User talk:Cla68/Sandbox/RfC draft

Oh.

This is not a good idea. What are you hoping to achieve? -- Naerii 10:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that a lot of her edit summaries are deliberately misleading; labelling an edit as "minor tweaks" whilst removing references and things of that kind - I'll look into it later. -- Naerii 10:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naerii, start investigating the diffs that I'm posting in the "attempts at dispute resolution" and you'll see why this RfC is appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 13:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the crum375 tage team editing/ 3rr get arounds going to be brought into this? That has come up several times. Viridae ^Talk 10:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm keeping the subject of this RfC focused on one editor. Looking at the reasons that various editors have complained to her on her userpage, I'm honestly stunned by the amount of problematic edits involved with this particular editor. It's going to take awhile to post them all. Cla68 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the comment...I think it's reasonable that evidence will probably show collusion with other editors like Crum375 to skirt the 3RR policy in order to try to win content disputes. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About your objectives

If you wish to vent your anger at SlimVirgin, you are on a fine path for doing just that. If you wish to affect community opinion, you need to run this stuff by a non-angry person, have it more tightly focused on current misbehaviors, and have it written with more NPOV terminology. If you wish remedies to be enacted, you absolutely must send private emails to people on the arblist(s) to see what evidence would make a difference (it is my opinion, based on SlimVirgin's on-wikipedia behavior since late last year, that the powers that be are dealing with her privately). SlimVirgin is a lot like Wikipedia, useful and getting better (along with some glaring flaws). WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good advice. Thank you. Cla68 (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Long time editors that are more asset than liability, but are still problematic; are an issue that is poorly dealt with by wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Status

I really meant to launch into adding more evidence to this thing starting today, but I apparently ate some bad tuna yesterday, the results of which I wouldn't wish on anyone. As soon as I'm feeling better I'll be back at it. Cheers. Cla68 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, things are moving along now. Cla68 (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About time.

Thanks Cla68. You'll have my full support. --Scarfullery (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The involvement of people who have been here for less than a month is not going to help Cla's case. -- Naerii 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. --Scarfullery (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For this only, Slimvirgin should be banned forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarfullery (talk • contribs) 20:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

For the moves and deletes item in Admin abuse. She copied the thread to a wikiproject page [1] prior to deleting it. Then she edit warred a bit with Viriditas about whether moving it was right... as admins can see from the deleted history. So I'd describe this as using her admin tools to win a dispute about where to have a discussion. GRBerry 01:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the insight on that, I'll change the wording. Cla68 (talk) 04:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment

I have added my opinion of the RfC as an outside comment. Should you make the (I think deeply ill-advised) decision to go forward with this RfC, I would appreciate it if you'd be so kind as to just transplant my outside comment as well. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input, but I'm not sure if I'm comfortable transplanting your outside comment as well, because this RfC could radically change before it is posted. I'll leave you a note once it is posted and you can readd your comment if you like at that time. Cla68 (talk) 04:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment will remain true for any general conduct RfC against SlimVirgin. Phil Sandifer (talk) 04:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Phil, but I think, perhaps because you keep yourself so busy writing quality articles, that you don't understand just how many problems I'm finding as I review the remote corners of this project's history. Like I said, once this RfC is posted I'll notify you and you can post your comment then. Cla68 (talk) 06:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my comment, it is not based on an assessment of the evidence, but rather on an assessment of the probable effects of using the RfC process for this particular case. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One probable effect being, presumably, users blindly adding opposition to the RFC before the RFC is even filed, and without taking into account any of its substance. Neıl ☎ 14:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I think one effect of RfCing this particular user is that the substance of one's complaint is essentially irrelevant. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant? Gee Phil, you know it's not irrelevant.--Scarfullery (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think few people are going to base their participation in this RfC on consideration of the evidence. There are not a lot of people with open minds on this issue. I mean, what, exactly, do you envision happening as a result of this RfC? Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-Reset indent.<- As an observer, I can't yet see what good this might accomplish. It will generate a massive amount of smoke and heat, that is certain. The benefits aren't clear. There was a real chance of Guy moderating his behavior, as the fundamental problems there were readily identifiable and a community consensus had a fair chance of forming. The problems here seem less clear, more a matter of individual opinion, and ultimately unlikely to produce a community consensus. While I can see possible benefits to the project, I think it highly unlikely that any of them would be realized. So I don't know. But the work to produce a draft might change my opinion, so I'm watching. GRBerry 15:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much drama, with an unclear outcome. On the other hand, it is in general a bad idea to give a pass to disruptive behavior just because you think complaining might kick up a fuss, so I'm still unsure as to the merits of this particular course of action. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it straight to the arbcom. They, at least, can do something. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want to get too heavily into potential purposes while it's still being drafted, but I will say that direct action isn't the only potential benefit. One of the major problems over time has been the effect of various types of pronouncements from SV, without any evaluation of her own actions as an editor. Cla68 saw this in particular in his RfA, running unopposed until SV decided to intervene. I've seen this myself in a number of different ways, as have others. Without going further, I think more open discussion of these situations may be an improved way of dealing with them. Mackan79 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then consider mediation with SlimVirgin. I do not see mass community input as being helpful here. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation is designed for dealing with content disputes, not editor actions. If people do think this is a good idea, this is the correct process to use. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that such an RFC is wrong without regard to its content or the facts of the case is about as strong an expression of blind naked cliqueism as I've ever seen. *Dan T.* (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Whether a RFC or a mediation, people who don't want to question the moral perversion that is destroying Wikipedia will always argue that such methods don't have any "merits". --Scarfullery (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between this and the JzG RfC are inevitable and appropriate. The situations involving both editors are different, though. JzG was obviously directly incivil with his use of bad language to personally attack other editors and wrong with his screwing around with the admin tools for no good reason. With SlimVirgin, it's somewhat different. Her personal attacks don't use curse words, but, in my opinion, they're worse. Her remarks directed at other individuals are more intelligently crafted to be more subtlely cutting, hectoring, and scornful, designed in a way to not only enrage the recipient of them, but to create in the recipients a sense of futility and frustration with the obvious goal of persuading them to give up and leave her alone to do whatever it is she's trying to do. JzG could argue that his attacks were on editors that were trolling the project. In some cases, that was true. SV's attacks, on the other hand, are on some of our best editors, the ones who spend lots of time taking articles to Featured status, or who otherwise work really hard on crafting complete, sourced, NPOV articles. I've been told that she has driven some of these editors away, and that's truly a shame, and completely unacceptable.

Also, JzG didn't appear to be pushing much POV. That's not the case with SV. As I post evidence it's becoming obvious that SV is trying to push an animal rights POV throughout the project, using personal attacks, abuse of admin tools or move/redirect functions, tag teaming or combining with other editors, especially Crum375, and sometimes abusing content dispute resolution forums to do so. Even as this RfC is being drafted, she just posted a large "criticism" section over at the Zoo article, steamrolling over several objections from editors on the talk page, and deleting some of the cited text that had favorable comments about zoos. I'm going to emphasize this POV pushing in the RfC, perhaps with its own section. So, as this draft progresses, I think the purpose and desired outcome of this RfC should become clearer and I appreciate everyone's interest in achieving something of value for the project with this effort. Cla68 (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wrong diff, and my opinion

The diff given for my name listing people who tried to resolve the dispute is wrong. In that case Slimvirgin sided with an anon in removing info, then disappeared. I don't think that's problematic behavior per se, and I made no effort at that time to get her to change her overall behavior. I was perhaps disappointed but would not say she violated policy or abused her admin powers in this case.

There was another case involving the eXile page, much earlier, where she did get involved in a content dispute while constantly threating blocks, talked down to good-faith editors, accused multiple editors of being the subjects of articles without evidence, changed the relevant policy pages to use the specific case she was arguing as an example, etc. etc.

In the end we got a advice from the third opinion page, which chastised us both and advised us to cool off, though I still haven't come back to reinsert the removed content for lack of time for the argument it would cause. In that case I would also feel more comfortable having my name listed as a failed attempt to resolve the dispute, as her overall behavior was also discussed; however she did acknowledge some overreaction on her part. That case may be useful as primary evidence as well.

I think it would be good if the community could firmly insist she change her behavior, though I have to mirror the concerns of others that this will produce little result for the cost time an energy. Dsol (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I missed something, but...

Shouldn't the articles on Pierre Salinger and the doomed Pan Am Flight 103 be included here, as a part of SlimV's recurrent violation of WP:NOPV and WP:OWN, among other policies? --Scarfullery (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out, this RfC still has a long way to go before it's ready. Cla68 (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After posting this, Scarfullery was banned by Jpgordon. So was Caravato, who denounced Jpgordon's abuse of his admininship powers. This situation simply can't continue. I know I'll be banned too, but I don't care. SlimVirgin and her claque must be expelled from Wikipedia; they are corrupting this project. As simple as that. I ask all Wikipedians to support Cla68's actions. Don't let them intimidate you. BE BOLD!!! --MitziCooper (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is a claque different from a clique? Is there any such thing as a cluque, a cloque, or a cleque? *Dan T.* (talk) 01:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clique or claque, both terms work. --MitziCooper (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this going?

Hi Cla, can you fill me in on your near-term intentions for this page? It is almost one month old and you are the sole contributor bar 4-6 edits. Will you be filing this RFC in the near future, or do you plan to collect evidence on an ongoing basis?

We can both easily find and quote policy and precedent. Perhaps a good solution would be for you to withdraw this onto your own local disk storage until you are ready to present the RFC, it doesn't seem as though its presence on-wiki serves a collaborative purpose. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. A few editors have contributed since I started it, but perhaps I should take it to my PC until it's ready to post. If anyone would like to provide more evidence, they can post it on my user talk page. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, it's probably best not to stoke the stove until you're ready to throw in the lobsters :) What's the right procedure here, blank the pages, add a db-auth tag, MfD? I'm not sure here, I'm just pursuing a principle. Regards. Franamax (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't planning on requesting admin deletion of the page right now, because before I post it I'm going to repost it here and ask openly for anyone, including the subject of the RfC, to review it to check if they think it is fair or not before I officially post it. Instead, I'm just going to blank the page. Cla68 (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cla, I think that's the decent thing to do. Hopefully you'll get this resolved soon and either bring it forward or leave it behind and look to the future. My experience in life has always been that the best revenge is living well. Of course, your mileage may vary :) Cheers! Franamax (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge, what revenge? Did you look at the RfC before I blanked it? The vast majority of those diffs were violations of policy against editors other than myself. One of the editors left the project in large part because of the abuse he received from the subject of the RfC. This is not about revenge, it's about trying to correct an ongoing problem. POV-pushing is a problem. Owning policy pages is a problem. Lying and misuse of admin privileges is a problem. As you're aware, we, as editors govern Wikipedia and enforce the rules ourselves, so it is our responsibility to correct problems that we see, not let our policies be flaunted and some of our faithful editors be insulted and abused. Cla68 (talk) 10:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read an earlier version of the page and I didn't mean revenge as in getting back for a personal wrong done to you, I meant revenge as in wishing to see redress for general injustices done in the past. Maybe that wasn't the best wording, I was focussing on the "living well" part. Like some others here, I'm not of the opinion that this RFC will produce a desirable outcome, but of course you have to pursue the course you believe in.

BTW where you have a "diff missing", this is as good as you'll get, as it seems the original page has been deleted. Franamax (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've discovered some things about the subject of this proposed RfC recently that I didn't know before and I understand better now why there are such mixed feelings by many in the community about doing something about this editor's behavior. Of course, the purpose of this RfC is to correct a problem, not necessarily to push someone out of participating in the project. If the problem corrects itself, then there wouldn't be any need to eventually post this RfC. From what I've seen recently, there may still be some POV-pushing occurring involving the editor in question. Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

I put this RfC on hold for awhile hoping that the behavioral issues had stopped. Unfortunately, however, the POV-pushing still seems to be going on [2] [3]. Thus, I'm resuming work on it. Cla68 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to do what you have to do, but I'm not exactly seeing it. The first link you give, I'm not sure where the slant is being introduced, it reads as a pretty tame slice-and-dice, plus the addition of a ref to a .gov site. I guess I'm missing something, I'd call it as a neutral edit. The second link, unless I'm really missing something obvious, is 55 weeks old. What have I missed here? Regards! Franamax (talk) 07:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you look at the RfC, you'll see that it's a common pattern used by this editor when in engaged in a content dispute to try to push through significant content changes that will likely be opposed by other editors by using an inoccuous edit summary. I think you're an experienced enough editor to know that removing cited material from an article in which an active content dispute is ongoing is likely to be challenged. The second link was mislinked, it should have linked to a discussion lower on the talk page. If you read those discussions lower on the talk page, you can see that the editor in question here is actively trying to remove various bits of material, even though cited, while the other editor is trying to keep it.

So, why don't I go over to Global warming and remove cited material while leaving an edit summary of "just tidying". What do think is going to happen? Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not very fair

Hi, I'm sorry, but you haven't looked carefully enough, whether each drastic action is justified or not. If you want to achieve anything with this other than just fighting, at least be very careful with the evidence. What is the following supposed to show?

3RR's cited material from Animal rights [4] [5] [6], then, after the cited material is readded, Jayjg protects the page [7], then reverts it to SlimVirgin's version [8].}}

The "cited material" is a Reductio ad Hitlerum in the beginning of a section supposedly about the "History of the modern movement". True, maybe Nazi animal right laws should be somewhere there, but in the section lead??? The actions here are clearly justified. I suggest removing this, if you want this RfC to have any credibility.

And sorry for being rude, but with evidence-mining like that without looking into the actual disputes, you are not helping the encyclopaedia. This RfC will fail to identify any behavioural problems and will not help SV understand what is wrong. If you will file this, then please take the advice of WAS 4.250. The real problem with Wikipedia is that people are so f***** combative, but I'm not sure if you are making things better or worse with this RfC. Merzul (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC is in draft form and helpful input such as yours is very appreciated. The JzG RfC changed drastically between its initial draft and what was actually posted. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I overreact, but there are right now two RfArb involving editors I deeply respect, including you! I hope I can take a wikibreak until these matters are resolved. Merzul (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. Cla68 (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the diffs you mentioned down to the "further investigation" section. Cla68 (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less is more!

I will say one more thing before I take a WikiBreak until this is all over... I'm commenting on this as an RfC, while ignoring everything else going on. But for the purpose of this RfC, don't forget that sometimes less is more. The "Statement of the dispute" is

SlimVirgin is a dedicated administrator and editor who often does some very good work in helping to improve and administer Wikipedia. Unfortunately, however, she also consistently behaves in a manner — both as an editor and as an admin — which clearly and repeatedly violates several policies and guidelines and are inappropriate and counterproductive for constructing an open content encyclopedia. Below are some examples of SlimVirgin's problematic behavior.

In the section about "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute", I would be more impressed to find links relevant to the given dispute statement, not a list of famous Wikipedians, who have disagreed with her. Some of those things could be moved to evidence of people questioning her judgement, but very few of the comments there are of the form saying "Look, you're doing good work, but can we discuss your talk page attitude..." Of the few diffs I looked at this is probably the closest to the kind of comment that I would expect there. I'm saying this because people are going to question your motives, so finding a large list of random disagreements listed there instead of a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute is not helping the neutral observer making up his mind.

On the other hand, taking into account what else is happening, you will probably need to rephrase this as all as /evidence now. But I think a great predictor of who is sanctioned after an arbitration is to just click on a few of the diffs they present as evidence and see how much the diff backs up what the user states it should back up. In your case, many of the diffs do back up your claims, so don't worry too much; but more important than that, I feel you have a moral obligation to not misrepresent evidence and attempt to take down otherwise well-meaning editors. Considering what happened at your adminship nomination, you of all people should know the damage when people throw unsubstantiated accusations around! Be careful to not commit the same mistakes as you are trying to rectify here.

I hope you take this as fair criticism, and don't think that I'm siding against you. After this comment, I will stay away. I'm getting married in real life, so now is a perfect time for me to stay away from the Wiki. :)

Best wishes to everyone involved, Merzul (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your opinion. As with the JzG RfC, any and all perhaps relevant diffs are posted, then reviewed and many are discarded, and that probably includes editors in the "editors who tried to resolve" list. In fact, after I and others have a chance to sanity check the evidence in this RfC, as with JzG's, I was planning on giving the subject of this RfC herself a chance to review it and say if there's anything here that she thinks is unfair before it is posted.

Congratulations on your marriage. Cla68 (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up

I note that in the section on personal attacks, you have SlimVirgin accusing some editors of trolling, while telling others that it is a personal attack to call someone a troll. Here are some excerpts from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2, where SlimVirgin is cautioned for making these remarks: You are a poisonous troll.[9] You are a toxic troll.[10] The case was closed in February 2005.

User:SlimVirgin's personal attacks

5) User:SlimVirgin has made personal attacks in the course of the debates with Herschelkrustofsky/Weed Harper/C Colden. [11] [12]

Passed 6-1.

Caution to SlimVirgin on personal attacks

6) User:SlimVirgin is cautioned not to make personal attacks, even under severe perceived provocation.

Passed 5-1-1.

Thank you. I'll add these diffs. Cla68 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The significant thing here is that she was warned by ArbCom in 2005 not to make any more personal attacks, which, judging by the evidence in this draft, she did not heed. Cla68 (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Note to any interested parties, an ArbCom case related to this RfC has been opened here. Cla68 (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.