Closed by agreement of RFC-initiators. [1]
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this administrator's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.
This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.
User:Slrubenstein should acknowledge that:
Further, User:Slrubenstein should
User:Mathsci, blocked 17 October 2008 on an "attempted outing" issue by User:Charles Matthews, was unblocked by User:Slrubenstein without any attempt to contact User:Charles Matthews onwiki or by email before so doing, and before 8 hours had elapsed. Subsequent discussion has not resolved the issue between the two administrators, despite informal mediation by User:Jehochman on talk pages.
Here are the major replies I received, in discussion also with User:Jehochman, in order:
At no point has User:Slrubenstein contacted me to discuss this further or tried resolve it, offline.
Charles Matthews (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Slrubenstein says he/she doesn't know what #5 means. It means that under WP:HARASS no one should speculate as to whether the real-life identity in the frame does correspond to the editor: it only makes the previous situation worse. Since Slrubenstein did exactly speculate in notifying me of the unblock, throwing out all sorts of random comments, this point was appropriately included. The lack of meeting of minds here is very clear, despite numerous red herrings thrown out. User:Slrubenstein apparently isn't signed up to WP:WHEEL, and hasn't construed the simple meaning of WP:HARASS. That's the point here. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last I shall add here: we now have comments from User:Mervyn Emrys, and overflow discussion from my point of view is on the talk page. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
This is a summary written by the sysop whose actions are disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the sysop's actions did not violate policy. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
I am accused of several things. First, my concise replies, then my side of the story.
Now, my view of events:
What is at stake: Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit at anytime. This is the core philosophy of Wikipedia. A block runs against the very core of the project. Yes, sometimes blocks are unnecessary: you out someone and harass them, you should be banned. you are a troll, you should be baned. And blocks, well, they are not punative, they are a form of resolving disputes; if you need to cool off, you can be blocked for a spell. I am all for blocking when merited. But if the block is unmerited, it ought to be reversed immediately. Admins are not gods, they are as imperfect as any other editor and make mistakes. Admins have the power to block and should use this power with caution, but blocking is such a terrible thing. If the admin's block explanation, the evidence provided, and policy do not support a block, it should be undone immediately. As long as someone is involved in a conflict that can be resolved without blocking, and has not committed vandalism, and has not made racist comments or displayed a pattern of trollish behavior, or is harassing anothe editor, in most cases the block should be undone immediately. (I grant there are exceptions where the block must not be lifted, but this case was not one of them). This is one of the most important things any admin can do. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit at any time.
Reply to BirgitteSB I agree in principle that an unblocking admin should contact the blocking admin first. If there is any doubt about the appeal, i would definitely wait to har from the blocking admin. But if I feel that the evidence provided does not support a block and cannot see any immediate harm done by unblocking, i think that the values of the open community, in which all can edit, are overriding.
MathSci was blocked unfairly As we know, blocks are meant to help resolve conflicts and not be punitive. In this case, it was clear to me that MathSci had been blocked unfairly. Charles alluded to past behavior, which I will address in a moment, but his block notice was capricious and inadequate: [9]. The example of outing he provides needs to be viewed in in context: MathSci was responding to Hans Adler's comment accusing Mervyn of a conflict of interest [10]. In context - MathSci is clearly NOT agreeing that there is a conflict of interest, and does not believe that Hans' comment is good cause to exclude the material; he is AGFing Mervin and making it plain that he sees only a copyright issue that, once resolved, can lead to the inclusion of the material. As for outing, If anyone is doing that, and I am not sure anyone is, it was Hans Adler in making the accusation of a conlict of interest. This accusation implicitly connected autobiographical information on Mervyn Emrys's user page with information about the author of the source being quoted in the article - information of the sort found at Amazon.com, or in the public domain (i.e. information that is often provided when discussing the notability or reliability of sources). But MathSci did not do this. I am not challenging Adler, it seems to me that Mervyn did that himself when he wrote on his user page, "cannot quote their own scholarly writings even briefly or they are alleged to have a conflict of interest" - clearly a complaint about Hans Adler's concern (conflict of interest), not MathSci's concern (reliable source). These are the salient facts and they simply do not justify the block. MathSci neither outed nor harassed another user.
Let me emphasize that MathSci was blocked for one week. Had he been blocked indefinitely (appropriate to someone who outs and harasses another user) I would have responded differently. But Charles did not feel it merited an indef. block - because the evidence didn't support it; in my view it did not support even a one week block. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The basic conflict between editors involved copyright issues and blocking MathSci did nothing to help resolve that conflict. In my view MathSci was attempting to handle the dispute constructively e.g. [11] It is clear that some people have deeply wounded feelings, still. But dispute resolution is not about egos and feelings, it is about figuring out the proper edit given our policies. MathSci was addressing questions over copyright and reliable sources and was seeking a way to accomodate a new editor, and he did so in a civil way.
The conflict between editors could be and was in fact resolved without blocking, as is preferred. The editor in question certainly was upset with MathSci but the conflict between them had not in my opinion reached the point where a block was necessary to resolve the conflict. And I was right. Over the next couple of days I, FT2, and Elonka communicated with both parties, MathSci apologized for the misunderstanding, and that put an end to the conflict. Specifically, I left two very encouraging messages for Mervyn Emris [12] and [13], and a very harsh message for MathSci: [14]. I will not provide the edit differences for Elonka's or FT2's extensive and constructive mentoring and mediation but the point is: there are effective ways to deal with conflicts besides blocks. Quite effective. In fact, given that the original conflict has long since been resolved, this RfC seems to me to be superfluous.
Since the actual conflict between editors did not require a block for resolution, and the editors have resolved the conflict, the only interpretation I can reach here is that Charles Matthews made a mistake in blocking MathSci and is upset that I called him on it.
I made it clear to Charles Matthews I respected him and he should not take my reversal personally. In fact, Wikipedia admins need to be very prudent in their use of powers. I believe we should block only when necessary. The key to WHEEL is this: "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it." Certainly, WHEEL does not prohibit admins from disagreeing with one another. In fact, given the Wiki nature of our little Open Society, disagreements among admins is as healthy as disagreements among editors. Our blocking policy states, "When a user requests unblock, an uninvolved administrator acting independently may review the block log, their edits and other relevant evidence, and additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted, or not, or any conditions for unblocking." MatchSci used the appropriate mechanism to appeal, I reviewed the evidence, and accepted the unblock request. At that time I left a message on Charles's talk page informing him and explaining my action.[15], [16] - these were good faith efforts to ameliorate any ill-fellings on his part. I think when people act in an official capactiy they should not take things personally, but Charles seems personally wounded.
WHEEL warring is one thing and should be discouraged; checks and balances on admins that prevent abuses of power is another and should be encouraged Of course we should not let this get out of hand. Just as we have a 3RR for editors, we have a limit on an admin's reversion of another admin. WHEEL makes it quite clear: an admin cannot repeat an action. I unblocked once. I did not repeat the unblock, nor would I have had another admin stepped in and said "SL, you made a mistake." No one did, and I believe that is because I did not make a mistake. As I said: the block was unnecessary; the editors in question resolved their conflict with some good mediation not just by myself but by FT2 and Elonka.
A lack of transparency is at best a red herring and at worst compounds the abuse of power I agree with Jehochman's point that Charles's block was utterly lacking in transparency [17] Later, Charles Matthews suggested that he had secret information that justified the block.[18] Had he stated in the explanation for the block that the block was per Checkuser, or supported by confidential evidence, or a confidential ArbCom finding, I would not have granted the appeal. But Charles Matthews did not add this to the explanation because in fact there was no secret information justifying the block (if there were, I imagine Charles Matthews would have gone by ArbCom by now to ask them to reinstate the block). Jehochman himself pointed out that Charles Matthews did not follow proper procedure, [19]. There was one past case where MathSci did to a degree violate our outing policy, and he apologized for that. The crucial thing: there was no connection between that case and this case; what MathSci did in the matter at hand was entirely different from what he did before.
Let's be out in the open about this "secret" evidence Charles was hiding.
Charles Matthews repeatedly alluded to secret knowlege he knows and I do not know. This is simply his power-trip. If he were serious about Wikipedia propriety he would have added to the summary for the block "this is based on evidence held in confidence, see checkuser or ArbCom." he did not such thing; the point about how much he knows was an ex-post-facto lastditch defense. Here is what he was refering to, and it is no secret: Some time ago in an argument with user:Arcfrk MatchSci suggested that he knew where ArcFrk worked. As the following exchange shows, MatchSci understands what he did was wrong, and repents. More to the point, there is no comparison between the ArcFrk example and the Mervyn Emrys exmaple. They are in-comperable in every way.
The question Charles raises is outing, and I take outing very seriously. When the ArcFrk incident occurred maybe MathSci should have been taken to ArbCom; maybe he should have gotten a stiffer warning. But he wan't, and didn't. And we should not punish Mathsci NOW for what he did THEN. His interactions with Mervyn Emrys bear 'no comparsion to his interactions with ArcFrk. Had MathSci really outed someone he perhaps should have been banned. In fact, MathSci did no such thing: in the case under question, he called attention to a possible copyright violation[21]; another editor suggested that the editor was using copyrighted material the editor himself had written; MathSci said that readers can draw their own conclusions about the editors identity but the issue he was concerned with was copyright violation, and MathSci suggested the editor consult with other editors with more experience concerning copyright issues. MatchSci had a legitimate concern and was attempting to be constructive. In this case, MathSci just did not violate a policy.!!
Admins have to watch out for one another. Message: we are only human!! It is better for one admin to fix another's mistake than risk an abuse of power at Wikipedia's open community. Charles, you made a mistake. We all do and it is not a biggie. Admins have to admit that they can make mistakes as easily as other editors. It is precisely because admins can so easily undo one anothers' mistakes that we mitigate against the abuse of power. I do however think you compounded the mistake by falsely suggesting that you had secret knowledge that justified the unblock after the fact. Wikipedia depends on transparency to prevent the accumulation and abuse of power. Let's all try harder next time to act more transparently. If an admin blocks and makes it clear that s/he has additional information other admins must consider before considering an appeal to unblock I swear I will consult with that admin.
Charles seemed to me to be uninterested in reconciliation and prefered to escalate conflict. if I was wrong, I apologize!! But look a our exchanges: Since that time Charles became increasingly aggressive in demanding I explained myself, and I did. Charles said I did not contact him offline to resolve the conflict between myself and him (apparently the case concerning MathSci was no longer an issue). In fact, Charles never asked me to contact him offline, nor asked me for my e-mail address; his only communication with me was curt and dismissive[22]. I wrote on his talk page a conciliatory message to try to resolve the conflict.[23] I saw no need to go off-line because wikipedia values transparency; I have no problem communicating my views publicly, I think it is important that administrators carry out their business, like editors, in public (were this a checkuser case, or a case involving a confidential ArbCom decision, of course I would have responded quite differently, but it was not). Charles rejected my conciliatory comments and I had a decision to make: escalate a conflict over an issue that was moot, or refrain from escalating a conflict. I chose not to escalate the conflict. Frankly, I think Wikipedia does not need the unnecessary drama and I am sorry that now so long after the fact Charles still wants more drama. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC) {Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.
{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign.}
Users who endorse this summary:
This RFC seems like a major fuss over nothing. Okay, so Slr should have slowed down a bit before pressing the unblock button. Yada yada yada, he's been a naughty boy, let's all spank his behind. That does not change the fact that Charles Matthews blocking Mathsci, a productive and valued contributor, for an entire week under a tenuous charge of "outing" was a major mistake: a quiet word in his ear to be a bit more circumspect would have been perfectly fine: Mathsci is a rational, intelligent guy who respects Wikipedia policy. We should not block such people when they point out potential conflicts of interests in a civil and constructive manner, particularly not in cases when the user in question cannot have been much concerned about protecting his privacy. Reading through the history, it looks like he put a pile of personal information on his userpage and then, with no prompting, edited in such a manner that it was blindingly obvious who he was (citing his own books).
I am not, obviously, suggesting that we all lynch Charles Matthews instead: we all make bad blocks from time to time - that's just a fact of life. But this RFC is a waste of time, particularly when the real misuse of admin tools here was not done by Slr.
Users who endorse this summary:
Being unkind, I would say that this whole affair reminds me of a certain Shakespeare play. Yes, Slrubenstein was a bit prompt in unblocking, pooh-pooh on that. But also, Charles Matthews should have properly documented that there might be more than met the eye in this situation. No need to disclose the existence of private information, but a simple stipulation to contact him before unblocking would probably have quelled any possibility for a misunderstanding, which is exactly how I see this situation: a simple misunderstanding blown out of all reasonable proportions.
I believe something very similar to this exact situation is what makes the Blocking policy now read: If there are any specific recommendations or circumstances that a reviewing administrator would need to know, or which may help to avoid administrator disputes upon review of a block, the blocking administrator is strongly encouraged to note them in the block notice. In this case, it indeed looks like there may have been special circumstances which the reviewing admin did not know, and would have needed to know. Charles Matthews cannot fairly blame this entirely on Slrubenstein; he needs to also acknowledge his part in the misunderstanding.
Also, the relevant part of the harassment policy does have the caveat: unless unintentional and non-malicious. Further developments between Mathsci and the user he allegedly "outed" would seem to prove that the outing was indeed non-malicious (it was indeed based on information publicly available on the wiki and supplied by that user himself), even if it may have been misguided. Therefore, a solid block of a week, on the face of this specific offense is also arguably disproportionate to the real offense.
Lastly, this looks like an overblown reaction to a simple misunderstanding, and taken on its face, comes across as a demand from the plaintiff that none of his blocks should ever be overturned in his absence, which isn't a realistic expectation, and while overturns should be kept to a minimum, this particular overturn was arguably sustained logically. This might have been handled better on both sides, true, but Slrubenstein already apologized for his hastiness. I fail to see what purpose would be served by pursuing this dispute further, except to further waste people's time. Users who endorse this summary:
I am leery of an RfC on admin actions that relies solely on one instance of procedural misconduct. Yes, admins should always consult the blocking admin before unblocking. However the foremost reason for this is so that they may be fully informed of the situation to prevent an error in judgment. Since no one has re-blocked in this case, the judgement to unblock had merit. Which means this RfC is merely a procedural misconduct. I do believe procedural misconduct should merit an RfC unless a pattern of such misconduct is shown, but that is not shown in this case. My other problem with this case is that lack of "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute". All the link given there are to Slrubenstein's edits. Where have the editors who dispute Slrubenstein's actions made an attempt to resolve the issue with him? All and all I don't see enough merit in the presentation of the RfC to take the time to look closely at what happened in this case. If nothing further can be added that negates the issues I pointed out; I expect Slrubenstein to be more careful in the future and to be certain to discuss unblocks with the blocking admin before taking action. Just because his instinct served him well in this case and the unblock has been upheld, it doesn't mean he should feel comfortable about unblocking people without fully reviewing the situation which got them block with the block admin. As for the rest, I don't see what can be accomplished by asking someone to acknowledge their remarks as false. In this case, Slrubenstein's intrpretation of policy in unblocking Mathsci was upheld. Why take pieces of his comments out of the context of the particular situation and outline that he should deny that there is any merit in them? People just do not work that way and the expectations set out at the beginning of the RfC are unrealistic. This RfC overall is presented in way that is more likely to exacerbate the situation than resolve it.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
When Slrubenstein unblocked Mathsci without consulting the blocking admin first, multiple admins, including myself, expressed concerns.[24] Aside from the lack of consultation, which is a violation of WP:BLOCK, Slrubenstein's actions also gave the appearance of using his admin tools in support of an ally. His action was not a random unblock. In fact, a look at Slrubenstein's logs show that he does not usually work in the area of block review at all. In his last two years as an administrator, he has performed only three unblocks,[25] all of which were controversial. The only editor that he's unblocked in 2008 was Mathsci (talk · contribs), an editor with whom Slrubenstein has frequently allied in various editing disputes, especially in controversial race-related articles.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32] Looking further back to 2007, Slrubenstein's only unblocks were of two other controversial editors, Deeceevoice (talk · contribs) and Proabivouac (talk · contribs). In the case of the former, Slrubenstein unblocked even though the block was made in response to an ANI thread. In the case of Proabivouac, Slrubenstein overturned, again without consultation, a block made by FT2 (talk · contribs). As for Slrubenstein's reasoning for the unblock of Mathsci, where Slrubenstein said, "I see no pattern",[33] even a basic look at the history of Mathsci's talkpage would show that Mathsci has previously received multiple warnings for disruption,[34][35][36][37][38] including warnings for harassment, stalking, and outing.[39][40][41][42] A simple look at Mathsci's block log would have shown that Mathsci has been previously blocked for harassment,[43] and a scan of WP:ANI archives and other noticeboards around Wikipedia would have shown multiple complaints.[44][45][46][47] All of which could have been explained to Slrubenstein, if he would have simply contacted the blocking admin and asked a question. Instead, that Slrubenstein still unblocked his ally Mathsci anyway, was at the very least extremely unwise, not to mention a violation of administrator policy. In short, it would appear that Slrubenstein may not have been using his admin tools with the necessary neutrality.
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
This isn't a complete outside view but only addresses a few points since a variety of outside views have made many of the points I would. First, it is a good idea for admins to consult with blockers of all sorts before unblocking. However, failing to do so on a single block, especially a questionable block on a long-time user is not that big a deal. Jehochman's assertion is simply not persuasive. Any blocking admin can put in the block statement an additional request to discuss with them if they think there's any relevant evidence. That didn't occur in this case. Moreover, as a general rule I'd be surprised if even half of our active admins could identify which people have oversight and checkuser. So insisting that the oversighters should be treated differently when they can simply make relevant points in the block log is not persuasive. This is logical and is what is described as proper in WP:BLOCK.
Elonka raises more substantial issues that may need to be addressed. Is Slrubenstein's behavior part of a general problem? Elonka's argument is interesting but ultimately not persuasive. Elonka points out that Slrubenstein has only ever unblocked 3 times. The total number of unblocks is not by itself good evidence since in general unblocks are rare. Nor is the point that all three were controversial unblocks strong evidence. Many, possibly most unblocks are controversial. More worrisome is the argument that all three unblocks occurred with editors who Slrubenstein had worked with for a while. However, in all three cases, Slrubenstein has interacted with the users but not always in a positive fashion. Thus, the claim of a serious bias in that regard is not necessarily present. Moreover, an admin will naturally be more likely to unblock people who they have interacted with before because a) they are more likely to notice the individual's block and b) more likely to have the individual's talk page watchlisted and c) more likely to be emailed by the individual if the individual is attempting to find an admin to review it.
All of that said, three may be a sign of a pattern. I hope that in the future Slrubenstein does make an attempt to discuss any unblocks with the blocking admin before unblocking. But that's not a big issue. Now to paraphrase User:WAS 4.250, the game we are trying to play is the the Let's-Write-An-Encyclopedia Game. Let's go back to that and have less of the Let's-Engage-In-Bickering-Infighting-And-General-Pissing-Matches Game. Mhhm-kay?
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
Blocking and unblocking are serious actions that should not be done in haste. It is important to gather all the relevant information first, especially when an Oversighter blocks somebody for harassment. Even if they fail to say so in the block notice, they may have private evidence. In this case User:Slrubenstein should have asked User:Charles Matthews for clarification before processing any unblock request. Additionally, unblock requests should be processed by uninvolved admins, preferably those who respond to requests listed at CAT:UNB. There is at least an appearance that this unblock was motivated by a desire to help a friend, as SIrubenstein does not normally patrol the requests for unblock category.
Slrubenstein correctly notes that I had doubts about the block. I was on the scene before he was, but I decided not to undo the block without first checking with the blocking admin. I'd be satisfied if Slrubenstein undertook to check with the blocking admin (in such circumstances) before processing unblocks (or go to WP:AN if that admin is unavailable).
Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):
This, like most User RfCs, is a monumental waste of time.
Users who endorse this summary (sigh with ~~~~):
WP:OUTING prohibits "Posting another person's personal information... unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves." The editor concerned posted a job description in general terms, and added a large block of text which is identical to the opening chapter of the book he cited. The editor later raised a discussion about another issue at ANI, and Elonka drew attention to the claimed job description on the editor's userpage, as giving weight to the editor's opinions. Later, in a comment, Mathsci set out the description of the book cited by the editor, together with the description of the book's author which appears as About the Author on Amazon.com. Hans Adler noted that the job description suggested a conflict of interest, Jehochman drew attention to the editor's edit summary claiming that the text was public domain, and Mathsci's response noted the similarity in job description. The information is still all public.
When blocking Mathsci, Charles Matthews justified the block with a diff drawing further attention to the supposedly sensitive information. It now appears that there was a further undisclosed reason for the block, revealed after Slrubenstein unblocked on his considered view of the stated reason. By giving an inadequate reason rather than stating that a reason was available on request, Charles Matthews created a situation where an admin reviewing the circumstances would be misled. Conclusion – blocking admins should take care to give an adequate reason or to note that there is an undisclosed reason, unblocking admins should notify the blocking admin that they are reviewing the block, but should not wait unduly long before unblocking unless reference has been made to an undisclosed reason. Both Charles and Slrubenstein should confirm their agreement to these points.
Users who endorse this summary:
When all is said and done, let's think about one important question we should all ask ourselves: Is it really that important to choose the bad guy of the day? That's essentially what this RfC has become - a discussion over who's responsible. And that's exactly the type of discussion that tends to cause counter-productive drama.
For my $0.02, Slr made a bit of a blunder unblocking Mathsci, an editor whom he has frequently interacted with, without prior discussion. Charles made a bit of a blunder himself in blocking Mathsci, an editor in good standing, for harassment without outlying evidence of such. But in general, they are all valued and productive members of the community who have done a lot of great things to build the encyclopedia. I recommend a good trouting to both, at most.
I am, for the most part, unconvinced by the points proposed by Elonka. By the looks of it, yes it's true that Mathsci isn't always 100% civil, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a blocked of alleged harassment becomes warranted due to past behavior. I am even less convinced that Slrubenstein has a pattern of poor administrative decision-making - three unblocks is a rather low number, even by unblock standards, however controversial. Perfection shouldn't be expected of anybody.
Now, we get the the most important point of my comment. Ledies and gentlemen, I would like to make the following suggestion - go edit an article. Forget about this RfC, it's become unfortunately quite pointless anyways.
Users who endorse this summary:
“By faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”
“A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for preeminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”
James Madison, Federalist #10, 1789.
I've been asked to elaborate the views above so with some trepidaton I will (with apologies to MastCell). It is interesting to note the number of persons who provided their own outside view on this RfC, and also endorsed the outside views of others who endorsed theirs. Almost like a circle of friends getting together for dinner. Was it spontaneous? Or is it faction? Is it good for Wikipedia? Also interesting to note how many of them appear to have some sort of history with Charles Matthews, who apparently has been around long enough to get on the wrong side of a few people. That happens alot with city managers, presidents, judges, arbitrators, and others who try to maintain a semblance of order amidst anarchy, and advance the common good. I don't see many views here that anybody should be proud of. If anyone still does not understand this view, please take another look at the Statement of the Dispute, and see the article on Mobbing. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who endorse this summary:
To Charles Matthews:
This and the latter part of this should be enough to demonstrate that I don't hate you. I didn't know this would be filed until I stumbled across it; I had not mentioned your dispute with Slrubenstein to the filing party and he did not know this RFC existed when he made the request. Anyone could make a good faith mistake. The key matter within our community is whether a Wikipedian refrains from repeating it, or erects excuses to perpetuate the problem. Few options exist for resolving concerns that pertain to offsite correspondence so please reread the exchanges alluded to below and compare them to this, and ask yourself if you might have communicated better or whether anger might have colored your judgment.
To the community:
Charles Matthews's assertions carry several problematic assumptions. They tend toward community stratification--a 'class system' if you will--and a chilling effect lest mere administrators question the judgment of oversighters and arbitrators even in situations where those special roles appear to be irrelevant. Are we comfortable with the cloud Charles insists upon casting over Mathsci's reputation, with repeated after-the-unblock insinuations about Oversight? See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/SlrubensteinII#Comment_on_my_own_behalf. Charles asks us not to dwell on Mathsci, but that isn't sufficient. It's a high social register version of an argument we all rejected long ago: I am the great Oz! (Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain).
Anyone could have a bad day or even a bad week, but this isn't the first time Charles has conducted himself in such a way. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman, particularly Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Charles_Matthews_has_failed_to_assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Matthew_Hoffman/Workshop#Charles_Matthews_reminded.
Raymond arritt's words from 6 December 2007 resonate today:
Also:
Charles had initiated the case with no prior dispute resolution in a non-urgent situation. In its first two days Charles insulted several of the named parties, then departed on an unannounced wikibreak. He has never retracted his indecorous posts there. I have read the complete offsite correspondence that preceded the case between Charles Matthews and Vanished User and that background deepens my concern. I tried politely and repeatedly to reason with Charles; I hoped those problems would never occur again. Yet I have never corresponded with Charles offsite, for fear the interaction would be mischaracterized in a situation where I could not quote diffs to defend myself.
Charles is not the only involved party whose conduct merits scrutiny, yet he is the party whose actions merit most scrutiny. Several people have offered Charles the opportunity to shed the negative impression but he refuses to do so. Indeed, he comes across as angry and retaliatory. When Slrubenstein offered to let bygones be bygones, note Charles's response: When I want a lecture from you on writing articles, I will definitely ask.[53] So do the rest of us go off and write articles like good little chickens while some animals make themselves more equal than others? That is what this RfC is about, and that question is not trivial.
Users who endorse this summary:
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.