If you are here to appeal a warning issued by a sysop, be sure first to read carefully over the OrthodoxWiki:Disciplinary policy to see if you have in fact violated it.
If you feel that you have not violated the policy, then you may post an appeal here to ask other sysops (not the one who issued the warning) to review the act and possibly reverse the decision. The sysop who issued the warning may defend his doing so in the discussion, but he is not hearing the appeal.
To post an appeal, do so by clicking the + at the top of this page (next to the edit tab) and including a brief subject line, so that your appeal will have its own section for discussion. In the main body, please describe why you feel that your behavior was not a violation of official policy.
Please note: Whether or not someone else "deserves" to be warned or banned is irrelevant in your appeal. The only issue at hand is your own behavior.
As per the OrthodoxWiki:Disciplinary policy, once three sysops have examined the appeal and voted, a majority of votes either in favor or against overturning it decides the case.
Liturgy of St. Tikhon Page Needs Moderating
As you can see, a poster who goes by "Fr Lev" has started another "edit war" on the Liturgy of St. Tikhon page. He has also started a long, self-contradictory explanation on its Talk page, and I, probably unwisely, tried to respond to give a rationale for my edits to the moderators. This same poster waged three similar efforts against me this February 12-14 on the Liturgy of St. Tikhon, the Liturgy of St. Gregory, and the main Western Rite pages (and got at least one of them locked). He throws fits anytime anyone corrects his articles, accusing them of "personal animus" (see here and here) or says they are "being silly".
I have not undone his latest reversion-of-a-reversion (the second in 24 hours), because Fr. Andrew specifically warned this poster the last time this happened, "If y'all move your edit war (i.e., repeated reversions to the same edit) to another article, then you'll both be banned." I will not restore accurate information at this time, but I've given the reasons I think it should be. I just don't want to be accused of participating in this nonsense, which is why I'm calling in "the adults." :)
I'd appreciate it if accurate, non-POV edits were not constantly replaced with inaccurate, misleading statements (which seem to serve an agenda) in endless edit wars. And we'd all appreciate it if we could go on contributing here without malicious charges of personal attacks. It's wearying. I'd appreciate if one of you could step in. Thanks.--Willibrord 23:18, June 27, 2008 (UTC)
- My responses are noted on your talk page. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 00:24, July 19, 2008 (UTC)
Come back, directory pages!
Crud. I didn't know these were going away, and I was quite baffled just now when I tried to search for them and couldn't find any.
It was very nice to have all the various jurisdictions on one page. I just used the Oklahoma page myself a couple months ago when we were in Tulsa and wanted to find a nearby parish.
I took a look at OrthodoxyInAmerica.org, but just in Missouri I can see that some information is out-of-date, and the "Please allow three to four weeks for your submission to be processed" on the add/modify/delete page isn't encouraging at all. The correction form is also annoyingly long if all you want to do is correct a misspelling or change the priest's name.
Even if the directory pages here get out of date, it's far easier to edit and fix them, and many of us were happy to do so. I would like to vote that they be brought back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyralessa (talk • contribs) .
- If you think stuff on the OIA site tends to be out of date, it was worse here! (Especially because we were constantly having to fend off various non-SCOBA types, etc.) In any event, perhaps this might make a good project for OrthodoxSource. It's not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 00:27, July 19, 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm... I agree that the content was worthwhile, and I also recognize why Fr. Andrew wants to keep it out of the "encyclopedia." It's not really the intention of OrthodoxSource, but we could move it over there... Or put it on another site. But, like he says... someone needs to moderate it. For my part, I'm not *too* opposed to its being on here. — FrJohn (talk)
- I wholeheartedly agree with Kyralessa: I too was baffled to see that the directory pages were gone, and think that deleting them wasn't a very good idea. I personally have submitted numerous corrections to Orthodoxy in America using their interminable form (duplicate entries, misspellings, non-existent parishes, new parishes and missions, new websites and email addresses, etc.) which have never made it to the database; here, it was only a matter of going to the page and editing it. And for whatever it's worth the OW parish listings that I saw were, on the whole, more accurate than those in OIA (but of course, I did not see them all). I do understand the problem to which Fr Andrew refers above and appreciate how hard it would be to implement a solution, but it's really a shame that this very useful and easily editable resource had to go. If the pages are reinstated here or recreated elsewhere and help is needed to monitor them, I'll be more than glad to help in any way I can. --Esteban 08:26, September 11, 2008 (UTC)
- The plus side of the directories was that they invited folks to join OrthodoxWiki just to fix the inaccurate listings that they had knowledge of. The negative side was that it was a enormous maintenance task to keep them standardized let alone accurate. (I myself liked them just for the links to the local parish websites.) But if we do bring them back, we may need to put a disclaimer, on each one of them, warning that they are only maintained by users and nothing is guaranteed. - Andy 16:05, September 11, 2008 (UTC)
- If my voice counts, I'd like to speak in favor of returning USA parish directory pages to Orthodox Wiki. Like some other people here, I've been having problems with orthodoxyinamerica. Their claimed response time (three to four weeks) is simply unacceptable, but the worst thing is - some submissions don't even get processed. My parish has recently moved from one city to another, and I've just submitted a listing update to OIA, but I'm not too optimistic about them updating it soon. --Alexei Kojenov 18:17, October 11, 2008 (UTC)
Appeal of Fr. Andrew's Inequitable Treatment
Fr. Andrew issued an official warning to me over the Talk:Liturgy of St. Tikhon of Moscow page. I feel his actions represent highly inequitable treatment, arbitrary standards, and partiality in implementation of the rules. He acknowledged that the statements in question were not actually offensive (I quote: "no one of your comments recently has been above the top") but issued one anyway. However, his entire comment, found here, is misleading.
The warning came over the Talk page for St. Tikhon's Liturgy, the longest talk page on OrthodoxWiki and one of the most contentious. The discussion centered on an edit war a poster who goes by the ID "Fr Lev" instigated. He did the same to several of my articles between Feb. 12-14 of this year, getting at least one "Protected" as a result.
As I explained on Fr. Andrew's discussion page, the last time this poster started an edit war Fr. Andrew, acting as a moderator, wrote, "If y'all move your edit war (i.e., repeated reversions to the same edit) to another article, then you'll both be banned temporarily to allow a cooling-off period." I made an edit to the St. Tikhon's Liturgy page and saw this poster immediately revert it. I reverted this article once, and he again immediately reverted it. When I saw this poster was again determined to continually revert to a previous edit, I left his version up and alerted Fr. Andrew I was not going to engage in an edit war but would abide by a moderator's decision. Pistevo moved in and moderated that poster's objections; I think the moderator would testify I proved more than willing to cite sources and answer objections with verifiable facts. (Perusing the gargantuan archives of that Talk Page would prove that. Note: The discussions were not written chronologically, and since comments were split up, not all were signed -- making it somewhat hard to follow.) Ultimately, Pistevo agreed I had proven my point from third party sources.
At essentially that point, Fr. Andrew upbraided me for allegedly not referring to third party sources on a specific point (I had cited them) and furthering an edit war (see above).
He then issued a warning for allegedly refusing "to engage the arguments without attacking those making them." I think the substantive refutation of those arguments in the 80K talk page belies that. Moreover, the argument he warned me over, which he acknowledged was not actually objectionable in any way (!), was directed at that poster's argument, not at him; I did (and do) find his argument repetitive, semantical, and in error. However, it is far from even-handed treatment that Fr. Andrew warned me, much less only me, for behavior he did not find objectionable and which the other poster had done much more than I could dream of. Although I am not quick to claim offense, you'll verify in the Talk Archives (archives 1a and 1b) that this poster has repeatedly used ad hominem attacks against me, writing that I am someone who "wishes to pretend" my edits were true and have made "an attempt to confuse" your readers about the matter (both implying bad faith and imputing a hidden agenda). In his rhetorical first-strikes, he's asserted I have made "false claims" and spread "misinformation" (try counting the number of times he used that word on that Talk page) through "misrepresentations" and "personal invective" (and then accused me of making statements I had not made). He wrote that I believe Met. PHILIP "is acting 'in ignorance or malice'" (!) My words are "silly"; "silly, incoherent, and demonstrably false." And you'll notice who used the term Fr. Andrew referenced in his official warning as allegedly offensive, "puzzling," first.
1. Fr. Andrew acknowledged in his message my words DID NOT go "over the top" and violate any standard. Thus, there is no habeas corpus here, if you wish. This seems to allow moderators to discipline people whenever they feel like it, reason or no reason. C.S. Lewis eloquently addressed the notion of The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment, that we should punish others, not because they actually violate rules, but to deter them somehow. If no standard was broken, as Fr. Andrew admits, no punishment is in order. 2. If the mild comments he cited did violate the rules, the other poster's comments to which they responded did so far more. Yet I alone got reprimanded (and blamed for an "edit war" in return for following Fr. Andrew's instructions, as well). This implies partiality or a sliding scale of discipline.
This is not equitable. I request that the moderators rescind said warning, send this poster an equal official warning, or (preferably) both. -Willibrord 10:31, August 18, 2008 (UTC)
I should add, Fr. Andrew did not follow through on his threat to ban that poster for conducting another edit war, either. --Willibrord 10:32, August 18, 2008 (UTC)
- I fully support Fr. Andrew's actions. Fr. Andrew is not just an admin here, but more importantly an Orthodox priest entrusted with the Holy Mysteries. Yours in Christ, --Arbible 16:11, August 19, 2008 (UTC)
- I also fully support Fr. Andrew's actions. I fail to see how a first warning is "punishment." A warning does not have to be "equitable." (I also fail to see how "(preferably) both" rescinding your warning while sending Fr Lev "an equal official warning" would be "equitable.") —magda (talk) 17:29, August 19, 2008 (UTC)
- I have watched the by-play on the St Tikhon's Liturgy article. I am not knowledgeable about the liturgy and thus can't comment on it. But, I find the back and forth much like a "playground" dispute that a teacher is mediating and trying to end. As far as "punishments" a teacher can only treat the protagonists as they argue - thus the "punishments" can be "unequal". I don't find Fr. Andrew's comments out of order as the discussion seems to be a "he did it - no he did it." Let's be adults! Or are we getting into another "iota" argument. The 'big' one has lasted some 15 centuries. Wsk 20:34, August 19, 2008 (UTC)
While I am not an administrator-- as someone who received a warning for an edit war from Father Andrew on a related topic and around the same time (which I have not formally disputed and will not because I was in the wrong), I also support Fr Andrew's moderation, as such warnings are applied not based on partisanship, but basic common sense. --JosephSuaiden 02:55, August 20, 2008 (UTC)
- A warning to the other poster would have been an act of mercy; had Fr. Andrew followed through with his own threat, he would have banned that poster for starting another edit war.
- The back-and-forth was not a playground thing but a case where I called in a moderator to forestall that poster’s edit war, confident I could prove my case with third-party documentation to a moderator’s satisfaction. And I did.
- I disagree with the reasoning here: Orthodox don't believe in priestly infallibility; he acknowledged no rule had been violated; and rules by definition should apply equally. But I'll abide by your decision.
- I'm not sure when Joseph Suaiden became an admin. This seems to indicate he's merely following me around the board.--Willibrord 17:28, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
- 1. As I said in my comments, it was not any one of your remarks, but the preponderance of them together and the clear spirit which they convey, which I regarded as over the line. That I happen to be a priest has nothing to do with it, really. The panel of admins which volunteered to hear your appeal does, though.
- 2. I did not feel that Fr. Lev violated the disciplinary policy since it was put in place, but you did. (The warning was in response to posts by you after the policy was put in place. We won't retroactively enforce it.) In any event, whether he gets warned, banned, or whatever else. To put it bluntly: you're not an administrator, so you don't get to decide.
- 3. Joseph Suaiden is not an admin, but it doesn't surprise me that he's watching this particular page. (Of course, many editors simply watch Special:Recentchanges.) It wouldn't surprise me that any editor does so. His comments on your receiving a warning are about as relevant as yours on Fr. Lev.
- 4. You clearly disagree with how things are run here. You have two options: either work with the administration or stop editing. The apparent (mind you, I don't know the state of your heart) hostility isn't going to get you much of anywhere. I suggest taking a wiki-break or perhaps working on some articles which don't stir up such controversy. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 19:34, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
- All the quotations from Fr. Lev I reproduce above, from the St. Tikhon Liturgy Talk page -- including those imputing a hidden agenda and assuming bad faith -- occurred after this policy was instituted (May 29, if I'm reading correctly). You can verify that here. Unless you feel the words I quote above do not violate this policy, and my milder words do, the implementation of this policy was not even-handed.
- Miscommunication often comes from divining a "clear spirit" rather than reading someone's words themselves. Anyway, my disagreement was on your particular handling of this situation, and I agreed to abide by the decision here. And I've already moved on. But I do not feel this was equitable implementation. If you were under the impression his words were before the policy was implemented, you were mistaken.--Willibrord 20:24, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
The problem moves to the Liturgy of St Gregory page
Since the Liturgy of St Tikhon page is locked and Willibrord has lost his appeal of the warning, he has now moved on to the Liturgy of St Gregory page and removed the reference to the St Andrew's Service Book, even though the entry as it stood said most AWRV parishes use the Orthodox Missal. But since (1) some AWRV parishes do use the SASB; (2) the SASB is published by the Antiochian Archdiocese; and (3) the SASB contains a letter from Metropolitan PHILIP identifying the contents of the SASB as authorized liturgies for the Archdiocese, Willibrord's edit seems to be another attempt to edit the article not according to the facts but according to his personal preference of service book. I will refrain from changing the edit; however, I do think that in a straightforward case like this, such editing amounts to propaganda and should not be permitted. --Fr Lev 16:29, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, Pistevo has ruled the OM/SASB issue is settled in favor of the SASB. Thus, this correct information was posted elsewhere in place of inaccurate information. If there's a problem, it's a refusal to abide by her ruling.
- I am most tired of these polemical attacks on everything I write. --Willibrord 17:03, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
- What's the emoticon for "I'm so embarrassed"? Like I was I saying above, assumptions.... --Willibrord 20:26, August 22, 2008 (UTC)
- It's your gentle Christian manner. :-) A thousand pardons (asked with crimson face). --Willibrord 13:54, August 23, 2008 (UTC)
Moderation needed on Liturgy of St Gregory page
Willibrord has again changed the Liturgy of St Gregory page, this time making the flase claim that the Orthodox Missal contains the "only" authorized text of the liturgy. The SASB, published a year after the Orthodox Missal, was published by the Antiochian Archdiocese with a letter from Metropolitan PHILIP referring to it as "authorized" liturgies. The SASB is used by at least some AWRV parishes. To claim that the OM is the "only" authorized text betrays an interest in promoting something other than the facts. This matter is not settled. Neither Pistevo nor a subdeacon's thesis trumps the Metropolitan of the Antiochian Archdiocese. IS Willibrod claiming that the SASB was not published by the Antiochian Archdioces? Is he claiming that the letter from Metropolitan PHILIP is a forgery, or that the Metropolitan doesn't have the authority to make such an authorization? Is he claiming that the AWRV parishes that use the SASB are using "unauthorized" liturgies in defiance of the Metropolitan? These are not matters of opinion; these are simple, straightforward, matters of fact. --Fr Lev 16:15, August 24, 2008 (UTC)
- As noted above, Pistevo (he of the male sex!) has settled the question of OM vs. SASB authorization on the Liturgy of St. Tikhon Talk page. This is a straightforward matter of fact. --Willibrord 21:07, August 24, 2008 (UTC)
Guess What Needs Moderating Again?
For once we agree. Since I am being falsely accused (what's new) of being part of this 'squad' when I am trying to just keep the article from becoming slanted, I want moderation there as well.--JosephSuaiden 06:04, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I'd like to make clear that what Willibrord is doing is at least indirectly in violation of OW policy (Agendas), and I'd like to bring it to your attention.
If I kept a public blog where I repeatedly referred to someone's clerical title in quotes (say I didn't like Father Benjamin Johnson and so I wrote a bunch of articles referring to him as "Father" Benjamin Johnson), would I be an objective person to discuss concerning this individual on a Wiki? Probably not. By deleting any reference to the liturgical work of someone who's made a real impact on the acceptability of the Western Rite in Orthodoxy, the Wiki is being done a disservice. Since I've already gotten a warning on it, I may as well speak freely. Am I wrong in assuming that Fr Aidan should be off-limits for Willibrord?
I won't even discuss Willibrord's "contributions" on the Liturgy of St Tikhon, since others do anyway. --JosephSuaiden 20:41, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
- What Willibrord does on his own weblog is not OW's business, unless he chooses to import its contents or agenda here.
- In any event, I'm not sure what the Agenda is (perhaps you can tell us). Is it that all of Fr. Aidan's work is being systematically de-referenced on the wiki? From what I can tell, his publications are worthy of mention and have made a notable enough impact to warrant their inclusion as reference in WR-related material on OW. If that is indeed the Agenda, it needs to be cut out immediately.
- And could someone please explain to me why it is that the WR articles always seem to draw such contentiousness? —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 22:04, February 16, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it is one of the few areas of conscious development in contemporary Orthodox liturgics... building from that, it may be easy to see a crossover from Eastern liturgics which (for various reasons, better or worse) have been set in stone and earmarked under 'unchangeable', when Western liturgics is, while liturgics, obviously not set in stone... both mere possibilities, of course - but, at the very least, a definite image problem. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 14:12, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
I submit that is precisely the agenda, and that a review of edits as well as condescending statements (referring to the OSRM as "authorized for use in a room in his sister's house", for example, when Holyrood house, Christminster, St Petroc and their work--all places he for some reason *doesn't mind*-- are apartment chapels) can be submitted as proof. The pattern is obvious when you look at any mention of Father Aidan or the "Old Sarum rite missal".
Again, I agree with you on the putting up a private website-- normally. But searching for "Keller" on the blog establishes in this case -- the 'why' to the 'what' of the edits.
In my opinion WR stuff is so contentious because since we are supposed to be the small minority of the West people think they are supposed to put on airs. We're so few that we tend to get louder to be heard. That and Sarum is touchy for obvious political reasons, --JosephSuaiden 18:05, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
- Sigh, I suppose I have to answer this....
- The allegation of personal spite, which Joseph levels, is rich coming from a man who ran a blog dedicated to attacking me by name. People alerted me Joseph addresses me "personally" on his blog's "why" page (mission statement), calls me a "cultist," and warns me to "prepare well. Because we have unfinished business." (If these quotations, which I'm told are located here, are inaccurate, please so state; I will gladly withdraw them.) Fr. Andrew, I agree that what people do elsewhere is irrelevant, unless they try to import it here. Yet in the last 24 hours we have seen the discussion being diverted away from the objective facts of the article at hand to an attack upon my character and imputing an agenda. (A "warlike and unChristian" agenda, no less!) And a call for my censorship from a man who runs a blog dedicated to, finishing business, with me.
- As to the substance of the complaint:
- I specifically refrained from removing the text's reference to the "Old Sarum Rite Missal," stating, "Since I was falsely accused of 'vandalism' for editing this page, I could see the uproar if I removed it on my own." (More about that below.) The agenda has, in fact, been the reverse: to "source" certain materials as often as possible to make themselves appear more important than they are.
- The fact that Holyrood Monastery and St. Petroc's Monastery are small monasteries is immaterial; they are exclusively WR monasteries that celebrate a full cycle of Western Rite services, including WR hours and Mass/Liturgy. At St. Petroc, Sunday services are held at an associated church, not a home chapel. St. Petroc has a number of associated chapels, at least one sister mission (run by Fr. Barry Jeffries), and Fr. Michael celebrates WR liturgy on at least two continents each year. The "Old Sarum Rite Missal" is not being celebrated anywhere within Orthodoxy to my knowledge, not even the Eastern or Western Archdioceses of the Milan Synod. Met. HILARION reportedly allowed its author to pray his translation of Sarum (presumably the hours?) for his private, home prayers, not in public (where he serves a Byzantine church). I'm not sure that is relevant to Western Rite "Congregations"; frankly, bishops allow priests to pray all sorts of things privately. I am even less certain two large pictures (one mislabeled) of that missal, not being celebrated anywhere, are a more appropriate graphic for an article about the WR than a picture of Fr. Alexander Turner (which chrisg deleted in favor of the OSRM). What's being "sourced" and "de-sourced" there?
- The other contentious issue is that Joseph is claiming Hieromonk David (Pierce) of Holyrood Monastery celebrates a Milan Synod version of Sarum (but a different version of Sarum than the OSRM, or St. Petroc Monastery's Sarum -- clear as mud?). His assertion is just that -- an unsourced assertion. But the source I provided, which is still linked in the article, quotes Fr. David writing to the contrary, he celebrates the Mt. Royal usage DL and the "Holyrood/St. Petroc" recension of Sarum. If Joseph has any evidence to the contrary, this would be the place to offer it, and the article would reflect that; but he has dismissed all evidence as "anecdotal." He then suggested we remove reference to Fr. David/Holyrood Monastery altogether. Here is logic I cannot endorse: removing reference to a functioning WR monastery (that houses two hieromonks) but retaining reference to the private prayers of a Byzantine priest, in the name of improving the section on WR "Congregations."
- The thrust of the last two days' edits have been to introduce material that sure seems off-topic, give it a place of prominence not in keeping with reality (e.g., its not being celebrated publicly, or at all), and to contradict sourced statements with unsourced statements, which happen to exalt the Milan Synod, of which Mr. Suaiden is a member (or a Reader).
- I hope this closes the hate-Ben-Johnson portion of the week, and the moderators -- having heard the evidence -- will green light sourced statements over unsourced ones. Then I can write about something I enjoy (the WR) not something I do not enjoy writing about (me). And maybe OW can return to its purpose of presenting well-written, factually correct articles, not assaulting its authors.--Willibrord 21:06, February 17, 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, some things that I can see that are able to be resolved.
- If it's not feasibly able to be attended by members of the public (i.e. if it's not advertised), it's not a church, it's private prayer.
- That doesn't stop that usage from being an approved usage.
- Blogs - and, whatever else you do on your own time - are neither here nor there. We're all about the articles. While a side tangent into why a person thinks the way they do is often amusing, it invariably snaps either into bowdlerism or ad hominem.
- If there's a source, the line stays, particularly in an article so desperately requiring sources. That seems a fairly useful rule. Really, as far as hedging goes, counter-sources merely introduce a 'so-and-so claims that (text) (source)'. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 22:34, February 17, 2009 (UTC)