Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MatthewFenton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 18:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

---

• MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • logs)

---

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

Contents 1 Statement of the dispute 1.1 Description 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.3.1 Related policies and guidelines 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Outside view 3.1 Outside View Number 1 3.2 Outside view by AMIB 3.3 Outside view by Rich Farmbrough 3.4 Outside view by Friday 3.5 Outside view by Crossmr 4 Discussion

[edit] Statement of the dispute

MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) argues for blocks as punishment. The manner or tone of this argument has been described as problematic.

[edit] Description

MatthewFenton filed a 3RR report on Ed g2s (talk • contribs). The resulting block from Sceptre proved to be controversial, and much discussion ensued, both at WP:AN/3RR and WP:AN/I, and on user talkpages. There were multiple opinions given both for and against the block and Sceptre later withdrew the block.[1] During the course of this conversation, MatthewFenton made in the neighbourhood of forty edits to the Wikipedia namespace (check contribs from August 1-2 -- note that IFD edit is to support deletion of an image authored by Ed g2s), close to twenty of which with the sole purpose of arguing for punishing Ed g2s. The manner and tone of these edits were criticised by three other editors, all of whom asked the user to stop. As point of comparison, Johntex (talk • contribs) also argued strongly and repeatedly for an increased block time, without being asked to alter behaviour.

Similar behaviour has now begun with A Man in Black, one of the critics, as a new subject of calls for punishment.[2]. This suggests that the problem is not resolved with the end of the Ed g2s situation.

Can advocating for punitive blocks cross a line, and, if so, did it in this case? It is hoped that further community input on this style of editing might address whether or not this behaviour is within community standards. Endorsement of this description might address whether the diffs below are beyond reasonable discussion of administrator action / length of blocking and instead be perceived as inappropriate unkindness ("kicking someone when they are down") or harassment.

[edit] 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.)

The following is a selection of edits which may fail to WP:AGF, fail to be WP:CIVIL, or appear needlessly provocative through tone or repetition. Other edits on the subject have not been included.

August 1, 2006 

WP:AN3 16:03 — WP:AN3 16:53 — WP:AN3 16:57 — WP:ANI 16:59 — WP:AN3 17:02 — WP:ANI 17:08 — User talk:Johntex 17:13 — User talk:Sceptre 17:17 — WP:AN3 19:44 — WP:ANI 21:19 — WP:ANI 21:25 — WP:ANI 22:25 — WP:ANI 22:27

August 2, 2006 

WP:ANI 18:23 — WP:ANI 18:38 — WP:ANI 19:18 — User talk:Sceptre 17:59 — User talk:Friday 19:27

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. WP:AGF
2. WP:CIVIL

[edit] Related policies and guidelines

1. Wikipedia:Blocking policy (only in so far as using blocks to punish editors for editing greivances is disendorsed by this policy)

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. Recommendations from Jkelly to stop: [3] [4] [5]
2. Recommendations from A Man In Black to stop: [6] [7] [8] [9]
3. Recommendations from Cyde to de-escalate, stop: [10] [11]
4. Concern from Kelly Martin: [12]

Timestamps show that the requests to stop repeating calls for punishment were repeatedly ignored. Further informal requests to stop seem unlikely to be more effective.response from subject of RfC

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Jkelly 19:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Cyde↔Weys 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
3. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
4. —freak(talk) 19:04, Aug. 8, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

1. Syrthiss 19:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC). His strident calls are unseemly, and while I could see such in a new user he has been with Wikipedia since Dec 2005.
2. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
3. PKtm 19:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC). This user's talk page is one of the few user talk pages I have on my watch list, because I've observed, for many weeks now, his inclination to mischief, including falsely claiming to be a WP admin ([13]), his attempts to "game the system" on 3RR (even discussing his approach with another user too) ([14]), and a tendency to use WP policy to make a point, such as with fair use images. I strongly support this summary.
4. User:Bastique Bastique▼^parler _voir 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
5. --Aldux 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC). I agree, his tone was uncivil and a clear violation of the two policies.
6. While anyone has the right to argue that a block is too long or too short (and Johntex was a good example of someone who did that without becoming objectionable) this repeated seeking of more punishment for someone with whom he disagreed on copyright issues went way over the limit of what could be considered acceptable. See also here. AnnH ♫ 20:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Matthew needs to be conduct himself with more maturity. His inital listing of me was preceeded by boilerplate vandalsim warnings on my talk page, and this isn't the first time. ed g2s • talk 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
8. I found it disturbing how single-mindedly Matthew persistently demanded for the block to be lengthened. This, combined with the apparent total disregard that even arguments had been made against doing so caused me to seriously question his good faith. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Matthew should not be so antogonistic and be quick to take things perosnally. This is a community. I had my own run in with him on 28 July, which I took to ANI: he tagged (in good fiath, apparantly) some of my sourced fair use images as nsd after I had challenged an image that appeared on one of The OC articles. What started as a straight forward fair use challenge quickly esculated into a personal vendetta (third parties did rebuke me for 'violating' AGF, but didn't comment upon the legitimacy of my accusation, considering he would have had to actively hunt for my images). The issue between us seemed to be resolved on Friday, but I feel it needs to be mentioned on here as another example of Matthew's tendency to take things to a personal level. Ed does some fantasic work for the project, and that should have been commented upon at some point, rather than completely focussing upon a violation of 3RR. The JPS^{talk to me} 14:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
10. Although I believe he has good intentions, Matthew often makes relatively minor issues into major ones by refusing to admit when he's wrong and taking things far too personally. There also seems to a tendency towards wikilawyering instead of discussion. Aren't I Obscure? 15:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
11. I also believe Matthew has good intentions. However, it's not a good idea to use boilerplate vandalism warnings to discuss policy issues with good-faith editors. Also, while it's admirable to have knowledge of policy, it's better to first approach a situation with common sense, and to only resort to confrontation by quoting policy when necessary. --Interiot 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
12. I would also like to point out that after Ed was finally unblocked, Matthew complained about that as well. Now, it is possible that Matthew was unaware of this but many 3RRV blocks are lifted at less than 24 hours when the user talks to the blocking admin. To call this getting "away with murder" is ridiculous. JoshuaZ 16:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
13. I have seen this behavior in Matthew as well. One of my images was tagged with "no source data" and one of his put in its place. I informed him that it had source data, he then told me that the link I provided was dead so it had no source. I told him many times that the site, stargatecaps.com, was down for repairs and that if he would only wait it would be back up and he would see that it was a fan run site that allowed use of its images (I even emailed them due to this incident and got written permission specifically for Wikipedia. Also, I provided a link to a google search that showed it was an active site). Matthew would not wait though and he kept replacing my image with his own, 3 reverts by the way (not counting the final one where he substituted my picture for his own at the actual image location rather than the main article)[15][16]. He seems to always assume bad faith, especially where one of his images may be substituted in place of the original. All he would have had to do was wait a few hours (don't know the specific amount of time it took for the site to get back up since I went to sleep) and the whole situation would have been resolved, but he decided to assume bad faith and keep replacing my image until I was forced to contact him. He seems like a nice guy and truly dedicated to Wikipedia, but his single-mindedness and bad faith gets in the way.[17][18] Note: I think a quote that best exemplifies this behavior would be the following, "The url does not work the image has no author and thus fails fair use, if you revert the edits it will be considerd vandalism and an act of war." Who would call a revert, even vandalism, an "act of war"? [19] Konman72 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Personal or not, I have to say that this series of events reflects very badly on MatthewFenton. Stifle (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
15. Matthew has a tendency to be a lightning rod for debates. This incident is not isolated. I too think his intentions are probably in the right place, but his means to achieving his ends lack understanding of the need for all of us to work within the community structure. Matthew, you may not like the advice and conclusions that are being presented here on this RfC. Nobody is asking you to like it. But, the preponderance of opinions here is that you are acting improperly. If this sort of behavior continues, it will only get worse for you. I sincerely hope you take this lesson to heart. --Durin 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Matthew has aspired to get me blocked in a seperate incident for breaking the 3RR rule. However, the edits that were reverted were simple vandalism and Matthew expressed no knowledge of this clause in the policy prior to my and PKtm's mentioning it. Matthew has also engaged in acts of Wikilawyering and when confronted with this claim, replied that he 'not taken any exams to become a solictor or work in law nor am i old enough to enter into such a proffesion in law'. SergeantBolt 20:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
17. After looking at Matthew's behaviour and commenting on the matter that SergeantBolt is refering to - I am also concerned about the amount of Wikilayering that is going on. My main concern is that Matthew is only able to look at situations in an entirely literal fashion and seems totally unable to grasp context. --Charlesknight 21:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Though some may disagree I believe I acted fairly when calling for Edwards block to be lengthened, when a user is blocked they generally appeal the block and will argue why they should be unblocked. It is not uncivil or bad faith to expect another party to believe they should remain blocked or ask for it to be lengthened. I fail to see why some people believe I acted in bad faith (I believed I was representing a view that sysops shouldn’t just be given the easy path if they do something wrong, I believe that when blocked they shouldn’t be treated as users; After all they are sysops and represent wikipedia and also they “police” wikipedia)... If they them selves can not adhere to rules them selves then why expect normal users to adhere to them?

When calling for Edwards block to be lengthened yes I may have been repetitive, but I also did not loose my temper or call names etc... I stayed calm and did not cuss etc. Now ABlackInMan said that I have been making threats to block other users, I can only laugh at that as the where merely warnings. What would be the point in having test-x templates if warning was bad? If you also look at the administrators page it does say any user can behave as if they where an administrator.

Now Edward said I need to act more maturely, I find this comment pretty rude after all he did call his block “Absurd” and does not show any remorse for his violation of 3RR three times in one day.

If anyone can present any hard evidence that I acted in bad faith or uncivil, please feel free to show me. I want to know. But I honestly believe I acted in good faith in an attempt to keep the stability, cohesion and integrity of the project together. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 14:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
2. ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(IN)`SANE<sup>`} 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.}

[edit] Outside View Number 1

Mathew got a little carried away and repeated his viewpoint more than was strictly necesary. To be fair to Mathew, in many cases he was making a new point, or responding specifically to a point made by someone else. In others, though, he would have been wiser to heed the requests to let others have their say.
He didn't really become "hostile" or "incivil". He did not threaten or cuss or call names. But he did jump quickly to an extreme position - that of recommending de-sysopping an admin. That is a very serious thing to contmplate. I certainly don't want to put any chilling effect on users who call for admins to be accountable. Admins need to be held to high standards, and they need to be thick-skineed about criticism. At the same time, users need to understand that admins have been given that mantle of responsibility because of general trust from the community and they should be cautious about calling for revocation of that adminship.
It is a fine line as to how much comment is desirable from one user on a particular issue. We should expect people to argue forcibly if they believe strongly in something, but it is also important that we all realize that we should not monopolize the conversation.
Mathew should be asked, without prejudice, to contemplate stepping back a bit more in future debates.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Johntex\^talk 21:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC) (Please note that I agreed with Mathew on the underlying dispute, but not in the manner of discussion)
2. Matthew Fenton (contribs) 21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
3. MECU≈talk 22:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
4. BCV 02:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
5. TheronJ 14:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC) I don't think that repeatedly calling for higher punishments technically violates WP:CIVIL or WP:AGF. Given that the system lets people argue to have their blocks removed, it's not unreasonable to expect interested parties to argue on the other side. However, I agree that it would have been a better idea to let this go, though, strictly to reduce wikistress on all concerned, and agree that a better tone from Matthew would have deescalated things considerably.
6. east.718 18:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
7. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
8. Durin 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Agree with the spirit. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by AMIB

MatthewFenton has been threatening discipline against other users as well, such as here. This is inappropriate.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Rich Farmbrough

There is really only one point to be made. Blocking is not a punishment (and IMHO nor should banning be) - it is a control. I.E. it is forward looking not backward looking. It shares the property of being a coercive measure intended to create a desired outcome. But regardless of a users past behaviour we should not have them blocked if we believe they are going to be an asset in future. WP:NOT fair. Knock it on the head and nmove on. Rich Farmbrough 11:45 9 August 2006 (GMT).

Users who endorse this view:

1. Rich Farmbrough 11:45 9 August 2006 (GMT).
2. Jkelly 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Friday

MatthewFenton seems unduly concerned with the letter of the law, both in the original issue here, and in subsequent actions. He should be reminded that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter. We all need to focus on producing a high quality encyclopedia rather than focusing on rules.

Users who endorse this view:

1. Friday (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
2. SergeantBolt 20:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. Konman72 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

   --Charlesknight 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

4. Jkelly 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 08:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Crossmr

While not involved in this dispute, I first encountered this user awhile ago on a now deleted article. Simply for questioning the necessity and validity of the article I was a target of hostility and personal attacks by this user. His aggressive behaviour is not new behaviour.

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems (third nomination)

Comments from the talk page of the article which I found to be aggressive and insulting

• It has more encyclopeadia value then you yourself do, and provides information which is related to 'Trek.
• i think maybe a group of wikipedians should rewrite this article to live up to Crossmrs hopes
• Nor do i, but some people cant not but complain.

This diff [20] shows some uncivil behaviour on the AfD.

Users who endorse this view:

1. Crossmr 16:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.