Jump to content

Abusive Behavior in the Specific Wars Monuments and Memorials category


Recommended Posts

I recently tried to submit my one and only waymark into the Specific Wars Monuments and Memorials category. After a couple of days it was declined by the leader with a brief explanation to edit the title to reflect the naming requirements in the category. And THAT is where the real problems began.

 

After reading and re-reading the category description and THEN looking at previously-approved waymarks, I was left even MORE confused than before. If one visits this category, he/she will notice that all approved waymarks are a confusing mess of titles with dashes, titles with commas, the monument name in front, the monument name in the middle, etc. And so I re-submitted my waymark with a different title and with a note in the private message box pointing out this confusion and that the category doesn't adequately explain how to title a waymark AND pointing out that previously-approved waymarks don't all follow the category rules. Nine hours later I get another decline back with a very confusing message from the leader: "Is it too hard to type 3 letters instead of starting a flame? If others (I count 5, is that "many others"?) were approved like this, it was wrong. Asking you to edit was right. Besides, I am not the only officer in this category so although I can't tell if I did approve those 5 there are some chances I didn't."

 

After yet more confusion from reading the leader's reply message, I re-submitted my waymark for the THIRD time with another private message stating the leader's broken-English reply was confusing to me and that I am STILL requesting a VALID explanation or direction in what I need to do to make the title correct and get my submission approved. I also stated that this would be my ONE AND ONLY waymark in the category from here on out because of the attitude the leader has shown in dealing with my submission as well as stating that it was too bad it would be my only submission because as a former military veteran, I would have liked to have submitted more waymarks in the future. Hours later it was declined with NO EXPLANATION OR ANYTHING. So I re-submitted my waymark for the FOURTH time with a quick message saying as long as the leader declines my waymark submission without ANY VALID REASON OR EXPLANATION, I'll keep re-submitting it.

 

So far, the leader has declined my submission FOUR more times with NO EXPLANATION. NO REASON. NO NOTHING. I then sent a direct e-mail to the leader and let him know I've reported him to Groundspeak for abusive behavior as a leader of a category for declining waymarks without a proper or valid reason. Groundspeak admins can view the track record of his declines as proof of my argument. It's too bad no one can join the group and see the history of declines. Thus far, my submission is in limbo.

 

As a leader/officer of a number of categories, I would never decline a waymark just because I didn't like the person. If anything, I'd have another officer deal with the person I was having an issue with. It's unfortunate the leader of the Specific Wars Monuments and Memorials category has chosen this path in my regard.

 

Has anyone else had issues with the leader or officers in this category? If so, point them out here in the forum and maybe Groundspeak can do something about it. As it stands, the category is poorly written and confusing for even the most-seasoned waymarker to follow its naming convention and guidelines and basically not even worth the time submitting waymarks into. Unfortunately, I believe a lot of it has to do with all officers being European and not understanding how to communicate properly in English. Since this category covers monuments all over the world, getting an American waymarker promoted to an officer would be a good first step (at least in dealing with United States monuments). At least they could communicate the rules in a better manner.

 

:tired:

Link to comment

So I re-submitted my waymark for the FOURTH time with a quick message saying as long as the leader declines my waymark submission without ANY VALID REASON OR EXPLANATION, I'll keep re-submitting it.

 

So far, the leader has declined my submission FOUR more times with NO EXPLANATION. NO REASON. NO NOTHING. I then sent a direct e-mail to the leader and let him know I've reported him to Groundspeak for abusive behavior as a leader of a category for declining waymarks without a proper or valid reason. Groundspeak admins can view the track record of his declines as proof of my argument. It's too bad no one can join the group and see the history of declines.

 

You do understand that Geocaching HQ left Waymarking to it's own devices. The site is slowly dying off due to lack of members on a failed venture. :(

 

You are just not going to get anything changed, and don't vent it at me or Geocaching HQ. My PM pays for supporting this site. :)

Link to comment

I give this a 6 out of 10 on the flame scale. That would rise to a 9 if the thread is step one towards another hostile takeover of a category.

 

But, I see that this category has four active officers, which is pretty cool and above average. Yay for them! That likely means that an orchestrated hostile takeover is not in the cards.

 

The naming convention in the category requirements says "Naming: Name of the monument or memorial, name of the war, city, state, country." What is the exact current name of the waymark at issue?

 

After several rounds of messages back and forth, sometimes it's a good idea to just step away and not worry about it. It sounds like the category officer has chosen to do that. I wasn't aware that would subject someone to discipline from Waymarking HQ, if there is such a thing.

Link to comment

I give this a 6 out of 10 on the flame scale. That would rise to a 9 if the thread is step one towards another hostile takeover of a category.

 

But, I see that this category has four active officers, which is pretty cool and above average. Yay for them! That likely means that an orchestrated hostile takeover is not in the cards.

 

The naming convention in the category requirements says "Naming: Name of the monument or memorial, name of the war, city, state, country." What is the exact current name of the waymark at issue?

 

After several rounds of messages back and forth, sometimes it's a good idea to just step away and not worry about it. It sounds like the category officer has chosen to do that. I wasn't aware that would subject someone to discipline from Waymarking HQ, if there is such a thing.

 

There is no attempt for a hostile takeover of this category. I don't know where you got that from? I just want my waymark to be approved and it can't because the leader has chosen to abuse his membership privileges by declining my waymark for the sole reason that he doesn't like me. Currently, I've followed the naming convention requirement as stated in the category. You can view my submission for yourself:

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMVDPA

 

To continue to decline a waymark submission even though the submission abides by all the rules and requirements is an abuse of the membership privileges given to him and should NOT be tolerated.

Link to comment

I just want my waymark to be approved and it can't because the leader has chosen to abuse his membership privileges by declining my waymark for the sole reason that he doesn't like me. Currently, I've followed the naming convention requirement as stated in the category. You can view my submission for yourself:

 

To continue to decline a waymark submission even though the submission abides by all the rules and requirements is an abuse of the membership privileges given to him and should NOT be tolerated.

 

Waymarking is becoming more of a PITA everyday for Geocaching HQ. I think it's very likely the site will be retired soon. It just causes too many problems between members. Threads like this are very unhealthy for Waymarking, as it shows the true side of the politics here. :(

 

There is an ignore list for categories, and I'm sure you have already filled the grid. Time to just move on and forget about it. :(

Link to comment

Thanks BK, I made the addition. We'll see, he'll probably decline it anyway because he still needs to massage his ego. It's also possible that he's declining because the monument is a Spanish Civil War memorial (he's from nearby Portugal) and could have some opinionated feelings about it. Sad either way you look at it.

Link to comment

Thanks BK, I made the addition. We'll see, he'll probably decline it anyway because he still needs to massage his ego. It's also possible that he's declining because the monument is a Spanish Civil War memorial (he's from nearby Portugal) and could have some opinionated feelings about it. Sad either way you look at it.

I just saw SPECIFIC, thinking it was Specific Veterans and was going to defend myself saying that I'm usually pretty reasonable by explaining exactly what caused me to decline. Whew, wrong category and not me (this time! :) )

I'm not real familiar with the politics of the region, but I wouldn't think a Portuguese person would care either way about a Spanish Civil War marker either way - they've been separate countries for many hundreds of years. I definitely could be wrong, though.

Anyway, good luck getting the waymark approved - I actually thought it was pretty interesting that U of W would have a monument to the American volunteers of the Spanish Civil War.

Link to comment

I guess there's a little good news to come from all this urinary jousting between the leader and myself. I've received two e-mails, one from a geocacher who doesn't waymark and just happened to read this post and the other from a fellow waymarker. Both individuals appreciated the waymark and its significance. It's the first (and possibly only) Spanish Civil War monument to be dedicated in the United States. If this waymark ever gets approved, it would be a good contribution to the category. It's just too bad the leader acts more like a warmongering tyrannical dictator than a civil, mature and communicative diplomat. The war veterans for whom this category was created for would be truly disappointed.

Link to comment

It's just too bad the leader acts more like a warmongering tyrannical dictator than a civil, mature and communicative diplomat.

I don't think that's what happened here, and I think your judgement has been so clouded on this matter that you can't objectively view the facts any more. Here's how I see things:

 

Based on what I've read in this discussion, it sounds like your Waymark in fact didn't meet the (IMO, clear) naming requirements, and this was communicated to you in the first decline message (albeit possibly without fine details). Rather than take this personally, a good next step after that first decline would have been for you to compare your title with the naming requirements (NOT compare with other Waymarks; those aren't being reviewed, yours is) to fix the issue. The ensuing drama most likely wouldn't have occurred if that had happened. Instead, you seem to have steadfastly refused to admit you could possibly be in the wrong and the issue logically escalated as a result.

 

Personally, I think you owe the leader an apology for your actions during the review and for unjustly dragging their name through the mud in the forums. I bet if you do that now that the title has been fixed, your Waymark will be promptly approved.

Link to comment

Clarifying this for the other members (I am not talking directly to a master flamer): the submitter didn't notice (or forgot, or just didn't want to comply) this category naming rules, which recquires the inclusion of the country's name in the title. I politely asked him to edit, including a copy and paste of that segment of the rules. And then the flaming started. He mentioned that "many, many" previous WM's were approved without the country name. I went to check. 5 out of 130. And I told him: it was wrong that these were approved, it was right that the current one was being declined, and besides, there were more officers active and probably someone else approved those 5.

 

From here the submitter became tumultuous, rude and aggressive. Among other things something "I can't understand your Portuguese English", "I am a War Veteran" (so what...?), "I reported you to Groundpseak", "I will keep submitting this WM until you approve".

 

From that moment I cut all communication with the flamer. So, this is the full story. And, of course, I will keep ignore him on this topic.

 

As to the lunatic allegation that this WM is being declined due to bias and so regarding Spanish War, this is a good answer:

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMHFJ2_Spanish_Civil_War_Plaque_Barnsley_South_Yorkshire_UK

 

Notice the last line:

 

Spanish Civil War Plaque, Barnsley, South Yorkshire, UK

 

in Specific Wars Monuments and Memorials

Posted by: Groundspeak Premium Member wireworm

 

N 53° 33.311 W 001° 29.005

30U E 600464 N 5935102

Quick Description: A plaque mounted on the wall of a memorial garden in Barnsley.

Location: Yorkshire, United Kingdom

Date Posted: 7/5/2013 1:00:50 PM

Waymark Code: WMHFJ2

Published By: Groundspeak Premium Member Torgut

Edited by Torgut
Link to comment

As a reviewer, I choose to edit the titles myself rather than risk such personality conflicts. Is there any reason an officer should not make such small edits?

A couple of reasons that I don't make edits on submitted entries, not matter how small:

 

1. It's not my submission to edit.

 

2. The error will more than likely continue, which means I become a full time enabler.

 

I think it's better to send it back to the submitter for edits and turn it into a "teachable moment" :)

Link to comment

As a reviewer, I choose to edit the titles myself rather than risk such personality conflicts. Is there any reason an officer should not make such small edits?

 

In my opinion, NO. The leader of the group in most cases gives an officer the authority to edit waymarks. Why else would there be that option?

 

I do in some cases edit, but always mention my edit in the reviewer note. One of the more common are typos such as ot for to. If all requirements are met and would approve, I do not see the necessity to decline because of a minor edit.

 

Also I do on occasion add a "reviewer" note at the bottom of the long description for clarification. I always state that I am going to add the note. One thing I never do after a minor edit or add a reviewer note is "block" the waymarker from making edits. That option is at the bottom after an edit and to save changes.

Link to comment

As a reviewer, I choose to edit the titles myself rather than risk such personality conflicts. Is there any reason an officer should not make such small edits?

 

In my opinion, NO. The leader of the group in most cases gives an officer the authority to edit waymarks. Why else would there be that option?

 

I do in some cases edit, but always mention my edit in the reviewer note. One of the more common are typos such as ot for to. If all requirements are met and would approve, I do not see the necessity to decline because of a minor edit.

 

Also I do on occasion add a "reviewer" note at the bottom of the long description for clarification. I always state that I am going to add the note. One thing I never do after a minor edit or add a reviewer note is "block" the waymarker from making edits. That option is at the bottom after an edit and to save changes.

 

This is great information. Making minor edits probably won't end up causing angst, and writing a reviewer note explaining the edit is a teachable moment.

Link to comment

 

From here the submitter became tumultuous, rude and aggressive. Among other things something "I can't understand your Portuguese English", "I am a War Veteran" (so what...?), "I reported you to Groundpseak", "I will keep submitting this WM until you approve".

 

From that moment I cut all communication with the flamer. So, this is the full story. And, of course, I will keep ignore him on this topic.

 

As to the lunatic allegation that this WM is being declined due to bias and so regarding Spanish War, this is a good answer:

 

 

This is exactly the kind of crap that has ruined being a Waymarking reviewer for me, dealing with unreasonable members over their WM's just to have them come here to the forums and start a thread like this.

 

Waymarking has no leadership, and I'm tired of this "I reported you to Groundspeak" junk. They don't care. Several times when I have declined WM's I get that same old threat.

 

All I can say to the complainers is remember what happened to Challenge caches due to HQ having to constantly mediate between players. Waymarking will not be reworked if the plug ever gets pulled. It will be history. :(

Link to comment

This is exactly the kind of crap that has ruined being a Waymarking reviewer for me, dealing with unreasonable members over their WM's just to have them come here to the forums and start a thread like this.

 

Waymarking has no leadership, and I'm tired of this "I reported you to Groundspeak" junk. They don't care. Several times when I have declined WM's I get that same old threat.

 

All I can say to the complainers is remember what happened to Challenge caches due to HQ having to constantly mediate between players. Waymarking will not be reworked if the plug ever gets pulled. It will be history. :(

 

Fortunately I never had a single conflict with a submitter. Can't tell the same about a couple of officers, but never took it too serious. Some of these situations were so surreal and unfair that eventually I wrote about them in the forums, more as a notice than anything else. It has been a long time now since I got upset, even if slightly, about anything related with WM (and GC) and it feels right as it is.

Edited by Torgut
Link to comment

Fortunately I never had a single conflict with a submitter. Can't tell the same about a couple of officers, but never took it too serious. Some of these situations were so surreal and unfair that eventually I wrote about them in the forums, more as a notice than anything else. It has been a long time now since I got upset, even if slightly, about anything related with WM (and GC) and it feels right as it is.

 

Kudos to you, Torgut, for that attitude. After all, this is just a game, a hobby, a diversion. I fail to see the point in getting our knickers in a knot over a Waymark, a reviewer or a Waymarker. All it gets us is high(er) blood pressure and a forum flame.

 

Keith

Edited by BK-Hunters
Link to comment

As a reviewer, I choose to edit the titles myself rather than risk such personality conflicts. Is there any reason an officer should not make such small edits?

A couple of reasons that I don't make edits on submitted entries, not matter how small:

 

1. It's not my submission to edit.

 

2. The error will more than likely continue, which means I become a full time enabler.

 

I think it's better to send it back to the submitter for edits and turn it into a "teachable moment" :)

 

As an officer in a category, it's up to you to welcome, accept and own the submissions to your category. That is, once you accept it, you can make edit changes, if needed. Your name's going to appear in the waymark as a reviewer as well as that of the submitter, so sloppiness and errors reflect on you as well.

 

Personally, I find it easier to make any small textual changes needed for conformance, and inform the submitter of changes made in the acceptance message. It saves me and the submitter time, and includes the teachable moment. If a later submission comes in from the same submitter with the same problem, I'll be more blunt the next time with a decline and the teachable moment message to make sure it's seen/learned.

 

I find this saves my time, the submitter's time and the roundtrip time of another submission that I have to review again. In case I'm not around when it's resubmitted, it saves another officer from becoming involved and becoming aware of the shortcomings of the original submission and possibly accepting something that was not corrected.

 

From me, a decline can likely be something that I was unable to fix to bring it into compliance and I really need the submitter to fix it. An example might be needing additional photos.

Edited by DougK
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...