to feel 'I didn't hear that" as he has submitted new 'evidence' (edit logs) of sock/meat puppetry. What this edit logs show is that the Fairfield editors have different lives and different real life schedules and edit at different times of the day. However, WillBeback, feels this is a sign of sock/meat puppetry.

March 7th Risker says: "After extensive review of checkuser data, contribution histories, editing patterns and (in some cases) the actual edits of certain users, we have found no evidence of sockpuppetry on the part of any of the parties involved in this case. With this in mind, I do not foresee any arbitrator proposals relating to sockpuppetry, restrictions of ISPs or IPs, or anything similar. We recognise that a significant amount of work went into gathering information relative to this issue amongst those who have participated in this case, but unfortunately that information will not be helpful in resolving this matter. [1]

March 10th WillBeback says: I have been informed by a Checkuser that some of the computers used by Fairfield TM editors have identical configurations. Two of the most prolific editors, Littleolive oil and TimidGuy, along with Roseapple have never edited at the same time. Three other active editors, Keithbob, Luke Warmwater101, and ChemistryProf, do so very rarely.[2]

SexySadie

BigWeeBoy, Littleolive oil and Keithbob, repeatedly answer his question about how the section was amended via Talk Page, Sandbox and Consensus but instead WillBeback behaves like I DIDNT HEAR THAT and continues to badger BigWeeBoy and others about it. Instead he tries to harass and trap BigWeeboy.

Sorry you missed this Will. Please see the following comments here on the talk page from late Oct and early Nov 2009…….So there was an opportunity for others to participate. --BwB (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

“this has the appearance of being another case of ignoring outside input.” Will Beback talk 20:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If the changes are not acceptable reopen the discussion but blaming is hardly constructive.(olive (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

“Now that those uninvolved editors have moved on the material is deleted without comment, and you seem to be objecting to its restoration. Is that a correct summary?” Will Beback talk 00:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the rewrite, but I'm happy though to go with a consensus on it. Will, I'd suggest you stop mischaracterizing this as something it isn't and we move ahead with a discussion on the content. This is not good, not good at all. I'm not very comfortable with what's going on here.(olive (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

“The fact that some editors have agreed to the deletion is not a good reflection on them. Unless Bwb or another editor can offer good explanations for the necessity of removing relevant, sourced, discussed information then it should be restored, regardless of what was or wasn't said in October.” Will Beback talk 01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

“If you want to edit the current version, please go ahead, but no need to make all this fuss. Thanks.” --BwB (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still interested in your reasoning. Did you think that the song was an unnecessary detail in the biography? Were you unaware of the previous discussions? Will Beback talk 13:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have given my rational for the edits and the process I followed. Others had ample time to participate at the time. I am done with discussing this further and am happy to move forward in a collaborative manner on this section. --BwB (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be be contrary, but you have not provided your rationale for removing "Sexy Sadie" from the article. I assume there is none. Will Beback talk 20:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any explanation from Bwb for his deletions. Will Beback talk 04:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I admit to not paying any attention to the matter at the time, so it's partly my fault. I'm still getting up to speed on this topic and I don't catch all the nuances. Will Beback talk 12:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I will agree to having BWB add back in a short sentence on "Sexie Sadie" if there is agreement among editors. I do think the addition is superfluous.(olive (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

If you go back to the archives you will see that I also participated in the discussion and made edits to his rewrite. So there is no ground for any complaints. Now in the present does someone have some text they'd like to suggest for the article?-- — Kbob • Talk • 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to adding the Sexy Sadie text if there is consensus to do so. …to me the previous text on the Beatles seemed excessive, and so I tried to summarize and shorten the text. It can be expanded again if editors want to do so and I am happy to be part of that effort. --BwB (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

So I take it there are no objections to restoring "Sexy Sadie". Will Beback talk 21:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)