Discussion

[edit]

Comment--- The irony is that just a couple of days ago, Sarah gave Greg rollback privileges as a trusted editor when she agreed with him but then went on a campaign of sorts against him when she disagreed with him.

What is most troubling to me is that she parachuted into an AN/I against NineteenNightmares and lent her support to his personal attacks against GregJackP, Giftigerwunsch and myself, saying that she suspected us of being socks of Don Martin because of our "inexplicable and baffling" behavior -- although she would not explain what behavior that was. After that she took several opportunities to talk badly about us both directly and to other editors on her talk page, with all sorts of bad faith accusations. Being a new editor here, I have not been around long enough for people to make up their own minds about me based on my edits, so Sarah's accusations carry more weight in the community, especially since she is an admin, and I start out with a negative connotation It has colored my experience here which was pleasant prior to that. I believe all three of us attempted to address her in a very polite manner on the AN/I where the accusations were made and also on her talk page but she flat out refused to talk to us at all.

I think this RfC is appropriate because we have been accused of something very serious and the accusation is just left hanging in the air -- Sarah will not retract it or correct it or discuss why she thinks we're socks. I really do not want that kind of accusation left unresolved and she ordered us off her talk page after making the accusation. I don't think that is the way an admin should behave, especially to a new and inexperienced editor like myself. Minor4th talk 12:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question- Since the purpose of this exercise is partially to gather information, as stated in the RfC/Conduct description, User:AniMate said this RfC was ill conceived -- please describe why it is ill conceived or what your thoughts are. I am not challenging you, only seeking to learn more about policies and procedure. Also, you stated that it would have been better to take this to an admin noticeboard, but I thought this RfC was a less confrontational, less formal, non-binding process than the admin noticeboards -- am I mistaken about that too? Minor4th talk 15:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I did not post to Sarah's talk page after she asked not to. I am only aware of having posted one comment on her talk page and that was to ask her what her evidence was or what she had seen that led her to believe I was a Martin sock. She declined to answer and asked that we not post there any more, and I haven't. I would still like to know why she insinuated that I was a sock, and I don't think her behavior was becoming of an admin. I was under the impression that RfC was a first step in the dispute resolution process, as opposed to reporting to a noticeboard (are you speaking of AN/I?) Perhaps it seems petty, but an admin insinuated I was a sock in the middle of a heated AN/I for another editor and then refused to answer. It is an ongoing problem in that it still has not been answered. I can't speak for Greg, but I have no intent to escalate anything. I also don't think it's appropriate to tell us to just let it go when there has been an accusation of wrongdoing like that by an admin without an explanation when one was requested. Minor4th talk 17:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the diffs from my only comments on Sarah's talk page: [1] "I was going to make the same request just now when I saw your comment that the DRV had already been started. " [2] "Sarah, why is my comment unfortunate? I know that you endorse the closure and delete, but I would like to know if your comment indicates that i offended you in some way. Thanks. " [3] "Thanks for the explanation." and [4] "Since I'm included in the innuendo about Martin socks, I would like to ask you why you think that or what evidence you might have come across. Thank you. " To which she replied that she would not oblige me and requested that we stay off her talk page, which I have done.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minor4th (talk • contribs) 20:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concur with what Minor4th said, and I'll also note that Wikipedia policy states "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Sarah has yet to do so, either on her talk page or anywhere else. GregJackP (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - follow-up question to Minor4th's ques. and AniMate's ans. I'm not sure that I understand, and I probably should have added this to the main RfC page (and I don't know if it's appropriate to do so now), but I also asked for help from an uninvolved admin prior to proceeding to this step. I was trying to follow the WP:DR process - I tried to discuss it at the site (AfD and DRV), then tried to clear up a misunderstanding / resolve it on her talk page (as did two other editors), then asked for an admin's assistance, then came here. It was my understanding that this was less serious than going to an AN/I, based on the fact that an RfC/U cannot impose sanctions. If I am wrong about where we should be in the DR process, I'll be the first to apologize and do what I need to do to make it right, but I do not believe her conduct was appropriate, especially as an admin. I am also concerned that because she is an admin, the behavior will be ignored. I have over 6,000 edits and have never been treated that badly by any other admin - even in disagreements, they were willing to calmly discuss the issue and remain neutral.

Again, if there is another way to handle it, let me know, but I'm not comfortable with just walking away and ignoring it. The issue needs to be resolved. GregJackP (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree. Are you telling us that if we make unsubstantiated statements about other users or admins that it is OK? Is it OK if I decide to (as an example only) to state that she has obviously made connections with other admins to quash this, so she won't have to respond (again, as an example only, I don't believe that has happened)? Or, after this is over, go back to my talk page and discuss how it was all part of a conspiracy? Of course it wouldn't be appropriate, and if I/we did that, we would be contacted and talked to about it. Not one admin has bothered to be concerned with what occurred, or at least not enough to say anything. If that type of behavior is appropriate, then say so, and I'll be happy to follow suit - but it's not. The fact that it is an admin doing it is worse - admins are supposed to set the example. GregJackP (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listen, I'm not seeing what you are seeing in the diffs you provided for this RfC. I doubt anyone else uninvolved will see them either. What resolution do you expect to get here? What exactly is the out come you want? AniMate 18:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like an explanation of her conduct, per WP:NOTPERFECT. Would you mind if I ask several questions on specific conduct? I think it would help if we could go over items point by point as to the conduct involved. That way if I am wrong, it would help me to see it. GregJackP (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can ask, but I likely won't answer. This conflict (stemming from the original article) has raged over an AfD, DRV, AN/I, and now here. I don't particularly want to get anymore involved than I already am, which is really not at all. I say let this one go, because Sarah doesn't have to respond and considering her talk page messages likely won't. You can continue to escalate things, but I don't think you're going to get the satisfaction you want. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't see many other users getting worked up over an admin being suspicious of editors socking in an AfD that resulted in several socks being blocked. AniMate 20:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, fair enough - I might mention that I was the one that filed the SPI that resulted in identifying and the block of the socks. I'm beginning to appreciate that normal rules of civility and AGF do not necessarily apply to admins, which is a real shame. GregJackP Boomer!

Comment -- This is disappointing that Sarah cannot even be bothered to show up and answer a good faith, legitimate inquiry. No one is asking for sanctions or action against her. All that was requested was an explanation and a little civility. Instead her admin pals show up with their "nothing to see here, move along" comments as though they are blind to incivility and ignorant of the expectations of admins, more concerned with the proper procedure or venue than the substance of what is being reported. Since assuming bad faith is apparently perfectly good policy now, I will go ahead and state that I assume Sarah canvassed her buddies off wiki in an effort to stifle this discussion about her and avoid responsibility for her own bad behavior. The proper and even simpler thing to do would have been to simply answer the question that was asked about the socks and make an apology for being rude. It is beyond me why it is so difficult for some people to make an apology when they have caused harm or offended. That is certainly not unique to Wikipedia, it happens every day in real life. Since I have been accused of being a sockpuppet without explanation and since I have now been accused of repeatedly posting on Sarah's talk page after she asked that it stop -- I am now inclined to do both of those things so as to earn the accusations fairly. Minor4th • talk 04:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, she did state that she would be unavailable this week, and asked that these issues be raised on AN/I if there was a problem. Given that she said she won't really be around this week, and that she offered an path if you still had concerns, I'm not too surprised that she hasn't been able to comment here. - Bilby (talk) 05:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)WOW! Minor4th if you feel that she acted in bad faith (which she didn't), wouldn't it be better for you to act in good faith? Really your comment is very much the worst kind of bad faith accusations I have seen on Wiki. Fact is she has stated on her talk page that she is busy, I suggest you start assuming good faith. Bidgee (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yeah thanks. I'm not surprised in the least either. She has been commenting continually on her talk page. She had the presence to archive the RfC notice but not answer the inquiry. In the time it took her to say "go away" she could have answered the question politely posed to her. It would be respectable if she would make excuses for herself rather than others making them for her. Anyway, I see that Greg will no longer be editing, and I suppose I will also take my leave since he was my mentor and was the one who got me excited about Wiki in the first place. If he is discouraged and disillusioned enough to leave, then so am I. Y'all take care. Minor4th • talk 05:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Addit) Yes I'm assuming bad faith as that is the example I was shown by Sarah and a perfect example of the harm that is caused when an admin acts rudely and refuses to respond to a good faith inquiry about her accusations. That is all. No need to caution me further about my behavior. Thanks for you input though. Minor4th • talk 05:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether Sarah assumed bad faith (I've failed to see where she has failed to assume good faith) or not, doesn't give you the right to do the same. Sarah has the right to remove your comments off her talkpage whether you like it or not also she doesn't have to comment on this RfC as this isn't a court room. Bidgee (talk) 05:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've made my point with exceptional clarity. Minor4th • talk 06:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the attempts to resolve this, I can see that there were a couple of posts in the middle of a rather heated AN/I discussion, and a number of posts to Sarah's talk page, including after she asked for a week's grace and suggested AN/I. But was there any other attempts to bring the concerns to admin attention? I can understand why people are getting frustrated, although there seem to have been mistakes on both sides, but if it wasn't raised on AN/I or WP:WQA, (which is the better choice for a problem like this), then it may not be surprising that there was no admin attention. The issue raised here wasn't so much that you don't have reason to be upset, as you clearly are, but that this isn't the right forum - RFC/U is better suited to patterns of poor behaviour rather than an isolated incident. - Bilby (talk) 06:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I requested admin assistance on my talk page. No one wanted to touch it. As for bad faith, when she responds to a comment that can be interpreted in a couple of different ways with a reply that it was an insult and impugned her integrity, how is that assuming good faith? I even tried to clarify that I meant no insult on her or her integrity, but from that point forward, she wouldn't respond except to toss out more allegations. Yet not a single admin would say a word to her - and plenty are willing to tell us to basically go away, so that's what I'm doing. I have never been treated so rudely by an admin - and this is the first time I took something forward, so I'm sure I've done something wrong, but I even asked about the process and got no answers - except to drop it, she's an admin. I have better things to do with my time. As far as I'm concerned you can close this, it is apparent that no one cares, so I'm leaving Wiki. GregJackP Boomer! 06:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. I guess I don't quite see the replies the same way - BWilkin's major suggestion was that you wait for a week, per Sarah's request, which generally I think is good advice, and generally we do respect people's requests not to comment on their talk page. Chzz's response was more of the let it be variety, but Chzz raised the same concern as BWilkins, in that it wasn't clear what taking it further could result in. The difficulty is that it can be very hard to say that you understand why someone is upset, but that there isn't an avenue for them to pursue - which was effectively how I read their comments. It's not a pleasant situation, and it solves nothing, but it's not the same as not wanting to help.
Just as an aside, though, I've found that when someone says they are insulted, then they are. I've come to respect that over the years, even when I can't see why they would feel that way. In this case I fully accept that you feel insulted by her comment, but I think you also need to accept that she felt insulted by yours. That's not an AGF issue, as it doesn't assume that either party meant to insult the other - just that they both ended up feeling that way. - Bilby (talk) 07:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Weakopedia's (probably misplaced, but appropriate) comment on the main page under the list of endorsements. Now that's funny. And insightful. Good night. Minor4th • talk 06:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bilby -- I just wanted to thank you for being the only participant to attempt to address the issues that were raised. I see that Greg answered your question and I have nothing to add to that. Unfortunately, the only one who can truly address this is Sarah, and she has elected to once again ignore the request for input. Good day. Minor4th • talk 21:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Bidgee's endorsement of Spartaz's view

[edit]
comment when six editors turn up to a request for comment to comment that they won't be commenting, then of course it isn't going to serve a purpose. Weakopedia (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So if we don't see the point or purpose of a RfC we shouldn't express it? Bidgee (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Minor4th and GregJackP in Outside View No. 2

[edit]

I moved your comments in "Outside View by Movementarian" here. "Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view." Movementarian (Talk) 02:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to DVdm)

  1. So warn me. (other commentary omitted) GregJackP Boomer! 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Placed under endorsement by AniMate

  1. According to WP:RFC/User: "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration." Minor4th • talk 20:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting Phenom

[edit]

There are a couple of more endorsements for "just drop it" and a teensy bit of suggestion that perhaps Sarah might have some reflecting to do.

Sarah conspicuously continues to stonewall and ignore.

A remarkably speedy motion to close was made by JClemens -- another admin, who I believe was recently taken to task in an RfC/U as well. Not that he would be antagonistic to this process or anything.

Greg and I have both responded to the motion to close with a request for any participant or stalker to act as a mediator/go-between/intervenor to facilitate a civil discourse with Sarah so that we can resolve this and close the RfC. Although these RfC/U's sit prominently atop the admin noticeboards and are presumably seen by thousands throughout the day, no one has responded to the invitation. (I fully expect to be told now that there is no deadline, no one is required to respond, there's a better venue, you're doing it wrong, etc)

A parallel discussion is being had on Jimbo's talk page: [6] and [7]. The overarching issue of admin behavior and lack of accountability to editors has pushed its way forward. This is a fascinating process at work. Minor4th • talk 01:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no overreaching admin behaviour. You weren't arbitrarily blocked nor did you have massive amounts of edits reverted without explaination. No one has been making allegations against you or attempting to alienate you. This is a simple case of people disagreeing and one of them happens to be an admin.
"Remember that dispute resolution mechanisms are ultimately there to enable editors to collaboratively write an encyclopedia – not to win personal or political battles."
Sometimes the best course of action is to disengage and move on. This is one of those times. Movementarian (Talk) 05:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the overarching (ōˌvər-ärˈchĭng adj: all-embracing, including everything) issue of lack of admin accountability generally, and not Sarah specifically. The discussion at the links is clear. In this instance, there has been a lack of accountability because Sarah made an accusation against editors and was approached politely and appropriately for an explanation, but she responded with incivility and stonewalling. Each successive instruction to "drop it" reinforces the lack of process for admin accountability (at least until it becomes a pattern of serious disruptive behavior over time). This is not a disagreement between an editor and an admin -- this is an unsubstantiated and unexplained accusation by an admin against editors and isolated instances of incivility. I agree that it is not egregious, but it remains unresolved. If you want this discussion to end, please help facilitate a courteous dialogue among Sarah, Greg and me. Surely you cannot view that request as a dogged insistence on winning. This RfC is not about my behavior, it is about Sarah's; it is an attempt to resolve the issue rather than sweep it under the rug, as suggested. Scrutinize me, chastise me, keep repeating the same advice if you care to make this a personal battle, but I'm not dropping it. The dispute resolution process necessarily fails if the disputee will not participate in the process. Minor4th • talk 07:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, for some reason I saw "overreaching" and not "overarching". Sorry for that. The phonetic notation and definition were a bit over the top and mildly insulting, but I digress. My main point remains valid. RfC is not the place for political battles, which you've admitted is your agenda. When you brought the RfC you did ask others to reflect on your actions, whether that is what you intended or not. "An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors." You stated that it isn't egregious and therefore this isn't the appropriate forum. WP:WQA is the forum for a mild-to-moderate conflict and I think that you would find more support there. You should give serious consideration to going about this another way. Movementarian (Talk) 07:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be insulting. I actually went and looked up the word to make sure I was using it correctly -- the phonetic notation was supposed to be a bit of levity. Guess it didn't translate. I apologize.
Look, this is so simple -- I mean, pretend we're not on wiki, and instead on the job you have an issue with your manager in that he accused you at the company picnic of being a drunk and said he had evidence of such. You assume he has just gotten some bad information, and you're anxious to explain to him that you're not in fact a drunk. So you ask him why he thinks that, but he tells you to scram and don't bring it up again. Meanwhile, your co-workers are whispering about what the boss knows and begin speculating that maybe you really are a drunk although they had never considered it before. You'd really like to resolve it and clear your name because it bothers you a lot that someone has publicly accused you of being a drunk, with the little added bit about having evidence of it. You ask around about what you should do, and everyone you ask defends the boss' right to call you a drunk and refuse to address it with you or resolve the issue. Honestly, get off the process kick here and just use some common sense. The proper thing to do, and the solution that will lead to the most expedient resolution would be for the boss to just tell you why he thinks you're a drunk or apologize for making the accusation. There is nothing at all to be gained if the boss' buddies pile on and reprimand you for seeking to resolve the issue.
And one more thing, there have been a lot of comments about how RfC is not the right venue, and this or that forum would have been better. That may be true, but heck this is where we are and there is a very very simple solution. We could close this and go open a WQA instead, but it's going to be exactly the same as here and frankly I don't really think it matters because neither forum is a request for sanctions or penalties. And yes the various forums were considered but Greg and Sarah and I were all involved in an unfortunate move from a WQA to AN/I last week re: Nightmares, and that went phenomenally poorly, so I think that is why WQA was not really considered and AN/I seemed more formal and severe. This was really just supposed to be a way to get everybody to talk and be done with it, but the fact is there really is not a good forum for this kind of non-egregious, but still inappropriate, admin conduct to be addressed.
I have no political agenda, I just thought the discussion was interesting. Do something for me, ok? Go to the page history of Greg's RfC report and look at my first three edits and the summaries. I think you'll gain a little bit of insight into my lack of political agenda. I really do not mind having my own conduct under scrutiny. If I have offended, I will apologize. If I have broken rules, I will pay closer attention and not repeat the mistakes. What I really want is fairness overall and in this particular instance I want Sarah's offensive conduct to be addressed. If that means my errors are pointed out along the way, I am good with that too. Minor4th • talk 09:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Water off a ducks back. I was probably being a wee bit sensitive after having something I should have noticed pointed out. I take you at your word that this is not a political move and apologise for the accusation.
Let me back pedal a little bit here. I don't mean to belittle your position. Obviously, I didn't see anything wrong with the way Sarah handled herself as you can read in my opinion on the project page. Sure there are things that could have been handled differently, but there was nothing inflammatory or outright uncivil. I think that most people that have opined on the project page don't support your view strictly because there is no pattern of behaviour. That is also why I think there isn't pressure to have her respond.
Sarah is away for a week taking care of off-wiki business, according to her talk page. Why not close this RfC leaving the option to bring the issue forward again, wait a week, and then try again to handle this on talk pages? Address specifically the accusation that offended you and do not bring up the larger dispute. If you get no joy, then open a new RfC. I think you will find that if you give it some time and focus on what offended you, the result you desire will come to fruition. Most fair-minded editors are willing to apologise if their comments were offensive to others and I am sure that Sarah fits the category. If not, I think you will find that by waiting and focusing on the offensive statement, rather than the whole dispute, you will find your position strengthened and more editors endorsing your view. Movementarian (Talk) 10:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and attention to this. I will certainly consider that. Regards to you. Minor4th • talk 18:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

[edit]

I was about to speedy this on the grounds that the certifiers had been blocked, but I see they've been unblocked. There seems to be consensus that it was premature, so can I ask the certifiers here (GregJackP and Minor4th) whether they'd object to it being deleted? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry -- what are you asking about deleting? If you're talking about deleting this RfC, I would rather it not be deleted (didnt even know that was possible) but dont mind if it is closed. Minor4th • talk 21:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RfCs are normally deleted if there's any doubt about their certification: for example, if there wasn't enough effort at prior dispute resolution, if there are problems with the accounts that certified (and I see you were both recently blocked, though I don't know the background), or if there's a strong consensus that the RfC was inappropriate in some way, as there seems to be here. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. In that case, if this was done improperly and deletion is the ordinary thing to do, I dont mind. I dont know if Greg will be back today to answer. Minor4th • talk 22:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Minor, that's much appreciated. I'll post a note on Greg's page to make sure he sees this. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 22:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a ((hangon)) tag on it so that someone doesn't come along and delete it while you're waiting to hear from Greg. I don't mind if it's deleted, but I think Greg should have an opportunity to give his input. Thanks. Minor4th • talk 23:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg, you and Minor are the only two supporting it, and it's not clear that other dispute resolution was followed much before opening it, so deletion does seem appropriate. Can I take your reply to mean that you're not strongly opposed to deletion? Bear in mind that you're always free to raise the issues again, even after deletion, so nothing is really lost. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimV, the only reason it was brought here is that when I asked for AdminHelp on my talk page, the only advice I got was to drop it. Not one admin would tell me what the process was, so in looking at the options, we thought this was the least severe. We had tried to discuss it with Sarah, asked for outside (admin) help, and thought ANI was more serious. Of course, when we got here, the major point of all the admins was that it was the wrong venue. All we wanted to do was to resolve the issue, but it's clear that the stonewall won't allow that, so if deletion is the proper process, so be it. I would prefer it just be closed, but it has been made very clear to me that I shouldn't question admins. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Greg, you're supposed to be the civil one who can engage in reasonable discourse. I am the shrill unreasonable one, remember? Just answer his question -- agree to the deletion or oppose it? Minor4th • talk 06:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Greg, it's not that you can't question admins, it's that RfCs are intended for patterns of problems, rather than single occurrences (unless it's a very serious single occurrence). The issues on the page seem somewhat minor, though I realize they may not seem that way to the people involved. I would suggest AN/I as a first venue for this kind of thing in future (though ignoring it is better still), and an RfC as something much further down the line. I'm going to take your reply to mean you don't object to deletion. If I've misunderstood we can always undelete. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More