Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-19 Zoe and badlydrawnjeff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Various State: Closed Requested By: badlydrawnjeff Other Parties: badlydrawnjeff Zoe Mediated By: Squadnleedah

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-12-19 Zoe and badlydrawnjeff 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-12-19 Zoe and badlydrawnjeff

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: badlydrawnjeff talk 01:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...All over, at this point, from ArbCom talk pages to Deletion Review to AfD.

Who's involved?

... badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) and Zoe (talk · contribs) mainly, some other people have attempted unsuccessfully to help out a bit.

What's going on?

... Zoe thinks BDJ has nefarious motives and is stalking/harrassing her and other users, BDJ is looking for a better following of policy regarding deletions and better accountability for administrators, and Zoe ends up within the targets more often than most.

What would you like to change about that?

...BDJ would like to see some good faith restored, Zoe would like to be able to do her thing without feeling threatened.

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

...Up to Zoe.

Here,k Talk pages, email, it doesn't matter. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Hello all, i have just picked up this case and im having a read of everything, i will get back to you all shortly here. Any questions, please contact me. Squad'nLeedah 07:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well ive had a good read up on all this. There was rather a bit to wade through and to be honest, this looks fairly clear cut to me. Im going to have to say first of all, if another admin has deleted an article, and you restore it, several times, and Zoe does what she is meant to and deletes it again, you have no right to attack her on that level. If its been deleted, theres a reason for it, whether you think that reason is valid or not, she was not the first to delete the article in question. You need to leave admins alone to do their job. From what i can read this all started over a deletion that you didnt like. You also need to stop questioning every action she takes, it is no wonder she has decided she needs to ask you for permission every time she needs to get something done.

Zoe, I do understand why Jeff believes he is being targetted by you for deletion nominations also, and while yes, you are an admin, there are many articles created every day by many different people that you could act on. Perhaps if you come across something by him you can either let another admin know about it, or let Jeff know on his talk page in a constructive manner (im not implying youve never done that, im just going on possible future actions) and Jeff needs to learn to accept that provided it is done in a nice way.

To both of you. Both of you appear to be reasonable people, and are both excellent editors with much much much more experience than me, to be honest i feel slightly uncomfortable advising either of you, but i have joined this group and want to help. PLEASE both of you, either try and stay totally out of each others way, or try to build a better working relationship by communicating more in a constructive way. If you start to get peeved at something the other has done, take a step back, breathe, and try and think about it from the other users perspective. Zoe has a job she needs to do, to keep this place running, we must respect her for that, and Jeff, you are a great editor, who when your calm and not arguing a point somewhere, do excellent work. Perhaps rather than getting involved in ANY politics, if something happens to any of your articles, for a while, just sit back and go Well, fine, cant do that, i have something else i can go on with. If either of you have tasks that could bring you both together in a not so nice way, check, double check, and triple check that everything you have done with that issue is bulletproof, and that there could be NO REASON WHAT SO EVER for the other person to have to act on it.

Im also dissapointed to see this morning a rather long list of new comments from both of you. This was not such a good idea, it doesnt make any of you look good when you have asked for someone to come and help deal with a situation, and yet you both continue to bait each other on the mediation page! You both need to stop that.

In conclusion, all i have to ask is that you guys try and keep away from each other, and if you cant, just try and keep a cool head.

I hope i have helped somewhat here, feel free to abuse me on my talk page if not.

Squad'nLeedah 19:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm a little puzzled. For one, I think, in all our history, I've restored one article that she deleted, and not with the knowledge that she deleted it. Thus, the implication that I'm recreating her articles or attacking her - neither of which I've done, by the way - seems more than a bit off. Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that it's improper of me to question bad deletions. Is this the case? In that case, if I can find fault with 10% of her speedy deletions, that's just too bad for the project? I'll be honest - I came to this with an open mind, and not only did I continue to get attacked by the person I'm attempting to mediate with, but I'm not even sure where you were coming from as mediator. I'm hoping you can give some more input as to how you came to the conclusion you did, because I'm completely befuddled right now. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You are BOTH baiting each other. YOU restored an article that had been deleted by several admins, and that is what appeared kicked off this war between you. I only have to read the last few comments to watch you going at each other, and thats where im telling you to back off. I will not get involved in the argument, im here to mediate, and i have made my conclusions by what i am reading.

Squad'nLeedah 20:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What article did I restore? No, seriously, I need to know what you're coming up with here. Furthermore, should I have refrained from responding to false allegations? Is that your idea of "baiting?" Given your perception of the situation, I apparently didn't do a good enough job, so I'm really confused as to where you're coming up with this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Im currently awaiting a response from Zoe. If she choses not to i will close this case. I am not here to debate with you Jeff.

Squad'nLeedah 20:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Then it leaves me curious as to what you were here for to begin with. Don't even bother waiting, just close it, this has done nothing to solve the situation, and this final exchange has probably made it worse. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, i think you may have a funny idea about mediation. It means BOTH parties shut up, eat humble pie, and take advice for a few minutes. It DOESNT mean that the mediator comes in on the side of the person that instigates it and blasts the other party. As you cant accept the mediation given, and the other party doesnt want it, this case is closed.

Squad'nLeedah 20:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand mediation fine, this isn't my first trip down mediation lane. I do, however, have an expectation that the mediator have a passing knowledge of the facts, however, and that has not been demonstrated. Perhaps you can recommend a different mediator who's willing to read the page and the conflict for us? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I can't recall an article deleted by Zoe and re-created by Jeff, although that doesn't mean there isn't one (nor would it mean that it were deliberate if there were). For all his faults, I find Jeff is a bit of a stickler for the rules and although he will argue long and hard about a deletion he will not usually in my experience (read: I can't remember it happening, which may mean nothing) re-create out of process. Jeff knows and uses WP:DRV, and is familiar enough with policy and guidelines that he is usually capable of finding sources. There may be legitimate debate over the reliability of these sources, and the extent to which others actually give a damn about the subject, but that's just how it is. Me, I listen to Jeff. And then, usually, disagree. I can be as stubborn and arbitrary as the next man, but I rarely have a problem with Jeff because his !votes, while consistently pitched well below my personal notability threshold, are consistent and rationally stated.

That's Jeff. Zoe, in my view, is a fine admin. Looking through a decent-sized sample of Zoe's admin logs I can't see anything I'd dispute, and several examples where Zoe's given the benefit of the doubt and I probably wouldn't have. A lot of us are unhappy about MONGO, but in the end I think we are going to have to get over it. The MONGO vs. ED RFAR rightly came down solidly against the trolls; MONGO vs. Seabhcan is also hard to call any way but how it went. It is very unfortunate that MONGO ended up out on a limb, but there's not much we can do about that now. That shouldn't really colour how we carry on doing what we do, since the things MONGO was sanctioned for are things which would always have been a problem. We just need to learn from it, not to let POV-pushers and trolls provoke us into unwise actions. And that applies to everyone, not just admins.

So. I don't really see where Squadnleedah is coming from here. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

From what I see here, it is quite impossible to see what the issue is. Please give some examples, some links or some diffs to articles. I have no idea whether I could help here or not. --Bduke 10:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take the liberty of explaining here, from as neutral a point of view as I can -- note however, I am slightly involved, as I will note below.

1. I think this really started on December 16, when Zoe speedily deleted Pornotube as recreation of deleted content. [1] This was disagreed with, by a lot of people, including Badlydrawnjeff, on AN/I, and later shown to be quite notable and a speedy keep in an AfD. Zoe felt she was unfairly attacked: "It's been deleted by four admins. But I'm the one who gets the heat?".
2. On December 18, while the PornoTube criticism was still in full swing, Jeff questioned Zoe's speedy deletion of Chase Headley, a short article about a minor league baseball player, now up on DRV. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_December_18#Chase_headley That's still ongoing, and a very close argument, exactly tied last time I looked. I voted to restore and list on AfD.
3. However that seemed to be the proverbial last straw, and Zoe wrote that she would now place all the articles she would have speedily deleted on AfD, and listed three on Jeff's talk page for him, with the comments "I am not trusted to do the job of an admin, therefore I must get your approval for everything I do.", and "I think your sole purpose for being here is to make life miserable for those of us who actually care about Wikipedia." User_talk:Badlydrawnjeff#Criteria_for_speedy_drama. She made a similar list on the talk page of SCZenz. User_talk:SCZenz#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FABD_Insurance_.26_Financial_Services. She was asked to stop doing this on her talk page by SCZenz and myself (User_talk:Zoe#Bad_faith.3F__No), and criticized more harshly by Kicking22 User_talk:Zoe#KEvin_Satzinger_is_a_sexy_man_whore_AfD.
4. Ironically, while 2 of the 3 she listed in this way were speedily deleted by other admins, even before anyone else weighed in (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grundle fever, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KEvin Satzinger is a sexy man whore), one seems like it will be kept (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Hampton), partly due to my looking for sources.
5. There may be an additional contributing factor, as Zoe writes on SCZenz's talk page: "If it had been anybody else than badlydrawnjeff, I would have just let it go, but he is making it his personal goal to stalk me and question every action I take. He and his ED friends have gotten MONGO desysopped, now it looks like my turn." That is a reference to the controversial result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan, which, if you haven't been following already, will no doubt take you several days to wade through - there's a lot of text associated with that. In short, while there were many vocal people arguing on each side, Jeff was one of the minority supporting the proposed arbcom decision to desysop MONGO, which eventually did pass. (Disclaimer: I was one of the many arguing against that decision.)

For what it's worth, I personally believe that both Jeff and Zoe are invaluable contributors (featured article writers, no less) and I wouldn't want to lose either one of them. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is probably a good recent timeline of what's pushed it to this point. Arguably, it may have started as early as July 2006 during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinston Indians, where the idea behind WP:BIO's treatment of professional ballplayers came into question. A few minor clashes came in after consensus did not occur to change WP:BIO to Zoe's desired standard, but I honestly thought it was at an end here. A few more recent DRV situations ([2] [3]) which I still feel she's completely incorrect about probably didn't help, but my support of the MONGO decision probably broke the proverbial camel's back (Scroll to the near bottom of the section for Zoe's attack on me). I'm not coming into this looking for revenge or retribution - I want to see Zoe stop with the baseless accusations about me, and I would like to see a little more care taken in her execution of speedy deletion policy, but I really just want the air cleared a bit so we can coexist in the same places without going at eachother's throats. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that badlydrawnjeff is an admitted editor of Encyclopaedia Dramatica, the very same people who eventually got MONGO desysopped after a lengthy period of personal harrassment. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Was. See my Special:Contributions page if you need to, I can't link it here. and MONGO got himself desysopped via abuse of his tools. When the ED folks tried to get him removed during Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, he was not held accountable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been in the forefront of every discussion related to preservation of anything related to ED. I was held accountable for my actions in that first arbcom case, which was simply a lot of drama started by one editor (Rootology) who ended up being indefinitely banned. He then showed up on the second arbcom (as XP) when it looked like there was a slim chance I might not be desysopped, to again demand action be taken against me.--MONGO 21:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Also see my comment here. Badlydrawnjeff is an extreme "keep" !voter on all AfD and DRV discussions, sometimes to absurd lengths, and we have clashed many times over his !votes. There was an attempt in October where I actually wanted to avoid commenting on his edits, but his harrassing of MONGO on the RfAr discussion drove me back to criticizing him. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I did no harassing. That, along with the comment above, is false. Furthermore, while I do vote keep more than any other regular AfD/DRV user, I do not ignore policy or guidelines when doing so, and Zoe would be hard pressed to back up her "absurd lengths" commentary with any sort of consistent record. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that I am not the only person who draws this conclusion - [4]. User:Zoe|(talk)

Not that the link has any relevance to Zoe's claim or my defense whatsoever. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:51, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Check badlydrawnjeff's contributions. is there any single solitary !vote for deletion? Any PRODs? Any db's? No, instead, they're all keeps for specious reasons, removals of prods, removals of db's. "there should be a page for every single released LaToya single", forsooth. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A few delete votes, very few (if any) "specious" keep votes, and yes, I remove prods and {{db}}s with regularity. Perhaps you can demonstrate some of the "specious" reasoning? --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

And considering the speed with which he responds to my comments, one has to begin wondering if he is stalking my contributions page. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Considering I have this page on my watchlist, it wouldn't be too hard to figure out when it's been updated. Besides, if you want to play hardball, WP:STALK notes that it "does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." Considering that I feel you've made poor decisions regarding your speedy deletions (and I'll have you know I've made it a point thus far to not challenge your speedies this past week, although I know of a number I could have), I'm perfectly within rights. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeff's inclusion standards are among the lowest on the project, but they are consistent and he's quite open about it. Let the record show that I disagree with Jeff almost all the time, but I still don't feel that it's fair to hold legitimate philosophical differences against him. In almost every deletion debate I would back Zoe over Jeff. In this debate I feel Zoe is taking things a bit too personally, and dragging up the ED shit is a low blow (plus not actually accurate, as Jeff has pointed out). There are ED trolls, Jeff is not one of them. There are rogue admins, Zoe is not one of them. Since both parties seem to be motivated by a common desire to improve the project (albeit in different ways) I am sure this can be amicably resolved as long as we keep our eyes on the way ahead rather than harping back to some inglorious moments in the past. Please let's not get sidetracked by ED again, yes? Guy (Help!) 12:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Jeff supports keeping things sometimes that would otherwise be unanimously deleted and about the most deletionist Jeff will go is to withdraw his Keep vote if he changes his mind. But I agree with JzGuy... from everything I've seen, BDJ wants what's best for Wikipedia. Perhaps it might be helpful to encourage Jeff to pursue his philosophical goals in the most effective way possible for everyone involved (addressing multiple people's speedy deletions rather than focusing on one person or appearing to do so, hilighting places where common ground exists, etc), but as JzGuy said, both parties seem to be motivated by a common desire to improve the project and hopefully this can be amicably resolved. --Interiot 22:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, I want the lies to stop. Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be happening. --badlydrawnjeff talk 05:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Woooh, bad word. Are they really lies, or alternative interpretations? Or mistakes? Or a failure to reassess a posiiton which may once have had a basis in fact? See what I mean? If we start by assuming that Zoe is not really an evil person, and look for the source of the misapprehension, and then discuss it, maybe we can actually fix the problem rather than simply documenting and perpetuating it. Yes? So you could call them errors of fact or misinterpretations or something, and then list them in a section, and then we can see why Zoe finds it hard to accept your version of events. Do be calm, though, as I know you can be, and start form the basis that actually both Zoe and you are nice people and an asset to the project. Guy (Help!) 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Lies is the proper word. When person knows A, and continues to say B, it's a lie. No one's saying anyone's evil, no one's saying anyone is a bad person, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. If this were the first time these canards had been trotted out, you may have a point, but they are instead repeated ad nauseum. I will not not defend myself. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)