Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Friday


 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.  

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Desired outcome
Friday needs to stop making the atmosphere toxic with unnecessary and insulting remarks. He needs to concentrate more on why we are here: the encyclopedia. Less than 15% of his edits are to articles. Before making comments, he needs to think more carefully as to whether his comment could be rephrased to be more polite or constructive.

Description
Friday, a long-term editor and admin, frequently makes the collaborative environment on Wikipedia an unpleasant one for other editors. This is done in a variety of ways: insensitive remarks on RFAs, digs at other editors, keeping lists of editors in his userspace etc. This is unacceptable behaviour, especially so for an administrator. This is made worse since Friday is an administrator who, like many and quite rightly, often criticises other admins' behaviour, but has failed to see his own has slipped below what is acceptable.

Additionally, Friday has fairly recently involved himself in abusing his admin rights, involving protecting a page to his own preferred version. He has also made bad blocks.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Note: This is just a sample, not an exhaustive collection of every problem. It is a random sample of diffs going back to November, but this sort of thing has been going on for years.

Problematic subpage issues

 * Vicious and bitter commentary in a subpage... claims people are "whining"... "bleating"... "misguided"... "bleat camps"... "clubs"... - when in fact, legitimate concerns were brought up about admins violating the protection policy
 * Friday keeps a subpage which criticises closures of RFAs he disagreed with. On this page are more baseless accusations of "chat room buddies", "lunacy", "he's my buddy"-type supports etc. The whole page is a violation of WP:NOT a battleground. It's full of anger and baseless accusations of "errors" made. It has a list of re-attempts of RFAs, claiming that it's simply that the user "kept on trying until they passed", which is simply untrue and unfair. It has nothing to do with the encyclopedia, and is completely drama-stirring.
 * Creates a list of so-called immature and problematic editors. Such a creation can only be described as drama-stirring, since a) Many users have long left the site b) Most on the list are adults c) It helps nothing in the improvement of the encyclopedia.

Problematic disagreement issues

 * Refers to editors he disagrees with as "boneheads"
 * More baseless "chat room buddy" mudslinging - calls users who he disagrees with "knuckleheads"
 * Calls another editor eccentric
 * Refers to editors who disagree with him as "attention whores"
 * Claims people who use RTV are "whiners"
 * Tries to enforce his own view on RTV by rewriting the policy
 * Refers to numerous editors as "clueless"
 * Claims people who disagree with him "(don't) know what the hell they're talking about and can be safely ignored"
 * Calls former arbitrator FT2 a "kook"
 * Calls former arbitrator David Gerard "kooky"
 * "Any reason we're still tolerating this guy", referring to an editor who has authored 9 featured articles and 19 good articles

Problematic assuming of the worst

 * Refers to an editor using right to vanish as "covering their tracks" - as though every person who uses RTV is somehow guilty
 * Clearly doesn't bother to read RFA nominations - auto-opposes, as it were
 * Opposes an RFA without bothering to check if the candidate had improved from the concerns raised.
 * See above

Problematic unfounded accusations

 * Calls a user a "drama queen" and makes a baseless claim they "go out of their way to look for trouble"
 * Goes on to claim the use of a legitimate sockpuppet (that was given the "green light" by a Checkuser) shows an "astounding" lack of clue, whilst in the same comment makes a sweeping assumption about all the supporters, claiming they are "chat room buddies" giving the candidate a "pat on the back"
 * He then makes the baseless claim that there are supporters who are "scoring political points by supporting a buddy - he claims such supports are "silly political games".
 * More baseless accusations on an RFA with a weak oppose reason - suggesting the candidate is only receiving support from a "chat room"
 * Another baseless oppose reason - more "kid" impression
 * Labels an adult editor as a "kid in a chat room".
 * An RFA soon after desysopping is immature? Is there anything that isn't mature?
 * Makes a particular nasty remark on an RFA (an editor with numerous FAs/GAs) as "this candidate, seriously? I just can't fathom it. Now I remember that I've seen this editor before. He's just an overly dramatic kid, with all the trimmings."
 * Opposes a candidate (who as far as I can tell hasn't caused any problems since their nomination in December) for "simply knowing that the candidate is a chat room kid". Again, more unfounded remarks
 * "This is the best bit of performance art I've seen in a good while. Not sure if you were in on the joke, David, but either way, well done. All talk of ousting David should be disregarded- he is the best parody of himself we could ask for."

Problematic admin-related issues

 * Seems to advocate the idea that a block log is for listing punishments
 * Pointlessly blocks an admin for an hour, despite being heavily involved in the discussion, and clearly being biased
 * Abuse of protection tool. See this also. Goes forum shopping when he didn't get his own way

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * 1) WP:AGF
 * 2) WP:ADMIN
 * 3) WP:CIV
 * 4) WP:BATTLE

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * 

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 *  Majorly  talk  20:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Half-and-half. IIRC, I have raised the issue in the past with him. Sceptre (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * A few kinder words and perhaps less insulting verbiage about other editors would be nice. Endorse rest as well. NW ( Talk ) 02:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironholds (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ( X! ·  talk )  · @111  · 01:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just read through a good chunk of Friday's interactions, and I agree with the complaints. Unfortunately, the frank 'cutting through the bullshit' style he has, although acceptable in a normal user, is unacceptable from an admin. Admins need to be polite and thoughtful in their interactions. The solution is easy, Friday just needs to be careful to not make unnecesary negative remarks. I've seen admins who, even the the face of much provocation, refrain from being negative in their responses. IMO, such is best. LK (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.''

Having given it a few days for the complaints here to become more clear.. I see a few areas of recurring disagreement here. Most of them I've already responded to at various points in the past, but I'll re-respond and/or summarize.


 * One issue here is ageism. I've explained my view on it at User:Friday/Ageism.  I understand that some editors, particularly young ones, strenuously object to this point of view.  I don't think there's any practical way to resolve this objection, so I suggest we just agree to disagree.


 * Another issue is RFA. I have my reasons for voting the way I do, and I try to explain them when voting.  When asked, I'll try to explain them a bit more, but past a certain point this ceases to be useful.  People should evaluate the candidate honestly and fairly, and not take things personally.


 * The issue of use of admin tools is the most serious allegation here, in my opinion. I'm aware of two things I've done that were controversial: The issue with User:WebHamster, and the block of User:Scarian.  In the first case, I removed inappropriate content from a user page.  When someone else put it back, I reverted and protected the page, asking people to please try to maintain some semblance of a professional atmosphere.  Well, wanting a professional atmosphere was unpopular that day, and my actions were reversed.  I still believe I did the right thing, but I saw it was a battle I was not going to win, so I let it go.  In the case of the block, I explained my reasons for making it in the appropriate place.  Some people agreed, and some did not.  I think my actions were reasonable there, and nobody disagreed strongly enough to change the block.

In summary.. I have my own opinions, and yes, they are occasionally unpopular. But, I do my best to make my position clear in the appropriate place, and then move on. I try not to dwell on disputes or dig up old ones for no useful purpose. I understand that it's hard to judge this from words written on a computer, but I try to approach everything from a calm and rational perspective. I'm certainly not going to claim that I don't make mistakes- I'm just one editor, doing the best he can. If I make a mistake, I'll either fix it, or someone else will. A time or two people have "fixed" things that I don't consider mistakes, but that's how life goes sometimes. Friday (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Endorse with the clarification that I don't agree with all the views expressed in Friday's essay; I prefer the notion that age should be irrelevant, and editors should be purely judged on conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Sanchom
Friday is definitely a long-term editor and administrator, holding both roles for longer than I have. I've never had an unpleasant interaction with Friday, although I may have never had any interaction with him/her.

There are several claims in this RfC: Friday makes the collaborative environment unpleasant, this is unacceptable, especially so for an administrator, Friday's criticism of the behaviour of other admins makes this situation worse.

I think the latter claims are unimportant to the main issue here. Whether Friday is an administrator or not, and whether or not Friday criticizes the behaviour of others, making the collaborative environment unpleasant is unacceptable. The only question is whether or not Friday makes the collaborative environment unpleasant.

I suspect some confirmation bias in the presentation of evidence in this RfC. There are definitely some examples of Friday's contributions that I would agree are less than ideal, and that could have been avoided by Friday, but others have been misrepresented in their summaries on this page.

For example, the link "Refers to editors he disagrees with as boneheads" actually points to a discussion where Friday says that "only a total bonehead would assume that a particular individual is exceptional, without evidence".

Another example, the link "Claims people who use RTV are whiners" points to a discussion where Friday characterizes that majority of people who leave in a very visible way are whining for attention, not all people that use RTV.

A third example, the link that includes "makes a sweeping assumption about all the supporters" points to a discussion where Friday actually says, "If it's because he's your chat room buddy...". He didn't actually make the claim that anyone was a chat room buddy.

There are similar patterns in a lot of the evidence provided. This pattern is what I have based my view on:

Friday sometimes speaks in generalizations and hypotheticals rather than focussing on the specific. Other editors sometimes infer that any negative remarks included in these statements refer to them. They shouldn't. Friday should think more carefully whether the statement he/she is presenting is actually relevant and referring to the specific situation under discussion to help avoid this problem.

For example, instead of saying "only a total bonehead would..." and leaving some innocent bystanders to be offended, if you had somebody in mind that actually acted this way, you should say that directly, rather than offend collaterally people you didn't mean to. Of course, even better than that, is to simply avoid characterization of people (even hypothetical people) as boneheads and focus on the content and actions, letting others to decide on their own whether those constitute boneheaded-ness.

As for the desired outcome, I suggest a revised version that I've hinted at above already: Friday should stop making unnecessary and (possibly unintentionally) insulting remarks and should think carefully about whether a comment could be rephrased to actually be specific and applicable to the situation. I'll stop short of calling the atmosphere toxic. Other editors are reading more into these statements than needs to be read into them. I believe that Friday does care about the encyclopedia.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Sancho 19:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed. While Friday could be more diplomatic, this RfC exagerates the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) It's the broad brushes that you use in making sweeping statements that causes collateral damage.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by Balloonman
I've been looking at Friday's edits for a few days trying to decide what I was going to say at this RfC. I initially came here expecting to endorse the RfC. You see, my impression of Friday has been that he is more likely to add fuel to the fire than he is to try to quench the flames. Based upon what I thought about Friday, I expected a stronger case. I was surprised when there wasn't more; and I was really disappointed in how this RfC was put together. The evidence presented doesn't speak for itself and the manner in which it is presented actually detracts from it (the vitriol in the RfC...) Anyways, I've read through the RfC a few times and spent a decent amount of time reading through Friday's edits. The first thing, I want to do is to apologize to Friday. My impression of you was not supported by a closer look at your edits.

That being said, there are reasons that fed my impression, which means that there is room for improvement.

First, one of the things that I learned a long time ago is that two equally intelligent people can look at the same evidence and reach a different conclusion. This is the basic foundation of discourse. You would do well to realize that intelligent and sincere people can legitimately look at the same scenario or the same RfA candidate and reach a different conclusion. Having a differing opinion is not wrong, it is what makes us stronger! When you make generalized statements about people who take a stand contrary to your own, you insult others who may be making well rationed decisions. This becomes problematic when you attack the motives, judgment, or intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

Second, when you go on your anti-kid rants you turn people off. Your view on teenagers has come to outweigh your message. Just as I was critical of how the evidence was presented in this RfC, when you criticize somebody for being childish/a kid/etc, your point is lost because the packaging buries the point you attempt to make. Your view is so pervasive and well known that when you bring it up, people tune out. When you start beating the age horse, it sends the message that you are not looking at the individual for who it is, but rather are blinded by your personal filter. Right or wrong, this interferes with your ability to communicate constructively with others on the project.

Third, I do have to agree with the concerns about your subpages. They can be overly aggressive. By listing people you cannot help but antagonize others.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Endorse all apart from the comments about the RFC itself. It's irrelevant how it is set up, as long as it shows there's ongoing issues, which it does.  Majorly  talk  15:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) ( X!  ·  talk )  · @111  · 01:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4)  SparksBoy (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.