Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/orthogonal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion with orthogonal

If orthogonal were to raise concerns beyond how I'm a terrible and power-mad admin, there might be something to respond to. To date, though, orthogonal's position has been, as far as I can see it, that anyone who dares think that there are some users who are problems and who need to be dealt with is a tyrant imposing his views on others and censoring them. Every discussion I have had with orthogonal - and there have been many - has resulted in my being belittled, in him trying to twist my words, and in him trying to trip me up so he can add another trophy to his wall of insults about me on his userpage.

Instead, though, when I tried to broach the subject of dissenting for dissent's sake, and of the Wikipedia tendency towards loose policy, I got nailed to his userpage. When I've discussed things with him in IRC, his mode has been to constantly pick away at my language, trying to back me into a corner where he can paint me as a tyrant. He has not been content to let things go and to accept that we disagree - always, the point must be pushed. When I did not withdraw my request for arbitration against Avala, he proceeded to rally people against my RFA. When I made the semi-policy page, he proceeded to make a page that amounted to a multi-paragraph commentary on my attitude on Wikipedia. These are not ways of expressing concerns that lead to discussion.

I'm happy to coexist on Wikipedia with people who share different views towards trolls, edit conflicts, personal attacks, or anything else. But orthogonal's unwillingness to coexist peacefully and with respectful disagreement is a problem. Snowspinner 05:29, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ambi's Response to David Vasquez

Firstly, David - Snowspinner's mention of IRC isn't unrelated to Wikipedia. IRC stands for Internet Relay Chat, and on it is #wikipedia, the semi-official Wikipedia chatroom. While the AC has occasionally ruled that it is out of their jurisdiction, they have also at times used things that have been said there in rulings (such as Lir's statement there that he had three sysop accounts). Thus, it is a bit of a stretch to call it "contaminating the jury pool" - but this seems to be the basis for your objection to this RfC.

Of course, if you make a prat of yourself, you make yourself look bad. But if you continue to harrass and harangue other users, that obviously has effects. In my opinion, while you need to be able to discuss reasonably and respect consensus, you shouldn't need a politician's hide to be able to contribute to Wikipedia. This is why we have the no personal attacks policy.

Furthermore, being passionate about issues is fine. We have plenty of these disputes, as can be seen on RfM and RfAR. But this isn't a dispute about an article, or a series of an articles. It's simply an attempt by one user to drive another user that he dislikes away from the 'pedia, by means of a bad faith campaign of harrassment. Ambi 10:00, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As is plain to all, I am not privy to all of the agents and powers which are acting behind the scenes in this matter, and therefore I may be greatly mistaken as to what is actually going on here. So thank you for offering your response and inviting me to reply, Ambi.
The possibility that anyone would make a claim that "IRC" (thanks for the description of what "IRC" is) was an integral part of Wikipedia never crossed my mind. I don't know anyone who uses "IRC". In hundreds of hours of reading Wikipedia, and later, during my short time contributing here, I never ran across the term. If I had never came across the plight of orthogonal and Snowspinner, I might still be ignorant of just what "IRC" was all about.
(And from the descriptions I have heard so far, I don't think I care to learn anymore about IRC.)
Nevertheless, how are one or more conversations, which transpired, in what you describe as a "chat room", outside of Wikipedia, not prejudicial to a proceeding that is judging a contributor's conduct on Wikipedia itself?
Please ask yourself - would the average user of Wikipedia agree that this "IRC chat room" you refer to is actually a part of Wikipedia? Or even know what "IRC" is? If anyone's conduct in an "IRC chat room" can be considered in a proceeding that is judging that individual's conduct on Wikipedia, that would have an important bearing on whether there is any basic fairness in this proceeding. But your use of so many advanced terms ("IRC", "AC") and obscure references to other users ("Lir?") leads me to believe that the entire "IRC" issue is just inside baseball that has no relevance to the proceeding at hand.
(update: I added an article explaining inside baseball in case my usage of that term is too obscure.) --DV 11:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To summarize - is "IRC" a part of Wikipedia that I need to know about to be considered a fully active and upstanding contributor? If not, please explain it's relevance here.
One overriding consideration - even if this "IRC chat room" were to be widely considered by the average Wikipedia user to be an integral part of the service, is there any neutral and reliable transcript available of what is said in this "chat room"? If not, everything that is "quoted" from it is hearsay, and therefore any mention of it should be excluded in its entirety on that basis alone.
Lastly, in the spirit of reaching a consensus, would the entire case against orthogonal fall apart if all mentions of "IRC" were to be removed? Cases proceed everyday after certain pieces of evidence are excluded, so would that really be the end of the world? Surely this "Request for Comments" is not so weak as to hinge entirely upon this one point? If not, why not simply remove the distraction of the "IRC" issue and proceed on the remaining merits of the case?
Ambi, thanks again for your invitation to respond.
Respectfully,
--DV 11:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
(P.S.: Ambi, in deference to your apparent Sysop status, if you truly view my advocacy for fairness in this proceeding as "procedural squabbling", just let me know and I'll shut up and go back to editing the Video Poker article.) --DV 11:39, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Don't give my opinions any more credence because I'm a sysop. I'm just another user, with powers to do a few extra chores.
I'm sorry if I'm being seen as using inside terms - one tends to forget that newer users won't know what they mean. The AC, for the record, is the Arbitration Committee (there's three stages of dispute resolution: this is the first, and Arbitration is the last). The Committee, in turn, to some extent, uses a system of precedent. The case of Lir (who you'd probably have met, except he's currently banned due to said proceedings) had some relevant rulings, which is why I brought it up.
With IRC, if it had just been anywhere, it wouldn't necessarily be relevant. The point is that the conduct occurred in relation to the Wikipedia channel. Now, the Arbitration Committee has given conflicting rulings in this area, but based on what they've said, I think that by their standards, this would be considered part of their jurisdiction - and thus, relevant to this RfC.
As to logs - this is a good point. If what was said happened in the #wikipedia channel itself, then there would be (anyone who has turned the logging option on in their client would have a copy, and there would have been more than 100 people in the room at that time). However, if it was in a private message, then only Snowspinner and Orthogonal could have a copy, in which case there probably isn't any reliable evidence.
That said, there's a little more going on here than just IRC stuff. I haven't been present on IRC for all/most of this - but I've seen enough on Wikipedia itself to have considered stepping in on Snowspinner's behalf before he brought this RfC himself. Ambi 12:05, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ambi, thank you for your quick reply.
A search of orthogonal's user page reveals that the "SysOp" by the name of James F has commented on the matter of jurisdiction. He appears to have made the unambiguous statement, "IRC is beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee".
James F provides the same opinion on his user talk page as well.
If this "Request for Comments" proceeding leads to a review in the superior Arbitration Committee, then going by Jame F's statement, they would likely find the "IRC" issue to be irrelevant. Since the jury pool would by that time have been irreversibly contaminated by the "poison fruit of the tree", which by then would have helped the case get to the Committee stage in the first place, a motion could then be made to dismiss this case entirely on the basis of this tainted evidence.
Therefore, in the interests of making this proceeding as fair as possible, I suggest that the distraction of the "IRC" issue be stricken from the records of this proceeding, and that the case proceed on the remaining merits if it is later certified by a "SysOp".
Thank you for your valuable time in this matter. I look forward to your reply.
Respectfully,
--DV 12:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Firstly, as this is not a "jury pool" in a traditional sense, I don't believe there's any grounds for the arbitration committee to reject the case based on this. At least, that's not in the arbitration policy, nor has it ever been done before.
I've seen James' statements, which is why I mentioned that there's been conflicting statements. If I recall correctly, that was in response to Lir making an arbitration request that was only related to IRC - protesting against his banning from the #wikipedia channel. However - in direct contradiction to this, since then, Lir found himself in deep water with the AC after he was found (in addition to a litany of other issues) to have claimed that he had three sysop accounts on IRC, and then denied ever saying this when confronted. So it would appear that events on IRC can be taken into account.
Also, I just want to make clear that sysops have no additional power in this process (apart from the ability to block people at the AC's request), so we're not required to certify anything for it to have effect - at this stage, any decisions are made by the consensus of the wider community, and that only changes when it reaches arbitration - in which case it goes before the Committee. Ambi 13:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ambi, what is the mechanism for determining whether there is a consensus? And how long of a period of time is given for this consensus to develop before the case is either summarily rejected or moves forward? I looked at the page on Request for Comment and this is not clear. This thread is getting a bit long, so I posted a slightly different version of this question on your talk page as my lack of knowledge of the Request for Comments procedure is not germane to this thread. (Sorry if our posts crossed paths here.) Respectfully, --DV 13:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Sorry, I didn't realize Mirv had put that header back on. The policy had a vote of 14/3, which is well over 80%, which is the highest threshold for consensus I've heard someone cite, so I removed the tag about four or five days ago, and hadn't realized it had been put back. As it did gather consensus, it seems to me to be policy. Snowspinner 14:26, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

So your claim is it's a policy only 17 users (out of ~200 sysops and however other many regular users) even bothered to vote on. -- orthogonal 15:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's been there for months. Snowspinner 15:57, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
There are pages in the Wikipedia namespace that have been there for months (or years), but have never received any meaningful amounts of support or opposition, usually because their existence was not publicized. WP:POINT is one such page. Furthermore the policy no longer has a consensus: 14 supporting out of 20 voting is something less than 80%. (Some may question the validity of a vote—mine—that came several months after the last prior vote. To that, I say that since voting on the policy was never declared open, it can hardly be declared closed in perpetuity, especially to users who were not previously aware of its existence.) —No-One Jones 18:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, Snowspinner is correct; the page has been there for months. As a proposal. Snowspinner also notes that there are 14 supporting votes. 11 of these occurred in march of this year:
  1. —Eloquence 20:57, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
 [9 votes elided to save space in this copy]
 11. Moncrief 21:50, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Then, in May, Snowspinner added his own vote, the twelfth in support. Immediately afterward, Ben Brockert added his.
 12. Snowspinner 20:52, 18 May 2004 (UTC)
 13. Ben Brockert 21:36, May 18, 2004 (UTC)
Three weeks after that, the fourteenth vote was added.
 14. Andrewa 22:57, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
So if anyone is going to question Mirv/No One Jones's vote for being later, well, it was. But so was Snowspinner's supporting vote. I suppose we could calculate days and hold another vote to determine how late a "late vote" can be and still "count", but since the proposal indicated neither a date of vote opening nor a date of closing doing so would be an ex post facto rationalization of whatever outcome we personally favored. The more important point is this: with fewer than 20 votes total, it can't reasonably be claimed to either be a well-known policy or the consensus of the community, and both general knowledge of it and a consensus behind it are necessary if, in fairness, we expect to hold users to it. -- orthogonal 18:57, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Malicious Banning

For reference, I have used my blocking policies on Wikipedia twice. Once was a two minute block of myself because I wanted to see what the blocked user screen looked like. The other was a 24 hour block of a user under the disruptive users policy. So I think finding a case for me being a ban-happy sysop would be tough. :) Snowspinner 14:43, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

How is this germane to the RfC? -- orthogonal 15:58, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Geogre noted that one could start an RfC on me for "malicious banning." I was pointing out that this would, in fact, not be possible. Snowspinner 16:00, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry for that, Snowspinner. I did not mean that he could or should, but rather than the ban is equally actionable. If that's incorrect, I apologize, but my point was that both of you guys seem to have done things that you shouldn't and that you're both equally innocent as well as guilty of the things that get RfC's launched. I did not mean to accuse you of anything, but rather to say that the causus belli here is just too darned personal. Geogre 01:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] IRC Jurisdiction

Okay, I hesitated to answer this, both for fear of being accused of further muddying the waters, and because I don't want to be making piecemeal answers. However, perhaps I cab clarifying a few things.

When Snowspinner banned me from IRC, I complained about it to several users on wikipedia. (In Snowspinner's complaint, he renders this as "[orthogonal] spammed a bunch of userpages with an identical message asking how he could contest the ban.")

I complained both for the lack of process involved in the ban and because Snowspinner was being a judge in his own cause. I complained to several sysops, a member of the Arbitration Committee, and a bureaucrat. Only the member of the Arbitration Committee responded that disputes on IRC were, in his opinion, germane on wikipedia (and his response was to Snowspinner, not to me). The rest, including the bureaucrat, responded that IRC disputes cannot be adjudicated on Wikipedia.

It would be ironic indeed if I could not contest Snowspinner banning me in IRC, but he could use the use his banning of me in IRC to start an RfC against me. There are different reasons given for IRC conduct not being reguable; one is simply that it's not wikipedia, the other that it cannot fairly be adjudicated because of the lack of a public log of conversations there.

David Vasquez's concern seems to be a version of the latter, but it goes further tan that, to the whole idea of fairness, and I thank him for noticing it (even given my procedural response, I'd taken for granted that the IRC information could at least be referred to even if not actionable). But the point DV makes is this: since their is no (public) record of what took place on IRC, and since Snowspinner himself says he's not introducing that evidence, it's unfair for Snowspinner then refer to it as evidence, (as he does in the same sentence), because without the logs it can't be refuted by anyone else or examined by impartial third parties.

Snowspinner's statement from the RfC is this (I've used line breaks to split the sentence into parts, but I haven't added or removed anything, except where I note an incorrect spelling):

"Altough [sic] IRC behavior is not actionable on Wikipedia itself, 
and I do not intend to submit it as evidence, 
orthogonal has made his lack of good faith towards me more than clear there."

So the problem is that anyone reading is now "prejudiced": they've heard from one side that the other did something bad (an assertion) for which, for jurisdictional and technical reasons, evidence cannot be admitted for impartial examination.

[edit] Case disposition

Now, as to how this affects the disposition of the case: as I've already noted, the case is flawed to begin with, because in order to start an RfC, there must be two complaintants complaining of the same dispute, and both must have made efforts to resolve it. Since clearly, even stipulating all else, Fennec made not attempts to "resolve" and "dispute" with me, I think I'd be justified in just ignoring the matter entirely as an abuse of process.

This however, would also ignore the wikipedia culture: here, it's taken by many as an article of faith that "trolls" legalistically play by the letter but not the spirit of the rules, in order to be as much as a pain in the ass as possible without actually doing anything that they can be "prosecuted" for.

There is some truth to this in the case of trolls, but there is also the other side to this: legalisms and rules of procedure and evidence have always existed to protect the weak and unpopular from the (possible) depredations of the strong and popular. In the real world, a government prosecutor has access to all the public funds he needs to prosecute a person, and he has access to a police force to do his investigating, and most often close relations with the judges who will decide the case. Most importantly, he has the popular support and publicity that comes from representing "the people" (or in times past, the king). The accused, generally, has access to far fewer resources and less popular support. To prevent the prosecutor from summing a press conference and saying, "the accused is a bad man so let's skip the trail and throw him in jail", we have rules of evidence. To prevent the prosecutor from saying to the police "keep arresting him until we find a charge that sticks" or to the judge "just convict him please", we have rules of procedure.

Trolls, whatever else they are, are in a minority, they are popularly reviled (thus the name), and they do not have the powers of blocking and banning that sysops /admins /bureaucrats do. So to additionally accuse the troll of using the one thing he does have -- a consistent body of law or tradition -- is perhaps unfair.

But in any case, even though I'm not a troll, and have been a participating member of Wikipedia for twice as long as Snowspinner, if I use the protections of procedural and evidentiary rules to "get off on a technicality", I'll be considered "actually guilty" and a "troll" by a large segment of the wikipedia community. And Snowspinner will complain that because of these rules, he did not receive redress for what he will claim are actual wrongs committed by me against him. And inevitably, many will agree with Snowspinner, ignoring that Snowspinner failed to meet the procedural rules for opening an RfC.

Already, ambi has indicated as much, as part of her comment on the RfC: "It also concerns me that [orthogonal's] response to this complaint has been to try and argue that it is procedurally invalid, rather than addressing any of the concerns raised."

This is why, in my original response, I already indicated that -- even though I shouldn't have to, given that this is an invalid RfC -- I would return to address the substance of the complaint. ("However, in the interest of comity, I will attempt to respond to Snowspinner's claims in the near future.)

And I shall. I have little choice, for to "get off on a technicality" would condemn me in the court of public opinion, and be used to justify calling me a "troll". -- orthogonal 15:38, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The IRC is relevent because it provides context. Snowspinner 15:44, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
It is not at all clear that the IRC issue is relevant:
  1. an arbitration committee member by the name of "James F" has stated that IRC is "beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee".
  2. The SysOp named "Angela" has stated flatout on her own user talk page that an IRC dispute is "...a dispute that has nothing to do with Wikipedia (Wikipedia is not IRC)".
Snowspinner, it seems a bit of a distraction to spend so much time discussing something that didn't happen on Wikipedia proper. A neutral observer would find it much easier to objectively evaluate your claims if you would simply remove all mention of IRC in this matter and stick to what has happened directly on Wikipedia itself. --DV 21:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Productivity

I would feel like there was a better chance at discussion here if orthogonal's response had been something other than deming the complaint invalid and making another accusation that I make power grabs. To expidite the matter, would you like to call this an abject failure and move up to mediation now, instead of waiting a week or two? Snowspinner 15:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

That would be unfair to orthogonal.
The basic fairness of this Request for Comment has been called into dispute, and you now want to conveniently skip past the proper process for considering this matter and escalate it to mediation, which would then tar orthogonal with the additional stigma that comes with being accused in that forum as well.
Snowspinner, given that the ink is barely dry on this Request for Comments, it seems rather unfair to move forward so quickly with additional measures simply because it appears to not be going well for you at this level.
I ask that the Wikipedia community be given an opportunity to more fully weigh in on the merits of this Request for Comments before additional measures are taken, especially given that even its certification is in dispute (and certification is required for the matter to proceed forward). --DV 21:21, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
IMO, this would be ripe for mediation, as long as both parties agree. I don't think there's too much more than can be accomplished here. We've had a range of differing views, and I think it's clear that both parties really need to work their differences out between them. Unless the parties decline, and thus plan to proceed to arbitration, I think it should go to mediation - and has more chance of resolution that way. (note that this is just my opinion as a user, not as a mediator). Ambi 23:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that Wikipedia:Dispute resolution no longer indicates that Requests for Comment is the step before mediation. They may be used in any order that might help solve the problem. Unlike arbitration, mediation should not be seen as an escalation. In some situations it might be tried first, before turning to a more public venue like this one. I agree with Ambi that mediation could help here. --Michael Snow 02:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So Snowspinner could simply have asked for mediation, rather than oppening an RfC? -- orthogonal 03:54, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It seems I could have. I was unaware that the policy had changed, though I'm glad it did. Snowspinner 04:50, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Better late than never, I say. You might start by both apologizing to each other for making such a public spectacle out of a personality conflict. --Michael Snow 16:38, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner writes, above, (emphasis orthogonal's):

I would feel like there was a better chance at discussion here if orthogonal's response [to this RfC] had been something other than de[e]ming the complaint invalid and making another accusation that I make power grabs.

I did (and do) argue that the RfC was invalid, but where in my response did I "mak[e] another accusation that [Snowspinner] make[s] power grabs"?

Please note, in the next section, below, Snowspinner calls using the words "power grab" a "personal attack", so (apparently) Snowspinner is saying I'm both pettifogging and making (yet another) personal attack in my response to this RfC.

Snowspinner, where in my response do you see me "making another accusation that [you] make power grabs"? -- orthogonal 07:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Policy concerns vs personal attacks

I wanted to touch on something George said in his summary, about how orthogonal was raising a valid policy concern, and not a personal attack. I think this is a case where it all comes down to phrasing. "This gives sysops too much power" is a policy concern. "Snowspinner is making a power grab" is a personal attack. orthogonal may have raised the first one as well, but he definitely raised the second one, and, in doing so, went a long ways towards poisoning the well in terms of discussion. It's possible to discuss giving sysops too much power. Ultimately, there's no discussion that I can meaningfully or productively have regarding whether I am making a power grab. Snowspinner 01:17, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Err... Orthogonal saying "Snowspinner is making a power grab" is not a personal attack. It's an established editor's claim about another established editor. Something that you should be refuting, not trying to disqualify. Zocky 03:11, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, for myself, I can certainly see how orthogonal's phrasing was unflattering and imputed motives, but I still think it was an opinion the act rather than the person. As long as they are about the actions, and not the person, I think characterizations of a public act are fair game. Geogre 01:31, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wait a bit; I think wires have gotten crossed here.
Snowspinner writes above (emphasis orthogonal's):
I wanted to touch on something George [sic] said in his summary [on the RfC page], about how orthogonal was raising a valid policy concern, and not a personal attack. I think this is a case where it all comes down to phrasing. "This gives sysops too much power" is a policy concern. "Snowspinner is making a power grab" is a personal attack.
Geogre replies:
Well, for myself, I can certainly see how orthogonal's phrasing was unflattering and imputed motives....
But Snowspinner is referring to "something George [sic] said in his summary". What Snowspinner is referring to in Geogre's summary appears to be:
Orthogonal believes that Snowspinner is attempting to lay in far too much power for himself, or for a group of Admins. This is a legitimate matter of policy that needs discussion and not a "personal attack."
To recapitulate: Geogre says "Orthogonal believes that Snowspinner is attempting to lay in far too much power" and Snowspinner paraphrases that -- paraphrases Geogre's words -- as "Snowspinner is making a power grab", and then says that -- the paraphrase, not Geogre's actual words -- "is a personal attack" and then Geogre replies "I can certainly see how orthogonal's phrasing was unflattering and imputed motives".
So I didn't say it, Geogre did, but Geogre didn't phrase it personally (and indeed in his summary said of what I'd said "However, I looked at the 'personal attacks,' and, frankly, I don't see them"), and then Snowspinner paraphrased it in a manner that makes it sound like a personal attack.
Snowspinner (above), having paraphrased George's paraphrase of me to make it into a "personal attack", then goes on to say that the "personal attack" "went a long ways towards poisoning the well in terms of discussion" and then uses that to justify not discussing the issue: "Ultimately, there's no discussion that I can meaningfully or productively have regarding whether I am making a power grab."
So I've now been told that either I'm making "a personal attack" or that I "was unflattering and imputed motives" for something I never said, and that's used to justify Snowspinner's unwillingness to discuss substantive issues!
Let me remind everyone of the irony here: the purpose of bringing an RfC is to solicit community comment to resolve impasses that two parties cannot resolve between themselves, because they cannot have an amicable discussion of that impasse. But I didn't bring the RfC against Snowspinner for not holding a discussion; Snowspinner brought it against me. -- orthogonal 07:37, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[1]. That would be where you never accused me of making power grabs. Snowspinner 14:09, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm confused. I'm not sure I understand the term "personal attack" as it is being used here. I've read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and I'm still confused. Is it the case that all expressions of negative opinions concerning a person are forbidden?

"Personal attacks" are often rude, impolite, hurtful, unproductive, childish, etc. and should generally be avoided (although I'm not sure it's wise of Wikipedia to try to outlaw rudeness, because of freedom of speech concerns as well as the shear difficulty of definition). But, is it the intension of Wikipedia that all expressions of negative opinions about persons be avoided? Is it improper to express the opinion that so-and-so is a "troll"? Is it improper to express the opinion that so-and-so is committing an abuse of power? Is this RFC a "personal attack"? Paul August 17:25, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Touchy Problem

While I agree that Fennec cannot validly certify this dispute, I don't think Guanaco (or anyone else) should move another user's signature, as Guanaco just did to Fennec's signature.

Doing this misrepresents what the signing user intends, and tends to decrease faith in the validity of signatures in general, which is harmful to wikipedia.

I would humbly ask that Guanaco revert his edit and instead explain the reasons he believes Fennec should himself move the signature; possibly Guanaco could do that endorsing David Vasquez's "outside view" which says as much, or by adding his own "outside view".

For obvious reasons of appearance of impropriety, I am NOT going to revert an RfC open on me. -- orthogonal 00:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal Discovery

In order to prepare my defense, I've been looking for a page named User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal, in which Snowspinner declared that he would "not (respond) to posts by User:Orthogonal". However, this page now appears to be blank.

I know it was there as of 06:57, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC), because I linked to it at that time. It hasn't been listed at [wp:VfD] since that time, nor has it been listed at Speedy Deletion, so I'm a bit at a loss.

Thanks. -- orthogonal 00:49, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

22:56, 30 Aug 2004 Niteowlneils deleted "User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal" (user page/req--content was: 'This page was silly and immature of me, and I would like to nuke it please.{{delete}}')
Thanks. That was quick. Sorry, I didn't see it myself. -- orthogonal 01:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But, er, wait. Is there any way to get the content of that page now? -- orthogonal 01:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You MUST go through Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.

Note that the above unsigned comment, "You MUST go through Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion" was made by anonymous IP 172.196.57.33.
Addendum: the anon IP posted two minutes after my posts above, implying either a great coincidence or an anon who either watches this page or my contributions. -- orthogonal 04:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Or it could be an editor who accidentally logged out. Snowspinner 05:45, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)
But he or she would have had to have been logged in for this to show up on his or her watchlist, and he or she would have had to have followed or refreshed the link to his or her watchlist after my post at 01:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC), but have been accidentally logged out before his or her post at 01:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC).
And if he or she had been logged out but was unaware of that, he or she would still have hit the four tildes ~~~~ to sign, rather than leaving off his or her signature entirely.
Regardless, it would have had to have been a user with an interest (of one sort or another) in this RfC, and one who prefers that "User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal" not be revealed without a vote on Votes for Undeletion, which means at least a five day (?) delay. -- orthogonal 06:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
But if it was an editor who accidentally logged out, then I have every confidence he or she will step forward and take credit for his or her edit.
But it doesn't really matter; I have asked Snowspinner to provide the article, and as a sysop Snowspinner has the ability to do that, and as the originator of this RfC Snowspinner has an interest in resolving this issue. -- orthogonal 06:11, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The deleted page

[Snowspinner's apology copied from orthogonal's talk page. -- orthogonal 15:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)]

I removed the portion of my complaint about your userpage after you changed it. I would hope that you would also let go the issue of that page once I changed it. If you really want to use as evidence a page I've already admitted was immature and a bad idea though, and which, incidentally, I apologize for as well, let me know. Snowspinner 14:14, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I accept your apology for that page, and I thank you for the apology.
I think your "orthogonal" page is necessary for my response to the whole RfC. It's necessary because my argument will be a bit different from yours: I will not complain that you had that page or that you linked to it (although I think it's only fair to note I linked to words you wrote on my user page, and you linked to words you wrote, which is a big difference: I let you be characterized by your own words, you characterized me by your words).
I emphatically do not think you can be sanctioned for having that page or for linking to it, at all. You wrote a page of your opinion about me, and you are entitled to your opinion. It was rude, but rude is not something you should be sanctioned for. (Proponents of "No Personal Attacks" or "Remove Personal Attacks" might disagree. I can't speak for them.)
Furthermore, I believe that you are entitled to display that opinion on your user sub-page and to link to that sub-page from wherever you wish (on Wikpedia and talk pages, of course, not from articles themselves). I will also note you argued that User:Plato did not have similar rights as regarded his "red faction" page, so I can't say to you everyone believes you have the right to display that opinion here on Wikipedia, and as with sanctioning, I suspect some would argue the page contravened the "No Personal attacks" policy even if they would not argue for sanctioning you for it.
But I'd be quite prepared to argue that you have a right to write any opinion you want on your user or user sub-pages, so long as it's not libelous, and I will not in any way ask that you be sanctioned for having, holding, or giving your opinions.


However, according to Request for Comments, "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 user and have failed."
I will argue that your "orthogonal" page indicates that you were not trying to resolve the dispute you have with me, because that "orthogonal" page indicted that you would never reply to, or even consider, anything I addressed to you. Further, I will argue that your asking another sysop to remove your "orthogonal" page just hours before you opened the RfC was a deliberate attempt to hide evidence of that.
Additionally, I will argue that having seen that page (and I didn't know it was gone until I went to look for it in order to formulate this argument) and understanding that you intended to ignore anything I might say to you, exacerbated the revert war you had with me (and others) in the hours before you opened the RfC, over
and with Mirv after you filed the RfC over
So I hope you will see that it's not a matter of "letting go" of a page you changed, but a matter of whether you opened the RfC under false pretenses or not, and whether therefore your certification was false, making the entire RfC invalid. To show this, I need to be able to quote from your "orthogonal" page and the history of that page.
Finally, I think in a discovery process, it's poor form to cavil about requests for information germane to the subject of the dispute. I hope that you'll deliver the requested page as soon as you reasonably can.
Thanks. -- orthogonal 15:25, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I have requested mediation on this matter, since the RfC seems very much doomed. Snowspinner 16:30, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

To give the context of Snowspinner's decision to ask for Mediation, I have copied the following from my talk page. -- orthogonal 16:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Trial or way of gathering community comments

Which is RfC then? If we're in a "discovery" phase and your goal is to show the charge invalid, that's one thing. If this is about getting community comments so we can come to an agreement, that's another. So tell me which one we're doing, please, and I'll respond accordingly. Snowspinner 15:35, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it has a stated procedure. The procedure must be followed, as David Vasquez and I both go into at length on the RfC's talk page; you can review that for the arguments if you have specific questions about it. To not follow the procedure, is to create bad precedents that may take away rights from people using the RfC procedure in the future.
Directly above, you wrote "If you really want to use as evidence [that] page... let me know", and I let you know that it's key to part of my response. But now your response is to come back and ask more questions, and tell me your response is conditioned on my answers. -- orthogonal 15:48, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And when I thought you were using it to respond to issues and try to reach some agreement with me, that was one thing. If you're going to just use it to continue on the legalistic angle, quite frankly, I think that's counterproductive, and I'm more inclined to sit back and let the RFC die off. Since you appear to be valuing legalism and procedure over an opportunity to actually bridge the gap between us, I've got to say, I'm not that inclined to be helpful. Give me a sign you're looking to use this as anything other than an opportunity to let pedantry and rules lawyering obstruct dealing with real issues and I suspect we could work together to overcome this. Snowspinner 16:13, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

I'll just quote what David Vasquez wrote when you suggested scrapping the RfC for Mediation on 15:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC) [2] and leave it at that.
David Vasquez wrote:
That would be unfair to orthogonal.
The basic fairness of this Request for Comment has been called into dispute, and you now want to conveniently skip past the proper process for considering this matter and escalate it to mediation, which would then tar orthogonal with the additional stigma that comes with being accused in that forum as well.
-- orthogonal 16:21, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

I have requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation, since RfC is fairly obviously not going to make things better. Snowspinner 16:28, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion, Dispute

I am sorry for sparking a fair amount of Confusion. It may in fact be that I should have signed as Certification but as Endorsement. I do not routinely Certify disputes.

A note regarding the "Foe" status on Slashdot, I applied that because Orthogonal has a Friend-of-a-Friend status (+1) through Raul654, but I found this was moderating up several comments which I did not find valuable, including one or two which irked me - his own Slashdot user page seems to indicate a few recently moderated Troll, Offtopic and Flamebait- not that anyone is immune from these sorts of moderation. The current combination of FOAF +1 and Foe -1 leaves the comments with a net moderation of +0.

FURTHERMORE, I propose that Orthogonal's response to this issue is, itself, further evidence of the sort of "crusade" mentality. I take objections to comments such as "I guess it's time for Fennec to make some Slashdot Sockpuppets!" Its introduction on the talk page shows several properties of a personal attack.

And as long as we're talking about off-Wikipedia actions, I have on multiple occasions on IRC asked for earHertz to kindly stop what I also percieve as a "crusade" against furries, a topic which he often discusses at great length, much to the dismay of multiple channel denizens.

In short: I have multiple issues with Orthogonal. Most of them are off Wikipedia. I have not currently taken significant steps to "attempt to resolve this dispute but fail", and if it so pleaseth the WikiLawyers, I will move my signature from one section to the other. I support Snowspinner's request for Mediation in this matter as a wise and prudent action. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:04, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I won't spend much time on this. Fennec proposes his Slashdot listing was essentially "book-keeping" to change the way that pages there are displayed for him (and yes, I understand for non-Slashdot user this is pretty arcane, and even for me I had to read it three times to figure it out -- that's more Slashdot's complicated moderation system than Fennec's fault); I'll stipulate Fennec's explanation. As far as the Sockpuppets, I was emphasizing that with my having 33 "foes" and 428 "fans", Fennec's action didn't have much affect on me on Slashdot.
As far as the #wikipedia IRC channel, Furries and autofellatio (I will not speculate why) are perennial subjects of fascination on our IRC channel. Indeed, the last person to broach subject of Furries on IRC was -- Fennec.
Now to real issues: Fennec has said, above, that "if it so pleaseth the WikiLawyers, I will move my signature from one section to the other." This glib response speaks for itself -- procedure is to be followed by other users when it suits Fennec, but when asked to follow it himself, Fennec implies policy is pettifogging "WikiLawyering".
I think Fennec does not realize the seriousness of his action: Fennec by certifying this dispute, was "confirm(ing) formally as true, accurate, or genuine" that he was a party to the same dispute as Snowspinner, and had made attempts to resolve the dispute.
Fennec certified something that he knew not to be true and excused it by explaining he doesn't "routinely Certify disputes". And as of this writing, he still has not moved his signature or made other formal attempts to correct this. In explaining that he has "multiple issues" with me, Fennec makes clear what his motivation for certifying was: not to tell the truth, but to pursue a personal grudge having nothing to do with Wikipedia proper. Fennec has abused process in order to perpetuate a personal grudge, and by formally saying to the Wikipedia community that something was true what he knew was not true, he has abused the trust of the community as well.
Having failed to meet the burden for this formal process of adjudication by making what he admits were false claims, Fennec's response is not to formally withdraw those claims or apologize for the abuse of process, but to explain he supports opening yet another process of adjudication against the same user, in this case in Mediation. This is nothing more than barratry and forum shopping.
I urge Fennec to consider the seriousness of certifying to the community as true something that was not, and of making no attempts to redress this error when it was pointed out to him. -- orthogonal 00:08, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)


PS: Fennec, I hope that we can bury the hatchet. But I think you must understand the seriousness of perjuriously certifying: it undermines the trust the community has in you, and has a right to expect, when you take such a serious and formal step as to certify. -- orthogonal 00:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Mediation is not a process of adjudication. Snowspinner 00:36, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
I'll note that Snowspinner's comment above edits over a previous comment of his: for those interested, the diff is here: [3].
Belatedly signing. My bad. -- orthogonal 07:51, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
(orthogonal provided the above link)
For the reader's convenience, Snowspinner stated, "You know, you could just let it go already."
But Snowspinner is the one who posted this Request for Comments in the first place, so why is the onus on orthogonal to "let it go" when this Rfc is Snowspinner's doing?
Where is the mediation forum? Deleting this page and simply "letting it go" is grossly unfair to orthogonal, because he sees that his reputation is damaged and of course he wants to see that reputation restored.
It is also grossly unfair because there is an imbalance of power here. How can Snowspinner, as an Admin, tell orthogonal to "just let it go", after Snowspinner just dragged orthogonal's name through the mud?
Until such time that a neutral third party can mediate between Snowspinner and orthogonal, orthogonal is left hanging in the wind with this Rfc hanging over his head, and it is understandable that orthogonal would respond to Snowspinner's ongoing attempts to get the last word in on various bits and pieces of this Rfc article.
But all of this is now moot and not worth arguing anymore. Here's why:
In a previous post, Snowspinner called this Request for Comments an "abject failure" and asked to move forward with Mediation. (It's interesting that he made no offer to take this Rfc article down before any damage was done, were orthogonal to agree to the Mediation.) So, at the time, I asked for the process to work its way through, to see what a few other members of the community thought of it, as it seemed unfair to post the Rfc just long enough to tar orthogonal, and then conveniently dispose of it quickly once it's effect on orthogonal had been wrought (or its ineffectiveness at "winning" had become evident, depending on your perspective).
After a few days, it would appear the community had spoken, and the community's answer was that mediation could have been the first step, without posting this scarlet letter on orthogonal's chest in the first place (thanks Michael Snow).
As an Admin, why didn't Snowspinner ask for mediation in the first place?
Unfortunately, Snowspinner stated that he didn't know that mediation was an option before posting a Request for Comments.
Now, I would have thought that someone who envisions himself a leader in making policy would know such basic policy as attempting Mediation before persuing Rfc. Or better yet, I would have hoped someone aspiring to such a leadership role would have the common sense to see that Mediation was a better way to start than the Rfc, without even having to ask. I probably hope for too much from our leaders.
In the interim, other Admins (thanks Ambi!) graciously explained to me that Mediation is not really an escalation of Request for Comments.
So, now that other more experienced contributors have shone their light on this situation, I call on Snowspinner, or any other Admin who wants to help put this ugly incident into the dust bin of Wikipedia, to move forward with Mediation.
Who among the Admins is willing to step up to the plate?
When this Request for Comments was first posted, it was worth spending some time to get a lay of the land. But now the community has spoken and said that Snowspinner should have started with mediation. Any further postings to this article are a giant waste of time (I know I want my fifteen minutes back) and moreso, the longer this Request for Comments is left hanging over orthogonal's head (another Admin by the name of Guanaco says it's not even certified anymore), the more unfair this process becomes to orthogonal.
Snowspinner, why don't you "just let it go", and ignore orthogonal until you can find a neutral Admin who can help to mediate this situation. Since you are casting yourself as the more calm, mature, and experienced contributor, and orthogonal is now reduced to flailing his arms, it's unfair and impractical to expect that orthogonal can somehow drive this process in a positive direction on his own.
Now I'm going to relax and work on the Video Poker article.
--DV 07:21, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
FYI, for quite a while, RfC was listed as the first step of dispute resolution, to be followed by mediation. That seems to have changed. I didn't notice the change. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is not on my watchlist. As for a neutral admin to mediate the situation, I already requested mediation. I'm sure, if orthogonal accepts it, someone among the mediation committee will step forward with the situation. As for the "let it go" post - it was not by accident that I removed it, and I find it astonishingly petty to link to a post I clearly retracted and then jump on me for it. Or should I go and restore my complaints about orthogonal's userpage? Snowspinner 12:16, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion

Guanaco just deleted this, but I've undeleted it, as though uncertified, it still seems to be pertinent to the mediation. It's already delinked from the RfC page, but if the parties want it gone, however, I'm happy to oblige. Ambi 21:47, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since the subject of the page said, I ask that this page not be deleted wholesale (emphasis in original), that should be pretty clear. Removal from RfC is okay with me unless the parties have objections. The certification requirement exists primarily to prevent frivolous requests. The concern here is not so much that the issues presented are frivolous, but that there are probably better ways to resolve them, like mediation. --Michael Snow 22:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Well, Fennec despite admitting he shouldn't have certified, still hasn't moved his signature: in effect, he's admitted this was an extra-judicial smear, but he's taken no steps to correct his error or redress it. My reputation has been besmirched and great deal of time -- mine and everyone else who has commented on this RfC -- has been taken up for what should never have been allowed to start in the first place. Deleting the page now only takes away the only real forum I have to protest this.
As far as Michael Snow's comment, the issue here is that plaintiffs claimed they made attempts to resolve the dispute prior to opening the RfC, and now it is clear they did not, and that opening the RfC was not justified. They abused process -- this RfC wasn't about healing a dispute, it was used by Snowspinner and Fennec as another bludgeon to perpetuate this dispute. I would sincerely hope that you and other Wikipedia, out of fairness, would condemn. -- orthogonal 00:20, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Actually, an RfC listing is generally allowed to start (and run for 48 hours) without being certified, although during that period it should be listed under the Candidate pages heading. Also, I think it is clear that Snowspinner at least did make efforts to resolve the dispute. Question the sincerity or the effectiveness if you like, but his efforts are quite clearly in evidence. Thus at the very least, Snowspinner could legitimately open this RfC and see if someone else would certify it within the allotted time. The issue of improper certification applies to Fennec only, but you are blithely lumping Snowspinner in with him. Though they may be allies here, still it makes about as much sense as holding you responsible for Plato's behavior because he has endorsed your summary of the dispute and you were once invited to join his "Red faction".
Sticking with the analogies to legal processes, it's like filing a lawsuit and later having it dismissed. Of course, the defendant can argue that the case was frivolous and seek sanctions against the plaintiff. Frivolous, in my view, means that there wasn't actually a substantive dispute involved, and it's abundantly obvious that you and Snowspinner do have a substantive dispute. As it turns out, RfC is not the best place to handle this particular dispute. Mediation could work much better, and I think it's time to focus your attention there. I regret any injury to reputations or waste of time, but in bludgeoning each other for the past month, you two had already harmed your reputations and wasted your time plenty, and this RfC fiasco is just the icing on the cake. --Michael Snow 17:23, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Michael Snow, I have no issue with allowing the RfC to start and run 48 hours without it being certified; that period is necessary for certification to be given, I agree. When I say that Snowspinner did not make sincere efforts to resolve the dispute, I refer to his page User:Snowspinner/Orthogonal, a rather long page on which he indicated he would neither read nor reply to anything I might say to him. He linked to this from several talk and wikipedia pages, wherever I attempted to engage him in dialogue. If someone refuses to even listen to others' views, it's a bit futile to try to talk to them. As Snowspinner listed that page for speedy deletion only three hours before starting the RfC, it's a bit much to say he was trying to resolve the dispute. I'd ask you to read Snowspinner's page and judge for yourself, but Snowspinner refuses to allow it to be undeleted. -- orthogonal 01:50, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I read the page while it was in existence, and for that matter still have the ability to read it, since admins can view deleted pages. In any case, you have summarized its essential point. As I see it, that page does not negate the fact the Snowspinner did try to resolve the dispute, as indicated by the discussions cited on the RfC page. Those dialogues predate it considerably, and the creation of his subpage simply indicates to me that Snowspinner had, at that point, given up on trying to discuss the matter further one-on-one. That was unfortunate, and as he admits the page was immature, but clearly from his perspective he had already tried and failed to resolve the dispute by personal dialogue. I would guess that at that point he hoped to deal with the problem by avoiding interaction with you, but then concluded that was not a tenable position either. --Michael Snow 02:08, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Would you agree it hampers my defense that I can't show that page to non-admins who might be considering the substance of this RfC? -- orthogonal 02:14, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Not with respect to the question of whether Snowspinner could legitimately certify the RfC, because there's already sufficient evidence of his attempts to resolve the dispute. With respect to your substantive defense against Snowspinner's complaint overall, perhaps. But even then, I wonder whether it makes much difference to people whether they see the page itself, or whether they see Snowspinner's refusal to restore it - either way allows people to draw negative conclusions about him that presumably help your case. Also, I think the overall sentiment in the room, so to speak, would not be affected in any significant degree by the availability of the page. --Michael Snow 16:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)