Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/John Kenney - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mackensen (talk | contribs) at 09:10, 5 December 2004 (Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:10, 5 December 2004 by Mackensen (talk | contribs) (Response)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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: 02:10, 2004 Dec 5), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

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 ~~~~)

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.

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.

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.
  • 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.

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.


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

Discussion

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