User:Arcayne/Pearls and Bacon/Archive1

Page Revision History as of 01/11/08:

Elonka's claims "bad faith and uncivil comments"
1. Elonka requests to have sanctions against DreamGuy extended. ("Request for extension of restrictions at DreamGuy")

2. I, ElC, ask her if there has been any recent violations by DG ("evading sanctions how?", to which Elonka responds: "Evading sanctions: Bad faith and uncivil comments. Just look at his contribs."

3. I ask with individual diffs. ("asking me, or the Committee, to 'just look at his contribs' is a bit much. Why not provide diffs, instead?")

4. Elonka refers me to her subpage: User:Elonka/DreamGuy report.

5. I insist on a diff. ("Can you not cite a diff or two here?")

6. Elonka declines my request. ("I would like to keep focused on the most important issue, which is that DreamGuy is continuing to use anons to evade scrutiny")

7. I reiterate that, at this point, I am interested in proof of the "bad faith and uncivil comments," noting that this is now the fourth time I asked for this (including requests on her talk page, where the toll soon rises to five), expressing my increasing puzzlement.

8. Elonka declines, again. ("I am equally puzzled why you are getting so focused on that one peripheral comment"</tt>)

9. I explain that just her not answering seems reason enough. (<tt>"am focused on it due to the non-answer."</tt>)

10. The next day, Elonka finally appears willing to oblige, although yet to provide specific diffs which, presumably, will be forthcoming. (<tt>"how recent do you want? When I scan the recent contribs of both 68.47.175.159 (talk · contribs) and DreamGuy (talk · contribs), I see multiple examples of incivility and assumptions of bad faith, just in the last couple days"</tt>)

11. I, of course, am interested. I glance at 68.47.175.159 (talk · contribs) but see nothing beyond the word "silly" used in a nonoffensively. (<tt>"yes, this will be the seventh times I now asked you for recent instances of incivility from a DG ip (couple of days is fine with me"</tt>)

12. Shortly thereafter, Jehochman also notes that providing diffs should be simple. (<tt>"If these comments exist, it should be trivially easy to provide the diffs"</tt>)

Arcayne's claims "apparently, uncivilly, at that"
1. Seemingly due to Elonka's yet-to-be substantiated claims, Arcayne makes similar claims. (<tt>"editing through anonymous accounts ... and apparently, uncivilly, at that"</tt>)

2. I, characteristically, request evidence. (<tt>"do you have evidence for that 'and apparently, uncivilly, at that' that's actionable?"</tt>)

3. Arcayne declines, in so far as he does not respond to the request. (<tt> </tt>)

4. I point that out. (in edit summary: <tt>"so, no proof for that 'and apparently, uncivilly,' then?"</tt>)

5. Arcayne seems to agree. (<tt>"okay, that seems charitable enough"</tt>)

6. Yet, not long after, makes similar claims. (<tt>"I think that it has been pointed out that the behavior under the anon wasn't very civil"</tt> — italics is my emphasis )

7. I point out that no evidence was provided, then (see above) and now. (<tt>"I keep asking for evidence, you keep responding with rumor"</tt>)

8. On Dmcdevit 's talk page, I express frustration with regards to the lack of evidence in Arcayne's often confusing claims. (<tt>"I can't handle this mode of communication any longer. If you speak about the past, please cite pertinent diffs"</tt>)

9. Arcayne declines, or at least fails to add the links to his claims, while making further accusations. (<tt>"Its pointless to ask for explanations form people who don't feel the need to tender them. I am disappointed in getting games and not answers"</tt>)

10. Note that this follows earlier vague accusations on the same page. (<tt>"poorly characterizing the efforts of people acting genuinely to remove a deleterious influence to Wikipedia seems a bit out of line"</tt>)


 * Comment - I am somewhat confused by this page and by El_C's collections of comments. I had always thought that silence or non-response equals acquiescence in WP, but now, according to El_C, it also means denial. After he suggested that we give DreamGuy another chance in a show of Good Faith (which I would point out I agreed to), El_C creates this subpage in what would appear to be a sparkling reminder in how to practice what one preaches. I will address each of the points that El_C apparently thinks are vital to the argument which prompted us both disconnecting after realizing that agreement was not to be found.
 * 1 - Incorrect. My claims regarding the user's poor behavior, sock-puppetry, 3RR and edit-warring had been made during the ArbCom enforcement in November of last year. The complaint was not filed by myself, nor was my response influenced by any other editor. My recent response was in noting the similarity of the behavior noted in the report and request filed by Elonka to revisit the terms of the restrictions imposed upon the user by ArbCom.
 * 2 - Actually, El_C characteristically ask for evidence from either the wrong people (asking Jehochman instead of me in the enforcement complaint last year, and asking me instead of Elonka). As had been pointed out now, as last year by his fellow admins, the information is there, if but El_C makes a bit of effort to ask the right people and look in the right locations. I am not here to spoon-feed links to an admin, especially one who repeatedly mischaracterizes my motivations and behavior. Blaming me for providing background is lazy.
 * 3 - At no time did I decline to present El_C with information; instead I instructed El_C that I was not the filing party, and that my presence in the complaint was simply to provide background.
 * 4 - So, apparently, my redirecting El_C to do his own heavy lifting was akin to denial? Well, I guess he has me there. It wasn't my complaint, so I wasn't going to be able to provide El_C Diffs different than what he were going to suss out by looking at the complaint himself. After El_C's comment on Dmcdevit's page about 'something sinister being afoot', it was apparent what you thought of the value complaint.
 * 5 - Again, incorrect. What I was agreeing to was El_C's proposal that we give DG yet another opportunity and assume rehabilitation. I added as well that I would rather be doing far more interesting things in Wikipedia than arguing with an a particularly obstinate admin over the behavior of an apparently favored third party.
 * It should also be noted that in the Diff provided by El_C, I specifically asked him if he could be the go-to guy to be contacted if (and probably when) the user re-offended. Oddly enough, he repeatedly failed to address that request for a bit - or should that read (by El_C's interpretation) denied to answer that? If he and Dmcdevit were going to to be the point men defending the user's actions, I thought it prudent to direct any future wrongdoing specifically to them. Oddly enough, both seemed to balk at this suggestion (actually, only El_C balked, Dmcdevit denied such a request, according to the new definition of non-response by El_C) While he did address the request later, he refused to accept responsibility for the task.
 * 6 - Again, incorrect. I made no claims except to point out that incivility on the part of DG (via what can only charitably be called his numerous anonymous IP addresses) was the apparent source of the initial complaint. Perhaps El_C took umbrage at being designated the go-to guy for any and all future (possible) violations by DG.
 * 7 - Yet again, incorrect. I was addressing what others had submitted, and neither endorsed nor disputed the claims, though I provided background information that indicated (providing the information submitted inthe complaint was accurate) a pattern. In point of fact, my contribution to the matter was drawn from the November 2007 ArbCom enforcement complaint, SSP and RFCU before I added a single comment to the request for arbitration. Attacking my by questioning my behavior was childish. As well, characterizing my again pointing to information already submitted as "rumor", and then - bizarrely - linking to comments that strangely did not actually contain even the word "rumor" - or even a comment by myself - but instead that of El_C noting: "I'm only interested in recent events. If DG reformed his conduct, then I'm satisfied." With which, I subsequently agreed, in principle. That El_C feels that DG is reformed is, in my estimation, wishful thinking, but perhaps that ill-spent optimism will bear fruit.
 * 8 - I guess if El_C felt frustration at the impasse, I felt it as well, and noted such in my subsequent response: "Unfortunately, neither can I. Its pointless to ask for explanations form [sic] people who don't feel the need to tender them. I am disappointed in getting games and not answers. Thanks anyway." The explanations requested by El_C were not mine to provide, yet when I asked questions that only El_C could provide, he failed to answer (oops, ''declines, in so far as he does not respond to the request" to quote El_C). When I asked for how he specifically was interpreting DG's behavior (in the face of two dozen or so editors and admins who have addressed his behavior in less than a year), he again "declined, in so far that he does not respond to the request", instead using that opportunity to instead ask - yet again - for information that he had already been pointed to. I considered his behavior unpleasant and thoroughly disappointing.
 * 9 - See #8 for correction. Apparently, El_C feels he is the only one entitled to responses to his queries. I respectfully disagree with that opinion.
 * 10 - Once again, incorrect. My comment noting El_C's and Dmcdevit "poorly characterizing the efforts of people" weren't vague. I am not going to spoon-feed diffs of comments that El_C knows he made, allowing him ample time to craft a response. When I refer to "poor characterizations" is the implication in both your post and edit summary suggesting that "something strange is afoot" as well as earlier, various comments as to the nature and motivations of those tendering complaints, most specifically the accusation that all of us were failing to assume good faith.


 * I should point out that even after the first debacle of the ArbCom enforcement complaint, I held El_C in rather high esteem. I had made errors in providing requested by admins (though not apparently succinct enough for El_C), which I feel caused the complaint and related RFCU to abort. Thusly, that this ArbCom complaint had to be filed yet again is - I feel - my responsibility. Had I written it correctly to El_C's exacting standards, DG might have received the corrective assistance that he only now is receiving, which I hope beyond realism is not too late to redirect his energies.
 * That this subpage seems to be groundwork for a complaint of some form by El_C is cause for concern. I would hope that El_C considers my responses as indication that he had stopped assuming good faith with me and quite simply stopped listening. I am no one's Gump - I may be newer at the administrative tasks that occur in Wikipedia outside of actual article editing, I am not going to get led around by the nose to provide information that others can find for themselves, especially if I am not the one bringing the initial information to the table.
 * That I choose to characterize as "deleterious to our community" a certain user who is consistently under fire as is my personal assessment based on available information. I do not consider any user with an ArbCom (created specifically for him), at least two different RfCs and innumerable noticeboard complaints to be a positive influence to our community. I don't care if the editor is John friggin'-Steinbeck with a keyboard, if he games the system, makes personal attacks (which I consider to be inherently uncivil) and edit wars with others, the behavior has to be addressed and corrected, If not, it leads other, less-experienced users to feel that the rules (for polite, professional and friendly exchange that the best of us exemplify) do not have to apply to them, either.
 * While I am very disappointed at what I felt were flaws in El_C's behavior, the damage isn't irreparable. He needs to understand that as an admin, he is not just a mediator calling for diffs, but instead is seen as a guiding force of the community. An admin may not have wanted that responsibility, but have it they do. Experienced users look to them not just for technical expertise but accurate assessments of situations. New users consider them - perhaps unfairly and unwisely - to be fonts of wiki-wisdom. i am sure that few admins accepted nominations expecting that they would be considered the bearded hermit at the mountaintop, but considered as such they are. If they do not possess this wisdom, then they need to exercise the most basic tools of wisdom: listening and restraint. Without them, they are worse than useless. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * (the following - and the above section - were removed to the discussion page for the subpage. Again. there was no history for it, so i must presume that El_C used his admin tools to conceal his edit history):


 * Comment - (see the scrubbed edit history for my earlier responses to El_C's accusations #1-10)
 * 11 - With respect, if you post factually or contextually incorrect information, I am going to respond to it - wherever it occurs. You yourself have done very much the same both before; you will also note that I don't use admin tools to scrub the history so as to make it appear that another person never posted a response in the first place. I think that can be done with admin tools, so it begs the question as to why you would be using admin tools to conceal dissent. It seems to run counter to that whole transparency thing. It was because of precisely this sort of occurence that I recreated the page so as to preserve what I felt was a pretty logical response on my part (and emailed it to myself, as a precaution).
 * 12 - Now, why on earth would I have temprarily lost a bit of faith in you? (btw, never really had it in Dmcdevit - once burned, twice shy, and three times is enemy action, to paraphrase) You are usually an excellent editor and admin; I just think you went a bit too far this time, and this page doesn't really engender the feeling that you are feeling all that charitable towards me. AGF aside, if it walks like a duck... - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:55, 13 January 2008 (UTC)