Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa knott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC).


Note to readers

This RfC failed to meet the requirement for certification within the 48 hour deadline, but was not deleted in order that it may be used for reference in resolving certain disputes with the submitter.

Please do not modify this page or endorse sections here. You are free to add comments to the talk page.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

[edit] Description

Admin (User:Theresa knott) took sides by protecting page immediately after revert by Biased editor. Rather than protecting a pre-edit war version (the edit war goes back about 100 or so edits, by the way).

[edit] Powers misused

  • Protection (log):
  1. Cultural and historical background of Jesus

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. {explain violation of protection policy here}


[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)


[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. CheeseDreams 02:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) As amgine states below, the protection policy and 3 revert rule suggest the protector should revert to the version not desired by either violating party, i.e. neither of the edit war versions. CheeseDreams 02:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)


[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Bloody 'ell that was quick! I protect the page, go downstairs to watch "Teachers" come back and find a rfc on me. Cheese dreams, why didn't you bring your concerns to me first?

Anyway - I did not take sides. I didn't read any of the versions. I just went to the page,(from the requests for protection page), looked at the history to confirm there was a revert war going on, saw that there clearly was and protected the page. Clearly when there is revert war going on the protecting admin cannot help but protect one version of the page. This is by definitaion always the wrong one according to someone. For this reason I rarely if ever revert before protecting. If John kenney really is a POV pushing biased editor then I am happy to revert the page, is there an rfc on him? Or an arbitration decision, or some such thing? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:15, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. See also protection policy and The Wrong Version. Basically, unless there's clear vandalism, the page should not be reverted when it is protected. Theresa clearly followed established policy. The fact that the roll of the dice didn't favour the version you like is not grounds for complaint. Shane King 00:15, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  2. I'm glad cheese created this page, we need a forum to discuss him, and his various misdeeds. I feel very unhappy with his interactions with the project, and hope to see him making substantial changes in his conduct forthwith. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. The page was being discussed but reverted back to an edit war. CheeseDreams has tried hard to support the edit process and consensus in the last few days, and this was not his fault. But the revert war did break out again (see below), I can't fault the re-locking of the page, and *if* re-locking is right then it is almost arbitrary and not a "fault" item for Theresa which version its locked at. Sadly. (more comment below) FT2 03:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
  4. —No-One Jones (m) 05:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC). Every time I read m:The Wrong Version I am amazed at its authors' prescience.
  5. What total nonsense this is. There is no grounds for an RfC here. Theresa followed policy, indeed, if Theresa had done what CheeseDreams suggests she should have done: chosen her own "preferred" version, then there would be grounds for an RfC. I think CheeseDreams needs to acquaint himself with Wikipedia policies. Do we have a fast-track procedure for ending spuriously begun RfCs??? func(talk) 18:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    We do. This page will be deleted if a second user does not come forward to certify it before the time indicated above. --Michael Snow 04:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  6. Theresa's actions seem wholly appropriate. Mackensen (talk) 02:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(In accordance with this page's guidelines, this comment is moved here - users must edit only one of the 3 sections). My analysis moved to appropriate section. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

I have been asked to comment on this allegation. I do not have reason to believe Theresa knott took sides in the dispute. She did not, however, revert the article but left it at the version from the 5th revert by John Kenney. I do not have reason to believe this action was done in a partisan fashion, but I do find it regrettable.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Amgine 22:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC) I would like to point out both the protection policy and the 3RR suggest the protector should revert to the version not desired by the violating party. - Amgine 01:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the first place, this RfC is wrongly drawn. The complainant must show attempts by at least two directly involved participants to resolve the issue. This was not done, therefore this RfC is null. If this is not corrected with the next few hours, I will remove it. The complainant may still mount a new RfC if he/she can demonstrate wrongdoing and that he/she and another attempted to resolve the dispute with Theresa Knott ut was unable to. However, I think that should fail also unless it can be demonstrated that Ms. Knott protected the page prejudicially, not simply a version the complainant doesn't favor.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:26, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) -- Endorse own summary.

[edit] FT2 comment

History of article dispute:

I have been involved in trying to help participants in this article reach consensus for several weeks now. A visible and tentative consensus was reached on several key points, and a large number of wording suggestions. Based upon those, and several weeks listening to each side, and noticing that there was no neutral version yet, I drafted a version for discussion, containing both accurate material as well as material which needed a consensus as to accuracy and appropriateness.

  • A long period of informal mediation (as in, listening to and working with both sides) produuced a large amount of compromise or consensus wording.
  • An early consensus indicated that the article needed fully recasting/rewriting in a manner which did not put the gospels first nor saw it as a historic view on Christianity.
  • A draft version was produced which was deliberately stated in the talk page to be for discussion, please let stand briefly so others can read it and comment. [1] and talk page [2]
  • It was a consensus version in the sense that it retained material for discussion by others (even where needing discussion) not just a single POV.
  • It was neutral in the sense that it was neither oriented around Jesus, nor assumed a reader had read (or cared) about the stories of him.
  • It was organised and more encyclopediac in the sense that different relevant aspects of the culture were highlighted in their own right for comment.
  • SIrubenstein overwrote it with an approach that had already been criticised by some people for being
  • POV (gospel oriented) [3] and
  • Lacking in approach (treated it one-dimensionally as a historic narrative leading up to christianity and thereafter.
  • This version was reverted and reinstated a few times.
  • Rather than an edit war, I requested an RFC on the two versions.
  • The revert activity continuing, Theresa re-locked the article.


Comments on present RFC:

That said, this RFC is not about article content primarily. It is the contributors right to edit well or poorly, and it is the right of others to revert work they feel lacking. It is about whether locking the page is appropriate. Comments:

  1. The page became unlocked to give consensus a chance
  2. Within 24 hours one of the initial disputants (SIrubenstein) had ignored a request to allow the page to stand a day for comment and consensus building, and had mass-reverted it, thus plunging the article back into an edit war.
  3. There were views both ways, some users stated they did not approve of this, or that they felt it was inappropriate or POV (CheeseDreams, Amgine, Amgine again, Maurreen). I myself feel that it was quite disrespectful, given that it was a version stated to be for comment with a request for a day or 2 for others to contribute, in order that both sides could cool down, build consensus and deal with any material lacking in merit which had been introduced or brought forward.
  4. The other contender (CheeseDreams) did not in fact add any of their own edits, but reverted it to the version for discussion, which was undone several times.
  5. After several repeats of this a different sysop (Theresa) locked the page once more.
  6. Theresa has not been involved in the page previously
  7. The page had previously been locked for exactly the same reason up until very few days ago

Based on this history, I cannot personally find fault in the decision to re-lock the page. It was clear that one of the contenders had shown little interest in others opinions as it related to consensus-building and informal mediation, even for as short a period as 24-48 hours.

I would suggest arbitration is an appropriate avenue for this article; in light of recent experience, I see little reason to believe mediation would accomplish much different. FT2 03:20, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

It should be apparent that Theresa Knott is being put in an untenable position by anyone who would have her revert the article under protection. It seems evident that she made the decision non-prejudicially, and is therefore within guidelines. If she had reverted it to another version this would have raised a question (such action is permissive not required) and if she were to do so now, it could be viewed as way more potentially prejudicial than her original action. I think those unhappy with the protection should appeal to another non-involved sysop and make a case for unprotection (not reversion). -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Theresa_knott_c68b.html"