User:Geo Swan/RfC 2006-4-17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Update 17:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[edit]

I have had a second RFC/U initiated on my user conduct.

The record shows the initiator and a colleague considered naming the recent RFC/U Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Geo Swan 2. User:Fram, the initiator, writes "I thought that creating mine at Geo Swan/2 would give the impression that it already was the second RfC on Geo Swan, which would be rather unfair."

There was a previous RFC/U requested on my user conduct. I am not sure whether Fram thought mentioning it would be unfair to me, or unfair to the case they were trying to make.

What is not recorded here is that User:KI, the former administrator who initiated the first RFC/U was subsequently unmasked as a sockpuppet of User:Freestylefrappe. Freestylefrappe had been entrusted with administratorship, and had that administratorship removed from them. While Freestylefrappe was an administrator they had been cultivating sockpuppets. When Freestylefrappe's administratorship was removed they had their sockpuppet(s) request administratorship(s). The KI sockpuppet had already initiated one candidacy for administratorship. The sockpuppet KI initiated a second RfA about a week after an unpleasant interaction with me. I had made two minor good faith mistakes, to which sockpuppet KI (1) over-reacted; (2) became abusive. I noticed the RfA, noted the recommendations for RfA candidates warned them to try to resolve outstanding disputes, because it was fair game for the other parties to raise them in their RfA. So I raised them in KI's RfA.

I think the record shows I remained civil and collegial. It seems to me that my good faith questions enraged the sockpuppet KI -- triggering a baseless RfC/U.

With regard to User:GRuban's comment that User:KI's chances of being entrusted with an administratorship stood a snowball chance. Well, it was my first RfA, and I didn't know a candidate required a supermajority in order to be entrusted with administrator authority. Second, I was disturbed by how willing many of those who were not prepared to endorse User:KI's candidacy at that time were to promise that they would endorse his or her administratorship next time, when they had more experience, and had learned more about how the wikipedia worked. If User:KI left the previous RfA not thinking they had any lessons to learn about the wikipedia, and did not see themselves as having learned any lessons about how the wikipedia worked in the interim, then I thought those promises were premature.

I don't believe my first RfC/U reflects badly on me. On the contrary, I believe it shows I continued to comply with our civility policies in the face of extreme temptation to respond in kind. Does the RfC/U show I made any mistakes? Yes, it shows I made two relatively minor good faith mistakes -- which I acknowledged and apologized for. Geo Swan (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

2006[edit]

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. 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: ~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement and description of the dispute[edit]

On April 3 I moved Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism. Since then I have been harassed by Geo Swan and ignored or unjustly criticized by various administrators. KI 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Description[edit]

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} I moved a page. I've been condemned for doing so repeatedly, not only by Geo Swan, but by administrators who should know better. Xaosflux has encouraged this behavior[1].

I recently came to realize two things. 1. This conflict could have easily been avoided if instead of ignoring my message on WP:AN, an administrator had actually taken the time to mediate the situation. 2. I suspect that Geo Swan is not a native English speaker, which may have led to some confusion.

Background[edit]

  1. December 9, 2005 - Geo Swan starts Charities accused of ties to terrorism[2]
  2. April 3 - I move Charities accused of ties to terrorism to Charities with ties to terrorism[3]
  3. April 7 - GRuban moves the article back to its original title.[4]
  4. After being harassed by Geo Swan I ask for assistance at WP:AN.[5]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

April 7[edit]

  1. April 7 - 23 minutes after GRuban's move - Geo Swan leaves this comment on my talkpage[6]. He/she lies about when the page is moved, claiming GRuban moved it back 24 minutes later, and incorrectly states that the talkpage is somehow "lost." The comment, which is incivil and completely out of line, is in response only to my move, which at that point was my only change to the page.
  2. I try to end the conflict with a more than civil response on his talkpage.[7]
  3. Geo Swan leaves another incivil response.[8]
  4. Geo Swan leaves this message on his own talkpage. [9]. He restates, incorrectly, that the talkpage is lost. This lengthy rant begins with what is basically a summary of the above diffs and descends into a rambling comparison to US government policies. This user has repeatedly shown they have an axe to grind with the US War on Terror. I have repeatedly stated that I do not care, but this does not seem to have sunk in.
  5. I point out he is violating WP:NPA.[10]
  6. He sarcastically pretends to interpret my comment as referring to the article's title.[11]

At this point I asked for help at WP:AN, was informed by an administrator that Geo Swan's actions were somehow excusable, and gave up, assuming I wouldnt have to deal with this user in the future.

I was wrong.

  1. Geo Swan leaves this tirade on my RFA.[12]
    Geo Swan admits he has no idea how RFAs work, and says he has never before voted on one.[13]
    Geo Swan leaves what he calls "questions" on my talkpage, effectively the last straw.[14]
    I ask him one last time to stop.[15] He of course refuses.

Now he is spamming my RFA page.[16][]

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:AGF
  3. WP:SPAM
  4. WP:WQT
  5. WP:STALK
  6. WP:OWN

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

  1. [17]
  2. [18]
  3. [19]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. KI 20:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Before I offer my response I would like to state that GRuban is a mind-reader. They wrote here: "You want GS to leave you alone? I'm sure he will, as your RFA expires today." -- That is absolutely correct.
While KI was working on this Request for Comment I was working on what I thought was going to be my final comment on my concerns over KI's exercise of judgement and his KI's candidature for administrator. I concluded:
"I've gone into detail because he seems to have made an effort to avoid being held accountable or to give candid answers. I am not planning any further comments on his editorial judgement until the next time he runs for administrator, or if he makes another highly questionable edit to one of the articles on my watchlist."

Summary[edit]

As I see it there are two main areas of dispute.

  1. KI's unilateral renaming of Charities accused of ties to terrorism.
    1. Was this renaming justified by official wikipolicies as KI implied -- I believe it clearly wasn't, and that his defense of its justification were unsatisfactory.
    2. Did his renaming trigger a loss of meaningful exchanges on Talk:Charities accused of ties to terrorism -- I believed he had triggered a loss on April 7th. I realized I was probably mistaken later on April 7th, but, untypically for me, I didn't acknowledge this error right away, because of my shock over his escalation to the Administrator's noticeboard.
  2. KI's objections to the questions and comments I placed on the page devoted to his second candidacy for administrator.
    • I believe that questions and comments about concerns raised through our exchanges are valid topics for discussion on his candidacy page -- provided I remain civil. I believe I have confined myself to the topic, and that I have avoided inflammatory language.

Background[edit]

  • User:KI's background section is essentialy correct, except I dispute that I have ever harrassed them.

Regarding KI's evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

KI has a sequence of numbered paragraphs. They go out of sequence following point 6. My numbered points will follow theirs, point for point. I will number some subpoints.

  1. I did leave the note KI cited, on his talk page.
    1. He is correct that I wrote that the renaming and restoration of the original name occurred within half an hour. But that was a mistake - not a lie. I didn't regard it as among the mistakes for which I owed anyone an apology.
    2. I wrote about this in more detail here. But the talk page exchanges I remember occurred several months ago on my personal talk page. I was almost certainly completely incorrect about the disappearing talk page. I apologized there. I'm prepared to do so again.
    3. However, I continue to feel my concern over the biased name was a noteworthy one. I continue to feel that I was entitled to ask them about it. The longer he avoids feeling accountable for his editorial decisions the more noteworthy I find his avoidance of accountability.
  2. In his "Evidence of disputed behavior" KI calls his reply "more than civil". I dispute this.
    1. KI wrote: "You also seem to have gotten the idea that I feel strongly about this one way or the other. I don't."
      • This is not responsible. Wikipedia contributors have to depend on one another, depend on their trustworthiness. We have to depend that they will make responsible edits - that they will stand behind. KI seemed to be taking the position that because they were not really interested in the article's topic, they weren't really obliged to consider themselves accountable for their edit.
    2. KI wrote: "My move was according to Wikipedia naming conventions."
      • Since we were discussing an editorial change I interpreted this comment as an assurance that they could justify the name they chose by citing wikipedia policy document. I think it completely reasonable for me to call on KI to name that policy document.
  3. In his "Evidence of disputed behavior" KI called my reply "incivil"(sic). I dispute this.
    1. I did state that I believed the talk page was lost. At that time I thought important talk page exchanges had been lost. And I now acknowledge being incorrect. FWIW stating a belief is not quite the same as a flat out accusation, because it leaves open the possibilty that the believer might be mistaken.
  4. In regard to KI's description of my note on my talk page:
    1. Note KI's use of the phrases "lengthy rant" and "rambling comparison". KI, typically sprinkles his writing with words and phrases that are counter to the recommendations in Wikipedia:Words to avoid.
    2. I believe, when we are having a disagreement with a correspondent, that we have an obligation to try to understand what our correspondent was trying to say. In order to defuse tension, or to stop exascerbating tension, we have an obligation to try to respond to what they meant, even if they weren't completely clear. If we aren't sure as to the purpose of a passage, or paragraph, I think we should ask the correspondent about it, rather than citing it as a further item that was offensive. What KI describes, here and elsewhere, as an unwelcome lecture on US politics was an attempt on my part to explain why their original choice of names breached WP:NPOV.
    3. KI writes that I have: "an axe to grind" on the GWOT. I dispute this. I have written extensively on the GWOT, but I have done my best to maintain an NPOV. I believe I have done a pretty good job. I make an effort to keep my ears open to criticism that I have lapsed. I don't think the criticism that I have "an axe to grind" applies, unless I am closed to criticism.
    4. KI writes: "I have repeatedly stated that I do not care...-[about the GWOT(?)] -- this is a distortion. Unfortunately, I think KI shows a pattern of this kind of distortion, to make their points more convincing. The record shows that KI stated a lack of interest in the GWOT exactly once -- not repeatedly.
    5. KI writes: "...but this does not seem to have sunk in." -- I did understand that they had expressed a lack of interest in the GWOT. I didn't ignore their assertion, I responded to it. I stand by my response.
  5. In his "Evidence of disputed behavior" KI writes: "I point out he is violating WP:NPA."
    1. Perhaps KI intended to express the opinion that I was violating WP:NPA. I dispute that he did express that opinion. This reply was brief, cryptic and unhelpful. Its meaning was open to many interpretations.
  6. I dispute that my next reply was uncivil.
    1. KI writes that I "sarcastically pretended" to interpret his comment as applying to the name he had chosen. Frankly, I was honestly perplexed by his brief response. I had asked him to name the policies he claimed justified his renaming. His reply, in its entirety, was: -"Policies? WP:NPA for starters"- When I read it I thought, how the heck can he argue that WP:NPA justifies his partisan name? So, the first paragraph of my reply addresses the apparent surface meaning of his reply.
      1. I told them that if they thought I had personally attacked them then we had a misunderstanding. I had confined my comments to policy issues
      2. I described my attempt to guess at which passage triggered the feeling that they were being attacked.
      3. I think KI's exchange with the administrator illustrates an unwillingness on his part to consider the possibility that he might have been mistaken. I am not the only person who has triggered something in him merely by holding a different opinion then he held.
        • I wrote, above, that KI has a pattern of distortion -- presumably to articially bolster the strength of the points he was trying to make. I think his note on the Administrator's notebook was another instance of this kind of distortion -- and that the administrator who followed up on his note looked closely enough to detect this distortion. [20] [21]
      4. KI writes that when administrators did not comply with his direction he: "gave up, assuming I wouldnt have to deal with this user in the future." -- he then nominated himself for administrator. The guidelines for candidate administrators suggest they anticipate that other contributors with whom they have unresolved disputes may bring those disputes up during their candidacy. It suggests contacting those other contributors before they became a candidate.
  7. In his "Evidence of disputed behavior"
    1. KI writes that my comments that followed my oppose vote were a "tirade".
    2. KI writes: "Geo Swan admits he has no idea how RFAs work..." -- this is another distortion, possibly intended to make his case look better. In any case it is not true. The record does not show me writing this statement.
    3. KI writes: "...and says he has never before voted on one." -- this is correct. I had never voted on or participated in an RfA before. But I don't see how this disqualifies me for participating in my first RfA, or why this should be "Evidence of disputed behavior".
    4. KI writes: "Geo Swan leaves what he calls "questions" on my talkpage..." -- I did leave seven questions -- but on his RfA's vote page, in the section devoted to questions. I think my questions were civil. It is true that they aren't purely theoretical questions. They are all based in a concern I had about what kind of administrator he would be, based on the exchanges that passed between us. I don't think there is anything I need to apologize for in those questions.
    5. In the warning KI left, on my talk page, he writes: "I have tried to reason with you..." -- I dispute this. I believe the record shows that I made sincere attempts to understand KI, but that he did not make sincere attempts to understand me, or the points I was trying to make.
    6. He writes that I "refused" -- in fact I didn't respond to this warning. Without a meaningful explanation of what he thought was wrong with my questions, I don't think I had an obligation to respond to this warning.
  8. KI writes: "Now he is spamming my RFA page." -- another distortion. Spam is the same thing, repeated in many places. The link he posted was to a fuller exposition I was placing on the talk page for his candidacy. I thought this was important because I shared the feeling that KI was eager to become an administrator and was likely to keep on applying. His various statements implied to me that he thought he was as qualified when he first applied as he was during his second candidacy, and that he did not think he had any significant areas of growth, and wasn't interested in trying to grow. I disagreed. And I disagreed with several other voters, who felt sure an additional waiting period was all it would take for him to be ready to be an administrator. It is my impression that KI was tempermentally unsuited to be an administrator. It is my impression that so long as KI was showing evidence that he was not open to considering that he too was capable of making mistakes he would not be ready to be an administrator. It is my impression that so long as KI reacted to civil criticism of his editorial choices and stated opinions as if he was being personally attacked, he would remain unready to be an administrator.
    • I wasn't aware of this comment until I went through his recent contributions yesterday. But I think it confirms my impression that KI doesn't think he has any room for growth.
  9. KI did not record here that he admonished another contributor for "instigating" my harrassment of them. His comments seem to confirm my impression that he is not open to disagreement, and may regard anyone who doesn't agree with him as a personal attacker.
  10. KI did not record here, but, in spite of declaring his lack of interest in the topic of the article Charities accused of ties to terrorism, a week after his counter-policy unilateral renaming of the article, he voted in a straw poll to rename to article, without mentioning his unlateral renaming.
  11. Although KI was unwilling to engage in a public dialogue over his choice of new name Charities with ties to terrorism, it seems to he was sticking to his original views in private.
    • This is a concern for me, because, so long as he holds himself unaccountable for his actions in public, and privately continues to believe that they were justified, it seemed possible to me that he would repeat the controversial edit, or make a similar edit somewhere else.

Regarding the list of "Applicable policies and guidelines"[edit]

  1. WP:CIVIL - I refrained from inflammatory words and phrases. I believe I confined myself to the issues. KI on the other hand used inflammatory language.
  2. WP:AGF - I made some mistakes, which I have acknowledged, and apologized for. I will repeat that in my first message on his talk page I did not make a flat out accusation. I said I believed he was responsible for a serious mistake, leaving open the possibility that I was mistaken. It turned out that I was, in part, mistaken. I am afraid I do, now, have doubts about KI's good faith. But I didn't start out with that position. Frankly, following his lapses, I think those doubts are understandable.
  3. WP:SPAM - Not even wildly, remotely applicable.
  4. WP:WQT - I think is another policy that I think I was compliant with, while KI was not.
  5. WP:STALK - Following a contributor to another article with the purpose of disruption. I don't think either KI or I violated this policy.
    • We have both read the other's contribution logs. -- But this is allowed.
    • We have both found articles on those lists that were interesting enough to post our own contributions to. But neither my edit or KI's edit were in any way controversial.
    • My purpose in commenting on my exchange with KI was not disruption. I think his apparent unwillingness to consider criticism, and the way he seems to see valid criticism as a personal attack, is a very valid topic to raise on his candidacy page.
  6. WP:OWN - I don't think I own any of the articles which I started, or to which I am a big contributor. When the consensus is against me I comply, even on articles where I have been the major contributor. In particular, I don't see how I am in violation of this policy with regard to Charities accused of ties to terrorism. Yes, I have done a large portion of the work on that article, but when other contributors discussed changing its format I think my comments on the talk page show that I don't consider my opinion to be any more valid than that of any one else.
  7. WP:NPOV - Let me add NPOV, which I believe KI breached, with his choice of names, and raised to a serious problem through his unwillingness to be accountable for it.
  8. Wikipedia:Words to avoid - Another policy I believe KI breached - ironic really because his trigger for what he considers an attack was quite sensitive. (HighwayCello: "Candidate seems to eager and appears to be 10", and KI classified this as a personal attack.)

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

  • I acknowledge that I made a trivial error of fact, and a more serious error of fact, in our initial exchanges on April 7th
  • I believe that each of my exchanges provided an opportunity for my correspondent to discuss the issues - not personalities.


{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Geo Swan 18:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

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.

View by GRuban[edit]

I'm new to RFCs, so am not sure if "outside" is the appropriate section for this view, since I am mentioned. If it's not, please say where it should go.

I suspect this RFC will close quickly under the "Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours." section, as I can't imagine who besides KI has been involved in this dispute with Geo Swan. That's probably for the best.

However, on the odd chance that there is such an endorsement from another user, I'd like to say that I think KI has seriously overreacted. There are two related issues here: first, the page move, and second, the RFA.

For the page move, well, I'm the one who moved it back, so I clearly disagree with it. I don't know who "lost" the talk page -- I don't think I did, but maybe I did, in which case it was my fault, and not KI's, and GS shouldn't have blamed him. However I don't think GS stepped over the Wikiquette line, and apparently an admin looking into the issue agreed. It is a shame that KI deleted the actual complaint from his talk page - it was a complaint, but hardly a flame.

As for the RFA, Geo Swan is/was opposed to KI's Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/KI 2 and wrote about it. Given the fact that the vote on KI is less than 50% in favor, and requires 75%-80%, I think GS has taken it unnecessarily far, as the chance of KI getting adminship is ... well, WP:SNOW ... so GS could have avoided beating a dead horse. But the actual substance of the comments on the RFA page that GS made was, in my opinion, well within all Wikipedia bounds of etiquette, and actually well written and argued. Adminship carries a fair bit of power, so it's only fair that getting it involve some debate and scrutiny. Surely admins have to put up with much worse on a daily basis, while remaining civil. Also, KI could have avoided the unpleasantness by withdrawing his RFA as soon as it became obvious he wasn't going to get it. By not withdrawing, KI implied that he thought there was still a chance he could be confirmed, so I can't blame GS for also acting as if there was such a chance as well, and continuing to argue against it.

In short, I don't think there is any reason to reprimand Geo Swan. - GRuban 21:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

View by Jachin[edit]

On reading this matter thoroughly, I find that Geo Swan's communications with the complainant are civilised and down to earth. I fail to see how the allegations of 'incivility' are met, especially in the first few citations of messages on talk pages.

I believe that this matter is merely stemming from a misunderstanding on both parties behalfs. From my understanding, Geo Swan disliked the fact that the article name was limited in a manner which directly implied illegality or illicit behaviour of the charities where as his original inception provided an ability for more neutrality.

I would recommend that this matter be settled between the two parties, I do not believe Geo Swan to be at fault and I can see where he found the complainant liable for loss of data if that was established.

To reitterate for confirmation, I am a long time Wikipedian (although the Jachin account is only a year or so old I believe) and am entirely neutral on this topic, knowing neither party nor any articles mentioned prior to reading this RFC. 02:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. GRuban 21:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Geo_Swan/RfC_2006-4-17&oldid=1064223133"