Hmm can't edit User:Craig_Hubley/done? - why not?

accused of TOU violations

The following comments were made unreasonably on User:Craig_Hubley when putting them on this page? or on Craig Hubley was reasonable. To put them - using administrator powers - on a user page - is not an equal power relationship. Accordingly the comments are answered to with some rude?ness, though not as much as they themselves require, in order to signal lack of acceptance of that behaviour but simultaneously de-escalate? the conflict:

User:Craig_Hubley has used "whine" in a derogatory reference to previous editors. A minor but clear TOU violation on talk:political advertising Administrators should note and watch for escalations of this behavior. - User:Michael_Pilling

• While I don't object to "note and watch" for escalations" notices, they don't belong on User:Craig_Hubley but on this page?. - User:Craig_Hubley

• Also, I stand by "whine" as operational?: the term:appropriate? is a whine, as is the term:sexist?, and both were used by way of "justifying" an action employing administrative privelege. That type of action is barely acceptable in a regular editor and not at all in a senior editor. That is since those terms are not operational? nor falsifiable they provide no guidance to other regular editors and simply indicate an incoherent objection that amounts epistemically to a sound that indicates displeasure, frustration, feaer, and so on: - User:Craig_Hubley

"a simple childish act of fear and frustration" referring to previous editors on talk:ass-vertising, a second TOU violation. Possisibly indicating habitually derogatory behavior. - User:Michael_Pilling

• Mr. Pilling does not define "TOU violation" so unilaterally and I reject his opinion: his editorial actions on that page had no clearly stated operational rationale, amounting to a revert without comment? since the comments were themselves inoperative (using "term:sexist?"). It was seemingly childish or at best NDPish, and - much like the NDP - failed to express any rationale beyond fear and frustration, using silly words like "appopriate" which are not operational? and simply represent a power grab?. Beyond all that, it was hardly a specific accusation directed at a specific person and thus not amenable to apology?. - User:Craig_Hubley

• I suggest the chief editors must both agree on what is a "TOU violation", that is, 2/2 is the only reasonable threshold for the word violation?. - User:Craig_Hubley

• That said, the subject is a minor or marginal one and as it is now much clearer what "out of scope" means it should be possible to make much clearer and operational statements about scope. Errors are inevitable but protocol of correction must be minimal and not involve judgemental assessments on non-operational criteria. My choice to restore that page was entirely and only because that subject was in fact discussed in the context of ad styles, under that exact name, on CBC Radio? in daytime, thus it objectively had satisfied standards of that medium and Canadian public interest broadcasting. A simple edit to the page to remove a single word was easily done, and was done. There is no clear rationale for any more restrictive censorship at openpolitics.ca itself than CBC Radio applies, and until there is there is no valid rationale for applying any narrower criteria which could easily become repressive. Which HAVE become repressive, see all GPC-LP pages deleted.- User:Craig_Hubley.

• As for "habitually derogatory behavior" that description applies much more to those who believe they have the right to make statements with an obvious GEVAD whereby they determine others' intent? or habit? or posit regret? to the outcomes of their actions, all without any serious investigation or test thereof. In other words, Michael Pilling, it applies much more to you, than to me. Among other things, you see to be consistently labouring under the delusions that you can "become a soldier without a drill sargeant", i.e. that your grasp of web design? or information architecture? or "manage" software engineer?ing - even list OP upgrades - is in any way comparable to mine. This while you can barely grasp naming conventions and only learned to spell and conserve capitals quite recently. I know it takes time to learn these things but by now you've had nearly two years and still things backpedal. You need my advice especially on political wikis and how they work. Do not waste my time, please. I do know what I am doing, I know why I undo what I undo, I know why the words I choose are chosen, I know when people need the stick and not the carrot, and not listening to me very closely and failing to hold OP steering committee meetings or misrepresent the agreements arising from them, or not admitting failures in order to avoid my scorn, is a serious source of slowdown of openpolitics.ca itself. There are many benefits to actually taking the heat from me to use to bake something fully, rather than leaving it half-baked. - User:Craig_Hubley

• To "move forward?" requires some more attention to the standards that apply to public journalism itself?, which admittedly was a previously undocumented constraint. I don't have the contempt for your skills as a journalist as I do for your management of designers and geeks, quite the opposite, but I do wish you would consult the other chief editor to ask "what is sexist", "what is appropriate", etc., and take more measured actions without speculating on intent? or habit? of any person involved. If I'm involved, as editor or as administrator, e.g. defining categories, then the scrutiny on the terms of reference will be exact as I have an earned reputation for professional skill in this regard and I intend to protect it by continuing to earn it. Non-operational terms will not be tolerated as a basis for senior editor guidelines as long as I can edit them. In time you'll recognize that this is absolutely essential to open politics itself. - User:Craig_Hubley

journalism issues

I'll accept the criteria of journalism itself? and nothing else. In Canada that means CBC, CTV, Global, CityTV, etc. As above I believe that radio? is the best standard to apply as it is much more similar to blogs. To apply the narrower criteria of TV or of newspapers is to lose most of the richness of Canadian politics as usual and certainly its fringe. - User:Craig Hubley?

So, let's argue about journalism itself? and what is out of scope can be defined by the outcomes. - User:Craig Hubley?