Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Robchurch 4

Sorry I messed up the numbering...I will try to fix it. Kukini 05:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's fixed now...  + + Lar: t/c 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion copied from main page: (from comment #2, first response)

You've only just read the nominating statement? So all your previous commentary was without the benefit of reading and reflecting on what I wrote? I think your comment (and my response) belong in the comments section but I'll leave it to someone else to redact it. Suffice it to say that I reject the notion that my carefully considered nomination, and the wording thereof, was "incredibly disingeneous". That's right up against the edge of incivility, I'm afraid. I knew of Rob's history before I nominated him, I gave the links I felt were appropriate, and I put it before the community as a question, will WP be better off with or without Rob as an admin. I think you've made your feelings clear but I am wondering how many times you're going to make the same points (which themselves carry a bit of misrepresentation don't they??? It is now not 10 days after his voluntary desysopping but 5 months... the community did in fact say 10 days was too soon... you write as if it were still 10 days after... how disingenious is that?) over and over? It's not good to harangue people too much, it detracts from the point you're making. But giving you tips on good communication styles may not be the best use of my time, I'm not sure. I would caution you against going beyond legitimately making your points and venturing into the area of disrupting this RfA... it's not really a good thing to do.  + + Lar: t/c 23:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd just read the nominating statement. And, no.  It wasn't at all necessary for me to read it before weighing in.  My position hasn't changed.  It's still far too soon to consider restoring RobChurch's admin privileges, based on the seriousness of his behavior.  I find it amusing that you've tried to equate my comments with "disruption" -- which is quite a stretch.  It's about as creative as the language of your nominating statement which minimizes Church's offense as something he "felt" was inappropriate and leaving the impression that a lengthy period had passed ("after some time")between his lying to the ArbCom and then seeking a reinstatement of his adminship.  There is absolutely nothing remotely disruptive about my actions in this matter.  I've stated the facts, even tempered my questions to Church -- to which I'm  awaiting a response.  And, no.  I've made it quite clear in my comments that it's been less than six months since the incident -- and that other users have been blocked for periods of a year or more for far less.  The gross inequity in the way Church's appalling behavior has been handled by the project and the way other editors are treated when they have been found guilty of relatively minor infractions is readily evident.  And this disparity of treatment does engender contempt for the project and its governance/policing processes and entities.  Further, while Church's conduct was fairly singularly reprehensible in nature, the dual standards of conduct for everyday editors and admins is not; the inequity of sanctions (when levied at all in the case of admins) is a systemic problem that needs addressing in a firm and forthright manner.  It is clear from the voting thus far that there is little will to do so.  deeceevoice 00:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Lar is not the only one that thinks you are bordering on disruption with your style of commenting here. You should know it's reflecting more poorly on you than him. That's not an offense, just a heads up your methods may not be accomplishing what you'd like them to, and you may not be aware how you're coming accross. Don't you think it's possible your characterization of the situation is a little affected by your involvement? - Taxman Talk 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My "style" of commenting? What? Simply stating the truth? You don't have to accept my characterization of the situation. Read Church's comments about his own behavior and then open up any RfA ArbCom proceeding that's been concluded where the finding is against the subject party and review the sanctions imposed. You can bet whatever they've done, it is likely not as serious as the calculated misconduct of Robchurch -- and you can bet that their punishment is grossly out of proportion to their "sins" relative to what little Church has gone through. Finally -- again -- I accepted Church's apology, as far as it went --and I bear him no ill will. The issue here is that the misconduct of some on this website is treated with a leniency disproportionate to its seriousness, while others whose actions don't even begin to equal that of those given a free pass are subjected to harsh sanctions. In light of the kinds of sanctions typically voted in editor misconduct, Church hasn't done the time and doesn't deserve to be considered for adminship at this point; he should be barred for at least a year from adminship. Those who violate the trust placed in them by the Wiki community by abusing their authority should be dealt with firmly and decisively and sanctioned meaningfully -- not given a slap on the wrist and then allowed to resume a position they've, by their deliberate actions, disgraced. deeceevoice 03:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, your style. The issue is not with the points you make (although I disagree with your characterisation of some of the events, and your describign of the entire process as flawed, and your ranting against (apparently) everyone else here at Wikipedia, you nevertheless have the right to have your say, within reason, and as it is germane to this RfA). The issue is with your repetition of these points. You've made your points, and you're not adding anything new any more I don't think. Your wordcount in this RFA exceeds any three other contributors, even if one of the others is me (Mr. Longwinded himself...). We get it. Unless you have new points to make you're just repeating yourself. So, yes. It's a style of commenting issue You have a style here. But not, IMHO, an effective one, rather, it's a disruptive one. (and one, if my research is correct, you've been counseled about before) You've got one bureaucrat to notice it already. As well, I think you're skirting civility way too closely here, so I'd caution you again on that.  + + Lar: t/c 04:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You disagree with my "characterization"? Well, then, I guess we're even. This is my first substantive involvement in one of these things, and I think it's perfectly appropriate to respond to a few of the comments offered by others. One mentions Church's "honesty," so I feel it appropriate to respond, because my experience with Church tells me he's not to be trusted to tell the whole truth. Another makes another comment that I feel speaks directly to my experience with Church, so I respond there. I'm frankly not certain how closely people actually pay attention to these things once they've cast their vote beyond, perhaps, looking to see if there's been any response to their own comments and/or check the vote count -- hence my entries. And, yes. I do feel as though I've now made my points, thank you very much. :p Finally, I somehow doubt seriously that if my comments were supportive and I had inserted them as endorsements of those votes, that you'd have any problem whatsoever with them. I feel your complaint is utterly without merit. deeceevoice 08:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a quick comment. Arbcom's task isn't to dispense punishment, but to prescribe remedies to stop problematic behaviour. That makes for quite a big difference in what cases it takes on and how it handles cases. For example, if there's a one-off mistake for which a user has profoundly apologised (as in Rob's case here), and there's no ongoing problem, no remedy is really needed. For better or for worse (but probably for better) Wikipedia doesn't provide "justice" for past wrongs, but it does try and sort out current, on-going problems. In my opinion, adminship is similar: a one-off mistake shouldn't bar someone from admin janitorial powers (particularly when the mistake didn't involve the misuse of those powers). &mdash; Matt Crypto 05:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * A case of "five-of" incidents of, say, incivility, or a like number of edit warring incidents is not the same as a "one-of" case of completely fabricating an elaborate lie about another user and then advancing it as evidence before the ArmCom. And this was not an "oops, my bad" "mistake" as you've characterized it; his actions were premeditated and calculated.  And he not only perpetrated the lie, he argued nastily with me about it in a series of exchanges.  His offense shows appallingly bad behavior and conduct so abysmal it's hard for many of us to imagine ourselves doing such a thing on even our worst days.  And the man still hasn't owned up to completely fabricating the e-mail in the first place -- which I really don't get at all; it makes absolutely no sense to me.  (Why not just come completely clean?)  His apology notwithstanding, the upshot is fundamental integrity and honesty are still issues here.  At issue here also is the hypocrisy of the way the system doesn't begin to work fairly when it comes to punitive measures.  You can pretend the ArbCom isn't punitive if you want to, but the fact is the measures it routinely takes to "try and sort out" problems of conduct are, indeed, punitive in nature.  And when sanctions against errant users are compared side by side relative to the offenses committed, Church has been given a free pass.  And it shouldn't be permitted; it is unconscionable.  A year probation before reconsideration for adminship is entirely appropriate in this extreme case and, IMO, what is called for here.  In light of Church's partial apology at the time and his voluntary de-sysopping, I told him I would not pursue action against him.  However, had his admin nomination just days later succeeded, I certainly would have done so to prevent his reinstatement as an admin.  And if I had done so, it is highly unlikely we'd even be having this discussion now.  Finally, it is quite clear Church's offenses against me and before the ArbCom aren't his only problem; others have written of other incidents more recent than the one involving me that should be red flags about this guy.  Despite his good works -- and I don't doubt there are many -- he's a loose cannon. deeceevoice 08:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm starting to wonder a bit here. First, thought you were done? You said you were. Yet here you are again repeating the same stuff, including again accusing me of being disingenious and worse, ranting about how the system is unfair, and arbcom sucks and etc... Rather tiresome really.


 * So I went digging. Here's what I'm guessing happened regarding this "fabricated email" charge you've been waving around... Rob blocked you for a 3RR violation (Here's your block log, quite a bit longer than mine, or even Robs, truth be told... ) and I gather you responded, using the "email this user" function... I bet that was a pleasant mail, wasn't it? Rob presumably discarded it, and later, when it turned out to be germane to an ArbComm case, tried to reconstruct it from memory, possibly introducing some error. That was a bad thing to do, but if my guess is right, reconstruction from memory is not quite the same thing as a "total fabrication", now is it? If that's not what happened, then what exactly did?


 * Next... "You disagree with my "characterization"? Well, then, I guess we're even."... Well, no, sorry, we're not exactly even. Your characteristation of me skirts the bounds of civility, your characterisation of Rob is over the line in my view, and has been repeated over and over in what others characterise as shrill and screeching tones. I on the other hand have remained pretty mild in just saying that I don't think you're on solid ground in what you say. I've ascribed no motives, called no one disingenious, characterised no one as having disgraced anything, called no one guilty of anything.


 * Finally... "Despite his good works -- and I don't doubt there are many -- he's a loose cannon." Pot, meet kettle. If anyone in this discussion is a "loose cannon", it would be the person with the longest block log and the person who's been warned about being incivil the most... and that would be you. People have been incivil to you in the past, yes, but that does not give you a free pass to be shrill, disruptive or repetitively borderline incivil yourself, at least not in my view. You said above you've made your point. I think you stil have made it, and there is no need for you to say anything further, although I realise now that you like to try to get the last word. The community should take your apparent desire to do whatever it takes to stop this nomination from succeeding as a metric in its own right, as a suggestion that perhaps it would be a good thing to support it.


 * I repeat the question: would Wikipedia be better or worse off with Robchurch as an admin? The answer, to me, is yes. I'll leave the question of whether Wikipedia would be better or worse off without your unwarranted disruptive behaviour unasked, for now.  + + Lar: t/c 21:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheer fiction. Not even close. Did you even bother to read your Robchurch's retraction? Why don't you ask him what he did? Looks like it's time for me to toss your cautions right back atcha. Watch it, Lar. You're 'skirting the edges of civility here.' :p What's the matter? It's not a runaway, unanimous "support" vote as you'd hoped, so now you're on the attack? Well, guess what? This isn't a referendum on me; I'm not applying for adminship. But Robchurch is. Try to focus. Would Wikipedia be better with Robchurch as an admin? I don't know. Right now, judging from his actions before the ArbCom and the other examples cited herein by other users, I have real doubts. I say let him cool his heels for another six months, which is a deal, compared to what others have had to put up with for doing far less than he's done. The project won't go to hell without him in that time -- any more than it has in the five months since he de-sysopped himself. By then, he'll have had ample time to reflect on the issues raised by numerous dissenters here, clean up his act and thus mitigate the concerns of those of us who currently oppose his reinstatement as an admin. deeceevoice 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Elswhere on this page you qoute Rob: "What was on this page was all lies and fabrication, insofar as what I claimed she'd said...." Ok, Rob said that. Big of him to admit it... when's the last time you admitted you were wrong about anything? I saw it and took it into account before I nommed him, in the context of everything else, including his remorse and his voluntary desysopping, which was 5 months ago now. Ya, that's what he said all right... but guess what? Doesn't mean there was never an email. The block is in the log. Do you deny you were blocked? Rob told me you sent him an email afterwards. Do you deny that? Rob told me it was not very nice, and "contained various weasel words, fallacies, threats, etc." Do you deny that? He shouldn't have tossed your mail. Bad judgement on his part. When it was clear that it was relevant, he shouldn't have tried to remember it for ArbComm, bad judgement on his part again, he should have just said "it was nasty but I don't have it any more". But I think you saying "total fabrication" that you sent him an email at all, which is what you're implying, is way off base. Because Rob tells me that the truth is this: you sent one, it was nasty, per your usual MO, and he was so stressed out by it that he tossed it.


 * Given a choice between taking your word or Rob's??? WOW! that's obvious to me. Your block log speaks for itself, really. That's not saying this is a referendum on you, it's saying that your words carry less weight with me and many others than other people's do. Sorry, but that's your own doing.


 * I didn't expect this nom to sail through, no, but I underestimated how hard you would work to do ANYTHING to derail it. I'd prefer you didn't get away with what has every appearance of a smear job by repetition, whatever your actual motives are.  + + Lar: t/c 22:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, Deeceevoice says that she never sent Rob any email at all and that he just fabricated one to make her look bad. Yom 00:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, where did you read that, do you have a cite? What I read is that Deeceevoice is trying to leave that impression but never actually SAID that, perhaps so that it could be recanted if necessary. But I have an email from Rob saying she did send him one. So it comes down to a he-said/she-said, if that's the case. Guess who I believe? If that's actually the case, that is it is a he-said/she-said, the choice gets even clearer for the readership, I think... Believe the word of a respected developer who's been around a long long time, has made countless contributions, and who has the gumption to admit it when he messes up, or do you believe  Deeceevoice? Again, look at the block logs, look at the histories, look at the relative veracities of the parties, and make up your own mind.  +  + Lar: t/c 01:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lar, you have gone to far with your comments to Deeceevoice. Reread your comments. You are making personal attacks. If that is your opinion, keep it to yourself. She has the right to her opinion about Robchurch and you have the right to your opinion about her. The difference is that he is up for a RFA and people have the right to evaluate his actions and make comments. Deeceevoice's behavior is not the issue here. FloNight  talk  01:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have always been a staunch defender of people being able to support or oppose as they wish, but I do in fact think that Deeceevoice's behaviour in this RfA is at issue here. Her comments are not just in one place but are scattered over the entire RfA, repeating the same allegations. It's valid to question whether it's necessary to be that strident in that many different places. It's also valid to explore whether those allegations are legitimate or not, and I think there's considerable doubt that they are. I'm not sure I'd characterise any of my comments as personal attacks, but if you think some of them are then I've went too far, and I apologise. Further, there may be more back and forth here than necessary, though it doesn't invalidate the points I'm making, or shouldn't.  + + Lar: t/c 01:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lar, perhaps as nominator you are too close to the situation to be an impartial judge of her comments and yours. Have confidence in the Wikipedia community to evaluate your nomination statement and Deeceevoice's comments in a fair way. If his nomination doesn’t go through, her comments will be a small part of the reason, I think.

Yes, I think some of your comments are uncivil and could be judged to be personal attacks. Do I need to point them out to you? FloNight  talk  02:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lar, see her talk page. She makes it quite clear. &mdash; Yom 02:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed she does, thanks for the pointer. Well that clarifies things a lot. I have stricken one comment of mine that in light of that, clearly is incorrect and I'll review further tomorrow. But it sharpens the question back to this, there's an apparent contradiction here. Rob says she sent him a mail, she says she didn't. Either at least one of them is incorrect, or there was some other factor (a mail system glitch that generates spontaneous mails?) that explains the contradiction. It does become a he-said/she-said, and if this matters, people will have to decide. I may well be too close to this nom to be suitably dispassionate, since it is my judgement and diligence on the line here too, to some extent. But, even on reflection, I don't recant my thinking that Deeceevoice was being too strident and said her piece in too many different places. And further, possibly more importantly, there is a truth evaluation problem here for people to make their minds up about.  + + Lar: t/c 03:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already explained why my comments are "scattered throughout" the page. There is a line where defending your candidate stops and attacking those who oppose his nomination begins -- and you've crossed it. While I have responded to the comments of others, I have done so, IMO, in a reasoned manner. The strident tone is yours -- and yours alone. Stick to advocacy; you're beginning to sound shrill, and -- again -- stay focused, Lar. Don't turn this into a circus. And, for what it's worth, RC probably will be reinstated with this nomination. And I know that there are people who will vote for him simply because I oppose him. But I couldn't let this pass without registering my objection. Truly, I don't have any animous toward RC. It's the process, the system that needs repair. For me, it's an issue of fairness; it's a matter of principle.deeceevoice 03:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's "animus" not "animous" deeceevoice.  And if you have none towards Rob, I'm surprised you've devoted so much time towards his RfA.    Justforasecond 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (chuckling) Yes, I know, JFAS. Just a glitch.  'S not important.  The RfA failed this time around -- as it should have.  And I've already stated my reasons.  Believe them or don't.  deeceevoice 13:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't the deadline just passed? This page should be locked and a decision made. He's at about 70% right now. The RFA page says that the threshold for consensus is usually 75%-80% (that's pretty high!), but I'm not sure how closely that's followed.

Yom 19:33, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Yom : - ) They will get to it soon. We have to remember that 'crats are voluteers, too. To answer your question about the range for consensus; I've never seen anyone get promoted under 75%. regards, FloNight   talk  19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Response
I suppose people are looking for some sort of conclusion, some sort of big long speech from me. Tough. I don't have the time to waste preparing another 30-minute bruiser. Nor does Deeceevoice. Nor do any of us.

I don't really care that the RfA failed. I don't really care that a load of people opposed, in fact, I am delighted. It means there's hope to save the whole process of reviewing people.

Some of us consider the misinteraction between Deeceevoice and I to be long in the past. Some of us still think of it as a fresh flesh wound. Whatever. It happened, and none of us can change it. I of course don't dispute her right to be pissed off at me still; she is entitled to her opinion and her feelings to put forward her opinion.

The reason I accepted the nomination was because being able to edit stuff in the MediaWiki namespace, and delete the odd page, would make life a bit easier for me. It doesn't matter that it closed without a promotion. There was no urgent need for me to be sysopped. Plenty of other sysops who can do my editing on my behalf. It's not vital at all.

If people don't want to trust me with a few tools, that's fine. Trust is important.

I'll continue to develop MediaWiki and contribute to the Wikimedia projects, and I'll continue to be me. Because I won't deprive other projects of my contributions. And I won't change who I am for the benefit of a web site. If I'm incivil, then, I'm afraid - that's how it is.

We've all left edit summaries we regretted. We've all fouled up aplenty from time to time. I seem to do it quite a bit. Whatever happens, it doesn't bother me. Mistakes lead to learning. We're writing an encyclopaedia. Nobody seems to be learning from it.

Best regards to those who supported, and of course, those who opposed. I welcomed the chance to revel in a bit of peer review and feedback. Perhaps more people should do it. robchurch | talk 01:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not pissed at you, and my words in my acceptance of your apology were genuine. Don't make this into a personal thing on my part; it isn't.  For me, it's an issue of fair treatment across the board.  I took a look at how others are dealt with on a daily basis on this website when they've made missteps and how they are dealt with by the ArbCom, and your case, and I didn't see anything remotely resembling parity.  I've made those points, and I'll not rehash them here.  If you'd like to try for adminship in another three months or so and you have no civility or other issues, your bid likely will succeed.  I, for one, will not oppose.  Peace.  deeceevoice 01:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Pertinent items above scratched. robchurch | talk 01:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) deeceevoice 01:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Deeceevoice, you never did directly address this, you know:
 * "But it sharpens the question back to this, there's an apparent contradiction here. Rob says she sent him a mail, she says she didn't. Either at least one of them is incorrect, or there was some other factor (a mail system glitch that generates spontaneous mails?) that explains the contradiction."
 * Because, the matter still stands, either one of you was misstating what happened with that mail, or there's some other explanation for it that I'm at a loss to determine what it might be. Instead of addressing it, you called me strident, and told me to not lose focus, (when in fact I was focused on the core of your allegation) and a lot of other commentary that didn't get to the root. To the extent that this issue was a factor in Rob's RfA, you got away with avoiding the core of the issue... because I just didn't want to keep discussing it, when you kept dodging... because talking to you is quite draining and frustrating for me, as you've really got the "staying just this side of the civility line" thing down to an artform. But we've got your word that you're not going to dredge this up again, should Rob choose to stand again in "three months or so", if I read you right, so that's something anyway.  +  + Lar: t/c 02:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You will recall that I was not the only person who saw your words as an attack, as uncivil. And, again, your language betrays you. I didn't "get away with" anything. Nor did I dodge anything. I stated my position -- several times -- for which you criticized me and as much as stated you had already decided I was lying. And you wanted me to say what to such crap? I simply chose not to respond and stoop to your level -- and to stay on point. The system worked this time, and the RfA failed. And I would hope that, as it did this time, that it will be RobChurch's conduct as is evident in the record that will determine the outcome of the next RfA, should he choose to run again. Regardless of one's contributions, or how well one is liked, there should be no double standard here; no one gets a free pass. You've as much as called me a liar. I will not respond in kind by telling you what I think of you. I stand by my words -- and I couldn't care less what you make of it. Absolutely nothing has changed, and this matter is closed. deeceevoice 02:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You will recall that I was not the only person that saw your words as an attack, as uncivil. And again, your language betrays you, because you have again dodged the substantive question. I pointed out there is a contradiction there somewhere and you dodged. Absolutely nothing has changed with you either. Happy editing.  + + Lar: t/c 02:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahhh wikipolitics....good till the last drop!  Peace.  Justforasecond 06:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)