User talk:Jossi/AMA Kickstart70

AMA request

Regarding [1]

The second link in the request probably states the whole situation more clearly than I can, however, I will summarize as best I can: CovenantD was blocked by Essjay for alleged personal attacks and insults, where I feel none occured. Further, the block happened without warning, and extremely hastily, in punitive intent, all against blocking policy. When I attempted to get clarity on this blocking and any valid reasons for it, my request resulted in the stonewalling of my request for policy-following reasons, and further insulting of CovenantD. The whole process was derailed and frustrating.

What I would like out of this: Either have it clearly shown that the block was done within policy, or have the admins involved in the block told clearly that their actions were outside policy. Ideally the latter would result in apologies, but I'll leave that up to the people directly involved.

Personal note: I don't think this should be ignored, and will attempt to give what time I can, however I have a colic-y 6 week old baby here to deal with as well. Please give me a little leeway in response time.

Thanks, --Kickstart70-T-C 02:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up. I'll hold back until you are familiar with what went on. Cheers, --Kickstart70-T-C 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be having some negative impact on other users. Steve block (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) has just stated his reasons for leaving WP for a while, this issue being primary. Unfortunately, he's the one who made it very clear how these actions break policy. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'd say the greater issue was his interactions with T-Man. Having sat in on that arbitration case I understand his frustration. See also his comment on the noticeboard [2] where he allows that the block may have been appropriate and agrees that CovenantD's comments were inappropriate. You've been told why Essjay, I, and others feel the block falls within policy. You disagree with that. You're pursuing dispute resolution over a dispute with which you are not involved. Steve Block may have left; his reasons are complicated. However, one direct result is that WP:RFCU has been shut down because I'll not submit to this sort of degradation and neither will Essjay. If you want a demonstrable outcome you've got it. I'm not sure what else you'd like at this point; I hope you're satisfied–I'm certaintly not. Mackensen (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to remove the issue of RFCU being shut down entirely. The -only- issue I want to deal with here is if the block was handled within policy, and if it was, what policy(s) clearly state that the reasons and methods of the block were correct. I'm not satisfied with the answers I've received, simply because no one has answered this specific question. Further, I find it more than a little offensive that I'm somehow being told to 'butt out' of this issue. Any user who believes an admin has acted inappropriately should be able to say so and ask for the reasons behind an administrators actions. I am sorry that RFCU shut down, and I do not wish to have admins insulted, but that really is not specifically germane to this issue. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You were told why. How many times must it be restated. He was blocked for incivility. This is within policy. as multiple administrators including Steve Block have agreed is the case. I'm sorry to see it shutdown too; I'm even sorrier to see incivil behavior tolerated. Mackensen (talk) 03:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

1) show me where extreme incivility occurred, as stated within policy. 2) show me where he was warned, as also stated within policy. And no one is tolerating incivil behaviour, no matter how often you move those goalposts. --Kickstart70-T-C 03:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Permit me to refer you to a response which you ignored, in which Kevin addressed these points: [3]. Allow me also to quote directly from the blocking policy (see WP:BLOCK): "Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose any kind of threat to it. Such disruption may include (but is not limited to) changing other users' signed comments, making deliberately misleading edits, harassment, excessive personal attacks, and inserting material that may be defamatory. Users will normally be warned before they are blocked." It says normally; it doesn't say it's a requirement. Furthermore, it can be argued that CovenantD was well aware that his actions had angered somebody and that he had a chance to change his behavior. I quote again from the policy: "For static IPs and user names, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for increasing lengths of time." There. The block is within policy. Mackensen (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your link doesn't work, and if I remember correctly which edit you are talking about, it does not deal with both of the points I made above. --Kickstart70-T-C 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If it doesn't deal with the points that you made that can only be because you're basing your request on a misundestanding of policy. In particular, you keep using the word "extreme" when the relevant section of the blocking policy does not. I can't account for this; you'll have to tell me where you got it from. I don't know what else I can explain at this point. I have shown you the relevant parts of the policy; we've explained earlier why we feel CovenantD's conduct fell within that policy. If we're going to legalistic about this, Thatcher questioned earlier what standing you had beyond a simple inquiry and I'm wondering the same. I've yet to hear from CovenantD on the matter–a simple apology from him would satisfy me. What, exactly, are you seeking from this process? Mackensen (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I used the wrong word...replace that with "excessive", which I still do not think CovenantD's comments were. Now that's the exact word used in policy and you can continue lawyering. Happy? What standing? As stated in the original discussion on this, I and others strongly believe that any user should be able to question an admin's actions. If you do not agree with that, just say so and that (monstrously huge) problem can be dealt with on its own. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I agree that users should be able to question an admin's actions. I've never disputed that. However, if explanations are forthcoming, the user has an obligation to either accept the explanation and move on, or seek actual dispute resolution. You started this to get an explanation. You got one several times. What more do you want from this process? Mackensen (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly, I do not believe I got answers to my two points above. If you believe I should have read things differently, please link to the edit that gave those answers and I will review my understanding. In any case, since I've signed the attempted agreement and am looking to move on along that path. If you cannot/will not provide what I ask for here, I'm done with this aspect of the conversation and will no longer reply. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be going round and round here. Allow me to state the matter as I see it. You wanted to know whether the block was "in policy" or not. I and others have listed several reasons as to why we believed that it was. Two issues exist: whether there was a blockable offense, and whether that block was excessive. On the second point, blocking policy allows for a 24-hour disruption block. On the first, here is what CovenantD said originally: "This is ridiculous. I'm here trying to create a better encyclopedia and this is the support I get? Hell of a turn off." and "Sounds like this system is broken. Only 2 of the 14 people actually do the work? Time to replace some people. Or put some kind of disclaimer that this isn't very timely. Something to let people know not to expect results." Note Thatcher's helpful reply between these two statements: "While there are about 1000 administrators on wikipedia, only 14 of them have checkuser permission and 99% of the cases here are answered by just two of them, so you may have to be patient. No article is so important that the sky will fall if it is stuck in the "wrong version" for a few more days. You can try a request for comment on the article to get some outside opinions if the usual editors can't agree."

That I reacted strongly to these statements is evident from my initial response: "Declined. I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with that kind of abuse." It's clear that I felt my credibility and competence had been impugned. I was angry. Covenant's response to this was to say "How about judging it on it's merits rather than your personal feelings?" (sic). Never mind that it was he who had angered me in the first place through his hurtful, incivil, and patently unnecessary comments. At this point, Essjay stepped in and blocked him for disruption. It must be emphasized that if CovenantD had apologized for his remark, instead of blowing the matter off, all this could have been avoided. He did not. He has never communicated with me, either in person or in private. Indeed, he has not been a party to this affair at all since the initial block.

The question, then, is whether CovenantD's remarks fell within disruption. I allow that this point is arguable, but given that several administrators have agreed on this point, I'd say there's a good case for this. It is impossible to get an absolute ruling on this question outside of Arbcom, and Arbcom would never take up such a minor case. I suppose you could go to arbitrators in a private capacity and ask them. For what it's worth, I'm a former arbitrator and I'd say his comments fell within disruption, especially given the sensitive and difficult nature of checkusering.

I want to note that I've said nothing here that wasn't said, one way or another, on the Noticeboard or on various talk pages over the last week. I hope that by stating it all here I've centralized discussion and eliminated remaining ambiguities. I really don't know what else there is to say on the matter. Mackensen (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting closer, but let's look at those comments:

"This is ridiculous. I'm here trying to create a better encyclopedia and this is the support I get? Hell of a turn off."

"Sounds like this system is broken. Only 2 of the 14 people actually do the work? Time to replace some people. Or put some kind of disclaimer that this isn't very timely. Something to let people know not to expect results."

Neither are what I would call "excessive personal insults", and I think anyone who does think so needs a bit thicker skin. The latter might be considered an insult if you are one of the two people doing the work, but the way I read it, he's actually referring to the other 12 who need to be replaced (in positions of having checkuser authority) (bolded to make this the most important part of this paragraph) so that the speed of these requests is improved. Knowing CoventantD in previous edits, he's blunt, but I haven't seen him intentionally offend, so it's hard for me to see that he impugned your or Essjay's work at all. And he even gives alternate methods of improving the situation. Also note that he says very clearly that this was the first time he has made one of these requests and should be given a little leeway in his knowledge of how long these take.

The first of his comments above really is not anywhere near an "excessive personal insult" at all, and is more an expression of frustration on his own part.

Disruption? Hardly. It was only the offense that you and Essjay took to the comments above that disrupted anything at all. --Kickstart70-T-C 17:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the implication that the other 12 don't do any work is misguided and wrong. The other twelve are mostly arbitrators with other responsibilities. I'll take the suggestion that I get a thicker skin under advisement; I don't know CovenantD except from this exchange, I suggest that in the future he consider that kindness goes very far in this environment. Bluntness is a luxury we can afford with our friends. Personally, when in an unfamiliar environment, I assume as little as possible and when told by a clerk that I should wait I accept that with equanimity. I don't assume that things move at the speed at which I wish them to move.

Secondly, we come round to this view of yours that the real problem here is not that CovenantD was rude or blunt, but that Essjay and I had the temerity to be offended. Doesn't the fact that we both reacted the same way tell you anything at all? Your position seems to be that the block is invalid because we shouldn't have been offended. You seem to be an expert on how I'm supposed to feel. Tell you what. You handle my correspondence for a month, including the death threats, legal threats, and gross insinuations of character, and you tell me what I'm supposed to feel then. If this is your position then I've nothing further to say to you nor anything further to do with this process. Mackensen (talk) 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, so maybe rather than offense and a block, CovenantD should have been informed about those other 12, how hard the job is, and why things take so long. Without any of his history to go on, it was a rather rash and harsh judgement to assume he knew any of this.

I am sorry (honestly, this is not sarcasm) that I gave the impression that I'm telling you how to feel. This is not my intent. And I do understand what you are going through...I've been the head moderator, wrangling 8000+ users over at userfriendly.org since the late 90s. I've had the threats, insults, and insinuations and they suck. But I honestly try to not let the history of my volunteerism there impact how I take on each individual case. This is why I said earlier that CovenantD appeared to be hit by the actions of everyone else who made these requests. I think that the criteria for "excessive personal insults" should be spelled out more clearly as, IMO, his comments didn't reach that level and that clarity would help everyone involved. --Kickstart70-T-C 18:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ye Gods, userfriendly? That takes me back. I certainly sympathsize there. On reflection, I would agree that CovenantD was the straw that broke the camel's back. Now that we've had a week things don't look so bad, although I still support Essjay based on the situation as we saw it at the time. I suppose what I was trying to say above is that, in absence of knowledge of the situation, one should assume good faith and wait patiently. Anyway, I'm prepared, at this point, to signoff on that statement so that we can move on. I've sockpuppets to find, and we've all articles to edit. Mackensen (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have read the profuse comments about this issue, and would advise Kickstart70 to consider to move on and leave this issue behind. For a block that was borderline at worst, there is way much emphasis on process. We have an encyclopedia to edit, we are all volunteers, some of us investing considerable time and effort to this project. Some flexibility is required, and if a block was not 100% kosher, at least it was short-lived, and no harm was caused. If the blocked editor is enraged by a block that he/she considers innaproriate, he/she needs to be told the same: move on, put it behind, and remember that we are all volunteers, so be kind to fellow editors. No one is here to serve you.

If the blocking admin wants to apologize, that would be great. But if he does not, show some understanding: the blocked editor was back in business after 24 hrs. No big deal.

Let's move on. Too much has already been said. Let us not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Willing to move on with a minor compromise: If the blocking admin will say that the block might have been done hastily or not strictly within policy. No admission that it was, just a little openmindedness to the possibility. And then I will 100% agree never to bring this up again. --Kickstart70-T-C 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, since this isn't a legal system, what you're actually suggesting is that we admit the block is valid and that a reasonable person would agree that his remarks were inappropriate. That's been our position all along. Mackensen (talk) 11:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The most important point here is that you are not the blocking admin. The second is that you are completely ignoring what I said and the intent behind it. I'm trying to be reasonable and wrap this up, is there a reason why you are bound and determined to not allow that to happen? --Kickstart70-T-C 14:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I will make a request of the blocking admin and the blocked user and suggest that both accept the following:

• We are not perfect and we all make mistakes;
• We sometimes are uncivil in our requests of others, and forget that fellow editors are volunteers and not at our service;
• We sometimes make decisions when stressed out, and the ones at the receiving end of our actions may not be the ones deserving them;
• We accept our failures with diginity, putting our differences behind, and look forward to working together on this project.

I will ask both parties to see if they can agree to accept this wording. This will be my last action as an advocate in this case. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This wording excludes me from the process; as one of the two checkusers directly insulted by CovenantD I find this puzzling. This wording implies that the specific issue is that Kickstart wasn't getting proper feedback on the noticeboard; the sheer volume of responses, including repeated quotation from the blocking policy, would seem to suggest otherwise. I'd like to see some wording there to the effect that checkusers have a right to expect that they can carry on their tasks sans abuse. The equivocal nature of the above statement suggests that Essjay was in the wrong issuing the block–and, for that matter, that I was wrong to take umbrage at CovenantD's remarks. Mackensen (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You and Kickstart are welcomme to endorse or reject the proposed wording, and move on or get stuck in this dispute, respectively. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

As well it should exclude you from the process. I don't even know why you are involved, since you said you weren't interested in being. The issue is with the block that occurred and whether it falls within policy, not whether CovenantD offended you (or me, or the King of Spain). --Kickstart70-T-C 16:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to this wording, if the blocking admin can. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

If you agree to the wording, please add your signature below the statement at User talk:Jossi/AMA Kickstart70/Moving forward, without preconditions about others accepting it or rejecting it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, looks like Essjay just archived the note about it on his page and I don't expect any agreement with this to be forthcoming. Pretty disappointing for an involved admin to not even bother participating in something he's helped cause. As someone else said, these AMA really don't have the teeth to deal with serious issues. Maybe I should have taken it to Arbcom in the first place (not going to do that now). --Kickstart70-T-C 04:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI, AMA does not have any teeth, by design. And cases can only be brought up to the arbCom, once you can prove that you have exhausted all steps in WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)