Wikinews:Dispute resolution/DragonFire1024 and Amgine

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement of dispute by DragonFire1024

My current diapue with Amgine is simple.

Amgine has, for whatever reason, and still has not stated why, but has no trust in me, and never has since day one of my arrival.
He seems to think that my Rfda's are disruption, I disagree.
He picks and chooses who violates policy then blocks them. For example: Eloquence made, IMO, a personal attack on the WN:A talk page and therefore was never blocked for it. Calling users "trolls" is not constructve.
Although IRC logs are not allowed to be used, Amgine has made more than several personal attacks on me in the #wikinews channel. He has also banned/kicked me numerous times in what I believe to be a way to get me to shut up.
Amgine seems to delete pages (such as my mass Rfda) without concensus and while voting was in progress. Note: At the time of deletion, both times by Amgine, there was no concensus.

I beleive this resolution is absolutely necessary if collaboration is to continue between us. Jason Safoutin 12:35, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Amgine

Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this dispute publicly on-wiki.

Your early contributions established a confrontational, non-collaborative approach to news writing within this project. You have exhibited poor social interaction skills on the wiki, and with some regularity a marked lack of judgement. Your actions have on occasion suggested you react to stressful circumstances by losing your temper. These and other reasons have formed the basis of my lack of trust in you for the responsibilities of adminship. I also personally question your ability to represent the project as an accredited reporter, for the same reasons, but the community has given you that responsibility and I support the community in doing so.
Any Request for de-Adminship is disruptive to the workings of the site; that is in fact their purpose. Doing so without a basis other than being personally disgruntled is particularly offensive. Failing to attempt to discuss this with the wider community (for example as a proposal on the Water Cooler) is simply arrogant grand-standing to make a point. Repeated recreation of the poll is vandalism (also grounds for speedy deletion.)
Wiktionary defines troll in the following relevant definitions:
Etymology 2, Verb 3: by extension, to search (for), to draw out, to entice
Etymology 2, Noun 2: (Internet) Someone who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc., in a way deliberately intended to anger other posters and draw arguments.
Etymology 2, Noun 3: (Internet) Such a deliberately inflammatory post itself.
Eloquence's reference to your repeated dismissal of and attacks on the ArbCom policy and the community decision-making process on the reconfirmation poll for MrMiscellaneous ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) accurately describes your behaviour there. It is akin to accusing Mr Bush of "politicking" or an academic journal's blind review process as "elitism": yes, that's what they are doing and so it is not a personal attack to say so.
I have in IRC said you were acting like an idiot, that you were throwing a temper tantrum, and that you were attempting to be intimidating. I reiterate those statements here. See the above response, and I refer you to articles idiot (especially etymology), and tantrum on Wiktionary.
Referring to the speedy deletions policy I find the following:
Content reposted without changes that was deleted according to established deletion policy.

Your RfdAs were removed in accordance with existing policy, more than once. Their recreation as a separate article was without merit, and vandalous.

There has been little collaboration between us previously, for the simple reason that you do not tend to collaborate. You have shown zero effort prior to this point to attempt to resolve any differences that I am aware of. I am very hopeful that discussing this will bring about a change in behaviour, and that we may move toward a community-supported article creation process which is not confrontational. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 17:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of dispute by Amgine

I am happy to accept this request for dispute resolution.

DragonFire1024's first edit was in January 2006, and on the same day uploaded copyvio images. When it was pointed out these images might be copyright violations by other admins, he responded defensively and aggressively, or not at all, setting the pattern for this user's community interactions on Wikinews since. User appeared from his earliest communications to be self-involved rather than collaborative (e.g. first talk page entry [7], second talk page edit [8])

Despite this behaviour, my first interaction with this user was complimentary and, I hope, welcoming [9].

This is not an unknown behaviour pattern on Wikinews, and is not by itself a major flaw in a contributor. It is, however, unacceptable for an admin. Especially when coupled with a tendency to engage in edit/revert wars over ideological content (Talk:U.S. airstrike targeting Ayman al-Zawahiri leaves 18 dead in Pakistani village history [6th day active on WN], Talk:Pakistani Official claims 'foreign terrorists' among civilians killed in U.S. airstrike history, etc. More recently Talk:Amnesty Report 2006: disadvantaged pay price of war on terror history)

The user has a history of inappropriate community interactions. A recurrent theme in these interactions is an assumption of article/site ownership or entitlement ("I will not allow..." "My article..."), use of the imperative voice ("Do not..." "Do this...") Another recurrent theme is denial of responsibility for his actions. Finally, the user attempts to intimidate contributors in a manner reminiscent of a school yard bully; shouting and berating without considering or accepting response or feedback, taunts and accusations.

The above communications and collaborative issues make DragonFire1024 a challenging user to work with, but again the user is not unique in this regard.

The current issue with which DragonFire1024 is upset is his desire to de-admin all existing admins for failing to be responsive to the community - apparently in this case meaning failing to be responsive to him personally. This action is clearly disruptive to the community, and harmful, and is being made to make a point: that in his opinion the community's previous decisions (prior to his arrival on Wikinews) must be approved by himself or they are not community decisions.

This Dispute Resolution request is also a continuation of many hours worth of berating and harrassment he has engaged in off-wiki, and is itself an example of the user's efforts to attempt intimidation.

I will be happy to work with a mediator and DragonFire1024 regarding personal differences between us, but I am unsure what the intent of such mediation would be. Perhaps we should determine what the goal of such mediation would be, so as to be able to work collaboratively toward that goal. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 16:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response by DragonFire1024

In response to the Airstrike article. I was working with it to make it factual, as reports were, at the time. Not what they might have been or what they could have been. The article was changed to speculate what might be reason behind the strike.

Please note the article went from, which were the very first reports: Al-Qaeda member Ayman al-Zawahiri possibly dead to 18 killed in U.S. air strike on village in Pakistan which was NOT the news at the time. The news, at the time of reporting, was Zawahiri. The title was being changed, and still is, to show a dislike/hatred towards the U.S. As Amgine says, see the talk page.

As for the foreign terrorists, again. Same situation.

For the amnesty article, well for one the entire article is POV without ANY defense to the so called "arrogant" governments which violates WN:NPOV. Reporting is supposed to be balanced and neutral, this article is neither. I was IMO ignored and was also told that me concerns were "without merit" and were "not actionable" and "philosofical" (that word was copied and pasted from the articles talk page). Ignoring users is NOT collaborating.

I may say My (maybe in IRC when discussing)...but its not mine. I am refering to the fact that I did write...however; I do not own any articles on this Wiki. I also never state any of them as being "mine". Is my name on a byline anywhere?

I am far from a shouter. Open minded and very blunt? Yes. I can however name a few users who are much worse in that respect. Back to the amnesty article: Who was the one being ignored again? How would i be able to accept "feedback" if i am told my concerns are useless?

Apparently I was not clear. So let me be very clear: I see on a daily basis that admins (most) are around to block users protect pages...I only mostly see Amgine block users, regularly, and comment on talk pages, but rarely even write an article or edit one for that matter. It is clear that most of the admins (including Eloquence and IlyaHaykinson) usually, in my experience only come about when a dispute or blocking occurs. With that said, Admins (most) do NOT pay the least bit attention to the community and do not pay enough attention to their concerns. They get the Admin postition and then do nothing. The mass Rfda was for that reason. If you are not willing to accept that the community has concerns, then i don't want you as an admin (you being any admin). You represent the community. Remember that. You have no right to block someone because they do not like the job you are doing.

Other than Brianmc, Amgine is the only Admin to ever block me. Also note that Amgine has blocked me while in dispute with me nearly every time. MrM removed a block to block again once. Jason Safoutin 17:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amgine, I consider you deleteing the Rfda page, before ANY concensus and without any tag of deletion, a violation of policy. It is my belief that you deleted the page because you did not like the page. You also did this with the userboxes. You cannot simply delete pages because you dislike them. That is abuse of administrator privilages. In addition, BrianNewZealand was well within his powers to undelete a page to which was illegaly deleted.

Any Request for de-Adminship is disruptive to the workings of the site; that is in fact their purpose. Doing so without a basis other than being personally disgruntled is particularly offensive. Failing to attempt to discuss this with the wider community (for example as a proposal on the Water Cooler) is simply arrogant grand-standing to make a point. Repeated recreation of the poll is vandalism (also grounds for speedy deletion.)

Yup...I say the same for MrM. Hes Rfda is NOTHING but a disturbance and ILLEGAL. I believe you and the rest of "ArbCom" is also disgruntled and has a "personal" issue with MrM, issues which IMO have NOTHING to do with the project. By taking that to ArbCom you failed to allow the community to decide proper action. I beleive that this case against MrM is a "grandstand" and nothing more than revenge. As far as I see it the case against MrM, and EdBrown NOT recusing himself, makes the case NULL and VOID. What I did was not vandalism or disruption especially after I added ONLY you and Eloquence to the Rfda, which was also removed IMO because they did not like it. This is a community and Admins are elected through the community and and Rfda should only be listed as such. If you want Arbcom to Rfda then make them also add a Rfa. Jason Safoutin 19:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator

Amgine requested that I mediate this dispute. Pending the approval of DragonFire1024, I'll take this case. I'll be e-mailing both of you in the next 12-24 hours. Ral315 (talk) 18:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Approve Jason Safoutin 18:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Accept - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 19:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"Your RfdAs were removed in accordance with existing policy, more than once. Their recreation as a separate article was without merit, and vandalous." --Amgine

I would personally like to point out that they were not recreated as another page by DragonFire1024. They were recreated on the WN:A (by DF) as RfdA's (they were originally re-confirmation requests), and I relocated them to another page since they were taking up too much space. —THIS IS MESSEDOCKER (TALK) 18:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Feel free to ignore this if you don't care) — The arbcom is not Amgine. If you have a problem with it, you should proably open a dispute resolution with them - Wikinews:Dispute resolution/DragonFire1024 and the arbcommies (Bawolff Chiacomo Craig Spurrier Deprifry Edbrown05 Ilya Haykinson). Bawolff ☺☻

23:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.