Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:33, 10 November 2008

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: 01:30, November 7, 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 01:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC).

Privatemusings (talk • contribs • logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

Privatemusings has over a lengthy period of time disrupted the community by continuing to seek appeals for a banned user even when clearly unreasonable to every bystander.

Desired outcome

That Privatemusings no longer involves himself in or refers to anything associated with the user known as Steve Crossin.

Description

Steve Crossin (talk · contribs) also known as Samekh (talk · contribs) was banned in August 2008 for a period of six months for compromising and using administrative accounts that did not belong to him. Since that time Privatemusings has pursued a one-man quest to have Steve unbanned before the six months have expired. While it is laudatory for an individual to seek justice and shine lights into dark corners, eventually such a quest, unchecked, becomes a disruption. In the past Privatemusings has had issues with being overly focused on single topics, leading to his Arbcom ban from BLPs in late 2007. The mentors who were appointed to oversee he return to editing from that ban have uniformly counseled him that the Steve Crossin issue is resolved. However, he insists on bringing it up continuously, to the point that the Arbcom clerks have indicated further appeals are not welcome at the WP:RFAR page. As Steve Crossin is active on IRC, has the ArbCom's email address, and can use the EmailUser function to seek out private appeals from any number of functionaries, Privatemusings' efforts no longer aid the constructive dispute resolution process. I believe that when he sticks to articles, Privatemusings can be a constructive editor, however, when he finds a topic and continues to harp on it beyond the conclusion of all reasonable discussion, it becomes disruptive to the community's well-being.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[1], [2], User talk:Privatemusings/steve email,[3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]

Applicable policies and guidelines

Additional essays of interest

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

[25]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

MBisanz ^talk 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am one of the 3 ArbCom appointed mentors that Privatemusings had. We have, as a body, resigned, because we have tried and failed to get PM to focus on content and avoid drama. We know he means well, but this sort of thing is what we explicitly have counseled him against. I hope this RfC will get PM to take this matter seriously. Endorse. ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As another of the 3 ArbCom appointed mentors, agreeing with all that Lar has written. Additionally, Steve Crossin contacted me on 3 November to inform me that Privatemusings was going on his own steam at that point, yet Privatemusings continued to press the issue at user talk until MBisanz initiated this RFC. Tonight Orderinchaos and I had a follow-up conversation with Steve that confirmed the chain of events. We sought to include Privatemusings and get both sides of of the matter, yet although PM was on IRC he declined to join us (I don't do IRC). PM may have been unable to join for technical reasons. If new information comes to light this endorsement may need revision, yet at least provisionally this has my wholehearted agreement. Durova^Charge! 02:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I affirm that there is an issue here that needs resolution. I have previously provided a strong hint to Privatemusings that he should not pursue the Steve_Crossin matter, mostly in the interests of letting a touchy issue die; this hint doesn't appear to have been taken heed of. PM. is a genuinely pleasant person—I've had great fun working with him at m:Wikivoices (neé NotTheWikipediaWeekly, "NtWW"), and am aware that he has good intentions in his presence here on the project—but I fear that his judgement is continually lacking, and that has become a chronic issue that cannot be allowed to fester any longer. Either Privatemusings adjusts his conduct himself (this has not been entirely effective thus far: he has had three very competent mentors assigned to him for some months, and yet the issues remain pending resolution...), or action is taken by the community to forcefully resolve this matter (in practice, this will mean a siteban or a topic-area ban, yes). The first course of action is certainly the one I hope to see implemented, but I won't be adverse to the second if all else fails. AGK 16:50, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to engage Privatemusings on this, and feel that this behaviour needs to stop. The subject of Privatemusings curiousity is a living person, and I dont think Privatemusings is handling this appropriately. I have told him so, yet he continues to pursue it. The latest reply from him, while I have been away, doesnt indicate he has decided to drop it. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Sarah 03:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

initial

well that's one way to get the whole thing more attention, MB! - more substantive response anon. Privatemusings (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC) - first reaction may not be appropriately solemn.. veering on the side of caution.[reply]

It's my sincere belief that the Steve Crossin matter has some unresolved aspects (per the many diff.s above - a formal arb ban should be certified 'on wiki' in my view) - I won't bang (or harp) on here, suffice to say that I remain happy to avoid talking about this with anyone who finds it annoying, or to respond substantively to further concerns raised in this process... best, Privatemusings (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not that you are annoying those who do not wish to address the Steve_Crossin matter; it is that, by continually pressing that matter, you are opening up wounds that are only just beginning to heal over, and thereby displaying a serious lack of judgement—most especially for somebody on already shaky legs. The Crossin incident is one that will have the least negative impact on the project when given the lowest volume of public attention—at this stage at least: the time will come when we need to discuss letting Steve back on, but for the time being... The "ignore it" approach is most prudent, and you seem to have seriously missed that. AGK 16:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)points understood, agk - maybe we'll talk through this in voice sometime, I hope you understand me not engaging here at this time :-)[reply]

Sunday evening update

On the Steve C matter (the stated focus of this RfC), I just flicked FT2 a response to an email which I'm happy to make the 'end of the line' on this one. For the tl:dr folk - here's the bit that matters;

“

I believe the arbcom has fallen short of best practice here. You (the committee) have discussed a case privately, and voted internally to issue a 6 month ban to a user. You (as a committee) consider it impossible to certify this on-wiki with any sort of public motion, though individual arbs have communicated the existance(sic) of the ban on wiki.

I sincerely believe there are significant weaknesses and dangers in this approach.

”

as I went on to say... I'm happy to agree to disagree on this with anyone, and let it lie.. put in simple terms, I'll no longer involve myself in or refer to anything associated with the user known as Steve Crossin for the forseeable!

I should probably say that I'll interpret the statement I've issued according to my own common sense - for example feeling free to edit away on '24' articles should the mood take me, which is unlikely anywhoo... my talk page remains open to folk feeling I've stepped over any lines anywhere on the wiki, including this new one :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Avruch

I think privatemusings is a very well meaning editor who got off on the wrong foot with Wikipedia and has had some trouble setting things right. People recognize that he means well and has much value to contribute, and they (we) want to help him improve his ability to do that. I filed at least one of the appeals to ArbCom to have his editing restrictions reconsidered, and I am confident that my opinion of his ability to edit peacefully and constructively was not inaccurate. As far as I am aware, his mentors expressed no disatisfaction with his editing during the time he was under their review. (With the caveat that, as they noted, his content editing was limited during this period).

Privatemusings has what many of us have - a motivation based in the philosophy that Wikimedia projects represent, and a committment to see our common ideals upheld. He has not always navigated the Wikimedia community with grace, but from the beginning his actions demonstrated that his strong convictions lay in the Wikimedia ethos as opposed to any particular editing point of view. This belief in the "ethos" of Wikimedia has led him to involvement in a number of constructive endeavours - he founded Not The Wikipedia Weekly and is the "communications advisor and general reminder person" of the Wikimedia Chapters Committee (ChapCom). He's also been involved in other, more contentious areas on Wikipedia.

Given his history, its difficult for privatemusings to have the sort of impact he'd like to have in areas of dispute resolution - particularly arbitration. We usually recommend that editors coming off sanctions try to "keep their head down" for awhile and edit without incident, to demonstrate to the community that they are here for more than causing trouble and drama. Privatemusings has received this sort of advice on many, many occasions - from myself, from the Arbitration Committee, from his mentors and from many others - but has chosen not to follow it.

I believe that privatemusings should be free to edit the encyclopedia according to his own judgment, now that he is more familiar with Wikipedia norms of editing. I also am hesitant to endorse a requirement that he refrain from editing anywhere in the Wikipedia namespace. The truth is that his attempts at involving himself in the Steve Crossin issue, and his work on various other policies, have not been harmful. His work in the Steve Crossin affair has not been particularly helpful, but the net negative impact has been quite minor. Therefore the outcome I would most like to see from this request for comment is that privatemusings realizes that he ought to direct his efforts elsewhere for awhile, and voluntarily decides to restrict himself from ArbCom appeals for the duration. Avruch^T 02:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Carcharoth (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– How do you turn this on (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really, I think every problem Privatemusings has had since after his Arb Comm case has been the result of being unduly focussed on specific controversial issues to the exclusion of all else. He's indicated from time to time that he's quite capable of doing some nice wiki-gnomery on low-profile articles when he wants to; it just seems that too often he'd rather focus on more controversial issues. Therefore, I thoroughly agree with Avruch's comment that the best result of this RFC would be that "privatemusings realizes that he ought to direct his efforts elsewhere for awhile, and voluntarily decides to restrict himself from ArbCom appeals for the duration." Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Steve Crossin

In discussions I have had on IRC with Privatemusings, he has mentioned requesting clarification on my ban, as well as other matters related to my ban. Initially on the 22nd of October, when he initially discussed the request for clarification with me on IRC, I had given him tacit approval, however, I'm rather over this drama, and as of around the 3rd, I have asked him to cessate these requests. He is doing things on his own steam, as he has noted and I do wish for all this to end, in the spirit of ending drama. Other users on IRC and/or Skype have seen these sorts of discussions, and can confirm this independent of myself. I just wanted this to be clear to the community, that while, yes, I have previously asked for further discussion, that time has ended. I've recently been active on Simple, and the English Wikinews, and I don't wish to create any more drama at the English Wikipedia.

Regards, Samekh (Steve Crossin)

Post by MBisanz ^talk

Users who endorse this summary:

After having reviewed the facts of the situation and with no opinion on the wider case, I'm happy to endorse Steve's statement above. I was present during the chat Durova describes below so can vouch for them. Orderinchaos 02:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing. Also affirming that this statement was written while Steve was in voice/text chat with me written and somewhat at my suggestion. Seeing as Steve had already been mentioned extensively in the opening request, a brief statement from him is appropriate here (WP:IAR if one needs a policy cite). To the best of my knowledge this is accurate. Durova^Charge! 02:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
– How do you turn this on (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not view posting this statement as "posting on behalf of a banned user" in the normal sense, and instead thank those who brought this statement here. I would strongly endorse Steve's request that the underlying matter (of seeking clarification) be dropped, and strongly endorse Steve's intent of working productively (and hopefully enjoyably) on other wikis for a while. I wish him all the best in that endeavour. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, PM, please think of what Steve is asking. MBisanz ^talk 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve made a mistake, has shown every indication that he's very much aware that he did, and has asked for advocacy on his behalf to end. PM should abide by this request. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It goes to show that, as apparently many people have suggested, what PM is doing is counterproductive. However, I would not in any way suggest that there should be any link between PM's misguided activism and Steve's reintegration. That would be perverse. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Bstone

This RFC/U only serves to create more drama, where none previously existed (or did in such tiny quantities). I am certain we have a much bigger issues to crunch, like writing an encyclopedia. Bstone (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tombomp (talk/contribs) 09:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Especially since PM has noted the situation and promised to de~~sist~~-escalate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)amended upon rereading PM's above response.LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a waste of time. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, why then are you endorsing other views? AGK 16:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

I'm hoping this RfC will simply serve as one huge trout slap and force P.M. to stop acting silly and contribute in the constructive and helpful fashion we know he is capable of. I also hope he understands that those who act as a pain the community's backside are liable to be removed. A bit of prudence when editing, Privatemusings—and, by that, I mean not 'banging the drum' on Steve Crossin, when nil attention is precisely what was needed and wanted—goes a long way. Not endorsing, but I do agree that it would be a poor use of our time to make a big deal out of this RfC: we've said what's needed to be said, and PM is well aware of what he is doing to annoy the community; now—as Bstone has succinctly advised—we should get on with writing an encyclopedia. AGK 17:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Carcharoth

Not really a view, but noting here for the record that Privatemusings approached me on my talk page (conversation started 04:03 UTC, 3 November 2008, was a few posts and lasted around an hour). The ensuing conversation can be seen here. I did advise Privatemusings to drop his advocacy on behalf of Steve Crossin, but I don't know how the timing of that relates to the above points being made. I'll repeat one of the points I made later in that coversation: "I would suggest making a general case about 'arb sanction without arb case' and try and find more than one example to illustrate your point. Say that the Crossin example is one that you mentioned in the past, but that you want a general principle to be clarified. There is an archive somewhere of motions and sanctions that haven't had a full case." In case Privatemusings hasn't found that list yet, I was referring to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Closed motions (linked from WP:RFARB). Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also commented on the talk page here.

Outside view by Lar

First, an aside. I note (to LHvU in particular but to everyone) that if Privatemusings had indeed committed to desist, this matter would not have come to this point. PM has done no such thing. Instead, PM has suggested that people can just "not read about it" if they don't want to. That is in no way equivalent, since worrying at this issue consumes time of others that could more productively be used elsewhere, and a particular person not reading it doesn't avoid that waste.

The intent of this RfC, in my view (I don't speak for MBisanz) is not to increase drama, but rather to decrease it by making it plain to PM that his drama increasing behaviour needs to stop. Worrying this issue until he gets some particular unspecified answer from the arbs, or until they publicly vote on some motion or another to satisfy him, despite it having been addressed over and over and over, is just ONE EXAMPLE of that behaviour, and there are others, which MBisanz apparently chose not to raise, instead choosing to keep the focus narrow (There is less drama that way, one hopes).

The mentors tried to get PM to see that this type of behaviour ultimately would end up causing just this sort of issue, or worse, but we have failed. To us, it feels like PM does not view us as mentors, merely as a roadblock to be worked round. So we resigned. We have better things to do with our time than try to reform (at great length) someone who stubbornly wishes not to reform, who thinks there is absolutely no problem if only he could escape the shackles placed on him. PM has many good, even endearing, qualities. He has done a lot of good things here, specifically WP:NTWW, but there are others as well. Yet his total net contribution to the encyclopedia is far lower than it could be because of all the timewasting stuff he does. Which is a shame, because he's truly a nice guy and truly means well. I'd rather not see him get blocked indefinitely, but eventually I think that is where the road he is on leads. ++Lar: t/c 14:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Yes, narrow is best for delicate matters like this. MBisanz ^talk 14:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I largely concur with Lar's view here. Privatemusings is the archetypal "editor who means well and makes constructive additions, but can also be seriously disruptive at times." I only hope Privatemusings demonstrates from here on in that he is capable of behaving sensibly and contribute with prudence, as otherwise, yes, as Lar says, the community's hand will, I suspect, be forced. AGK 17:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Durova^Charge! 17:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion that an RFC/U is bad because it is drama-inducing is an empty and illogical one. When there's a present controversy, you don't deal with it by pretending it's not happening, and hoping it's going to go away. You have to come out and confront it in a constructive and civil manner. That's what the RFC/U is for. Non Curat Lex (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

While I am happy to amend my previous endorsement after re-reading what PM wrote, I would point out that I can only refer to the Steve Crossin situation since this is what the RfC is based on. If there are many other matters that could have been brought up then they should have, and the community then allowed to comment on them all. Since these other matters, of which "Steve Crossin" may be a sample, are not part of these proceedings then I think they should not be mentioned in this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View by Durova

Given the narrow scope of MBisanz's opening statement, it is not surprising that a few respected and thoughtful editors have been skeptical--even scornful--of this request for comment. This makes it necessary for someone who has long experience and sees the need for conduct RFC to provide additional background. It isn't fun to do this because Privatemusings is an affable fellow and it's been a pleasure to collaborate with him at WP:NTWW. He has earned the thanks of many people for having started this successful and useful project.

Unfortunately, other angles of this picture don't look so good. Privatemusings appears to be an extreme example of a dynamic that occurs from time to time on this site: people who become heavily involved in Wikipedia namespace before gaining sufficient experience in article namespace.

Privatemusings was sitebanned for three months and remains under ArbCom editing restriction largely due to his involvement in the highly controversial Giovanni di Stefano biography, a BLP.
In 14 months on his current account, Privatemusings has made 3998 total edits, yet only 481 mainspace edits.[26] Most of the mainspace work is minor wikignome edits.
In mid-August Privatemusings appealed to have his ArbCom restriction lifted. The Committee appointed Lar, Jayvdb, and myself as mentors, with Privatemusings's consent, for a scheduled 90 day mentorship.
As Lar states, the mentors advised Privatemusings to sidestep drama during the mentorship and focus on content. Most people who participate successfully in Wikipedia namespace cut their teeth in article space first, so the four of us agreed to a goal of bringing one article from stub-class or start-class to B-class or GA.
In mid-September Privatemusings surprised the community (mentors included) by initiating an unblock request for Moulton. That was the start of a long thread that not only wasted dozens of people's time, but was counterproductive in terms of PM's own goal: a backlash in which several Wikipedians not only declared opposition but stated they wouldn't consider another unblock request on Moulton for a year.
In light of that incident, the mentors reviewed PM's progress. He had yet to settle on an article for serious content work and had made only about 30 mainspace edits since mentorship began. With one-third of the proscribed duration over, things simply hadn't progressed at a functional level. The mentors reset the clock.
The mentors communicated many times with Privatemusings--expressing not only what our aims were, but why we had agreed on certain priorities, seeking PM's agreement and (we thought) receiving it.
In October, before PM intervened in the Steve Crossin situation, we conducted a second review. In the three weeks following our resetting of the mentorship clock his mainspace work on English Wikipedia had declined even further--from an average of one edit a day to barely more than one a week. This could not have been due to a lack of time because he was actively editing other WMF projects. On October 8 the three mentors jointly wrote the Arbitration Committee, informing them of the seriousness of our concerns. At that time, only 8% of Privatemusings's total edits had been to mainspace.
Repeatedly, Privatemusings attempted to renegotiate fundamental elements of the mediation after the basics had been settled. For example, one of the first things we established was that the Giovanni di Stefano biography was out of the question during mentorship. Yet shortly after the mentors informed Privatemusings that we were on the verge of resigning in unison, PM proposed turning his attentions away from regular mainspace work to the biography of Giovanni di Stefano.
Privatemusings's request for clarification regarding Steve Crossin (and other activities) caught all the mentors by surprise. Although I'm waiting to confirm the chat logs indepenently, it appears that Steve's go-ahead was ambivalent at best, and Privatemusings continued to pursue the matter even after Steve himself had clearly pulled away. It isn't clear why: PM appears to have some notion about documentation of sitebanning that tends toward the bureaucratic. It had been my impression that the Committee had given Steve a scrap of dignity, in light of his youth and his useful work as a triple crown recipient. PM pursued the matter beyond an arbitrator's response, beyond the simultaneous resignation of all three mentors, and beyond the willingness of Steve himself. Toward what end? The only functional effect has been to strip away Steve's loincloth.

Additionally, since three instances demonstrate a clear pattern, another instance exists of an editor who edited under her real name but whose initials are CS--who was prolific and hardworking yet had serious problems with appropriate sourcing and a liability to suppose the worst of upstanding editors. When subjected to scrutiny, CS attempted to sidestep serious concerns by engaging in word games. CS has since been community banned. During the crucial days when several editors were vetting CS's posts and attempting to engage with her in a constructive manner, one editor was doing nothing to assist with cleanup yet was playing CS's word games on her terms: Privatemusings was the editor who stepped in that way.

It had been my goal with CS and with Steve Crossin to reform them, if possible. CS now blames me for her community siteban. Steve has been more receptive to feedback, and has done fine work on Simple English Wikipedia and Wikinews. I retain the hope that if his good work at those sites continues, he might return to good standing on Wikipedia a few weeks before his 'wikibreak' expires. I have additional concerns, which are yet to be confirmed, regarding several matters. Most relevant to the present RFC is unsolicited advice PM offered Steve regarding 'appropriate' conduct during his hiatus. The advice, if accurate, is certainly news to me (I had been PM's mentor on Commons during his 90 day ban from Wikipedia), and if followed could have resulted in a worsening of Steve's already tenuous position. To Steve's credit, he doubted that advice from the start, and did not follow it. If Steve follows my recommendations for the next few months, it is my sincere hope that neither the community nor the Committee will hold his part in this episode against him.

Although I fully believe PM acts in good faith, each of us is responsible not only for our intentions but also for the results of our actions. I carry a stigma from the latter that should be an example to all wikipedians. Having taken three different people who were on the cusp of sitebanning (or perhaps beyond it), and in each case having worsened their situation, it is my sincere hope that Privatemusings learns from their examples and exercises greater discretion in future. Privatemusings's greatest mainspace contribution thus far has been the biography of John Ogden, currently a start-class article. Long before I undertook either mentorship of Privatemusings, it has been my advice to every editor I coach for adminship that they shepherd at least one article to GA. There is no substitute for firsthand experience reverting vandalism, dealing with disruption, and building content. Privatemusings's impulse--well intentioned though it may be--has been to rush in where Wikipedians of 20,000-60,000 edits' experience feared to tread.

Writing this in the sincere hope that public admonishment may succeed where private cautions have failed: Privatemusings, I like you; I hope you shed all ArbCom restrictions; yet you simply plow forth again and again in ways that do not further the encyclopedia's best interests, for reasons which you lack sufficient field experience to understand. And I'm worried on the present course you may be headed toward a much longer siteban than three months. One of the bases upon which I support people for adminship is that they recognize the limits of their own understanding. Although I recently supported your requests on Commons for bot approval and Flickr reviewer on related grounds, I would not support a bid for adminship on this or any other WMF project until unresolved concerns are addressed. Nor, unfortunately, may I support a lifting of your ArbCom restriction. There are other concerns along these lines which I do not post, because of credible but unverified circumstances. Please accept this as a reiteration of concerns privately expressed some time ago: you are an editor with paper thin mainspace work and a tendency to stir the pot at the site's most touchy disputes. What I hoped during mentorship and wish to reemphasize now is this: sometime the community may take a hard look at Privatemusings's content work and the related mainspace contributions, and decide that he is a net negative. It would give great pleasure to see him author a good article; Privatemusings has founded a venue filled with people who would happily assist him in earning a triple crown.

Yet as things have stood for months, Privatemusings has been doing more harm than good toward editors on the cusp of outright sitebans. It is time that PM acknowledged he is not in good standing; it is time he recognized he has miles to walk himself, and not urge others further into those deep dark woods in quest of a good night. Durova^Charge! 21:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Obviously, I completely endorse this. It is difficult to see how things could be laid out more plainly. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, yes. AGK 00:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsed. Sarah 03:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More thorough than I could ever be. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - very accurate. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, with the exception of the part about CS, with whom I'm not familiar. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. An accurate background, and a good summation of the current status. Like Durova, I was initially very positive about the mentorship being a way for PM to move towards unshackled editing. On closer inspection he appears to be mostly a trouble maker in both project and mainspace, with little interest in improving the encyclopedia unless doing so causes or prolongs some controversy. After seeing a few instances of this first hand, with various boggle-eyed Wikipedians informing me when their advice had also been discard or even misused, I am starting to worry that he actually does this intentionally, which I would view as malicious. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment on Durova's view left on talk page here. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by FT2

I was aware of the concerns of the mentors, and of Privatemusing's emails regarding Steve Crossin (of course). It wasn't until an email 2 hours ago that I learned of this RFC.

PM has recapped the dialog fairly accurately. What he's been told several times now is that the handling in this case was in fact due to a strong request by Steve himself, for reasons that Steve obviously has chosen not to discuss other than with the committee (as is his right). In fact according to the comment at RFC, PM was asked not to pursue this by Steve himself, but continued "under his own steam".

It's easy to speculate about Privatemusings, but hard to figure out exactly what is going on. The end results are unambiguous though. For whatever reason, PM is friendly, affable -- and disruptive. Three experienced mentors appointed some time ago emailed Arbcom to withdraw mentorship saying it wasn't going anywhere, and this case is a further example.

Cases and issues of the kind Privatemusings involves himself in, are often delicate and sensitive, and may result from serious (often emotive) on-wiki events. Demands of this kind with little tact or understanding of the fact, can often do more harm than good. As commented above, the mentor(s?) seem to view it that they are seen by him as an obstacle, not an aid to improvement. That's fairly worrying, more so as these are extremely level headed users who are "on his side".

SarcasticIdealist's comment (16:54, 7 November 2008), Bstone and Durova's summaries, and the final paragraph of Lar's summary, unfortunately, seem to sum things up. This is a path paved with good intentions. The problem PM has is that he appears to decide "this seems like a good idea", without appreciation that things may be as they are for good reasons, and without prior careful judgement about the merits of his own involvement. (It is quite possible that the problem could be less "failure to pause and judge", and more an actual lack of judgemental ability, one that is not so easily "fixed" other than by passage of time.) As a result he places his judgement over the judgement of others, without considering that in fact his judgement may be naive or lacking, not insightful. Couching it nicely, in terms of "I'll flick a note" or "I wonder if"... is a good way to minimize the disruption, and a good way to handle genuine issues, but doesn't help here. What's happening is with great civility, PM picks heavily at wounds that are little to do with him, and where he has little actual knowledge of what those wounds relate to, and of any healing involved.

Black and white directions seem to be the kind PM understands best. I would therefore ask PM to avoid all involvement in "championing" causes, not just this one matter, and not just for a short period of time. It may be indefinite. I don't have confidence he'll do it right if it's not put that forcibly, nor confidence in his learning good judgement to the extent needed. Given comments above, it may turn out to be that or a community endorsed ban, which would be a great shame.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Yet another voice of reason. MBisanz ^talk 10:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

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.

@@ Line 189: / Line 189: @@
 # Endorse - very accurate. [[User:Non Curat Lex|Non Curat Lex]] ([[User talk:Non Curat Lex|talk]]) 08:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 # Endorse, with the exception of the part about CS, with whom I'm not familiar. [[User:Sarcasticidealist|Sarcasticidealist]] ([[User talk:Sarcasticidealist|talk]]) 16:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
+# Endorse.  An accurate background, and a good summation of the current status.  Like Durova, I was initially ''very'' positive about the mentorship being a way for PM to move towards unshackled editing.  On closer inspection he appears to be mostly a trouble maker in both project and mainspace, with little interest in improving the encyclopedia unless doing so causes or prolongs some controversy.  After seeing a few instances of this first hand, with various boggle-eyed Wikipedians informing me when their advice had also been discard or even misused, I am starting to worry that he actually does this intentionally, which I would view as malicious. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 04:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 ====Comments====