Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ned Scott

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 18:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

User:Ned Scott is obsessed with White Cat to the extent of reverting many of his harmless edits, and his response to requests by a number of editors to stop has been defiant, uncivil and unconstructive.

[edit] Desired outcome

That Ned Scott disengage from White Cat, and respond more constructively to polite requests.

[edit] Description

White Cat recently changed his username, and decided to replace references to the old name in discussion pages to his new name, also changing the userpage links to reflect the change of name.
Ned Scott has followed White Cat around reverting the edits. White Cat has tried to persuade him to stop. When this failed, Tony Sidaway, Thatcher131 and Newyorkbrad tried to persuade him to stop.
In a MFD for deletion of White Cat's old userpage, he reverted closes by four separate administrators, and then placed a notice on the talk page of the closed MFD representing what had been decided.
Ned Scott does not respond well to negative comments about his behavior. He has defiantly maintained that he is enforcing Wikipedia policy.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit] "Civility" and "Assume good faith"

  1. User talk:Ned Scott "Links to White Cat's talkpage archives" thread
  2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ned Scott

[edit] Reverting

  1. Revert of White Cat's alterations of his own signature on a number of pages using my bot User:Computer (formerly User:WOPR) which was test approved at the time. Ned Scott reverted my edits within minutes on some occasions.
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive48#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block)
    • Special:Undelete/User:Cool_Cat and Special:Log&page=User:Cool_Cat
    • User:Cool Cat was recreated as a redirect to White Cat's current userpage by Ned Scott 4 times
    • Ned Scott revert warred against White Cat's speedy tagging within White Cat's userspace
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive49#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)

[edit] "Canvassing"

  1. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 30#Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cool Cat


[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Wikipedia:Civility (Official policy)
  2. Wikipedia:Assume good faith (Guideline)
  3. Wikipedia:Harassment (Guideline)
  4. Wikipedia:Canvassing (Guideline)
  5. Help:Reverting#Do not (Help namespace page)

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

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
  2. User talk:White Cat/signature (Wikipedia:Third opinion)
  3. User talk:B/archive200705#Cool Cat MFD
  4. User talk:Ned Scott threads:
  5. User talk:Pgk: "CC_MFD"
  6. User talk:Thatcher131: "RfC"
  7. Tony Sidaway's attempt to discuss this matter with Ned Scott on User talk:Ned Scott:
    • 21:38, 18 July 2007 summary "could you explain why he should not repair links as you or I would surely do?"
    • 00:35, 19 July 2007 Ned reverts, summary "so tired of your bullshit, tony"
    • 01:37, 19 July 2007 Second attempt, summary "Please help me to resolve this problem."
    • Ned did not reply directly, but afterwards Thatcher131 did try to engage him to resolve the problem.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Tony Sidaway 18:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC) My attempt to discuss this was sharply rebuffed with a personal attack, as seen in evidence above.
  2. My attempts to tell him to stop canvassing were rebuffed as a "waste of time". Will (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. I have unsuccessfully dealt with the ongoing edit warring and incivility by this user. —freak(talk) 19:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. As I said here, I do not know why White Cat wants to edit his old links rather than make a redirect. However, it is not against policy, and is actually suggested by the username change page. White Cat should not change the contents of archives, and I will add a further comment here that White Cat should not edit other people's user talk archives without permission. However, I do not find support for the claim that his behavior is generally disruptive; most of the complaints are by two editors, one of whom is Ned Scott. I agree that Ned Scott appears to be stalking White Cat for reasons unrelated to editing his sig in old archives, although that provides a convenient excuse. Thatcher131 20:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    I think it would be better to say that Ned Scott appears to have been stalking White Cat. One explanation for this I have suggested on my talk page is that Ned took a minor incident and pursued it out of proportion to its importance, and that perhaps, having decided initially that he was right and White Cat was wrong, was unable to disengage when it would have been helpful to do so--giving the appearance of a personal vendetta when the intent was not there. Thatcher131 13:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Endorse – this "Ned Scott" thing has, frankly, went on far enough. Anthøny 19:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Endorse User repeated reverted to his inappropriate "speedy close" of his "dated episode notability" template on TfD despite myself and another editor telling him it wasn't proper. -Nard 19:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. (Personal attack removed) Matthew 11:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. While I don't see why it's so important to White Cat to change his signature, I'm at a complete loss to see that it's so disruptive as to necessitate following him around to revert him. ElinorD (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  5. Endorsed If we let this continue any further, Ned may as well end up like Tobias Conradi. —« ANIMUM » 18:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  6. I don't think that Ned's behavior has been appropriate or especially helpful, as demonstrated by the evidence above. I agree with Thacther's explanation that he's been unable to disengage himself from the activities of White Cat, leading to the appearance of stalking. That said, White Cat's behavior surrounding his endless signature changes has not helped the situation much. Chaz Beckett 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Endorse. "Stalking" is perhaps not the right term, as perhaps Ned Scott is simply unable to detatch himself. But still, these incivility concerns are worrying. --Deskana (banana) 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  8. Endorse. A user with a ton of potential if he stays away from the WikiDrama. — Deckiller 01:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  9. Endorse I came here after warning him about this reinsertion of unnecessarily rude comments on Elonka's RfA which SlimVirgin and I had removed. Wikipedia cannot hope to survive without ensuring that civility is upheld as a core principle. Pascal.Tesson 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  10. Endorse like I pointed out in my outside view, I think that this whole thing is entirely pointless. Ned, just let him be. Melsaran (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

For the most part, this is White/ Cool Cat being mad at me over his sig changes, so he goes and finds several unrelated situations and tries to stir them all together. I'll start out with the easy ones:

3. Canvassing

This entire section shows absolutely no canvassing. Contacting people who were specifically involved in an MfD about a DRV on that MfD is not canvassing.

4. "Harassment" and "Etiquette"

Commenting on someone's RfA is not harassment. Nor was the valid and reasonable concerns I brought up about his other RfA. Cat notes I showed signs of canvassing (again, what??)
Cat goes on to list my recent comments on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2, and suggests that my pre-comment was not an accident. two other users made the except same mistake that I did, and it was nothing more than a mistake. The assertion that it was anything more falls flat on it's face.
Cat mentions me reverting Tony Sideway's sig change to another user (for those of you who don't know, Tony likes to unformatted people's signatures when he responds to their comments). I have no idea why Cat thinks that is harassment, nor do I understand what significance it is if I had participated in that RfAB or not (tons of us were watching that case with great interest).

Other things that bother me about Cat's comments is that he lists blocks completely unrelated to his listed disputes. He also lists this edit that has nothing to do with anything, other than I said "oh fuck it" in the edit summary (a comment I was making about myself, as I reverted myself).

I also find it very misleading and in bad taste that White Cat does not mention that two other administrators have also reverted his sig change edits (more so than I have, in fact).

Oh so many times Cat was told not to make changes to talk page archives that were unnecessary, and by several people. It was a simple matter, a simple edit that was felt to be inappropriate. No one is trying to harass or stalk Cat. He threw a fit about it, and here we are. This is very typical behavior of Cat, and personally I find if far more disruptive than anything I've done in my time here.

This whole RfC is just reaching, trying to pull together unrelated disputes and paint a misleading picture of my conduct. I do not doubt that you will find people who have disagreed with me, and are willing to leave comments. If you comb through people's past you'll find lots of disputes, and I'm sure it would be easy to list them all like this. The point is that very few of them are ever continuing issues. I'm not perfect, and I learn from my mistakes. Like anyone on Wikipedia, I have the ability to grow and adapt, and I have. So you won't find me apologizing just because someone decided to list all my mistakes on one page.

However, I will try to keep an open mind and listen to the concerns brought up here. I don't feel this RfC is validated, but I won't pass up the opportunity to improve things, and possibly clear up any misunderstandings. -- Ned Scott 21:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Partial and qualified endorsement. Whatever the merits of the other issues might be, I'll back up Ned Scott's choices at Elonka's RFA. Three different editors posted votes before it officially opened. All reverted themselves, which is the kind of self-correcting behavior we hope to see from fellow Wikipedians. As one of Elonka's conominators I stand behind Ned's right to principled opposition. He felt strongly - believed he had reasons to feel strongly - and it pushes things too far to raise that aspect of his behavior at RFC. In good faith, he shouldn't need to answer for that. DurovaCharge! 05:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Durova re all points above. Personally I think it's not so much an RfC as a mediation between the two users concerned that is required. Orderinchaos 10:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Agree with Durova – whilst I'm fully against Ned's other actions, including his seeming inability to leave White/Cool Cat be, I think opposing a user's RfA a few hours before it's been opened is not something we should be hounding him for; Bureaucrats rarely close RfAs on the dot, and we don't hound users who oppose after the scheduled ending time, and the same luxury should be granted in the opposite direction. Anthøny 13:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second response

If Cat's going to keep changing things after I've responded, especially pulling up things that have nothing to do with this, then I'm done here. This childish mudslinging by Cat is an abuse of the RfC process. -- Ned Scott 09:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not helpful, nor is it within the scope of RfC as I understand it, for White Cat to bring in evidence of every disagreement Ned Scott has ever had with anyone. This should really stick to the dispute between White Cat and Ned Scott only. Thatcher131 13:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Information provided needs to be relevant to the case at hand. Orderinchaos 10:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third response

At the time consensus seemed to indicate that it was alright to revert Cat's changes to talk archives. However, it's pretty clear that the consensus now no longer supports that. At this point I'm just arguing for the sake of principal, trying to defend the past, which isn't turning out so well. On Wikipedia it's not always about if you are right or not, but often whether people perceive you as a mad man or not.

I would appreciate if Cat would not change messages I have left in other archives, or if he does, leave a note of the change or pipe the link. The end. -- Ned Scott 03:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Radiant

This RFC is entirely too verbose. I am unclear as to what the problem is here, other than that "some users do not like certain other users", but the outrageously lengthy evidence section looks as if somebody examined every single edit Scott made in the past year through a microscope, and listed every single thing that could be construed as problematic. Whatever the problem is, this RFC is ineffective in resolving it. Mediation please? >Radiant< 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Take off every arbcom. —freak(talk) 19:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Agree with Radiant. I get that White Cat is showing a pattern of behavior, but he's made about two dozen edits to this RfC after Ned posted his response. This is approaching "piling on" status and I'm not sure how it helps to resolve the issue. Chaz Beckett 20:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. -- Ned Scott 02:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Agreed - mediation seems to be a more appropriate way of resolving this situation. Orderinchaos 10:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. Agree. Eusebeus 13:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. Agree — can't make sense of this. WP:EPISODE needs you back, Ned. --Jack Merridew 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  7. Indeed. violet/riga (t) 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to this by Tony Sidaway, co-certifier

I agree that White Cat got carried away and piled on. With White Cat's permission, I've trimmed the dross out and replaced much of the bald listing of edit histories with links to contributions. The current version sticks to the main unresolved issue. --Tony Sidaway 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Melsaran

I honestly don't see the point of all this. If White Cat is so persistent on changing all references to his old name, why don't you just let him be? There must be better things to do with your time than reverting all his edits to reflect his name change. There is no policy stating that you are not allowed to alter links to your name in archives, if it was prohibited to edit archives at all, we would protect them. Reverting it is pointless and a waste of time. Melsaran (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.