Complaint regarding actions of User:ASDamick as sysop
I would like to add my voice to those unhappy with User:ASDamick functioning as a sysop. In a recent disagreement with me, he has misused his position as a sysop by attempting to arbitrate (of course, in his favour) the dispute, leaving a very high-handed message on my talk-page. That is to say, he has been using his powers as a sysop to arbitrate a dispute in which he was involved. He clearly has done so as an act of retaliation within the context of our dispute, at a time whilst he had lost his temper and was not in the right frame of mind to perform duties as a sysop.
Here, essentially, the point is that a sysop should not act as judge of his own dispute; he should not misuse his position as a sysop to score points within a dispute he is having; and he should not perform tasks of a sysop when he has lost his temper. And although I have only been editing on OrthodoxWiki for a short time, this is not the first time I have seen him act in this way. Previously when he was in dispute with User:Cebactokpatop (with whom I certainly have no allegiance) he acted in exactly the same manner, leading you to overturn some of his actions. Therefore, I appeal to you to bring him into line.
I am not asking for him to have his status as a sysop revoked, but for you to make clear to him:
- Not to use his status as a sysop within a dispute in which he is engaged;
- Not to use his status as a sysop to arbitrate over disputes in which he is engaged; and
- Not to function as a sysop when he has lost his temper.
Moreover, I have seen User:ASDamick acting in a very high-handed way towards User:lxthis888. This only alienates people, needlessly. Please could you direct him not to talk down to others, clearly to others to whom he feels himself superior. I say this, because I appreciate the interjections I have seen you make in the past, which have been genuinely irenic and for the good of Orthodoxwiki. (I include here the interjection you made calling for me to be more careful with my language, which certainly put me back on track at the time.) Seminarist 22:43, May 23, 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I'd like to ask you directly - do you think it is appropriate for User:ASDamick to arbitrate over disputes in which he is personally involved? Seminarist 01:41, May 24, 2008 (UTC)
- Just as a comment: I'm not "arbitrating over disputes." I'm saying, "Stop acting like a jerk. It's not cool." I don't care who does it to whom, even if the recipient might deserve it. My general approach is simply to comment and talk with people I feel are getting out of line. Only in what I regard as extreme a repeated incivility do I take action by making use of sysop privileges, and that only when the incivility is directed toward more than just me.
- Heck, I don't even know what the supposed "dispute" in question is! I thought we were discussing what the best name for the article was and suddenly found myself the target of Yet Another Theory about hidden agendas, etc. I should start notching my user page for every time I get one of those. :) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 02:56, May 29, 2008 (UTC)
Fr John, just one more question - do you think it appropriate for a sysop and priest to call someone a "jerk", or do you regard such name-calling as incivil? It's a straightforward question, and I'd appreciate a straightforward answer.
Seminarist 11:48, May 29, 2008 (UTC)
- Just to be clear: I'm not calling you a jerk. I'm calling your actions jerky (so to speak). It's just shorthand for that generally uncivil tone you've adopted in most of your Talk page contributions. Whether you personally are a jerk or not is entirely unknown to me and irrelevant to OrthodoxWiki.
- As always, I am of course willing to submit to whatever judgment Fr. John has regarding all this.
- BTW, I restored Fr. John's earlier comment which you edited out when you de-archived this part of his Talk page. In case you weren't aware, it is entirely uncool (i.e., might well be considered "jerky," "uncivil," etc.) to eliminate other's Talk page posts. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 13:02, May 29, 2008 (UTC)
- Andrew Damick, the more times you use the word "jerk" in this context, the more silly it makes you look. You made a mistake using the word in the first place, and you have let yourself down by using it. I advise you to stop wriggling around with fatuous qualifications, which are to your further discredit. Seminarist 13:52, May 29, 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure "jerk" is helpful here -- might be better just to point out exactly what you mean by uncivil behavior. There is a learning curve in getting acclimated to the wiki... but I haven't reviewed every comment made... Maybe for now it's best just to break things up and go from there? — FrJohn (talk) 18:01, May 29, 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not especially in love with the word jerk or phrase act like a jerk, so it doesn't particularly matter to me.
- In terms of specifics of what I mean by "uncivil behavior," I have in mind mainly what has been posted by Seminarist on Talk:Responses to OCA autocephaly, but also on Talk:John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon and my Talk page. Particular instances include referring to Cebactokpatop as a "thug" and possessing a "beligerent theological illiteracy" and to yours truly as possessing "Anti-Greek Madness," a "passionate inability to control himself,", that I am a "boy," and (what really is my personal favorite) that I "lack the linguistic facility to do anything other than descend into petty name-calling." (This is most remarkable to me, I suppose, because I will now forever associate the word thug on the wiki with this editor.) My edits are also apparently drawn from a "deeper internal problem within the Antiochian Archdiocese" (since I don't think that Greek Orthodox is the best term to describe the article on OCA autocephaly).
- That this anonymous gent has also decided to refer to me solely by my legal name and that he is lecturing me on the nature of the priesthood might also be construed as "uncivil" by some, but I take all that as par for the course. I can't even remember a time when someone didn't like what I said to them on the wiki and didn't attach with his rejoinders a question of my ordination, canonicity, or ability to execute my office (none of which have anything in particular to do with OrthodoxWiki).
- A few points:
- I did not say you possessed "anti-Greek madness"; as I have already made clear to you, I said that it was anti-Greek madness to refuse to recognise that the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. are all Greek Orthodox patriarchates.
- I did not call you a "boy"; I said that "boys will be boys"; see the context and the meaning is evident.
- I did not say your edits were drawn from a deeper internal problem within the Antiochian Archdiocese. I said that the fact that converts within the Antiochian Archdiocese did not think of themselves or the Antiochian Patriarchate was reflective of a deeper internal problem within the Antiochian Archdiocese - how does it maintain the historic identity of the Antiochian Patriarchate (which is Greek Orthodox) when it has such a large number of culturally Protestant converts who, for various reasons, don't want to be thought of as 'Greek Orthodox'?
- From even a quick glance at what I actually said, it is evident that you are misreporting and distorting my comments. Not clever, and not entirely honest.
- I have warned you previously to get your facts straight. It would have been better had you heeded that warning.
- It was silly of you to use the word "jerk", and it is even sillier each time you reuse the word. Such language is inappropriate for a member of the clergy.
- All in all, I find your conduct here rather sad.
- Seminarist 00:08, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
- A few points:
- I must admit to being filled with incredulity! It's one thing to say, "Rejecting the term Greek Orthodox for this article is inappropriate because ____ or inaccurate because _____ or the wrong approach because _____." It is entirely something else to describe it as "Anti-Greek Madness" (contrasted with the "Common Sense" of the approach you were pushing). Sure, that may not grammatically have been a direct accusation of racism, but I have a hard time believing that it can be read to mean anything else, especially followed by the fascinating psychological analysis of an entire Archdiocese of people (most of whom are still not converts, by the way). Either way, it's still pretty clearly inflammatory language, as was telling me that the arguments and reasons I'd given for my own approach weren't really arguments or reasons at all or that I was being essentially irrational and Protestant in my comments. I couldn't find a single passage in your text which meant, "Hey, let's work together! I believe that you're editing in good faith!"
- Anyway, there's something we can agree upon! I find your conduct sad, too. Perhaps you'd like to move on and integrate into the editing community here, though.
- In that vein, should you receive an official warning under the new policy, you're free to appeal it. Since the warning I gave you earlier was essentially "unofficial," I'm honestly not sure what we're discussing any longer, unless you'd care to continue with the litany of what an awful, dishonest and unclever priest, sysop, poet, writer, etc., I am (not to mention at least the suggestion of being insanely racist against Greeks). —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 01:38, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
- I'm tired of you, Andrew Damick. It has not been my purpose to talk with you on this page, but to raise a complaint about your inappropriate conduct as a sysop. I have merely responded to your less-than-upright "defences" of your actions, in which, rather than admit your mistakes, you deliberately mischaracterise my statements and defend your using the word "jerk" on the authority of your mother. Now, whilst I cannot doubt for a second that your mother is an authority on jerks, you certainly had no business (either as priest or sysop) using that word in this context, and you had no business issuing a "warning" as a means of lashing out when you had lost your temper. Since you make it very clear to everyone that you are a priest, my judgement of you is on that basis: you do not act in a way that is appropriate of the grace of priesthood, and your conduct brings into disrepute both your Church and your Bishop. Shame on you, Andrew Damick. Seminarist 08:42, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
Fr John, I reiterate my complaint concerning the actions of User:ASDamick as sysop. He has been:
- using his status as a sysop as an instrument by which to lash out when he has lost his temper;
- using his status as a sysop to arbitrate over disputes in which he is engaged;
- using coarse language inappropriate for a sysop or priest; and
- behaving in a needlessly high-handed and arrogant way in his communications with a number of users.
It is appropriate for a sysop to behave like this, and it is to the discredit of OrthodoxWiki if its sysyops behave in such ways. Seminarist 08:48, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. My people have an expression to describe this, but it's not suitable for a public forum.
- With regards to the first point, Fr Andrew has done nothing of the sort; with regards to the second, this is only natural and in accord with the duties of sysops - further (even though the accusation was not made), there was no impulsion to force or coerce editors to agree with his side (and the dispute led to a clear consensus in favour of neither of the disputants); no coarse language was used (and according to the American legal system, the accusation is probably something like libel); and User:Seminarist should be reconsider using the terms 'high-handed' or 'arrogant', lest stones be thrown through glass houses. — by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 11:42, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
- Your restraint is laudable - perhaps you could offer counsel to User:ASDamick on the matter.
- However, the user did clearly use his status as a sysop to lash out at a point when he lost his temper: compare my edit with his response.
- It is not good practice for a sysop to arbitrate over a dispute in which he is personally involved; he should let someone who is not involved do that. (For example, you did not arbitrate over Cebactokpatop's request that your sysop-status be revoked.)
- It is irrelevant and unhelpful for you to claim that User:ASDamick is not guilty of an "accusation" (your word) which I did not make.
- Please don't wikilawyer; "jerk" is clearly a coarse term, which should not be employed by a sysop or priest.
- Seminarist 13:02, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, let's stp the bickering. A little silence on both sides would go a long way toward restoring peace. Why let this blow up more and more? — FrJohn (talk)
- Just for those playing along at home, the warning I put on Seminarist's talk page had nothing do with the "sparcely/sparsely" edit referenced. That wasn't uncivil behavior on his part. It was simply incorrect style when making a direct quotation. The warning was in response to several days of ever-increasing inflammatory language and ad hominem.
- Anyway, I certainly don't plan to do anything to Seminarist, never did, and never had the intention to from the get-go (i.e., I wasn't saying "Either agree with what I think the article should be named OR ELSE"). It was solely meant as a little encouragement not to continue ratcheting up the inflammatory rhetoric. Seminarist is of course quite welcome to continue his lessons and admonitions on the priesthood, sysopping on OrthodoxWiki, etc.
- And, Fr. John, would you cut it with the coarse language?! "Bickering"! Hmf! ;) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 19:31, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
- More sarcastic backtracking... You just can't let it go, can you?
- Shame on you, Andrew Damick.
- Seminarist 21:05, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
- Nope. In fact, I'm "praying against you" RIGHT NOW! May you be stricken with embarrassingly large and fetid hangnails unto ages of ages! May your eyeballs turn a striking shade of puce! May your shoes be filled with talking lice! May you be cursed with the flames of a thousand exploding amoebas! May the Seventy Lesser-Known Plagues of Egypt be unto you as a balm of comfort compared to the curses you must endure! Neargh!
- Seminarist, I think he was just trying to bring some humor to the situation. I think things would be much better if you both just cooled off a bit, and stopped nipping at each other. — FrJohn (talk)
- No, I am sorry, but cursing someone is not humour and is absolutely unacceptable. It goes far beyond the bounds of simple "incivility". Please bring him into line here. Seminarist 23:10, May 30, 2008 (UTC)