User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz/Archive 4

Editorial Council Motions and content
Response and pending request for assistance

'''Earlier, I sent a request for assistance to the Constabulary. In a volunteer organization, Matt certainly is not here 24/7 and may simply have not seen this. There is precedent, as with Mary Ash's request to Dave Finn, for a Citizen to ask that certain other Citizens not post to their personal talk pages.'''

'''Paraphrased slightly for readability, I sent the following to the Managing Editor, in the absence of the Constabulary. I have not yet deleted any other comments, as I want readers to see, in context, the hostility and OUTRIGHT ALL CAP UNPROFESSIONALISM of some opponents, who seem adamant in crushing any questioning of their position.''' Howard C. Berkowitz 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * On my user page, Dave Finn, with whom I agree on a number of issues, posted concerns about a pending EC motion. He posted it because while his Citizen status has been reinstated, he is still blocked from the Forums, particularly the Editorial Council Community Input page. I did not solicit his post, but I agree with it.


 * To be blunt in terminology, several of my political opponents, MBE, Hayford Pearce, and Peter Schmitt, have been counterattacking. Now, Hayford and Peter have every right to do so in the EC. MBE has been writing in ALL CAPS and threatening me with banning, for "abuse of power" and "censorship" on my own user talk page.

I have not left the Project. I do not intend to leave the project, or to resign any position. For the last few days, I have, however, been holding myself to requested editorial assistance, some by email, as I would like to be able to contribute content without battling. I am eager to return to contributing and have material waiting on my computer.

The main reason I defend my Editorships is that they were granted in good faith, and I feel completely qualified to hold them. Nevertheless, in some areas, especially and ironically Politics and History, I believe they are now necessary as a safeguard against inappropriate behavior at least one Editor. That individual, as evidenced in comments here, will not engage professionally, but speaks -- and acts, to the point of blanking articles -- based on expected deference. Here, the individual refuses to cite requested Charter authority, and instead threatens.

I agree with him on one thing. If this conflict continues, CZ is doomed.

Hey Howard, hope you are well. First let me say that the "Recent Changes" page has been rather sparse the last few days. At a time like this it is easy to appreciate the volume of editing you do on CZ and it is much appreciated.

I have been reading the latest EC motion with interest. I have a few questions about that as I am not sure I am reading it correctly.

It appears from the conversation between you and the Secretary that a Citizen asked anonymously for a review of a previously awarded Editor status and that this request was rejected by the Secretary following informal discussions with selected members of the EC.

Do you have a link to a Charter provision or EC Motion that makes clear the role of the EC Secretary? It seems to me that we have an EC consisting of a certain number of Citizens that are that are to collectively consider Motions, but this conversation gives the impression of a Secretary that is holding informal Motion hearings among a selected group of EC members to first decide if the wider EC may even see the Motion in question.

The Motion titled "Review of Editor status" says "In case of reasonably well-founded doubts raised by any Citizen, the Editorial Council may choose to review the previously awarded status of any Editor, either in principle or with regard to specific competences granted.". The Charter provisions covering this situation are quoted :"The Charter charges the Editorial Council (Articles 32 and 14) with establishing the qualifications for Editors and supervising their activities. It also has the authority to remove an Editor (Article 16)". The Charter then requires the EC to supervise the activities of Editors and does not confine this notion to content or behaviour. The Motion empowers the EC to review Editor status either in principle or regard to specific competences granted, although I would argue this was perhaps already provided for in the Charter. For this reason it seems that the idea of the EC being powerless to affect Editor status in matters of behaviour is ill-founded. The Charter requires the EC to supervise Editor activities. The EC Motion verifies that the EC may review Editor status.

Does this current Motion do anything other than dilute the already established scope of the EC?

The Secretary asks "Do you know some other Citizen who wishes to bring into the question the credentials of an Editor?", but the Motion he refers to states that "the Editorial Council may choose to review the previously awarded status of any Editor, either in principle or with regard to specific competences granted.". The Motion says status, not qualifications, so the question should have been "Do you know some other Citizen who wishes to bring into the question the status of an Editor?" and from the conversation the answer is an obvious yes, but that this Motion was rejected during the Secretarys personal Motion hearing.

The Secretary states "If YOU, for instance, got angry enough with how you think the EC is being mismanaged and subsequently made several loud, public declarations that you were leaving CZ and would no longer be an Editor, this motion would also preserve YOUR Editorships in that situation.". My question is, why is that desired? Firstly, if an Editor announces on the Forum that they are leaving forever and we have all failed, replaces their bio with a message saying they are no longer an Editor, do they then have to jump through hoops to actually get rid of their Editor status? And secondly, if an Editor announces on the Forums that they are leaving forever and we have all failed, replaces their bio with a message saying they are no longer an Editor, then why would we want to preserve their right to make drive-by Editorial Decisions when the mood takes them?

Being an Editor seems to be more than simply having an academic qualification. The Charter says so, EC Motions have confirmed this. Does this Motion disempower the EC from considering behavioural as well as content issues? The concept of Editors has always been of expert guidance - does a Motion that disallows the EC from determining Editor status based on the ability to act as an Editor really further the mission of CZ as a whole?


 * If I may jump in here, I'd just like to say that we have so few editors who are currently active that we don't want to make it harder for inactive ones to resume activity. Peter Jackson 11:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Peter, the very existence of a formal investigation on my qualifications, the crux of which is about "bullying" and related complaints -- which I deny -- suggest that some believe that in certain cases, having no Editor is better than having an editor with questioned expertise or behavioral flaws. In the long term, those issues need to be addressed with a thoughtful review, and perhaps redefinition, of the role of expertise (i.e., not just the title "Editor") at CZ. I do question the current approach of developing broad policy by addressing individual matters, down to the article level, and expecting broad guidelines automagically to emerge.


 * You are right to point out that we need activity, which, at the present size, means that the original goal of, perhaps, having Editors who guide but do not contribute significant content is unrealistic. It may even be unrealistic in the future. While the professional publishing model of different disciplines won't be alike, certainly in my own experience with peer-reviewed articles and with books from academic publishers, the reviewers are judged qualified, in large part, by their own publication history. It's hard to judge the issues of writing for an audience if you haven't done it.


 * I think of one prolific contributor and Editor, pre-Charter, who was actually suspended by Larry, but chose not to continue activity and to move efforts to another Wiki. Subsequently, several Citizens have found various of his articles to be biased or deficient, and significantly rewrote them. His academic qualifications were unquestionable, although there were questions of both bias when he wrote in his areas of expertise, as well as not understanding the limits of his expertise. The suspension, however, came for behavioral reasons, which included perceived abusive language both in and out of Editor roles.


 * Rather than immediately grant Editor status, as we once did, there is now a desire to see performance befor doing so. In many cases, people named Editors never made a single contribution. In other cases, people claimed that they were to be given deference as an Editor, but based on claims of expertise elsewhere and having a contentious pattern of discourse here, with very few content contributions. Some founding members have received more tolerance of abuse than others.


 * Let's be consistent -- we have had quick banning of Editors as Citizens, typically new ones, for abuse or spam. We have at least one other case of an Editor with questionable commitment to other than "guiding" and participation in governance, who has, in my opinion, demonstrated, at the very least, questionable commitment through multiple informal resignations and statements of restrictions on what he would do. Bluntly, I have been a prolific contributor and have worked well with some, but not all, authors in the Editor role. Yet, there have been multiple EC actions started against me and dropped, but freezing work in progress, work that eventually was not substantively challenged other than by general pronouncements that it was wrong. If the EC is not to judge behavioral matters, why was one of the first motions made to strip me of all editorships on the grounds (dropped) that I impeded the function of the EC, a matter not addressed in any statement of the Editor role? Claims that these actions are not political and behavioral, but content only, are, in my personal opinion, indefensible.


 * Let's be consistent. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to discuss the EC motion. Thus only briefly:
 * It is for the Secretary to decide how to react on (anonymous) messages sent to the Suggestion Box. This is confirmed by the Ombudsman. (There are other -- open -- methods to approach the EC.)
 * Editorship (or Editor status) is based on expertise (Art. 14). Therefore, EC:R-2010-012 is only concerned with reviewing the academic/professional competence.
 * The EC has to supervise the activities of Editors (Art. 32) as Editors, but not as Citizens. Thus the EC has to react if Editors do not use their Editorial "power" responsibly. Behaviour as Citizens has nothing to do with expertise or content and is therefore not EC matter.
 * --Peter Schmitt 17:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * CZ isn't such a big place and really wherever Citizens gather to discuss something is a fine place to join in the discussion I would have thought. I would also note that the Secretary refers to private discussions held between him and other EC members about Motions, so the clear implication there is that the EC Motion page is not the only venue where discussion can take place. I see no barrier to having a discussion here. It isn't like it will get lost among all the Recent Changes.


 * I asked where the guidelines covering how the Secretary should be found, and I thank you for your personal view of what the guidelines are. The Ombudsman, in an email to the Secretary, gave his informal interpretation of those guidelines but that isn't what I was looking for. Really I was looking for the guidelines covering how the Secretary should execute their function and, if they do not exist, maybe an indication of when they will be fomalised. I don't think that the informal opinions of Ombudsman, EC member or Secretary are enough to establish policy, so really I was just looking for directions to where the current policy is written down.
 * The Charter says that the EC should supervise the activities of Editors, but the part about that being confined to "Editor" activities rather than "Citizen" activities was added by you. There is currently no Charter provision that really prevents the EC from reviewing Editor status for matters other than qualification issues. That is what this Motion is for, it seems, to disable the EC from reviewing Editor status in any other matter than for qualification issues.
 * What about the Editor who is unwilling to follow the principle of expert guidance and refuses to discuss changes?
 * What about the Editor who is unwilling to adapt to the stylistic conventions of CZ?
 * What about the Editor who has no interest in expert guidance and just wants Editor status to settle arguments without having to provide sources?
 * These things could happen. If CZ has at its core the concept of expert guidance, how can the EC abandon its responsibility for ensuring that Editors are not only proficient in their chosen subject but capable of imparting that in a way that is compatible with CZ?
 * One other question. Maybe you can appreciate the confusion your comments bring by looking at EC:2010-013. It starts out "It has become increasing clear that the Editorial Council is unable to function as long as xxxxx is a member of it." and goes on to say "I hereby state that in my opinion, xxxxx, by his ongoing behavior, does not meet the qualifications of Editorship in Citizendium". This was a Motion, authored by the Secretary, that as clear as you like says that behavioural evidence should be considered when reviewing the status of Editors, says that being an Editor on CZ means more than holding a qualification. The comments of the Secretary and your comments above do not seem to match with EC:2010-013. When did things change? David Finn 18:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * @Peter Schmitt, Dave Finn posted it here because his Forum access, where he might have posted to the Editorial Forum community input, remains blocked. This is certainly not an official forum, and it is simply your personal opinion that it is not a place to discuss anything.  I welcome comments pertinent to the subject, but don't tell me what is to be on my own user page.


 * @I disagree with your interpretation of both articles of the Charter, and I personally believe, but obviously cannot prove, that a number of Motions have been put through in support of particular political agendas in the EC. I do not remember, for example, you making such an objection, on Charter grounds, to Hayford's early motion to strip me of all of my Editorships, on reasons that have nothing to do with expertise.


 * @While I understand that there is a belief that the Ombudsman can "confirm" or "rule", I absolutely deny that is authorized by the Charter. In point of fact, the Charter designates the Managing Editor as the only person that, as an individual, can make even interim rulings. The Charter indicates the primary function of the Ombudsman is to be a mediator, a role generally incompatible with making rulings. While some Citizens seem to want to extend the Ombudsman role, amend the Charter first.


 * @Further, I disagree that the Secretary has the unilateral authority to deny or accept messages sent to the Suggestion Box. The Secretary reasonably may ask for clarification and improvement of suggestions, but he or she was never given the authority to be gatekeeper.  I am not going to debate this until someone shows


 * I should have written that this talk page is not the best place to discuss this issue -- some "official" page (e.g., CZ talk:Editorial Council would have been better. But why do you immediately react defensive, Howard? It was not an accusation, not even to David, but only a remark.


 * As for the repeatedly mentioned motion EC:2010-013: It was not even voted on, was it? And as far as I am concerned: I was away from CZ when this issue was discussed.


 * The Ombudsman did not "rule", but his interpretation of existing regulations has considerable weight -- that is what I meant with "confirmed".


 * That the EC supervises the activities of Editors -- added: -- as Editors (only) is a consequence of the EC's field of competence (content) and that all Citizens are to be treated equally (Art. 38). If Editors do not refer to their status they are merely acting as Authors (under EC content supervision), and if they do not edit a mainspace article, they are acting as Citizens (under Constable and MC supervision). Thus only some of the questions above concern Editorship, some only general content issues, and some only the behaviour.


 * --Peter Schmitt 21:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Defensive, Peter Schmitt? I don't think unreasonably so -- after all, it's my user page and I may well give first impressions. You might be entirely justified to say that on a public space, such as the Forum (where Dave can't go) or an article talk page. If you think about it, though, if I thought it was inappropriate, I would have deleted it.


 * Words have consequences. I'm a bit tired of being told that motions were not voted on, when they were accepted, seconded, and then not acted upon promptly, but stayed as accusations. I'm especially annoyed at suggestions that, for example, having the war crimes and Mengele articles frozen for several weeks, when I had materials for them on interlibrary loan, was fair.


 * I will say it once again: the Ombudsman is not given authority, in the Charter, to interpret anything except the procedures of a final appeals board. "Interpretations" are as an individual and receive no more or less "weight" than those of any other Citizen.


 * There have been instances of Citizens identifying themselves as Editors, sometimes not even in a workgroup associated with the article, and sometimes refusing to engage with the comments of another Editor. When someone even suggesting that the do so as an Editor blanks an article and is not immediately sanctioned for vandalism, you'll forgive me when I say there is selective enforcement. The EC has had motions addressed to my conduct as well as content, with the anonymous complaint sitting on the page. Seems only fair that if accusations are anonymous, they stay confidential, or the accuser is named and his or her motives can be judged. I don't accept the purity of explanations why it was done this way. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is, after all, my user page. The posts of certain people will be deleted, unread, as I deleted one.  Let's stop pretending there are no antagonists on CZ.  There are people that would like to delete one another. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * THE FACT THAT HOWARD IS CENSORING THIS DEBATE MEANS THAT IS HAS TO BE MOVED TO A MORE SUITABLE LOCATION. I SHALL INFORM THE CONSTABULARY OF THIS, WHICH I CONSIDER TO BE AN ABUSE OF POWER. MY COMMENTS CAN BE READ IN THE HISTORY, OF COURSE. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Howard, do you recall that back on December 3rd you proposed a motion (http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:PR-2010-009) that YOU YOURSELF said you would vote against. You wrote, in fact, "I submit this motion not because I consider it a good idea, but to formalize actions that have been taken." If anyone wants to look at the Comments about this, they will see that Aleta excoriated you and your motives for doing so.  It was also as a DIRECT consequence of your action that the Ombudsman stated that, in his opinion, the Secretary was under no compulsion to waste his time, and that of the Council, with frivolous, nuisance motions that have no possibility of passing.  And that it was within the sole discretion of the Secretary to make these judgments.  If you (and possibly other Citizens) now complain that proposed motions are not always being introduced by the Secretary, then you have only yourself and your actions to blame. Up until that point, I was scrupulously introducing any and all motions that were proposed. Now I have learned to be more discriminating. Hayford Peirce 23:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

(undent) Excoriated, indeed, is a good word, for the commentary of you, Aleta, and the departed Martin. I find the rest of us tend to discuss less emotionally.

I absolutely reject the idea that the Ombudsman has a Charter-authorized unique role in interpretation. Please cite the article that gives him such. If there is no such explicit authorization, your claim of basing EC rules on Ombudsman determinations is incorrect.

Further, I note that when the Managing Editor filed a request to have the EC set clear priorities, you and Aleta claimed that no external official had the right to suggest how the EC should govern itself. I find these positions inconsistent; I will restrain my language more than you have done here. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I note that you do not attempt to claim that you did not propose a frivolous, nuisance-type motion, whose only purpose was to obstruct the workings of the Council. It was for such an action that Aleta quite properly "excoriated" you -- why *shouldn't* your behavior have been excoriated? You seem to feel that you are free to act as you like, without consequences.  And then when there *are* consequences, you complain.  As for the ME, he had no business trying to dictate to the EC HOW we run our business -- he was both rude and peremptory in tone; moreover he was apparently vexed that we, the Council, had purposefully NOT implemented some ideas of his that he had tirelessly promoted in the Forums and that he had already been told had been considered and found without merit. The EC, you may note, does not try to tell the ME how to conduct HIS business -- it is not his place to tell us how to conduct OURS. Hayford Peirce 01:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Has Howard deleted a remark by you that the motion's "only purpose was to obstruct the workings of the Council"? If not, why are you noting the fact that he doesn't deny it? The motion seems to have been intended to clarify the workings of the Council, as Howard seems to have gained the impression that you were applying the procedures inconsistently. Peter Jackson 10:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

@Peter Schmitt - this Motion didn't come about by accident. A Citizen announced they were leaving the project and removed their bio, leaving in place a message that they were not an Editor. That Citizen then made an Editorial "ruling" and their status as Editor was questioned. This Motion, as Hayford has explained, is to protect Editorships even when the Citizen in question has renounced their role in CZ, and that is what you will be voting on.

Back in February when you introduced the Forum topic "Leaving the project" you said:
 * "It is reasonalble to block Citizens who explicitly leave (in anger)"

but now you appear to be saying that if a Citizen leaves in anger then they shouldn't be blocked and in fact should be allowed to act as Editor when and how they please if they already held that status. What changed your mind on the subject? David Finn 10:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Abusing my power over my own user page?
There's no "abuse of power" on my own user page. Martin Baldwin-Edwards is not welcome to post here; I do not have power to prevent him posting elsewhere, but I am exercising Citizen rights. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This last post is in breach of CZ policy and is clearly unacceptable on your user page. Unless you delete it in the next hour, I shall formally request for you to be banned from CZ. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * State the policy. You misinterpret, and I propose you be banned for vandalism. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a clear case of flagrant disrespect for both the Charter and other Citizens. You should know by now that I am not impressed either by your lack of expertise in legal matters or your bluster. I shall make my request for your ban from CZ directly to the MC. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I remain singularly unimpressed by ex cathedra pronouncements.


 * For that matter, I knew P.T. Bluster, I hissed at P.T. Bluster, and, sir, you are no P.T. Bluster. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be beneficial for anyone from getting banned from Citizendium at this point. Communicating is a good way to bring conflicting issues under control. Maybe Martin would post here knowing he is not welcome? (Chunbum Park 05:39, 2 April 2011 (UTC))

There can be no abuse of power on a userpage. Article 8, CZ convention and much discussion by the MC has confirmed this repeatedly. So long as the content is not inflammatory Citizens are considered Editors of their userpages, provided they put their bio in the right place, and Citizens may request that other Citizens do not post on their talkpage. It has been done before and with the blessing of the Constabulary. Citizens can delete whatever comments they like from their userpage. The other obvious thing to point out is that even if Citizens violate the wishes of other Citizens to not to post on their userpages, the rest of us can read the history if we so desire. David Finn 07:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The Charter refers to user pages. It doesn't make clear whether this includes user talk pages. Peter Jackson 10:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd think you would have a tough job arguing that one. The general principle that appears to have been applied so far is that if a page starts with User: then it is a userpage. That is how it has been applied, as far as I know, in all cases, with the only exception being that when talking about Userpage as opposed to userpages, as in we all must provide a bio on our Userpage, it has been made clear that Userpage means the page that is linked to by clicking on your name in the history of a CZ page. If you have an example of any other interpretation being applied I would be interested to hear about it. It seems like all these principle have been illustrated on the Forum already. David Finn 10:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to argue anything. On the contrary, I was saying it's not easy to argue anything from the Charter, because of its unsatisfactory drafing. Peter Jackson 10:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to suggest you are advancing a position you are not, my apologies if it seemed that way. I meant more in general terms that arguing such a position would be difficult. The rules for userpages have been relatively recently updated and are endorsed by the MC. They do not specify a difference between talk and non talk space and only say that "Citizens may not edit each others' user pages, or subpages thereof, unless such a page is clearly labeled as inviting contributions from others, as per Category:Editable user pages". Until the rules are more clear then we only have history to establish how such situations are dealt with, which is what I was basing my observations on.
 * Obviously I see the grey area in the Charter. There is a page showing editable userpages but the talkpages of Citizens are not by default there. Either they should be or we need to clarify further, by way of MC Motion, just how much authority Citizens have to exert on their userpages.
 * By the way, Howard is one of the few with a page in that Category, and his reads "Feel free to add to, or create, a User Talk page for any page in my userspace. I reserve the right not to respond, or delete material." David Finn 11:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I NOW clearly see who is the instigator here? (Chunbum Park 15:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)) I thought Martin Baldwin-Edwards was banned. Was it someone else? (Chunbum Park 15:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC))
 * I believe that both Martin and Howard were once banned for 48 hours from the Forums, but never from the CZ wiki. The banned person is David Finn who was permanently banned from the CZ wiki and Forums last November (I believe), but then appealed his ban to the Management Council. Since the MC has not been, shall we say, expeditious in deciding upon his appeal, his ban was recently lifted to enable him to participate in the CZ wiki, but not the Forums, while his appeal is pending. Hayford Peirce 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Chunbum: I resigned from the Editorial Council in anger at CZ's failure to deal with systematic abuses from Howard, and said also that I would not act as an editor but remained as a Citizen. Now, in a trivial piece of mischief-making by David Finn, I asserted rights as an editor (to leave an old map picture at a readable size on an article where Finn had written nothing. This is all one terrible mess, largely created by Howard's political games (of which he is proud). It is time for CZ to stop these abuses and ban people who engage in them. This is what I expect the MC to do, as is required by the Charter. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I write here as a member of the MC, but my comments are my own and not official MC pronouncements. Firstly, it is necessary to clear up some misunderstandings. User pages and User_talk pages exist in separate namespaces. Pages in the latter are not subpages of the former. So, that a user is the editor of his/her user page does not imply he/she is the editor of his/her user talk pages. Right now there is no policy on who controls user talk pages. Secondly, user talk pages are official CZ pages and their use is covered by general CZ policy on professionalism and courtesy. So, communications on user talk pages that violate such policies are subject to disciplinary action. Thirdly, since there is no special policy on user talk pages, anyone is free to ask the ME to establish temporary policy that will be in force until the MC is able to formulate permanent policy. Specifically, anyone can ask for a ruling whether a user can delete content on his/her user talk page.

Those are facts. Here are some of my own thoughts. Again, I speak only for myself and not for the MC as a whole. Over the past few months I have considered asking the MC to establish a policy on Public Disturbance. Those who continually bicker and fight on CZ pages and in the fora in a way that generally demoralizes the community would be subject to disciplinary action. What sort of disciplinary action? My view is it should be a total ban for a long period of time, say a minimum of six months. Subsequent offenses should result in longer bans and eventually permanent banning. What would I use as an example of Public Disturbance as input to the discussion about forming such a policy? This subsection of Howard's talk page. Dan Nessett 18:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Very interesting, very well-thought-out comments, Dan! I believe that your suggestion about Public Disturbance, or Disruptive Behavior, or Inveterate Nuisances, would enjoy wide support.  In a nice twist of irony, I think, all of the people that I can think of offhand who might actually be banned by this measure, would *wholeheartedly* support it -- on the grounds that they, being true egomaniacs, would never believe that they themselves are being Public Disturbances, only those that they consider to be their irrational antagonists. Go for it! Hayford Peirce 18:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Dan, in the physical world, one who hosts a quiet discussion is not considered at fault when others invite themselves and begin insulting and attacking. I would say that this section, with Dave Finn's original post and two responses two it, were polite discussion. I believe the MC and its enforcement arm, the Constabulary, need to be more aggressive -- yet also absolutely consistent -- in enforcing the initial unprofessional conduct. Not everyone in this discussion have attacked persons rather than ideas, threatened, claimed they authoritatively interpret the Charter, excoriated, or YELLED IN ALL CAPS.


 * Some of us would far rather contribute content than engage in fruitless argument. That certainly is my desire.


 * Let's cut to the chase. Dan, Hayford, Peter Schmitt and Martin: yes or no? (Well, Martin has stated his position). Do you want me to be banned? Howard C. Berkowitz 18:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * YES. Why? Two reasons: (1) Because at no point was this merely a quiet debate: it was a conspiracy between you and David Finn to debate EC proceedings in public, and manipulate the information. Not content with that, you even had the temerity to delete my response to one particular inaccuracy -- claiming that you have the power to control the content of this page. (2) Because when challenged on the constitutionality and "legality" of your actions, and asked to remove this clearly obnoxious heading, you claimed a superior understanding of the meaning of the Charter. It is time for CZ to tell those who manipulate and defy the basic principles of the Charter that they are not welcome, regardless of how much verbiage they may produce on the wiki or Forums. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the honesty, if the inaccuracy. Silly me...while I have never claimed to be definitive in interpreting the Charter, I had assumed that someone that had participated in the full Charter process, rather than resigning because the Inquisition would not bring the heretic to heel, might have a bit more insight. As I say, silly me. It's nice to know your priorities, and your infallibility with respect to the Charter.


 * At least in the United States, "conspiracy" is a formal term, requiring evidence of complicity prior to this act. I was completely unaware that Dave was going to make this post, and I did, only after the fact, inquire about his reasoning for doing so.


 * There have been requests, by several people, for the Constabulary and/or Managing Editor's intervention. I am quite willing to wait for that, if others stop posting as well. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that Daniel has correctly ruled that you have no rights over this page. Feel free to apologize to me for your incorrect interpretation of the Charter and your offensive attempt to exclude me from writing on this page. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 19:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Martin, I do not think it is up to you to judge whether I ruled "correctly", and in terms of "incorrect interpretation of the Charter", I think the matter is certainly a bit less clear-cut than your comment above would imply (e.g. this comment: "the Talk page [..] should be seen as a normal Talk page but with the owner acting as editor of it.").


 * Besides, I encourage the Management Council to work out a policy on Public Disturbance, preferably in conjunction with a precision of criteria for Citizenship. --Daniel Mietchen 20:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, I certainly agree that the matter is more complex than I stated above. When we originally discussed last year how User Talk pages should be managed, my assumption was that only bilateral discussions would normally take place on them. In that typical scenario, it is reasonable for the user to feel entitled to delete others' comments if they seem inappropriate or no longer useful.


 * In this specific case, the page was deliberately established as a public discussion group -- not at all the normal usage of such pages -- and Howard's actions I characterised initially as abuse of power in censoring my sole comment. However, when this deteriorated into a public statement that I am not welcome here, it became a clear breach of Charter Articles 5 and 8. User rights are inferior to the over-riding provisions of the Charter, and Howard should have understood that (but apparently did not).


 * My opinion, for what it is worth, is that this sort of problem of trying to gain advantage through manipulation of the formal rules has occurred far too often. The fundamental code of conduct is clear in the charter and everything else is subservient to it. Indeed, the MC should establish an explicit policy on Public Disturbance -- but such a policy is already implicit and very clear in the Charter. They can act now, if they choose. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree completely that this was created as a public discussion space. Dave Finn asked me some bilateral questions, admittedly that he wanted seen in public. They would have been more appropriate on Editorial Council community input, but he can't write there.

"Deliberately established as a public discussion group" was not and is not intended. Prove, Martin, that it was, rather than claim something for which you have no evidence other than it suits your continuing campaign to portray me as the Antichrist.

I do not accept your superior ability to interpret the Charter, and I find that your language and expression frequently come to a standard for banning for abuse and defamation.

Howard C. Berkowitz 20:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Clarification concerning editorship for User talk pages
I just clarified that user talk pages should be regarded as being normal talk pages, at least from now on. I have also updated Category:Editable user pages‎ and User:Howard C. Berkowitz/Editing in my user space accordingly and rephrased the title of the section above this one. --Daniel Mietchen 20:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC) as CZ:Managing Editor