Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Catholic Church straw poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canvassing on Catholic Church straw poll

[edit]

See:

After a neutral notification was

I removed two instances of canvassing and engaged both NancyHeise (talk · contribs) and Xandar (talk · contribs) on talk, and this has also been discussed at Talk:Catholic Church. Xandar is blocked, but Nancy persists. The article has been mired in cavassing and edit warring for years, for precisely this kind of behavior: Nancy and Xandar call in "votes" any time a decision is being made on the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some sample diffs (there are scores, for every issue) for typical calls for "votes", which assure progress can't be made on the article, and assume WP:CONSENSUS is obtained by calling in all old involved editors to "vote":
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia reverted my neutral edit that supplemented Karanacs non-neutral post. Her post gave editors a link to only one version of the article and offered no link to the other version being considered in the straw poll. I have summarized the situtaion below: NancyHeise talk 02:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soliciting for opinions is one thing, is that what we are talking about, or is something else going on?--MONGO 02:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is way beyond soliciting for opinions. The above users are trying to influence the opinions of others before those people take a look at the straw poll and the underlying issues themselves.UberCryxic (talk) 02:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my post before SandyGeorgia deleted it [1] - it is a completely neutral request that provided the appropriate links to both articles under consideration that Karanacs non-neutrally omitted. NancyHeise talk 02:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it's absolutely not neutral, given that you write: "oppose vote rejects that proposal in favor of keeping more information in the article" with no comparable explanation for the support vote (ie. something like "support vote makes the article more compact and readable").UberCryxic (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ MOngo, Nancy and Xandar have a long history of soliciting "votes" on CC and its FACs. Because Nancy was unpleased with Karanacs' very neutral WikiProject post, she added a non-neutral post. When I removed that, she added another post requesting editors come to her talk page (where she can directly influence). In the meantime, back at the ranch, over at User talk:Xandar, he's engaging in all kinds of personal attacks, like calling YellowMonkey "LoveMonkey", and .... gasp ... claiming that PMAnderson is my ally :) Oh, my ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xander is blocked now apparently...blocks can be extended if even user talkpages are being used to launch attacks.--MONGO 03:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, SandyGeorgia accused me of canvassing at Arbcom - an arbcom that was denied. Karanacs accused me of canvassing here [2] but as you can see, the editors who came to the page defended my notifications and provided evidence that I knew they would not be in favor of my preferred choice. I am tired of being accused of canvassing for simply calling the interested editors to the page to discover their thoughts about improving the article. In the recent successful mediation over the name issue, mediated by user:Sunray, I was asked by Sunray to notify the other participants when we conducted polls in that mediation to find consensus. My actions on the Catholic Church page have been no different but Sandy constantly accuses me of canvassing. NancyHeise talk 03:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, understanding of canvassing on your part would be helpful. I'll ask again: have you ever read WP:CANVASS? Do you not understand that you shouldn't attempt to influence "votes", either on talk or at FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If its just to alert folks to a discussion then a gentle request for comment is fine so long as it isn't a plead for something. If we're talking about any kind of solicitation for a vote on something, then one has to be careful not to violate canvassing provisions...it oftentimes is a matter of opinion regarding the type of solicitation...if it's any consolation, nothing on this website is truly permanent...in a second or over a period of a year, an article can truly transform...imagine writing a featured article and come back to it a few months later and have it altered beyond recognition, even though a new consensus supported the changes...even published works get changed by newer editions.--MONGO 03:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the instances where I have alerted users to come comment on the CC talk page are neutral and invite all of the editors, including the ones I know do not support my preferred version. What happens is that in each situation, I never really know how people will vote because they often vote in ways that surprise me, sometimes supporting what I would like and sometimes opposing. The point is that asking knowledgeable and interested editors to come to the page and offer comments is not a violation of WP:Canvass. Sandy accuses me of canvassing but provides no diffs to anything that violates Wikipedia rules. My posts are neutral. Here are some of my past posts: the poll being taken at the time [3], my standard message placed on all of the involved editor's pages including this one who has a history of opposing my positions [4]. This is what Sandy is calling "Canvassing" and what she says I do "all the time". She is constantly making this accusation against me without providing diffs to the accused behaviour. NancyHeise talk 03:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, focus. Did you see the diffs that I started this thread with? Do you deny those are canvassing? Let's start with basics. Could you please answer, yes or no, in one sentence? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what those diffs are [5] this one is a neutral post that provided the diffs that Karanacs left out of her non-neutral post that provided a single link to only one version of the article instead of both versions being considered. This one [6] is a complaint about your abbherrant behaviour in removing my neutral post. NancyHeise talk 03:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, still no straight answer. Well, I rest my case ... Tom is going to need more admin help on this one, since the arbs won't take it. Another "vote" influenced by Nancy and Xandar (who's still launching attacks on his talk). G'night all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring again, again, and again. We don't care what happened on the 22nd archive of the Catholic Church talk page. Your actions now are inexcusable, but you persist with your intransigence anyway.UberCryxic (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this edit by Nancy Heise...I have seen far worse...I don't have a problem with that sort of canvassing so long as ALL regular contributors, regardless of opinion, are notified...however, I think just the first sentence..."A straw poll is being conducted on the Catholic Church talk page here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church#Cryxic_is_done]" really is enough notification.--MONGO 03:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo, thanks. The reason why I posted the links in the note instead of just telling them there was a straw poll is because the straw poll itself does not provide the adequate links. I can not change it because it is UberCryxic's creation. NancyHeise talk 03:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IF we have regular contributors, then they can probably find the discussion page without being canvassed...the key is patience...not all contributors can contribute everyday, nor can we do much about the fact that we have a lot of different time zones on the planet...since this canvassing issues seems to be an issue, maybe not doing it for the near term will eliminate complaints regarding it.--MONGO 04:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we do have plenty of regular contributors, nearly 15 of which have commented in the poll on the first day without ever needing to be canvassed.UberCryxic (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of power by SandyGeorgia

[edit]

The Catholic Church talk page is conducting a straw poll here [7] to decide on a new version that will drastically eliminate about 50% of the information on the page including the Origin and Mission section and the Cultural Influence section and much of everything else. The new, shorter version is here [8] and the older, more informative version is here [9] A support vote will make the page become the shorter version, an oppose vote will reject that proposition.

I attempted to convey the above information to the folks on Wikiproject Catholicism and Wikiproject Christianity so they could understand what was happening there and could see the two versions and come to the page and offer their comments. Karanacs had posted a note on that page already but did not provide any information at all in her post about the two differing versions, offering only a link that provided one version. I felt that this was not neutral so I attempted to correct the oversight. When I did so, SandyGeorgia reverted my edit. These are my edits [10] [11] (the second one is a complaint about removal of the first) and this is the non-neutral note posted by Karanacs.[12]. NancyHeise talk 02:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, thanks for removing the faulty section heading, but I've restored it as perfect example of NancyHeise's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No amount of anything will get through to her that 1) I am not an admin, 2) Karanacs is not acting as FAC delegate on the article, and 3) Karanacs is not acting as an admin on the article. We constantly deal with these bad faith attacks because Nancy simple DOESNTHEARANYTHING. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darn it! That's no fun ... I thought I was ad-min-si-trating with PMS or something :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, now that Nancy may (not holding my breath) understand that I'm not an admin, I'm still wondering what sort of power or admin tool abuse she alleges against either Karanacs or me, because I'm sick, sick, sick of the drip-drip-drip of the toxicity, her failure to AGF, and the constant WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and repetition of false info-- the section heading here is a great example. She exhausts patience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)Karanacs took a disputed issue that was being discussed on the Catholic Church talk page and placed the issue on the FAC talk page to gather a consensus that would put the issue to rest. The problem with that is that Karanacs is an admin who is also the FAC assistant, the editors on the FAC talk page are beholden to her decisions to get their articles passed at FAC. Her action crossed the line, it was an abuse of power and influence to gather support for her preferred position. The link is posted below in 2
  • 2)When Karanacs, the FAC assistant and admin, decided to become involved in the Catholic Church article as an editor (an article that is being prepped for FAC), no one placed a notice on the Catholic Church talk page to let the other editors know that Karanacs was "just another editor" instead of "FAC assistant coming to the page with very one-sided opinions". Here's the link to where I complained about this to the FAC director, Raul654 and provided the links [13] NancyHeise talk 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, nancy, nancy ... admins are a busy lot, and you shouldn't make them chase their tails. Are you honestly bringing up something that happened weeks or months ago and has utterly nothing to do with this issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy: how, under what possible definition given by any reputable guideline in Wikipedia, were the comments from Karanacs "non-neutral"? They were exactly what they needed to be: brief and to the point. By contrast, you and Xandar were hinting (sometimes subtly, sometimes not) that editors in the Wikiproject should lean in a certain direction regarding the straw poll.UberCryxic (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She only provide a link that leads to your version. There is no link to the version of the page that they would be supporting if they rejected your version.NancyHeise talk 02:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That other link is not necessary because anyone interested can go to the straw poll and check everything out. Plus, if that's why you were really concerned about all this, why would you not just contact Karanacs and tell her to post every relevant link?UberCryxic (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is linked in the discussion; the existing version still exists and simply needs to be looked at. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of constant changes in the article, whenever we have had a straw poll, we link both versions clearly for voters to see. The new straw poll does not do this so it is unclear what version is being supported if they vote "oppose". My edit on the Wikiproject Catholicism page provided them with links to the poll and each version under consideration, it was a neutral note - here it is before SandyGeorgia deleted it [14]NancyHeise talk 02:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really unable to understand that a message that gives an argument for one version is not neutral? Ucucha 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your job to explain what a vote means. Just provide the link to the straw poll and that's it. If people really care about it, they'll come. You don't have to entice them through other methods.UberCryxic (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Uber, you're right, it is not my job, it is your job because you opened the poll. You need to provide Reader with the appropriate links. If you had done so, none of us would be wasting our time here. NancyHeise talk 03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My job is to fix an article that you've botched and nearly destroyed over the past two years. That's why I come to Wikipedia: to improve articles, not to start intrigues over straw polls.UberCryxic (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is that I have botched the article but the 25 supporters of the last FAC (summarized here) may not agree with you. [15]. I have been working to incorporate the comments of the 9 opposers via talk page consensus ever since. One of those opposers comments took us to a successful mediation which regrettably lasted over 9 months. We have been moving forward ever since. NancyHeise talk 03:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minority with better arguments should always override a misguided majority on Wikipedia, per WP:CONSENSUS (The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority.). As someone who has written two FAs yourself, you should easily realize the fundamental problems this article has. But this is all a digression from the topic at hand, which is your poor demeanor as a Wikipedia editor.UberCryxic (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those support votes are from experienced FAC writers, many of whom had opposed the article in the preceeding FAC. In that FAC, I provided a summary of the religious beliefs of the article's creators that showed a vast range of people including some Catholics like me. My point in providing that summary was to show the FAC reviewers that this article is not a POV creation by a few staunch Catholics but a collaboration of many experienced Wikipedia editors of varying faiths. NancyHeise talk 03:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So? What happened since? Slow and steady deterioration in quality, to the point where some parts read like they were written from people inside the Vatican.UberCryxic (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which parts are those? The ones cited to the university textbooks and scholary works printed by university presses? NancyHeise talk 04:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minimize meta-discussion

[edit]

I'm suprevising the straw poll at Talk:Catholic Church. At this point, everyone interested probably knows about it, so there should be no need to post any more messages to project pages (it was my suggestion). It would be good if discussion of the topic at issue could go forward with a minimum of meta-discussion about the straw poll. The article page is protected. Xandar is blocked for edit warring. He's asked to be unblocked. I recommended the blocking admin (YellowMonkey) consider that; Waiting to hear from him, content with what he decides to do. More eyes are welcome at Talk:Catholic Church, experienced editors as well as admins, but I'm not sure any admin action is needed right now. Tom Harrison Talk 02:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. I've watched this article for months and actually read all the previous reviews. You've been doing a terrific job recently. As SandyGeorgia isn't an admin, there doesn't seem much reason for this thread, though I agree with SandyGeorgia's post below that the canvassing is problematic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Separately from Xandar's intransigence on edit warring and canvassing, can someone please remove Nancy's subsequent canvassing post (linked above)? She's clearly trying to influence opinion, as she always has, after Karanacs' neutral post, because this time Nancy was requested not to post to individual talk pages-- instead, she's asking them to come to her :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which I think is necessary since the note posted by Karanacs provides little relevent information about the situation under consideration. We want people to come and participate, not be so confused that they don't know what is going on or what versions of the article are being compared. NancyHeise talk 02:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The information is where it's supposed to be, when they come to the article. Nancy, have you ever read WP:TEND? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emotionally strong opinions make NPOV difficult to achieve in articles where emotionally strong opinions are prevalent.--MONGO 03:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise (and I can't locate the archived arb request, but Tom is going to need more than one admin on board to handle this one, since the arbs won't :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy has been upset since the arbs rejected her and Karanac's arguments. Her response has been to trash the arbs [16] instead of considering that maybe she and Karanacs are wrong. As long as SAndy is going to provide the link to the RFC that Karanacs opened against me, I would like to post my response to Sandy's comments at the Arbcom which lists her complaints against me (which had no links to the accused behavior) and my response (with links proving her errors in judgment).[17] NancyHeise talk 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you bringing up material irrelevant to the subject at hand? Like red herrings much?UberCryxic (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, please do not pretend to know my emotional state. "Sandy has been upset since the arbs rejected her and Karanac's arguments." I have certainly been upset at seeing your continued attacks on good faith editors, but at this rate, you will end up back at ArbCom anyway. The issue here and now is canvassing; would you like to remove your post from WP Catholicism so someone else doesn't have to do it for you? And how many times do we tell you that people do not open cases against you? They are normal parts of dispute resolutions. Oh, I've said that ... about 500 times already. Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should reverse your removal of my first edit that provide the much needed links to both versions of the article. The arbcom opened by Karanacs that was denied by the arbs made complaints only about me and Xandar - am I wrong to think that it was "against" us? Your complaints about the arbs on your talk page here [[18] after they denied it are indicative of your emotion and bias about the article and persistent violation of WP:assume good faith toward me and Xandar. NancyHeise talk 03:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just blocked NancyHeise 1 week for canvassing, harassment, and tendentious editing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good call. Her refusal to see the point here was extraordinary. Ucucha 04:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support block, and here's her response: I believe this block is another abuse of power by an admin who has a longstanding friendship with Karanacs and SandyGeorgia ... Sarek, have we met? Apparently, the party line is that Karanacs and I have the entire admin corp in our back pockets. I wish ... would come in handy elsewhere :) Nancy is as unrepetentant as Xander, and they are why that article has been mired for years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically not, but that case of Frangos you sent me was very convincing ;-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They'll believe it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's kind of like Freemasons running the world. Anyone still believing that is welcome to take a ride in my 13-year-old minivan with the leaky power steering...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

For the record, I do not think that Nancy's comments linked at the beginning of this section are canvassing. Technically, neither is Xandar's as canvassing requires sending messages to specific wikipedians to influence the outcome. Messages on talk pages to influence an outcome are not canvassing, and, outside of the "more information" clause, the two messages by Nancy do not indicate significant bias but focus more on the two possible versions that may result depending on the choice. -- Avi (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please realize that if this wasn't canvassing, a defensive reaction would be understandable, even if inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CANVASS#Campaigning. Ucucha 05:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is for canvassing on USER talk pages; remember, cancassing is defined as messages to users. Wikispace talk pages (article, RFC, or wikiproject) are the proper place to have discussions that discuss pros and cons. AND, in my opinion, Nancy's comment was maybe just barely indicative of her bias. I have to log off now, so I am not going to overturn and run, but I request that other non-involved admins carefully look at what happened, and I think there is reason for Nancy to have been upset. -- Avi (talk) 05:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ucucha, please read WP:CANVASS#Choosing an audience which states: To reach a wide range of informed, but uninvolved, editors, a discussion might be announced on the talk pages of a WikiProject, at the Village pump, or perhaps some other talk page directly related to the topic under discussion. -- Avi (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The problem was not that Nancy placed that message (although it was unnecessary, as Karanacs had already posted); the problem was that the message was biased in tone. Ucucha 05:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just barely (the phrase "more information") unlike Xandar's. I do not think that it was biased enough to merit removal or blocking, but that is just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And they weren't neutral. They were designed to bring WikiProject Catholic members-- who support her as the article owner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make things clear on Xandar: the user was not blocked for canvassing inappropriately, but rather for persistent edit warring.UberCryxic (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Nancy for harassment and battleground; characterizing it as a block only for canvassing isn't correct. The arbs specifically rejected the case because they thought admins should deal with it; that's what happened, correctly, finally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have an issue with Xandar's block. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, she is allowed to bring in WikiProject Catholic members, this affects them, and posting the message on the talk page is the proper way to do so. We do not try and HIDE discussions on wikipedia, but we do try and inform neutrally. Her message was barely biased and directed to a group of interested people. That was not improper, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't neutral. And by asking them to come to her talk, instead of the article, it was so she could influence them. She is the known owner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She asked them to come to her talk AFTER her initial request that they vote was removed by you. Your above complaint is thus not fair, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original request was biased because it included an argument against the proposed new text (it removes information). Ucucha 05:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BARELY, and, in my opinion, worthy of at MOST striking through (and not even, we trust readers to be able to think) and not deletion. Teh removal was unfortanate overkill, IMO. -- Avi (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will reiterate before I get my four hours of sleep before I have to catch a plane that I do not think that the initial posts were canvassing, and I think that while the discussion here was tendentious, there should be some slack cut for the fact that the user rightfully felt "ganged up upon" by having what, at the very least is non-obvious problematic edits (as I see a bare minimal problem in the initial post for which I would NOT have removed it), removed and incorrectly (in my opinion) labeled as canvasing. Forbidding of posting issues on talk pages of wikiprojects that are directly affected by those issues is somewhat akin to censorship in my eyes. We have those talk pages for a reason, and they are specifically used to allow ALL interested parties to follow discussions and prevent the targted messaging that canvassing truly is. As I said, I will not unblock, as there were other issues involved and I do not know the backstory with this editor, but in this incident on its own, I do not concur with some of the decisions made. Of course, we all apply our own judgments, but I would have not removed the initial notice and, in that case, I am not certain the entire mess above would have happened. -- Avi (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you said it, Avi: you do not know the backstory, the extent of their influence over that article and at the WikiProject, and you have not watched this happen repeatedly for three years as they drive everyone else away in frustration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as we're analyzing this to death, the following is what's wrong with what Nancy did:

  • Her request was unnecessary as another user already canvassed for attention at the same talk page at roughly the same time (their threads were right next to each other).
  • Unlike that other user, Nancy canvassed solely at Wikiproject Catholicism. This by itself would be completely harmless if it weren't for point three...
  • She clearly describes one of the votes favorably.
  • She was blocked as much for her tendentious editing as of late (especially today) as for the canvassing decision.
  • Per Sandy, there is a vast and complicated drama here that has unfolded over the last two years. Some things are better left unsaid, however, and what happened today can be (and should be) analyzed separately.UberCryxic (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next

[edit]

The arbs rejected the case, so I don't know how to find it in archives. One admin alone cannot handle the behavioral disruptions at that article. Here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NancyHeise. Is it time to motion a 0RR or 1RR on Nancy and Xander, so the article can progress? If not, there are no other steps in dispute resolution, and anything tried is derailed by canvassing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is; thanks, Ucucha! They've both been blocked for edit warring on that article; they both canvass and frequently think Wiki is a "vote"; the article is constantly protected; and most significantly, any other editors who could improve the article give up in frustration and leave. This example tonight is hourly; it has had the five worst FACs I've ever seen, and about a dozen experienced FA writers gave up and walked away. Here are the Article history stats showing the extent of ownership, and it should be noted that NancyHeise is an advocate (sample) and an SPA. I started tying to track the blocklog of the Catholic Church at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox#1e, but it was too complex for me to sort, and some of that may be wrong or incomplete. The arbs rejected the case, saying that admins needed to get involved. There is ongoing and pervasive misunderstanding about the role of admins, the role of FAC delegates, WP:CONSENSUS, the five failed FACs (Nancy repeatedly misrepresents them, saying some content has consensus because it was reviewed at FAC), and more. No one has been able to get through to Nancy and Xander about the ownership and battleground issues that are affecting the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The arbs rejected the case. Work on the talk page is continuing. It's not appropriate to put together a scratch team to do what the arbs would not. If nothing else, people on both sides need to have their behavior examined, but the partisans so outraged by Nancy and Xandar can't see anything or anyone else. Tom Harrison Talk 13:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block is inappropriate

[edit]

I think the block is inappropriate, and a week is too long. It's not to prevent canvassing; the article in dispute is locked; the straw poll is continuing. Blocking two major contributors to the article during the straw poll will look like unfair manipulation, and will make it harder to reach a durable consensus. This is a shut-the-hell-up block. That's probably good advice, but I can't endorse the block, and ask that it be lifted. Tom Harrison Talk 13:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that Nancy can vote, or so that Nancy can participate in consensus-building? You ought to know by now that the chance of Nancy doing the latter is a big fat zero. And voting is evil. Hesperian 13:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The block is innaprpriate. I've seen worse blocks, but not many. The posts in question were nuetral and I saw nothing in them that would give me a hint as to what side of the issue Nancy was on. Seems that this is a shut the hell up blockUnblock Unblock Unblock.--Jojhutton (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repetition does not make your argument convincing. Regardless, the block was for disruptive behavior following the posts, not the (potential) canvassing itself. It's not a "shut the hell up" block, it's a "quit stirring the pot while we're trying to gauge consensus" block. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Agree with the Hand). The problem with ANI is so few people here actually take the time to study before opining. The block was not only for the canvassing; please read it, and then please also read the history, linked above, including mediation, RFC/U, an arb case, and plenty of evidence of the battleground issues. Please read before opining: the block was not for the canvassing only; there is a long pattern here, and the arbs have tossed it back to the community. It will take community consensus, community procedures, and more than one admin to bring the behavioral issues on that article under control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plese try to actually read the extensive, combative five FACs, and the previous steps in dispute resolution, that led several arbs to asking admins to get involved; understanding how long this has gone on, and how pervasive the battle ground is will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if responsible editors were able to see and willing to call out bad behavior on both sides. Tom Harrison Talk 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would also help if the wholly ungrounded and unsubstantiated allegations that amount to off-Wiki coordination and admins in backpockets also stopped. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Nancy did apologize for that line over on her talkpage, Sandy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I hear those allegations are making the rounds on other circuits :) There's a theme (which seems to amount to, it must be a cabal! It's not my behavior that led to the blocks ... ) And it's part of the campaign of harassment that Karanacs and I have endured: the next time she accuses either of us of abuse, because she won't read and understand policy that has been repeatedly pointed out to her, I do hope admins will step in. It's tiring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support unblock of both Nancy and Xandar. Nancy and Xandar have been heavily invested in the Catcholic Church article for years; they have each spent hundreds of hours on the article. It doesn't seem to me that it would be in the best interest of the project for their voices to remain unheard during the current debate about the article's future. If an unconditional unblock is out of the question, then perhaps an unblock restricting them to the CC talk page could be agreed. MoreThings (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone read before opining? Their voices are heard. Nancy weighed in before her block, and Tom ferdarnsure has read where Xander stands. The question is how to stop them from the stirring the pot so consensus can form. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know. Are you saying they would post there too much? Personally, I think anyone who posts more than 30 times (note the non breaking space, by the way) to a single talk page or noticeboard in a calendar day probably is overdoing it and in serious need of admin action. I'm sure we could get some neutral admins to assure compliance.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that Nancy has posted, but the debate is ongoing. Nancy and Xandar should be allowed to affect the consensus that forms, not gagged while it does so. MoreThings (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tend to agree. Given that they are major contributors to the page (which I have not read, I have better things to do), they would be within their rights not to respect any consensus that forms under these circumstances. Gagging opposite points of view is very convenient from a certain point of view. However, the gaggee is inclined to be resentful!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone needs to be able to use the talk page to present their arguments. To be fair, the process needs to be seen as fair. An unblock restricting them to the talk page would be help ensure that. If that unblock happens, it will be incumbent on Nancy and Xandar to use the talk page judiciously, to concisely and reasonably present their positions, and to read and consider what other people say - listen twice as much as you speak, and all. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And I started a thread above about how the community can put something, anything in place to deal with the ownership and battleground issues, per the arbs' request that admins step in, and it has gotten no feedback. Who has a plan, any plan ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that anything other than SOP is necessary. We have administrators watching the page, and no crat has deleted this page recently, and a quick check reveals that it is currently unprotected and open for business. I decline to comment on article ownership issues, since I am aware views differ on that, but I see nothing that cannot be handled routinely.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people would like both users to contribute to the poll/discussion/consensus, then those people should use this time to persuade both users to make appropriate unblock requests. Some assurances might get the desired outcome; acknowledgement of the issues and assurances would of course end the drama pretty quickly. If people have concerns about the quality or quantity of such contributions, then those people should use this time to think/bring about a scheme (such as a temporary probation) where issues can be dealt with effectively and promptly, perhaps without needlessly removing contributions from other parts of the project. I'll emphasise that this is merely my view, and though I think it's neutral, that'll of course be subject to each individual opinion. I hope all issues relating to this are resolved effectively in the near future for all those involved (and the encyclopedia). :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up the edit history, and NancyHeise has made an amazing 4,412 edits to that article since January 2008, only 754 of them minor, and 2644 to the talk page in the same period. I would say that's not acceptable if she herself has a strong POV and is effectively a single-purpose editor. Would Nancy agree to confine herself to the talk page for an agreed period of, say, three months? My apologies if this has already been suggested or tried. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If she was a single purpose account, she wouldn't agree as that would defeat her purpose in being here. If she was not, but still had a strong interest in the subject, she'd be better off sitting out the week. Many people limit their edits to very limited areas. Doesn't make them SPI's. Note that Nancy also has strong histories in other Catholicism-related articles. Personally, I view people who seem only to chat here (not you) as more of a problem then self-limiting editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of info that needs to be studied and processes put in place. It is most frustrating that this has gone on for years, an RFC/U and mediation and bazillions of posts explaining Wiki policies and guidelines to Nancy and Xander have fallen on deaf ears, the arbs tossed it back to admins, and in spite of this thread, we can't get admins to put something in place to deal with this long-standing behavioral issue. We have an essentially SPA advocate for the Catholic Church owning the article, and turning it into a battleground. Others give up and leave. Something, anything, should be put in place. One admin can't do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just goes to show, Sandy, that you should be careful who you endorse for ArbCom :D --Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convince me ! WWWD (What Would Wehwalt Do?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the point? All great Neptune's ocean (or the part around Aruba anyway) won't wash the blood from my hands.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here is a practical suggestion, that NancyHeise be asked not to edit the article for three months. I don't know whether the same should apply to Xander, as this is the first time I've dipped my toes into this. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 16:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NancyHeise took a voluntary break from the article for several months at the turn of the year. We reached consensus on the talk page for several changes to the article during her absence (Xandar was still contributing). On her return in February she started changing the article back to her preferred version (see here, here, here, and here, and NancyHeise's comment "you ... have been going through the article and making changes that were not necessarily agreed to by other editors. I for one was absent from the page for much of the past three months when you guys did your trim. I think that your trim made a lot of sections say things that are not in the cited refs and I am trying to go through and correct that oversight. I appreciate your efforts but I also have to put in my two cents if I happen to have the refs. I don't think my edits are controversial. ") Karanacs (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My own view is that the article is non-neutral and that Nancy's and Xandar's contributions are largely responsible for that state of affairs. They, of course, see it differently, as is their right, and it doesn't seem that they're transgressing policy, or they'd be banned by now. But all that is the larger picture--this is about the straw poll, and I think they should be allowed to make their case. MoreThings (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if NancyHeise and Xandar are unblocked but restricted to only editing certain pages, then they should also be allowed to edit the recently opened GA Review. Karanacs (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reboot

[edit]
Re-summarizing from "Next" section above, to try to get focus from more admins than SV ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal note, and what caused me to engage this article, is how tired I am of seeing ongoing allegations of abuse aimed at Karanacs and me. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] I hope admins will see to it that Nancy learns Wiki policies and guidelines, works on her AGF-o-meter, or is dealt with the next time she makes such accusations. There has been no abuse, either of admin tools or FAC delegacy. She refuses to HEARTHAT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, we heard you say that already. We HEARDTHAT, thank you. Message received. Point taken. Return receipt issued.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up :) Apparently some folks come here and only read the last thread, so I re-summarized. And Nancy and Xandar have not heard it, and someone needs to get through to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I thought this was AN/I, not their joint talk page. Ah, I see by your contribs list you've been there already. Several times. Today. And I assumed that conscientious admins, as I try to be, do read the entire thread. However, I will bow to your superior knowledge of such things (is this where I put the smiley face)?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While you were there, did you notice all the false allegations about Karanacs and me? <insert smilie> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to sever; motion of bill of particulars. Stay of proceedins until someone pays my bill.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any temporary topic ban would need to include the understanding that she not revert when she returns, otherwise it's pointless. If that could be agreed, would that help, and would others support it? And does it need to be applied to anyone else too? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to be cautious about such things. I've yet to be convinced there is a need for a "temporary topic ban". And as I said, given the choice between sitting out a week and having one hand tied behind the back on an article one has made major contributions to, with an opposite side not so handicapped, I rather doubt she would accept such an offer or accept such a sanction.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There's discussion on Xandar's talk page that he be subject to a 0R rule; if that is in effect, I see no need for him to be barred from editing the article. From my experience with NancyHeise, IF this was implemented someone would have to make it very, very clear to her what is meant by "no reverting when you come back", because she honestly believes that she is simply correcting other people's mistakes and that her edits are not controversial (despite editors telling her on the talk page that her edits are controversial). Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SV, it is not hyperbole to say this is the worst case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have ever seen. Nancy and Xandar sincerely do not seem to understand. It's not merely a matter of tenditious editing and POV-pushing-- it's a genuine breakdown in understanding How Wiki Works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC
@SV, I haven't yet had time to review Pmanderson's contributions to the ongoing edit warring-- Karanacs would know better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec, for Wehwalt) She would have to accept it if there was an agreement that we should impose it on her, though it would be better if she would volunteer to do it. Over 6,000 edits to the article and talk in two years is clearly too many for someone who's striking up a strong position and edits in no other area. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, Pma has made 101 edits since 2006, so it can't be that bad. It's the 4,000 to the article in two years that's jumping out at me. That's something that can't continue if it's all from the same POV and contentious. As Tom is currently the admin dealing with this, perhaps he could say when he comes back on whether he'd agree to a three-month topic ban for Nancy (hopefully voluntary), with a no-revert agreement when she returns i.e. no reverting to any version, or part thereof, that preceded her mini-break. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that then, there will be disputes about edits she makes. She will see that it was not a violation of her agreement. The other side will say that though she used a different ref and the info is slightly different, that she really did. Then admins, to figure out who is right and wrong, will need an impromptu education in canon law and church history. Oy.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's another problem, too ... because of the article's history, I'm not sure three months is long enough to convince all those who were chased off that it will be "safe to come out" again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it might be difficult, but I think the key is to stress the spirit of the agreement, not the letter. Basically she needs to let other people shape the article for a bit, because her shaping of it hasn't worked. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea if it has or has not, and will not engage in a discussion about that with only one hand clapping. Unquestionably, Nancy and Xandar would have something to say on that topic. @Sandy, by that logic, no set length of time would be sufficient, after all, the Big Bad Other Side would be coming back some day, zomg. And an indefinite sanction would become eternal, because any change would be bitterly opposed.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, how is your comment above regarding User:NancyHeise, "Yes, but I hear those allegations are making the rounds on other circuits :)" consistent with your objection above regarding what you deem to be "false allegations" against you of engaging in off-wiki coordination? Such as "It would also help if the wholly ungrounded and unsubstantiated allegations that amount to off-Wiki coordination and admins in backpockets also stopped."--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't parse ... try rephrasing? In context, since I don't know how this is related to the current discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wehwalt said "Why are you complaining about Nancy accusing you of off-wiki coordination when you're accusing her of off-wiki coordination?". Is that right, Wehwalt?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Too lawyerly, alas. Someone's got to pay that bill ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*donates his monthly admin salary to Wehwalt*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the translation, Sarek; Wehwalt, what part of my words gives you the impression I've accused Nancy of off-wiki coordination? Prior to the new development (see below), that wasn't in my mind at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Yes, but I hear those allegations are making the rounds on other circuits :)" is my guess at most likely candidate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, given that I quoted it! Complete with smiley face. Can you give an answer now?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*headdesk* So much text, so little reading comprehension skill.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone asked for my opinion above. Please keep in mind I'm a very involved editor and you may want to take my opinions with a grain of salt. The most active people, recently, on the actual article are NancyHeise, Xandar (many of his contributions are reverts of other changes, although he can also do an excellent job of copyediting), Richardshusr (who is likely the one editor respected by everyone, and who does not edit-war, ever), Haldraper (whose edits are often disputed by NancyHeise/Xandar), and UberCryxic (a new arrival who is being very bold but is keeping in contact with Tom Harrison). Several others, myself included, have made a handful of edits each recently. Haldraper, PMAnderson, and Xandar (and a few others) have all edit-warred over article tagging. We may also need some type of consensus on whether tags should be placed on the article or not (and if so, what criteria must be met to leave them there) in order to nip those in the bud, although Tom's liberal use of protection has stopped these for now. IF there were to be a consensus for Nancy to be topic-banned, I'd argue for a limited amount of time (say 3 months), but that it could be extended if on her return the same behavior began again (to be determined by ....???). However, there aren't a lot of eyes on this right now, so talk of topic banning may be premature. I'd be happy right now to have more admins intervene on the talk page when they see personal attacks (even the borderline ones) or misunderstanding of wiki policy/workings. Karanacs (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is premature. An RfC did not recomend that. ArbCom, which is empowered to take such actions, did not take the case. The editors in question are blocked. I think that we should wait for more eyes and the opportunity for full participation by both sides before considering such things.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, are both delegates now recused on this article? Is that a first since we added a second delegate?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so, I seem to recall Raul having to make the casting vote on one article not so long ago. What I really wanted to say though is that I'm deeply saddened by these blocks, and speaking from personal experence I can state categorically that blocking only makes matters worse, it doesn't fix anything. One week is also obviously too long. Adults ought to be able to sort this out without resort to the naughty corner. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt, RCC and its FACs have set all kinds of FAC records :) (I hold a few of those myself, but of the good kind :) I do wish people would stop worrying about the recusals; Raul can handle it, and if FAC had such a thing as a "quick fail", any Catholic Church FAC would meet that based on 1e alone. It has never been stable, and isn't even remotely eligible to appear at FAC, so it's not a concern. By the time that article approaches FA status, we could all be long gone :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Malleus, none of your ummm ... illustrious blocks ... had anything to do with article content. These do, and it's the article that has been damaged. Neither of them yet shows any understanding of the issues raised, in their various unblock requests and statements on their talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New development

[edit]

... mentioned here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, someone in Florida !voted in the poll. Talk about guilt by association. First, I really don't think any experienced Wikieditor is going to use a first edit sock in that manner. Second, it is just as likely to be someone trying to discredit her. More likely given the blatant nature of the thing. Florida's a big state. Proposal: Block Mickey Mouse as sockmaster. Why not? The evidence is equal.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With Nancy and Xandar blocked there's no need for the straw poll (and little legitimacy in it at this point anyway), and no need for me to continue. I've unprotected the page, and the page can develops however the remaining participants want it to. I can already imagine someone preparing to cite this diff as evidence that Evil Nancy has driven the admin mediator from the page. That's not the case. It's disappointing, and at least partly my fault for not managing it better, that this has devolved into a (successful) campaign to get Nancy and Xandar. Tom Harrison Talk 22:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally grateful for the integrity of your efforts. I once heard the job of a band's tour manager described as "herding cats", it is nothing compared to the job of an admin at Wiki, especially when he honestly and with integrity tries to clean up a mess like this.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom indicated that Nancy and Xandar were the victims of a campaign to get them blocked. Thoughts?.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Xandar has agreed to a 0RR restriction if unblocked. I'm not really comfortable with unblocking him since the blocking admin seems to disagree with the action. --Andy Walsh (talk) 00:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xandar appears to have changed his mind. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to above section (words I never said), I don't find where Tom said that (although he did delete many revisions on his talk page, so I may have missed it). If he did say that, I'd be curious to know his source. Maybe I need to get on IRC or Skype to know what goes on on Wiki-- seems I miss a lot! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know what it is like when you get there Sandy, in the meantime, put on those new glasses, lift your head slightly and focus! He actually said "this has devolved into a (successful) campaign to get Nancy and Xandar". And which words didn't you say, Sandy, in the previous section? Guess I missed something too!--Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article unprotected, edit warring resumed, this time Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a complaint was made at the edit warring noticeboard and is being dealt with there.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Admins seem to be working against each other here. There's a poll and then there isn't, so now it's not clear what the status is. If Tom is still willing, I suggest people take his lead in trying to deal with it. We don't have to agree with his every decision, but he should be supported if he's offering a structure that could move things along. I suggest we re-open the straw poll unless there are objections, because otherwise the article's in limbo. Does it need to be reprotected in the meantime? SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest either scrapping the whole idea or restarting once the two are available.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked and it's too late to restart because it's lost its momentum. But I see UC and Yorkshirian may be reaching a compromise anyway. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sounds promising. Anything that will put this to bed. It's been an embarrassment all around.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Harrison

[edit]

You know, Tom, when you first offered to get involved in moderating behaviour at this article, the first thing I did was look through your contributions, wherein I found many edits on articles related to Catholicism and Christianity. This left me deeply concerned that the page was going to end up moderated by a biased administrator. But I made a conscious decision to set aside my doubts, and to assume good faith.

When I look back on it now, it seems to me that my doubts have been largely confirmed. Your actions on that page with respect to user blocks have been

  1. To block Taam and Sayerslle, both of whom perceive(d) themselves as defending the article against a pro-Catholic POV;
  2. To campaign strongly for the unblocking of Xandar and NancyHeise, both of whom perceive themselves as defending the article against an anti-Catholic POV;

As far as I am concerned, all four of those editors behaved outrageously badly. I am of the view that the disruption of Xandar and NancyHeise far exceed the disruption of the other two, at least in duration; but for the purposes of the point I want to make here, I'll merely assert that it was at least equal. You might have taken a softly softly approach, and left everyone unblocked. Or you might have put your foot down and blocked the lot of them. Either would have been acceptable. But it seems to me that the approach you have taken has somewhat depended on the point of view of the person you're addressing. No doubt you were trying to be even-handed, but I believe that you failed: you allowed your pro-Catholic bias to blind you to the outrageously disruptive antics of Nancy and Xandar, whilst reacting strongly against similar behaviour directed against them.

Hesperian 01:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to find Tom's talk page and misdial?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. I want this here, right below where Tom says "this has devolved into a (successful) campaign to get Nancy and Xandar." Hesperian 01:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your privilege. You might want to review WP:BLOCK for the purpose of blocks and so forth, I apprehend some misunderstanding as to their purpose.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom's a good admin, H, so I hope you can AGF. Trying to handle all the issues here is like wrestling with an octopus so apparent inconsistencies are bound to arise. I don't agree with Tom's position about people being out to get those two editors, by the way, so I'm not defending that argument, just making the point that this is a horrible dispute to try to sort out. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I appreciate that. It is probably impossible for anyone to be perfectly unbiased, and Tom has probably shown less bias that I would have done in the same situation. Nonetheless, there is a problem here: Tom's comments above are likely to be taken as the views of an unbiased moderator, whereas I believe that they are not. This is why I have found it necessary to heap further disapprobation on him for undertaking this thankless task. Hesperian 01:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that will make his day. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he is right or not, all I know is that I defer to him as being closer to the mess than me. My view of an admin's job here is to try to put out the worst of it and let the editors fix the rest for themselves. Thankfully, this looks like subsiding.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just catching up, I see User:Taam left Wiki. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting thicker by the minute. In addition to the pre-existing issues of battleground, ownership, edit warring, ongoing unsubstantiated accusations (aimed generally at Karanacs, but others as well), we now also have:

  1. Posts removed via admin tools from Tom's page about Nancy's use of her daughter's account in discussion of a Florida IP that appeared to "vote" in the poll.
    Still looking for that info, since it was deleted, so far only found this instance of Nancy citing herself in an article
    I can't locate the other missing pieces; maybe someone who can access deleted revisions can see what they were. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Found, here and here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, this SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And the Roadrunner IP SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Add IP, because BellSouth appeared somewhere else recently, will look later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Some vague and unsubstantiated accusations of some campaign, apparently first stated by Tom, but with Wehwalt stirring the pot and not answering direct questions, representing things that as far as I can tell no one has said (time to step out, Wehwalt, unless you know something that I don't, and if so, what is it?)
  3. Ongoing edit warring on the article.[25]

... and in general, no end in sight. Oh, but the arbs opined that it's only a content dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should rephrase that, Sandy, as "an allegation" regarding Nancy. Yes, I read the deleted edit before it was removed. There was no evidence. And speaking of not answering questions, you still have one unanswered above asking you for the grounds of your accusation against her.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not playing, Wehwalt; you said I said something that I didn't. Ball's in your court: that's three questions you haven't answered now, but you're phrasing questions in a way that indicates that you're operating on the basis of assumptions that others aren't in on. I don't know what all was on Tom's talk page because I don't have admin tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's unfortunate the ArbCom didn't take the case. I intend to ask Nancy to step back, though there's no consensus here to require her to do it, but I'm going to request it anyway, because over 4,000 edits in two years (and over 2,000 to talk), isn't healthy for her, the article, or the other editors, especially not when it's all from one POV. As for the content, UC and Yorkshirian seem to have worked out a compromise version, so some progress has been made there.
I think Tom removed the posts because there were identifying. If those details matter, maybe they could be reposted here without the names and IP addresses?
Wehwalt, the other issues (unanswered questions etc) are probably best left alone. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 01:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad an uninvolved admin is willing to wade in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll confirm that the removed revisions were getting uncomfortably close to outing, and were removed on those grounds, without objection from participants in the discussion. So that, at least, is not part of the problem. Hesperian 01:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@SV. Yes, to respond further would indeed be stirring the pot. No valid purpose in doing so.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Hesperian Thanks, but Nancy is a published advocate, and cited herself in a Catholic article, and uses her real name, so I'm not sure what the outing might be. I do know the posts gave her daughter's account, from which she edited, but can't recall the name of that account. Thanks for the info, though ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the deleted revisions. Nothing of substance happened after your last contribution, Sandy; perhaps SV should consider pasting the last two edits (the ones after Sandy's last edit) except that the decision was made to delete this whole thing on privacy grounds. I imagine the privacy is right there, as you just said. I also see that the discussion says that the other account in question has not edited since June.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] I don't mind admins being very conservative when it comes to outing. As for what you are missing, there is nothing after your last post there, other than "this is getting too close to outing" and "yeah you're right sorry" (my paraphases). The diff you are looking for was posted by Karanacs; you might ask her for it. Hesperian 02:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(triple ec) From what you're both saying, it sounds like there's nothing else there that I didn't see, so it's probably best to leave it alone, then. But it looks to me like, reading between the lines (speculation alert) that Tom had to step out because of some unsusbstantiated allegations that are going around related to backpocketed admins, so I think that unless someone has proof, the rumors (and those furthering them) should stop-- they aren't helping matters when we have two editors who need to work on AGF and stop flinging unfounded accusations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it perfectly clear - I didn't admin shop or have any contact with anyone offline about Xandar or Nancy or their blocks. I believe that WP matters should stay on-wiki, and you'll find my interactions with this article and its editors online for everyone to see. I am an interested party in the discussions, and I filed the edit-warring report that led to Xandar's block. It's not the first edit-warring report I've filed on the article. I also offered to withdraw said request when I realized that Tom was actually online (he had no recent contributions when the reversions started). I assume YellowMonkey saw the edit-warring report and chose to block. I was quite surprised to log in this morning and see that Nancy had been blocked, and it took me a while to catch up on what had been going on (y'all were busy while I was offline). I don't like to see allegations of a conspiracy - I've seen no evidence of one, but if it does exists, I am not and don't intend to be part of it. Karanacs (talk) 02:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that's cleared up. And for my part, if I had any admins in my backpocket and was that kind of person (I'm not), they'd be adminning on Venezuela articles, not Catholic Church. I hope that all stirring this pot will check their AGF-o-meters and knock it off, because it doesn't set a good example for Nancy and Xander, who frequently fling allegations at Karanacs and me, based on their misunderstanding of Wiki or FAC processes, or admin tasks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

[edit]

I just glanced at the article and talk page, and see progress is being made for the first time in a very long time, parties are mostly getting along, and the acrimony is reduced. SV, you rock ! I submit that this progress would not have been possible if Xander and Nancy were unblocked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Between 00:59, March 12, 2010 (when Uber and Yorkshirian reached an agreement on talk) and 22:04, March 12, 2010, there were no talk page altercations and 167 edits by 14 different editors. Xandar appears to have changed his mind about agreeing to 0RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Between 00:59 March 12 and 18:56 March 14, there has been no talk page acrimony, no edit warring, and 265 edits by 27 different editors. Article size has been reduced from 12,000 words and 53KB of citations to 7,400 words and 26KB of citations, and the page loads from dialup for the first time in years. Overlinking, overciting, and excess detail have been identified, a GA review has been initiated, and work progresses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xandar retracts his 0RR offer, and says, "Serious questions need to be asked about what is beginning to seem like the improper political use of one-sided blocking of key contributors by certain admins in order to try to alter content issues on the Catholic Church page." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that the blocks of NancyHeise and Xandar were improper, if only in their duration, and that they were made and/or sustained knowing they would allow changes in content for which there was then no consensus. NancyHeise and Xandar have not been and are not being treated fairly, and I think their viewpoint is a factor in that treatment. I prefer the shorter version that's up now, and promoted it, maybe inappropriately, while I was mediating the article. So I approve of the result of their being blocked, but can't support the blocks. This is not the way to handle a content dispute, and not the way to treat people. Tom Harrison Talk 18:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time not reading that as a direct accusation against me of using the tools to win a content dispute, which I assure you was not the case. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering Hesperian's analysis of Tom harrison's blocks above, and how hard Tom harrison lobbied against these blocks, it's hard to view his statements as neutral. More significantly, his statement that "in their duration, and that they were made and/or sustained knowing they would allow changes in content" overlooks the fact that both NancyHeise and Xandar might well have had their block length reduced if either of them had shown any understanding of the issues that led to their blocks. They each have no one to blame for their week-long block except themselves. No, the way others (and the article) have been treated for a very long time (in particular, the attacks on Karanacs' good faith and allegations that she has abused admin tools or his position as FAC delegate) is not the way to handle a content dispute or to treat people, and that has stopped now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy and Xandar are locked in a cupboard. Tom walked away in disgust, as did Johnbod. The new version was pushed through with 52%, one day into a poll which Tom said should last until next week and require 70-80%. UberCryxic wrote the new version, initiated the poll, deleted an opposing vote and took it upon himself to determine consensus.

Yep, good to see that all parties are getting along so well. As it's been such a resounding success maybe we should try it in one of the other tricky areas. How about one of the i/p articles? Which side shall we lock up? MoreThings (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This post is helpful how? The tone is settling down on the article, but some editors want to continue with sarcasm and unhelpful feedback ? It's unfortunate that Nancy and Xandar find themselves blocked, but that is of their own doing. When they are unblocked, hopefully they will have learned how to use talk pages for genuine discussion, and whatever concerns they have about the article will be addressed. Read WP:WIP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Sandy. Are you honestly saying that poll had any legitimacy whatsoever? 23:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)MoreThings (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Will the person who entered the above query please sign it? The poll is history, and "it's not my job" to judge it. Move on. Everyone else has, and work on the article is progressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to put words into your mouth, but you don't seem comfortable with claiming that the poll was legitimate. And I certainly don't think it was. Sorry, but the way it looks to me is that you're happy with the way things turned out, and you're not too bothered whether the end result was achieved by fair means or foul. Which is kinda disappointing, really. MoreThings (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The poll is irrelevant, and was from the moment Xander and Nancy canvassed. It's history. The proof is in the pudding; the article talk page is no longer acrimonious, and content issues can and will be resolved in a collaborative environment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I won't get into a ping-pong with you. I disagree that the poll was irrelevant. The poll was the means by which consensus for the new version was to be established. What I saw there over the last 24 hours didn't look anything like a collaborative environment. It looked like a group of editors bulldozing through their preferred version of an article with scant regard for consensus. MoreThings (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the poll was closed early, but once people had canvassed and other people had been blocked, and then a couple of days had passed, it was difficult to keep it open. A compromise was made between the version favoured by the poll (albeit prematurely closed) and the version favoured by those who opposed the change, so that seems to me to be progress. I think moving away from discussing the past would be very helpful at this point. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Let's not worry about all these highfalutin WP ideals, and pillars n' stuff. Let's just... move on. MoreThings (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They canvassed: no choice. They edit warred. They disrupted. They're blocked. Those are wiki principles, and they have to live with the consequences of violating those. And even if it is irrelevant, I think any uninvolved person seeing the results of the poll would agree that it prevailed (wiki is not a "vote", and we don't just tally "votes"-- if what you're doing isn't working, stop doing it, and what they were doing wasn't working). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deal was that the poll would decide whether or not to go with the new version. The poll didn't come anywhere near establishing consensus for the new version, yet the new version replaced the old one. MoreThings (talk)
MoreThings, at some point in these very protracted disputes, everyone has to be asked to move on. The test is the article. If the current climate is allowing harmonious editing to continue, that climate needs to be encouraged. And the new version only partly replaced the old one: there was a compromise. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the point to move on when discussing completely replacing an article is when there has been comprehensive discussion, with all interested parties given a fair chance to make their case. Do you think that situation pertained when the change was made? --MoreThings (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continued behavior

[edit]
This becomes almost laughable if it were not so sad. When does issuing a Wiki warning template turn into an "attack". Anyone can review Sandy's ongoing insults to Nancy on the Catholic Church article or Nancy's own discussion page. I issued a deserved warning to Sandy because I found consistent focus on Nancy and Xandar rude, unhelpful, and insulting. More importantly, I think that the objective is to focus on the content of articles and not other editors. Her consistent sarcasm will only lead to more confrontation and bad feelings. However, it appears that Sandy feels justified to insult other editors with whom she disagrees and ignores all bounds of civil discourse. What is worse, she attempts to hide her own actions by accusing others of wrong doing. Her incessant focus on Nancy and Xandar needs to stop; it borders on stalking. Consensus is not achieved, nor will it ever be achieved, by removing the opposition. When we attempt to do so all that is produced is a unilateral position. Further entertaining of this type of behavior is inappropriate and Sandy's unhealthy fascination with Nancy and Xandar needs to stop immediately. --StormRider 20:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you here to be part of the solution or part of the problem? Your attacks on my talk page are a problem. I will be happy to stop watching Xandar, Nancy, and the article as soon as the edit warring, attacks on other editors, battleground, and everything else ceases. Have you noticed the collaborative work that is occurring on the article now that the edit warriors aren't contributing to talk page toxicity and subjecting the article to constant reversions? Meanwhile, you've made several promises that I "will be blocked" ... got an admin in your backpocket waiting to pull the trigger, or just a crystal ball? You're welcome back on my talk page when you're ready to post like an adult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article history stats

[edit]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Side issue

[edit]
Sandy, if your edits are civil, not designed to put others down, and calculated to engage in debate than to discourage others to engaging in the same, why, then, you have nothing to worry about and Storm Rider is totally off base. Is this what you are contending? If so, would you mind if others brought in diffs they believe are to the contrary? You are at liberty to add diffs as well. You have chosen a public forum to accuse an editor I do not see has any history of bias regarding you of "attacking" you. Surely you will agree that this should be looked at closely and appropriate action taken.
As for your comment about the RCC article, my Khrushchev research showed me conclusively that in the Soviet Union, there were many civil and constructive debates, once the dissidents had been exiled to Siberia.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, StormRider is Xandar's favourite meatpuppet. I've lost count of the number of times Xandar has found himself in a hot spot, and called on StormRider for assistance; and every time StormRider loyally rides to the fray, strongly supports whatever Xandar says (apparently without bothering to find out what he is supporting), and throws out just as many insults as he can. Read this. Hesperian 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been watching these behaviors for several years now and am well aware of the extent and the players (although finding all the pieces is no fun); the only shocking thing in this entire matter is that the arbs rejected the case. But they similarly allowed other disruption from another editor to go on far too long, and the lesson learned is that the community has to get on board and do the job ourselves. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian, I can't find what you want me to read on that page; could you please check the link? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link fixed now. Hesperian 00:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, got it. Perhaps Storm Rider can emulate the example of our Master more equally henceforth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt, I know you're upset that Mattisse can't defend herself after years of disruption, but this is Wiki, and no one has a right to disrupt, and now Nancy and Xandar are blocked, but I asked you three times yesterday to engage in good faith discussion with me, and you were only sarcastic and wiki-lawyerish, making insinuations (which you appeared to believe) and not answering questions. You need to stop wiki-lawyering this thing, and step back from this; you haven't shown any neutrality here, you've stirred the pot, and you don't know the history as others do. You're also creating distractions. If you have problems with my involvement, by all means bring them to SV's attention; so far, it looks like she will handle things more neutrally and diplomatically than anyone else has. I think it's pretty clear that *years* of playing nice with Nancy got nowhere, and if you want to see sarcasm, look at your own talk page and the pots you've been stirring on this page. I was painstakingly kind to Nancy for years; as far as I can remember, she has never returned the kindness, and I've never worked as hard to keep FACs on track as I did hers, including constant rethreading, moving to talk, teaching her to set up archives, locate diffs, thread her responses correctly, encouraging her, and on and on. It appears that some people only respond to blocks, but I am encouraged that SV is making progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see what Mattisse has to do with the situation, and I believe you asked another editor on your talk page to not believe that they know what your state of mind is. The rest, I'm afraid, I'm failing to understand, except as a vague sense that you trying to impute motives and motivations, but saying it, Sandy, don't make it so, especially on Wikipedia. You've made a serious accusation against another user. I'm asking you to back it up.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stop the circular reasoning and insinuation; it's tiring already. As I told you yesterday, I'm not playing. You were the one who brought up the Soviet Union, and Nancy and Xandar have been able to participate all along, with editors even checking in with them on talk and conveying their concerns to article talk, so I can only guess you are referring to your long friendship with Mattisse. I'm not playing your wiki-lawyer game; I left you good faith questions on your talk, and only got back sarcasm. Cut it out. We have an article that has been mired in tendentious editing for years, something finally being done, and you going in circles here with questions that aren't even clear. Take it elsewhere (like my post to your talk which only got a sarcastic response). We've got work to do here, and I haven't noticed you helping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, saying it don't make it so, Sandy. I have never intervened as an admin regarding Mattisse, and have rarely posted at talk, what Mattisse does has consequences and she must face them. Nought to do with me. If you are referring to the question you left on my talk, I seriously answered it and others can judge for themselves, I rarely delete from talk so long as the other person is civil. I'd be grateful for an answer to my question now. As well as the one I asked you yesterday, when you declined to reconcile your own accusation of NancyHeise for off-Wiki coordination with your resentment that she had accused you of the same thing. Please avoid personalities and accusations in your response. I'll await your reply.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For about the fourth time, answering again, I never said what you claim I said, so I don't know what else to do about you extending something to include words I didn't type. YOU on the other hand appeared to be quite vested in the rumors that were going around, so perhaps you know something I don't. Take it elsewhere-- final response on your tedious repetitious question that has already been answered several times. If you have a point, other than that you were in on some rumor and believed it, make it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, what did you mean? Your statement is above, I believe, and referred to other channels. If those channels were on wiki, I'd be grateful for the diffs. I am not vested in anything. I asked you about those rumors that you engaged in off Wiki canvassing and got people to stir things up when you were unsatisfied as to the way a FAC was moving, over a year ago in the series of emails that we had. You assured me you did not engage in off wiki canvassing and I've taken you at your word. And Sandy, it is not for you to say who should or should not participate in any debate on Wiki. Do you have some authority of which I'm unaware that causes you to define who should and should not participae in discussions?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
oh, now the rumors were about me? Lovely, that too, huh? Wehwalt, you seem to be trying to create a distraction. ALL of the statements about me were and are on Wiki. Your evasive circles here seem to be headed somewhere, and as I told you, I'm not playing your game. And I have no idea what FAC you're referring to of a year ago: you're welcome to re-send whatever e-mail you sent. FAC business is kept on Wiki, and the rumors about Xandar's block were not only untrue, they were disgusting, and you seem to know something about them or their origin. It appears that you want to damage FAC here; why is that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would really help if all this could be relegated to the past. Harmonious editing continues on the article for now; people are making compromises and reaching agreements, which is great. It would help a lot if that could be everyone's focus. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@SG: As I told you in December 2008, I did here rumors about you engaging in off Wiki coordination. You assured me it was not the fact and I never saw anything that looked suspicious (I was not looking, but as a lawyer, if I had seen anything I considered suspicious, I would have mentally raised a red flag). I have not heard anything since then from other users on this topic and do not personally believe it.
@SV: I think the proof of the pudding will be when the blocks expire. (back to SG) But, Sandy, I would esteem it as a personal favor if you would use the preview button a bit more when you discuss other editors.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying-- I will review old e-mail to refresh my memory, but since FAC is clean, no wonder I don't remember that-- probably didn't get stored in memory banks. Preview doesn't help: I don't see the typos et al until they're on the screen. I'll try harder :) Now let's end this, OK, 'cuz it's not helping the issue? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. And SV agrees with you that there has been an improvement at RCC. Issue resolved.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over the inquisitions

[edit]

Between 00:59 March 12 and 23:50 March 16 (five days), one instance of edit warring, and 440 edits by 16 IPs, 2 bots, and 27 different editors to the article; 294 edits by 2 IPs, 2 bots, and 26 different editors to talk; harmonious discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about long-term edit patterns on this article, so I asked the toolserver folks to show the top 10 editors per week for the past 10 weeks. http://toolserver.org/~mauro742/DBQ/DBQ-88.txt --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]
  • The end sections of this page is looking worse then my 6 yo and 2 yo. Hey dad so and so called me a name, can you punish them? Hey so and so isn't being nice they have to be a sock puppet. I am wondering how long until I get accussed of being a sock puppet, or some other thing because I may disagree with the current climate. Marauder40 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment is helpful how? When the battleground, edit warring, canvassing and other misbehaviors stop, there will be no need to deal with them via ANI, as recommended by ArbCom. Meanwhile, dispute resolution steps go on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because I am hoping some people will see how childish their behavior has become. Stop the attacks and get a thicker skin. It is understandable that there is going to be anger, sometimes you have to take some of it to get resolution. Things start by not posting every single name someone may call you or read things into what people say or not say. It was suggested that I write up some people. Sorry but that is not in my personality I am not the type of person that talks about the splinter in other people's eye while ignoring the plank in my own. Let Xandar and his friends spill some anger on their page(s). They need to work it out. Both "sides" are in error in this entire situation and need to work together. Marauder40 (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marauder, you're welcome to point out any policy violations that you see from all sides here, so behaviors can be addressed. I've noted all that I've seen, from all sides, although I generally am seeing them from less than a handful of editors. ArbCom asked admins to get involved before they accept an arb case, but if issues don't subside, this will end up back at ARbCom; they asked that admins get involved, this is how that is accomplished. It's not about a "thick skin" or not; it's about ending the battleground on the article so the article can improve and editors can edit in peace so the article can advance according to policy and behavioral guidelines and with a minimum of disruption. Yes, tempers flare sometimes ... I reported edit warring here two days ago, but the editors had all settled down and come to their senses before any admin saw it. But at the rate some parties are going, we may need more admins for enforcement, lest Sarek wear out !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, AGF issues are a big part of what brought this mess to where it is today, and a big part of the ongoing problem, where some editors simply won't take policy on board, yet accuse others of such-and-so that has never happened, creating a battleground on the article. And the parties who fail to AGF haven't acknowledged their role. Ending the failure to AGF, yes, is in my opinion one of the first things needed before the environment will improve, and if you follow ArbCom cases, you know it will most assuredly be a factor in their decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It honestly isn't worth it, you are acting like you are an admin and can't see how the attitude you are taking contributes to the battleground environment. From the way you talk IMHO it sounds like you are in this to win, not to create a FA. You wonder why people are staying away from the page. Marauder40 (talk) 20:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marauder, FA status or not has nothing to do with anything: the article is mired in a battleground, and not even remotely close to FA status. Fixing the article is the concern, not whether it ever approaches FAC again. How do you see I am acting like an admin? The only difference between an admin and any other editor is they can use tools to block, protect, etc. And, as long as I'm the one helping deal with behavioral issues, others can edit in peace-- which they are doing in huge and successful numbers. I'm not interested in catching up on all of the content and sourcing issues (for one thing, until recently, the article was a nightmare to read); I am interested in helping create an environment so that good faith editors can work and disruptive editors can be shown the door. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, the problem is that you have set yourself as judge to determine who is a "good faith" editor and who is a "disruptive" editor. Thus, you completely abdicate the position of "AGF" and take on the role of judge, something you have proved completely incapable of doing. You do not see your own subjectivity. All of us need to be careful when we jump to conclusions about what type of editor everyone else is. None of us is capable of being the only judge for a page. The environment has become so toxic that I almost think all editors of the last two months should be banned from the topic for six months, which would allow a totally new set of editors to come in and edit the article without any of this rancorous history. --StormRider 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following up on something Sandy said to me, is there a reason that I should not take your concerns (I dislike using the word "attacks") too seriously?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason that I'm still unable to understand, basic policy issues of How Wiki Works are lacking on Catholic Church editing and discussions. Storm, do you understand the role of admins? I am not setting myself up to judge anything: I am keeping track of issues here, where admins ultimately decide on them, and if issues don't subside, ArbCom will be the final arbiter. I'm only reporting issues as I see them. The environment now is far less toxic than it has been for two years: I suppose one's perception differs according to one's point of view, but I see now the article advancing in relative talk page harmony. It would be unfair to ban all editors from the last two months for six months, when most of them have done nothing wrong: the behavioral issues (at least to my knowledge) have been confined to less than a handful of editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a matter of perspective and that is the problem. Removing the opposing force is a poor solution because all that is left is are like minds. That is not consensus, but rather a unilateral action. It also does not begin to qualify as collegial editing because everyone is of like mind. For me and other editors that have participated in the past, the current environment is too toxic to begin editing. Those of us that have an opposing view to the current editors are not welcomed or encouraged to participate.
  • I tried to emphasize that I "ALMOST" think all editors should be banned from the topic. The benefit is that neither side gets to run roughshod on the article and all pay a price equally. What we have had to date is only one side being excluded from participation and then a lot of cheerleading about how congenial the resulting editing has been. There is no opposition meaning there can be no consensus because no one disagrees with the direction. York is the last editor that tried to stay around whereas the rest of us have simply treated the article as if we were persona non gratae. Regardless, it would be interesting to see what would happen if all recent editors were banned making future editing completely free of the bad feelings that currently exist, no agendas, just a totally new group editing the article. --StormRider 23:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an interesting thought experiment, but by no process at any time for any reason do we ban editors from an article when they have violated no behavioral or policy guidelines. The environment for numerous experienced FA writers on the article was so toxic for so long that they all refused to engage: that is now being dealt with, admins are watching, and no one has been made in any way to feel unwelcome, unless they just don't want to behave and fear being blocked. And at no time has anyone been left out, as Karanacs has conscientously kept Nancy and Xandar informed of article progress, and Xandar's proposal is now on talk, being civilly and rationally discussed. Also, no "opposing force" was removed, and thinking of editors in such terms is divisive. Editors who violated behavioral guidelines were blocked; that was of their own doing, nothing to do with "opposing" forces or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an editor never edit wars, never fails to assume good faith, never has a battleground mentality, never misbehaves and never attacks: If that editor purports to be the victim of edit warring, believes others are failing to assume good faith in matters in which the editor is involved, believes others have a battleground mentality in matters in which the editor is involved, believes the editor, the editor's associates, and the editor's activities are repeatedly being attacked, then I guess karma is utterly dead as a concept and there is a close resemblance to that guy (was it in Andy Capp?) who went around with a rainstorm perpetually centered over him! Alternative explanations may be available.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said how many people are staying away, I just know several are. It's not like I can supply a reference for the number of people that are. But I have seen several people saying they aren't going here because it is toxic or something else to that effect. Just because there are more edits doesn't mean they are the correct edits. Marauder40 (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the edit history and there are not a new influx of editors unless you count the number of reverts. Which new editors were you talking about Sarek? >StormRider 21:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It felt like there were more involved, but looking at the edit history in more detail, I'm not sure that was the case. http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&page=Catholic+Church&since=2010-03-01&until=2010-03-28&grouped=on&hideanons=on&order=-edit_count&max=30&order=-edit_count&format=html
I've said before that it will take more than three months, and sustained stability, to entice editors back after the last two years of battleground and misunderstanding and misapplication of Wiki policies and guidelines, and directed attacks on good faith editors who tried to engage. Some of the battleground issues haven't subsided, and we still don't see the most important work (a survey of the literature) being undertaken, with statements about what to include in the article based on opinion rather than sources, and continued IDidntHearThat on several talk pages. Storm mentions that he can't name the editors who are staying away now: to see the enormous number of experienced editors who gave up in the past, one only needs to take the hours to review the past FACs and talk pages of FA writers and reviewers involved. The way forward on this article (correct sourcing, elimination of battleground, understanding of consensus and Wiki policy) has still not fully taken hold, although there has been progress in reduction of edit warring and talk page collaboration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church RfC

[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church has opened to decide which of several versions of the article has consensus, and how best to develop it. Input is welcome. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 00:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Catholic_Church_straw_poll&oldid=1136116395"