User:Chzz/drafting2

Drafting a reply to;

I don't consider someone having to withdraw his RfA due to the animosity that developed in the process as a good thing. In fact those who participated in taking Badger on doomed that RfA. If you had ignored it I'm certain most users would have seen Badger's criticism as unjustified cabalism with no proof and dismissed it. You gave it credence by fighting with him. As far as working with users who may be uncivil I have worked with many over the years and mentored several to help them work through their issues. Filing multiple cases against them in various venues and monitoring their edits isn't something that helps, working with someone who they respect does. --WGFinley (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

---

I think that's an awful thing to claim - that the people who objected to uncivil comments on the RfA were somehow responsible for it failing. It sounds like you think we should just ignore incivility - even if it's been going on for years. Surely not?

I'm not sure quite who you mean by "you" in "You gave it credence by fighting with him". It cannot be me, nor Worm, because neither of us responded on that RfA; check it out, Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang. I suppose by "you" you're referring to the fact that Pesky responded - which she did; and so did lots of others. I do understand what you're saying - that when people respond to RfA opposes, it can be detrimental to the candidate; however, RfA is at least supposed to be a discussion, not a vote; so people should surely be permitted to respond.

Re-reading the original AN/I thread that Pesky started, here, several things strike me. One is that many people there thought that we should certainly take action about long-term incivility; and that RfA shouldn't be some special exception to that. Another is, that from the very start, Pesky made it clear that she was talking about a long-term problem, going on for years - and specifically not just the recent events on the RfA; in fact, she tried to steer the discussion back to the longer-term problem and away from the RfA - e.g. "Forget that it's anything to do with an RfA - it's not about RfA, it's about incivility and lack of respect. And it's been going on, and got away with, for a very long time".

Also, we need to consider exactly what has happened here; your comment about "Filing multiple cases against them in various venues" really doesn't match the reality;

Pesky filed one, single, 'case' on ANI - the only one she's ever created. And then, in that thread, Pesky was advised it'd be better suited to an RfC/U - for example, BWilkins said that a "studied pattern" belongs at WP:RFC/U. So, that's exactly what she did.

She started the RfC/U (this one), and stated, "seems to be a long-term and ongoing issue, and took it to AN/I though I now appreciate that this was probably the wrong venue". Fully accepting that ANI wasn't the correct approach, and trying to sort out this problem, as advised to do - remember, lots of people on the AN/I thread thought something needed to happen here.

In that RfC/U, the vast majority of people recognized that there was a real, serious, ongoing issue - many indicating "Why are we allowing this ?" Why do we tolerate it?

During the RfC/U, Pesky seemed to listen carefully and respond appropriately, and try to work out a way forward. BD flat-out refused to participate. But, many people indicated that his edits, and in particular his edit-summaries, should be watched. And so, that's exactly what Pesky did; happy that he'd improved, when she saw a slip back into the same old pattern, she gently pointed it out to the user. And that is it. Then, he launched the AN/I thread you closed.

So, let's say it in simple terms;


 * BD wrote some comments on Z's RfA, which some considered uncivil.
 * Pesky replied to them.
 * Checking into BD's behaviour, Pesky saw the long-term pattern of incivility, and wanted to address that. So, took it to ANI. 
 * On the ANI, Pesky was advised an RfC/U was more appropriate - so she began that 
 * In the RfC/U, most thought BD's edits were of concern, and wanted action; certainly wanted monitoring, and hoped for improvement.
 * Pesky did monitor them, and commented on two, in a perfectly polite way 

It is absolutely clear to me that there is no kind of action, in any of that, which justify admonishing Pesky.

I totally agree with you that it is "time for this to stop and folks move on" - there's nothing I'd like more. I wish I could've avoided having this lengthy conversation here. I did try addressing the matter by email. But, I simply cannot ignore this; you've handed out an admonishment to a user who is blameless - and that has upset the user greatly. So again, I ask you to please reconsider your 'admonishment'. Thank you for your time.