User talk:Jakew/resolve

''I've created this page for the purpose of resolving the dispute between Robert the Bruce and Theresa Knott. I anticipate that this will be a first step towards the resolution of the dispute which can be found here.''

''There is no point to this unless everyone agrees that we want to find a solution, so that everyone can work together. Some compromises may be required, but it's also important to try to understand each others' views.''

''I will try to provide a framework for the discussions, and will try to guide it in a way that I believe will lead to consensus rather than conflict. I'll also try to summarise from time to time, and make suggestions. I'm working this out as I go. I'm not perfect, so if I screw up, tell me!''

''I'm sure we're all familiar with arguments in which participants keep saying "and another thing..." It can easily spiral out of control if we let it. With that in mind, let's restrict ourselves to two issues at a time - one raised by each party.''

(I will use italics throughout, to reduce the number of signatures.)

''Please introduce an issue that you would like to discuss. State it in a matter-of-fact manner, without making accusations or personal attacks.''

''When making the first response to an issue, try to restrict yourself to discussing the merits of the issue. Try to think from the other person's viewpoint. This is not impossible! It's always possible to find something that you agree with, even if only a little. Let's postpone debating the issue at first, so that we can find some common ground.''

Robert's 1st issue
I really don't have issues with people once I understand where they are coming from. Theresa clearly has many problems with many people (of which I am her current target). Now that I have realised just how vindictive she is I have taken a little time to read up on her history in such matters around here. There is a distinct pattern which sadly includes an approach which escalates a relatively simple matter to something which only an AC ruling will sate. A confrontational, agressive and vindictive person who demands standards from other people that she is unable to maintain herself. - Robert the Bruce 13:25, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Robert please give an example of your complaint against me, you are constantly saying things like this but you never give a concrete example. What have i escaletes up? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:31, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Folks, let's try to focus on what we can achieve. Robert, if Theresa could do one thing differently, what would it be?''
 * I would say that the most shocking thing about Theresa is her blatant bias. If we take the current run around over my "technical" 3RR violation and compare it to her indifference towards the clear examples 3RR breaches from DanP and Revasser one is able to observe the disgraceful pattern of her bias. So for starters I would suggest that Theresa concentrate more on content editing and contributing in such a manner to Wikipedia and refrain altogether from her current confrontational, agressive and vindictive manner in which she deals with people. - Robert the Bruce 05:42, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Tony Sidaway has been kind enough to provide examples of these breaches in the 3rd party comments section. I'm trying to look for a way of improving the situation, even a little. If Theresa were to be more consistent in dealing with 3RR breaches, would that be an improvement?''

All I did, was point out to Robert that he had broken the 3RR. I did not block him for doing so. When I've taken Robert's adversaries to task over bad behaviour Robert accuses me of trying to cover up for them. Whatever I do Robert accuses me of bias. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:21, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is DanP's reaction to be told he broke the 3RR

I only inserted a paragraph that Jakew previously deleted without explanation. If Jakew says I repeatedly reverted the article, my apologies as it should not have been so and was terribly inadvertent. ...

Notice how he accepts that he did break the rule. Now let's look at your response to my pointing out to you that you had broken it.

(italics changed to bold to avoid ambiguity -- JW)

"I expect he removed the comment because you did break the three revert rule.     Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 19:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)" Would you like to review this statement of yours and either confirm your allegation or witdraw it with a suitable apology? - Robert the Bruce

So DanP broke the rule and was warned by Tony and you broke the rule and was warned by me - in what way is that unfair? The only reason the episode went on after that is becasue you refused to accept that you broke the rule. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:35, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Theresa, please accept my apologies for implying that you are inconsistent. That was not my intention; I cannot take sides if this is to work. Let me rephrase: Robert, if you were to feel that Theresa was more consistent, would that be an improvement? If so, how could she make you feel that she was? How might you be able to help?''
 * Jakew you did no such thing, and you have nothing to apologise for. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:08, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Theresa alledges is the first of a number of reverts made. I ask for evidence that this was a revert and not an edit. - Robert the Bruce 03:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I can clear this misunderstanding up right now. I do not alledge that that edit was a revert, and i apologise if it appeared that I did. I put that edit in to show that the later edits were a revert to it. What I am alledging is that you reverted the heading 4 times after the above edit. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 19:32, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I am waiting to be shown where I breached the 3RR on Foreskin restoration. Would you be so kind as to show me where, Tony? - Robert the Bruce 17:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert the links are in my reply above. Please Robert, this is supposed to be mediation between you and me. Can you answer my points above? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 00:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I asked Tony to comment. I assume your stepping in here is to warn Tony off from responding? - Robert the Bruce 03:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Of course I wasn't warning off Tony. Can you please post an instance where I abused my admin powers though? I didn't actually use my admin powers in this instance. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:24, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''It's hard to see how productive this debate is, but let's try to settle the issue once and for all. Theresa, the links you gave are to comparisons of Robert's edits and the previous version. It would be easier to identify whether they are or aren't reverts if you would provide links to comparisons of Robert's version and the version that you believe he reverted to. (Sorry for the convoluted language there.) Let's not involve Tony in this please - this is between RtB and TK, with yours truly getting in the way of course.''

Jake, all will be revealed in due course. I have asked Tony to comment as to whether as an edit or a revert. Theresa claims it was a revert. It is obviously not. I believe this is germane to the issue of Theresa's misconduct. Theresa clearly does not want Tony to comment so I guess we need your judgement as to whether the post in question was an edit or a revert. Thanks Jake. - Robert the Bruce 17:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Tony is welcome to give his opinion in the 3rd party comments, if he so wishes. I'll give my opinion as a last resort, since I'm trying to mediate rather than judge. I think providing links as I described above would help a lot, since it makes a revert obvious. Theresa, for an example of the kinds of links I mean, please see the list of DanP's reverts below.''

OK let's sort this out:
 * On this edit Robert changed the heading to include the word psychiatric and removed a reference to an article by Boyle (Note that I am not saying this is a revert, although the heading has been taken back to how it was before)
 * this was a straight revert.
 * this is also a straight revert. Note that summary of Will you breach the 3 revert rule, I wonder? shows that Robert is clearly aware of the rules.
 * this is still a revert. Robert has again changed the heading, but this time left the Boyle reference alone. This was not an attempt at compromise as can be seen from the next revert.
 * this is another revert - note that Boyle goes and the heading is changed.

I count 4 removals of Boyle and 5 changes of the heading all on the 8th. Now you can call this 3.5 reverts, or a "technical" violation. I don't really care. What it was though IMO was a violation. Note that admins are expected to interpret behaviour and act accordingly. Note also that this was no accident. Robert was perfectly aware of the rule. Oh and note also that I did not use my admin powers. I did not block Robert for 24 hours, and neither did anyone else. I merely pointed out that he did break the rule. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting closer to the truth. You say as an "admin" you were interpreting behaviour and acting accordingly and in this case you have decided it was a 3RR violation. Good. Now we have established that your behaviour in this matter was by you - the administrator. You as the administrator "interpreted" certain behaviour as a 3RR violation and issued a warning accordingly. Now I am contesting your interpretation. I have Tony (see below) who sees 2 reverts and not the five you list. But as you say you "don't really care". So what if you the administrator involve yourself in stitching someone up on false allegations so as to rubbish his name. So what if you get involved in an orgy of tag-team reverting so as to help your buddy push his POV. So what if you get up to your armpits in a feeding frenzy to have someone censured at any cost. Sadly there is a cost to this Theresa and it is a cost you have to pay. You have sacrificed your integrity and the honour of being a Wikipedia sysop on the altar of vindictive retribution. - Robert the Bruce 03:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes I interpreted your edits above as reverts. I am not involved in "stitching you up however" and the allegations are not "false". I was not trying to "rubbish your name" I was trying to warn you that you had violated a rule. I was not involved in an "orgy of tag team reverting" and Exploding boy is not my "buddy". I ertanily haven't "sacrificed my integrity". You tried to get around the 3RR by doing a partial revert. I saw through that and warned you that such behaviour could lead to a block. I did not block you. I did not use my admin powers. in fact i have never used my admin powers against you. The fact that I disagree with you does not make me abusive. Oh and I'm not vindictive, I would love for you to see the errors of your ways, start working with people instead of against them, stop being arrogent and dismissive and rude to people. That's whty I agreed to this mediation. If I wasn't soo nice I would have taken you to arbitration ages ago, but I'd rather avoid that for now and see if this mediation works. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 03:46, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK Tony, so there we have it then. You make it two out of the five Theresa listed as being "reverts". Now any guesses as to why Theresa would have added the other three and then claimed a 3RR violation? - Robert the Bruce 03:13, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * It's clear you haven't read my reply above. What's the point in this if you don't read what I write? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 03:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Ok, so there are two undisputed reverts. Theresa says she isn't saying that this edit was a revert, so let's forget about it. The issue, it seems, is whether the last two constitute reverts, and this seems controversial. Is anyone aware of any guidance (or indeed agreement) on "partial" reverts?''

''Secondly, what can we achieve here? Let's imagine that we've discussed the issue, and either agree that Robert did break the 3RR, or that he didn't. What next?''

As far as I am concerned if the community agrees that Robert did break the 3RR then that's the end of the matter. He can consider himself warned. If the community agrees that he did not break the 3RR then I will strike my comments of the rfc talk page and apologise. Is that reasonable? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''It sounds reasonable to me, but how do we assess what the community feels? Only 5 people have contributed to this page, in total (including myself). That's enough for a vote, but barely. Ok, I'll be constructive: if it is acceptable to both participants, I will create a vote section on this page to determine the community's opinion. Anyone will be able to vote, including all participants, and I will set a time limit. Please indicate whether this is ok.''
 * Jake, why do we need a vote? Either it was a breach of the 3RR or it wasn't. I say it wasn't, Tony says he sees only two reverts, Theresa now says that she "interpreted" my edits as reverts. I believe the reality of the situation is becoming clear. So it is not the "community" that needs to decide anything, but rather Theresa who has to be honest with herself in this regard. - Robert the Bruce 03:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert's reply doesn't surprise me. I note how he completely ignores EB's comment. Of course he wont accept a vote on this matter. Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 05:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Please could each of you email me. I'm at jake@waskett.org.''

Theresa's 1st issue
My issue with Robert is not so much with his beliefs or POV but with his behaviour. Robert is very hostile to anyone who disagrees with him, and makes frequent personal attacks. For example, recently he has taken to accusing me of abusing my admin powers. I have repeatedly asked him to provide evidence of that abuse, be he has never done so. Without any evidence I have no way of defending myself, so this is the worst possible kind of personal attack.

Robert I would like you to either:
 * Post evidence of my abuse here so we can discuss it and hopefully resolve it.
 * Withdraw your accusations.

I dont thank that is an unreasonable request. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Ok, it looks like Theresa doesn't feel that she's abused her powers, and she's offended and angry at the accusation. Robert, in contrast, feels that Theresa has acted inappropriately, and he's indignant. Robert, instead of all the evidence, how about discussing a single example?'' It would really help if we could see an example, Robert.
 * I see no likelihood of Theresa ever accepting that she has abused her position as sysop or abused other people. I call this the "Abu Ghraib" syndrome. She is on record of having told people to "fuck-off", call someone a "nutcase" and others a "troll" or a "vandal". She is able to justify her abusive actions on the basis that what she is doing is supposedly for the "good" of Wikipedia. This somehow (in her own mind) appears to excuse her worst excesses. Were getting dangerously close to a person who believes the end justifies the means and as such is losing the ability to tell right from wrong. Now one could possibly live with this if she hated everyone equally and not just a select few who are deserving of her personal attention. There is always a test case for these people (and one that is failed 99% of the time) and that is to watch their reaction to a situation where their "friends" breach the rules and see if it is even-handed. Theresa fails this every time. People like Theresa can only be helped if the accept that they need help. Does she accept that she needs help? - Robert the Bruce 07:32, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't aknowledge abuse if you don't post evidence of it. Help with what exactly?Jakew has asked for a single example. Please provide one so that we can discuss it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Robert, please understand that I'm not asking for all the evidence you have against Theresa. One example would be fine, and it doesn't even have to be the best. Please, let's have something concrete to talk about. Please say something!''

OK, lets start here. Theresa is it true that you are on record "having told people to "fuck-off", call someone a "nutcase" and others a "troll" or a "vandal"."? - Robert the Bruce 17:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In order - possibly can you provide the link please, (I'm certain that I have never told you to fuck off though), I did once say that irismiester was a nutcase -I apologised for it afterwards - note that irismeister has been repeatedly censured by the AC, is currently on a one year ban, and has made repeated legal threats against me, Jimbo, David Gerard, all the members of the arbitration committee, and  all the members of the board. As for troll and vandal, I'm not sure, I do frequently say things like "you are trolling" or "please dont vandalise wikipedia" but I try to avoid saying "you are a troll" or "you are a vandal". Again can you provide the links please. Also none of the things you have said above are admin abuse. Admin abuse means something very specific here on Wikipedia. It means abusing admin powers. I.e. blocking, deleteing, protecting a page (and undoing those). Accusing someone of admin abuse, is very serious. That's why I keep demanding that you retract or provide evidence. Since you haven't provided evidence, please retract your allegation. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:37, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) From tknott at * Thu Sep  9 16:04:21 2004 From: tknott at *(KNOTT, T) Date: Mon Dec 6 19:23:10 2004 Subject: [WikiEN-l] Robert Brookes Would people check out this pricks edits please and state on his rfc if he is a simple vandal that can be blocked by any admin or a more usual POV pusher that needs to go to the AC. It's a bit of an in-between case IMO. I think he's a vandal who is here to get his kicks from insulting people, but maybe I am biased because he's called me part of a "lunatic fringe". What do other people think? Theresa
 * A memory lapse Theresa? Here a little jog then: - Robert the Bruce 04:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But that was about Robert Brookes! I'm glad to see you confirm the use of sockpuppets. Yes I did call you a prick on the mailing list. I apologise for that. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 04:09, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * All I am confirming is a history you have for abusing people. Your memory appears to be a short one and I am helping you to jog it a bit. I sincerely believe we need to help you address this "Abu Ghraib" syndrome of yours. You even admit to it by stating that Irismeister deserved your abuse (and thereby attempting to justify your abuse as being normal and acceptable behaviour). You really need to work through this problem of yours with someone suitable qualified, Theresa. This email of yours exposes another attempt of yours to deceive where you state that you "try to avoid saying "you are a troll" or "you are a vandal"" but clearly the email proves that you really don't try hard enough. Remember for a moment if you will the comment I once made about your ilk demanding standards from other people that you are not able to maintain yourselves? So I say again then Theresa, you really need some help. - Robert the Bruce 04:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * And I say again - please remove your accusations of admin abuse. You have clearly been going through my edit history and have not found any evidence of admin abuse. Mediation is about give and take, you are in my section here. I have apologised for calling you a prick, please return the favour and retract your unfounded accusation (you don't need to apologise - just retract it). Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 04:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

''Ok, it seems like there are actually two issues here. Firstly, Robert alleges that Theresa abused admin powers, and secondly, he alleges that Theresa has been abusive. The issue that Theresa raised in this section was the former, so could Robert please answer that?''

Third party comments (use sparingly)

 * Three revert rule
 * User:DanP 1 2 3 4
 * User:revasser 1 2 3 4

User:Tony_Sidaway (signature added) Thanks Tony, for concrete examples.
 * It's been stated that I warned User:DanP. Well it's true that I warned him about the blocking sanction (I'm not an admin, by the way; it wasn't a threat) but only after User:jakew had already politely warned him that he had broken the 3RR in the first place. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think Theresa's request that Robert demonstrate an instance in which Theresa has abused her sysop powers was reasonable. It's a very serious allegation.  I appreciate that Robert may feel aggrieved about being warned (days after the event) that he had abused the 3RR when the evidence presented appears to be rather equivocal.  However this does not go any way towards explaining why Robert accuses Theresa of abusing her sysop powers.  Theresa did not use her sysop powers in this instance.  Theresa has asked Robert to give an example of this.  I think Robert should comply with that reasonable request, as Theresa has presented the evidence she used to support her accusation against Robert. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:57, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Robert, anybody can tell someone to fuck off. That is not an abuse of power.
 * Out of the list that Theresa gave, I discovered two unequivocal reverts, and one edit that was substantially a revert. It took a long time because I was not familiar with what was being debated and there were a lot of small edits and one or two quite long reverts by other editors. There could be more.
 * 21:01, 8 Dec 2004 reverts edit by Exploding BoyTalk made at 20:43.
 * 21:06, 8 Dec 2004 reverts edit made by Exploding BoyTalk made at 21:02.
 * The edit you specifically ask about does not look like a revert at all. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:50, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For what it's worth, and frankly I hesitate to even add this comment given that Robert thinks that Theresa and I are in cahoots (and frequently accuses us of the same), I think Robert's "edits" (discussed above) are reverts as well. I would have blocked him myself for violating the 3RR but the rules clearly state that when an admin is involved in a dispute or is a freqent editor of a particular article s/he should ask another admin to step in when blocks or page protection are needed. I did in fact request another admin to step in, but s/he declined to do so (which is also in accordance with the rules). Approaching a second admin became unnecessary when I started the RfC.

I should also like to lay to rest once and for all the idea that Theresa and I are in any way involved. We are aware of each other from editing some of the same articles, but that's the extent of it. We have never communicated off-site, we do not "tag team" edit, and we certainly do not work together against any user. I happen to agree with her in this particular case, but I've disagreed with her in other cases. Robert's continued accusations (for example, claiming that we are a "tag team") are nothing but unfounded, misinformed (or, perhaps, intentional) mudslinging, and it's becoming tiresome. I'd ask him to lay off, for his own good--since it really does nothing to further his image as a cooperative editor--and for ours. Exploding Boy 16:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Theresa's explanation of the revert count
OK let's sort this out:
 * On this edit Robert changed the heading to include the word psychiatric and removed a reference to an article by Boyle (Note that I am not saying this is a revert, although the heading has been taken back to how it was before)
 * this was a straight revert.
 * this is also a straight revert. Note that summary of Will you breach the 3 revert rule, I wonder? shows that Robert is clearly aware of the rules.
 * this is still a revert. Robert has again changed the heading, but this time left the Boyle reference alone. This was not an attempt at compromise as can be seen from the next revert.
 * this is another revert - note that Boyle goes and the heading is changed.

(From Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:25, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC))


 * Yes, I see your point. Robert's clear intent here is to revert edits, and he does this piecemeal but the eventual effect is the same.  I think cases like this should be clarified in the 3RR policy--not to the extent of giving would-be evaders a clear recipe for evading the effect of the 3RR, but enough to make it clear that changes that have the same effect as simple reverts may be treated as de facto reverts.   This seems a reasonable application of present policy, but it's best to spell out that "revert" does not refer only to simple reverts.   --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Theresa has issues with Robert. She clearly thinks he's the same guy she called a prick and suggested was a vandal. I don't have a problem with that. We all have people we think are pricks. At least a couple of mine are here on this page.

However, Theresa's interaction with Robert has been spiky, to say the least. She's a fairly spiky sort of person, on the whole. She does throw warnings and policies around when it suits, and she is not, that I've seen, particularly evenhanded (don't ask me to give examples because a/ I'm not going to be watching this page and b/ I don't actually have to spend my life proving what I say -- you can just take it or leave it as you please; nothing pisses me off more than this whiny insistence that people must prove this and prove that when the person doing the whining knows that it's true but hopes that their interlocutor won't bother to dig up the proof or can't find it). I don't think an admin should threaten someone they personally have an editing problem with, because this kind of dispute is bound to arise.

Now Robert's a POV pusher, sure enough, but so are the people he's reverting. He also doesn't mind trolling (look, sue me, why don't you, for saying it, but "trolling" is the coin of the realm in Wikipedia, and pretending that it's a civil place won't actually make it one -- I laugh my head off when some idiot leaves a message on somebody else's page politely "warning" them to do this or that because the rules say they must. Presumably those people simply don't ever think what effect their messages actually have! I'd prefer to be called a prick, to be honest). But the thing is, Theresa bites. If she didn't want conflict, she didn't have to bite. She could leave Robert tangoing on his own. I doubt she has a particular interest in foreskins, or any particular knowledge that she wants to share, so I suppose I'm thinking that her purpose for being there is somehow to "defend" the page or to "defend" Wikipedia, or whatever. It would be altogether more constructive for her and for Wikipedia if she left Robert to his own devices, fighting with other POV pushers over whatever articles they want to fight over, and did good work in other places without worrying about him so much. That's my 2c worth.

All my comments are about Theresa because, frankly, I think Robert isn't in the slightest bit interested in mediation. FWIW, Robert, I think its being mostly right or at least feasibly right that makes you so effective. It upsets those who have power because they are afraid that they will too blatantly do the wrong thing to someone who is substantially right.

Best wishes for the season to you all.Dr Zen 02:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)