Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/John Kenney

For a December 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Requests for comment John Kenney

---

Claim by Slrubenstein

This is virtually identical to a complaint against me, and has as little merit. I think CheeseDream is fast approaching a dangerous point of subverting Wikipedia. I know some people think I just don't like her and am caught in a silly cycle of conflict. I believe that virtually every instance of conflict between us is over a matter of substance. In this case, CheeseDreams took an article that is currently protected (because of a revert war between me and her), copied it, and put it under a new space with a new name. She claims this is in the spirit of compromise, and I believe that this is laughable on its face. Presumably, the compromise would be that the original article (Cultural and historical background of Jesus) would be reverted to the form she likes, leaving me to enjoy the form I like. There are three reasons why this is not a compromise. First, I know of no example in wikipedia where a conflict over an article was resolved by having two versions of the article. Our goal should be one verifiable NPOV article for one topic or issue, not different articles different only in representing the views of a different editor. This smacks in the face of everything Wikipedia stands for and is a bad precedent. Second, CheeseDreams' move is disingenuous because she added all sorts of tags (neutrality and accurcacy under dispute) to the second copy of the article. In other words, she simply wishes to continue the arguments she has had with me over the original article, at a second space. Third, the article she favors is still, in the mind of me and several other editors, deeply flawed and will continue to be questioned and worked on.

There is a substantive issue facing us as a community: how to deal with conflicts. I asked for mediation; CheeseDreams said she would not accept any mediator I suggested; I accepted her choice of mediator -- and she has now rejected that mediator. I have put in another request for mediation and if this is not possible I will request arbitration. This is the way to deal with conflicts here. CheeseDreams is subverting that process by creating several copies of the same article under different names. This is the issue. John Kenny is merely trying to maintain the most basic level of order here, which we surely all agree is, one article = one article. When there are duplicate articles with different titles, redirects are normal and that is all he (and I) did. CheeseDreams' constant reversion of the redirects is the problem, not John's actions. Slrubenstein

Counterclaim by CheeseDreams

The comment above is by Slrubenstein, who committed the same act, though was less involved in the revert war than John Kenny. As a team they have consistently opposed my editing throughout, and their actions can be considered taken together.

With regard to the nature of the article

• It is irrelevant to the nature of this RfC - an abuse of adminship

And discussing it acts as an ad hominem against me

Ad hominem - you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. john k 03:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the description at A is accurate. CheeseDreams 07:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would concur. I see nothing there that indicates that you are properly using the term. john k 15:56, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You didn't read the whole of the first paragraph which contains "replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself" then. CheeseDreams 21:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Surely your behavior is entirely relevant to the issue under discussion, since you were the participant I was disputing with. Therefore it is not an ad hominem to discuss the appropriateness of your behavior, as it forms the context of my decision. This is not a discussion of the substance of the article. It is a discussion of my behavior in protecting the article. Since my protection was based on your behavior with respect to the article, it is perfectly appropriate to discuss what exactly you did. If somebody else unrelated to our dispute had said something in support of you, and I or Slr had talked about his past misconduct, that would be an ad hominem. But your behavior is perfectly germane here, and so this is not an ad hominem. john k 22:08, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, its completely irrelevant. This RfC is not about what I did. Nor is it about why you did what you have done. It is about what you did. You broke the rules. Your reason is irrelevent to the accuracy of the fact. CheeseDreams 00:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Of course your behavior is relevant. To determine if what I did was a serious violation of my privileges as a sysop, or merely a technical violation that did not violate the spirit of the rules, an assessment of your behavior is perfectly in order. At any rate, no matter what it is, it is not an ad hominem. john k 02:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• It is discussed fully on that article's talk page. Including a comment by a mediator discussing why its existance was acceptable.

CheeseDreams 02:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Ad hominem" means "playing the man, not the ball" jguk 19:04, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The real issue here isn't the conduct of a handful of admins, it's the abuse of the RFC and RFAR process by a malicious user. And one who speaks of a "cabal of fundamentalists" would do well not to complain so loudly about "ad hominem attacks." This situation warrants playing the man, not the ball. Rhobite 20:38, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

If you don't see a cabal. Look around you. Darling. CheeseDreams 00:10, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Comments

In reply to WikiUser's comment that users should not endorse John Kenney's response unless they're directly involved in this dispute: That isn't how I read the directions. If I and other users agree with John's assessment of the situation, we're free to endorse his response. That section is written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, but anyone may endorse it. Rhobite 21:20, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Urm, not quite. You can only endorse it if you think he did NOT violate policy (regardless of what else about his response you may agree). He admits he did violate policy. So either you have to state "he violated policy" and sign my section, or state "he is lying" and sign his. So is he a liar (i.e. violates the misrepresentation policy) or does he violate policy? CheeseDreams 21:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Urm, I endorse his summary and that's it. Rhobite 21:31, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

For reference, these are the instructions for the response section (WikiUser only quoted part of this):

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.

Reading these directions, it's clear that this puts no restriction on who is allowed to endorse the summary. It does suggest that third parties should not write a response if they believe the sysop violated policy, but that's just common sense. Rhobite 21:30, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, my understanding is that anyone may endorse my summary. Since I admitted that I violated the letter (if not the spirit) of the sysop guidelines, it wouldn't make sense for people to have to think I didn't violate the letter of the sysop guidelines to endorse my summary. Does it? john k 22:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To highlight that statement of what the section is

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

If you think (like he himself) that he violated policy (whether technically or not) then you are not allowed to sign that section. Or are you calling him a liar when he says he did? CheeseDreams 21:18, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, those who think that the dispute is unjustified and that my actions did not violate policy may write a summary. Those who agree with my summary may endorse my summary. If they wanted to write their own summary, it should go in outside views. john k 21:28, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The section specifically states that it is for you, and for those who agree with you and do not think you violated policy. Since holding both of these views is an oxymoron (as they would have to agree that you violated policy and that they do not think that you did), they are not allowed to sign that section. CheeseDreams 23:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By my reading of it, it only says who the statement is written by, not who can sign it. Even if we ignore that, they're also allowed to sign if they think the dispute is unjustified, regardless of their thoughts on whether there was a policy violation. Shane King 10:14, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Further Comments

John Kenney stated "the redirect version apparently supported by everyone except CheeseDreams". Looking at the edit history, it appears that "everyone" means John Kenney and Slrubenstein (who also violated Policy to protect the redirect). CheeseDreams 21:26, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Preserving these pages

While I agree that these pages should not be deleted, in spite of failure to certify, because they are evidence for a potential arbitration, I do not see any value in allowing either the page itself or the talk page to continue to be edited. It simply allows people (or, rather, CheeseDreams) to continue to beat up on me despite the RfC not getting certified. Why don't we protect both page and talk page of these failed RfCs until such time as they are deleted? john k 00:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now that's just hypocrisy. CheeseDreams 19:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like it preserved as evidence against YOU. BUT...CheeseDreams 19:08, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)