Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-11 Litch-Sarah Ewart

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: User:Litch State: Closed Requested By: Litch (talk • contribs) Other Parties: Sarah_Ewart (talk • contribs) Srose (talk • contribs) Tyrenius (talk • contribs) Mediated By: CQJ (talk • contribs) Comments: Case comment.

Contents 1 Mediation Case: Litch-Sarah Ewart 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers/Solutions 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: Litch-Sarah Ewart

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Litch 15:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Litch

Where is the issue taking place?

...

[[1]]

Who's involved?

...

User:Litch User:Sarah_Ewart User:Srose

What's going on?

...

User:Sarah_Ewart began reverting changes made to Domino Harvey by User:Litch rather than improving on the article. User:Litch requested User:Sarah_Ewart avoid editing his entries, she rudely dismissed the request. User:Litch noted her abrasiveness in [2] and sourced it.

User:Srose called it "nonsense" and issued a warning.

What would you like to change about that?

...

I would like the note on abrasiveness returned. An apology from User:Srose for calling a sourced description "nonsense" and User:Sarah_Ewart to avoid me where possible.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...

No, I believe in transparency.

[edit] Mediator response

Accepted by CQJ 18:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC). Contacting the Four Horsemen for their individual POV.

Litch is seeking to replace a note in regards to Sarah Ewart's alleged abrasiveness replaced into a talk page, further, Litch would like an apology from Srose for calling his additions to the article nonsense and for Sarah Ewart to avoid him/her wherever possible. See compromises/solution section below.

Srose (talk • contribs) : Just got your message on my talk page. =) My perspective is quite small. I saw some vandalism on Sarah's user page. I reverted it and dropped a warning on the vandal's talk page. I used a non-specific warning by accident - I was extremely tired. Hopefully, this will help! =) Srose (talk) 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Directly cut/copy from my user talk page, CQJ 18:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius (talk • contribs) : If you follow the edit history of the article they were working on and then the talk pages of the two users, the story is blindingly obvious. Litch was making edits citing a death certificate he had sourced, which was fine, except he kept making an error with a surname. Sarah Ewart quite rightly reverted this. Litch reverted back to the wrong name again and SE reverted; this happen again. At some stage she left a note on his talk page. He started accusing her of being lazy for not using the source properly, whereas of course it was he who wasn't. Then he suddenly put the correct surname in, but nevertheless decided she was lazy and abrasive, and seems to feel he has the right to declare this on her user page and/or talk page.

I stepped in to protect SE from what was obvious personal attack and harrassment, at which point Litch decided to have a go at me. I warned him about his behaviour, and, as it persisted, I blocked him, which was confirmed by two other admins. Nevertheless Litch carried on accusations that I was vindictive. His block ended and after more warning he made yet another attack, so I blocked him once more, again confirmed by another admin.

He will and/or cannot see reason and seeks to trap people with verbal trickery and protestations of outraged innocence. He has now said he will be adopting a new user name. Sarah Ewart's behaviour was exemplary under considerable provocation. There is really nothing to mediate, as she has behaved beyond reproach, and he wishes mediation so he can place a note on her user/talk page attacking her. His use of ArbCom is another example of claiming to follow process, while using it to disrupt the workings of the project. Please make whatever use you wish of my statement.

Tyrenius 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Direct cut/copy from my user talk page, CQJ 18:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarah_Ewart (talk • contribs) : Thanks for your message. Sorry I haven't replied earlier but I haven't been online. I feel that Tyrenius's statement pretty much covers it for me, but I'd just like to respond a little further to a couple of points.

Litch states:

I discovered [user:sarah_ewart] had reverted the changes to an earlier inaccurate version she had edited. She did not make any attempt to correct the article or note the specific error on my talk page and instead just reverted to her version.

Firstly, it was not "my version" that I was reverting to. I had only edited that article once before and that was minutes earlier to make a minor wikifying edit to changes Litch had made. The earlier inaccurate version Litch refers to was, in fact, his own version. I only came to that page when it came up on RC and I had no strong opinion either way about it. I certainly did not have a preferred version, other than preferring it to not contain false information.

Litch complains that I reverted rather than correct the entry. The reason I did this was that I was uncertain if the edits were a simple error or vandalism. I had checked the source cited and had googled "Alexandra De Cassel," the name he was attempting to add, and it came up with zero Google hits. So I reverted the change. Litch then attempted to add a completely different name, "Peter Stone." I googled this alongside "Domino Harvey" but only got 19 hits, none of which seemed relevant. So I was clearly concerned that his editing was one of the more subtle types of vandalism we come across on RC where vandals will attempt to change names, dates etc to incorrect ones. However, I attempted to assume good faith and decided the best thing to do would be to maintain the status quo (revert to the last version before he began adding incorrect names) while I gave him the opportunity to either cite a source that supported his edits or to correct himself. I feel that I was quite reasonable in my message requesting he provide sources for the names he was trying to write into the article, the welcome template followed by:

"Hi, regarding the above article, could you please cite sources for the various names you are adding to the article as the people who allegedly found her dead? Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) "

Yet Litch's response was to accuse me in his next edit summary of being "too lazy to read the citation". He then asked me to avoid editing his edits in future. I was not offended by this request (as you speculated) but merely rejected it as a ridiculously unreasonable demand since it negates the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. I do not go out of my way to edit specific people's edits, but if I find something which is false or against Wikipedia policy I will change/remove/revert it regardless of who the author is. Litch only corrected his edits of the Domino Harvey article after I informed him that the source he was citing did not support his claims, otherwise, presumably, the incorrect name "Alexandra De Cassel" would still be in the article.

I feel that Litch's request that I be required or advised to have a warning on my userpage is absurd. I do not believe I have behaved in an abrasive, harassing, provocative or inappropriate manner. I tried to deal with the matter in the nicest way possible. I reject Litch's claim that he was "repeatedly provoked," "harassed" and "insulted". However, as his edits show, he was, indeed, very insulting, provocative, harassing and abrasive towards both myself and Tyrenius.

Finally, I feel that Litch needs to be firmly elucidated about the absolute necessity for articles, particularly biographies, to be accurate. The issues that can arise from naming false people and making false claims about people can be astronomical. From the way Litch describes his edits to the Domino Harvey article, I hold genuine concerns that he is oblivious to the potential seriousness of his edits. He also needs to be cautioned about repeatedly and dismissively referring to other good faith and respected users as my "sockpuppets."

Thankyou for your efforts in this matter, CQJ, but as far as I am concerned there has never been anything to mediate. In addition, I feel that this issue has already taken up too much of our Wikipedia time and I am amazed to see that it is still being discussed 8 days later. Cheers. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct cut/copy from userspace. CQJ 15:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Litch (talk • contribs): :Received your message just now. You posted a lot, so I just basically cut and pasted and followed your comments down and wrote as I went. Sometimes, when on an RC patrol or checking a watchlist on an article, you don't really have the time to check a source or a link (hence why we have the fact citation tag or the reference tag) and just revert off the cuff. Also, keep in mind that I'm not lecturing you, picture my comments in a type of grandfatherly voice or something :-)

thank you for taking the time to wade through it, I appreciate both the substance and the tone of your advice

I guess what really got this situation going was what you've admitted to as "childishly allowing [your] frustration" and then heading off to her user talk page and asking you to avoid edting your entries if possible. This flies in the general face of WP:OWN. As editors, once we click the 'Save Page' button, the content goes to the database server and off to merciless editing by our colleagues, regardless of who they are. It is possible that Sarah was insulted by this request (especially with the edit summary you left), while you may have been making it in good faith, please realize for your own wiki-sanity that no one owns anything on Wikipedia, not even technically their own user spaces.

Minor correction, I asked her to avoid me on my talk page not hers.

You are a newbie, so I'll try and explain this as best as I can. Often, we as editors, whether RC patrollers or administrators have to simply be merciless and to the point as possible due to the number of people that really aren't here for admirable reasons. It's really nothing personal, and I don't think it was at the point of harassment - I think your edit summary tipped the scales at that point in time.

What you did do incorrect, IMHO, is when you went to her user page and made the comments that you did. While we don't own our userspaces, it is generally an unspoken rule that one user doesn't tamper with another user's user page unless there is a clear cut violation of Wikipedia policy. What you happened to do comes within the definition and scope of WP:NPA, especially on her user page.

unspoken rules aren't very useful

I understand your position, but what I meant was that the "unspoken rule" is mentioned within the policy pages but it has not been implemented as "official policy" as of yet. Sorry.

Srose saw the personal attack, reverted it, and tagged your user talk page inadvertently with a nonsense warning tag, and he/she has apologized for that at the MedCab case page. If you go look at the pages in question, there was another editor who was talking with Srose at that time (I'm not sure if it was Sarah or Tyrenius). If you look, it was another editor and not a sockpuppet. Tyrenius was reacting to the personal attack on Sarah's user page and was within his scope as an administrator, I'm afraid.

Once you went on about the bias for a friend or lover, and made the comment about biting a newbie, that topped the cake for Tyrenius and he subsequently blocked you. It was probably the friend or lover comment that really nailed that coffin shut. On the unblock, what usually happens is if one administrator reviews the unblock request and declines it, and a second or third unblock request comes in, the page can be protected because each time the unblock template is used, it sends a message to an IRC channel and flags your page as an unblock request, and administrators usually have to have a good reason to unblock a user or face wheel warring allegations by another administrator.

As to everything around the PAIN incident, I must admit that some of your comments to Tyrenius sound a bit snide and border on WP:NPA.

What probably didn't help in this case was your use of the term sockpuppet. That's generally something that a new user doesn't know about, nor has any clue what one is. It may have tagged you as a previously banned user or someone evading a block. From your language, I would not have known that you are a newbie - the only reason I know that you are is I have checked back against your contributions. Anyways..that's besides the point.

sockpuppets were a term used on usenet for years before wikipedia ever came around

Again, understandable as Wikipedia has quite a bit of old usenet users.

Srose has apologized for calling your posts nonsense at the MedCab page. As for returning your abrasiveness note to Sarah's user page, we can't do that. It's blatantly against WP:NPA and no editor in his or her right mind would revert that unless he or she were willing to be blocked themselves. As for asking Sarah to stay away from your edits or you period, I can't ask her to do that, but I'm pretty sure that she will, or any other editor for that manner will, as long as you follow the policy trifecta and keep your nose clean. A slimmed-down version of what I've said to you here appears at the MedCab case, and if you're okay with it, I'd like to close the case as a simple misunderstanding. Thanks for your quick response. CQJ 03:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would help is there were some sort of note about her editorial style on her page for the next newbie's work she casually dismisses & reverts in the way she did mine. I understand it can't be forced and it's obviously that she'll reject any suggestion I might make but I was hoping that coming from someone else might it induce her to at least consider such a warning and stave off any similar future disturbances.

Beyond that the only other issue from this is Tyrenius's behavior. I understand he is a new admin but I have suffered from what he did, if what I said and did were WP:NPA worthy of being banned for four days than his allegations as to my motives in your talk page merits a warning at the very least. Again, thank you for taking the time to consider the situation and giving me the benefit of the doubt. Litch 05:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, really. If we were to put a note on Sarah's page about her editorial style and her "casually dismissing and reverting", then we'd have to do the same to every single RC patroller and copy-editor, because that's essentially what they do - casually dismiss and revert vandalism and mistakes in copy.

As to Tyrenius, I looked at what happened diff-by-diff (er, change by change) before I got a hold of Srose, Tyrenius, Sarah, and you for your sides of what happened. You got the second three day block in my view from going back and messing with him after your first block expired. I'm not sure there's an administrator on Wikipedia who'd not block you in simliar circumstances. But, with that said, there's no reason to suffer from being temporarily blocked. Consider it a three-day Wiki-break, and the only way it will negatively affect your standing here in the future is if you were to descend into another similar incident, that is to say, engage in WP:NPA, with another editor and be subsequently blocked. That is when the powers-that-be place you on the radar screen and start watching for more shenanigans. I'd take this as a learning experience and move on from there.

Once again, welcome to Wikipedia, and if you have future questions, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page. I'm going to close the MedCab case as I feel we've accomplished for you what we can. Happy editing, and best of luck in your future endeavors. CQJ 15:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Direct cut/copy from Litch's userspace, summarizing what I told him. CQJ 15:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers/Solutions

1. Srose has admitted above that the use of the T-3 nonsense template was accidental and due to editing in a sleep-deprived state. I'm sure that it was an accident because there's not an editor or RC patroller that doesn't forget which T-number template does what unless they're next to perfect :-).
2. As to the note of abrasiveness, I'm guessing that you're referring to the one that was posted into Sarah_Ewart's userspace, which I cannot force anyone to return into her userspace since A) MedCab is an informal process, not a formal, binding process and B) it was a blatant personal attack (see WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.)
3. I'm sure that Sarah_Ewart will do her best not to cross your path in the future, provided that you follow the trifecta and the rest of our policies, but like I said above, A) MedCab is an informal process, not a formal, binding process and B) since we're an informal process, I can only suggest or recommend courses of action, not force them.

I would also recommend that in the future that you follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA as best as possible. Misunderstanding are common, especially since we can't see or hear what someone is saying, and I'd encourage you to use WP:AGF wherever possible.

I will wait for comments from Sarah_Ewart and Litch to my talk space or via IRC, however, absent anything else coming out of the woodwork, the case is tentatively closed. CQJ 18:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing comments from Litch and Sarah_Ewart, and providing a little bit of Wiki-counseling to Litch as to the driving forces in the incident, the case is closed. The appropriate comments will be cross-posted to the case page momentarily. CQJ 15:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion