Wikinews:Dispute resolution/Users Cartman02au and Amgine

Statement of Dispute: Cartman02au
Users involved: Amgine and Cartman02au.

Unreasonable article deletion
I posted an article which was deleted by Amgine as being "PR and incitement for riot". This deletion was made without proper consultation. I later reposted the article, where another administrator suggested I merge it with another topic.

As a new user to this site, and hopefully a valuable contributor I believe that proper explanation should have occured.

Ignores messages
Following the above I attempted to contact Amgine and was ignored. Amgine had posted to another page following my posting. Administrators should try to assist new users where possible, not ignore and alienate them.

Hypocrisy
I believe Amgine's signature advertising his competing site is complete hypocrisy. After complaining that my posting was "PR" he posts a signature linking to his talk page on another site. As an administrator suce conflicts of interest should not exist.

Faults on my behalf
Cartman02au 01:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Not knowing correct procedures on Wikinews
 * 2) Not knowing about this process
 * 3) Prematurely lodging an RfDA

Addition to statement of dispute: Cartman02au
Amgine is alleging that I am a meat puppet. It is not the first time Amgine has made similar allegations against another user who disagrees with him.

Rebuttal by Amgine
The user is invited to insert a rebuttal here


 * 1) Unreasonable article deletion
 * On en.Wikinews, press releases of any form are speedy deletion candidates as advertising. The article in its original state strongly resembeled a press release which might have been made by organizers of riots. Coupled with the complete quote of the message on the talk page, the entire article appeared to be an incitement to riot, not reporting of news.
 * Speedy deletion candidates may be deleted on sight, without a requirement for discussion or notification. See Speedy deletion guidelines.
 * 1) Ignores messages
 * The user posted to my talk page at 23:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC). The user asked my adminship be revoked 24 hours and 40 minutes later for not responding to his message and for deleting "his" article, at 00:32, 14 December 2005.
 * I should certainly have responded to the user. However, during the timeframe covered I RC patroled 27 sites and was involved in making edits on the following sites:
 * Wikinews sites:
 * en
 * Wiktionary sites:
 * sc rv pa en
 * Meta.Wikimedia: meta (also an admin there)
 * I also was involved in getting Arabic and Thai wikinews started, getting administrators created on these two new editions and various other elements involved in starting new wikis for Wikimedia.
 * This of course is only detailing my involvement on Wikimedia projects. Perhaps it is a bit much, but I also do things outside of Wikimedia; December 13th was my birthday, and I celebrated with my family.
 * 1) Hypocrisy
 * I should have written out that I meant Press Release, not public relations.
 * My signature links to my user page on my personal wiki, which I have in the past and hope in the future to be my primary online project. It is a non-profit education project for students of journalism, as may be discerned by anyone who visits it. Users such as Cartman02au complain when I do not respond quickly to them because I am not focused solely on the site they happen to have left a message for me on, so I feel it is better to have a single, central user page which I am most likely to catch messages on.
 * 1) Faults on my behalf
 * I do not consider any of these to be faults of Cartman02au. Although the move to request a de-adminship was a bit extreme, it is was a request made in good faith and ostensibly for the improvement of the community.
 * 1) Addition to statement of dispute: Cartman02au
 * By my broader definition (as explained on Cartman02au's talk page), the user was likely manipulated to react more negatively, and more extremely, than he otherwise might have. I stand by what I said there, and here. -  Amgine | talk 05:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * My signature links to my user page on my personal wiki, which I have in the past and hope in the future to be my primary online project. It is a non-profit education project for students of journalism, as may be discerned by anyone who visits it. Users such as Cartman02au complain when I do not respond quickly to them because I am not focused solely on the site they happen to have left a message for me on, so I feel it is better to have a single, central user page which I am most likely to catch messages on.
 * 1) Faults on my behalf
 * I do not consider any of these to be faults of Cartman02au. Although the move to request a de-adminship was a bit extreme, it is was a request made in good faith and ostensibly for the improvement of the community.
 * 1) Addition to statement of dispute: Cartman02au
 * By my broader definition (as explained on Cartman02au's talk page), the user was likely manipulated to react more negatively, and more extremely, than he otherwise might have. I stand by what I said there, and here. -  Amgine | talk 05:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Addition to statement of dispute: Cartman02au
 * By my broader definition (as explained on Cartman02au's talk page), the user was likely manipulated to react more negatively, and more extremely, than he otherwise might have. I stand by what I said there, and here. -  Amgine | talk 05:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Statement of dispute: Amgine
I gladly accept this request for dispute resolution.

Although I regret not being able to communicate more easily with User:Cartman02au, and his choice to file a request for de-adminship against me without giving much time for me to respond to his single attempt to communicate with me, I do not have any dispute with the user.

Rebuttal by Cartman02au
1. Unreasonable article deletion Perhaps I should have included in the talk page the reasoning behind me posting the article as I did when it was reposted. It was not a press release, there was no intention of inciting what I believe to be disgusting behaviour (which I hoped to keep out of the article according to NPOV ideals.

I do feel that the deletion was unreasonable and in poor judgement (in the lightest possible terms). I feel that the administrator which suggested that I merge the second article (almost a copy of the first) with the Sydney violence continues article made a much better judgement call.

Perhaps it would have been suitable to mark it as a developing story or to mark it in some other way.

2. Ignores messages I genuninely felt I was being ignored due to the fact that Amgine had been active on this site around 7 hours after I posted my request. I can understand that people have lives away from WN and that other things take priority.

3. Hypocrisy I am still undecided on this. I feel as though the link is advertising for another site, which I personally feel is inappropriate for an administrator to do. At the same time I do believe that you are genuine in your reasoning for doing this.

4. Faults on my behalf The RfDA was premature. I had looked at what others had said about Amgine on his talk page (and his lack of response) and believed he was arrogant by my perceived ignoring of messages and that he failed to follow site policy by deleting the article.

The fact of the matter is someone as active as Amgine on WN is always going to receive critism. In my experience people rather complain than compliment.

5. Addition of statement of dispute I am still annoyed by the meat puppet allegation. I have not been influenced by others (apart from reading past comments). I can see how you come to this conclusion but I deny it.

Request for moderator
I request a moderator from the community. I would suggest user:Carman02au make proposals for someone to serve as moderator as I do not wish to delay this dispute resolution further. -  Amgine | talk 23:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have sent a message to User:Chiacomo to act as moderator as he was kind enough to refer me to the dispute resolution preocess Cartman02au 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I will gladly moderate and feel that I can impartially render a decision, however, parties should be aware that I consider Amgine a friend. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with you considering Amgine a friend. You were kind enough to provide me with information on a sensible course of action and for that I consider you to be impartial to this matter. Cartman02au 03:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If Amgine is agreeable, I'll consent to moderating this dispute. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I am agreeable for Chiacomo to moderate. Apologies for my late response. -  Amgine | talk 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Moderator's Requests

 * Parties are invited to insert rebuttals or mitigating statements above within 24 hours of this timestamp. If you require more time, please let me know. --Chiacomo (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Comment i think the signature editing is open to abuse and and as a policy everyones signature should link to their own wikinews profile. (for all we know we could leave comments and with her admin status he could make them disappear from history even or alter them.) Personally i cant beleive a admin would pull this sort of thing and that other admins let this happen. I believe it also reflects poorly on wikinews. I see no problems with leaving a note or links to your other project talk pages in your wikinews talk page but not in your signature everyone who clicks on a signature expects that wiki projects talkpage not something else,its disreputable.--Whywhywhy 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply: After thinking about it a little further (and I'd like to see what Amgine thinks of this) it is damn annoying if you want to communicate with a user to click on his signature and go to a different site. Instead of using the navigation features of this wiki you go elsewhere and find it an annoyance to come back to WN. Cartman02au 22:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Chiacomo, Cartman02au - I've less than 24 hours before departing on a road trip. I'd like to move on to discussing possible resolutions if we can? I would like to hear what Cartman02au would like to see me improve on to address his concerns, above. -  Amgine | talk 20:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * With regards to the unreasonable deletion, I would like to see that in the future that a little more communication occur. I (and some others) do not believe that it was PR and that it should have been considered for deletion under normal guidelines not speedy deletion. As for your signature, I must admit I like WhyWhyWhy's suggestion - it seems reasonable to me. I also think that the meat puppet statement should be retracted.


 * Now on my side - I apologise for the RfDA, it was unfair and ill thought out. I honestly believed (at the time) for it to be the best course of action.


 * Finally, have a safe trip. Cartman02au 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you!


 * I'm not sure how I can retract a personal opinion. I will gladly state that you are not an account created at the behest of a third person to attack me, nor are you a sock puppet.


 * I'll start a resolution here and see what you think of it, Cartman02au:


 * I resolve, for the next 30 days, to not speedy delete anything saving clear and unambiguous vandalism. Where I find an article which I believe is in need of a speedy deletion I will mark it with to flag it for another admin's attention. At that time I will consult with Cartman02au whether to extend or modify this resolution.


 * Regarding the signature, this has previously been discussed on this wiki and elsewhere. If you would like I can add link-backs to all the sites where I edit to the talk page, and keep it very short. Since I only edit about 50 wikimedia projects it should be a relatively easy menu.


 *  -  Amgine | talk 22:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * yup thanks :) --Whywhywhy 12:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe the resolution to be a bit over the top. As for speedy deletion, I can understand the need for you to do it in alot of cases (as an active Administrator) but would appreciate if it if more discretion was used in the future. Frankly, if the article appears to be genuine, perhaps mark it as a developing story and ask the author to explain themselves, or refer it to standard deletion. Perhaps if it is ambiguous a second administrator's opinion could be sought.
 * With regard to the signature, I cant see the problem with linking to your WN talk page with something along the lines of "I do not check this that often, I prefer to use blah blah. It seems to be to be a slap in the face of WN to link to another talk page. There again (this is personal taste and opinion) I edit a heck of alot of wikis and use a talk page for each - it makes it easier to distinguish between issues here, at WP, MME, etc. I am sure if I kept linking to my wiki people would be upset within a short maount of time.
 * The statement that I am not an account created at the request of someone else satisfies me. That is what I think being a meat puppet is.


 * I will do as you suggest. I've incorporated Why^3's suggestion, and will also incorporate your suggestion for my talk page here. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the new signature is reasonable Cartman02au 20:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well amgine if you dont have time to check your talk page in wikinews then maybe you shouldnt be admin here because you are stretched to thin threw the projects. My opinion is that if you have enough time to admin wiki news you should have time to check your talk here. Maybe you can warn people that they may not recieve a speedy response and suggest they respnd on your wiki. At the very least you could added a link in your signature to your wiki news talk.
 * so it looked like this:-  Amgine | talk WikiNewsTalk AHHH I didnt sign my comment--Whywhywhy 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * and ima only guessing thats your user page cos on this users page it says :
 * Amgine has left the project... It's been a great ride, and I've had a lot of good times, but I don't feel I can be supportive of the direction the project appears to be headed. So, to avoid further controversy, I'm withdrawing from en.wikinews.org projects.--Whywhywhy 02:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I know I kind of missed the boat for disscussion here, but, I think the problem with Admins speedy deleting and forgeting is a major problem that most of us our guilty of. People who work hard to do something and then magicly have it deleted, are probally not going to come back. Maybe we should move more towards a test1 test2 test3 test4, system like wikipedia. Bawolff ☺☻ 06:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Amgine
Amgine,

It is fortunate that I am an administrator as it allows me to view the deleted pages at the heart of this dispute. The article created by Cartman02au was NPOV, at best. The user did provide original reporting notes -- a copy of a messages posted to various news groups. A NPOV tag and a note on the talk page requesting more sources might have been more appropriate. I do, however, understand the deletion in that Wikinews is the daily target of individuals wishing to subvert the project to promote their own political and commercial agendas. I can't throw many stones as I might have deleted the page on sight myself as well. Hindsight is 20/20.

I am fully aware -- perhaps a bit more than most -- of your contributions to the various WMF projects. I know that you spend hours each day patrolling the low-edit projects and your work is greatly appreciated. It is understandable that a message left on your talk page might not receive a timely response -- however, as administrators, we should strive to respond to all messages left by users... Especially those that relate to the duties of an administrator. I am, as always (and sometimes to my own detriment), willing to assume good faith and accept that your schedule and activities might have prevented you from responding immediately to the user's request.

As concerns your signature... Well, on other Wiki project, I too point to an off-project talk page. Most, if not all, of my signatures point to Wikinews. However, as you are an active editor on this project -- probably as active here as anywhere else, and as you are an administrator, it is not unreasonable to present other users with the option to leave a message on this project. As you very active here, you will be notified on your next page view of new messages on your talk page. You have already adjusted your signature to include a link to en.Wikinews -- your willingness to compromise is appreciated.

I agree that the Cartman02au's actions might indicate that xe is behaving as a meat-puppet, but, again, I am willing to assume good faith.

Your contributions are invaluable and I hope you will take my observations and recommendations seriously. I consider you a friend and know that, though we may not always agree, we are united in our mission to further the goals of Wikinews. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cartman02au
Cartman02au,

One of the principals of wiki, at least as concerns WMF projects, is the ability for anyone to edit. Because our community is so open, we do suffer under a constant barrage of press-releases, propaganda, and basic utter nonsense. Administrators, though not as busy as on Wikipedia, are constantly reviewing page creations and edits in an attempt to preserve the integrity of the project. A vandalised or bogus page adds nothing to the project and can be harmful to the project if, for example, new users are repulsed by vulgar or rediculous content... or, perhaps more harmful, a representative of main stream media might stumble upon such a page and draw incorrect conclusions about the quality of the content produced by the project. Administrators roll-back and speedy-delete pages throughout the day -- usually with no notice to the contributor as most contributors never return after posting speedy content.

Your article is a bit different, however, as you did post original reporting notes. I cannot say what I would have done, had I come across your article. I'd like to think that I would have posted a NPOV notice on the page and requested more sources on the talk page. Perhaps not -- I might have been busy in real life and simply hit the delete key.

Your response to the deletion was a bit extreme. An RfDA is a serious procedure and calls into question the integrity and commmitment of an individual to the project. A more appropriate response would have been to first, attempt to discuss the deletion with Amgine (which I see you did), and failing that, discuss the deletion with other administrators. Finally, this process, would have been preferable. Of course, the article was recreated in another form with more sources and a more balanced tone. That article was excellent, in my opinion, and demonstrates some of the better qualities of Wikinews.

Many users on many projects maintain their talk pages on other projects. I think Amgine has made a good faith attempt to resolve any confusion about his signature and I will not address this further unless you wish. Policy does not define where a user keeps his talk page -- and I would oppose any move to include restrictions in policy.

Recent actions on this project and others indicate that there is an ongoing witch hunt against Amgine. He has apparently created enemies on other projects and their disputes are bleeding over onto Wikinews. Your RfDA was probably coincidentally timed with these other disputes, but, as you yourself said, I can see how [Amgine] come to this conclusion -- namely, that you are/were a meat-puppet. I really don't care -- users are perfectly within their rights to rally their friends to support them. What does bother me (and I'm not addressing you, necessarily) is the influx of editors from other projects to Wikinews who come with, apparently, the single purpose to involve themselves in site politics.

Wikis are all about discussion and collaboration. I would encourage you, in the future, to attempt to resolve your disputes and to solve problems without resorting to official procedures. If all editors assumed good faith and all editors acted with the best interest of the project at heart, we wouldn't need Administrators or speedy-delete or many of the other policies and procedures that seem to bog us down.

I am pleased you have chosen to join this project and already you have made valuable contributions to Wikinews. Please review my statement to Amgine and my statement to you. Please let me know if I can clarify any point, and of course, please let me know if I can assist you in any way on Wikinews. --Chiacomo (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your assistance Chiacomo, you have been a great help. I appreciate the fact that you took the time to inform me about this process after I lodged the RfDA. I guess at the time I was annoyed that I felt like I was being ignored by Amgine. In hindsight, the RfDA was a knee-jerk reaction.


 * I am happy with what Amgine has proposed to do and if I resolve that in the future if I have any issue with him that I will give him at least 2-3 days to respond before I get huffy about it :).


 * With respect to the meat puppet allegation, I can understand it and yes it is coincidental. The only influence I had was my own dispute and reading Amgine's talk page, where complaints seem to be made a fair bit, but ignored. Again, in hindsight someone as active as Amgine is always going to draw critism and people are more likely to complain than compliment. Cartman02au 21:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Resolutions
I resolve to be more circumspect in my use of the speedy deletion, requesting second opinions where the situation is not clear to me. I have added a link to my en.Wikinews talk page to my signature here, and have added a note to my talk page giving several means of contacting me as well as a list of most of my wikimedia foundation account talk pages. -  Amgine | talk en.WN 04:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)