Forum:Recent Quarrel

Forums: Index > The Wizengamot > Recent Quarrel

Hello, Harry Potter Wiki community. For those who don't know me, I'm Marcus, one of the Fandom Wiki Managers for the Movies/TV vertical. It came to my attention to a recent discussion over at Requests for permissions which boiled over.

From my understanding, this was rather unusual but left a few users unhappy over the situation. There seem to be some of misunderstandings over each other's comments. I'd like this to be used for those involved to settle their disagreements and better understand. I'll be here to mediate the situation. I will not be here to impose anything.

To clarify, I'd like to understand the key points:

• Ironyak was being cautious due to MechQueste using AWB.
  • MechQueste has commented it was a mistake due to habit as she actively uses bots on several communities
• Users unhappy over the requesting user being accused of intentionally covering up the use of AWB
• Users unhappy over it being dragged on longer than it should've been. Feels like it was more like an attack on the requesting user rather than just declining the request
• While the discussion on sticking closely to rules, users feel other decisions in the past weren't quite following the rules

If there are others, feel free to let me know below. It would be best if we handled each point one at a time. So I'd like for those involved first discuss over Ironyak's questioning over MechQueste's previous bot use.

Please note, as MechQueste had withdrawn from her request, I'd ask that any discussion on that should not continue. Additionally, I'd remind any personal attacks used in this discussion are not allowed.

—TIMESHADE |Talk/Wall| - |C| 20:56, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Thank you TimeShade for taking the time on this matter. As you noted, we've never had a need for this sort of process before; however, I am interested to see how this method might work to resolve such situations.

I'd like to try and set the tone here first, as a possible misreading of such I think has played a large part in this. I was not, nor am I now, angry at any user or about the situation in general; I've been doing this long enough to not take the discussions here personally. I do however have strong concerns which I've tried to make clear, although perhaps too ardently. However, I would hope though that these words are read in a calm and even tone as they are intended. Maybe think more along the lines of Richard "Is there something... you wish to tell me?" Harris rather than Michael "DID YA PUT YA NAME IN DA GOBLET OF FIYAH?" Gambon :)

I agree that taking each point in turn is probably the most productive so each can be fully examined and discussed. I would ask for some clarification as to how conversations in our related Discord server should be handled. These exchanges were held in public threads and to which others can attest to, however it is unclear to me how FANDOM views sharing such content here so if you could answer this before we proceed, I would appreciate it.

In your points, I would like to clarify that "declining the request" is not possible in a "Request for permissions" as it is not a request made to a single Administrator or Bureaucrat but rather an Request open for the entire community to discuss and possibly vote on. In short, I could not simply decline the request given our Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy, which I hope everyone is familiar with, and could only share my concerns for others to consider, the same as any other user.

As an aside, the fact that we are having a Wizengamot "trial" here tickles this Potter-fan's heart to an unreasonable degree, especially as I may be the undesirable involved; I do hope everyone remembered to summon their chintz armchairs ;) Looking forward to your owl --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:45, June 28, 2020 (UTC)

Is there a specific channel I could refer to in the Discord? Typically I've handled these in Discord's in the past, but since there were several users involved, I thought it would be better to have it in a slightly more public place (and slightly more transparent) where it's easier to refer to the archive. But if everyone feels more comfortable in the Discord, I'd be happy to move there. —TIMESHADE |Talk/Wall| - |C| 20:01, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

The two channels in particular are #wiki-editors and #harry-potter-wiki-staff, although conversations can of course sprawl across the others. As much of the community here does not use the Discord, I would agree with you that this venue is the best choice for this process so everyone can participate.

Do you mind me asking how many of these mediations you have done in the past? Is there an example that was done in the wiki to review that could help everyone understand what to expect? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 20:17, June 29, 2020 (UTC)

It appears I don't have access to send a message in #wiki-editors (and don't have permissions for the staff channel you have). Is there anything I'd need? Like the sorting ceremony? Would like to at least share the link to this there to bring more attention if users are interested in participating.

I recently handled one regarding AVP wiki, as well as a couple others, but those were more isolated so I've kept those between the involved users in private DMs. —TIMESHADE |Talk/Wall| - |C| 05:39, June 30, 2020 (UTC)

I brought it up to the server admins, and you can now type there.

(owl post) 06:10, June 30, 2020 (UTC)

I'm about to make a comment if anyone's interested. MechQueste 14:33, July 2, 2020 (UTC)

---

---

Given the unprecedented efforts being made here to allow for MechQueste and others to share their complaints that they are voicing elsewhere, I sincerely hope they make use of this opportunity so the community can take them under consideration and find a way to move forward.

For my part, in reviewing MechQueste's Bot flag Request for Permissions, I can see how some of my replies could be seen as overly terse or dismissive, and for this I do apologize. However, after spending multiple hours having my concerns dismissed as a "red-herring" or an overreaction or acting in bad-faith from multiple users apparently communicating with MechQueste behind the scenes, it became increasingly clear that there was no productive way to continue especially given that the request had already been withdrawn and MechQueste was no longer directly participating.

However, in the interest of clarity for the community, here is a compilation of my many concerns that I spoke of regarding MechQueste's desire to rapidly edit the Harry Potter wiki using a bot combined with his willingness to ignore or circumvent the long-running and well established Policies here.

---

2/29/2019 - MechQueste requests authorization to use AutoWikiBrowser on the site to "correct" the Categorization of the "Images of Bartemius Crouch Snr" to "Images of Bartemius Crouch Sr". However as Snr is the proper British suffix for Senior and used throughout the site as part of our British policy, I inform him of this misunderstanding and note that AWB wouldn't be needed.

3/12/2019 - MechQueste asks me for the first of several times about the {{Spoiler}} Notices and was given the general timing developed around Cursed Child and the related spoiler and #KeepTheSecrets concerns with a bureaucrat at that time.

4/16/2019 - MechQueste chooses to take down spoiler notices regardless

https://harrypotter.fandom.com/index.php?limit=200&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&target=MechQueste&namespace=&year=2019&month=4 April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-31)‎ . . Yaxley (1920s) ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-31)‎ . . Tallulah-Mae Townsend ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-31)‎ . . Jamie Read ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-30)‎ . . Sweeper ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-32)‎ . . Matelot ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-31)‎ . . Rodney Rohesia ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-33)‎ . . Juliet Guiness ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-30)‎ . . Catherine Backhouse ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-31)‎ . . Unidentified child in bubble ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-32)‎ . . Newton Scamander's wand ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-34)‎ . . 1981 ‎ (remove {{CrimesofGrindelwaldSpoiler}}. release date was months ago.) April 16, 2019 (diff | hist) . . (-31)‎ . . Conor Lane ‎ (It has been quite a few months since release date. no need for spoiler)

^Not too big a deal on its own, as the bot just replaces missing Spoiler Notices, so I like to give people a heads-up so they don't waste valuable editing time. However MechQueste's willingness to just do what they want even when informed of the conventions and policies in place has become an established pattern of behavior.

9/12/2019 - Notified of 50+ uploads he made lacking the Summary information required by the Harry Potter Wiki:Image policy. (corrections completed 2/22/2020)

4/14/2020 - Cavelier One grants Content Moderator to MechQueste despite the vote directly violating the Harry Potter Wiki:Voting policy and not having +3 valid votes in favor, as "The administrator who has begun a process may not partake in the voting directly, in order to ensure impartiality during the closing of the vote." This policy was established back in July 2008 and is still in place today so both the Admin and Bureaucrat involved with this vote should know it well.

4/25/2020 - MechQueste grants themself AWB rights adding himself to the check page intended to "restrict unauthorized bot programs from being run on communities." No authorization, or community discussion, or notice given.

5/4/2020 - Deletes Godfather article within 6 minutes of it being stubbed-in, 1 minute after the delete tag added by another user. No time given for users to discuss or improve page as noted on the {{Delete}} template.

5/9/2020 - Blanks a user page - no warning given to user as to what was the matter, no discussion had with anyone in the community

5/25/2020 - Rapidly deletes Potterhead article, again without giving any time for community discussion or being able to help improve it. I restore it and make it a stub.

6/1/2020 - Rapidly moved user's new article which had been tagged for Notability into their user space. No time allowed for community input or discussion. I restore the page, tag it for clean up, several users help improve it, and now it is part of the historical event pages.

6/21/2020: Using self-granted rights, edits a dozen pages using unauthorized bot AutoWikiBrowser.

57,June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Unidentified first year boy ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57,June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Vault of Ice ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Eliza ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Coma ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Chauncy ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Icy Corridor ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Fire-Breathing Potion ‎ (page moved) 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Somnambulism ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Fire Protection Potion ‎ (page moved) 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Jinx on the post of Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Freezing Spell ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback] 57, June 21, 2020 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Memory Potion ‎ (page moved) (top) [rollback]

^When MechQueste is a asked one day later about this activity they say "I have not used AutoWikiBrowser recently"

4/25 - 6/30/2020 - During two months as Content Moderator, MechQuest moves over 1000 Files without leaving a Redirect causing broken File links throughout the site and breaking images on user pages, in templates, and on articles and their page histories.

Examples of Files with Broken Links: 4/21/2020 File:Nearlyheadlessnick.jpg‏‎ (27 links) [broken] April 21, 2020 MechQueste (Talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Nearlyheadlessnick.jpg to File:Nearly Headless Nick 2.jpg without leaving a redirect (revert) 5/4/2020 File:Sorcerer's stone cover.jpg‏‎ (15 links) [broken] May 4, 2020 MechQueste (Talk | contribs | block) moved page File:Sorcerer's stone cover.jpg to File:Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone cover.jpg without leaving a redirect (Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone – ) (revert) 6/22/2020 File:MermaidPainting.png (5 links) [broken] June 22, 2020 MechQueste (Talk | contribs | block) moved page File:MermaidPainting.png to File:Mermaid Painting.png without leaving a redirect (revert) 6/25/2020 File:WeirdSisters.jpg (56 links) [broken] June 25, 2020 MechQueste (Talk | contribs | block) moved page File:WeirdSisters.jpg to File:Weird Sisters.jpg without leaving a redirect (revert) 6/26/2020 File:HarrywithNimbus.jpg‏‎ (18 links) [broken] June 26, 2020 MechQueste (Talk | contribs | block) moved page File:HarrywithNimbus.jpg to File:Harry with Nimbus.jpg without leaving a redirect (spacing) (revert)

^These 5 example Files have been fixed in the last couple days by MrSiriusBlack making the missing Redirects by hand, however thousands of redlinks remain throughout the site from MechQueste's persistant and unreasonable choice to not leave a Redirect.

I have tried to talk to MechQueste about my concerns with their actions again, and again, and again, but my questions often go unanswered.

TLDR: Given MechQueste's unwillingness to discuss with me or others in the community our shared concerns about their actions, I am not sure how best to proceed here. But given the policies broken to grant MechQueste their permissions, which they then abused to give themselves extra unauthorized bot permissions, their deletion of users' new articles and profile pages without any relevant policy or community discussion, and their use of scripts to rename of over a thousand Files without leaving a Redirect, "because there is little need to do so" they say, and then not checking their results which has created thousands of broken links throughout the site, I feel my concerns are well supported and it should be clear that I am not acting in bad-faith. How do others in the community feel about the issues above? Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:02, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

---

---

It is time to address your aggression toward me, as this is inappropriate. Both here and at the RFP page, you have *massively* attacked me while I sat in the corner letting you talk. Only now by prompt you wrote some stuff. I think its time you had a sit down and instead of putting it in attack mode, write stuff down and make it sound like a normal conversation. Specifically a two way conversation, not by what you are doing; that is sitting on your admin tools and push things your way. MechQueste 13:06, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

How is me more fully explaining my concerns, as requested in the RFP, but done here in the Forum specifically set up for discussing this issue, 'sitting on my admin tools and pushing things my way?' Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:11, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

I will post an extended comment later by tomorrow. However, the RFP messages by Ironyak1 had caught the attention of staff. They were unnecessarily aggressive, condescending, and incredibly inappropriate. Frankly, I was not sure whether I should continue posting replies. Much of my decision to disengage was to allow Ironyak to cool down, and not necessarily get further inflamed in what described as a lie. And it was a mistake of me to ask outside people for an "impratial" review. I should not have done that. MechQueste 13:18, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

As a reminder of how I began this thread, I am not angry with anybody or with the situation in general and would appreciate my words be read in the calm, even tones intended. If Staff has concerns, that they have conversed with you about but not me for some reason, I am happy to discuss these matters with them as needed. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 13:29, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with MechQueste, Ironyak was highly and unnecessarily rude to her and anyone else who disagreed with their approach. I believe there is a clear line between expressing concerns and wanting to help editors improve their craft and harshly attacking them for seemingly unfair reasons. This argument had no need to become so aggressive and unpleasant, and I thought it was a very unprofessional demonstration of administrative behaviour, especially in the incredibly rude dismissal of the impartial councillor GS877, who was simply seeking to resolve the issue and deserved much more respect. I have also felt this admin has been very rude and unhelpful to me in the past over similar issues, and I think this kind of attitude needs to change, as this is not how discussions should go down.--RedWizard98 (talk) 13:33, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

Alright, well I suppose I should give my opinion, as I did unfortunately end up being part of the quarrel on the RFP page.

My stance on this matter might not be what some users might expect. I have problems with both sides of this quarrel, which is why I stand completely neutral in all this.

GS877 came on a little strong, though their points about how Yak was going about things on that RFP discussion weren't entirely incorrect. And the way in which Yak dismissed GS877 really could have been better.

It is my opinion that Ironyak1 has presented and illustrated his concerns about MechQueste on this Forum here in a much better and clearer way than he did on the RFP page. I do not view what Yak has said on this forum as a 'massive attack' against Mech, I view it as a clear rundown of all the concerns Yak has, which in my opinion are entirely valid concerns, and it is literally the job description of an administrator to hold users to account for mistakes they have made.

However. MechQueste has addressed a lot of these, and humbly admitted wrongdoing. The moment Mech was called out on the RFP page for adding himself to the AWB users list, he immediately removed himself from the list under his own volition. And upon realisation of the scale of the Special:WantedFiles issue, MechQueste acknowledged he had caused issues, apologised, and attempted to ensure Yak that in future he will always leave redirects. And I will add, that Mech was not by any means the only user to rename large amounts of files without leaving redirects.

My only hope is that this quarrel gets resolved soon, in a civil and calm manner that benefits all those involved. The fact of the matter is that there is a heck of a lot of work to do at the moment cleaning up the wiki, and it will only happen smoothly if everyone is working together. Progress for the sake of progress, folks. Don't let your personal issues with other users get in the way of things. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  14:36, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Ironyak1 is just explaining the concerns that they had in the RFP Discussion. They are not personally attacking anyone, calling for MechQueste's demotion, or trying to block any of the users that took part of that discussion, so I think that we can stop saying that they are being unfair. As for RedWizard98's point about GS877 trying to "resolve the issue,", I am pretty sure all they were intending to do was call Ironyak1 out for being a "bad faith admin." That doesn't sound like trying to resolve the issue to me, as it just escalated the situation.

Ironyak1 is absolutely not acting in bad faith, and it bothers me that a lot of people are saying that. As pointed out in in the Requests for permissions conversation by Seth Cooper, the whole point of the process is to "scrutinize" the user requesting additional permissions. The administrator did their job, and they did it well, as they brought forth a lot of evidence into light which could be concerning to some people (such as my self) when it comes to giving a user additional rights.

Ironyak1 has never acted as a dictator of this community, and I am pretty sure that will never be their intention. They have always done what is right to help people, and they are one of the fairest admins I have ever met, giving second chances to people like me and not immediately permanently blocking people that have done wrong. They helped out the Discussions immensely, helping us establish a democratic voting process for Discussions mods and pretty much tore down the dictatorship that was then governing it. This is just the beginning of what they have done for our community, and there is so much more to come.

I really hope that the majority of all of you reconsider your stance on this, because it is almost sad how many people seem to hate this admin in particular, when the only crime that they have committed is upholding this wiki's policies. Cheers, -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       15:36, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

I want it 'on record' as it were, that I for one absolutely do not hate Ironyak1. A lot of stuff has happened at once these past few days, and I'd say Yak has kept their cool extraordinarily well considering the circumstances. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  16:04, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

Wasn't really referring to you, Sirius :). I do agree with a lot of your points, and do hope as well that we can solve this calmly and civilly. -- Harrypotterexpert101  Talk       16:31, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

I know you weren't, I just wanted it out there. -  MrSiriusBlack  Talk  17:04, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

I disagree that Ironyak has been "aggressive", "highly rude" and "unhelpful". I think he has been a very dependable and professional admin and editor (one of our best), who's always fair and informed. He has been very cordial despite personal attacks, and has sought a solution. The whole issue was not caused by a single editor, and I think other editors need to take a good look at their own actions and words too.

I feel he had very valid concerns about an editor who had broken Policies. He had observed a history of issues which he was very informed about, and he should be able to detail what happened and strongly voice any concerns. He didn't abuse any power, or attack any editor (personally or otherwise), and he stuck to facts. Ironyak wanted to speak to a Bureaucrat for a second opinion, and so everyone should have waited and gone forward. Instead, I saw a group of editors determined to brow-beat Ironyak so he would change an opinion to their own.

I have very strong concerns about User:GS877 too. I found their involvement very sudden, given they hadn't been involved in our community until they joined our discussion. They didn't have any courtesy towards Ironyak when they first appeared. I feel at that point, the whole discussion went too far. Their personal attack on Ironyak, and their manipulative demands were very inappropriate and aggravating.

I think we need to start thinking about what we hope to gain out of continuing the discussion, and if it will lead to civil wiki. I think editors should try to be less pejorative in any choice of words and terminology towards Ironyak, who has done exceptionally good work for our wiki. We need to focus now on what kind of solution everyone wants instead heading towards an argument again, so we can effectively clean-up the wiki. - Kates39 (talk) 18:08, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

Everything there listed, I have done. Simple as that. I have to thank you for listing the entire set of acts that needs to be addressed. Now that they are here, asking the community for opinions, I fully accept that there are plenty of shortcomings in my acts that needs correcting, and I appreciate that all of them are laid out before me. It is certainly something to learn from and adapt. Thank you.

As for comments about conduct, it would have been helpful if concerns were laid out there at the RFP instead of super focusing on one act of lie. Otherwise, it would have been straightforward. Other than that, the conduct of all here has been fine and perfect. MechQueste 18:45, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

I think the fact that great content moderators like MechQueste show how out of hand this situation has become and how undervalued she now feels, which I do believe is yak's fault and that our content moderators should not be discouraged from doing their basic job. I'm still not happy with the way this admin spoke to me, MechQueste and basically anyone who disagrees even slightly with them, which from GS877 (who in my view was spoken to very rudely for no reason) said is not a good way to act as an admin. I think this is a clear sign of administrative bias and I don't believe just because someone is appointed to a high position that they should be somehow immune from any criticism; it is one set of rules for normal users and a completely different one for admins, which I don't believe is even slightly fair or democratic. Users should be allowed to express their dissatisfaction with someone and not be lectured for showing "disrespect" towards someone only because they are an admin, as I believe this is extremely elitist and disrespectful towards the views and interests of normal users. --RedWizard98 (talk) 20:19, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

---

Thank you for all your comments. I know it may be a little difficult, but lets put the accusations on MechQueste behind us, as it's just going around in circles and doesn't seem to be the underlying issue.

For this conversation, I ask everyone to put on their editor hats, regardless if you have some sort of user rights on this community.

Based on the comments, it seems the biggest concern was how it was dragged on and percieved as an attack. While there seems to be a consensus some form of vigilence when promoting new users. While some believe it was entirely fine, for those who don't, where do you think it should have stopped?

For Ironyak, I see you did apologize for your initial behaviour which is great. On the same manner, where do you think it could've stopped? This applies to MechQueste to answer also.

I'd like the discussion to focus on everyone giving their insight on this alone first. We'll navigate through more once everyone has had their say. —TIMESHADE |Talk/Wall| - |C| 20:31, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

Hi TimeShade. Quick question before replying - is there an answer yet as to FANDOM's policy on sharing content from the associated Discord server on the wiki? Just trying to get clarity on this issue, thanks.

As for where the RFP conversation could have stopped - it seems especially tricky given the context, but from a pragmatic point, once the Request was withdrawn there was officially no more business to be handled. However, even after that point, the user wanted to argue that my assertions were just distractions which appears to be a request to provide evidence. From there, it became a a question if that was enough evidence for everyone present to justify my concerns. (There seems to be some assuming of bad-faith going on but I also understand the interest in seeing evidence and data for people's claims. Complicated it is )

Just to share my perspective, I have no interest in "scoring points" on people or "dragging them through the mud" in public. When I said I have very strong reservations, my hope is that those concerns are understood between me and the user without me having to explicitly enumerate them given that we have shared context from our interactions on their Talk page and possibly in Discord. As I mentioned later, I don't see any value in airing people's dirty laundry for onlookers.

However, MechQueste said they would have just preferred me to layout the full litany of issues to start. Do others feel the same? This seems to me to be overly heavy handed approach but apparently others think differently.

Regardless, I think we all can agree that the full conversation went on way too long. If anyone has ideas on how they might have better handled the exchange I am open to suggestions. Cheers --Ironyak1 (talk) 21:29, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what of what was being discussed, MechQueste nor did GS877 did not deserve to spoken to so poorly, and they deserved to be spoken to be far better than what was said. This is not how content moderators or anyone on fandom deserves to be spoken to, and it is strongly of my opinion that were both "dragged through the mud" for biased reasons and now we have an atmosphere which is no hostile and resentful for no reason. I believe this to have been an incredibly poor show whereas it could have been so polite and professional and I very displeased with this as an ordinary editor.--RedWizard98 (talk) 22:14, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

The conversation should have stopped when I was said to have "lied" to an administrator. Full stop right there. That conduct was unprofessional to say the least. But no, the intensity just continued without further reasoning. Its apparently not the same time the behaviour occurred, when the energy went full steam ahead without looking backwards. MechQueste 22:36, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

MechQueste did not lie and for her to be accused of this was very inappropriate. For a content moderator to be unfairly accused of this when it was clear they were acting in good faith and to be discouraged from doing their job is not good.--RedWizard98 (talk) 22:39, July 3, 2020 (UTC)

@TimeShade - can you let us know if the intent here is for us to simply answer your question and wait for your input or to talk amongst ourselves at our own pace or what? Just trying to understand the expectations for this process you are mediating here.

@MechQueste - as you used AutoWikiBrowser on 21 June, is stating on 22 June "I have not used AutoWikiBrowser recently" a truth? If it is not, then what would you call it? As you said "it was not a deliberate lie" it would appear you recognize there can be lies that are not deliberate, but still lies nonetheless?

It's feeling like there is some disconnect between my intended meaning of "a lie" as "a false statement" and the possibly received meaning of "a falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception." If that is the case, then I do apologize for my poor word choice coming across being more inflammatory than intended. Thanks --Ironyak1 (talk) 03:06, July 4, 2020 (UTC)

Greetings Everyone,

Glad that this matter is finally being discussed. I have seen some concerns by a couple of editors on this wiki who have put forward concerns about Ironyak1's actions and I am honestly willing to see all of those, coz if they are true, I really would want answers from Yak. But then when we have a forum dedicated especially to discuss these concerns with proper evidence and links to back those arguments, and I see Ironyak1 backing all their arguments but users like RedWizard are simply using their word jumble to degrade Yak.

While users show their unbiased by stating that they aren't related to either side, I will state that I have worked with both Yak and Mech. So I am neutral. Mech is a very very old friend of mine ad has helped me with editing on occastions and I have worked with Yak (along with all Dmods of HPW) on the discussion board to improve it and make it hospitable and welcoming to all types of users.

To answer TimeShades question, the argument on RFP should have been stopped right here: "Please consider it withdrawn then. MechQueste 19:29, June 22, 2020 (UTC)" But then Mech tried to clarify his actions and hence the argument went on. It could have been done on Yak's talk page but perhaps Mech found it appropriate to put that info then and there. So now the matter should have ended here: "You are and it's been noted - thanks. --Ironyak1 (talk) 23:19, June 22, 2020 (UTC)"

But then came in a user who shouldn't be there in the first place. GS877. And that is where the matter got worse and we ended up here. The fact that this user barged in on our wiki and acted as a judge jury and executioner is the place where things got rough.

To answer some of RedWizard's points:

1) "I have to agree with MechQueste, Ironyak was highly and unnecessarily rude to her and anyone else who disagreed with their approach."

Here: https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/User_talk:RedWizard98#Your_attitude (Just incase no one noticed, the approach was made by a user without special rights. And the way RedWiz replies to this complaint: "Thanks for the lovely feedback! RedWizard98 (talk) 15:03, May 26, 2019 (UTC)" shows how they don't care at all to resolve a matter rather provoke people who make a complaint against them or show concerns regarding their disrespectful behavior.

2) "I thought it was a very unprofessional demonstration of administrative behaviour, especially in the incredibly rude dismissal of the impartial councillor GS877, who was simply seeking to resolve the issue and deserved much more respect."

I would love to add some laughing emotes here to show how hard you are trying to do cheerleading for any side that at the moment is against Ironyak1. I am not going to start listing your mistakes and edit wars with users or your simple ignorance of facts even after being stated like here: https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/User_talk:RedWizard98#RE_bot_errors because this isn't about you. I do hope someday there is a forum to discuss your actions. While casually reviewing your actions I noticed that quite a few users have shared concerns about your actions. Not only users with special rights but normal users like you and me.

3) "I have also felt this admin has been very rude and unhelpful to me in the past over similar issues"

Would honestly be helpful if you could provide some evidences here since it clearly is a place to discuss Yak's actions on this community.

4) "great content moderators like MechQueste"

I am sure Mech is an amazing content mod but this terminology is kinda pseudo glorifying don't you think? Even Mech will agree with me here.

5) " I don't believe just because someone is appointed to a high position that they should be somehow immune from any criticism"

You say this line to yak and then you state the line in point number 4 and contradict yourself. Now I think when people contradict themselves in action, that is called hippocracy. Correct me if I am wrong.

6) "Users should be allowed to express their dissatisfaction with someone"

Just an FYI, admins are users too. They just have admin tools that allows them to take certain actions when certain users need to be disciplined. Otherwise, they are also users. Yak is expressing concerns for Mech and Mech is doing the same! They both are trying to sort the matter out while you simply are igniting the matter again and again.

7) "Regardless of what of what was being discussed, MechQueste nor did GS877 did not deserve to spoken to so poorly, and they deserved to be spoken to be far better than what was said."

If I bring a 5-year-old to read the comments of GS877, even that young child would say that GS877 was being toxic in the first place. As for the convo between Mech and Yak, Yak did apologize for their initial behavior.

8) "For a content moderator to be unfairly accused of this when it was clear they were acting in good faith and to be discouraged from doing their job is not good."

Aren't you doing the same with an admin right now and requesting "not to be lectured" but lecturing others? I think this justifies my 5th point.

All said and done, I would like to humbly request each and every user participating in this forum that if you are making an accusation on anyone, kindly provide proof of it, arguments that back them. Simply throwing words around, blaming each other won't lead us anywhere. I agree with Kates39 here: "I think we need to start thinking about what we hope to gain out of continuing the discussion, and if it will lead to civil wiki. I think editors should try to be less pejorative in any choice of words and terminology towards Ironyak(and Mech too), who has done exceptionally good work for our wiki. We need to focus now on what kind of solution everyone wants instead heading towards an argument again, so we can effectively clean-up the wiki." Thank you! --Reverb frost (talk) 08:50, July 4, 2020 (UTC)