Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin

Please do not delete this RfC. Though it is no longer certified by two people, I would like for it to not be deleted at this time. To be clear; I need to have this not deleted at this time because it may be useful in further wiki-proceedings. Thank you. --Durin 14:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You entered into a settlement agreement in which you promised never to speak again of this matter, and you promised to allow this RfC to be deleted. You have violated that agreement by seeking to keep this page from being deleted. I must insist that this page be deleted according to process. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- For the record; it was my impression that negotiations were still ongoing. If you feel I had made you a promise, then I apologize for having given that impression. However, I did not ever state "agree" or "promise" at any point to that point in the negotiations. I noted in those negotiations that deletion of the RfC would be a good first step. I had made nor did I break any promise in any settlement. My conscience is clear on this point. All negotiations have now utterly broken down in the settlement now. Therefore, the point is moot. I am responding here because Kelly placed the above statement. If this statement is removed, then so should Kelly's. Not doing so would be a direct bias. I will not remove her comments above nor mine; such is the purview of a non-involved admin. --Durin 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC).

Durin (talk · contribs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Durin attempted to interfere with an editor's attempt to seek mediation and reacted extremely badly when asked not to do this in the future. He defended his attempt to interfere as consistent with Wikipedia policy, and accused those asking him to change his behavior of violating several key Wikipedia policies without any evident basis. These groundless accusations have been repeated in several forums on Wikipedia.

Description

Anittas (talk · contribs) contacted me on October 25th by instant messenger asking for assistance with a dispute. He had apparently attempted to request assistance from the AMA [1] to resolve a dispute, but received no useful response. I did not review the substance of his complaint (since becoming an Arbitrator, I have tended to avoid getting involved in disputes which have not reached the arbitration stage) and recommended that he seek assistance from either MedCom or MedCab. Following my advice, he first contacted the MedCom for assistance [2]. He was reasonably promptly informed by RedWolf24 that the MedCom was full up at the moment and could not help [3]. He therefore contact the MedCab [4].

Durin (talk · contribs), not a member of the MedCab, used this notice of the dispute to (apparently) spur an investigation, after which he apparently decided to lecture all parties, including Anittas, for potentially violating 3RR [5], including threatening to block Anittas for a 3RR violation. He also posted on MedCab's page to instruct Anittas to attempt to resolve the issue on the article talk page and told Anittas that "[u]sing reverts to resolve this dispute will be ineffective." [6]. Anittas denied the 3RR allegation [7], [8], [9]. Durin added a lecture about civility to his list of offenses against Anittas and elaborated on what he felt were three of the four violations that would amount to a 3RR violation [10]. One must note that the reverts in question are in fact, at this point, three days in the past, which would make for an inappropriate block anyway (3RR blocks should not be imposed for past violations). Durin goes on to tell Anittas that he must attempt to resolve the issue on the talk page and promising to "monitor progess" [11]. Durin's next offering is again to lecture Anittas on the requirement to attempt to resolve the dispute on the talk page and to drag in a violation of WP:POINT to the lengthening list of offenses Anittas is guilty of [12].

About this time, Anittas again contacted me by instant messenger to let me know that "some French guy looked at the history and cried that I violated the 3RR two days ago. He didn't block me, though. He said we should take the dispute on the talkpage - as if that would help us." The "French guy" he refers to is Durin. At this point Anittas is EXTREMELY frustrated with Wikipedia because his attempt to seek assistance has been blocked at every turn, and furthermore has gotten an additional person yelling at him with threats of blocks, no less.

At this point I looked at what Durin had posted and, appalled at what I saw as an overzealous administrator interfering with an editor's access to mediation (something which, as a former mediator and current Arbitrator, I take very seriously) asked Durin not to do this sort of thing in the future [13]. Durin's response [14] focuses mostly on my being "appalled" (presumably as a personal attack) and sets forth the belief that he did nothing wrong. (As an aside: if stating that I am "appalled" is a personal attack, then so is his calling Aranda56's editing "absymal" [15]).

Given his nonresponsive reply, I decided to ask NicholasT to look into the incident as director of MedCab. His initial comment (far more polite and detailed than mine) is here [16]. Nicholas seems to have concluded at this point that Durin is attempting to prevent Anittas from seeking mediation (something I had not yet realized; I hadn't dug down that deeply into the conversation between Durin and Anittas), and Nicholas here explicitly asks Durin not to do this. Durin's response to this is an apology for intruding on MedCab's page (which he now concludes that he is not welcome at), followed by a lecture for Nicholas on Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures [17], along with a discourse about how Durin is a superior admin who always follows policy. He then explains his deep umbrage at my and Nicholas' remarks and accuses both of us of not following WP:AGF. Durin's comments evidence that his intention was, in fact, to prevent, or at least discourage, Anittas from seeking mediation, as that in Durin's opinion Wikipedia policy prohibited Anittas from doing so.

Nicholas, recognizing that Durin is now quite irritated, wrote a conciliatory reply apologizing for giving offense [18], but not retracting his request that Durin not interfere with mediation. Durin has since indicated that he views Nicholas' reply as a complete vindication of Durin's position in this dispute [19], although Nicholas has privately informed me that this was never his intent, nor is such intent evident from Nicholas' actual message.

After Nicholas bowed out of the discussion, I added a reply amplifying my initial comments, explaining why I feel that his actions interfered with our mediation systems and did not respect mediation process. [20] Durin responds to this by again accusing me of violating WP:AGF and by declaring that MedCab has no "special authority" under which to operate. [21] He is therefore entitled to ignore its existence entirely; we are not permitted to even ask that he not undermine it. He also misrepresents Nicholas' apology as "abject" (a misrepresentation repeated later, see above) and accuses both of us of insulting his behavior. All we have done is requested that he alter his behavior; there were no insults that I can see. Durin seems to believe that since there is no formal policy preventing him from undermining MedCab, he can do so with impunity. He has clearly failed to appreciate the spirit of the Wikipedia community (protestations that "there was no violation of wiki-spirit" notwithstanding). Durin's condemnation of my (and Nicholas') actions rests entirely on the lack of any identified formal policy which prohibited his actions; that lack apparently (in his view) immunizes him from any criticism at all of his behavior by any editor. He persists in the view that his actions were entirely proper (except for intruding on MedCab's page). He ends by indicating that he wishes to "exit this dispute" and implies that the way for that to happen is for me to capitulate, in the same manner that Nicholas purportedly capitulated. I instead elected to drop the dispute without further comment.

I believe that Durin truly believes that he was being "helpful" in advising an editor about potentially "dangerous" conduct, but the effect of his warnings were clearly to chill Anittas' attempt to seek assistance with dispute resolution, not to provide "well-meant advice". As such, I considered Durin's efforts to be in good faith, but badly ill-advised, and made worse by Durin's ignorance of the more detailed specifics of the dispute. Durin's response to my effort to offer "well-meant advice" was to initiate a campaign of slanders against me.

I do not question whether Anittas may have violated 3RR or whether Durin was consistent with policy in warning Anittas for it. Rather, the complaint here is that the investigation into Anittas' conduct, and the subsequent warnings, appear to Anittas and to the casual observer to have been prompted by Anittas' attempts to obtain assistance in resolving a conflict. It is quite clear that people who are seeking assistance in resolving a conflict in good faith should not expose themselves to additional sanctions by doing so, and that areas related to dispute resolution on the Wiki should not be used by admins as a jumping point from which to initiate investigations into blockable conduct. At the very least, if they're going to do so, admins should refrain in drawing a clear nexus from the dispute resolution service to the threat of a block, lest editors be discouraged from seeking resolution out of fear of being punished for past transgressions. Durin doesn't recognize that his actions had this effect, and only apologizes for going where he is not welcome, showing a persistent lack of awareness of the reasons why Nicholas and I addressed comments about his conduct at all.

I believe that Durin places Wikipedia's written policy so far ahead of the spirit of the policy as to give the latter no significance at all. I also believe that he profoundly misunderstands several key policies, including WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Being asked politely to alter your behavior is not a personal attack, nor is it a failure to assume good faith, nor is it uncivil. Durin has repeatedly accused both myself and Nicholas of these offenses without basis. His conduct in attempting to prevent an editor from seeking mediation is a serious offense against Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, and his reaction to reasonable attempts to address this offense is outrageous beyond the pale.

I was content at that point to stop talking to Durin directly; he went on my growing list of "problem admins" who bear monitoring, and I have certainly continued to discuss his behavior with my group of trusted peers. I don't recall any direct confrontation with him, however, until my RfB. Durin dragged this incident back up as evidence why I should not be allowed to be a bureaucrat (along with a long list of other offenses of mine he feels disqualify me for bureaucrat) [22]. He continues to misrepresent my conduct and that of Nicholas in this affair, including his baseless and slanderous accusations of violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. In semiunrelated discussion elsewhere, he eventually demanded that I either stop defending my own conduct, or file an RfC against him [23]. Since I feel his overall conduct in this entire affair has been completely unbecoming an administrator and an editor, and am tired of his persistent criticism of me for things I do not feel I have done, I have elected to file this RfC.

For those who will call this "sour grapes" about my RfB, please note that I feel that he has deliberately slandered me on my RfB by misrepresenting my conduct. I am very upset that he has done so and even more upset that significant people within the community have accepted the slander without apparently investigating the underlying evidence. If these slanders are permitted to stand unchallenged my reputation will have been unfairly and permanently sullied by Durin. He has, quite simply, left me no choice but to call him on the carpet.

Key questions presented by this dispute

Did Durin engage in actions which had the effect of discouraging an editor from seeking the assistance of a mediator?
Did Kelly Martin violate WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL in asking Durin to refrain from engaging in actions which will have the effect of discouraging editors from seeking the assistance of mediators?
Did Nicholas Turnbull violate WP:AGF or WP:CIVIL in asking Durin to refrain from engaging in actions which will have the effect of discouraging editors from seeking the assistance of mediators?
Did Durin violate WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or any other Wikipedia policy by accusing Kelly Martin or Nicholas Turnbull of violating WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF by asking him to alter his conduct as an administrator?

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Diffs are scattered throughout the description of the dispute.

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

The original dispute is over Durin's attempt to interfere with mediation, which is described quite clearly above.

My initial attempt to discuss Durin's conduct with him [24].
Nicholas' attempt to discuss Durin's conduct with him [25].
My second attempt to discuss Durin's conduct with him [26].

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

~~Kelly Martin (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)~~ I hereby strike my signature from this RfC. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)~~ I hereby also strike my signature from this RfC. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we have a serious complaint from two experienced mediators about the conduct of one editor during a sensitive situation involving an application for mediation. I think it's fair to say that Durin frequently makes questionable judgement calls on the basis of statistical surveys and superficial assessments of a complex situation. His extremely stringent, but not very productive, approach to several conduct issues exemplify the kind of behavior that I think may become more problematic with time. We should all do our best to avoid exacerbating sensitive situations, and show flexibility and willingness to improve our conduct where there is evidence that we have fallen short of what is needed to keep the wiki a friendly environment in which to work. Stringent standards are unnecessary, simple humanity is preferable to numbers and rules.
- Durin's response to this RfC has been to announce that he's been accused of "crimes against Wikipedia"[27] and that he's leaving. This is another display of the rigidity that has brought the dispute to this level. The evidence documents the care with which others tried to persuade him of the grave but unintended results of his intervention [28], and the unbending and self-vindicatory manner in which he dealt with criticism [29]. The original intervention is a mistake of the type that we can all make from time to time. But Durin does not seem to truly believe himself to be like others. He has set himself apart and issued conduct guidelines and metrics by which, a very new administrator himself, he proposes to judge other candidates for administrator. They're extremely stringent guidelines--perhaps fewer than one editor in a hundred could pass muster. His initial reaction to the complaint, his defence-by-attack methods of dealing with it, his self-exculpatory interpretation of a conciliation attempt by Nicholas Turnbull (" an abject apology for his conclusions"), and finally this melodramatic display, removing himself from the Wiki in response to criticism of his behavior, are further displays of a rigidity that, in time, when he returns as I am sure he will, Durin will admit and seek to overcome in the interests of improving Wikipedia. Let the reed bend, or else it will break.
- The above, stet. I'm happy that the endorsers and the respondent have reached a mutually satisfactory agreement on this case. I will count this a very satisfactory RfC if Durin no longer feels that he must leave Wikipedia.

Other users who do not endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

Throughout my entire dealings on Wikipedia, never once have I witnessed Durin's conduct as anything less than WP:CIVIL, nor does this summary provide any evidence of any kind of policy being breached. Raising concerns on an RFB is not a valid reason to file a vengeful RFC against someone. How disappointing. Silensor 19:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I make no assertion regarding the edit dispute at the heart of this RfC, but I agree with Silensor that I have never seen Durin behave in an uncivil way, and I do worry about the possibility that this RfC might be retaliation for the RfB. Xoloz 21:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While Tony makes a couple of good points, most of those apply to Kelly equally well, or moreso. R adiant _>|< 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an overblown territory dispute, it does not belong here. The certifiers and endorsers have only made themselves look foolish with such pompous behavior. Friday (talk) 01:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With no further comment. Jacqui^★ 03:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen Durin be anything but a by the book, civil admin. I personally feel this is a direct attack based on his opposition of Kelly's RFB, but theres no way to really know that. ALKIVAR™ 08:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish to dis-endorse this summary. The Land 16:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:RFC: The RfC you file may itself turn into an RfC against you, if most of those voting and commenting are critical of you. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste. CDThieme 18:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even the accusers have backed down. One hopes in future they will remember the commandment: Do not bring false charges against your neighbor. No Account 19:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having read it all I cannot endorse this summary. I don't believe that this action was provoked for the reasons stated. --hydnjo talk 19:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment by Kelly Martin

I want to make it clear that I in no way am challenging Durin's right to raise valid concerns about my behavior in RfB or in any other place. This RfC is about his misconduct with respect to attempting to prevent an editor from seeking mediation and his misconduct in responding to requests not to do that in the future. He has repeatedly falsely accused me of violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, in respect to my interactions with him in that original dispute, an accusation which I believe has no merit and which he has used to paint my reputation in a negative light. I am bringing this RfC to clear my name in relation to the original dispute and the baseless accusations which Durin has drawn from it, and to hopefully convince him that his actions were as grossly inappropriate as I believe them to have been. I also hope that he will cease his practice of responding to criticism of his conduct by accusing the critic of violating WP:AGF and/or WP:CIVIL, surely an incivil practice amounting to a personal attack, and definitely conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian. The only connection to RfB is that he chose RfB as the forum in which to make public his slander of my character. Prior to that, he had only made that slander in personal communication on user talk pages. I was willing to let that slide. I am not willing to let it slide on RfA/RfB. Nor am I willing to let it sit long enough for the RfB to fall from public memory before resolving the conflict. Kelly Martin (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask that you direct our attention to the specific language in the RfB which you feel constitutes slander? Slander is a serious charge. Xoloz 21:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does this rhyme with your admission that you created this RFC because your RFB failed? Most of Durin's concerns on the RFB were entirely unrelated to the dispute you mention here. R adiant _>|< 00:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum by NicholasTurnbull

I am most dismayed that this dispute has got to this point, since I had initially hoped that eventually this issue between Durin, Kelly and I would have drawn to an amicable close by now. Indeed, the irony of this being a dispute over users' freedom to enter mediation, and the consequent ad hominem nature of this dispute, is too great to be ignored. Indeed, it would be greatly amiss of me not to certify Kelly's escalation of this matter to RfC as, whether I like it or not, I am most certainly involved in it and have actively participated in the ensuing dispute over this matter with Durin; in addition, since Durin himself requested this matter to be taken to RfC by Kelly, it is right that I am a party in it.

I would like to go over my perspective of the matter Kelly outlined above in her initial authoring of the RfC here.

As Team Leader of the Mediation Cabal, it has always been an interest of mine to ensure that all users have access to a mediator, and have the ability to request mediation both from the initiative that I manage, The Mediation Cabal, and from the official Mediation Committee, without unfair onus or hinderance from other Wikipedia users. Kelly drew my attention to the matter via private message on IRC, after Durin had posted his rather severe-sounding statement on the Mediation Cabal page underneath the request that Anittas had placed on that page, not qualifying it as an outside comment or putting it in a "Comments by others" section within the mediation request.

This gave the impression to Anittas that Durin was making his statement to take the matter elsewhere on behalf of the Mediation Cabal. I thus saw it fit to leave a talk page message to Durin requesting that he not engage in similar actions again. It was my feeling that, although he probably had every wish to assist the user, that he had deliberately attempted to prevent the user taking recourse to mediation, and I thus enumerated my view of this in my message to Durin. I must point out here that I admit the message I wrote to Durin was somewhat sharp; I do, however, feel that it was not outside the boundaries of acceptable criticism, and that I had been reasonably civil in doing so.

Durin replied at length on my talk page, initially in an accepting tone but later on in the message a much more severe and insulted manner. He appeared in my view to state, amongst other things:

Since discussion with users was noted in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and at the time he was writing the Mediation Cabal was not, it was acceptable to inform users that they should discuss on the talk page versus taking the matter to mediation. He wrote: "... For backing in procedure regarding this, I refer you to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.. This had not been done. I was not out of line in any respect for suggesting the user take this as a first step; in fact it is entirely appropriate." It can be viewed from Talk:Moldovan language that this matter had already been discussed at length, and without a great deal of productive citivility. Durin thus appears to also imply that Wikipedia policy takes precedence over the Mediation Cabal initiative.
Durin wrote that he felt the statements to Anittas that he had violated 3RR was proper to make on the Mediation Cabal page: "I also stand by my actions in noting that the user was potentially in violation of WP:3RR. As an admin, part of my responsibility is watching out for such revert wars and stopping them as appropriate."
He expresses a great deal of personal insult in what Kelly and I stated to him, informing us that he feels we did not follow AGF and that we insulted his behaviour. "... I would like to say very candidly that I have never been so offended here as I have been by your remarks and Kelly Martin's remarks [...] I feel that both you and Kelly Martin have not followed WP:AGF [...] Worse, you have taken to insulting my behavior as a consequence, rather than asking for clarification first as to what I was doing and why I was doing it (as I have given now)"

It was far from the intention of Kelly and I to insult Durin. That said, I have long considered it an important personal maxim to apologise for all offense once made to an individual, and it is undoubtedly the case that he had taken offense; I thus wrote in contrition to Durin apologising for my causing of offense to him. I did not, contrary to Durin's later statements, retract my view that what he did was improper. I feel I somewhat clouded the scenario by not making this clear in my apology, since I believe he was expecting Kelly to make a similar response to him. His more recent talk page messages to Kelly, and his rather blistering oppose vote on Kelly's RfB are, I feel, somewhat beyond the boundaries of common decency and politeness - and yes, I agree that I possibly set a poor precedent in the debate. Nonetheless, I put this matter to the community for their evaluation. I personally do regret the way that I handled the matter, however, and hope that I can avoid repeating this in the future. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I am crafting a complete response to Kelly's above statements. This will take a significant amount of time to generate. I have a job, and that must take first priority to anything on Wikipedia. As a short response for the time being, I would like to point out:

I had considered this matter closed, since 11 days passed from my last response on this debate to Kelly [30] on October 28 without a response from Kelly.
I feel the catalyst for this RfC was because of an oppose vote I made on Kelly's request for bureaucratship. I spent more than two hours carefully conducting a review of Kelly's contributions to Wikipedia. What I found was not in line with the highest ideals of Wikipedia. I note for the record that three other people had voted oppose on her RfB based on incivility concerns which I also raised. These concerns were serious enough that I would have voted oppose to her on an RfA. In no case did I ever make any attempt to slander Kelly. I voted oppose to her RfB on good conscience and stand by my vote.
Kelly has directly blamed me for her RfB failing ([31] see second green area edit). Yet, there were 8 oppose votes prior to my oppose. She would have to have had 72 support votes in order to pass muster at this point. So far, she has 51 support votes. Even if I had not voted, the RfB would not be passing.
I readily grant that my voting on her RfB, when there had been a previous debate between Kelly and I, may have painted my vote as an attempt to undermine her. This was simply not the case. In my vote [32], I brought up the debate that Kelly and I had had in my introduction to the vote to provide transparency and to clear the slate so my vote would be considered on the grounds that it was based, and not on the notion that it was a retribution vote for the debate I had with Kelly. I spent considerable time crafting a vote, starting with that clean slate and treated Kelly just as I would treat any other candidate. If I was out to slander Kelly, why would I take pains to make it clear what the basis of my vote was and be so transparent in my approach?
I would like to point out that User:NicholasTurnbull, who came to similar conclusions to Kelly, made an apology to me after I explained my actions to him [33].
I asked Kelly to file this RfC because this debate, which had previously been restricted to user talk pages, spilled over onto Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, which is an inappropriate forum for such debate.

It may be a day, possibly two, before I can put together a full response. Please be patient. Thank you. --Durin 14:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer feel that there is a reasonable way in which this RfC can conclude. Kelly has indicated that I must act in Wikipedia as a true peer among equals. In every respect I have approached Wikipedia in this manner. There is no way in which I can convince Kelly of the veracity of that statement. From what I have been able to discern, Kelly is unwilling to compromise on her position. I do not feel at this time that anything less than utter capitulation to her demands will be sufficient to her. Since there is no way in which I can meet her demands, then my only other option by her parameters is for me to leave Wikipedia. Since Tony finds my analysis of RfA/RfB candidates based on statistics to be objectionable, and uses it as a basis for agreeing with this RfC (which basis was not part of the original RfC to begin with) I will stop producing my analysis. I am not here to do work to have it be divisive. Since my presence is divisive and unappreciated by the bringers of this RfC, and since I can not reasonably answer the demands upon me to satisfaction ([34]), then I feel I must leave. As I've noted elsewhere, a hug from my daughter is more important to me than Wikipedia. Please note that in stating the above I am not looking for sympathy. I am stating what is the only equitable way out of this. In my leaving, Kelly will have her name restored (though I never made any attempt to slander her) since the person who destroyed her RfB (though it was failing before I ever touched it) would be gone from Wikipedia. Obviously, this project is far more important and personal to her than it is to me. It is absolutely astonishing to me that a good faith effort to help a user achieve an equitable solution to their dispute, and a good faith vote on an RfB could result in such an acrimonious attack upon my character. That Wikipedia would allow this, and think it right and normal, is a statement in and of itself on the nature of Wikipedia.

I expect the attacks against me at this point to rapidly escalate. Fair enough. My above statement certainly opens that door wide and far. As seen on many RfAs, there will now be a pile on against me. I didn't voice the above to generate sympathy among anyone reading this. It is a not a "woe is me" venting. It is a statement of where I am forced to stand with regards to this issue. It can't be resolved without quitting Wikipedia. So please, do pile on. Ultimately, it won't matter. Good bye. --Durin 21:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Legal accusations

I now find myself being accused of libel which is actionable in the state in which I reside, which also happens to be the state in which Kelly resides. "Kelly Martin" is I believe her real name. As such, there would be grounds for such a case as it is her reputation and not a pseudonym's that is supposedly being libeled. Wikipedia and this dispute is several orders of magnitude less important to me than the risk I now find myself in because of these actions. If I had any option to come back to Wikipedia it is now gone. I can not and will not risk me or my family because of this action.

I desperately wish that there was some way in which to make Kelly accountable for her actions, but there isn't. She is aloof to the RfC process and treats RfCs brought against her with disdain. Her abbrogration of process, and willingness to pursue me in these matters makes it very obvious that, despite her claims otherwise, I could very well find myself the subject of a lawsuit. It isn't worth the risk to me.

I expect that this comment will be summarily deleted or moved by Kelly to the talk page. She has done so before calling my edits "disruption" with nary a peep of protest from anyone about it except myself. I can only hope that somebody stands up her attempts to control this RfC and prevent her from deleting this section on the legal accusations. This RfC has been closed to me as an avenue of resolution since she did that. Once the legal threats began, Wikipedia became closed to me. Isn't there anybody who can stop this? I do not want a lawsuit filed against me. For God's sake somebody stand up to Kelly and the people accusing me of libel and say this is wrong and it must be stopped! I beg of you. I can't come back to Wikipedia, but I sure as hell don't want a lawsuit coming out of this. --Durin 03:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been made pretty clear on talk that she is not going to sue you.Geni 04:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And with her capricious actions and disrespect for Wikipedia policy I am supposed to trust her word that she won't? Even if I am supposed to trust it, I am to weigh the gravity of that threat against the welfare of my family and conclude that Kelly's just this person, ya know? She means no harm. For undermining of that notion, look at the fact that she didn't file this RfC against administrator actions until 12 days after the actions in question, and only after I had voted oppose on her RfB (yet she roundly castigates me for telling a person of a potential 3RR violation that was two days in the past. Yet another double standard from Kelly). I have no reason to trust Kelly. Thus, I have no basis on which to believe her assurance that she won't file suit. As was noted by someone else, just to call it libel is a legal threat. I can't continue with such a threat against my family. I am quite frankly and legitimately scared. --Durin 04:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Silensor 22:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

I reiterate that I have absolutely no intention to sue Durin. Anyone who chooses to disbelieve this makes a mockery of our community and is not welcome here. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that he is not welcome here if, being a bit upset by your use of legal language (which you seem to have disavowed below), he is suspicious of your intentions? I welcome him, and I don't blame him for caution. Xoloz 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Durin's overboard paranoia is exactly the reason we talk about the importance of Assume Good Faith. Users who run around yelling that they are afraid of other users harming them are harmful to our community and their further involvement would be harmful to themselves. --Gmaxwell 06:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I hold the view that one can cease assuming the good faith of an accuser if one is falsely accused of slander. I can only believe the accusation is patently false, because Ms. Martin has not responded to my request for specific cites to instances of slander, despite having read this RfC several times since Radiant and I inquired above. Xoloz 09:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I find no basis on which to trust you, and my family is at risk, I have to treat the threat as real. You have said my accusations are libel. It is now impossible for me to respond to the accusations laid against me. Any attempt to do so could be used as evidence in a trial. This RfC is, therefore, irrevocably hampered. In fact, any Wikipedia resolution process to this is irrevocably hampered. I can't oppose your stance against me as any reasonable lawyer would want that material to aid in a case against me. The fact that you are a former law student, combined with the legal threat, scares the hell out of me. --Durin 04:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose we must also regard your similar "threat" as a real threat on Kelly Martin's life and family? Demi ^T/_C 17:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway ^Talk 07:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC) Utterly beyond belief. An imaginary threat wished up out of thin air. Please Durin, come back down to earth, read the complaint, and learn to bend a little. That's all that's needed.[reply]
Demi ^T/_C 17:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Absurd and despicable. Durin threatens Kelly Martin similarly, then tries to hide it and fabricates this ridiculous reaction.[reply]
- I did not try to hide it. I am well aware of the fact that my contributions are under close scrutiny by a number of people. If I did not want to bring it to light, I would have done nothing with the edit as nobody had mentioned my use of the word with regards to KM before, and by not changing it probably nobody would have seen it with respect to this context. I removed the word because it was to show good faith effort in support of an agreement that is currently being negotiated outside the bounds of Wikipedia. That good faith effort was noted in the e-mail I sent with the proposal. I would ask that people stop jumping to conclusions about things they know not. You are making the situation worse, not better. --Durin 19:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Radiant

Kelly is taking the entire issue too personally. There was honest criticism of some of her actions on the RFB, and there are some issues that some people would like to see addressed. Feedback isn't slander, and it is not proper to discount criticism simply because the criticizer appears to dislike you - see also fundamental attribution error. Durin wasn't the only person to criticize her, and we should assume that his feedback wasn't vengeful.

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

R adiant _>|< 14:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The charge of slander appears baseless. The certified text accuses Durin of slander but does not document even one statement of Durin's criticism shown to be false. --Silverback 14:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC) I don't know about the initial edit dispute, but the RfB comments seemed good-faith to me (and were, in my estimation, correct as well), and I assume that AGF requires us to accept that they were not vengeful. Xoloz 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is an overly dramatic and wholly baseless RFC. Silensor 19:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to distance myself from some of the further comments made by other signers so far, but I agree with Radiant's initial assessment. Jacqui^★ 21:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While the issue may have some merit, I think that this dispute goes deeper than the issue itself. I don't support either person's actions, but I think that this RFC is entirely a step too far. Ral315 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I find the statement of dispute somewhat over-the-top. --Tabor 23:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely with Radiant!'s summary. JYolkowski // talk 03:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that I have no idea if User:Kelly Martin "is taking the entire issue too personally", and am disinclined to speculate. Jkelly 04:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
accusations of slander and other legal remedies even if not followed through with are still legal threats, our standing policy is to block for this. ALKIVAR™ 08:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Making charges in haste and without the ability to substantiate them is serious. If people, especially people in power and who ought to have known better have done this, it must be addressed. CDThieme 18:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 18:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No Account 18:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Talrias

There is some animosity here, so I think it would be best if both sides (Kelly and Durin) would refrain from second-guessing what the other was thinking (for example, Kelly saying "I believe that Durin places Wikipedia's written policy so far ahead of the spirit of the policy...", and Durin saying "Kelly is upset that her RfB is failing..."). I suggest to all parties that they retract any comments they have made about what the other is thinking or their personal views, and instead comment on their actions, rather than their motives. I think this will help in resolving the situation.

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

Outside view by Philwelch

Oooh, drama!

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

— Phil Welch 21:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the actual word is "dramabomb". SPUI (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

This isn't really the best time or place for blatant generalizations that demean both sides. Regardless of the accuracy/inaccuracy of such a comment (and I think it's inaccurate, for the record), such comments only contribute to bad will, thus escalating rather than resolving the dispute. Scïmïłar ^parley 22:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to demean any person. I am, however, rather gleefully demeaning certain behaviors concerning this RfC and the surrounding events. Throwing around words like "slander", withdrawing an RfB, leaving Wikipedia in a huff, all with paragraphs of soliloquy explaining and justifying those actions…what judgment am I supposed to make about it? Don't take everything so damn seriously. — Phil Welch 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can't help it, I have no sense of humour. I guess that comes from being part of the hive mind.--Scïmïłar ^parley 22:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
While this is admirably succint, is it possible to get it re-phrased in a more polite and constructive manner?
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ral315

We're here to write an encyclopedia. This seems like simple squabbling between two good and well-meaning users who have some issues with each other. I nevertheless think that both of the users were acting in good faith, and I hope that they can overcome their dispute, and continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia.

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

Ral315 (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Cel e stianpower ^háblame 21:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We've already let a little bit of misunderstanding escalate into a full-fledged conflict; let's not aggravate the situation even more. Both users are valuable members of Wikipedia who acted in good-faith. Misunderstandings happen. Let's move on. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 22:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hall Monitor 22:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Scïmïłar ^parley 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Sean|Bla ck 22:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Geni 22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
—Cleared as filed. 23:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--JAranda | watz sup 23:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda 00:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And that, of course, is the only proper solution. R adiant _>|< 00:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~ N (t/c) 01:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BD2412 T 02:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. [[Sam Korn]] 14:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm not any kind of important user or anything, but I really feel that this sums up the correct attitude. HowardBerry 02:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We're all important Wikipedians, and that certainly includes you! - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is truly unfortunate how far this misunderstanding has gone and how acrimonious the dispute has become. Jonathunder 23:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Demi

The RFC has merit: Durin acted incorrectly by discouraging Anittas from seeking mediation. I don't actually see any incivility here, except by an unnecessarily thin-skinned interpretation of it. Unfortunately, I think terming Durin's criticisms (many of which are overblown or unfair, some of which are valid) "slander" is an unnecessary escalation of the rhetoric, since it implies Durin is lying about, rather than criticizing, Kelly Martin's actual actions, and I don't see where this is so. Summary: Both parties please ratchet the rhetoric back a notch, and Durin to be more careful with newbie-biting and tone in the future.

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

Demi ^T/_C 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--Scïmïłar ^parley 22:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Anger (and some unrelated tension in my life) led me to be less careful than I should have been in drafting portions of the RfC. To the extent that I have done so, I apologize. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz 04:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC) I'm glad Ms. Martin agrees. I would hope that a member of ArbCom would be more careful. Be aware that repeated false accusations of defamation can substantiate a counter-charge of defamation. I'm not saying such has happened here; I am saying that all parties, and every responsible person everywhere, should be careful in using such language. Xoloz 04:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An accurate summary. A little more flexibility from all concerned would not go astray, since it seems that this dispute is indeed unnecessary, especially from such good Wikipedians as these. --bainer (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally disappointed that this dispute, between two community-trusted editors, has reached this stage and this animosity. [[Sam Korn]] 14:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that someone who is frustrated enough to solicit the help of the Mediation Cabal should be treated more delicately, and with more empathy than Durin demonstrated. But this RfC has surely turned into a hellstorm out of all proportion to the original events, and has wounded feelings more severely than anyone could have possibly wanted. Endorse Demi's summary sentence fully. Babajobu 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who do not endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Perhaps I am ignorant in some regard, however the statement, "Durin acted incorrectly by discouraging Anittas from seeking mediation," seems to me incongruent. While the manner in which he did so may not have been advisable, I cannot see any reason to suppose that the act in itself is inherently wrong. If one can encourage someone to seek mediation, it should be similarly permissable discourage someone from the same action, lest a double-standard arise. Again, I am not stating anything regard to the RfC overall; merely stating my disagreement with this particular portion of this summary, and its implications. The remainder of this summary I do endorse. --Kgf0 22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Aranda56

This conflict just went too far with the RFC. Both users are taking this very personally and should have known better and now Durin left Wikipedia and Kelly Martin's reputation is fell because of this RFC. It is both users fault as I somehow agree with Kelly Martin that Durin did wrong with user Anittas but it is also Kelly Martin's fault because the time of this RFC, just after Durin made a long oppose vote on Kelly's RFB that made users vote oppose for her made this bordering close to WP:POINT. Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

--JAranda | watz sup 23:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another view by Radiant

In light of the more recent dialogue, I find it ironic that Kelly accuses Durin of lacking civility and good faith, when her own behavior in those areas is not very exemplary either. Examples include the accusation of 'slander' without evidence, her recent insistence that TheChief is a sockpuppet, and the suggestion that many people who opposed her RFB did so merely out of personal dislike.

On the talk page, she asks for Durin to, among others, "cease accusing [people] for making comments critical of [his] conduct", "cease being hypocritical by demanding everyone else to assume his good faith while not extending the same privilege to others" and "admit that he is not perfect and that other editors on Wikipedia are entitled to suggest that his actions are inappropriate". I think Kelly should practice what she preaches, otherwise she's merely calling the kettle black.

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

Outside view by Karmafist

Both Kelly and Durin are valuable editors with their own idiosyncracies, and those two idiosyncracies collided here. I think this RfC, and ultimately, the whole dispute, should be relegated to the past now that the RfB is over and any subsequent RfBs to either user will probably happen a few months away from this unfortunate incident, and hopefully forgotten.

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

Karmafist 03:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have no intention of running for bureaucrat again in the foreseeable future, the point is moot. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zzyzx11's view

I am sadden to see how far this conflict has escalated to. As far as I can tell, the emotions between both sides suddenly skyrocketed with Kelly's RFB. As I noted on there, it reminded me of a typical heated, emotionally-flared campaign for President of the United States in a sense that both the position of the president and the position of a Wikipedia bureaucrat were orignally designed to be "no big deal" admin jobs. But because both positions affect a whole lot of people, campaigns have become rather heated. [35]

Durin and Kelly's dispute suddenly became the hot button issue of the RFB. And like any hot button issue, it motivated people emotionally on both sides. Unfortunately, the emotions spilled over from the RFB to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship to this RFC. And the emotions still seem to be increasing with accusations of libel and lawsuit.

Wikipedia was originally designed to be a project to write a free encyclopedia. But now it feels like an Internet society full of politics, lobbying, and emotionally charged accusations. Conflicts like this one are turning into heated political campaigns, where many people are treating constructive critisisms as personal attacks, and others are taking sides without learning every single detail of the issue.

Maybe Purplefeltangel was right when she left:

Wikipedia is like a high school. Like a school, we forget the real reason we're here: For a school, to learn, and for Wikipedia, to build an encyclopedia. We are not here to build a community, but that's exactly what we are doing. [36]

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

Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But I would point out that the RfB was the endstage, not the beginning, of this conflict. Kelly Martin (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that the conflict began several days before the RFB, but it felt that the emotions between you two did really skyrocket with Durin's RFB comments and your rebuttals. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Scïmïłar ^parley 14:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by MONGO

I supported the RFB for Kelly, but am at odds with this Rfc. Accusations of slander and or libel, resulting in the possible permanent loss of an editor whose "mistakes" have been so minimal as to defy descrption makes me wonder why anyone would bother becoming an Admin. While the argument that Durin may have interfered with another editors attempts to seek mediation have some evidence that should have resulted in a need for explanation, I do not see that Durin was overtly hostile or committed either slander or libel when he made his comments in Kelly's RFB...How completely disheartening this mess has become.

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

MONGO 06:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz 08:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Using the terms 'slander' and 'libel' are needlessly harsh in any case. Wikipedia is not a court of law. R adiant _>|< 12:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CDThieme 18:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from Scïmïłar

This RfC, as well as the attached RfB and mediation cabal dispute is an unfortunate mess. Two editors who have made significant contributions to both the encyclopedia and the community aspects of Wikipedia have found themselves at odds with each other, and both have committed what appear to be errors in judgement in an extremely emotional situation. Durin made an error in the specific actions he took when interfering with the mediation cabal; although it should be noted that becoming involved with Medcab was not an error- just some of the actions that he took. Kelly Martin was unneccesarily harsh in countering Durin's actions, and Durin remembered this. Consequently, when Kelly Martin applied at RfB, Durin went through her edit history with a fine-toothed comb and took all the edits that were in someway objectionable and posted them, leading in part to the failure of Kelly Martin's RfB. Subsequently, Kelly Martin filed this RfC, and used over-the-top rhetoric ("slander", etc.) to describe Durin's actions. Durin subsequently proclaimed that he was leaving Wikipedia, an action that seems to be the resulted of wounded pride; something that we've seen before in many fine editors. In short, both parties erred, neither party erred unforgiveably, and both parties should learn from the experience and move on, especially if Durin decides to return.

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

Outside view by Lord Voldemort

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 editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

I know I am very late (maybe too late seeing Durin's user page), and as I have worked with Durin on some matters concerning RfA, might be seen by some as trying to defend a "friend". Let me just say that I am not really "friends" with Durin, but have grown to respect him as an editor and as an Admin. That being said, Kelly Martin was totally in the wrong here. Nothing Durin said violated policy. He was well within his bounds by trying to direct the dispute to the proper location. He was civil, he didn't take action by blocking Anittas, but rather warned him politely that he was in danger of 3RR. Accusing him like this is way out-of-line. I feel that this really may have been in retribution for the RfB, but can't be certain. It does certainly look that way, however. And now we have lost a good editor. Over what??? It is a shame this had to happen. Now, I am the one who is appalled.

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

--LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Silensor 22:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Xoloz 04:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC) LV is absolutely correct. Xoloz 04:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
LV and I dont agree on much.. but we agree here. ALKIVAR™ 05:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.