Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/John Kenney: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:30, 5 December 2004 editSlrubenstein (talk | contribs)30,655 edits →Response← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:55, 7 January 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Replaced obsolete tt tags and reduced Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(28 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:

In order to remain listed at ], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 02:10, 2004 Dec 5), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: <tt>{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)</tt>. In order to remain listed at ], at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the ''same'' dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 01:58, 2004 Dec 5), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: {{mono|{{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}} (UTC)}}.


{| style="border: 3px double black; background-color: #ddf;"
|-
|
;Note to readers:
This RfC failed to meet the requirement for certification within the 48 hour deadline, but was not deleted in order that it may be used for reference in resolving certain disputes with the submitter.

'''Please do not''' modify this page or endorse sections here. You are free to add comments to the ].
|}


*(] | ] | ]) *(] | ] | ])
Line 44: Line 55:
<!-- If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. --> <!-- If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section. -->
(sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>)
:#I cannot certify the dispute because it has arisen while I was offline and CheeseDreams has put this up before I had any chance to talk to the admin in person, but there's no question this admin abused his privileges to block a page he personally was edit-warring over. Why have the policy if edit warriors can just abuse it?] 00:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:#
:#From reading the policy guidelines at "Misplaced Pages:Protection policy" I see this admin did break them. But the policy is stacked against the complainant. It says: "In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts," I haven't "tried to resolve a dispute", with him, let alone "the same dispute". But I agree with CheeseDream's Applicable policies etc. summary above. <p>One thing; some of the people listed in "Users who endorse this summary": (Mackensen, Chris0, Proteus, Neutrality, Rhobite, Antandrus), shouldn't be there as the page says that section should be used: "by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy." They should use the Outside Comments section as he admits he did violate the policy and it's a matter of record that he did. ] 21:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:#


== Response == == Response ==
Line 57: Line 68:
1. John Kenney reverted the page to an edit war version he wanted as his POV 1. John Kenney reverted the page to an edit war version he wanted as his POV
::I reverted to the redirect version apparently supported by everyone except CheeseDreams, I will agree. ::I reverted to the redirect version apparently supported by everyone except CheeseDreams, I will agree.
:::That's against the policy.
2. John Kenney protected this version of the page despite in the revert war 2. John Kenney protected this version of the page despite in the revert war
::Indeed I did. It should not have been unprotected in the first place, and CheeseDreams took the opportunity of unprotection to move the page to an entirely ridiculous title. ::Indeed I did. It should not have been unprotected in the first place, and CheeseDreams took the opportunity of unprotection to move the page to an entirely ridiculous title.
:::So is that.
3. John Kenney failed to put a protection notice on the page despite locking it from editing 3. John Kenney failed to put a protection notice on the page despite locking it from editing
::Indeed I did - if one puts a protection notice on a redirect page, it does not redirect. ::Indeed I did - if one puts a protection notice on a redirect page, it does not redirect.
:::So you do not dispute any of the abuses you are accused of?

* No personal attacks * No personal attacks
1. In the protection log summary, John Kenney refers to me as a troll 1. In the protection log summary, John Kenney refers to me as a troll
Line 76: Line 89:
#] ] 09:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). This RfC, and the others like it, is an abuse of the dispute resolution process and a waste of everyone's (including CheeseDreams') time. #] ] 09:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). This RfC, and the others like it, is an abuse of the dispute resolution process and a waste of everyone's (including CheeseDreams') time.
#] 18:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) #] 18:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
#] 19:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Agree entirely with Mackensen.
#] ] 19:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
#]/<sup>]</sup>]] 03:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
#] 04:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
#] 04:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
#] 21:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
# It was foolish to give CheeseDreams this kind of amunition by doing what you did. I hope you'll learn the lesson in this, and stick to the letter of the law in the future. However, if I had to make a judgement who's acting in good faith, it's clearly you, not CheeseDreams: Especially since I see no realistic effort on behalf of CheeseDreams to resolve this dispute before lodging this RfC. ] 07:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)
=== Comments about comments in the response ===
::So it's okay for admins to abuse policy so long as they "act in good faith"? I'm surprised to hear that from you, Shane.] 07:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

::: No, I certainly do not think it's OK. However, in this case, there are a couple of extenuating circumstances:
:::* No real attempt by the person making the RfC to resolve the dispute before bringing it here
:::* No evidence that this is anything but an isolated incident where an error in judgement was made
::: The first reason leads me not to support CheeseDream's RfC request. The second leads me not to view it as abuse, but rather a mistake.

:::I clearly said I hope this is a lesson. Nobody is perfect, and I think everyone should be allowed to make mistakes every now and then so long as they try to do the right thing. If John Kenney shows a pattern of behaving in this way, of course I wont stand for it. But for now, my better judgement tells me it's not like that. If you need a policy for me to hang this view on, look no further than ]. ] 05:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
::::See Slrubenstein's talk page where John Kenney openly admits to deliberately violating policy. ] 19:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


== Outside view == == 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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.'' ''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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.''


John Kenney readily admits that he did not follow policy. But this seems to be a one-off minor error. A mistake, yes, but certainly not a hanging offence. ] 19:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>): Users who endorse this summary (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>):
#] ] 19:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
#


== Discussion == == Discussion ==

Latest revision as of 06:55, 7 January 2022

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. 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: 01:58, 2004 Dec 5), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC).


Note to readers

This RfC failed to meet the requirement for certification within the 48 hour deadline, but was not deleted in order that it may be used for reference in resolving certain disputes with the submitter.

Please do not modify this page or endorse sections here. You are free to add comments to the talk page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this sysop's conduct. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

Description

John Kenney was involved in a revert war on the page in question - John Kenney then

  • reverted the page to his preferred version
  • locked the page (at 23:27, 4 Dec 2004)
  • failed to put a protection notice on the page
  • put an abusive summary in the protection log (at 23:27, 4 Dec 2004) AND at (23:26, 4 Dec 2004)

Powers misused

  • Protection (log):
  1. Historical reconstruction of the sort of person Jesus would be
Warning, the above page is protected in the form of a redirect, please check you are looking at the correct page. CheeseDreams 01:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Applicable policies

  1. John Kenney reverted the page to an edit war version he wanted as his POV
  2. John Kenney protected this version of the page despite in the revert war
  3. John Kenney failed to put a protection notice on the page despite locking it from editing
  1. In the protection log summary, John Kenney refers to me as a troll
  2. In the protection log summary, John Kenney calls for me to be banned.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Jesus in a cultural and historical background

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. CheeseDreams 01:58, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. I cannot certify the dispute because it has arisen while I was offline and CheeseDreams has put this up before I had any chance to talk to the admin in person, but there's no question this admin abused his privileges to block a page he personally was edit-warring over. Why have the policy if edit warriors can just abuse it?Dr Zen 00:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. From reading the policy guidelines at "Misplaced Pages:Protection policy" I see this admin did break them. But the policy is stacked against the complainant. It says: "In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts," I haven't "tried to resolve a dispute", with him, let alone "the same dispute". But I agree with CheeseDream's Applicable policies etc. summary above.

    One thing; some of the people listed in "Users who endorse this summary": (Mackensen, Chris0, Proteus, Neutrality, Rhobite, Antandrus), shouldn't be there as the page says that section should be used: "by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy." They should use the Outside Comments section as he admits he did violate the policy and it's a matter of record that he did. WikiUser 21:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.


To respond point by point:

  • Protection policy

1. John Kenney reverted the page to an edit war version he wanted as his POV

I reverted to the redirect version apparently supported by everyone except CheeseDreams, I will agree.
That's against the policy.

2. John Kenney protected this version of the page despite in the revert war

Indeed I did. It should not have been unprotected in the first place, and CheeseDreams took the opportunity of unprotection to move the page to an entirely ridiculous title.
So is that.

3. John Kenney failed to put a protection notice on the page despite locking it from editing

Indeed I did - if one puts a protection notice on a redirect page, it does not redirect.
So you do not dispute any of the abuses you are accused of?
  • No personal attacks

1. In the protection log summary, John Kenney refers to me as a troll

Indeed, because I fail to conceive of a definition of troll which excludes CheeseDreams

2. In the protection log summary, John Kenney calls for me to be banned.

Indeed, because I do not think she is contributing in good faith, and don't think that users whose principal purpose here is to get into disputes have any place here.

To speak more generally, I will admit that I probably did not behave within the letter of the law in protecting the page under consideration. If it is felt that I behaved inappropriately, I am happy to accept whatever discipline the community would feel it appropriate to impose. However, substantively, I think that the entire article in question is part of an attempt by CheeseDreams to hijack the Cultural and historical background of Jesus article. Further, I don't believe that CheeseDreams is a good faith contributor to the wikipedia. She has nothing but abuse for anyone who disagrees with her and is completely unamenable to any discussion or compromise. I had no desire for another worthless edit war over this ridiculousness, so I simply protected it again - it should never have been unprotected to begin with. john k 07:35, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. john k 07:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Mackensen (talk) 09:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC). This RfC, and the others like it, is an abuse of the dispute resolution process and a waste of everyone's (including CheeseDreams') time.
  3. Slrubenstein 18:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. ChrisO 19:01, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Agree entirely with Mackensen.
  5. Proteus (Talk) 19:13, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. ] 03:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  7. Rhobite 04:39, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Antandrus 04:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  9. Jayjg 21:00, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  10. It was foolish to give CheeseDreams this kind of amunition by doing what you did. I hope you'll learn the lesson in this, and stick to the letter of the law in the future. However, if I had to make a judgement who's acting in good faith, it's clearly you, not CheeseDreams: Especially since I see no realistic effort on behalf of CheeseDreams to resolve this dispute before lodging this RfC. Shane King 07:03, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Comments about comments in the response

So it's okay for admins to abuse policy so long as they "act in good faith"? I'm surprised to hear that from you, Shane.Dr Zen 07:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No, I certainly do not think it's OK. However, in this case, there are a couple of extenuating circumstances:
  • No real attempt by the person making the RfC to resolve the dispute before bringing it here
  • No evidence that this is anything but an isolated incident where an error in judgement was made
The first reason leads me not to support CheeseDream's RfC request. The second leads me not to view it as abuse, but rather a mistake.
I clearly said I hope this is a lesson. Nobody is perfect, and I think everyone should be allowed to make mistakes every now and then so long as they try to do the right thing. If John Kenney shows a pattern of behaving in this way, of course I wont stand for it. But for now, my better judgement tells me it's not like that. If you need a policy for me to hang this view on, look no further than assume good faith. Shane King 05:02, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
See Slrubenstein's talk page where John Kenney openly admits to deliberately violating policy. CheeseDreams 19:06, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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 who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.

John Kenney readily admits that he did not follow policy. But this seems to be a one-off minor error. A mistake, yes, but certainly not a hanging offence. jguk 19:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. jguk jguk 19:11, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.