Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 47 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 7 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 19 | 40 | 59 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 5 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 9 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 6 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 2 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 12 sockpuppet investigations
- 7 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 8 Fully protected edit requests
- 2 Candidates for history merging
- 0 requests for RD1 redaction
- 38 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 11 requested closures
- 74 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 7 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requesting RfC be re-closed
An RfC recently asked how to summarize a section at People's Mujahedin of Iran. Stefka Bulgaria (SB) and I (VR) offered competing versions. @Chetsford: closed as consensus for SB's version, but graciously encouraged me to seek review here; I'm asking the RfC be re-opened re-closed.
- The RfC was closed Nov 29. Yet there was active discussion on Nov 27-28 on whether the proposals violated WP:DUE([1][2]) or MOS:WEASEL ([3]). But wikipedia has no WP:DEADLINE.
- Secondly, the SB proposal mass removes longstanding content. Major divergences from the status quo require a strong consensus (as pointed out by El_C). Although the RfC was closed as "seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed", I count 10 supports for SB and 7 for VR. The closer felt the opposition to SB's version was ambiguous; I disagree and have provided the exact comments (see below "Vote counts"). Given this, the policy considerations below and closer finding both sides' arguments "equally compelling", the result leans to "no consensus". Re-opening the RfC might change that. Also, there is recent indication that RfCs on that page are voted on without being read, so result should be based on policy not votes.
- Lastly, there were serious policy issues with SB proposal that no one responded to. This version's weasel wording ("various sources...while other sources...") implies a WP:FALSEBALANCE. Academic sources overwhelming say that MEK is a cult (list of sources provided here and here). Even SB acknowledged that no source actually dismisses the cult claims. Yet SB's version balances the opinion of peer-reviewed books and journal articles against those in newspaper op-eds. The argument that high-quality RS can't be counterbalanced with low quality ones was made repeatedly ([4][5]) but never got a response.
- It was pointed out (but never responded to) that SB's version inaccurately implies that MEK barring children from a military camp was the only or main reason for the cult designation, but the sources instead give different, multiple reasons for the cult designation. This is worded as a strawman and misrepresents what one of the sources SB cited says (see below "What the BBC source says").
Vote counts
|
|---|
|
Stefka Bulgaria's proposal was supported by MA Javadi, Idealigic, Adoring nanny, Nika2020, Bahar1397, Alex-h, Ypatch, Barca and HistoryofIran (only said "Yes per Stefka.")
|
What the BBC source says
|
|---|
|
SB's version says
The source also mentions that "no children rule" as being only one of many reasons (mandatory divorce, members not allowed to leave) for MEK's cultishness. |
VR talk 15:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Changing to request to re-close.VR talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- The RfC was opened on 2 October 2020, and there had been absence of new participation towards the time Chetsford closed it. As Chetsford explained to VR, the RfC process
"is a finite discursive arena designed to achieve a specific purpose and not an infinite chat room for open-ended dialog."
Also involved editor Mhhossein requested for the RfC to be closed by an experienced admin, and that's what happened here. After the close, VR was advised to continue discussion on either the article Talk page or personal Talk pages, but both Mhhossein and VR have a tendency to instead complain each time a RfC in this article doesn't close in their favor, making it exhausting for everyone involved. The RfC was opened for two months, and was closed by an experienced admin who gave a thorough and policy-based rational for their close. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- That RFC ran for way too long. VR constantly commented on votes that didn't support his proposal, so when he says "there was active discussion", that's basically him disagreeing with opposite votes. Secondly, the consensus was not to mass remove longstanding content, but to condense a lot of POV. Chestford's vote count was accurate and his closing remarks carefully followed guidelines. Stefka's proposal was more neutral, that's why it won consensus. Lastly, there weren't any "serious policy issues with Stefka's proposal that no one responded to." VR and Mhhossein have been arguing WP:FALSEBALANCE to keep in the article multiple quotes repeating "Democratic Iranian opposition political party = cult" while Mhhossein is removing multiple sources about a misinformation campaign that the Iran’s theocratic regim is running to characterize this political party a cult. Alex-h (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- Endorse. Clearly the correct close.—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- The closer said he has counted the votes. There are 9 supports and 7 opposes which use policies in their comments. Moreover, this page is under CONSENSUS REQUIRED restriction, and the admin who himself has proposed Wikipedia:Consensus required and has the most experience regarding page said earlier this restriction should be taken into account, given the fact that "key longstanding text" is condensed by ~60%. Such a mass change requires a strong consensus. Not to mention that VR has raised quite fair concerns which are not responded to. --Mhhossein talk 18:09, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, this is what the closing admin said in their closing comment:
"By head counting, seven editors support the summary proposal while three are opposed. Looking more closely at the arguments there was an unambiguous consensus that the text in question needs to be shortened, which is consistent with past discussions. Insofar as to whether or not the proposed alternative text should be the text used to shorten the article, "yes" !votes argued the current text was WP:UNDUE and the proposal accurately and duely represented all content in a more succinct and readable form. The "no" !votes stated that the sources used to support the current weighting of perspectives were not entirely drawn from WP:RS and that the proposed alternative text was, therefore, not DUE. The "no" !votes also stated that, while "cult" was a contentious label, there was an abundance of RS that used this term to refer to the Mujahedin. In rebuttal, "yes" !voters said that the word "cult" remained in the article but was reduced in redundancy by the proposal which was not inconsistent with the closing decision in a previous RfC on this topic, or the policy aspect of the objection raised by the "no" !votes. Arguments advanced by both "yes" and "no" editors were equally compelling and virtually every comment cited a relevant policy and made a logical argument as to why policy supported their position. In these cases, our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it". There is a consensus to adopt both the shortening proposal, and the specific text advanced in that proposal by Stefka Bulgaria. An alternate proposal by VK did not achieve a consensus, however, a number of persons who registered a "yes" opinion in that proposal did not express any opinion at all in the original proposal. Given that, it would be okay to open a new and more focused discussion as to whether or not the just-adopted shortened form should be modified in the way suggested by VK, however, keeping this entire RfC open for that reason alone isn't justified and would be unnecessarily confusing."
- And here is the conversation that followed on the closer's talk page after this close. All concerns were addressed (in the RfC process and after by the closing admin). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Don't bludgeon the process, please. Thanks.--Mhhossein talk 05:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- You could simply put the diff and everyone could see what you are talking about. That's clearly bludgeoning to unnecessarily put the whole text wall here and would like to ask you avoid doing that in future.--Mhhossein talk 14:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, I added the closing admins' evaluation (which was needed after your comment). Please do not edit my comments. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
- Not sure what the specific disagreement is about as I haven't followed the discussion too closely, but I'd be happy to clarify and add more details to my comments in case the RFC was reopened. Apologies for the ambiguity. Jushyosaha604 (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
- Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening): I closed the RfC in question and addressed some of the concerns the OP (and others) raised above at my Talk page here. However, as I said there, I think this was an exceptionally close decision. The OP is an outstanding editor who makes strong points in favor of reopening that are based on a GF interpretation of policy. While I don't agree with them and didn't, therefore, believe I could unilaterally reopen the RfC I would have no objection if the community decided to reopen it. Chetsford (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Re-openRe-close. Jeez, what a mess. This reminds me of what happened when the last RfC on the cult designation was closed/amended back in September (by L235). Same thing now in November (December)? Nothing learned? Yes, there remains a strong consensus to trim. But my sense is that there's only a strong consensus to trim within reason. In the last RfC, the proposal was to trim 800 words down to 40 words. This RfC proposes to trim it down to 80 words. Now, I realize it's double the word count, but whether one is cutting down the material to 1/20th of its former size or to 1/10th of it — either one of these still amounts to an enormous reduction. So, in either case, I would submit that there would need to be a strong consensus to trim that much sourced content. Whereas, if one were to propose trimming much less, a rough consensus ought to do. Anyway, having a cult designation super-trim RfC every 3 months is too much. Had I still been active as an admin in the article (with thanks to Vanamonde93 for picking up the torch), I probably would have barred this latest RfC from even proceeding (as such). It just isn't a sensible way to engage the problem at hand. It seems like a one-sided approach and a timesink. So, Stefka Bulgaria, maybe it's time someone else had go at it...? Because, coupled with your rather perplexing SPI (to word it gently) involving Mhhossein earlier in the week, it doesn't look like it's heading anywhere good. At any rate, maybe a pre-RfC consultation period wouldn't be the worse idea. Instead of submitting one super-trim RfC after another, why not work together toward a proposal that both sides could find palatable. Or am I just howling at the moon? El_C 09:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly support
work[-ing] together toward a proposal
that is both concise but also contains all the major points. We can use the two proposals in the RfC already (SB's and VR's) as starting points.VR talk 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)- I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- Your use of the word "consensus" is too vague, Idealigic. Because what I am saying above (and have said in the prior RfC), is that one would need a strong consensus to reduce sourced material to 1/20th (prior RfC) to 1/10th (current RfC) of its former size. Rough consensus just isn't good enough for changes of that magnitude. El_C 17:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose re-opening the rfc since it received concensus and was closed properly. If some editors want to shape the final outcome, then they should start a new rfc and see if that receives consensus, so I support working together in a new rfc. Idealigic (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
- I strongly support
The head count was 10 editors in favor of the proposal and 4 against it (and even some of votes that were against the OP’s proposal agreed the text needed shortening so it could be more neutral, so there was an unambiguous consensus that the text needs to be shortened, something also consistent with past discussions).In cases where arguments on both sides are equally compelling citing relevant policies our SOP (as described in WP:NHC) requires the closer "to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it".
The text was requested to be summarized because there a section in the article with the violating title “designation as a cult” (it violates WP:V and WP:OR) with exuberant number of quotes calling the democratic political opposition to Iran’s theocracy a "cult". The OP provided many sources about the Iranian regime running a disinformation campaign to label this political group a “cult” and other discrediting things:
[1]"A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."
”[2]"disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult."
[3]"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications."
[4]"A 2011 report by the General Intelligence and Security Service stated that the government in Iran continued to coordinate a campaign financed by the Iranian intelligence services to undermine and portray the MEK in a highly negative manner. This campaign also involved the media, politicians, and public servants."
"Teheran’s efforts to undermine the opposition People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e Khalq, MEK) in the Netherlands continued unabated in 2011. In a campaign co-ordinated and financed by the Iranian intelligence services, the media and a number of politicians and other public servants were approached with a view to portraying the MEK in a highly negative light."
[6]"The intensification of the MOIS research efforts already described for 2015 against the opposition "People's Modjahedin Iran Organization" (MEK) or theirs political arm, the “National Council of Resistance of Iran” (NCRI), was also found in 2016. The Iranian intelligence service continued to adhere to the strategy that the MEK targeted through Discredit propaganda."
[7]"“The Iranian regime has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to demonize the PMOI and portrayed it as a group without popular support,” Rafizadeh, an Arab News columnist, added."
[8]"The campaign to suppress and demonize the opposition, most notably the MEK, has been launched since the Islamic regime usurped power in Iran. In fact, the Iranian intelligence and security apparatus has been actively pursuing various activities against the MEK such as monitoring, assassinating and, more importantly during recent years, demonizing the opposition group in media. For instance, in 2015 and 16, the regime produced at least 30 films, TV series and documentaries to spread false allegations and lies against the opposition in Iran’s society. This is apart from hundreds of websites and exhibitions across Iran to pursue the same goal."
These are just some of the reasons mentioned in that discussion why this needed shortening, cleaning that section and preserving the main points. If new information needs to be added, then a proposition can be made explaining why it is needed and how they are in accordance to a summary style editing. That would be a fresh approach of building the article instead of the other way around (which has already proven not to work). Idealigic (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you guys think bludgeoning the discussion with such a text wall can be helpful? As I told you, you did exactly the same thing at the talk page of MEK but it just made the whole talk page into a real mess. As a friendly note, this is not really helpful. --Mhhossein talk 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:
- SB's version misrepresenting the sources that say MEK is a cult (concern raised during RfC)
- SB's weasel wording equating scholarly sources to newspaper op-eds (raised during RfC[10]). Academic consensus is clear that MEK is a cult. Even SB admitted that no source dismisses the cult claim.
- Neither concern was responded to during the RfC. I'm fine with a re-close as long as closer evaluates the merits of these two arguments.VR talk 17:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks Only in death and El_C for input. Reason for re-opening was to get responses to two policy issues with SB version:
- A "consensus to reduce but no consensus on exact wording" can be a good thing. This finding on the previous RfC actually spawned proposals and counter-proposals. That is exactly what is needed: less !voting and more WP:NEGOTIATION.VR talk 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- When there's no consensus between two options, but there is a consensus that the article needs to change, and one option is plainly stronger / more extreme than the other but both are broadly a change in the same direction, I feel the correct thing for a closer to do is to close with a weak consensus towards the less drastic choice unless the people arguing for the stronger one specifically rejected it as unacceptable, with the suggestion of further discussion and maybe another RFC if necessary. If people are arguing over "reduce to 80 words" vs. "reduce to 160 words" on a 800-word section, and there plainly isn't sufficient consensus for either due to people supporting doing nothing but the two collectively have a clear majority, I feel it makes more sense to say "well, the people arguing for 80 words would clearly prefer reducing it to 160 words over doing nothing, so if their primary choice plainly doesn't have a strong enough consensus then they can be counted as that for the purpose of what to do in the immediate sense even if further refinement and discussion is plainly necessary." --Aquillion (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Only in death, you raise an important point about how re-opening the RfC discussion itself is a questionable proposition, though I think you also overlook some of the points I raised about the background behind the cult designation RfCs (plural). Especially, how WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS may be at odds with super-trimming content down to like 1/10th to 1/20th of its former size in an article as fraught as this. Again, I, for one, feel that the two sides giving a go to a collaboration in a pre-RfC brainstorming session could prove to be a worthwhile pursuit. We keep having the same side (and the same editor, in fact) in effect dominating the RfC platform when it comes to this matter. But, as for a mere re-open, it would, indeed, be folly. Procedurally, what I would favour (and I suppose what I originally had in mind) is an immediate re-closing, as opposed to relisting. And if it is re-closed affirming the result of the first closure, then that is what it is. Anyway, I have amended my original comment accordingly. El_C 17:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- The main problem with a situation like this is that while everyone is in agreement it needed to be changed, there wasnt a particularly strong consensus for one version over another. Usually the argument is 'do we change it to this or not'. The standard wiki response in a non-consensus situation is revert to the status quo, that was clearly not an option here, as no one wanted that. Given the weight of arguments were roughly equal, it then does come to a numbers game. The alternatives are: extending the RFC to gain more input, by advertising a bit more widely, or just reclosing it as no-consensus and taking it back to the default state. The issue with leaving it open is there are not (from reading it) many more decent arguments that could be made on either side. Re-opening a discussion for the purpose of just hoping more people up the numbers on one side or another is just an invitation to canvassing. Just to be clear I Endorse the close as valid given the discussion there. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Idealigic's count of "10 vs 4" is wrong. There were two proposals: 10 chose SB's, 7 chose VR's (see collapsed section Vote counts for diffs and details) - this is not consensus.VR talk 15:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- This discussion had been going on for months and a RFC was the only solution left for getting things somewhat fixed in the article, so in spite that there is not an overwhelming majority of votes for one version over another (although I also count 10-4 in favor of Stefka's proposal, and 6-7 in favor of VR's propoal), I agree with editor Onlyindeath that the close is valid considering the alternatives. Alex-h (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- See Vote counts, 10 chose SB's version, 7 chose VR's version.VR talk 22:36, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- There is nothing wrong with the first close. Ypatch (talk) 06:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
|
|---|
|
References
|
- Source restriction is what's needed at People's Mujahedin of Iran (and similar super-contentious articles). The sources being used on all sides (popular press) are not good enough for this topic. If we try to source a topic like MEK to popular press like BBC and arabnews.com, what we'll find is that the sources are all over the map and say all kinds of radically different things, depending entirely on who is publishing, who the journalist is, and who the journalist's sources are. We'll never get to any neutral truth about a complex topic like MEK relying on journalists. There are hundreds of academic sources about MEK. Those should be the only ones considered. The picture becomes much clearer when we rely on political scientists and other types of scholars, instead of journalists and activists, as sources. I think Chet did a fine job closing this complex RFC; sure, a no consensus close would also have been in discretion; sure, it could have run longer; Chet kind of split-the-baby with a close that addressed part of the issue and with no prejudice to further discussion of a remaining part of the issue; but without a source restriction, the MEK content disputes will never, ever be resolved. So I think step 1 is impose a source restriction, and then have whatever RFCs. But everyone's arguments would need to be re-evaluated once the source restriction is in place, and I think that will lead us to seeing that what's in dispute isn't quite as disputed by the sources as we thought it was (scholars agree about much more than journalists do). Levivich harass/hound 18:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
You're welcome
— what? I think you meant to say "thank you" and I was meant to say "you're welcome." Stop the Steal! Anyway, unless it's news, which is the domain of the media rather than that of academia. But after the fact, it's always a plus to have a reputable scholar emphasize and reaffirm (or qualify or whatever) this or that news piece alongside any other evidence. El_C 16:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)- In my view, once serious scholarship becomes available, it should replace news media as a source in our articles. By "serious scholarship" I mean written by bona-fide scholars, published by real, peer-reviewed academic journals or in books (often edited by bona-fide scholars) published by university publishers (like Oxford University Press). Second-tier is non-peer-reviewed but still serious scholarly articles, in academic periodicals like Foreign Affairs, but in that case one must be careful to look at who the author is: an article by a politician in a periodical like Foreign Affairs is probably not going to make a good source; an article by a university professor published in the same magazine would be fine (but still not peer-reviewed, and may need attribution). Third-tier is top-rated news media, like BBC or The Economist or The New York Times. These should only be used when there is nothing available in the first or second tier. That will happen, of course, for any current or recent events. So as events unfold and are written into our articles, they should start with top-rated news media as sources, but then those sources should be gradually replaced as better ones (from scholarly publications) become available.
- With a topic like "Is MEK a terrorist cult?", well, we don't need to go to news media. MEK has been around for decades now; a lot of scholarship has been written about it. It's possible to look at the scholarly works (books by university publishers, academic journals) and see if they describe MEK as a terrorist cult. For that question, we shouldn't even bother looking at news media, because news media will pay a lot of attention to, say, what the gov't of Iran or the US said about it recently, without filtering that "recentist" information through the sober lens of scholarship. So I wouldn't consider news media for that question, except I guess if someone is making the argument that "terrorist cult" is a recently-significant viewpoint, too new for scholarship but nevertheless significant enough to include in our article, in which case our article should cover that by making it clear it's recent, and likely by attributing it.
- So basically I think I agree with Mhhossein about weight. While I said "source restriction", I certainly think that there is a place for news media to have a limited role (e.g., for recent events), but that scholarly sources should, as Mhhossein said, be favored or weighed stronger than news media sources. Ultimately as time goes on and scholarly sources are written, they should be replacing news media sources as sources in our articles. Levivich harass/hound 17:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your
"sorry"
(which I now see was not an appropriate reaction towards you). Thank you anyway. I think you raised this important issue of using the scholarly sources long ago and the outcome of ignoring that is showing itself just now. Also, thanks for your time Levivich. The explanation was quite comprehensive and reasonable. I agree with your points. --Mhhossein talk 12:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)- Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago:
the idea of Gene belcher saying fuckscape still makes me really uncomfortable
. Amen to that. El_C 15:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at that YouTube comment section (in general, a nexus of wisdom and grace), I echo what Clever and Original Username. (full stop in the original!) said 5 years ago:
- El_C: Hahaha, "I'm sorry (you're welcome)". I meant to say sth in response to your
- Based on the discussion above, would there be broad agreement between El_C, Levivich, Mhhossein and myself that the RfC should be re-closed (not re-opened), where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments based on Levivich's proposed "source weighting" (giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources)?VR talk 19:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Stefka Bulgaria and Mhhossein: TBH when I wrote my comment, I had in mind a source restriction for the entire article at least, if not the entire topic area (WP:GS/IRANPOL), because I think that will help future content disputes as well as the present one (as Alex-h points out, a source restriction would affect much more content in the article than just what's at issue in this RFC; it could significantly change what we say about the topic in wikivoice). I'll say generally that by "source restriction", I don't mean source removal so much as source replacement, i.e., replace a BBC cite with an academic journal cite when one is available; I don't mean someone should delete everything cited to the BBC. In some cases, something cited to news media can't be replaced with academic sourcing, and in those cases, perhaps removal is the correct choice, but it's really a case-by-case analysis.
- With regard to this RFC, I don't think a future source restriction could be applied retroactively. That said, we do have global consensus about WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP (where applicable), etc. So whether a closer of this RFC should weigh !votes based on the quality of sources... I think generally yes, it's OK for a closer to discount a !vote based on, for example, a deprecated source. Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources? (Which is, I think, what the current disagreement is about?) I have no what the answer to this question is. To be honest I don't think I've ever encountered it before.
- If a source restriction is put in place, for the article or the topic area, it will result in changes to articles as it is enforced. And those changes might make this RFC moot anyway, or it might give justification to re-visiting the RFC. I really don't know, it sort of depends on whether there's a source restriction, what kind of restriction exactly, and what the sources that "pass" the restriction say about the topic.
- I get Mhhossein's point about not holding up this RFC close while the community discusses a potential source restriction. Maybe the best thing is for a closer to close the RFC now but recognize that the issue may be revisited in the future if, for example, the content changes because of a source restriction being enforced.
- But it's probably best to get more outside opinions, esp. from admins, as this is AN and a contentious RFC. Merry Christmas if you celebrate it, or Merry Clausmas if you celebrate a secular Christmas like I do :-) (Non-administrator comment) Levivich harass/hound 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- It was a clear and comprehensive explanation Levivich. The fact that issues should be investigated case by case is an important thing in your words, I guess. Also, let me repeat your
"Can a closer weigh !votes based on academic sources heavier than !votes based on non-academic sources?"
(I also believe this should be taken really more seriously now). --Mhhossein talk 19:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- It was a clear and comprehensive explanation Levivich. The fact that issues should be investigated case by case is an important thing in your words, I guess. Also, let me repeat your
- Please stop changing Levivich's words. I don't think he meant we should wait and experimentally see if this approach works. My understanding of his words is that the RFCs would have different outcomes with source restriction in place. This stonewalling will not stop this RFC from reaching a conclusion. @Levivich: Would you please elaborate on this?--Mhhossein talk 17:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, I have added it here, as well as on the MEK's talk page. Levivich suggested that one way to make RFCs more straight-forward at the MEK page could be to first implement a source restriction there, AND THEN have whatever RFCs. So if a source restriction is to be implemented to the MEK article, then we first need to evaluate if this should/will come into effect, and if it does, then we need to determine how this will affect the vast number of media sources used in this article (and not only the ones pertaining to this RFC). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Why do you think we should STOP everything until YOUR discussion is coming to a desired end? If you have something to say, simply add it here.--Mhhossein talk 11:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion on the MEK talk page to see if we can first come to an agreement of applying source restriction on the MEK page as a whole. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- There are several editors here agreeing that there was nothing wrong with the first close. If the issue is instead "source restriction"/"source weighting" of third-tier media, then that is something that needs to be applied to the whole article and not to one particular section (like Alex pointed out below, which has been completely ignored for some reason). I will start a talk page discussion on the MEK page to see if we can first agree on applying "source restriction" to the article as a whole. If that passes, then that would answer a lot of questions about what should or shouldn't be in the article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:12, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- In a sense, it's an approach that aims at drawing a parallel between the natural and social sciences. The mainstream media is fine for news, but beyond the contemporaneous, it is more encyclopedic to refer to the scholarship. Of course, the influence of political ideology tends to be far more pronounced in the social sciences than it is in the natural ones — but the principle is more or less the same. And, indeed, in the case of the MEK, there is no shortage of scholarly input on... pretty much anything. El_C 17:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome El_C. As a user involved in most, if not all, of the core discussions of the MEK page, although I believe sometimes journalistic works may frame a sociopolitical picture of the subject, I completely agree with favoring scholarly works over the ones from the mainstream media. Let's see what Vice regent and Levivich think? --Mhhossein talk 13:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Mhhossein, sorry, nothing comes to mind. I mean, beyond the MEK, I generally favour citations which are grounded in the scholarship rather than in the mainstream media. As a maxim, the greater social-scientific detail a source provides, the better. But you work with whatever sources you got, I suppose... El_C 22:58, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Vice regent: I remember months ago El_C said scholarly sources had to be the core part of our discussions (@El C: Do you remember this? I can't find the diff). I want to say that ignoring the journalistic sources may be wrong, instead I suggest to give much more weight to the scholarly works. Btw, I would say inappropriate weighing of the arguments, is the most dominant issue here. Probably I will explain it in details later. --Mhhossein talk 13:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
- Levivich I fully agree with restricting to scholarly sources - this is exactly what I said above and was repeatedly said during the RfC[11][12] by those who opposed SB version.VR talk 20:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
There is a lot of third-tier (and fourth-tier) journalism in the MEK article. This for example:
”Hersh reported names of former U.S. officials paid to speak in support of MEK, including former CIA directors James Woolsey and Porter Goss; New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Vermont Governor Howard Dean; former Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Louis Freeh and former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”
[1]
"The Intercept published that Bob Menendez, John McCain, Judy Chu, Dana Rohrabacher and Robert Torricelli received campaign contributions from MEK supporters.
[2]
"According to Hersh, MEK members were trained in intercepting communications, cryptography, weaponry and small unit tactics at the Nevada site up until President Barack Obama took office in 2009."
[3]
"According to the Intercept, one of Alavi's articles published by Forbes was used by the White House to justify Donald Trump Administration's sanctions against Iran."
[4]
"Karim Sadjadpour believes the MEK is a "fringe group with mysterious benefactors that garners scant support in its home country", and that the population of its supporters in Iran "hovers between negligible and nill"."
[5]
The list goes on and on... Alex-h (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
- Besides El_C and Levivich, 2 other uninvolved users commented here. @S Marshall: and @Only in death: what do you think of the above proposal to re-close (not re-open) the RfC where the closer takes re-evaluates the arguments by giving scholarly sources more weight than news media sources? This was already stated twice during the RfC ([13][14]) by those opposed to SB version but never responded to during the RfC. WP:NEWSORG says
Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics.
VR talk 12:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- VR, you are overlooking the main argument here. Are we executing source restriction to the entire MEK article? We cannot execute source restriction to one sentence and not the rest of the article. Alex-h (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- Moreover, cherry-picking when source restriction should be implemented is the equivalent of cherry-picking our preferred sources. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- See this discussion: the news sources are not contradicting the scholarly sources, they are just adding a different POV (that isn't in the article). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
- In response to Vice regent's ping: No, I don't think there are good grounds to re-close. I should disclose that on 8 February 2019, I closed an RfC about the lede of this article myself, and while I was evaluating that debate, I formed the view that this article is edited by people with a strong and active interest in the topic area who are very motivated to affect what it says. I think that in that environment, a closer needs to exercise a lot of judgment; and I think that because he needs to, he's therefore, necessarily, authorised to. He's within discretion and it ill behoves us to undermine him.—S Marshall T/C 18:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
- S Marshall I appreciate your view, thanks for giving it. Do you have any comment on my (and others') view that the RfC proposal violates WP:V by misquoting a source, and violates WP:DUE and WP:NEWSORG by giving news sources similar weight as scholarly sources?VR talk 04:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- Vice regent in response to your poins:
- 1) The RfC proposal does not violate WP:V:
International Policy Digest"Over the years, Tehran’s terror campaign at home and abroad has been augmented by a massive, well-orchestrated, well-financed demonization and disinformation campaign to discredit the opposition, namely the MEK. The objective has been to show that no democratic alternative is available and that dealing with this regime or looking for change within it is the only option for the West. The campaign involves the use of social media, dissemination of fake news, provision of grants for biased and slanderous reports, and even hiring reporters directly or through middlemen. In testimony before the Canadian Parliament on July 5, 2010, John Thompson, who headed the Mackenzie Institute, a security think-tank in Canada, said a man tied to Iran’s mission in Canada offered him $80,000. “They wanted me to publish a piece on the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK). Iran is trying to get other countries to label it as a terrorist cult.”
National Interest"To my knowledge, the regime has not spent a dime on demonizing the elderly remnants of the monarchy, but it does pay journalists abroad to publish fake stories against the MEK. The head of a major Canadian think tank revealed that the Iranian regime embassy offered him up to $80,000 to refer to the MEK as a "cult" in his publications... And yet, over the past several years, Iran’s state-run media has produced a total of nineteen movies, series, and documentaries—some of them consisting of up to twenty-eight segments of thirty to forty-five minutes each—that demonize the MEK. In 2018 alone, eighteen major books were published by the regime against the MEK. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei excoriated the MEK by name at least four times. Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani has directly blamed the MEK for organizing public protests."
Arab News"Of late, the blather has gone from a wave to a barrage. A well-funded, highly organized misinformation campaign attempts to demonize the only viable alternative to Tehran’s rulers, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), whose four decades of opposition to one of the world’s most evil regimes apparently equates with being some sort of terrorist cult."
- All three sources support
"while other sources say the Iranian regime is running a disinformation campaign to label the MEK a "cult"
, so WP:V has not been violated. If you think the text could be quoted better, then just provide a suggestion on the article's talk page and we'll get others to weigh in.
- All three sources support
- 2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
- As opposed to what you said, this version is truely violating NPOV (explained mutliple times). Anyway, this long wall of text does not discredit the important points raised by experienced users here. --Mhhossein talk 19:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- 2) This does also does not violate neither WP:DUE nor WP:NEWSORG. One POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so more weigh has been given to the POV with more sources. Also see the other sources provided here by Idealigic (there are plenty of sources supporting that there is a disinformation campaign by the Iranian regime against the MEK), so this content is clearly WP:DUE. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hersh, Seymour M. "Our Men in Iran?".
- ^ Ali Gharib, Eli Clifton (26 February 2015), "Long March of the Yellow Jackets: How a One-Time Terrorist Group Prevailed on Capitol Hill", The Intercept, retrieved 30 March 2018
- ^ Kelly, Michael (10 April 2012). "US special forces trained foreign terrorists in Nevada to fight Iran". Business Insider.
- ^ Hussain, Murtaza (9 June 2019). "An Iranian Activist Wrote Dozens of Articles for Right-Wing Outlets. But Is He a Real Person?". The Intercept. Retrieved 13 June 2019.
- ^ Ainsley, Julia; W. Lehren, Andrew; Schapiro, Rich. "Giuliani's work for Iranian group with bloody past could lead to more legal woes". NBC News. Retrieved 28 October 2019.
- the close was clearly done correctly. Mhhossein, if you are really interested in making the article (topic) better and not just changing the outcome of this individual RFC, then propose something on the article's talk page that can be implemented to the whole subject instead to just the line you want to remove from the article. Barca (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, the admin having the most experience with this page says it's not! Even the closer admin said he is OK with re-opening. --Mhhossein talk 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- Well, Chet stood by his close, and S Marshall and Only in death also endorsed the close. Levivich proposed some kind of "Source restriction" to be implemented in the article or subject area as a whole, and I have since been trying to generate input on the article's talk page about this. About the RfC, it's been over a month since it was closed, and there was a general agreement by most (if not all) editors that the text needed to be reduced. Also I pointed out how the outcome didn't violate neither WP:V, nor WP:DUE, nor WP:NEWSORG, nor WP:NPOV (one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented). The RFC had been open for over a month, with little to none new input in the days before its closure. Moving on, if there is some kind of source restriction to be implemented in IRANPOL, then ideally an admin who deems this necessary will assist in setting this up so that we can apply it to the whole subject as well as future discussions and not exclusively to certain texts that some editors want changed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- The closing admin starts his comment by "Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening)". By the way,
"(one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented"
. LOL! Is it what you understand from NPOV? --Mhhossein talk 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- The closing admin starts his comment by "Neutral as Closer (but no fundamental objection to reopening)". By the way,
- Well, Chet stood by his close, and S Marshall and Only in death also endorsed the close. Levivich proposed some kind of "Source restriction" to be implemented in the article or subject area as a whole, and I have since been trying to generate input on the article's talk page about this. About the RfC, it's been over a month since it was closed, and there was a general agreement by most (if not all) editors that the text needed to be reduced. Also I pointed out how the outcome didn't violate neither WP:V, nor WP:DUE, nor WP:NEWSORG, nor WP:NPOV (one POV has 54 characters, and the other has 18 characters, so both POVs have been represented). The RFC had been open for over a month, with little to none new input in the days before its closure. Moving on, if there is some kind of source restriction to be implemented in IRANPOL, then ideally an admin who deems this necessary will assist in setting this up so that we can apply it to the whole subject as well as future discussions and not exclusively to certain texts that some editors want changed. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Nope, the admin having the most experience with this page says it's not! Even the closer admin said he is OK with re-opening. --Mhhossein talk 19:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- the close was clearly done correctly. Mhhossein, if you are really interested in making the article (topic) better and not just changing the outcome of this individual RFC, then propose something on the article's talk page that can be implemented to the whole subject instead to just the line you want to remove from the article. Barca (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
- I have asked the discussion get closed. --Mhhossein talk 03:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Since the Arab News was used as a source for the text proposed in this RfC, users might be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Arab_News_reliable_on_the_People's_Mujahedin_of_Iran?.VR talk 14:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- There are two important discussions regarding the super-trim RFCs (like the one that is the topic of debate here). You can find them "New restriction proposal" and "Confused". The OP of the RFC has promised to avoid opening such super trim discussions. --Mhhossein talk 07:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
ANI reform proposal
At a discussion about conduct resolution systems at the VP idea lab, I suggested that we may be able to significantly improve ANI discussions by adding a bit more structure and reducing the amount of crosstalk between editors directly involved in disputes. Levivich and ProcrastinatingReader seemed to think that it would be a good idea (and isaacl seems to have, possibly independently, come to a similar conclusion further down in the section), so I think it's appropriate to bring it here for a bit more input before making a formal proposal at the village pump.
My suggested reform would be as follows: we add a rubric for new ANI cases that has separate headers for responses by parties to the dispute, and a section for neutral parties to discuss. After a case has been filed, other editors who are directly party to the dispute (whether because they are named by the filing editor or because they independently believe that they are sufficiently involved to be involved in the dispute), can respond once in the appropriate section. No one directly involved dispute, including the filing editor, should make any further comments unless explicitly asked by an uninvolved 3rd party. At their discretion, third parties can deliberate among themselves, add their opinions, and/or carve out additional subsections for disputing editors to answer questions or make further comments. Deviations from the rubric by involved editors should be addressed first with warnings (as well as either refactoring or collapsing of the improper comments as appropriate), and eventually with blocks once the failure to comply with process becomes clearly tendentious.
Draft rubric for the proposal (view in source to see additional in-line notes to help editors fill out the form)
|
|---|
Involved editors<!-- Please list involved editors and/or affected pages below this line -->
Dispute overview by filing editor<!--Please give a brief description of the issue here. The inclusion of [[WP:DIFF|diffs]] highlighting the problematic behavior and attempts to resolve it before coming here are strongly advised. Note that you will not be allowed to respond further until asked by an uninvolved editor. Please be patient until then, and remember that if an editor casts aspersions or makes false allegations against you, it will reflect poorly on them when the discussion is evaluated by third parties. --> Statements by other editors involved in the dispute<!--Please add a brief statement regarding the issue raised above in the appropriately named subsection header. If you do not see your name, but believe that you are in fact involved in this case, whether as a defendant or complainant, feel free to add a level-4 subsection heading and add your comments. Note that as a party to the dispute, you are allowed only one comment here, and should not reply further until specifically asked by an uninvolved editor. --> Statement by ExampleUserNameStatements by uninvolved editors<!--Uninvolved editors may discuss the case freely here. Depending on the nature of the case, it may be helpful to ask editors involved in the dispute for further input; feel free to moderate in whichever way seems most helpful, either adding additional subsections to allow for their responses, or directing them to use their existing subsections. --> |
- I <nowiki>'d the "additional in-line notes" so we don't have to view the source. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I look forward to hearing people's thoughts on this proposal. If this or a similar proposal gains consensus, we can also see about implementing a nicer webform for it a la Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request. As an added note, I think that SebastianHelm's handling of this open ANI case, while not identical to the above proposal, is a great example of how much cleaner ANI discussions can be when disputants are prevented from interacting with each other (another, messier case also related to Nagorno-Karabakh provides a good contrast). signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I like, with a few comments. It’s already public knowledge that this format (which is currently used at AE) is far more successful and likely to result in good outcomes (or indeed, a conclusive outcome at all) than the current free-for-all at ANI, which is often characterised by bludgeoning and excessive back and forth. For clarity, I think all “comments by uninvolved editors” should be in one section for all (not separate sub sections per editor, like in ArbCom statements). It could be said that many disputes at ANI are more minor, short affairs that don’t require a formalised structure. True, although one still doesn’t really seem to hurt for them. Possibly the “no further comments unless asked” can be relaxed. Perhaps the filing editor has something useful to add as the discussion progresses even if not explicitly asked. So long as they’re confined to their own section it can’t entirely hurt the rest of the discussion, with few exceptions (such as the lengthy chemistry periodic table disputes). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with your statement about having all uninvolved editors together in one section, and intended that to be the suggestion as part of my original proposal, apologies if that wasn't sufficiently clear. I think that would strike a good balance between bureaucracy and free-form, as it prevents bludgeon-happy editors from going at each others' throats while still allowing uninvolved editors to quickly discuss blocking IP-hoppers or editors making legal threats, types of cases that tend to be low-drama even in the current format. signed, Rosguill talk 19:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like, at the moment, the proposal overlooks that WP:AE has a word count. Which may be pivotal in a number of ways. El_C 19:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would consider a word count limit to be a friendly amendment. signed, Rosguill talk 20:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Unequivocally, I think we should try it. That said, I'm suspicious of the cost-benefit calculus. For all the downsides of our current AN(I) discussion structure (well recorded in the OP) the low overhead required to report an editor is a feature and we should consider what we might lose by increasing the complexity. Namely, a lot of low level problems that we could easily handle may not get reported because the aggrieved editor may think it's not worth the paperwork. To speculate a bit, perhaps our problem is too few reports? AN(I) is deep in project space and filing a report can seem like arcane magic. For most casual editors encountering a problem, I really doubt they'd know to go to AN(I) or AE or ARCA or .... but I'm digressing. The proposal is a well designed solution to a recognized problem and therefore is worth a shot. I don't think it will solve all our problems, and we may need to reevaluate when and how to use it, so I'd want to revisit its use after a couple months. TL;DR I think this will be a useful tool in our toolbox but I'm suspicious of it being a full-on replacement---let's try it and see how it goes. (edit conflict × 2) — Wug·a·po·des 19:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe, Wug, this shouldn’t be required for all but encouraged for editors who suspect they have more nuanced disputes (rather than just the variety which are an admin immediately replying “indeffed”)? Other editors can always clerk and adjust an existing discussion into the format if it quickly turns out the filer’s judgement on the format not being required was mistaken. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) FWIW, I don't think that this proposal really adds much of a burden to a filing editor--if it did we'd likely see more reports filed at ANI that belong at 3RR or AIV (i.e. editors not understanding those boards' formats coming to the "simpler" ANI board to file a complaint). We'd still be missing anyone that finds navigating WP space too complicated full-stop, but addressing that issue will likely take a separate proposal (although implementing a Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request-style flowchart for ALL disputes, letting editors figure out which resolution methods are appropriate by answering a few questions, may help that problem).
- I think one question (edit conflcit, which ProcrastinatingReader raised above) that does need to be answered is how to go about trying out this reform, whether to try to gain a consensus now to overhaul ANI immediately (and possibly reverse the change if something goes wrong), or start a separate board (e.g. WP:ANI/B) where we can demo the new process without disrupting any existing process. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- The biggest thing about the current ANI is the massive number of talk page watchers, built up over many years. Starting a new board may not be successful due to that reason, rather than just having an optional (but encouraged) format on the existing board initially. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh implementation is easy imo. Just have the "open a new report" button preload the text you have here. Check out the example edit I made to the header. People can still use the "new section" tab to create a blank one, but I suspect most reports that need the template use the button anyway. — Wug·a·po·des 20:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- If this is brought in, would it be possible to get a bot to notify those editors who are the subject of the complaint raised? Suggest a bot run every 15 mins at :00, :15, :30, and :45 past the hour. That would cut down on the perennial complaints of non-notification, especially when the filer is an IP or inexperienced editor. Mjroots (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think one question (edit conflcit, which ProcrastinatingReader raised above) that does need to be answered is how to go about trying out this reform, whether to try to gain a consensus now to overhaul ANI immediately (and possibly reverse the change if something goes wrong), or start a separate board (e.g. WP:ANI/B) where we can demo the new process without disrupting any existing process. signed, Rosguill talk 20:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
- How useful to find that Wugapodes has already articulated more or less what I was thinking. Certainly good to experiment with things, but I'm skeptical that there's more than a minority of cases here which would be helped by such a structure. Also worth noting that imposing such a structure doesn't just cease catering to the loud and loquacious; it shifts to cater to a different group: the more technical communicators who can express themselves adequately with lots of constraints put upon them. Also, a brief counterpoint to "not very well": our dispute resolution structures work much better than they have any business doing, with volunteers actually sorting out many disputes between volunteers on a project anyone can participate in which also happens to be one of the most popular in the world. (This isn't an argument not to try something new -- just a reminder that we're actually not doing too badly). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm skeptical that there's more than a minority of cases here which would be helped by such a structure
— that. El_C 22:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)- The thing is, it's a minority of cases that cause all the problems. 80/20 rule. So I'd support trying this on the "problem threads". (It's not necessary for every, or even most, threads.) Levivich harass/hound 01:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose No, absolutely not. The process we have now is not necessarly great - but it's also not broken. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Could a clerk role be useful in structuring the 20% in this format, while leaving the 80% alone? Given the number of us that try and be helpful / "enjoy the drama", I'm sure there are more than a few that would volunteer. Slywriter (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think the idea of creating more structure to ANI's most difficult discussions is a good idea. However, that's not a large majority of ANI filings. So perhaps coming up with a method to institute this for those discussions, after it has begun, could produce much of the desired results with fewer unintended consequences. Like if this makes people file fewer ANI reports, including fewer that end up in quick boomerrang blocks, I argue that's ultimately bad for us. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - I am not a member of the community who believes that ANI is broken and needs to be fixed. I think more than anything else, it simply needs more admin attention. As it is now, a small number of admins do the duty here, then get burned out and stop, and eventually come back, but there are a lot of admins who never seem to pay any attention to the board at all. I think more admin participation (and guidance) would be extremely helpful, but I am opposed to turning ANI into AE-light. The AE structure only works there because the universe of complaints is relatively small, which is not the case here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think something to remember here is that the strict rules at AE and other arbitration proceedings are there precisely because community processes like ANI have already failed to resolve the issue. AE in particular is for things that have already been to the committee and are still experiencing problems. I'm not sure applying the same restrictions to community-based processes makes a lot of sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support Rosguill may I also suggest having replicatable subsection templates for "issue-supporting data" cause there may be multiple issues and it might be conducive to have them sectioned for easier discussion and resolution. Example: For the filer:- Issue1-Data and arguments around issue 1; Issue2-Data and arguments around issue 2. Vikram Vincent 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per others who have clearly stated that ANI isn't broken. The whole point of ANI is supposed to be ad hoc requests for intervention where there's no other suitable place to request it. I have no real problem with backend process and procedure—that is, how responding admins are supposed to handle these requests—but I don't think changes on the front end like requiring more structured discussion is a reasonable idea. BMK's 100% right in drawing the comparison to AE, and frankly, I think AE and ArbCom-led sanction regimes should be abolished in favor of community-led processes. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Worth a try. This format has done reasonably well on other community processes and it might help. I really don't understand why people are saying ANI isn't broken, on the contrary it's pretty notorious as a dysfunctional, horrific page and lots of people simply don't spend time there as a result. Hut 8.5 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The "It's not broken" people have as much evidence and justification to their arguments as the "It's pretty notorious as a dysfunctional, horrific page" people. And to be honest, even if its reputation is deserved, I argue that the freeform nature is necessary to fulfill its goal of being the "miscellaneous complaints" department. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how the proposed system is incompatible with the page having a broad scope. WP:AE works perfectly well with something similar, for example, and cases on that page can cover all sorts of things. In my experience ANI isn't very good at dealing with complex issues. If you go there to report someone who obviously needs a block then it will be handled quickly, but if you take some protracted dispute there then you typically end up with gigantic walls of text which don't solve much, at least in part because they end up with lots of back and forth between the involved parties without much input from uninvolved editors. As I write this the top section, "Marxist-Leninist soap boxing and advocacy", is 22,000 words long and doesn't seem to have resolved anything except possibly to let one person know that there are lots of people concerned about their editing. Hut 8.5 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- To paraphase a saying, it runs on the worst system there is - except for all of the rest. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The "It's not broken" people have as much evidence and justification to their arguments as the "It's pretty notorious as a dysfunctional, horrific page" people. And to be honest, even if its reputation is deserved, I argue that the freeform nature is necessary to fulfill its goal of being the "miscellaneous complaints" department. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 09:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - this doesn't have any consideration of what to do if, after using their one post, a party can see the participants (potentially multiple participants) going down a clearly wrong garden path. If they're not asked something, they're stuck between rock and a hard place. I also question the "public knowledge AE works better" - AE is smoother but trades it at a significant cost of fairness. This method also reduces the likelihood that participants will read every post before participating. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think some of the rules should be relaxed (eg feel free to add whatever in your own section, no round robin). Regarding reading each reply: most of the time there is no need to read every post. Many comments didn't have to be made in the first place; an involved party is bludgeoning people with their same argument over and over again. In the current ANI I think section # 1, 4, 9, 10 could benefit from structure. It, at very least, makes it much easier to get involved in a conversation, and also encourages the involved parties to reconsider whether their response adds anything, or if it just makes the discussion less attractive for another volunteer to want to spend their time examining. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle This is an excellent idea, though I'd prefer a simpler format for the reports (maybe along the lines of WP:RFPP). The peanut gallery aspect of ANI is one of its worst dysfunctions, and I find makes it both a daunting place for me to seek to help out as an admin and a total crap shot when I lodge a report. A format like this would help, but would need to be adjusted to facilitate quick responses to obvious problems - e.g. there shouldn't be a need to wait for an obviously disruptive editor to respond to a complaint about them. A format which forces people making a report to set out their concerns in a succinct and non-emotive manner and encourages responses in kind could be very helpful in removing the drama element of ANI. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose strongly. We have too many bureaucratic processes as it is, and far too much rule creep. The complexity of Wikpedia's rules and regulations is one of the worst things about the back rooms/discussion/community aspects of the site. We have plenty of things we don't need, but one thing we definitely do need is a forum where someone (often a newcomer) can bring something to the attention of administrators simply and in their own words, without having to fill in official forms or structure it according to official formatting. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you want to know where the real problem here lies (if there's actually a problem at all, that is), read what User:Beyond My Ken said above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- And re: "It’s already public knowledge that this format (which is currently used at AE) is far more successful and likely to result in good outcomes...". No, it is most definitely not public knowledge that it is more likely to result in good outcomes... at ANI. AE is a very different thing, based on issues that have already gone through community processes and arbitration, via increasing levels of formality/bureaucracy (and, more importantly, the people involved have already been through those levels). And the format works well for that. It is a big mistake to assume that something that works well for AE will work well for ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough on the formality/bureaucracy, though how about if it's made optional? And uninvolved editors can refactor the few discussions that, after some discussion, look like they may benefit from structure. Sure, I suppose anyone can do that already, but few people do because such a degree of clerking would be slightly questionable under current practices. I suspect the discussions that might benefit from such structure tend to involve more experienced participants. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Following threaded discussion is hard enough without a self-appointed army of ANI clerks getting in the way. And remember, this is a site which attracts thousands of people who can't even work out how to make an unblock request, even though it's one of the simplest bits of formality we have and is (as far as I can see) very clearly explained in the standard block messages. Any formality at all at ANI is going to turn away non-technical people who actually need admin help. As for making it optional, that would not solve the problem it's supposed to be solving if people can ignore it and carry on as before. No, I essentially just see ANI as not actually broken and not needing fixing, at least not in a cosmetic way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Fair enough on the formality/bureaucracy, though how about if it's made optional? And uninvolved editors can refactor the few discussions that, after some discussion, look like they may benefit from structure. Sure, I suppose anyone can do that already, but few people do because such a degree of clerking would be slightly questionable under current practices. I suspect the discussions that might benefit from such structure tend to involve more experienced participants. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Boing - I see no problems with the current format, and we are bureaucratic enough already. Changing it will simply put off editors from making reports. GiantSnowman 11:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't watch ANI, because it's well, ANI. But if it is true there is some 20% that would benefit from this structure, I would suggest that for a trial period, Admins and the well versed be able to call a temporary halt to a 'sprawling mess' and impose the structure mid-way through going forward, just for those. Perhaps, think of it as a 'step' in dispute resolution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support in principle - BMK mentions above that not enough admins get involved at ANI, but part of the reason why it's unappealing is the endless walls of back-and-forth text between the involved parties that one has to wade through. Having a word limit attached might be sensible too for similar reasons. Most of the time, any relevant points can be made in an opening salvo, and all other text is just repetition. Happy to defer to others with more experience if they think it's unworkable, but I think this is worth giving a go. — Amakuru (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think the endless walls of back-and-forth text between the involved parties can actually be beneficial. It keeps them away from disrupting productive areas of the project, and just having a place to rant can help cool things down. Just let them hammer away at each other for a bit, and it's surprising how often the argument just peters away without anyone having to do too much at all. And if admin action is needed, just tell the participants to summarize their points and address that, and completely ignore the walls of text. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support, in principle. Perhaps there needs to be a division into quick/simple cases, that can be handled in an unstructured way, and non-simple cases, where a structured filing is required. Cases dealing with long-term behavioral problems, entrenched POV and battleground disputes affecting multiple editors definitely require a structured approach. These kinds of threads often devolve into complete train wrecks at ANI, with threads that can stay open for several weeks and grow into anwieldy messes, also poisoned by the votes of the various combatants themselves. A bureactatic structure is exactly what is required to bring some sanity in dealing with these kinds of cases. Nsk92 (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. I've just looked over the reports currently at WP:ANI, thinking "Which of these would be made simpler, easier to follow, and easier to resolve if we imposed individual sections for parties, non-parties (and who decides who is a party?), a formal way of responding, imposed word counts or response counts, etc?" I think almost every one of the longer sections would turn into an impossible-to-follow mess of bureaucracy (even impossibler than they currently are), with no real benefits. And the simpler reports would have been made unnecessarily complex. Try it yourself and see what you think. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is a difference between thinking something won't work, and being opposed to even trying it. Let's test predictions and make decisions based on data instead of assumptions. Levivich harass/hound 15:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. But there is also the danger of "We need to try something, this is something, let's try it". It's a perfectly viable approach to look at existing cases and form an opinion on whether the proposed solution would help with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why is that a "danger"? Trial and error isn't inherently dangerous, it's an effective way of finding a solution. I don't see any danger in trying Ros's suggestion to see if and how it works. To put it another way, the discussion shouldn't be about whether to try nothing or try something; it should be about what to try. This seems like a well thought out suggestion to me. It's not "this is something, let's try it" (which implies "something" being picked out of thin air or without due consideration), this is: unless we think ANI is perfect the way it is and can't be improved (and you'd have to be crazy to think that), then let's try something to improve it, and this is a "something" that we've tried with success elsewhere and has a very low risk of danger as a pilot. It certainly can't get any worse than how problematic threads currently go, like, say, those dealing with the periodic table or Kurds. Levivich harass/hound 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, "danger" is the wrong word, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Before we try something, examining past problems to see if they would have been helped is a valid way to reduce the risk of wasted time and increase the chances of success. So no, there is nothing wrong with my having looked back on existing ANI reports to think about whether the current proposal would have helped them. In fact, I think it's an important step. And I just don't think ANI is as bad as a lot of people make out - I've been hearing it for more than ten years now, yet we still manage to get by with it. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But perfect is the enemy of good enough, and I think it's good enough. Oh, and for a moment there I wondered what the "periodic table of Kurds" was - I'm so glad we don't have one of those ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I guess it all boils down to whether we think the status quo is good enough. You say you've been hearing it for ten years, I say that's evidence of a problem. You say we get by, I say getting by isn't good enough. You say danger (or risk) in trying something, I say danger (or risk) in not trying anything. My starting point is that the flat number of active editors over the last ~10 years is evidence that the environment isn't attracting enough new editors, and if the number of active editors doesn't substantially grow (like exponentially), the project is doomed long-term (because as time moves forward, the number of things that need to be documented increases, plus there's the current backlog, meaning as time moves forward, Wikipedia's need for editor time increases, meaning the need for more editors increases, as each editor has a finite amount of time to donate, because editors are, unfortunately, mortal). So recruitment is an existential crisis for the project (if we don't recruit, the project fails), and that means a poor editing environment (one that suppresses recruitment) is an existential problem for the project (poor editing environment = project failure). In short, we must do something! :-)On the other hand, people look at the project after 20 years and think, "This is going pretty well, let's not mess with what works." But I think it hasn't been going that well, and any overarching praise of Wikipedia only comes because Wikipedia is judged against really low standards (social media, internet forums). "The last best place on the internet" is like being the last best dive bar. If you're trying to run a restaurant, being the best dive bar isn't really "good enough".I fear that too many on- and off-wiki are mistaking monopoly for success: just because Wikipedia is the top Google search result and it isn't totally full of lies like other websites, we think everything is working great the way it is. It isn't. In 20 years, we have nothing even close to an accurate, complete, neutral encyclopedia: I think less than 1% of 1% is "complete", meaning of publishable quality when compared with other academic works. And fixing that problem (increasing the pace of productivity) requires getting a lot more people to edit, and that requires making it a fun place to volunteer, and that requires a dispute resolution system that works well (poor dispute resolution = poor editing environment = project failure). If our recruitment numbers are flat, then that means our dispute resolution systems aren't working well, and that's why I hope you'll support trying something that will improve ANI (even if it's not this sectioned discussion proposal), and not accept the status quo as good enough. And thanks for reading this long rant if you did :-) Levivich harass/hound 01:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that it's a fallacy to say "we must do something; this is something, so let's do this". But I'm also a fan of trying new things out, re-evaluating, adjusting, and trying again, which is the underlying spirit of a wiki (getting things done quickly). Though I'm not necessarily advocating that this particular proposal be trialed, I do think it's reasonable to look for low-cost ways to test out new approaches. Nothing's binding with a test; we can try something and see how well it works. isaacl (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, "danger" is the wrong word, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Before we try something, examining past problems to see if they would have been helped is a valid way to reduce the risk of wasted time and increase the chances of success. So no, there is nothing wrong with my having looked back on existing ANI reports to think about whether the current proposal would have helped them. In fact, I think it's an important step. And I just don't think ANI is as bad as a lot of people make out - I've been hearing it for more than ten years now, yet we still manage to get by with it. Is it perfect? Obviously not. But perfect is the enemy of good enough, and I think it's good enough. Oh, and for a moment there I wondered what the "periodic table of Kurds" was - I'm so glad we don't have one of those ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Why is that a "danger"? Trial and error isn't inherently dangerous, it's an effective way of finding a solution. I don't see any danger in trying Ros's suggestion to see if and how it works. To put it another way, the discussion shouldn't be about whether to try nothing or try something; it should be about what to try. This seems like a well thought out suggestion to me. It's not "this is something, let's try it" (which implies "something" being picked out of thin air or without due consideration), this is: unless we think ANI is perfect the way it is and can't be improved (and you'd have to be crazy to think that), then let's try something to improve it, and this is a "something" that we've tried with success elsewhere and has a very low risk of danger as a pilot. It certainly can't get any worse than how problematic threads currently go, like, say, those dealing with the periodic table or Kurds. Levivich harass/hound 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. But there is also the danger of "We need to try something, this is something, let's try it". It's a perfectly viable approach to look at existing cases and form an opinion on whether the proposed solution would help with them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- There is a difference between thinking something won't work, and being opposed to even trying it. Let's test predictions and make decisions based on data instead of assumptions. Levivich harass/hound 15:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support. I was thinking the same after reading recent multi-week walls-of-text between
combatantseditors, with nobody else getting a word in edgeways. Clerking to collapse long comments would also help. Fences&Windows 19:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support -- better structure would allow for better (and faster) outcome. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Support, structured discussion will separate the wheat from the chaff and allow better input from uninvolved editors and tidier closes.--Eostrix (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional oppose unless there's a mechanism for either party in any given dispute to opt out of the trial and revert to the current free-form-discussion approach, and it's made clear to all those involved that such a kill switch on the experiment exists and they won't be penalised should they choose to pull it. The more bureaucratic dispute resolution processes (Arbcom, AE etc) reward those who understand how to communicate in the language and style of Wikipedia's internal bureaucracy, and as such impart a significant systemic bias towards "regulars" who understand Wikipedia's byzantine unwritten rules on communication.
As per many of those above, I disagree that the existing ANI is a broken process. Those claiming that it is are concentrating on the occasions where the existing process fails (understandable, as those are the long arguments that repeatedly light up the watchlist), while ignoring the fact that the majority of incidents brought to ANI are resolved quickly and uncontroversially.
I don't have an objection to a brief experiment—or to a "Stage II ANI" of a more formal process to which those disputes ANI hasn't handled can be escalated without having to go to Arbcom—but it needs to be experimental, and to have a clear end date and a clear understanding of by what means, when that end date comes, we'll assess the success or failure of the experiment.
I strongly disagree with Isaacl above that (to paraphrase) constantly fucking about with process for the sake of fucking about with process regardless of the disruption it causes to the real people behind those goofy usernames is somehow inherently admirable because it's the wiki spirit—if there's one thing the WMF's constant inept meddling has taught us, it's that "run fast and break things" might sound good in meetings but it invariably ends in a fiasco and the loss of editors when put into practice. ‑ Iridescent 07:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I like the "Stage II ANI" idea, as an intermediate step between regular ANI and
terminal ANIarbcom. The problem with an opt-out is that the editors who need this the most may be the most likely to opt out. (Like me, heh.)One way to try this is to allow admins to impose sectioning on repeat threads: you know, the ones that don't get resolved and then come back a week later. One the second or third trip, an admin can say "this needs to be sectioned" if they think the previous ones failed to resolve because of discussion problems. Periodic table and Kurds are two that come to mind where I think it would have benefitted on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. rounds.Another way to try this, and I think Rosguill suggested it at the pump, is an ANI/B page, which could be an optional alternative. Editors could choose to opt for the sectioned method, i.e. they can go to Stage II if they want to. We'd have to decide who gets to decide (filer? reported editor?) and what happens if participants disagree on the format. If all editors have to agree to try this out, we could try that as an experiment, but I think if all participants to an ANI dispute could agree on anything, then that is probably not a dispute that would need sectioned discussion anyway. Making it entirely optional might filter out the cases it would benefit the most. Levivich harass/hound 08:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)- So what you're suggesting isn't "destroy ANI and replace it with something else, and hope that by the time it becomes clear the new system is even more problematic it's become a fait accompli and it's too difficult to go back"—which seems to be what most supporters are supporting—but instead creating a user-conduct equivalent of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and allowing cases to be punted over there if they've been at ANI for a certain time without resolution but are too trivial to sent to Arbcom? I could get behind that, but I worry it would potentially suffer the same issues that the old Mediation Committee board had (and the existing Arbitration Enforcement board has), of rapidly becoming dominated by a small clique of those few admins who are interested, who in turn use it as a venue to push their personal grudges. We may despair of and get frustrated by the peanut gallery at ANI, but 1250 active watchers is an important safety mechanism, in that it makes it impossible to slip contentious things through, and presumably any new board would need to rebuild its audience from scratch unless we could persuade the devs to automatically add ANI 2.0 to the watchlist of everyone who's currently watching the existing board, or we actually made the threaded discussions a separate section of the existing ANI in the same way the Featured Article Removal Candidates are appended to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to ensure that people actually see them.
(This isn't hyperbole. Wikipedia is absolutely full of obscure boards where the handful of friends who watch the page will decide on whatever they want a particular policy to be, and then say "well, there was a clear consensus at WP:PRQXGL, it's not my fault if you didn't notice the discussion" should anyone raise a concern. What we don't want is to recreate the old and rightfully deprecated WP:RFC/U star chamber, where people who'd made the mistake of being in a dispute with an editor who knew how to game Wikipedia's internal politics would be periodically dragged to be subjected to ritual abuse by the handful of self-appointed Civility Police who had the page watchlisted.) ‑ Iridescent 15:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that creating too many noticeboards dilutes editor attention and can thus be counterproductive, particularly if it becomes yet another walled garden. For that reason, I support this proposal as a test run for the ANI page itself, without creating a new page. I think it should be tested as follows: (1) filing editors can opt to use the threaded discussion format when they file, or (2) uninvolved admin can impose it on appropriate threads. The purpose of the test would be to allow filing editors and patrolling admins to experiment a bit with this format and see if it helps any threads, and if so, which ones. Levivich harass/hound 17:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- So what you're suggesting isn't "destroy ANI and replace it with something else, and hope that by the time it becomes clear the new system is even more problematic it's become a fait accompli and it's too difficult to go back"—which seems to be what most supporters are supporting—but instead creating a user-conduct equivalent of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard and allowing cases to be punted over there if they've been at ANI for a certain time without resolution but are too trivial to sent to Arbcom? I could get behind that, but I worry it would potentially suffer the same issues that the old Mediation Committee board had (and the existing Arbitration Enforcement board has), of rapidly becoming dominated by a small clique of those few admins who are interested, who in turn use it as a venue to push their personal grudges. We may despair of and get frustrated by the peanut gallery at ANI, but 1250 active watchers is an important safety mechanism, in that it makes it impossible to slip contentious things through, and presumably any new board would need to rebuild its audience from scratch unless we could persuade the devs to automatically add ANI 2.0 to the watchlist of everyone who's currently watching the existing board, or we actually made the threaded discussions a separate section of the existing ANI in the same way the Featured Article Removal Candidates are appended to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates to ensure that people actually see them.
- To clarify, I don't support changing process arbitrarily, and have made plenty of comments about proposals asking that a problem be identified and the solution tailored to address it. (I previously summarized a commonly-used real world procedure for problem resolution where I touched on this.) I do support looking for opportunities to try things out in low-cost, easily reversible ways quickly, but of course the vast majority of proposals don't fit this category. isaacl (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- I like the "Stage II ANI" idea, as an intermediate step between regular ANI and
- Support Given how broken the current system is I would welcome trying a different way. If it does not work tweaks can be made or even revert to the old system. There is little to no actual cost to trying it. I also do not find the arguments from old timers of well this is the way we have always done it or ermahgerd bureaucracy particularly compelling. Just because something has been broken for a long time and we just deal with it does not make it okay. It sounds more like stockholm syndrome than a health relationship. Next on the bureaucracy front, I think you would be hard pressed to say pretty much every aspect of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. This is not the old wild west days of the pedia where there were still growing pains and no one knew what they were doing. We are well past that and while I am sympathetic to the "make Wikipedia great again" chants here, that ship has sailed. PackMecEng (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Boing and Iridescent. I also think there is an important distinction between the notions that "ANI is broken" and "ANI doesn't work in the way, or produce the sort of outcomes, I think it should". I don't see the former as correct, though I think it's possible that the latter could be part of a larger discussion of rethinking the overall approach to behavioral concerns on enwiki. A revision of ANI could be an output of such general rethinking, assuming a majority of the community agrees ANI should then be generally operating differently or producing different sorts of outcomes. Grandpallama (talk) 18:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Conditional support as an alternative, but not required for every dispute. If an issue is closed as no consensus repeatedly, this might be the way to go prior to ArbCom. Certain TLDR issues/editors may have a report closed and required to reformat their report in this format if the closing admin/editor believes it to be beneficial. Although, if there is a place for the filing party's overview, the "accused" party shuld have the same place for their overview. Give it a trial run to work out the bugs. Clerking should be relatively leinient for now. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Absolutely - Support - I'm reminded of the hegemony of the asshole consensus that I read in an article titled The Limits of Volunteerism and the Gatekeepers of Team Encarta, and I'll quote the part I believe is relative to this discussion: The framing of the asshole consensus rests on a priori assumptions that this behavior is necessary for a successful project, and actually results in one. By their standards, it is successful, successful for them. When measured against the publicly stated mission, norms, and principles of the project — “be bold,” innovate, treat one another with civility — it is an utter failure. I don't understand why any proposal that will help maintain decorum would not be accepted. We cannot expect clerks to handle behavioral issues, or can we? We already know that aspersions and incivility can sometimes get out of control at the dramah boards, not to mention walls of text. It really needs to stop, and this a good place to start the stop. Word limits, no interaction between the filing party & the accused, establish a standard for proper decorum (like what was maintained at ARCA & ArbCom cases in the past), and enforce it. There needs to be a section devoted to uninvolved editor comments - of course, the opposition is going to be negative toward the accused. No comments should be accepted without diffs to support each and every claim. It will help put an end to WP:POV creep and potential agendas to rid an area of the oppostion - a high cost that is paid by NPOV. It's easy enough to establish limits/standards, and it truly needs to be done. It would also eliminate future WP:POV railroad filings which have occasionally resulted in actions taken against the wrong editor, inadvertent or otherwise. Atsme 💬 📧 16:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose The ease of use, the low overhead, and the minimum of bureaucracy all make ANI an effective venue as it stands. If individual cases need more structure, it can be given. But to require all that effort to just report an unusual vandal or an LTA, that's nuts. Before adminship, I almost never reported folks at AE or AN3 or the like because the reporting was confusing and took time. Reporting at ANI is super simple. Our one requirement at ANI, that you must inform the party you report, is already barely followed by newbies. I can't imagine new policies will see any higher rates of use than our simplest. Not to say that I wouldn't welcome some reform, a word limit perhaps would do the most. But AE/ArbCom style structure is unnecessary. All in all: this is a solution for a problem that does not exist and will only serve to grow our already bloated bureacracy. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Beyond My Ken, Iridescent, and Boing! said Zebedee, who hit on excellent arguments that I endorse, and don't feel the need to repeat. I'll also add my own bit here: the benefit of sections at AE and ArbCom is that in both of those forums there is a limited group of people whose opinions actually impact the outcome: at ArbCom the arbs and at AE uninvolved admins. At ANI involved editors are actually encouraged to comment and be a part of the decision, and this is a good thing. If someone in a niche topic area is causing a mess, we want the editors who they are impacting to have a voice.What this proposal would effectively do is send more cases to ArbCom because no one uninvolved is going to want to get involved in a binding resolution of long complex cases, and all the involved people will be relegated to the "ignore angry combatants" section that is all but sure to be skipped over unread when people are closing discussions.This format will work really to further ingrain established disruptive editors, especially those who are civil POV-pushers, by making it more difficult for the people who are actually impact by their actions to be taken seriously, and making it easier for their "uninvolved" friends to run interference for them and avoid sanctions that prevent disruption. ANI is not built on the premise that the people deciding the case should be uninvolved, and moving it to that direction would have a negative impact on fair outcomes by removing the voice of people impacted by an editors actions from active discussion.Tl;dr: outcomes being judged by only uninvolved editors is not the only way to get to fair outcomes, and in many of the cases that come to ANI removing involved editors from the decision making equation will result in less fair outcomes. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Very much, adding this would go and increase the overall complexity of discussions and also would cause an over-blowing information to be included, allowind discussions to be bogged down. This within my opinion is not a good choice, the diffs of a user's action should make it clear what they are doing, this type of proposal would only help to legitimize disruptive POV editors by allowing them to ethier disregard the context, or have POV editors have their friends come to their rescue. ANI is built on the idea of identifying disruptive content, behavior, or pages and trying to find a sustainable solution to it, this doesn't do that. Hope I made my points, Thanks. Des Vallee (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Unbureaucratic approach
The intention of Rosguill's proposal was to “[add] more structure and [reduce] the amount of crosstalk”. As the case Rosguill cites shows, much of the former can be achieved without changing our rules – all it takes for the latter is a request by an admin for a given case, which worked pretty well in that example. The part that can not be achieved without changing the rules is the structure with headlines such as “Involved editors”. However, we don't have to expect that from the person reporting a case. We could simply achieve that by allowing admins and uninvolved editors in good standing to restructure the original request by adding whatever structure they see fit. So, the concerns of Boing and those who voted “per Boing” are addressed: We can leave out the bureaucracy and rule creep and keep it easy for a newcomer to file a report. At the same time, we can still achieve what Rosguill wanted. And best of all, we can even increase flexibility and thus reduce bureaucracy. ◅ Sebastian 12:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't address the Boing concerns. My concerns are about any form of bureaucractic structure, however or whenever imposed, or by whom. As soon as you start imposing a formal structure, at whatever point in the proceedings, you're putting an extra hurdle in the way of people who are not technically adept (and/or psychologically averse to having to do things in a formal way). This is just over-complicating things for, as I see it, no real benefit to those needing the help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- But the organizing method all Wikipedia dispute resolution goes from unstructured to more structured. It's done that way precisely because it is the only tried and true method for any hope of help. Perhaps the dystopian view of ANI that it is just there to put people into an endless bear-pit until they talk themselves out is utilitarian but it is not help, and every good reason to never go near it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we do have a progression from unstructured to more structured, but I think we need that progression starting from unstructured and progressing to more structured forums as problems become more complex. And no, a structured organization is not the "only tried and true method for any hope of help" - the great majority of unstructured ANI reports that end in successful conclusions is the disproof of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- No. Not disproof because you clearly mistook it. The method it to go from unstructured to structured, that's the only method, unstructured is within the method. If the only issues brought to ANI were simple, it would certainly be more pleasant but hardly in tune with reality. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, I'm not sure what we're agreeing or disagreeing with here, so maybe I have mistaken your point. As I see it, we already have a progression from unstructured (ANI) all the way to highly structured (ArbCom/AE) as part of our problem solving process. So why change it? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I might have got it. Are you addressing my "As soon as you start imposing a formal structure, at whatever point in the proceedings" comment? What I meant there was "at any point in the ANI proceedings" (specifically if anyone, like an admin, retractively applied formal structure to an ANI report that's already open) - I didn't mean we should not apply structure in cases that need to go beyond ANI. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
the great majority of unstructured ANI reports that end in successful conclusions
How are you defining success? Levivich harass/hound 16:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)- Everyone involved gets blocked. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The reports are closed or archived with the problem no longer extant, or at least no longer urgent, due to admin or community action. Or with chronic or intractable problems concluded by community consensus or handed off to, say, Arbitration if that is applicable. Or any other way in which ANI reports are successfully concluded, as any observer can see on a daily basis. Or, of course, if everyone involved gets blocked ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, and something else I consider a success is when a report peters out with nothing being done, because nothing needs to be done. I see several reports currently open that I suspect will end like that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- That sounds like the definition of waste not success, it obviously should have been shut down much earlier. More generally, Wiki-Arbitration process generally means dispute resolution has already failed. In the real world more intermediate steps might be called 'case management'. The easy is handled easy but as you get closer to failure, clearer structure seeks to avert failure. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Alan. To me, "success" at ANI means the dispute is resolved, not just that the thread gets archived. There is no way a majority of disputes at ANI are resolved. Except when everyone gets blocked. :-) Levivich harass/hound 17:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- To add: perhaps if people were not so mystified about the kismet of unknowable, 'how does this end' of ANI, they might be less loquacious b/c less stressed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree then. But people get into conflict all the time, and just letting them talk and letting it all peter out can be a valid method of conflict resolution. We will always get conflicts where there isn't a clear right or a clear wrong, and no obvious optimum solution (and that's true in all human community, not specific to here), but the parties just walking away from it can often be a pragmatic solution. And, even if you disagree and think a petered-out and archived report is a failure, nobody has made the case that that's caused by a lack of formal structure, or that the imposition of a formal structure to ANI reports will make those cases any better. In short, I don't think anyone has properly articulated the problem, or properly analysed problematic ANI reports to try to determine whether the lack of a formal structure might have played a part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- The thing is in most cases, the parties don't walk away; they just keep arguing in the same places as they were before, and maybe new ones. I've rarely seen "letting them rant" result in tempers cooling at the incidents noticeboard, usually because the parties already failed at cooling down when they were ranting elsewhere. Taking a cue from real-world dispute resolution procedures, what is really needed is a moderator to manage discussion. (That of course carries its own set of pros and cons.) isaacl (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Knowing that there is an end in sight is one of the motivations behind the revisit respite concept I documented as part of my suggested content dispute resolution toolbox. In general, when a semi-binding conclusion is pending for a dispute, there is incentive to work towards a best-compromise solution. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I guess we'll just have to disagree then. But people get into conflict all the time, and just letting them talk and letting it all peter out can be a valid method of conflict resolution. We will always get conflicts where there isn't a clear right or a clear wrong, and no obvious optimum solution (and that's true in all human community, not specific to here), but the parties just walking away from it can often be a pragmatic solution. And, even if you disagree and think a petered-out and archived report is a failure, nobody has made the case that that's caused by a lack of formal structure, or that the imposition of a formal structure to ANI reports will make those cases any better. In short, I don't think anyone has properly articulated the problem, or properly analysed problematic ANI reports to try to determine whether the lack of a formal structure might have played a part. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- No. Not disproof because you clearly mistook it. The method it to go from unstructured to structured, that's the only method, unstructured is within the method. If the only issues brought to ANI were simple, it would certainly be more pleasant but hardly in tune with reality. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, we do have a progression from unstructured to more structured, but I think we need that progression starting from unstructured and progressing to more structured forums as problems become more complex. And no, a structured organization is not the "only tried and true method for any hope of help" - the great majority of unstructured ANI reports that end in successful conclusions is the disproof of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- But the organizing method all Wikipedia dispute resolution goes from unstructured to more structured. It's done that way precisely because it is the only tried and true method for any hope of help. Perhaps the dystopian view of ANI that it is just there to put people into an endless bear-pit until they talk themselves out is utilitarian but it is not help, and every good reason to never go near it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Holy wall of text! On word count
As an active ANI admin (and also an AE one), I think one of the biggest challenges faced in the former has to do with posts (quite often OPs) that are of an inordinate length, and also are often (though not always) poorly-documented. Not to (but to) harp again on the notion of word count, but it (alongside reasonably-approved extensions, of course) perhaps ought to be revisited and examined more closely all on its own. There's a dynamic that happens when a wall of text OP, for example, can still be parsed by those involved, but everyone else is effectively shutout. Then, as the thread progresses further, it often becomes less and less accessible to the very outsiders whose review it is seeking. Anyway, nothing too concrete in mind yet, just throwing the general idea out there. El_C 14:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- El_C. here's a fine example of a Holly Wall. Sorry it's not concrete. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hey, a wall's a wall (unless it's also a fence, somehow...?). Anyway, you wouldn't believe how many "Happy hollidays" I've sent through the years. One of those words that always trips me, it seems.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ El_C 16:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I really don’t think wall-of-text OPs are the ones that give ANI its bad rap though. The true wall of text threads usually just get ignored and archived without action. Or OP gets told to condense it, OP doesn’t, and then nothing happens. Where weird stuff happens is when there’s a serious and obvious experience differential between adversarial parties, such as the wall of text scenario but the adversarial party comes back with something concise and actionable, calls for a BOOMERANG, and things progress as we know them to progress.Weirdly, at least in my experience, the most notable cases are those where the ANI regulars (those derided as a peanut gallery) look through the case more deeply and suddenly reverse course—maybe it turns out the more experienced person was being a jerk the whole time and baited the OP into doing whatever he did. I’ve seen more than one thread where the initial reaction of the “peanut gallery” was to endorse the experienced editor, only for one of that group to suddenly post a counterargument with diffs that causes a total reversal of course.I think there’s room for a more uniform approach to what I’ll call “formal objections”—responses to things like unintelligible complaints, complaints that don’t clearly ask for admin intervention, and failure to notify in the correct manner—but I do think this cuts against more formal front-end constraints. Like look at the notification requirement. That’s not going anywhere of course, but look at how often it’s used to browbeat an OP and make the entire process both less friendly and less likely to reach a conclusion on the merits. Hell, I chewed out an OP for failure to notify a week or so ago in a manner that, in retrospect, very well could’ve ended in the thread getting forgotten about. I think that sort of thing is where the bad reputation really comes from. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, that is an important facet, though I'm unsure what effective means there are to improve it, in-practice. I'm open-minded, though. But I'll admit that maybe I'm a bit AE slanted with my above, like for example with this AN thread from earlier in the month that was pretty much left to its own devices, except for the involved in-the-know. El_C 15:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh. Those megathreads are the worst. To be honest it feels like a lot of those threads are attempting to do what WP:RFC/U used to do (but was never really effective in doing). I feel that the structural proposals above are looking for a way to achieve what RFC/U was intended to do as well.I think if we want to address megathreads, we should look for a way of differentiating between regular threads and "endless megathreads". It could be very simple to do so. For instance, a thread that hasn't been archived after 96 hours, or a thread with a total substantive wordcount above 10,000 words. These are just example categorizations; they can and should be refined. My purpose in suggesting them is only to start the conversation about megathreads rather than solicit specific means of detecting problem threads.But that of course begs the question, assuming we find a way to identify problem megathreads, what (if anything) do we do to address them? My honest opinion is that many of those cases should go to arbitration for structure. In the old days, the Committee handled relatively small-scale disputes involving pairs of editors all the time. It's what they should be doing instead of supervising topic areas covering millions of articles. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- IP, all good points, to be sure. But my concern with greatly increasing the frequency of referral to Committee actions is that those are likely to have the effect of simply driving the arbitrators to the point of exhaustion. El_C 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speaking only for myself, if the community decides that it hasn't actually been resolves some conflicts that need resolving that's what ArbCom is for. However, ArbCom is a very costly process in the sense that you have a dozen or so arbs focused on the dispute. And so it would be my hope that for conflicts involving a pair of editors that the community could find some effective means of dispute resolution, even if it's not ANI in its current form. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom is a very costly process in the sense that you have a dozen or so arbs focused on the dispute
From my perspective, that's a problem with the Committee and not ANI, and should be addressed through reform of the Committee if necessary. I also think people's expectations of the complexity of Committee proceedings are colored by just how ridiculously selective they have become with case requests, leading to cases generally amassing years of evidence from a half dozen or a dozen stakeholders and other regulars. It doesn't have to be this way, and I believe the Committee should be routinely taking less complex cases.To put it differently, let's look at conflicts on a continuum, ranging from truly routine, minor disagreements to multi-year, multi-party intractable disputes. Now let's overlay different dispute resolution processes onto that continuum. At the very bottom, we have article and user talk pages. Above that might be forum-like venues along the lines of the Teahouse, helpdesk, requests for editor assistance. Past that are more specialized, topical noticeboards like WP:BLPN. Above those tend to be WP:ANI and (for certain topic areas) WP:AE. And above that, there's a big gap, until you hit the bottom level of case that the Committee is willing to take. The aim of the discussion here, in part, is to address that gap—cases that are too complex for ANI to handle effectively but not complex enough for the Committee to accept. And much of the discussion has focused on changing ANI to cover that gap better. And there's something to be said for improving ANI, but I don't think it's reasonably possible for it to fully cover that gap. Rather, the Committee should be doing more work to bridge the gap.Seriously, Committee cases don't need to be that hard or involved. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Speaking only for myself, if the community decides that it hasn't actually been resolves some conflicts that need resolving that's what ArbCom is for. However, ArbCom is a very costly process in the sense that you have a dozen or so arbs focused on the dispute. And so it would be my hope that for conflicts involving a pair of editors that the community could find some effective means of dispute resolution, even if it's not ANI in its current form. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- IP, all good points, to be sure. But my concern with greatly increasing the frequency of referral to Committee actions is that those are likely to have the effect of simply driving the arbitrators to the point of exhaustion. El_C 17:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh. Those megathreads are the worst. To be honest it feels like a lot of those threads are attempting to do what WP:RFC/U used to do (but was never really effective in doing). I feel that the structural proposals above are looking for a way to achieve what RFC/U was intended to do as well.I think if we want to address megathreads, we should look for a way of differentiating between regular threads and "endless megathreads". It could be very simple to do so. For instance, a thread that hasn't been archived after 96 hours, or a thread with a total substantive wordcount above 10,000 words. These are just example categorizations; they can and should be refined. My purpose in suggesting them is only to start the conversation about megathreads rather than solicit specific means of detecting problem threads.But that of course begs the question, assuming we find a way to identify problem megathreads, what (if anything) do we do to address them? My honest opinion is that many of those cases should go to arbitration for structure. In the old days, the Committee handled relatively small-scale disputes involving pairs of editors all the time. It's what they should be doing instead of supervising topic areas covering millions of articles. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, that is an important facet, though I'm unsure what effective means there are to improve it, in-practice. I'm open-minded, though. But I'll admit that maybe I'm a bit AE slanted with my above, like for example with this AN thread from earlier in the month that was pretty much left to its own devices, except for the involved in-the-know. El_C 15:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- I really want to highlight this part of El_C's comment:
There's a dynamic that happens when a wall of text OP, for example, can still be parsed by those involved, but everyone else is effectively shutout.
This causes a lot of tangential problems that weren't obvious until I started trying to action walls-of-text-complaints at ANI. I definitely agree with Boing! said Zebedee above that just letting people vent can be helpful sometimes, but bludgeoning discussions really chills intervention. This allows problematic but not egregious conduct to usually go unresolved because one side essentially filibusters until we get a no consensus outcome. The danger I've run into is when there's actually a rough consensus among all that noise, but the number of participants is small. The restriction is appealed on the basis that it should have been a no consensus result or that the closer prejudiced the editor by ignoring the walls of text. It's hit or miss on whether it actually gets overturned, but by creating new conflicts we really wind up kicking the can when we should have been putting it in the bin (see also meatball:ConflictCycle and the more useful meatball:ConflictResolution). — Wug·a·po·des 21:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)- It's one of the challenges for collaborative, online decisions-making I've written about: in a face-to-face conversation, participants would use interruptions and other cues to keep one person from dominating conversation and to help more reticent participants be heard. Online communities benefit from having moderators manage discussions to mitigate these issues. I appreciate there are shortcomings to having moderators, but the cost is having meandering conversations that forestall decision-making. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, moderators would have to be admins, wouldn't they, and we've already highlighted the problem that admin participation here is less than it might be. In any case, a certain amount of self-moderation is already in effect. I'm thinking of hatting irrelevant asides, urging participants to return to the initial point, creating new sub-sections to either deal with ancillary issues which have arisen or to refocus on the main thrust of the discussion and so on. To a certain extent, "meandering" is a positive thing, as it allows all aspects of a subject to be examined, including the behavior of the OP or other editors involved in a dispute. These issues don't arise so much at AE, because the focus is much tighter: the reported editor and the evidence of their supposed violations. If discussions get sidetracked into the behavior of another editor, the usual response will be to suggest another report be filed. That's not so much the case at ANI, where traditionally the behavior of all participants is examined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Exactly. In fact, moderation already happens: We get threads closed and sometimes collapsed, and warring over those things will easily net a block. The problem is that bottom-level civility moderation just isn't happening enough. But as you say, that has to be backed up with an admin at some level. Creating a new clerk position is... really not going to fix things. It might attract hat collectors, and as such might create a new stepping stone either to adminship or to a Committee seat, but I really don't see formalized moderator/clerk positions doing anything when what is claimed to be happening is insufficient participation.And as usual, BMK, you hit it right on the head. That ANI threads drift about and investigate everybody isn't a bug, it's a feature. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- No, moderators don't have to be admins; they just have to be someone who the participants are willing to follow. (The libertarian roots of the Wikipedia community works against this.) Moderators are capable of prompting participants to explore all aspects of a situation while also keeping them on track. This saves everyone time and reduces their cognitive effort, which thus increases the likelihood that a resolution can be reached. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Moderators are capable of prompting participants to explore all aspects of a situation while also keeping them on track.
That’s not a moderator, that’s a mediator. Or an arbitrator, if this moderator is also tasked with closing discussions. I’d rather see the Committee deal with cases that require this sort of handholding than creating a parallel system. Forcing this restructuring on ANI reminds me of the efforts from years ago to expand AFD to cover non-deletion situations because of how much traffic AFD had. These proposals were all rightly defeated because they were seen for what they really were: Attempts to have a system nobody wanted to participate in on its own merits to coattail-ride on a system that many people already participated in. Let’s be clear: ANI’s popularity isn’t a resource that can be redirected elsewhere. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)- Because "mediator" on Wikipedia tends to be associated with the formal mediation process, I chose to use the term "moderator" in the sense of what you would see in real world discussion panels: someone who manages and guides the discussion. (Also, mediation occurs between the disputing parties, whereas discussions at the incidents noticeboard include uninvolved parties.) The English Wikipedia arbitration process doesn't really guide discussion; it leaves everyone to raise the points they wish in a somewhat structured manner. I appreciate that amongst those who like to discuss these matters, there hasn't been much interest in having someone guide and manage discussion, which leads to the challenges I described with unmoderated online discussions. isaacl (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Well, moderators would have to be admins, wouldn't they, and we've already highlighted the problem that admin participation here is less than it might be. In any case, a certain amount of self-moderation is already in effect. I'm thinking of hatting irrelevant asides, urging participants to return to the initial point, creating new sub-sections to either deal with ancillary issues which have arisen or to refocus on the main thrust of the discussion and so on. To a certain extent, "meandering" is a positive thing, as it allows all aspects of a subject to be examined, including the behavior of the OP or other editors involved in a dispute. These issues don't arise so much at AE, because the focus is much tighter: the reported editor and the evidence of their supposed violations. If discussions get sidetracked into the behavior of another editor, the usual response will be to suggest another report be filed. That's not so much the case at ANI, where traditionally the behavior of all participants is examined. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- It's one of the challenges for collaborative, online decisions-making I've written about: in a face-to-face conversation, participants would use interruptions and other cues to keep one person from dominating conversation and to help more reticent participants be heard. Online communities benefit from having moderators manage discussions to mitigate these issues. I appreciate there are shortcomings to having moderators, but the cost is having meandering conversations that forestall decision-making. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this the right venue?
Although this discussion has been interesting and informative, I do not think that AN is frequented by a sufficient percentage of the community to justify making a major change in an essential community dispute resolution process - ANI -- based on a discussion here. I suggest that this discussion be closed and either re-opened or ported over to WP:Centralized discussions as a formal RfC to allow wider community involvement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
...so I think it's appropriate to bring it here for a bit more input before making a formal proposal at the village pump
, wrote the OP. Levivich harass/hound 04:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)- I'll just point out that AN has both more watchers and more page views than any of the Village Pumps. Bigger picture, I agree this was intended to be a discussion prior to any formal proposal which I would agree with BMK should be advertised through CENT. So I would hope whatever happens next addresses some of the concerns raised here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah this should've gotten stuck in an informal VP thread with a T:CENT listing, and maybe a notice of discussion posted here (similar to how the Committee advertises important announcements here). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
At a discussion about conduct resolution systems at the VP idea lab, ...
is how the OP starts. It doesn't make sense to me that after the informal VP thread, there should be another informal VP thread. I suggested to Ros at the VP thread that input be sought at the administrator's noticeboard about Ros's idea for the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents sub-page. So as explained in the OP, the path we're on is: informal VP -> admin input -> formal proposal, and we're at the bolded middle part right now. I can't imagine why this would be the wrong venue for this step, and I find the first paragraph of the OP to be exceedingly clear about this. Of course I agree with BMK and BK that any formal proposal should be listed at CENT. Levivich harass/hound 06:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)- It should've stayed where it was is my point. A notice could've been posted here. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
- If the point was to get more input on it, I think that's happened, and things can move on to the next formal step. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- It should've stayed where it was is my point. A notice could've been posted here. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Users that know the Wikipedia system using that ability to contort pages.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like review into AleatoryPonderings and Tartan357 and their contributions to the Chad Wolf page, prior admin issues, and Talks.
- That their ability and bias was used to present loaded questions in previous talks, fast track, and ended in protecting confusion; getting it in with little time until known administration changes. But When the topic of Chad Wolfs change in position, and needed change in opening sentence, was brought up by me they showed biased support away from the spirit of useful information while time constraint was cited as the reason NOT to this time. The Chad Wolf page continues to read that he is still in charge of DHS. ..Unless you follow an unintuitive double negative in the first sentence that needs 5 more sentences and a nest of commas to try to explain; with the info box adding more confusion because the title that was confirmed certain is placed below one that was never legally held...and neither mention POSITION as previously held and end date of the initial position comes at the end of the confusing paragraph? :::This will be my last time on this site for a long time. While they can argue that they followed all known procedures I place this post calling the actions of AleatoryPonderings and Tartan357 actions lawful evil in alignment as they avoid clarity and precedents set by other cabinet positions (Ratcliff, sessions, Vought et al). Would admin, or someone that knows how the weird backside of this site runs, please bring these errors higher if you think it needs it. Farewell. 2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
This will be my last time on this site for a long time
So you've lobbed a grenade and are running away? - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)- This is hilarious. ITS NOT FAIR, IT SHOULD WORK Drmies (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- The article appears to be correct now, but that is not going to stop an angry IP editor from flouncing away in protest. If they actually do. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- Someone ought to do something about it.--WaltCip-(talk) 18:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- That their ability and bias was used to present loaded questions in previous talks, fast track, and ended in protecting confusion; getting it in with little time until known administration changes. But When the topic of Chad Wolfs change in position, and needed change in opening sentence, was brought up by me they showed biased support away from the spirit of useful information while time constraint was cited as the reason NOT to this time. The Chad Wolf page continues to read that he is still in charge of DHS. ..Unless you follow an unintuitive double negative in the first sentence that needs 5 more sentences and a nest of commas to try to explain; with the info box adding more confusion because the title that was confirmed certain is placed below one that was never legally held...and neither mention POSITION as previously held and end date of the initial position comes at the end of the confusing paragraph? :::This will be my last time on this site for a long time. While they can argue that they followed all known procedures I place this post calling the actions of AleatoryPonderings and Tartan357 actions lawful evil in alignment as they avoid clarity and precedents set by other cabinet positions (Ratcliff, sessions, Vought et al). Would admin, or someone that knows how the weird backside of this site runs, please bring these errors higher if you think it needs it. Farewell. 2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
- While I expected my character to be judged, I didn't expect it to be the only thing mentioned on a formal request to review admin, and those knowledgeable, using their authority one way for what they like, and another way to protect confusion. :I'm guessing you all are admin, or powerusers, if you are here... I expected better. Not this silly attack on my character. To the above mentioning me leaving (lobing grenades) I work in mortuary affairs and don't have time, haven't kissed the correct wiki admins butts, and don't have the energy to comment on all of your biased use of skills and obvious need to ridicule me for seeking what I think is just a review into their content and character. May any and all, including higher admin, please take note of those only providing humiliation and exclusion in THIS talk about if someone is using OTHER talks incorrectly. I would like to include all above users in a review of their character and what attempts at humiliation, exclusion, misdirection, and deflection they directed at me, a new user, in this talk. 2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- If you think coming to the noticeboard and laying out accusations against the conduct of another editor means your conduct won't be just as scrutinized, with the potential that the user who is a problem can be determined to be you, I have some bad news for you. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed. "Responders: Investigate fully" as provided by the deflection link of Bushranger above. man you all are exhausting. Gladly my kid has time to help me with this crap so this didn't really turning into the grenade also hastily and falsely mentioned by a Bushranger above... Twice now Bushranger has been rash, hasty, exclusive, and aggressive in attacking review of admin and powerusers creation of bias in talk pages.... interesting.2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- 9 comments now..? Not one mention of the original sentence except to laugh at or place blame and scare tactics towards me. I am an IP glass figurine.. wondering why blacksmiths are only using their hammers in a biased way to protect confusion and each other. Now I think this very talk and the above comments has proved my point. "Responders: Investigate fully" as provided in Bushrangers link above will help with any further response, since they are all the same so far. Take care.2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- You might want to consider that if they're "all the same so far", perhaps that is because the problem is you. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Admins might want to consider that this IP really doesn't have a temperament suited to Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- You might want to consider that if they're "all the same so far", perhaps that is because the problem is you. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- 9 comments now..? Not one mention of the original sentence except to laugh at or place blame and scare tactics towards me. I am an IP glass figurine.. wondering why blacksmiths are only using their hammers in a biased way to protect confusion and each other. Now I think this very talk and the above comments has proved my point. "Responders: Investigate fully" as provided in Bushrangers link above will help with any further response, since they are all the same so far. Take care.2605:AD80:40:472:993E:3AAE:A0BB:969A (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Still no mention of the original topic.2605:AD80:40:472:B437:35D4:24A1:CAB0 (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- OP, it's probz because you didnt link the WP:DIFFs. Soz but there's a reason they call AN/I the WP:CESSPIT (and it's not because everyone is nice there/here) jp×g 17:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Block appeal of Astral Leap
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Astral Leap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Per their request, I am transferring the AE block appeal of Astral Leap to this page. I make no endorsement in doing so, and have no opinion about this matter. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I was blocked in error, I reverted three times and not four as El_C wrongly says.
Regardless of El_C's error, I must state I was wrong to restore my comments even in the face of Volunteer Marek's personal attacks and removals that violate WP:TALKO. I was flabbergasted by the repeated removals, and acted in haste. Instead of reverting Volunteer Marek's removal, I should've reported him to WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:AE. However, El_C's recommendation that I avoid reporting content opponents at boards, and my exasperation at the situation where I was accused of being WP:EEML by Volunteer Marek while he simultaneously removed posts pointing at his EEML sanction resulted in rash decisions on my part.
El_C says, in his block rationale that I reverted four times. However, I reverted three. This is a complete timeline of this:
- 02:37 I posted a new comment expressing surprise at how many EEML editors showed up after EEML was mentioned in the thread which was about canvassing on the Polish Wikipedia by an EEML editor. My post was on-topic, and contained information from the case and links existing on Wikipedia.
- [15] 1st undo by Volunteer Marek, breaking WP:TALKO and removing content that is entirely on Wikipedia.
- 03:29 1st undo by me.
- 03:32 User:Levivich makes an unrelated comment, my undo from 03:29 stands.
- 03:33 After fixing an edit-conflict with Levivich, I respond to a personal attack (from 02:46) by Volunteer Marek. When I make this response my post from 02:37 (undo from 03:29) is on the page, and I merely added a partial copy of what was on the page, responding to a second personal attack by Volunteer Marek. This is not a revert. El_C wrongly claims on my talk page this is a revert.
- [16],[17] 2nd undo by Volunteer Marek.
- [18],[19] 2nd undo by me
- [20] 3rd undo by Volunteer Marek
- [21] 3rd undo by me, in this revert I also fixed my comment, by removing his old user name, to Volunteer Marek's liking even though this was not required, in an attempt to de-escalate.
This is three reverts, not four. I was the subject of serious personal attacks. The issue under dispute, Volunteer Marek's old username, was resolved in my last edit, so the dispute was resolved when El_C made his block. I realize any edit warring is wrong, but blocking me for a week is excessive and is not preventative.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Again, Astral Leap's math doesn't immediately adds up for me. But even, say, I miscalculated: as noted on their talk page (here), I believe this WP:ACDS, WP:ARBEE-derived block is well within my discretion to impose. This newish account has been acting in a manner that is both suspect and disruptive, so I stand by my (logged AE) action. El_C 16:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- VM's rationale for removing the entry the first time was "undo an attempt to intimidate via doxxing". Now whether you agree that the edit was doxxing or not, there's obviously an issue here and the correct thing to do at this point is stop and discuss. Just because "it's on Wikipedia" doesn't mean it's carte blanche for "it's OK for me to keep doing this". But no, first we have doubling down on it (I would actually have blocked at this point) and then linking to it instead, like that's a better idea. Now in mitigation AL does say that they realise they were wrong to restore the comments, though I must say that their alternative suggestion of reporting VM to ANI or AE may not exactly have gone as they intended. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I actually agree with Astral Leap that I don't see a brightline 3RR violation, there were only 3 edits that can reasonably be counted as reverts. But El C is correct that it's within their discretion to block without a bright line violation, especially since this is a discretionary sanctions area. Astral Leap can still appeal, but Idon't see any reason to grant it.
Notably, I agree with Black Kite that regardless or what was posted where and even if it may not be technically outing and whatever the TPG say, if someone clearly wants you to stop posting their real name then you stop and reverse your existing post. You definitely don't fight to keep it in.
I actually don't find this quite so bad although it was still not a great solution. I have not looked very well at the thread, but if someone was sanctioned on en.wikipedia for similar behaviour to that currently under discussion before, it's generally reasonable to mention it. If that sanction was under a previous username which means the username will be seen by anyone checking out the link, that's unfortunate but can't be helped.
Where Astral Leap went wrong with their solution was that there was zero reason to link to the username itself. Link to the arbcom case (or whatever) and say it was under a previous user name is all that's needed. I guess Astral Link could have linked to the case without linking to the specific sections, but IMO that's starting to get to the point where we're splitting hairs and in addition making it hard for others to actually check the details of the case. That said, if Volunteer Marek cares that much, I wouldn't be opposed to some solution e.g. convincing arbcom to modify the page to create an anchor which won't require the older username, or creating a redirect.
Which gets into my final point, since Astral Leap had already had problems I do agree with Black Kite that the best option would have been to talk about it rather than trying to just fix it themselves. Maybe Volunteer Marek could have handled this better too but it should have been clear to Astral Leap that Volunteer Marek wasn't happy about the mention of their real name regardless.
Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Looking into this more, I'm not sure if there was that much to be gained by looking specifically into the details of Volunteer Marek's previous sanction so linking to the case without linking to the specific section that dealt with Volunteer Marek seems more reasonable than I initially thought. Of course this does illustrate that the best solution for Volunteer Marek to take was probably to simply redact the links to their previous username including the links to the case, and post a followup with something like "I have redacted the links to my previous username as I prefer it's no longer mentioned, editors can look at my edit history if you really need to know it. I will confirm that I was one of the editors sanctioned in the WP:EEML case." Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- In answer to Astral Leap, the way to know was to ask. As has already been said, once someone says 'doxing' you ask what's the concern if you don't understand. You don't effectively say "DGAF" by edit warring to keep the comment which causes concern. I assume you figured it out at some stage since you tried to adjust your comment albeit failing badly. Note that AFAICT, the concern of most editors is not that you posted the name once, but you kept reverting to keep it in even after there was concern. Frankly, while the fact it's a real name greatly increases the problems with your actions, you should be working with editors in most cases if they are unhappy with their previous user name being mentioned. I.E. even if you didn't understand and ignoring the fact you should have asked, there's still no excuse. For example, if someone used the name "The great overlord of the universe, a perfect editor" when they were 12 years old and now goes by the name "PorridgeBee" when they are 25 perhaps they would prefer their old username is not generally mentioned and you should try to respect that as much as reasonable when they ask in some fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- One final comment. There's a big world out there besides the US. I have no idea why anyone would use the US SSA baby name database to try and prove anything other than the popularity of give names in the US in recent times. Definitely, when I search the name database, "Smith" does not show up. However AFAIK, it remains the most popular or definitely one of the top, family names in the US. Siti doesn't show up, but I would readily identify it as a name and probably would 99.9% or more of Malaysians and I think quite a higher percentage of Indonesians and Singaporeans too. Seven made it to 998 in 2019 and Queen in 2018 and 2019. I would not readily identify either of these as the real name of a human, sorry to those who have that as their name. Again there's nothing wrong with this, but if someone expresses concerns you talk/ask. You don't ignore and try to force the preservation when you don't understand the concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
- In answer to Astral Leap, the way to know was to ask. As has already been said, once someone says 'doxing' you ask what's the concern if you don't understand. You don't effectively say "DGAF" by edit warring to keep the comment which causes concern. I assume you figured it out at some stage since you tried to adjust your comment albeit failing badly. Note that AFAICT, the concern of most editors is not that you posted the name once, but you kept reverting to keep it in even after there was concern. Frankly, while the fact it's a real name greatly increases the problems with your actions, you should be working with editors in most cases if they are unhappy with their previous user name being mentioned. I.E. even if you didn't understand and ignoring the fact you should have asked, there's still no excuse. For example, if someone used the name "The great overlord of the universe, a perfect editor" when they were 12 years old and now goes by the name "PorridgeBee" when they are 25 perhaps they would prefer their old username is not generally mentioned and you should try to respect that as much as reasonable when they ask in some fashion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Looking into this more, I'm not sure if there was that much to be gained by looking specifically into the details of Volunteer Marek's previous sanction so linking to the case without linking to the specific section that dealt with Volunteer Marek seems more reasonable than I initially thought. Of course this does illustrate that the best solution for Volunteer Marek to take was probably to simply redact the links to their previous username including the links to the case, and post a followup with something like "I have redacted the links to my previous username as I prefer it's no longer mentioned, editors can look at my edit history if you really need to know it. I will confirm that I was one of the editors sanctioned in the WP:EEML case." Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Having experienced real world harassment, I take a dim view of revealing a previous username if it reveals the user's real world identity. No reason to do it, ever, no matter how justified someone feels. Seems petty and childish to me. I see no reason to unblock appellant and find their mea culpa's disingenuous. They claim a rash, ill-considered act. Digging up someone's prior, real world identifying user name and then revealing it sounds coldly calculated and intimidating. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Mostly I agree with you, but the old username is clearly listed at the Arb case page, which doesn't exactly require any digging to find. Instead I'd ask Arbcom or the clerks to update that case page to the current user name and remove any mentions of the old one. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Who cares about 3RR, anyway, here. It happened or it didn't, doesn't matter in the slightest to me, really, whether I identified that in error. To that: I just revoked AL's talk page access, for continuing to use this very appeal to poke at VM. Linking to a Social Security search engine and linking the old username via the wiki search function? What is going on here? If AL wishes to continue participating in this appeal, let that be filtered through WP:UTRS first. Anyway, I am hoping this appeal will be be resolved quickly, so as to avoid any further distress to VM. And not because I care about this appeal dragging on due to myself. I've had, like what, 4 AE appeals in the last month (all declined), one ANI appeal higher up in this very page, that looks like it's gonna get declined, too. This is all par for the course for me. But all this emphasis being placed on VM old username, here, at AN. That's not right. El_C 14:13, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Editing other people's comments is usually hard to explain (although in this case it would prima facie be borderline acceptable, and definitively acceptable given AL's further behaviour, which makes them even more suspect than before). Said behaviour leads me to think they haven't gotten the memo and would likely continue this kind of disruptive edit if they were unblocked immediately (whether we should expect that to change in a week's time is a different question): oppose appeal. (Non admin comment) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
- Unbelievable that Astral Leap would continue to double down. The block and subsequent removal of talk page access were both correct.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit warring on abhira page by Hindukshatrana and bloodofruler (Result: Stale)
This happened a 2 months ago on abhira page when a user named bloodofruler added some info which I Hindukshatrana didn't like and started reverting it constantly
Cases of him reverting blood of ruler one of after another [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
This is obviously not allowed and he and bloodofruler have already broken 4reverts rule please do something about this bloodofruler is blocked but Hindukshatrana is still freely editing. Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 10:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Edit warring should be reported to WP:ANEW. 331dot (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Seems like someone doesn't fully understand the three revert rule XD. Though I would like to hear Chariotrider555, Anthony gomes 92, RegentsPark and Materialscientist's opinions on what this guy is doing on the same Abhira tribe page. And BTW, this dude's blocked on Hindi Wikipedia for caste promotions and for being a caste warrior, as we can see it over here. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- H A Rose (1911) is a Raj Era source and we don't use Raj Era sources for caste related information on Wikipedia. Please see Sitush caste lists for more information. HinduKshatrana is totally right in reverting it. Anthony gomes 92(talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- User:HinduKshatrana is completely right in reverting those edits. User:Bloodofruler was a caste-promoter who was bringing disruptive edits to Wikipedia and refusing to adhere to its policies. I fully support User:HinduKshatrana for holding Wikipedia pages to a high standard, and not letting disruptive caste-promoters user Wikipedia as a platform to glorify their castes contrary to their known history. User:Pseudo Nihilist, I would be very careful if I were you; caste promotion is not something taken lightly here at the English Wikipedia as well. Be sure to familiarize yourself with WP:RS, WP:HISTRS, [27], and [28]. Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- H A Rose (1911) is a Raj Era source and we don't use Raj Era sources for caste related information on Wikipedia. Please see Sitush caste lists for more information. HinduKshatrana is totally right in reverting it. Anthony gomes 92(talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Seems like someone doesn't fully understand the three revert rule XD. Though I would like to hear Chariotrider555, Anthony gomes 92, RegentsPark and Materialscientist's opinions on what this guy is doing on the same Abhira tribe page. And BTW, this dude's blocked on Hindi Wikipedia for caste promotions and for being a caste warrior, as we can see it over here. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note - Pseudo Nihilist is also indef'd from Wikidata for edit-warring and disruptive edits - [29]. Their editing here shows a pattern of caste-pushing, with some use of poor quality sources. I'm somewhat surprised they pulled in a Raj-era source, as they've gotten better over time about using better sources. That said, Pseudo Nihilist doesn't always handle disputes well - their edit summary here is not acceptable and I warned them about it (warning removed without comment). A few weeks ago, they posted on ANI [30] asking an editor they were conflicting with on the Hindi Wikipedia be blocked - the same editor they were edit-warring with on Wikidata. Caste related articles here drive way too much drama, all editors here need to be aware of the tone of their posts and work towards lowering the drama, not ramping it up. Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
You clearly have broken the 3 revert rule along with bloodofruler guy but he is blocked for it I've counted it myself you both reverted each other for 5+times 2 months ago the entire edit history is full of you both playing revert game and User:HinduKshatrana user:Chariotrider555 if Raj era sources aren't allowed remove it but you were also removing my well referenced edits on rule at junagadh section as well removing mediaeval and epical information about abhiras which I have referenced from rima hooja 's book please don't do that it's disruptive. and about me being blocked from Hindi wiki it's a clear misunderstanding between and admin and the user who wrong fully thought that I was edit warring but in reality I never edit those said articles on Hindi wiki See my appeal for more info thank you Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Chariotrider555 yes he was right colonial sources aren't allowed but edit warring and reverting eachother 7+times isn't it against 3 revert rule? User:bloodofruler was blocked for all the disruption he caused and I believe it was justified but why isn't Hindukshatrana blocked? He has contributed to the edit war with him He could have reported him but instead he was edit warring with him constantly. Pseudo Nihilist (talk) 14:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Stale An edit war from two months ago is far too old to attract sanctions, warnings, or anything else. Nyttend (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I place this here at the suggestion of User:Robert McClenon, who helped create the RfC on the Chopin talk page, and made the suggestion at the discussion of the RfC at the Requests for Closure page. The request for closure resulted in some spilling over of the orginal RfC, as can be seen. The background is that Frédéric Chopin is a WP FA, with over 1m. views in the past year. In December 2020 it became subject to substantial editing and 'unediting' following a Swiss radio broadcast which asserted that Chopin was homosexual. The very extensive exchange of editors' views can be read on Talk:Frédéric Chopin. There is an RfC in which many editors offered views and expressed their preference from a range of six alternative approaches. The extensive debate originally engendered appears to have subsided in volume. A closing administrator can of course judge for themselves on any consensus of opinion. A resolution of this RfC would enable this high-profile FA to resolve its content appropriately.--Smerus (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Massive One Direction related vandalism
Lots of One Direction related vandalism going on, so extra help is needed. Example. Thanks, Giraffer (talk·contribs) 08:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Special:AbuseFilter/1118 - still needs work, but helps. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, it seems to have died down a fair bit. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Unban request
Branflakes452701 (talk · contribs) was banned as a result of prolific socking. They have periodically reappeared, sometimes productively, sometimes not (editing as an IP and claiming not to be a sock (before admitting they were), they broke 3RR in March last year during an edit war on Slovakian politics) – see their SPI archive for more background. Under their latest incarnation Bluegrass35 (talk · contribs), they have requested to be unblocked, which I believe would need them to be unbanned, hence bringing the matter here. Their unblock request states:
The only reason I created a new account because I don't have access to my original one and can't get on it. I understand I was blocked and I will absolutely commit to no more socking, if you allow me to freely come back and edit. I am sorry for the socking, but I did it because I can't get on the original account. I'm not making excuses for myself, but I shown that I have not engaged in any edit warring.
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to letting them back, but think a 1RR restriction should be imposed if they do. Cheers, Number 57 12:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. Let's start with six months with zero edits, zero sockpuppetry, and then we could consider under WP:SO. The socking is indeed prolific here and I want to see some, any, evidence they are willing to abide by our policies. Their request is disingenuous; had they created the account and then immediately requested an unban, maybe. But no, they edited for months until caught. No comment on what restrictions should be imposed upon them if we do eventually lift the block. --Yamla (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose They can try for the standard offer when it comes time. AdmiralEek (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose Extensive, ongoing socking. After 6 months of no edits on enwiki - and perhaps a good track record on another wiki, I'd be willing to reconsider. SQLQuery me! 15:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per sockpuppetry concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
National Archives & Records Administration range block
I've been contacted off-wiki by an Archivist, who wishes to remain anonymous, working for the National Archives & Records Administration about an IP range block imposed by @Future Perfect at Sunrise: of User talk:2601:152:4001:4460:3869:F967:294C:2B4B block log. Apparently, this IP range is one used by the NARA and the person making the comment appears to have been a researcher using one of the National Archives VPN networks to connected to their Citizen Archivist project, and connected to a single server used by a military history discussion group. To make things more complex the block is as a sock of User:OberRanks who has been permanently banned for using questionable sources, particularly those by controversial historian Mark C. Yerger. Now OberRanks is known to my correspondent and had a long history working with NARA as a paid reference researcher, from the conversation its likely that OR and the IP are different people both using the NARA system. I did mention Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Requests so we may get a request about the IP range there. --Salix alba (talk): 14:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- The person who contacted you is almost certainly OberRanks too. Don't believe a word they say. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- He has certainly had run ins with you in the past, as had the late Mark Yerger. Rather than a single sock I think there is a whole bunch of them, all connected to the same military history discussion group. It is concerning that this is connected to an official government archive project.
- I'm not advocating for the block to be lifted. --Salix alba (talk): 14:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've had run-ins with Mark Yerger ... Huh, really? Anyway ... I don't believe for a moment these shenanigans are actually connected to that archive project. The IP range is a residential address owned by Comcast, not a .gov address. Everything he's been telling you is just the usual nonsense smokescreen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- The email I have received comes from a working nara.gov email address and check out on the NARA Organization - Employee Locator.
- Yes at some point in the past you probably had the pleasure of blocking Mr Yagger. --Salix alba (talk): 15:26, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious what makes you think Yerger ever edited Wikipedia, and if he did, why I would have encountered him. Anyway, as for the NARA address, OberRanks always claimed he worked there, so he may well still do so. But the NARA IP he used to sock with, from it's official .gov range, was 207.245.177.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), not the private IPv6 range I blocked yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- The circle I get for the IP address [31] actually includes College Park where the National Archive is located.
- I've received two different sets of email from the same person, once a quite official one asking about unblocking the IP. The other was from his personal email and was or candid talking about his and other's experiences with Wikipedia. Mark Yerger and OberRanks are both mentioned. Apparently one of your pages caused quite a high-level internal investigation at NARA. --Salix alba (talk): 22:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious what makes you think Yerger ever edited Wikipedia, and if he did, why I would have encountered him. Anyway, as for the NARA address, OberRanks always claimed he worked there, so he may well still do so. But the NARA IP he used to sock with, from it's official .gov range, was 207.245.177.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), not the private IPv6 range I blocked yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've had run-ins with Mark Yerger ... Huh, really? Anyway ... I don't believe for a moment these shenanigans are actually connected to that archive project. The IP range is a residential address owned by Comcast, not a .gov address. Everything he's been telling you is just the usual nonsense smokescreen. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/2601:152:4001:4460:0:0:0:0/64 shows their third edit (September 2020) added this image and five others, all of which were originally uploaded by OberRanks in 2015. Later, the IP amazingly found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS-Oberabschnitt Süd. The IP is obviously an LTA. Johnuniq (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I should have added that SS-Oberabschnitt Süd was created by the indeffed OberRanks (talk · contribs). Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Expertwikiguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
I have just reversed what seems to me to be a particularly egregious close of discussion. All these Navy Cross/ship-naming discussions are proving to be heavily disputed, and need careful closure. At any rate, as an involved party both the original close and my revert need review. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yikes! Good revert. I have deep concerns about that user's involvement in any other deletion discussions. El_C 14:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've had to escalate this to AN/I as it turns out this has been an ongoing problem about which s number of comaplints have been left on the suer's talk page. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've undone that. ANI is not an "escalation" and splitting a discussion should be avoided. El_C 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Mangoe, User has demonstrated that they do not have the necessary competence to close or even relist deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) They also had to be reverted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John T. Eversole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilgal, Kentucky is a classic WP:RELISTBIAS example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wofai Fada is more relist bias, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cambridge Working Group is WP:BADNAC #2 as too close for NAC. There's a few keep closes that would be better off as no-consensuses, but as the effect is same, that's not horrible. Still, there's too high of an error rate here, especially for NACs. I'll leave a note on their talk page asking them to kindly refrain from closing/relisting AFDs. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would support a TBAN from relisting/closing and if you hadn't already left this friendly note would be proposing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: - I'm not sure that the message really did much good, as the resulting discussion at their talk page suggests. Before seeing this comment, I'd replied to their response that the closures/relists were justified with a warning that poorly dabbling in AFD NACs has a tendency to lead to ANI and topic bans. If this closing behavior continues, I think the TBAN discussion would be more than justified here. Hog Farm Talk 03:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am the user in question that is being discussed here. I am sorry if I made any errors. I had followed correct closure procedures, except I did make 1 or 2 errors, instead of choosing "No Consensus," I choose "KEEP," but as another editor says the outcome is the same. I was not aware that the military AFD's are a sensitive issue, so I will refrain from future closures. In addition, I have not participated in any closures with outcome of Delete or Merge or Redirect as the policies state non-admins should stay away from Deletes. I have been doing edits for 7 years and more heavily in past 2-years, so I consider myself experienced enough. There is obviously a learning process for everything and errors can be made occasionally even by most experienced editors or admins. Finally, I feel most the issues here are subjective and can be interpreted in different ways by different editors/admins. i.e. "Was the closure done right or not" may be a question of how you felt about the subject deserving a keep or delete, so some may feel it was right and some may feel it was not. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I should also add that AFD's are really backlogged as someone mention on this page before. I was trying to help out. I am sure my help would be appreciated. There are many AFD's passed the 7 day deadline that have not been closed or relisted. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- A backlog is better than a bad close. Special:Permalink/1004983342 or Special:Permalink/1004982984 alone shows you should refrain from closing AfDs for the time being. This is exactly why I think Wikipedia talk:Deletion process#Proposal: Follow example of TfD and non-admins to "close" some "delete" outcomes is a bad idea for AfD. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Expertwikiguy, your close clearly demonstrates that you are not even remotely experienced enough to be closing discussions, something which your comments above do nothing to assuage. It's way, way too terse, not to mention that it's about as WP:VOTE-y as I've ever seen a discussion closure, pretty much ever. Here it is, in full:
the result was keep. 9 Keep, 6 Redirect, 3 Deletes, Winner is KEEP
(diff). El_C 02:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)- Ok I get your point, it's not just about the counts, but that doesn't mean I didn't read the comments and arguments made. I would also like to invite these editors involved in voting of these pages to comment, if my closures were fair and vote below: user:Jackattack1597, user:ERcheck,user:malo,user:Thewolfchild, user:Looper5920, user:Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d, user:FieldMarine, user:Toddst1, user:Andrew_Davidson, user:PamD, user:Dream Focus, user:Geo_Swan, User:7&6=thirteen. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Canvassing is not something we do on Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ok I get your point, it's not just about the counts, but that doesn't mean I didn't read the comments and arguments made. I would also like to invite these editors involved in voting of these pages to comment, if my closures were fair and vote below: user:Jackattack1597, user:ERcheck,user:malo,user:Thewolfchild, user:Looper5920, user:Dr.Swag_Lord,_Ph.d, user:FieldMarine, user:Toddst1, user:Andrew_Davidson, user:PamD, user:Dream Focus, user:Geo_Swan, User:7&6=thirteen. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would support a TBAN from relisting/closing and if you hadn't already left this friendly note would be proposing it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) They also had to be reverted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John T. Eversole, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gilgal, Kentucky is a classic WP:RELISTBIAS example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wofai Fada is more relist bias, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cambridge Working Group is WP:BADNAC #2 as too close for NAC. There's a few keep closes that would be better off as no-consensuses, but as the effect is same, that's not horrible. Still, there's too high of an error rate here, especially for NACs. I'll leave a note on their talk page asking them to kindly refrain from closing/relisting AFDs. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I completely agree with Mangoe, User has demonstrated that they do not have the necessary competence to close or even relist deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've undone that. ANI is not an "escalation" and splitting a discussion should be avoided. El_C 14:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've had to escalate this to AN/I as it turns out this has been an ongoing problem about which s number of comaplints have been left on the suer's talk page. Mangoe (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with Mangoe that these AFD need to be evaluated carefully.
- That is one reason why the handful of individuals behind this recent flood of AFD should have throttled themselves back to maybe nominating just one per day.
- I'd already participated in half a dozen of these, before one of the handful of individuals behind this recent flood let slip that there had been a recent AFD listing dozens of these articles, which was closed as keep with a closing comment that each article should be nominated individually. WP:Articles for deletion/Edward Henry Allen
- I think each of the subsequent individual nominations should have explicitly mentioned the earlier keep closure of that single massive mass deletion.
- I think when the closure of a single massive mass deletion said mass deletion was inappropriate, individuals who made followup individual AFD, or AFD of smaller focussed AFD of more carefully grouped smaller groups of articles, had a very strong obligation to fully, effectively and meaningfully complied with WP:BEFORE. Sadly, I have to report that at least one of the individuals behind this flood of AFD totally failed to comply with BEFORE. Geo Swan (talk) 17:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Geo Swan You say "One of the handful of individuals behind this recent flood let slip" as if this was some big secret. You must have been one of the few Users at the later individual AFDs who wasn't aware of it as many of the Keep !votes at the mass deletion turned out to !vote Keep at the individual AFDs. What difference would it have made/make if the mass deletion was explicitly mentioned on the individual AFDs? The mass deletion was a procedural keep "without prejudice for renomination". Mztourist (talk) 07:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 referred to an AFD backlog, below, when they first proposed a topic ban against Expertwikiguy. I think it must be recognized that the reason why there is a backlog is that Mztourist,
the person who initiated this discussion,and one or two close associates, flooded us with an unmanageable number of AFD. This seemed to me to be a serious lapse from WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Mztourist's lapses merit close examination, possible admonishment. I would not be ready to endorse a topic ban on him or her, at this point, and I oppose a topic ban on Expertwikiguy, for similar reasons. Geo Swan (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)- Agree with Geo Swan about the mass-listing of the military/war hero BLPs; there is a questionable motive behind it and the repeated badgering of "keep" !voters underlines that. Perhaps AfD wouldn't be so troubled of there was more scrutiny on users mass-dumping pointy entries into it, and/or a strengthening of the AfD guidelines. jmho - wolf 19:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Geo Swan you say I "initiated this discussion"? I didn't initiate this ANI. Nor have I "flooded [you] with an unmanageable number of AFD". You should check your facts before making such accusations. Similarly Thewolfchild the accusation of badgering of Keep !voters is countered by the poor sourcing of the pages being nominated for deletion and arguments such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability being overwhelmingly rejected. Also in another recent close the Admin stated that they tended to favor the !votes made after a page had been updated, meaning that earlier comments were being discounted. Anyway these comments are just an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, an inexperienced User making bad close decisions at AFD, but that doesn't seem to bother you Geo Swan.Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment wasn't intended to insult or upset you. The fact is you did post comments to several editors that posted "keep" !votes, disputing their comments. There's really no need for that at AfD, it's up to the closing admin to assess each !vote and determine how much weight it should be given. A string of back-and-forth replies aren't necessary and just drag on the proposal. jmho - wolf 04:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- AFD is a discussion. Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, ok. Keep on truckin' ;) - wolf 10:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- AFD is a discussion. Mztourist (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment wasn't intended to insult or upset you. The fact is you did post comments to several editors that posted "keep" !votes, disputing their comments. There's really no need for that at AfD, it's up to the closing admin to assess each !vote and determine how much weight it should be given. A string of back-and-forth replies aren't necessary and just drag on the proposal. jmho - wolf 04:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Geo Swan you say I "initiated this discussion"? I didn't initiate this ANI. Nor have I "flooded [you] with an unmanageable number of AFD". You should check your facts before making such accusations. Similarly Thewolfchild the accusation of badgering of Keep !voters is countered by the poor sourcing of the pages being nominated for deletion and arguments such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#having a military ship named after you proves notability being overwhelmingly rejected. Also in another recent close the Admin stated that they tended to favor the !votes made after a page had been updated, meaning that earlier comments were being discounted. Anyway these comments are just an attempt to distract from the issue at hand, an inexperienced User making bad close decisions at AFD, but that doesn't seem to bother you Geo Swan.Mztourist (talk) 03:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agree with Geo Swan about the mass-listing of the military/war hero BLPs; there is a questionable motive behind it and the repeated badgering of "keep" !voters underlines that. Perhaps AfD wouldn't be so troubled of there was more scrutiny on users mass-dumping pointy entries into it, and/or a strengthening of the AfD guidelines. jmho - wolf 19:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Topic ban proposal
Expertwikiguy (talk · contribs) is subject to an indefinite topic ban from closing or relisting deletion (XfD) discussions.
- Support as proposer. I was already there based on previous closes and the responses this editor had given in the past when asked about their closes. However, I am all for both friendly and direct words being tried. And yet we have seen those fail (one of them in this very thread). I agree that we need help with the AfD backlog, but that would ideally be some more admins (including me) pitching in; bad closing is not the right kind of help. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per the two links in my comment above which are very concerning closes, along with other recent closes. Closer does not appear to want to back away from AfD closing voluntarily (see their talk). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support however well-intentioned the User may be, they lack the competence to close and relist AFDs which just creates more problems on contentious AFDs. The User hasn't been willing to acknowledge the problem and so a ban is necessary. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Per 9 Keep, 6 Redirect, 3 Deletes, Winner is KEEP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose: I think this is extreme and not likely that I will make such mistakes again after reading all the comments. "indefinite" is really extreme. Maybe give me one month "hold" until I have time to study and learn more about it.Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Indefinite" does not mean "permanent". In can, in fact, mean less than a month, although that is unlikely in this case. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose An indefinite ban seems excessive and unnecessary. The numerous nominations of hundreds of war heroes have proved to be a hornet's nest – a disruptive battleground when it is so apparent that there are more sensible alternatives. Even experienced admins such as Ritchie333 are being badgered about such closes – see John R. Craig, for example. Expertwikiguy acted in in good faith and now seems to understand that their help is not always appreciated. Per WP:ROPE, they should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that this "word to the wise" is sufficient. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter what the subject is, though - if you count votes, you get closes wrong. Although in at least one of these cases, he managed to even count them wrongly. Black Kite (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- which one is that? Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- [32] you said "6 Keeps, 4 Redirect, No Deletes. I also Agree to Keep". The !votes were nom's delete, 3 Redirects, 2 Merge, 1 Keep/Merge and 5 Keep (excluding you who has no !vote as closer) Mztourist (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- which one is that? Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support: Lost me at Keep is basically the same as No Consensus. Good faith attempt but with only ~1,250 edits (no articles created), limited experience at AfD [33] (no AfD nominations), and these example closes, this editor should not be closing.
- Because I think everything they did was in good faith, if Expertwikiguy would state they will voluntarily abstain indefinitely from closing AfDs, I would switch to Oppose as I would see no prevenative use, and there is no need to give a bad mark to a good faith editor unless it is really necessary. I hope they respond. // Timothy :: talk 13:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am willing to voluntarily stop doing this myself for a while (maybe 2 months), so just to monitor others doing it and learn more.Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm reserving judgement for a few days, but I do think he needs to step away from doing closes/relists at least for a while. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Based on the ongoing discussions on his talk page, I've come to a decision.; see below. Mangoe (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am willing to voluntarily stop doing this myself for a while (maybe 2 months), so just to monitor others doing it and learn more.Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Leaning oppose if they promise to not perform closures/relists anymore, but if they keep up doing them when there's clearly consensus they shouldn't be at this time, then I would support. I believe they're acting in good faith, and since they seem to have stopped closing/relisting after my request, I see no reason to give them a TBAN if they're willing to stop. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Weak support - "weak" because the proposal is "indefinite" (it should be six months), "support" because of the terrible judgement in the cited close and "
I am willing to voluntarily stop doing this myself for a while (maybe 2 months)
" isn't helping. I would switch to "oppose" if Expertwikiguy gives a firm commitment to not close AfDs for a minimum of 6 months, but in that time, also regularly contributes to AfD to gain experience, should he want to try his hand at it again. If he can demonstrate a potential for improvement, he should be given another chance. - wolf 19:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)- Why should it be six months? On the whole NAC at AfD is hard to do right and often causes issues, something I learned by observing the many poorly done NAC well before I became an admin. So if someone has shown a lack of judgement about whether or not they are qualified to do these closes, a lack of judgement about how to respond when concerns are brought forward on their talk page, and a stubborness about stopping when brought forward to AN, only promising to do "maybe 2 months" (so maybe it would be less) after a TBAN gets traction, shows, to me, the wisdom of indefinite, which we know does not mean permanent. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think you just answered you're own question. - wolf 03:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why, given those facts, is six months more appropriate, in your mind, than indefinite? I don't want to beat up the user again so I won't repeat why I find indefinite compelling but I could perhaps be wrong and it should be a set time instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- My reply was in response to your commemt; "
...indefinite, which we know does not mean permanent.
". - *Speaking generally* if it's a given that these "indefinite" terms are actually finite, then why not start with that? IMO, all first time bans should have a set term, based on AGF alone (say 3, 6 or 12 months, depending on severity). - *Speaking for "Expertwikiguy"* (who's going to be banned), it's clear that he needs to be barred from AfD to protect that project. Further, it's become clear that he doesn't seem to grasp what people are collectively telling him, so perhaps there's a CIR issue, I dunno. I stand by my support of your proposal. I posted additional comments to his tp that addess how I believe he might resume nac at AfD, at some point (when and if). Cheers. - wolf 10:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- My reply was in response to your commemt; "
- Why, given those facts, is six months more appropriate, in your mind, than indefinite? I don't want to beat up the user again so I won't repeat why I find indefinite compelling but I could perhaps be wrong and it should be a set time instead. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think you just answered you're own question. - wolf 03:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Why should it be six months? On the whole NAC at AfD is hard to do right and often causes issues, something I learned by observing the many poorly done NAC well before I became an admin. So if someone has shown a lack of judgement about whether or not they are qualified to do these closes, a lack of judgement about how to respond when concerns are brought forward on their talk page, and a stubborness about stopping when brought forward to AN, only promising to do "maybe 2 months" (so maybe it would be less) after a TBAN gets traction, shows, to me, the wisdom of indefinite, which we know does not mean permanent. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - closures are supposed to save us time, not cost us more time. Based on their responses, this editor is not "getting it"; their responses read as if they have an entitlement to close, as if their right-to-close is being infringed upon. A tban seems necessary to prevent further timesink and indefinite (which would require an appeal to lift rather than just the passage of time) is the right duration here. Levivich harass/hound 20:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support — Their activities are becoming disruptive & they clearly do not know what they are doing, rushing into areas where even admins with great experience tread with extreme caution. They re-listed an AFD & said “well because I feel the subject of the article is notable” despite the article being on the verge of a delete. When I confronted them about that they became hostile & said & I quote “I have been an editor longer than you have” This is by far the most disruptive thing I’ve seen this year. Celestina007 (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- In this particular case I have provided details on my talk page why I felt a Relist was the best option. The subject possibly met WP:MUSICBIO and I felt the AFD required more time to be considered. In addition, Celestina007 was the nominator of this and another page that I relisted, so I feel in his opinion the page should be deleted. He is obviously biased. I invite others to review my reasons in my talk page and see if a relist was just.Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- BTW, this particular case demonstrates that I am not just basing my decisions on counts and I am also reading the comments and evaluating the page. On one hand there are editors attacking me saying I basing my judgment just on counts on another we have this editor saying based on the counts it should have been deleted, so here is proof that I am not just basing my judgments on counts. I simply didn't express my opinions of my decisions clearly and that was my mistake. At the end it seems to me AFD closing can be conversional in nature no matter who does it, and if we look at any editor or admin doing this, I am sure we will find decisions that we feel were not correct. I just happened to be making some mistakes because I am new, which is why I am under the microscope. However, it is unlikely I will make the same mistakes again. But anyway whatever decision is made I am fine with it.Expertwikiguy (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Except you don't just relist something because you feel like the subject is notable. If you think the subject may be notable, just comment in the AFD and explain your reasoning as to why the subject is notable. You don't close or relist based on your own opinions of the subject. Relists and closures are not votes. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I relisted because it was a close call, not based on my opinion. I didn't think it was notable as keep, I thought it needed further research and possibly could be notable. I have now gone ahead and evaluated it further and decided to place a keep vote, but prior to that there was not a clear consensus and it deserved a relist. Check it out yourself Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flyboy_Geesus_(musician). Again I am hearing conflicting onions on how a page should be closed or relisted. Some saying don't just base it on the count, some saying analyze all arguments and then make judgments, etc. I suggest that you all write up some clear instructions on how to do this correctly for those that are new like me, so we won't make such mistakes. The problem is not me. The problem is that there are not clear instructions provided.Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Expertwikiguy, you are correct when you write "
The problem is that there are not clear instructions provided.
Closing at AfD is as much an art as it is a science. This is part of why I dislike non-administrative closures at AfD (and, will say again, this has been true even before I become an admin). One advantage of admin closures is that they are more likely to understand the art - the community has, after all, at some point in time stated that the admin can be trusted to know when to use tools and thus presumably trusted to know not only written policies and guidelines, but what explanatory supplements, essays, and cultural norms accompany using those tools. It takes a bunch of experience at AfD to gain that competency and, honestly, it takes experience determining consensus to be able to do it well at a high pressure venue like AfD. If you're interested in closing stuff WP:RM and WP:RFC are great places for non-admins to exercise and improve their closing skills (and in both cases, there's a fair bit more written about how to close effectively than at AfD). Barkeep49 (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)- Not sure that's a good idea; closing RMs and RfCs is likely to end up in a bunch of MRs/close challenges. Suggest just being a participant in discussions for a while and picking up the precedent and unwritten conventions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Expertwikiguy, you are correct when you write "
- I relisted because it was a close call, not based on my opinion. I didn't think it was notable as keep, I thought it needed further research and possibly could be notable. I have now gone ahead and evaluated it further and decided to place a keep vote, but prior to that there was not a clear consensus and it deserved a relist. Check it out yourself Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Flyboy_Geesus_(musician). Again I am hearing conflicting onions on how a page should be closed or relisted. Some saying don't just base it on the count, some saying analyze all arguments and then make judgments, etc. I suggest that you all write up some clear instructions on how to do this correctly for those that are new like me, so we won't make such mistakes. The problem is not me. The problem is that there are not clear instructions provided.Expertwikiguy (talk) 04:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Except you don't just relist something because you feel like the subject is notable. If you think the subject may be notable, just comment in the AFD and explain your reasoning as to why the subject is notable. You don't close or relist based on your own opinions of the subject. Relists and closures are not votes. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - The fact that they're still defending their relists/closures and arguing above and stating that they think they'll be ready in one or two months seems to me to indicate that they don't entirely understand what was wrong with the closures/relists and is convincing me this has the potential to turn into another time sink a month or two from now. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per Hog Farm. The stubborn defense of actions he has been told from all sides were incorrect says that he will go forward and do it again. Mangoe (talk) 05:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have already stated that voluntarily I will stop doing it for min 2 months so I can leaan more about it. If and when I do it, or allowed to do it, I will also stay away from close calls and only do it when there is a clear consensus. I have already learned a lot more about the process from reading comments here. I am fine with whatever decision is made, but do not call me stubborn and have some respect.Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support AfD closing comments and their canvass comment above make it clear they believe AfD are votes and not about the merits. Slywriter (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I already stated that I didn't just count votes, are you reading my comments and explenations? in fact on one example I provided, there were more Delete votes, but I relisted due to votes being close and other factors. I am OK whatever decision is made. Although I feel after reading all the comments I have learned a lot more about the process already and if I do it again, I will definitely stay away from the close calls and only do it on the ones with clear consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- You canvassed several editors into this discussion asking them to VOTE. Even your example here is it had more delete votes but was close so re-listed. You are not seeing that these are discussions, not polls. A single strong KEEP argument can outweigh 20 deletes. Slywriter (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I already stated that I didn't just count votes, are you reading my comments and explenations? in fact on one example I provided, there were more Delete votes, but I relisted due to votes being close and other factors. I am OK whatever decision is made. Although I feel after reading all the comments I have learned a lot more about the process already and if I do it again, I will definitely stay away from the close calls and only do it on the ones with clear consensus. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support a block, but not necessarily indef. As an uninvolved editor who has had their fair share of ups and downs closing and relisting (and occasionally reverting self closures of) AfDs, I would say the user will need to learn from their mistakes and not create more and more, from what I've seen above and elsewhere. AfDs is not about !votes ultimately (in the context of controversial AfDs), and tallies of votes should not be used toward ultimate consensus and closure. User seriously needs more experience before even thinking about relisting or closing AfDs. As an addendum, staying off AfD for
two months
(as quoted by the accused further up) isnt the way forward. Stay away for as long as it is necessary, IMO two months is too little time away. Nightfury 14:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC) - Support indefinite ban from closing or relisting XfD discussions. User clearly lacks competence to interpret consensus and policy v superfluous arguments. Also does not understand what "non-controversial" looks like. Failure above and on user talk to show understanding is further proof. There is no backlog at AfD, we do not need help there from people who only make more of a mess. Daniel (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note that I have taken action to revert a bang-average NAC AfD close, see discussion here. Daniel (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support indefinite. The comments by the user here, at their Talk page and their recent !vote at the AfD mentioned above for Intercontinental Miami demonstrates very clearly to me that this user hasn't the slightest clue about closing AfDs. I'd like to see the user participate at AfDs and to demonstrate a good well rounded knowledge of our guidelines and policies in their reasoning before their block is reconsidered. HighKing++ 11:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Regretful support: This is definitely someone stumbling into a situation which he doesn't understand, and doesn't seem to understand why he needs to stop either; this is why some people want to end AfD NACs entirely, or restrict them to the point of worthlessness. I'm sympathetic to Andrew on the note that one of the topics he stumbled into is something that admins and non-admins alike get badgered about, but I think in this specific case that's an argument against rather than for closing. An indefinite tban is a heavy hand, so I would want to be quite confident that this is 'indefinite' in the 'until you can improve' sense, not the 'forever' sense -- assuming, of course, the possibility for improvement. WP:CIR applies to backstage parts of the wiki too. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support They should participate in AfDs rather than closing or relisting, until they have a lot more experience.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Sullivan9211 and FBS college football national championships
Sullivan9211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Editor is engaged in longterm disruptive editing; WP:TBAN is requested.
College football primer if/as helpful:
The NCAA does not award championships in college football at the Division I - FBS (the highest) level of competition.[34] "Selectors" award national championships to their chosen team (or multiple teams if their selection is split as a co-national championship).[35] The NCAA created a designation of "major selector"[36] for 30+ entities and the NCAA reports on (only) their selections in its annual FBS Record Book.pg. 112, 114-119 These facts mean that in any year, multiple teams can earn "national champion" recognition from these major selectors when there is disagreement on the "national champion."[37]
Sullivan9211 is engaged in longterm DE in this topic space, regularly removing content and citations contrary to the above.
Today on the Missouri Tigers football article, Sullivan9211 removed Missouri's 2007 national championship which was awarded by Anderson & Hester and the 3 supporting citations.[38] Anderson & Hester is designated by the NCAA as a major selector.[39]
Similarly, on the College football national championships in NCAA Division I FBS article, with an edit made within the "#Total championship selections from major selectors by school:" section, Sullivan removed Missouri's 2007 championship awarded by Anderson & Hester and three supporting citations.[40]
Sullivan9211 has engaged in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry in this topic space. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sullivan9211/Archive and "This is patently transparent. What do you have to say?" And ignored admin User:Bbb23 ("Please confirm that GeauxCajuns1981 is your account. If it is, why did you create it and why do you need it going forward?").
My prior 2018 ANI topic space report[41] with extensive diffs on DE and NOR has not resulted in a change in behavior, while Sullivan9211 offered an ambiguous response.[42]
Wikipedia:Competence is required. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
.eco Dispute
- JWatTheDotECO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- .eco (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Lourdes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Davidwr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There has been a long-simmering and recently smoking dispute at .eco, which was recently reported by Davidwr to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. JWatTheDotECO was edit-warring at the same time that I was trying to mediate. Admin Lourdes then blocked JWatTheDotECO for 72 hours for edit-warring. This is secondarily a request for review of the block, which I believe was reasonable. This is primarily a report on the dispute.
The subject of the article, .eco, is the .eco top-level domain of the Internet. My reading of the Reliable sources is that ICANN, the consortium that manages top-level domains, assigned management of the domain to Big Room in 2017, and that is what the stable versions of our article on the domain have said. However, it also seems that Planet ECO trademarked .ECO (which differs from the domain by case) in about 2008. The trademark appears to conflict with the domain. My own opinion is that Planet ECO is acting as a trademark troll. JWatTheDotECO has been cautioned repeatedly on their talk page about edit-warring.
JWatTheDotECO has been edit-warring to provide "their" version of the .eco article. Davidwr requested dispute resolution at DRN. I tried to begin mediation, but the facts about the domain appeared to be as stated. JWatTheDotECO resumed edit-warring to provide "their" version of the article. The edit war was reported at the edit-warring noticeboard, and Lourdes imposed a block.
My own opinion on the block is that the block was justified, but can lifted if the blocked editor makes a reasonable unblock request and agrees to discuss the dispute. It may be necessary to ask for advice from WMF Legal as to the strange conflicting intellectual property issue, although I hope not. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- On the face of it, it looks to me like the block was entirely justified and necessary - they were very obviously edit warring, and blew through 3RR like it wasn't there. There also appears to be an obvious COI issue - if they pick this up when the block expires, I'd have thought an indefinite partial block from the article would be in order, they seem to be unable to edit it non-disruptively. GirthSummit (blether) 17:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Procedural comment/request Any further action on this case should be deferred until he has a chance to respond. With that in mind, I recommend putting a "hold" on this (except for the WMF/Legal issue) until he is allowed to edit this page or otherwise participate in this discussion. One way to do that would be to change his block so that he was allowed to edit this page but not content or content-discussion pages, e.g. change the block so it applied to at least "mainspace" and "Talk:" while leaving this page or all of Wikipedia: namespace unblocked. Since his block is only 72 hours, another option is to put this "on hold" (except the WMF issues) until the block expires. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I respectfully disagree with User:davidwr that action should be deferred until User:JWatTheDotECO comes off block. They had a chance to discuss rather than edit-warring, and they have the right to request an unblock. I think that, if they agree that they will avoid edit-warring in the future, their block should be downgraded to a partial block to permit them to take part in this discussion. But we don't have to wait for them to come off a block that they brought on themselves, and the facts as reported by reliable sources appear to be against them about the domain, even if the trademark is a toll bridge that they are acting as a trademark troll gatekeeper for. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ultimately we have to go with the sources. And the sources are likely correct considering the domain name for planetdoteco is planetdoteco.com rather than planet.eco and go.eco belongs to Big Room Inc. Planetdoteco is free to take up any trademark dispute they may have with ICANN or with Big Room Inc, unless WMF actually says we need to do something which I doubt, it doesn't concern us unless covered in reliable sources. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Robert McClenon: - I would just note that JWatTheDotECO is a new editor as of 12 November 2020 and has only edited the .eco article/Talk page and their own User Talk page. Despite efforts by both Davidwr and myself to provide info about how Wikipedia works, they may or may not yet understand how to engage in other aspects of Wikipedia operations, and so there may not be an unblock request. This may also explain their lack of participation thus far in providing statements into the DRN process. Thank you for your work on resolving this situation. - Dyork (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Quick note from me. I almost got blocked for violating WP:3RR while trying to revert back JWatTheDotECO's edits, to the clean version Davidwr agreed to.I think the block threat was justifed, but do you think it is? Techie3 (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Useless Personal Attack
User:JWatDotECO just insulted User:davidwr: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.eco&type=revision&diff=1005653691&oldid=1005646410&diffmode=source I do know how to read federal (US) contracts, but I also know that federal contracts are not involved in this dispute. A trademark is not a federal contract, but a different type of federal grant of intellectual property. A top-level domain is not a federal contract, and is not awarded by the US government, but by ICANN, which, as its name says, is international. So the insult is irrelevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Proposed ABAN
I propose that User:JWatDotECOUser:JWatTheDotECO be article-banned from the .eco page, for a history of edit-warring, a conflict of interest, and personal attacks. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment I think Robert McClenon meant JWatTheDotECO (talk · contribs) not JWatDotECO (talk · contribs). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - Thank you, User:davidwr. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support since, given JW's limited interests ABAN ≈ a BAN for his UPE & attempted hijacking of the article about a gTLS for his non-notable trademark. Cabayi (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support I initially blocked JWat. Our productive editors' time is being wasted in working out and working around JWat's various assertions and edit wars. This should be settled right here asap. Lourdes 14:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - the report by LightningComplexFire at WP:RFPP mentions three users - TheDotECO, JWatTheDotECO and Jacobmalthouse. There's a definite aroma of smelly socks here. Mjroots (talk) 20:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- The last one you mentioned appears to be a totally different person, with a different COI. As for the first two, whether it's meat or sock or just two editors with the same COI/funder, well, there is almost certainly a connection of some sort. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- That should be TheDotECO (talk · contribs) (uppercase O) which looks to be a sock of JW. Jacob is director of the other company. Cabayi (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Corrected. Mjroots (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- That should be TheDotECO (talk · contribs) (uppercase O) which looks to be a sock of JW. Jacob is director of the other company. Cabayi (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- The last one you mentioned appears to be a totally different person, with a different COI. As for the first two, whether it's meat or sock or just two editors with the same COI/funder, well, there is almost certainly a connection of some sort. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - So much edit warring deserves a perma-block --🔥LightningComplexFire🔥 20:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support - clearly a net negative, and not here to build an encyclopaedia. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 20:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Limited support for a page-block on .eco and perhaps other articles closely related to this topic should the need arise later, but opppose a block or ban from discussion pages related to this topic at least for now. Remember, the purpose of a block or ban is to protect the encyclopedia. In this case, blocking him from discussions does not serve that purpose. Furthermore, in my opinion, at least some of the things he has said in the discussion have ultimately improved the .eco article. Disclaimer: I am very involved in the dispute (I'm one of the editors listed above), and am generally against the edits he has made to .eco, on balance they have hurt far more than they have helped. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support – From what I can see, JWatTheDotECO is only here to promote an entity that pays him/her. He/she also is prone to using bullying tactics and making legal threats. We need to be inclusive and supportive and welcoming and all that, but I don't see the ROI in allowing an admittedly COI editor to waste all this time. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- If you are correct, then a page-block will reduce HIS return on investment to nearly zero and he may walk away since Wikipedia will be a "waste of time" for him. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Davidwr: I didn't mean to offend you. I spend a great deal of my time here cleaning up vandalism and other messes (sometimes by well-intentioned people). There are a few misguided souls, though, who are not here to build an encyclopedia, and I don't believe Wikipedia is worse off if they go away. I'll bend over backward to encourage and help newbies who I think might learn to follow the rules, but I just don't have time for people who abuse the system, or take pleasure in destroying other folk's work. I'm sorry if I sound like a hard-ass, but this project is a planetary treasure, and I don't have a lot of patience for those who try to tear it down. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:29, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support per above. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Repeating a prior RfC
When it is appropriate to re-litigate a prior RfC? I'm asking based on a RfC that Snooganssnoogans opened at talk:Tim Pool. In 2019 a RfC regarding the claim that Tim Pool promoted the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory was conducted [[43]]. It closed with a consensus to exclude. That material was recently added and removed from the article. I removed it this morning based on the outcome of the prior RfC. Snoogans opened a RfC to relitigate the content. I'm commented out the RfC tag to pause the RfC as I think it is improper but I wanted to get some feedback on that view. My concerns are:
- There was no recent talk page discussion related to this content as per WP:BEFORERFC.
- No new sources for the claim were presented. Basically it appears that nothing external to Wikipedia changed. Is it valid to simply re-run a RfC because you weren't happy with the prior result? Would this depend if the prior close was consensus vs no consensus?
- The stated reason to relitigate was, "it's worthwhile to re-visit the topic, given that a large share of the votes to exclude this content were by blocked sockpuppets, single-purpose accounts, and other editors who have been banned or retired." The closing editor said they discounted SPAs. I don't see any evidence that other editors weren't in good standing at the time. I'm concerned that this seems to be a case of "we've kicked enough editors from side B off the island, lets vote again". That seems like a problematic justification to reopen a RfC. Am I wrong in thinking this?
Please note that this is meant to be a question about best practice only. While I disagree with the other editor's actions this is not meant to impugn the editor. If consensus here is the RfC was valid I support restoring the RfC. Springee (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Springee, There's been a lot more discussion of this and other politically motivated conspiracy theories lately, so while the content should remain out of the article for now based on the 2019 RfC, a new RfC is probably legitimate, as long as the person proposing it can show new sources on which it might be based. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree that if Snoogans presented new sources the old RfC could be revisited. However, the proposed sources are the same ones from the last RfC (or date to the same time period). Springee (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yup. The takeaway is: bring new sources. I agree that a new RfC with no new sources is at least somewhat disruptive - akin to the endless retreading of failed move requests. Guy (help! - typo?) 20:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I would agree that if Snoogans presented new sources the old RfC could be revisited. However, the proposed sources are the same ones from the last RfC (or date to the same time period). Springee (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- It seems to me that a new RfC is procedurally OK in a case like this, where the last RfC was sixteen months ago, new sources may have been published (or come to light), some participants in the last RfC turned out to be sockpuppets or SPAs, and the initiator of the RfC is acting in good faith. Even if the closer of the previous RfC made an effort to discount SPA votes, socks are not always obvious, and some of them may have been caught after the old RfC concluded. (I don't know if that's the situation in this case). In any event, it seems these types of issues should generally be resolved on the merits rather than strict procedure. I do agree that a best practice is to propose some new sources, or at least updated wording (if applicable), but I don't think that's an absolute prerequisite. Neutralitytalk 19:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- This requires common sense. Since consensus can change, a new RfC might be justified. However, there should be some reason to do so. Snooganssnoogans says that "a large share of the votes to exclude this content were by blocked sockpuppets [etc.]" Yet the closing administrator wrote, "There is consensus to exclude the accusation, even after the views of SPAs and discounted."[44]
- The main reason to exclude was that it was a comment made in passing in an article not about Pool. Nothing has changed. Furthermore, Snooganssnoogans should have discussed the issue first.
- I would suggest therefore that Snooganssnoogans close the RfC and discuss the topic. I think too that he should realize that Wikipedia articles are not here to attack people we think deserve it, but merely to summarize what reliable sources say about them.
- TFD (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Given that this is nothing more than rehashing the 2019 RfC with basically the same sources what is the best way to handle a situation like this? Springee (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Uncontroversial page move
Can an admin please G6 Luke Combs discography so I can move Luke Combs Discography to that title? Thanks. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: You can use WP:RM, I believe. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's an uncontroversial housekeeping move, so I'm asking it to be done per G6. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Uncontroversial requests are handled at WP:RM#TR too. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- The page was already nominated with {{db-move}}, there's no need to be that bureaucratic to force them to another board. That being said, it was nominated with {{db-move}}, so I'm not really sure the urgency that requires an AN post.
- That being said, I've moved the page. Primefac (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Uncontroversial requests are handled at WP:RM#TR too. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's an uncontroversial housekeeping move, so I'm asking it to be done per G6. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
There is a holocaust denier that is trying to put Neo Nazi websites as sources Can some one stop them?
They are posting links to sources such as, HOLOCAUST DEPROGRAMMING COURSE – Free yourself from a lifetime of Holo-brainwashing about “Six Million” Jews “gassed” in “Gas Chambers Disguised as Shower Rooms https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Pink_Swastika&diff=1005035677&oldid=1004876187.78.92.85.246 (talk) 04:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Indeffed. Thanks for the heads-up. Acroterion (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Huge CSD backlog
Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion is severely backlogged right now. I tagged Colder Places for A9 speedy deletion on February 1 and it still hasn't been deleted. There should be literally no reason that a speedy deletion should take almost as long to clear out as a prod. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- There are plenty of reasons: there are no admins working those areas recently, it's a grey area, no one noticed the tag, cache issues... so yes, there are reasons. The hyperbole is a little unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure this isn't the first time TPH has got impatient about deletion backlogs. Meanwhile, I (and I'm certain Barkeep) would like anyone who knows the CSD criteria inside out to pop over Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes please. Feel free to get in touch privately for an assessment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: I added my name to that list but still nothing has happened! [FBDB] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure this isn't the first time TPH has got impatient about deletion backlogs. Meanwhile, I (and I'm certain Barkeep) would like anyone who knows the CSD criteria inside out to pop over Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, for my part, I tend to let the AfD play out in those cases. Mackensen (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's a pity TPH has such a poor block log. Might have made admin otherwise and been able to pitch in. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- All the pages I've tagged recently (mainly U5/G11) have been dealt with within a few hours. The backlog in other categories appears to be down. Pahunkat (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've been picking at CSD a bit today. We're down to ~40-50ish items in the category. SQLQuery me! 20:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Admin-overturned RfC closure at Talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello,
I wanted to seek a 3rd party admin for input on a matter in regards to another admin (User:El C) unilaterally overturning an RfC close I made. Following the close, there were discussions regarding it here and below is a condensed summary from my perspective:
El C had expressed their unfavorability towards my non-admin closure, and in general, to another editor, ProcrastinatingReader, and particularly noted my being relatively new to Wikipedia. In a related post-closure discussion under the RfC, ProcrastinatingReader had chimed in on a contentious debate of the meaning of the RfC by explaining the closure challenge process (1). Not having any real issue with someone challenging my close, as I believed that actually would have been more beneficial to the process than taking my assessment at face value, I pinged both El C and ProcrastinatingReader that they should feel free to do so. In return El C began discussing my lack of experience (which is a valid point), but then began discussing the remedy in a pompous sort of manner, making a declaration of authorizing others to overturn and re-close as they see fit (2). Confused, I asked for justification on why my close was not valid beyond just my account age and edit count, citing this policy. He had already reverted my close, re-opening the RfC himself at this point (3). In response, I got more "you're too young" styled remarks regarding how few talk page messages I've received and an argument that normal rules do not apply
because of discretionary sanctions on the topic of American politics, as well as an odd WP:Wikilawyering accusation (4). Eventually ProcrastinatingReader ended up re-closing it, despite prior discussion of starting normal closure challenge process.
Throughout this, El C was unable to specifically point to why my close was biased, wrong, insufficient, etc. that warranted it to be overturned immediately and by circumventing the typical challenge process, only that he vaguely disagreed with my estimation of rough consensus (despite having admitted to not having the time to closely review the discussion comments himself).
All-in-all this left a bad taste in my mouth coming from an admin, even if my inexperience was a valid concern. I am not seeking any specific action here, I don't seek to un-overturn an overturned closure. I only want to get input from uninvolved admins (and experienced non-admins as well) and advice regarding the incident for better information on relevant procedures, guidelines, standards, etc.
Note: this request isn't to do with the actual content of the RfC or the merit of my original formal close, only insofar as it relates to the actions of, and discussions leading up to, overturning it.
Thanks in advance,
HiddenLemon // talk 11:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Update: In the mentioned talk page, El C has threatened logging sanctions against me for not complying with his "instructions" and supposedly "misusing" the talk page by presumably challenging his decisions (5). He also removed the entire above ANI message (6) (which I just reverted 7) because he asked me to go to a different venue. HiddenLemon // talk 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Update2: This is the 3rd time I'm reposting this ANI message. I tried to add the above update but the section was deleted by El C again before I could publish (8). Discussion between him and I on my talk page may be relevant (including some bad faith accusations of being a sock and vague threats of investigation[?]). HiddenLemon // talk 11:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment As an editor with less than six months experience and five hundred edits, you shouldn't have been closed a major discussion like that. A couple of other experienced editors expressed concern about the close, and the fact that you subsequently cited sources to back up your close suggests it was a supervote (you should not be making closes based on your own knowledge, only on the opinions given in the discussion). Re-opening it seems reasonable to me. Number 57 12:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- These distortions and personal attacks from this user with only ~300 edits are totally suspect. Their RfC closure was deeply flawed, as both PR and myself have attempted to convey to them, on multiple occasions. But a tendentious timesink followed nonetheless, with unresponsive, evasive argumentation. I've been trying to bring a semblance of order to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol for a while now. Users like Hidden Lemon bring about much disorder, unfortunately. Anyway, I've instructed them to challenge my use of WP:ACDS to overturn their closure (regardless of whether they wish to see it reinstated or for whatever reason) at WP:ARCA, but they want to go on and on in a Wikipedia:Dramaboard sort of way. Why? Who knows. El_C 12:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hidden Lemon, I also agree that only very experienced editors or administrators should attempt to close long and contentious discussions like this one, and you are not among those. Sandstein 13:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- There appear to be several issues here. Firstly, Hidden Lemon should not have closed the RfC, but I think even he recognises that now. Secondly, new users shouldn't run straight for admin areas as they'll generally end up causing more problems than they solve - although in this case I think it was because Hidden Lemon was slapped with an AfD on one of his creations so he "learned the ropes" out of necessity. Thirdly, I think it would be best if you just dialled it back a bit El C, as from an outsider's point of view, it looks like you have it in for him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I'm a bit weirded out, but time well spent...? As a "strange guy" who acts in a "a pompous sort of manner," guess I'll just see y'all in the next one. El_C 15:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the input Ritchie333, but I didn’t understand how the AfD you brought up was related to your second point. Could you elaborate? HiddenLemon // talk 16:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hidden Lemon, Well, most users come here because they want to write something for the encyclopedia, or otherwise improve an article. It's only later, if at all, that they discover the "back end" side of things . In my case, several off-wiki friends complained about articles they were interested in being deleted, so I sought out if I could do something about it. So, that's a logical explanation why you're interested in ANI, when most genuine new users (as opposed to banned users coming back as a sockpuppet and carrying on as if nothing happened) just stay in mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh I see, that sort of explains the odd assumptions regarding my motivations El C seemed to make. Appreciate it, Ritchie333, thanks. HiddenLemon // talk 16:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hidden Lemon, Well, most users come here because they want to write something for the encyclopedia, or otherwise improve an article. It's only later, if at all, that they discover the "back end" side of things . In my case, several off-wiki friends complained about articles they were interested in being deleted, so I sought out if I could do something about it. So, that's a logical explanation why you're interested in ANI, when most genuine new users (as opposed to banned users coming back as a sockpuppet and carrying on as if nothing happened) just stay in mainspace. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- There are few articles which could come close to being as controversial as 2021 storming of the United States Capitol, and those that are as controversial generally are also under some form of discretionary sanctions like anything related to The Balkans. I agree with the others that you really should not be thrusting yourself into what is essentially an arbiter's role in a discussion area as highly sensitive as this one. This is a highly visible area of Wikipedia, and one where mistakes are not easily forgivable. --WaltCip-(talk) 17:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Hidden Lemon: Could you provide diffs with your statement, so that way your allegations could be evaluated properly. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- MJL I just added them to my original statement, is there anything in particular you were wanting to look at that I missed? Thanks! HiddenLemon // talk 00:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hidden Lemon I haven't reviewed this in detail, but I'll make some general comments. We try exceptionally hard to have as little bureaucracy as possible here. Some decisions, however, are more complicated and/or controversial than others and we reserve those kinds of decisions for our more experienced users. For sure, anything involving 2021 storming of the United States Capitol is going to peg the controversy meter. These are the sorts of areas where even highly experienced admins fear to tread, and sometimes get closed by a panel of three admins, to ensure not just that process is followed, but to eliminate any appearance of bias. You should review WP:NAC. While I certainly appreciate that you want to help out with administrative tasks, this was not the place for somebody with your level of experience to get their feet wet. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Putin's Palace
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could an uninvolved editor or administrator please close Talk:Putin's_Palace#Requested_move_30_January_2021 as snow close. TFD (talk) 17:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, has it been 7 days already? Will do. El_C 17:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
SPI backlog is back
Hi everyone, the SPI backlog is back! (and unlike the McRib it doesn't look to be going anywhere.) While the work of the SPI clerk team and CU team handle many of these, I just wanted to post a note reminding people that we need admins to regularly patrol it, and that there is not any special permission to do so. The blocking policy allows any admin to block for disruption, and socking is part of that.
While some of the cases can be complex, many of them are straightforward and can be easily resolved without the need for CU or that much time. There's just a huge volume, so help is very much appreciated. If anyone has any questions about how to patrol SPIs, or would like to ask questions before getting more involved, feel free to reach out to me, and I'm sure any other CU or member of the SPI would be happy to help as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is generally not as much work as it sounds like. As an admin, all you really need to do is look at the evidence that's already been provided and decide whether it's convincing enough to block someone. You don't have to do your own investigation. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
"Trigger"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Somebody please tell "Super Dromaeosaurus" that this isn't Facebook, and that this kind of language is not acceptable. I'm so pissed that I don't even care for warning this editor, and I'm biting my tongue while saying "editor". Drmies (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Um... are you seriously an administrator? Super Ψ Dro 22:49, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Super Dromaeosaurus: Don't antagonize Drmies any further, please. Be more polite and don't use offensive language.
@Drmies: He isn't a native speaker, so let's take that into consideration. Dromaeosaurus maybe doesn't understand the term's entire connotations. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)- I'm sorry, I've been called disruptive, threatened to be blocked, reported on here, and apparently my intention to being an editor is being doubted by this user, AND I'm the one antagonizing people over here?? And as far as I know, "trigger" is a synonym of "annoy". If its something worse, my bad, but anything else about this situation is being overly exaggerated. How am I being warned by three editors as far but this person gets nothing for getting so angry over this edit? Super Ψ Dro 23:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I know Drmies reverted your edit and left you a templated warning, but I didn't see where you were threatened with a block by him? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- MJL, that's what {{uw-unsourced3}} says:
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. El_C 23:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: Ah, missed that. The talk is pretty hard to read on mobile. Yeah, that was pretty much overkill. Drmies should probably apologise for that. It wasn't very nice. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- MJL, what is appropriate, you think, for an editor who knowingly restores unverified information while acknowledging they were restoring unverified information? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies: You kindly (and patiently) try to write them a note and explain the seriousness of our policies. If that's not worth doing (for whatever the case may be) then you maybe start with {{uw-unsourced2}}? You certainly don't escalate the matter this quickly, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I assume you've never used a templated warning in your life? But seriously, a user insults me and then I should apologize for being insulted--cause it was all my fault? Next time you want to patronize me, don't bother pinging. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies: You kindly (and patiently) try to write them a note and explain the seriousness of our policies. If that's not worth doing (for whatever the case may be) then you maybe start with {{uw-unsourced2}}? You certainly don't escalate the matter this quickly, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- MJL, what is appropriate, you think, for an editor who knowingly restores unverified information while acknowledging they were restoring unverified information? Drmies (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: Ah, missed that. The talk is pretty hard to read on mobile. Yeah, that was pretty much overkill. Drmies should probably apologise for that. It wasn't very nice. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- MJL, that's what {{uw-unsourced3}} says:
- I'm really confused by Drmies' edit summary; none of the list's links are external links; the blue links are all links to preexisting articles on here. I think he meant that each item on the list should have a citation to establish verifiability? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Which edit summary of mine? This is the one for the revert we're talking about. It echoes this one. You are confusing it with this one, which pertains to External links and has nothing to do with the warning for the editor. The warning was never about External links--I find it odd you'd think that there would be blue links to Wikipedia articles in an External links section; surely you know what "external" means. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, that is my oversight as I was looking at the one previous. I still have to agree the warning seems overly excessive for a regular. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Which edit summary of mine? This is the one for the revert we're talking about. It echoes this one. You are confusing it with this one, which pertains to External links and has nothing to do with the warning for the editor. The warning was never about External links--I find it odd you'd think that there would be blue links to Wikipedia articles in an External links section; surely you know what "external" means. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Super Dromaeosaurus, no, the problem is very simple. The idea that a seasoned admin would challenge you because he is "triggered" is entirely inappropriate. We weren't born yesterday. Dial back the rhetoric please. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh okay do whatever you want but leave me alone already. Block me for one revert and for saying "triggered". But know that this whole discussion is completely biased. I find it amazing that so many people are turning against me over such a childish and simple thing. I am losing a lot of respect for admins today (although it seems that there is at least one whose first reaction has not been to throw himself against me). Super Ψ Dro 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- Folks, honestly, it is possible for the meaning of words to get lost in translation. I remember, I think it was in 2017, when I first heard the term snowflake and I had no idea what it meant. I think I recall being confused about the context, asking the editor (whom I believe I had blocked): are you calling yourself "snowflake" (as in good) or me "snowflake" (as in bad)? Then they explained it to me (they were not gentle!). El_C 23:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Super Dromaeosaurus: Calm down. You aren't going to be blocked over this. Just let people discuss the issue, and things will play out the right way. I know this can be stressful, but please just take a step back and stop replying so much, okay?
(edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to wrap up the "triggered" part of this dispute amicably(ish), at least. And I think, MJL, that your first instinct was right. Super Dromaeosaurus admits that they were unaware of the "connotations" — they thought it was just a synonym for, as they say above, "annoyed." Which I totally believe. They may speak English in an advanced level, but their native tongue is Spanish. It isn't at all unreasonable for them to be an established editor on the English Wikipedia, while still not picking up on the "Trigger warning" facet of it (yes, it is in Trauma_trigger#In_higher_education, but you have to really know what you're looking for in order to properly absorb that). El_C 00:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any dictionary in which "trigger" equals "annoy". Wrap it up if you like, El C, but, if you don't mind, tell the editor that there's nothing childish about WP:V. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I'm actually kind of taken aback by this response. English-as-a-second language speakers don't just study dictionaries to learn new words (well some probably do, but it's obviously not common). English has so many idioms and anachronistic terms that there would be little point to picking up words with anything besides hearing others use a term and the relevant context clues. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- "Trigger" used in this way is the opposite of an "anachronistic" usage; what would be odd would be for an ESL speaker to use "trigger" to mean "annoy", a very modern meaning, without knowing the values attached to it. I don't understand the second part of your third sentence, but I'm not sure it matters. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Drmies: I'm actually kind of taken aback by this response. English-as-a-second language speakers don't just study dictionaries to learn new words (well some probably do, but it's obviously not common). English has so many idioms and anachronistic terms that there would be little point to picking up words with anything besides hearing others use a term and the relevant context clues. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- El C, agreed. Solidly in m:DICK territory. Guy (help! - typo?) 01:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm probably gonna leave that to someone else, Drmies — I feel like I've been poked and prodded enough today to be wary of seeking any more of it. But, as someone who learned English pretty much on-the-fly, I have made some truly bizarre errors in my days, ones that would often just floor whichever native speaker I was communicating with at the time. And I still do, even, from time to time (just a lot less than before). El_C 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any dictionary in which "trigger" equals "annoy". Wrap it up if you like, El C, but, if you don't mind, tell the editor that there's nothing childish about WP:V. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to wrap up the "triggered" part of this dispute amicably(ish), at least. And I think, MJL, that your first instinct was right. Super Dromaeosaurus admits that they were unaware of the "connotations" — they thought it was just a synonym for, as they say above, "annoyed." Which I totally believe. They may speak English in an advanced level, but their native tongue is Spanish. It isn't at all unreasonable for them to be an established editor on the English Wikipedia, while still not picking up on the "Trigger warning" facet of it (yes, it is in Trauma_trigger#In_higher_education, but you have to really know what you're looking for in order to properly absorb that). El_C 00:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh okay do whatever you want but leave me alone already. Block me for one revert and for saying "triggered". But know that this whole discussion is completely biased. I find it amazing that so many people are turning against me over such a childish and simple thing. I am losing a lot of respect for admins today (although it seems that there is at least one whose first reaction has not been to throw himself against me). Super Ψ Dro 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I know Drmies reverted your edit and left you a templated warning, but I didn't see where you were threatened with a block by him? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I've been called disruptive, threatened to be blocked, reported on here, and apparently my intention to being an editor is being doubted by this user, AND I'm the one antagonizing people over here?? And as far as I know, "trigger" is a synonym of "annoy". If its something worse, my bad, but anything else about this situation is being overly exaggerated. How am I being warned by three editors as far but this person gets nothing for getting so angry over this edit? Super Ψ Dro 23:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Super Dromaeosaurus: Don't antagonize Drmies any further, please. Be more polite and don't use offensive language.
- That lvl 3 warning doesn't seem justified to me. Also if there is something wrong with saying someone was "triggered", that's news to me, too. Does the word have a meaning in unfamiliar with? Levivich harass/hound 00:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a very common taunt to ask if someone is "triggered". Many people also find it to be offensive or at least insensitive to use as a synonym for "annoyed" or "bothered" given its quite serious meaning for those with PTSD and other mental health disorders. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- And the original diff given is certainly implying the insulting form of "triggered" in context. --Masem (t) 01:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- This was clearly used in the context of a taunt, an insult, or trolling. "
haha one single revert triggers you that much
". SQLQuery me! 03:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)- Well yes, but nobody should be posting at AN about a taunt, insult, or trolling — one rude comment isn't even worthy of ANI, but AN is def not the right place. If any non-admin posted this here (or at ANI), it'd be promptly closed as not actionable. This smacks to me of Drmies asking for fellow admins to back him up in a dispute. The quoted comment is a variation of the common retort "triggered much?" and I agree it's insulting, rude, a taunt, definitely insensitive and I can see the case for it even being offensive... but a lvl 3 template for a single revert is also what I would call a taunt, an insult, or trolling. If I reverted someone and they gave me a lvl 3 template for it, I would probably also respond with rude words. I do not believe this thread is a proper use of this noticeboard. AN should not be used as an "admins' club" for admins to get help from other admins in interpersonal disputes, and in this dispute, I see Drmies as being far more at fault for the excessive template and the escalation to AN, than Super's choice of words in response. Levivich harass/hound 03:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- This was clearly used in the context of a taunt, an insult, or trolling. "
- And the original diff given is certainly implying the insulting form of "triggered" in context. --Masem (t) 01:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a very common taunt to ask if someone is "triggered". Many people also find it to be offensive or at least insensitive to use as a synonym for "annoyed" or "bothered" given its quite serious meaning for those with PTSD and other mental health disorders. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Iranian provocateur on wikipedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don't understand why Iranian contributors roll back legal edits concerning Balochi? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1005352184
Chasing Balochi Articles and rolling back legal edits while making fake edits is complete vandalism by the Iranians!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Baloch_people#Please_protect_the_Baloch_people_page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali banu sistani (talk • contribs) 07:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nothing to see here. This user is making WP:TENDENTIOUS edits, and attempted to add a non-WP:RS citation, which I reverted, hence why he reported me for some bizarre reason. Not to mention he has WP:NPA issues, as he keeps calling me "Iranian" and "Parsi", as seen here for example. Not to mention he randomly calls my edits for "fake" and "vandalism." --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Articles created by Haunted Spy
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Haunted Spy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive308#Billy Chemirmir
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive317#Persistent BLPCRIME violations by Haunted Spy
Could something be done to stop this editor's creation of articles with serious policy violations, including egregious WP:BLP violations? Some examples;
Billy Chemirmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was created, and Haunted Spy's originial version looked like this. Despite the last sentence of the lead stating His trial is scheduled to begin on April 5, 2021
it describes him as a serial killer as fact, and in the "Exposure" section states as fact he committed certain crimes has yet to be convicted of.
Samuel Legg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (since deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Legg) described him as a serial killer, despite the subject being found unfit to stand trial (which Haunted Spy had got completely wrong when adding him to List of serial killers in the United States, incorrectly interpreting that as Found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed for life to Twin Valley Behavioral Health Center
). For transparency, unfit to stand trial generally happens before a trial gets underway. Not guilty by reason of insanity would be something that happens at the end of a trial, when a jury (or judge(s), depending on where the trial is) return a verdict that the defendant did commit the crime but was mentally ill at the time. They are not the same thing.
Deangelo Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (since deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deangelo Martin) described him as a serial killer and stated as fact he had committed serious crimes, despite being on trial at the time.
Grand Rapids Prostitute Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is their most recent article. While not containing any obvious WP:BLP violations, it's a complete distortion of the sources, a violation of WP:NPOV and has the result to cause distress to the dead women's friends and families. The article states as fact there is an unidentified serial killer responsible for the deaths of 11, or potentially 12, women, and also that All of the victims were either engaged in prostitution or had drug addictions
. There are 4 sources.
- "Police try to crack string of slayings" Lansing State Journal. November 3, 1996.
- Ed White (November 10, 1996). "Task Force Hunts Possible Serial Killer of 11 Women". Los Angeles Times.
- Ed White (October 31, 1996). "Victim No. 11: Dead Woman Had History of Prostitution". Associated Press.
- Lee Lupo (April 25, 2008). "Parents waits for answers in daughter's 1996 murder". Booth Newspapers.
I have not seen source#1 due to it needing an account, but as it is dated after the Associated Press article and before the LA Times article I am highly skeptical that it contradicts the consistent police stance in those. Source #2 says Authorities are puzzled by the slayings of 11 women in the region, including nine with links to the sex trade
and quotes a worker at a harbor for sex workers as saying she believed a serial killer was responsible, while saying police weren't sure but acknowledged it was possibly a serial killer. Source#3 says Most of the slain women were prostitutes or drug users
and Police aren’t sure whether a serial killer is responsible. ``It’s not appropriate to say it’s one person,″ Grand Rapids police Lt. Carol Price said Wednesday
. Source#4 doesn't even use the term "serial killer".
So despite one source saying nine out of eleven had links to the sex trade, and another saying that "most" of them were prostitutes or drug users, it has become a fact that "all" the victims were prostitures or drug users. Despite the fact the two sources quote the police as saying they aren't sure it was a serial killer that was reponsible, it has become a fact that a serial killer was reponsible for 11, or potentially 12 deaths. How can this editor be allowed to create articles such as this? 92.40.188.18 (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Whoa! Critical warning issued (direct link). El_C 15:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have draftified the newest article and linked to these concerns on its talk page. The user has sadly never been informed about the discretionary sanctions in this area. I have now done so, and if they continue to violate the biographies of living persons policy, they will be topic banned from the area without further warning. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Wait, do we allow PROXYING?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A few days ago, I blocked Mathsci (ANI complaint) for a month due to an WP:IBAN violation. I've allowed them to engage in some content discussions while blocked, just to wrap up anything outstanding, but today I put my foot down, citing WP:PROXYING (diff), but imagine my surprise when I read where it qualified its prohibition with: unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.
My operating assumption had always been that PROXYING on the part of blocked users (established or otherwise) is a prohibited act. Was I incorrect this entire time? Or am I otherwise missing something simple here and am just being stupid (likely)? Thanks! El_C 15:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think you've misunderstood the point of that exception. If a community and WMF banned editor points out that our article on living subject A says they are a paedophile with no sourcing, it's ridiculous to sanction someone because they fixed this after noticing the comment from the banned editor. It doesn't mean the banned editor is allowed to continue at it. Nil Einne (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: The exact text appears to have been in place since at least 2012, but I don't know when the spirit of the exception was put in. Sdrqaz (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, well, of course I already assume that an WP:EMERGENCY trumps all. But, otherwise, "independent reasons" reads pretty vague to me. Am I the only one confused by this? El_C 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- (EC) I chose an extreme example to illustrate the point, but because this is an area covered by WP:BANEX perhaps it risks more confusion. But anyway, just think of an example where the change is clearly warranted and not covered by banex e.g. an editor seriously added that a long dead individual is a murderer/traitor/prolific liar/whatever to the lead (think for example Stalin, George Washington, Richard Nixon) and a banned editor points this out. Should we sanction someone for reverting this change after noticing the banned editor's comment? The answer is surely no. However the banned editor is still not allow to request or discuss such changes, and it's fine to crack down on their attempts to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, well, of course I already assume that an WP:EMERGENCY trumps all. But, otherwise, "independent reasons" reads pretty vague to me. Am I the only one confused by this? El_C 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Going off the text of the policy there, it seems like what it is saying is that you take full responsibility for any edits you make on behalf of a blocked editor (you can't turn around and say "but they told me to do it!" as a defence). I have a different interpretation to NE above, I think: blocked editors are free to do so, but the community may not take too kindly to it. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, in this case, it involved fairly nuanced edits concerning Classical music (not the article, the topic area), so nothing urgent or of immediate significance to the project's reputation. Sdrqaz, I guess what I'm saying is that, when I cite a policy page, I'd like for it to make immediate sense, which I'm not finding to be the case here. El_C 16:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- El C, I think the first part of the sentence is slightly misleading, but when I read the whole sentence it makes sense. Given that it's quite a big exception, maybe the first part needs to be made less unequivocal. Maybe some sort of clarification RfC is in order. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, in this case, it involved fairly nuanced edits concerning Classical music (not the article, the topic area), so nothing urgent or of immediate significance to the project's reputation. Sdrqaz, I guess what I'm saying is that, when I cite a policy page, I'd like for it to make immediate sense, which I'm not finding to be the case here. El_C 16:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sdrqaz, a key reason for my inquiry here concerns the enforcement practices of other admins about PROXYING by blocked users. El_C 16:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is an area of policy I've always been slightly woolly on myself. I have often seen it said that the only legitimate use for a blocked user's talk page is to make an unblock request, but this isn't supported by any of the wording at WP:UP (there is some stuff about illegitimate use of talk when blocked at WP:UP#PROTECT, but nothing that would prohibit making good faith suggestions about changes to articles). WP:BLOCKEVASION has the same verbiage as WP:PROXYING, which in my view reads as 'don't edit on behalf of a blocked editor unless you're willing to stand by merits of the changes they suggest'. I'm glad I'm not the only one who is a bit vague on this, and look forward to hearing others' views. GirthSummit (blether) 16:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Say a banned editor says something which makes you think "ah, that's a good idea", just because it turned out to be a banned editor suddenly is everyone now prohibited from adding text along those lines because it would be classed as proxying? Sounds like an illogical application of policy. I'd call those "independent reasons" personally. I agree with Girth's interpretation myself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, the flipside to the presumed usefulness of (casual) content engagement by a blocked user is that it can be seen to be defeating the block action itself, with the user still being allowed to effectively edit. True, not business-as-usual editing, but effective editing nonetheless. El_C 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly akin to COI editors using edit requests? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Right, that's a decent parallel, except with COI users not otherwise being under a block sanction (or, at most, may be partially blocked). El_C 17:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think the best one can do is wait for an admin to block the banned editor. I think there's a difference between this vs me knowing an editor is banned and offering to make any edits they tell me to make (ie proxying).
- Otherwise this is effectively prohibitions on the addition of content on the basis that a blocked editor brainstormed it first. Next thing you know you'll have LTAs posting on WP:AN trying to get editors blocked for "proxying because I came up with the idea first!! DIFF." (hopefully not a WP:BEANS violation!). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Possibly akin to COI editors using edit requests? Sdrqaz (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, the flipside to the presumed usefulness of (casual) content engagement by a blocked user is that it can be seen to be defeating the block action itself, with the user still being allowed to effectively edit. True, not business-as-usual editing, but effective editing nonetheless. El_C 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Say a banned editor says something which makes you think "ah, that's a good idea", just because it turned out to be a banned editor suddenly is everyone now prohibited from adding text along those lines because it would be classed as proxying? Sounds like an illogical application of policy. I'd call those "independent reasons" personally. I agree with Girth's interpretation myself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- It's been discussed a time or two.
- Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_6#Proxy_edits
- Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_7#Proxy_editing_for_banned_users
- Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_8#Proxying_for_blocked_users?
- Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_23#RfC:_Blocked_editors_and_their_talk_pages
- Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_21#Proxy_editing
- Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_19#Use_of_talk_page_while_blocked
- Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_24#Requesting_clarification_of_EVASION_and_proxying
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive991#Improper_use_of_talk_page_while_blocked
- The general consensus has been that there's no consensus, and it's decided on a case-by-case basis.
- I frequently patrol CAT:RFU, and regularly see this explained to blocked editors - and occur. SQLQuery me! 18:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Personally I would've thought User_talk:Mathsci#Hymn_tune is proxying, since it's continuous communication on making edits, but I don't think anyone should actually be sanctioned for that since it seems to be an honest confusion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sanctioning was never on the table. Just wondering how to further instruct them on this matter... El_C 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Worth noting that, pragmatically, the discussion seems to be productive so perhaps a blind eye doesn't hurt. Then again, a lot of banned/blocked-editor-enforcement isn't pragmatic, and (for example) admins have previously rained G5 fire on good creations by banned users when discovered, so YMMV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Right, that's the point, it is productive — but should allowances be made by virtue of that, is what I find challenging at the present moment. El_C 18:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Worth noting that, pragmatically, the discussion seems to be productive so perhaps a blind eye doesn't hurt. Then again, a lot of banned/blocked-editor-enforcement isn't pragmatic, and (for example) admins have previously rained G5 fire on good creations by banned users when discovered, so YMMV. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sanctioning was never on the table. Just wondering how to further instruct them on this matter... El_C 18:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- So long the edits are productive and are not in violation of the IBAN (Or, if we're talking more generally, attempts to request edits in clear evasion of a block), and especially if it involves editors otherwise in good standing (as much as violating an IBAN with one other sometimes problematic but good standing editor is), I'd call WP:IAR (emphasis: "If a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore it.") and be done with it. In any case, WP:BLOCK is rather clear that these are preventive and not punitive measures; if such talk page discussion is not disruptive nor causing/requesting disruption, I'd be inclined to give experienced editors a fair bit of leeway, especially since there's nothing disruptive being prevented. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Its not allowed unless you’re an established editor with friends, then it is. What SQL says is the more diplomatic way of saying this. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- RandomCanadian, the problem with invoking WP:IAR for this is that it has potentially serious implications which immediate productivity may not offset. Will established editors take greater risks with the knowledge that, worse come to worse, if they're blocked, they can just continue editing from their own talk page with the help of a friend? Anyway, I try to peer deep and far. El_C 20:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- As I see it there are two possibilities with this. The first is that the block/ban is valid and such proxying should not be allowed. The second is that proxying should be allowed, which means that the block/ban shouldn't have been applied in the first place. The situation where an editor can't edit in theory but can in practice is simply bizarre. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, there was an unblock request, which was declined (diff), as far as this specific case is concerned, at least. El_C 20:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
TBAN appeal by Bgkc4444
Hi there. I'd like to appeal a ban made against me here, more specifically the TBAN. Wugapodes suggested I wait a few days before making an appeal, and I have waited a month couple months now, and even though the ban is over soon, it would be good for me to understand whether and why others agree/disagree with my suggestion. Additionally, WP:BANEX states that an editor should explain why their editing is excepted from the ban; I will be making reference to the banned topic and user here in order to address a legitimate concern about the ban itself in the appropriate forum. It's a complex case so I'll try keep it as brief as possible (which turns out isn't very brief), but I'm happy to provide more details if an administrator would find it useful as there is a lot more that I can say.
- I don't believe a TBAN against me can be considered to be the just outcome from the discussion. Only one administrator suggested a TBAN, while the others suggested an IBAN. As Wugapodes wrote on ANI, there wasn't much debate on the ban. When I responded to that one editor's suggestion of a TBAN explaining why this would not be the just outcome, I did not receive a response unfortunately. Furthermore, as Wugapodes said, the reason for the suggested TBAN is that an IBAN could be hard to enforce against editors if we edit in the same topic. However, Isento said "I really don't have a deep interest in editing Beyonce articles" and admitted to editing in such articles more just because I was editing in them as well, so I don't think an IBAN would be hard to enforce if there is no TBAN. Additionally, the issue with an IBAN would only stand if neither editor has a TBAN, but enforcing a TBAN on one editor will produce the same result as enforcing it on both. Also, this will be a long story so I'm happy to clarify further if requested, but the claims made against me that were used as the basis of the sanction (e.g. wikilawyering) were unexplained and unsubstantiated, and I asked many times for these claims to be clarified, but no diff was ever cited for such behavior. I do not see why I should be banned because of unsubstantiated claims made about me that I repeatedly asked for explanation of and received no response.
- Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our previous behavior and between our receiving of prior warnings and sanctions. Isento previously received multiple constructive talk page messages about his behavior, a final warning from an administrator after he told me: "Don't ping me with your pseudoliberal horsehit, little girl. Do you know of any -ism I can throw at you for smattering your hypocritical, self-righteous condescension with fake manners and exclamation points?", and a block from Ivanvector after further personal attacks were made against me and other editors and also modifying another editor's comment on a Beyonce-related talk page which QEDK and BD2412 warned him about, and this block happened shortly before the ANI report in question. During and after that block, he continued to make personal attacks against me and other editors, such as when he admitted his personal intolerance of me, called the administrators "hypocrites" and called ANI a "kangaroo court", as well as repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues during the ANI discussion in question as explained here (and later inappropriate behavior is explained below). This explains why a strong sanction such as a TBAN was placed against Isento, as talk page messages didn't help, formal warnings didn't help, and blocks didn't help. On the other hand, I have not once received a polite talk page message from Isento. As explained during the ANI discussion, Isento just repeatedly places warning templates on my talk page, including two within 24 hours, and replies sarcastically when I ask him to clarify, such as here. Importantly, for the issue that the ANI report was on, there was not even any form of talk page message or dispute resolution attempted before as should have been done, with Isento going straight to ANI over an issue that could have and should have been addressed through several possible means before an ANI report was necessary. Further, as well as not receiving constructive messages on my talk page, I have not even received any formal warning or block for my interactions with Isento. I do not see why someone who has never received any formal sanction for this let alone received constructive talk page messages should receive the same sanction as someone who has received multiple sanctions from administrators for his behavior in order to provide him with multiple chances to improve his behavior, which unfortunately has not been successful.
- Isento and I received the same sanction despite a significant difference between our behavior on Beyonce-related articles after the ANI report in question, as exemplified by the discussion on Talk:Beyoncé#RfC:_Should_the_subject_of_this_article_be_defined_as_a_songwriter_in_the_lead?. I always kept cool in this discussion and made constructive contributions, despite the fact that I faced several false accusations, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith by the few "no" voters. Worst of all, one of those editors (HĐ) made a false accusation about me to ANI citing solidarity with Isento, which Games of the world, TruthGuardians and HandThatFeeds all said was a false accusation that was highly inappropriate. The fact that I kept cool and did not make personal attacks even in the most severe cases where I was faced with strong attacks and provocation, means that I would never make such attacks, and so a TBAN is unnecessary. On the other hand, Isento hasn't made such changes to his behavior, and instead has also continued to make false accusations and assume bad faith about other editors during that discussion. He even made complaints to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" (Xurizuri and Israell) who disagreed with him about a Beyonce-related issue, also making false accusations and assumptions of bad faith against both of them, without even notifying them on their talk page. When Isento was told how inappropriate this was, such as by Binksternet, he did not take accountability for it. Such behavior shows that this isn't just a behavioral issue with me, but that this is a chronic issue that Isento has with editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. I do not see why someone who has learnt from their mistakes, is evidently trying to becoming a better editor and has not engaged in personal attacks etc since (even in the most severe of cases), should receive the same sanction as someone who - despite being on Wikipedia for 13 years and receiving sanctions for his behavior - does not indicate that he is learning from his mistakes or trying to become a better editor, and instead continues to engage in personal attacks etc specifically against editors who disagree with him on Beyonce-related issues. This is why I do not believe that the TBAN should be enforced against me. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face.
Thank you very much to anyone who can help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Bgkc4444, are you able to offer a condensed version of the appeal? I'm just finding it prohibitively lengthy, so myself, I am unlikely to review it for those reasons alone. Thanks and good luck! El_C 18:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: Sure, sorry about that! Hopefully this is better. I believe that the TBAN should be rescinded because:
- a) the TBAN was the suggestion of one editor and was not properly discussed and the consensus more indicated just an IBAN
- b) the reason given for the TBAN isn't a strong argument (it was said that an IBAN is difficult to maintain without a TBAN, but the user I am in the IBAN with said he edits in Beyonce-related articles more because I do too, and also having one TBAN causes the same effect as having two)
- c) the claims made against me that were used as reasons for sanction were unsubstantiated without any diffs given despite my repeated requests for explanation
- d) the other user had received multiple constructive talk page warnings, a final warning from an administrator and a recent block from an administrator regarding his behavior towards me on Beyonce-related issues, whereas I received none of those (most importantly, the editor did not try the correct methods of dispute resolution and went straight to making the ANI report against me)
- e) during and immediately after the ANI discussion where the other editor was blocked, as well as during the ANI discussion in question, he made multiple personal attacks such as calling the administrators hypocrites and repeatedly telling me I have mental health issues, whereas I did not make such attacks and yet we received the same sanction
- f) since the ANI discussion finished, the other editor and I were in the same disussion on a Beyonce-related article. I was faced with personal attacks and false accusations, including a false complaint to ANI cited in solidarity with the other editor. Despite this, I did not make any personal attacks in response, which shows that no matter how much I am provoked, I will no longer respond inappropriately. The other editor himself, however, made false accusations about editors and made a false complaint to ANI about a "Beyonce-related coterie of editors" who disagreed with him, without writing a message on those editors' talk pages. This shows a clear disparity between how the other editor and I will edit on Beyonce-related topics going forward, and yet we both received the same TBAN. TBANs are meant to be preventative, not retributive, and my behavior since the ANI discussion has shown that I will only be making constructive contributions to Beyonce-related articles and discussions, no matter how much provocation I face. Bgkc4444 (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Bgkc4444, honestly, you may be right about the unequitable warnings and otherwise sanctions — or maybe not. No idea. But the point is that you are asking reviewers here to do a fair bit of investigating for a topic ban that, what, expires in 2 months? So, maybe just sit this one out...? I'm just preparing you for the possible consequence of how scarce volunteer resources may be, especially about a really narrow sanction that expires soon(ish), anyway. Still, I can see you wanting to clear your name or whatever, notwithstanding these more pragmatic considerations. But as an active admin, I, for one, would not treat you differently due to this sanction (like as a problem user), if that helps at all. Anyway, who knows, maybe reviewers who are familiar with the case, or ones who possess the time and inclination to investigate, will show up to opine, after all. Good luck. El_C 20:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Allow me to take this opportunity to add my thoughts on topic bans. Wikipedia has well over 6 million articles now, covering literally hundreds of thousands of topic areas. It is possible for any author interested in working on the project to spend all their available hours working productively in any number of these areas. Topic bans are rare enough that I would counsel any editor subject to one to find something else to do for the duration. BD2412 T 20:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- El_C, BD2412, thank you both for your comments. I fully understand both of your points and recognize the practical challenge. However, I was told that I can make an appeal "any time before" the end of the ban, as well as that I shouldn't make an appeal too close to the ban's initiation, so I still hope that the appeal can be considered even if I have missed the short period of time in which making an appeal would be the most practical. Still, of course, the administrators have the power and superior knowledge of bans here, and I guess I don't have a choice in what admins choose to look at or don't. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is simply a problem with English language knowledge but I feel, if a topic ban was imposed on "6 January 2021", saying "waited a couple months now" on 7 February is likely to be considered misleading. Yes it's very slightly over a month, but it's hard to call that 2 months. (I don't think 2 months or 1 month matters much in a case like this, but it's still better not to confuse or mislead.) To be fair, Wugapodes also confusingly set their 3 month topic ban to expire on 6 March, but I'm fairly sure I haven't either entered a parallel universe or suffered a head injury that made me forget that there's an extra month between January and February. Perhaps one of the sources of confusion is that the discussion itself started on 12 December and so I guess the stuff that lead up to it was even before then. Nil Einne (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, that's a great point - thanks for noticing that. I saw the three-month ban was intended to end in March and assumed it had been two months - I've corrected it above. I assume the end date was a mistake and it should end in April. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've clarified on Bgkc4444's and Isento's talk pages that I'm bad at math, and out of fairness clarified that we should honor the end date I gave over the time frame since, when instructions conflict, we should prefer the specific over the general. to be clear, the sanction is now 2 months, still ending on March 6 as I told the editors, not three months as I stated in the close. As for the appeal, I don't have much to say beyond what I said in the discussion closure. Consensus for a TBAN was admittedly weak, but the reasoning was strong an unopposed: if we want to prevent disruption, pairing a TBAN with the IBAN would probably work best. If editors here think the TBAN is not WP:PREVENTATIVE then it should be removed. Reading the appeal, I'm not sure it makes the case for that clear, but I think point 1 in the OP which relies on this diff gets closest to answering that question. In my experience Bgkc4444 has been taking advice well, so I'm not really worried that lifting the TBAN will cause huge problems. — Wug·a·po·des 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: Thank you for your comment. Yes, that point is part of the reason, but I believe that the TBAN against me isn't preventing anything because I do not believe I have indicated that I will imminently or continually damage/disrupt Wikipedia. I may be misunderstanding these rules so please let me know if I am, but I read the sentence at WP:PREVENTATIVE which says "Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition" to mean that a TBAN is only used when it is believed that an editor will repeat their inappropriate behavior if the TBAN isn't implemented. I believe that this is not the case for me. As explained in the last point of the appeal above, there was a discussion on Beyonce's article that both the other editor and I participated in after the ANI discussion died down and before the IBAN and TBANs were implemented, and to me our respective behaviors during that discussion are indicative of what our behavior would have been if the TBAN wasn't implemented, and so are indicative of whether a TBAN is necessary. I was constructive in the discussion and receptive to others' concerns. Other editors did not do so to me, and even one complained about me to ANI about a false situation cited in solidarity with the editor I am in an IBAN with. Despite this, I did not retaliate or show inappropriate behavior to this editor, and I believe the fact that I did not show inappropriate behavior in such a severe case shows that I would never do so no matter how much provocation I face. I believe that this is what shows that the TBAN against me is not preventing anything. Just having the discussion on ANI showed me the appropriate way of interacting with others (which is why I said above that instead of the other editor going straight to ANI when he had a problem with my edits, he should have used the correct methods of dispute resolution such as a talk page message), while a TBAN doesn't help me with this. I am not saying that the TBAN for the other editor should be rescinded as well, as he assumed bad faith about the editors who disagreed with him in that discussion and made inappropriate complaints about them to ANI, but of course that is up to the admins to decide. Thank you for your help with this. Bgkc4444 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've clarified on Bgkc4444's and Isento's talk pages that I'm bad at math, and out of fairness clarified that we should honor the end date I gave over the time frame since, when instructions conflict, we should prefer the specific over the general. to be clear, the sanction is now 2 months, still ending on March 6 as I told the editors, not three months as I stated in the close. As for the appeal, I don't have much to say beyond what I said in the discussion closure. Consensus for a TBAN was admittedly weak, but the reasoning was strong an unopposed: if we want to prevent disruption, pairing a TBAN with the IBAN would probably work best. If editors here think the TBAN is not WP:PREVENTATIVE then it should be removed. Reading the appeal, I'm not sure it makes the case for that clear, but I think point 1 in the OP which relies on this diff gets closest to answering that question. In my experience Bgkc4444 has been taking advice well, so I'm not really worried that lifting the TBAN will cause huge problems. — Wug·a·po·des 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, that's a great point - thanks for noticing that. I saw the three-month ban was intended to end in March and assumed it had been two months - I've corrected it above. I assume the end date was a mistake and it should end in April. Bgkc4444 (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Intent to unblock
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- EEng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Beland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Support unblock for the reasons that I gave in a comment on Beland's talk page, just before seeing this at AN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- support unblock and a massive trout to Beland. There was no valid reason for this block and as Tony pointed out, it was punitive. CUPIDICAE💕 21:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Tony, I support you lifting the block. Having now read that diff's text, nothing struck me as too egregious. Maybe worthy of a warning (specified), but not of a block, certainly not for a full week. El_C 21:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Unblock - Blocking a user for comments made (and waned for) days ago appears to be punitive, not preventative. SQLQuery me! 21:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- support unblock Seems a bit silly to me. talk to !dave 21:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment and question Well, I very rarely block anyone, so if this isn't in line with usual practice, I certainly support whatever the consensus of administrators is. The sort of incivility that EEng has demonstrated is intermittent, so it is my hope both that we'd be spared another week of potential personal attacks on other editors, even if none might have happened during that time or in the previous two days. I really think the appropriate action in response to the conversation I found was an admonition, which is what I did. If someone then responds to an admonition not to engage in certain behavior by repeating that behavior on the spot, I'm not sure what other appropriate responses the community can take. This editor was blocked for a day or two for personal attacks before, and I guess not changed their behavior, so escalating block length was I thought a typical practice. Would this block have been appropriate if started two days ago? I wasn't pinged in EEng's reply, and I wasn't particularly quickly seeking out their reply because I was not looking forward to reading it, but if this happens again, if I reply quickly, is a block justified or would there be another reason not to? In reply to Tryptofish's comment on my user talk page, yes, I found this incivility in an archived conversation, though it wasn't particularly ancient. I was hoping the participants had had a chance to cool down so they could consider their actions calmly in retrospect, and thus improve the chances of a productive outcome. Perhaps a year or two ago I learned that Wikipedia is having editor retention problems, and that women have specifically reported quitting because they don't like arguing with rude and sharp-elbowed people whenever they have a concern about something. The best way I can think of to solve that problem is for uninvolved editors to speak up more often and admonish uncivil behavior. Folks have also complained that there are some long-time editors who have many positive contributions that remain uncivil because they have learned that such behavior will not have any consequences, and as they have interactions with large numbers of other editors, are suppressing editor retention. So I'm in support of stronger consequences in order to improve Wikipedia culture, but I'm open to ideas if other administrators have suggestions for a better approach than what I've been doing. -- Beland (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- In reply to the question you asked, in the future I wouldn't base it on the rapidity of your reply, but on a consideration of WP:NOTPUNITIVE. I also made another suggestion, about how to use DS, at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Tryptofish: I'm not sure how placing civility discretionary sanctions on a specific talk page would help much, given that the editor is exhibiting the behavior on a variety of pages. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am far more concerned now that you really don't know what the basic blocking policy is on Wikipedia and your response is, well, not good. CUPIDICAE💕 22:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Beland: would you be so kind as to provide a specific diff of such egregious incivility it required blocking Eeng? CUPIDICAE💕 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- In reply to the question you asked, in the future I wouldn't base it on the rapidity of your reply, but on a consideration of WP:NOTPUNITIVE. I also made another suggestion, about how to use DS, at your talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support Not only is it punitive, but it was made two days after EEng's (mildly combative) post which criticised Beland as well. I note that this was only this admin's third block since 2014, and so they may not be au fait with community norms on blocking. My concern would be that this type of block may have gone un-noticed if it were not of a high-profile editor. Black Kite (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was going to make this point myself, BK. I am concerned had it not been Eeng who has hundreds of talk page stalkers, this block could've led to an otherwise low-profile but productive editor to leave forever. CUPIDICAE💕 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Really? So if editor X insults editor Y, admin A gives a warning, editor X insults admin A > admin A is now involved. Are we actually saying that once editor X insults admin A, even in such a mild way that it's kind of laughable, they've made admin A involved? Is admin A now permanently involved w/re editor X? Can someone just go around mildly insulting admins until they reach number 1115 and declare victory? :D —valereee (talk) 23:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was going to make this point myself, BK. I am concerned had it not been Eeng who has hundreds of talk page stalkers, this block could've led to an otherwise low-profile but productive editor to leave forever. CUPIDICAE💕 22:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support unblock A block like this is not going to do anything for editor retention. It is another example of a legacy admin out of touch with policy. P-K3 (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support unblock Beland was involved, apart from this being ridiculous. I think this is admin abuse and I would like to see a review of Beland's admin actions. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Also, per Tony and every other rationale I've read. Yes. This is concerning. @Beland: Please unblock. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support unblock of comedy star EEng. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
- Support unblock. I don't believe I've ever blocked anybody for being uppity to me — I certainly hope not. It's not a good look. But Beland's comment above is extremely reasonable, and I'm glad to see it. Bishonen | tålk 22:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC).
- Support unblock per above. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Unblocked given the support above, and the openness of Beland to go with consensus, I have unblocked EEng. I’ll let someone else figure out when to close. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support unblock per my earlier comment mentiond at the top of this thread. I find it a little ironic that the comment on EEng's talk announcing the block praised another user for using "a productive technique to resolve the disagreement" instead of being confrontational. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support unblock. (edit conflict) Beland appears eager to learn from this particular situation. Outside of EEng and/or this specific case, I think there's a point that intermittent incivility is tough to deal with here. Let's unblock and move on. :) --Yamla (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support unblock. Curious, how long does anyone think this guy would last around here? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Support unblock block was clearly punitive. BTW wikipedia is not a courtroom so the analogy below is not germane. MarnetteD|Talk 22:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Strong oppose unblock. Let's face it, the guy's a schmuck. Longer block needed. C'mon people, let's Make Wikipedia Great Again!Mild support unblock Martinevans123 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Continued discussion after unblock granted
- Comment for @TonyBallioni: I think if a lawyer in a courtroom had said something like "the prosecutor is clearly incompetent to practice law, given that they believe..." or in Congress, "the Senator is incompetent to legislate on immigration issues because..." they would have been gavelled into silence because they would be derailing a rational debate by making a personal attack that's going to result in an irrational response not in the public interest. That's the standard of civility I had in mind. I know Wikipedia has seen much worse, but the current bar seems to be set a bit low. -- Beland (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Beland, honestly, there are plenty of areas of Wikipedia that I am admittedly incompetent in. And if I were and didn't know, I'd hope someone had the fortitude to straight up tell me about it. El_C 22:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, WP:CIRNOT would consider that a personal attack, and I agree with that. -- Beland (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, CIRNOT should be factored in, and of course, it makes sense to offset CIR that way — I suppose I'm just not seeing how it applied in this specific instance, is all... That is to say, the notion that we can't mention CIR, at all, in the course of a dispute, I don't think that makes sense (or is practical). El_C 22:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a court room, you're not a judge, jury or prosecutor, so I would get that idea out of your head otherwise it'll likely lead to more problems. CUPIDICAE💕 22:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: I'm not saying it is, but I'm using those as examples of similar forums that have requirements for civil language. Do you feel the standards used by those institutions are too strict for Wikipedia? Are there other examples you would look to instead? -- Beland (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I really think you should stop digging this hole, Beland. I'd also like to point out that this comparison demonstrates your lack of understanding of blocking policy, punishment, at least in the US, is punitive, as was your block. CUPIDICAE💕 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Some pearls to clutch CUPIDICAE💕 22:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC) - I don't think you are helping your cause here Praxidicae. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your opinion, I'll be sure not to take it into account. CUPIDICAE💕 23:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- No problem buddy, be sure that you do!
PackMecEng (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- No problem buddy, be sure that you do!
- Thanks for your opinion, I'll be sure not to take it into account. CUPIDICAE💕 23:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think you are helping your cause here Praxidicae. PackMecEng (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- CIRNOT should be read more carefully. If interpreted literally, WP:Competence is required should be deleted and that's not going to happen. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- You're not allowed to say Beland is incompetent - rightly so, it's a broad brush over the editor in question. What you are allowed to say is that Beland lacks the necessary competencies to be blocking people - for example, they don't understand blocking policy, are inexperiened in blocking other editors and so on. Nick (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- While I do support making Wikipedia more civil, I’m also not operating under the illusion that people disagreeing with each other on the internet are going to use parliamentary language all the time. The reply to you was a bit combative, but it’s on the lower end of that spectrum when people are mad at admins warning them. We tend to give people leeway when disagreeing with sysops warning them.The main reason for the unblock though, like I mentioned above, was that blocking someone two days later for a mildly heated comment isn’t in line with our practice or the language of the blocking policy. It doesn’t accomplish anything other than punishment. I went ahead and unblocked since there seemed to be unanimous agreement here that it was the right course. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
| External videos | |
|---|---|
 Not of the body! -EEng |
- Pragmatism is needed at Wikipedia. Surtsicna was making edits such as diff which were accurately described as WP:POINT in diff. Surtsicna's diff shows adding {{Not in body}} to referenced items in the infobox (the template documentation contradicts that usage). Under those circumstances, it is too much to expect pollyana engagement. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ya know, you often hear a lot about unblockables. Personally I've always been more concerned about undesysopables. 07:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. The link in the OP doesn't quite catch the entirety of my response to Beland that so offended him. The full response is at the bottom of the page here [45]. EEng 12:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Super Mario effect ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Leave Mike Lindell out of this! Scoundrel! El_C 14:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- EEng, your challenge now is to say something that will get you blocked by a competent admin without such a thin skin. I hope you won't take it up. And, regarding the undesysopables, an admin, who deleted everything that he saw with a speedy deletion tag on it, however inaccurate, took over a decade from when I first pointed this out to be desysopped, but it happened eventually. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Super Mario effect ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Wot EE said. At least one of my blocks have been over me pointing out, in very certain terms, that admins were enabling hopeless fellow admins. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 14:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- So if you are uncivil but get many friends, especially among admins, you get unblocked very soon. And whoever blocked you for incivility gets then threatened with desysop. Very nice.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- More like: if you're blocked inappropriately by a rusty old-school admin but have friends, the inappropriate block is likely to be noticed quickly and overturned. If you're blocked inappropriately but have few friends, no one might notice and the inappropriate block remains in place for a while, and possibly you get discouraged and quit. So yeah, the admin responsible should have a care lest the community decide to dispense with his or her services. And I was just thinking: a week? What planet is this guy from? EEng 17:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Am not gonna say it. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Ymblanter, respectfully (to all), the experience of that admin seems a bit in question to me. I've had days when I blocked more users than they have in total. Days? Hours, even... El_C 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that I've come to consider that responding to mere incivility with blocks as a generally bad idea. I remember returning from a long hiatus and almost blocking Volunteer Marek for comments that, today, I consider no more than plain unfriendly. Thank goodness I thought better of it! Look, being polite is important, but we shouldn't go overboard with forcing that too hard as an imperative, especially with safe space sort of notions. For being in the trenches of the worldwide collaborative information project, I think we're doing alright. El_C 16:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I can post right now at least half a dozen comments way more incivil than that that have been thrown at me in the past week alone. Shrug. Volunteer Marek 16:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Like, I had the block window open with a duration set and everything. Phew! El_C 16:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- My main objection is to blocking EEng for this particular comment...there are so many better things one could block him for. SubjectiveNotability a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes. It's incidents like this that sap my determination to be the best I can be. If my finest work is going to remain unrecognized, why not just rest on my laurels? EEng 06:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- FWIW, the related-discussion ended with the US Senate chairmanships being 'deleted' from Biden's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- If people in this section are interested in moving forward with their ideas, the community has recently had extensive discussions on both these problems. See the discussions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 community sentiment on binding desysop procedure and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Anti-harassment RfC#7. "Unblockables" before we start spinning our wheels again. — Wug·a·po·des 22:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Constant removal of information
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Chris Janson is once again subject to anonymous or new editors removing uncontroversial BLP content as seen in this diff.
This has been a long-standing issue with this article in particular. See the following:
- 2018 edit that gutted the article, including removal of the Holly Williams collabs; all by WP:SPA account Lboullt (talk · contribs)
- These edits by Thesongfan (talk · contribs) also removed the Holly Williams information in 2015
I used to write for a country music blog, and some inside information from my former editor implies that these edits are being made by Janson's wife. I have also had past correspondence with at least one of his lawyers who was looking to get the info removed, but one of them backed down after I pointed out the appropriate Wikipedia policies. (Sadly I did not save said correspondence.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: - is this something that can be handled by semi-protection? Mjroots (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Might not be a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Semi'd 3 months. Mjroots (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Mjroots: Might not be a bad idea. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is some edit-warring going on at this BLP, which is subject to discretionary sanctions. As I was involved in discussions a fw years ago (and have no experience with the application of DS) it would be good if another admin could have a look. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 11:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Throttled, for now (direct link). El_C 12:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Revert vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to request an admin revert the page Nathan Rich which is WP:BLP to a clean version. It's been locked from editing due to "edit-warring" -- except it wasn't an edit war, it was multiple users reverting obvious vandalism (the offender has already been blocked). It seems there's been an oversight that left the vandalism intact, and ironically, the unrevertable except by an admin. See also Talk:Nathan_Rich#Protected_edit_request_on_8_February_2021. DrIdiot (talk) 14:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I think this is wrapped up, for now. El_C 14:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! DrIdiot (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Unban Request by TheBellaTwins1445
@TheBellaTwins1445:, originally blocked for sockpuppeting, then indefinitely blocked and ultimately 3X banned for repeated infringements of the same, has requested an unblock. Additional details can be found in the series of blocks/appeals on their talk page. Their unban request is included below, and I will copy across relevant follow-up messages they post on their talk page. If a CheckUser could confirm as far as logs enable as an opening step, that would be appreciated Nosebagbear (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello, a long time ago my account on the English Wikipedia was blocked because of sockpuppetering with multiple accounts. I know it was wrong, but all I wanted to do was to continue working here on Wikipedia and edit articles in a constructive manner, not wanting to commit any kind of vandalism. Also I was a kind a fool with Wikipedia, like yeah I have being editing for a long time, but it was just like some kind of part time thing, but now I do love to help editing articles, so certainly this time I am taking all of this in a serious way. TheBellaTwins1445 will be my only account forever, if someone can help me deleting all of the others, I will be really grateful. Hope this time you trust on me. Thank you and i'll wait for your response.
--
- Support, assuming no evidence of recent block evasion. Six confirmed sockpuppet accounts speaks poorly, but WP:SO exists so users can turn things around and be welcomed back. --Yamla (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Question - I have serious doubts about whether this is an acceptable username considering that the editor worked on professional wrestling articles and The Bella Twins are two living people who are retired pro wrestlers. What do other editors think? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- (non-admin comment) If this were a new account I'd be right there with you. However, with 23K live edits dating back to 2015 AND who knows how many discussion-page references and other places that link to the name, I'm inclined to "grandfather" it in on the condition that the user page makes it abundantly clear that 1) this account is run by one person, not a pair of twins, and 2) there is no relation to any well-known person or group of people with a similar name off-wiki. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Dealing with an Undproductive Moderator
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Magnolia677 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Since Wikipedia has no staff to communicate with when dealing with issues, I guess this is where I have to go to. For the last two years I've contributed many photos to Wikipedia. I've done this with the intention of adding relevant information to pages to improve the Wikipedia experience.
Yesterday, I added a photo of a river otter to the Puget Sound page, and was given this message by Magnolia677, "Please stop adding low-quality photos. I see I already asked you two years ago. Please take a moment to read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. Thank you. Magnolia677"
I had already read the page about image relevance. Magnolia667 was referring to the photo I added to the Puget Sound page, which I can agree wasn't a high quality photo, so I won't add photos like that in the future. However, I saw that my high quality photos recently added to pages had all been deleted. I figured Magnolia667 had been taking them off of all the pages and I was correct. I tried to put the photos back on the pages a while later, and got this message from Magnolia667 on my talk page,
"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Washington (state). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Please stop edit warring and discuss the addition of your personal photo album on the talk page. Magnolia677"
I talked to Magnolia677 about this on their talk page. I explained how I understand they thought one of my images was low quality and got rid of it, but asked them why they were taking away all my other photos. This was the response I got,
"Just because you visited a place, and took some pictures there, does not mean every one of your photos can be added to a Wikipedia article. I urge you to read MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. For example, adding a photo of a river to an article about a different river, is probably going to be reverted. Adding a close up picture of a water tower to an article about a US state is probably going to be reverted. Adding a photo of a canyon to an article where there is already a picture of the same canyon, and that picture is better than yours, is probably going to be reverted. Adding a photo of some place in darkness is probably going to be revered. Adding a picture of a fish in a stream to an article about a waterfall is probably going to be revered. Adding a picture of bird in a tree to an article about a river is probably going to be reverted. This is just from memory. Please stop adding your personal photo album to Wikipedia!"
I then explained how these photos were relevant to the pages. The photo of a Coho salmon in Multnomah Creek was relevant for the Multnomah Falls page because the salmon was spotted just below the waterfall in Lower Multnomah Creek. The photo of bald eagles I put on the Snake River page was taken directly above the Snake River, and I added the photo to the section of the Wikipedia page that is about the birds that inhabit the Snake River. Magnolia667 clearly went on an emotionally-driven rant and continued deleting my photos from Wikipedia pages.
If I'm to continue contributing to Wikipedia, I do not want the user Magnolia677 to have the privilege to delete photos I contribute to Wikipedia. For two years I've contributed to Wikipedia, and the most of a thank you I get is Manolia677 threatening to ban me from Wikipedia. Magnolia677 insulted the photos I've added to pages, saying they are "low-quality photos" and that other photos on the pages I contribute to are better than mine. I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia if Magnolia677 continues to hunt down any photo I contribute only to delete it, and threaten to ban me from Wikipedia.
I am asking for an interaction ban so Magnolia677 can no longer delete my photos from pages for unfair reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 20:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Richardmouser You must notify any user you are discussing on this board of the existence of this discussion.(instructions at the top of this page in red) I would note that just because you disagree with the reasons given to you does not mean they are "unfair". 331dot (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment)(talk page stalker)@Richardmouser: Do they go through your contribution list and delete all of your photos or do they find them on pages in their watchlist? A good way to check for this is to look at the page histories of the pages they removed your pictures from. If they’ve made multiple edits on multiple occasions prior to the removal, it’s probably in their watchlist. If they’ve made next to zero edits prior to the removal, they’re probably getting them from your contributions list. D🐶ggy54321 (let's chat!) 21:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Your edit here [46] added a photograph of a salmon to the article about Multnomah Falls per MOS:IRELEV this appears to have been correctly removed as irrelevant. Theroadislong (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Richardmouser, I can easily understand that as a professional photographer, willing to provide photographs for use in Wikipedia article, it would be very frustrating to find that one editor is making the decision to remove all contributed photos. Before I talk about an alternative approach, I will mention that I concur with Theroadislong that the removal of the coho salmon photo was appropriate. If there had been a couple of paragraphs in the article talking about ecological issues and mentioning that the existence of a coho salmon would be a big deal, it might've been relevant. I may regret posting the sentence is I want to emphasize that this is not the form to have that discussion. If someone proposes on the talk page that they should be more coverage of ecological issues and it turns out that the existence of a photo of a coho salmon might be relevant, then the decision could be revisited, but simply adding the photo with no context doesn't seem appropriate.
- In most cases, photos added to an article are used to visually support some text. An article about a waterfall obviously ought to have a photo of the waterfall. if the article did not have a photo, adding such a photo could simply be done without further discussion. However, in many cases (especially when considering the replacement of one photo with another), it is highly desirable to open a discussion on the article talk page to explain the proposal to add a photo or replace an existing photo with another photo along with the rationale. In the case of a replacement, it may be as simple as gaining consensus of editors that the proposed replacement is a superior photo. In the case of an additional photo, editors would discuss whether adding the photo improve the article, and might discuss whether existing text is sufficient to justify the photo or whether additional text would be needed and is relevant to the article. If such a discussion takes place, and a consensus of editors agrees with the addition or replacement, it is highly unlikely that an admin would come along and remove the photo.
- I haven't looked at any of the other photos to see what issues were involved, but I have seen, unfortunately, a number of instances where a photographer is attempting to add their own photos to an article because of the high profile of Wikipedia. I'm very interested in obtaining higher quality photos of many things, and know my skills as a photographer mean I need to look to others to do that, but there are proper ways to do it and less desirable ways to do it. S Philbrick(Talk) 21:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
The best solution to this issue is that I will likely stop contributing to Wikipedia. It's been an honor contributing to Wikipedia for the last two years, but yesterday when I was told by Magnolia677 to stop contributing my "low-quality photos" and threatened to ban me, it was a sign that my time is up here at Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that you feel that way. It's an unfortunate overreaction. 331dot (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
331dot it's not an overreaction because they're threatening to ban me. Clearly you have the same personality as Magnolia677 so arguing with you is pointelss.
S Philbrick, thank you for your understanding of the situation. I understand that the photo of the Coho salmon didn't have much to do with the page. However, as for the photos of bald eagles on the Snake River page, the photo was alongside a section about wildlife along the Snake River, emphasizing the birds more than any other wildlife. It's this one moderator's opinion that my photos are "low-quality" and irrelevent, which somehow makes it just that I can no longer contribute to Wikipedia. But I guess that's just how Wikipedia works. Again, I don't have a choice to continue posting to Wikipedia in reality. If you were told you're going to be banned from Wikipedia do you want people telling you it's an overreaction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs)
- Well, the user in question isn't an administrator and has no power to ban you. Mackensen (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Richardmouser I don't seek to argue, I seek to discuss, and that's what you should do as well. Please explain why your photos are not low quality if you feel that they are the opposite, and if you feel that they are relevant, please explain how. Others have explained to you the reason for their views and cited policy in doing so. 331dot (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Mackensen for clarifying that they themselves cannot ban me. However, they have the power to track any photo I contribute and delete it. There isn't going to be much of a point for me to contribute photos if every one of them will be deleted immediately.
In response to 331dot, I have contributed photos to many of Wikipedia's most viewed pages and have been there for a long time. I don't want to tell what those pages are, because if you or anyone else decided you didn't like me, you could go find the photos and delete them. What I'm trying to say is that my photos were appreciated and acknowledged, until yesterday Magnolia677 decided they will delete any photo I try to post. Now out of a sudden, any photo I try to contribute will be deleted. It's devastating to me as I enjoyed contributing to Wikipedia, but now it seems I don't have that option anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Richardmouser, Magnolia677 can't sanction you. They are not an admin. And I (who am an admin) take a dim view to them slapping you with a {{uw-disruptive2}} warning (maybe WP:DTTR, to begin with, Magnolia677). BTW, Richardmouser, I find File:Sacagawea_Statue_in_Salmon.jpg, for example, to be quite the opposite of low quality. That's an awesome photograph! Great photographs, overall (commons:Special:ListFiles/Richardmouser). I, for one, sincerely thank you for your contributions. El_C 22:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: it's a fine photo but can someone explain to me why it hasn't been deleted as failing Commons:COM:FOP US? We would need the artist's release (created by Agnes Vincen Talbot in 2005) to publish it under a free-use copyright and I see no evidence that we have it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, who knew it was even a thing? Not sure https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/statue-of-sacagawea-at-interpretive-center-in-salmon-id.htm or http://www.sacajaweacenter.org/ do, either. But since the latter cites us, I'll cite them:
Those who can, do. Those who can do more, volunteer.
El_C 12:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- El C, Those websites could have a license from the sculptor (they don't have to tell you of their agreement with the sculptor) or they could be claiming fair use. But Commons can't and Wikipedia must go by WP:NFCC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker, well, nps.gov is citing Creative Commons 2.0 by someone else, but sure, makes sense (who knows). I'm not really active on Commons, anyway. I was just unaware of that part of the law, is all I was saying. El_C 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, the CC license is for the photograph itself. But the rights of the work of art within the photograph generally belongs to the artist not the photographer (the photographer 'owns' the rest of the image, or rather the photographer owns the whole image, but there is something within the image someone else (the sculptor) has rights in). If I'm the NPS and I have an agreement with the sculptor, it's fine for me (possibly cheaper, etc.) to use someone's nice commons licensed photo, or if I am illustrating an educational resource I manage I might claim fair use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain this to me in easy-to-understand terms. Much appreciated. El_C 00:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, the CC license is for the photograph itself. But the rights of the work of art within the photograph generally belongs to the artist not the photographer (the photographer 'owns' the rest of the image, or rather the photographer owns the whole image, but there is something within the image someone else (the sculptor) has rights in). If I'm the NPS and I have an agreement with the sculptor, it's fine for me (possibly cheaper, etc.) to use someone's nice commons licensed photo, or if I am illustrating an educational resource I manage I might claim fair use. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Alanscottwalker, well, nps.gov is citing Creative Commons 2.0 by someone else, but sure, makes sense (who knows). I'm not really active on Commons, anyway. I was just unaware of that part of the law, is all I was saying. El_C 00:35, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- El C, Those websites could have a license from the sculptor (they don't have to tell you of their agreement with the sculptor) or they could be claiming fair use. But Commons can't and Wikipedia must go by WP:NFCC. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- David Eppstein, who knew it was even a thing? Not sure https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/statue-of-sacagawea-at-interpretive-center-in-salmon-id.htm or http://www.sacajaweacenter.org/ do, either. But since the latter cites us, I'll cite them:
- @El C: it's a fine photo but can someone explain to me why it hasn't been deleted as failing Commons:COM:FOP US? We would need the artist's release (created by Agnes Vincen Talbot in 2005) to publish it under a free-use copyright and I see no evidence that we have it. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Richardmouser What is the source of your extreme mistrust of other editors such as me? I don't know you and have no motivation to chase after you. I think this whole situation is an overreaction to one badly placed warning. I would urge you to not flush your Wikipedia career down the toilet over this. Please focus on discussing any disputes and not paranoia. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much El_C!! I really appreciate that. If there is a solution to this conflict, I will be happy to continue contributing photos to Wikipedia. I believe in the world having free access to photography, and it would be my honor to continue contributing photos to this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 22:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see anything wrong with the quality of the photographs, they all look excellent there may have been some injudicious placing of them, but that is for discussion on the relevant article talk pages not here. Keep taking the photos and keep uploading, but try to ensure they actually illustrate the articles they are posted in. Good luck. Theroadislong (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Richardmouser, I took a look at a lot of your photos on Wikipedia Commons, and many of them are excellent. I am interested in mountaineering so I enjoyed the photos of Mount Hood and Denali. Then I noticed your shot of the Palouse taken from the University of Idaho. My parents first met at that university 71 years ago, so I was really moved by that. I very much hope that you will keep contributing, and I thank you for your contributions to date. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Awesome Cullen328, I will keep posting! It's my duty as a photographer to share photos with the world. And Theroadislong I will keep this in mind, agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 23:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Magnolia677's edits were wholly appropriate, and I have re-removed several of these images after Richardmouser readded them, as well as some others. Richard, many of your photos are very good and help depict the article's subjects. However, some photos are bad and do not illustrate their subjects. For example this photo of an otter is clearly heavily cropped and/or digitally zoomed and it's not actually obvious that this small head sticking out of the water is an otter without a caption. Moreover, this does not help the reader understand what Puget Sound looks like. I agree that that salmon photo appeared fuzzy and did not at all illustrate Multnomah Falls. This landscape image is crooked and is not the quality desired for an article about a state, so please be careful in only selecting your best. Reywas92Talk 23:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Richardmouser: I tend to agree with most of the comments made by others, above. Your are clearly an excellent photographer and you're not going to get banned for misplacing photos in articles unless you start EDITWARRING over them. However I do think your judgement has been unsound in a few instances; and I suggest you request deletion of three of your recent, uncategorised images on Commons because they have no encyclopaedic merit here at all here: (this one - out of focus, not good quality, not-encyclopaedic; this one - frankly, of no use whatsoever here; and this one - a blurry fish, not useful in any way unless it's incredibly rare, and the only shot available of its kind). But your other uploads are mostly superb, and very welcome additions to Wikimedia Commons. So keep on contributing, please. But remember: the right image then has to be used in the right way in an encyclopaedia article, and it's OK for other editors to remove them from a page if they think it not the right one to use there. You shouldn't take a few misjudgements like that personally. It's best to have a simple discussion about with that editor, or on the article talk page, and not to get upset about it. Looking at your talk page, I don't feel Magnolia677 was especially unreasonable in leaving a 'templated' message for you, and was quite right to take a look at what other pictures you added to articles. Most were well judged; some were not. It probably didn't help that your user page states:
"I want to publish photos on as many pages as I can."
That would have been made a number of experienced editors wonder whether you were here to add your photos for all the right reasons, and I would certainly have been tempted to take a further look had I read that, too. In essence, I think you over-reacted a bit and jumped to the wrong conclusions, and there are certainly no grounds for any sort of interaction ban between you and Magnolia677 editor at all. Perhaps through not understanding how our advice and warning systems work you have felt unfairly treated. I don't think that's the case, though I am sorry that you felt that way. Please continue to use your best judgement in uploading only the most useful images you have - ignore uploading simple record shots of common taxa where other, better images already exist on Commons - and ensure you critically consider whether what you might deem as your 'favourite shot' would be seen by other readers of this encyclopaedia in the same way when they didn't have that deeply personal experience of looking through the viewfinder alongside you. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, Magnolia677 sent me more than a 'templated' message. This user conducted what was clearly an emotionally-driven rant of deleting photos from any page I tried contributing to. The messages not 'templated' that were sent to me clearly had words of anger and frustration in the context. But I don't need to discuss this issue anymore, the admin has spoken with me about this and there doesn't seem to be an issue with me trying to contribute photos to Wikipedia, so I will continue my attempt of contributing photos like you suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 01:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I understand the concern that some may think I was overreacting. I just want to be sure I can still post to Wikipedia without one single person trying to delete anything I post. It seems this conflict is settled for now, I will try to continue contribtuing photos to Wikipedia. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardmouser (talk • contribs) 02:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- I will endeavor to seek input before removing images, as I have done today at Talk:Colorado#Replacement of image. Thank you for your input. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Experienced copy & paste fixer needed
The UK tax code is notoriously complicated and it seems to have spread here.
Can someone skilled with the more complicated copy & paste cases have a look at 10p tax rate and the current redirect Starting rate of UK income tax plus any related articles? A glance at the history shows a complete mess of moves, content forks, what looks like copy & paste moves and more plus the talk page is currently detached from the article which is complicating a Requested Move that's seeking to undo some of the past changes. Getting the article histories fixed will make this easier. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I was the person who made the move request (apologies for the bad timing; I only noticed afterwards what a mess the whole thing is). In case it makes somebody's life easier, here is what I posted on the Requested Moves talk page: the article was moved in a strange way, first a merge [47][48] into another article, then a recreation of the earlier article by the same user but at a different redirect page [49]. Now the main page is 10p tax rate but the talk page is Talk:Starting_rate_of_UK_income_tax. I should also mention, I also first moved the article years before this, back in 2008. Though I've no recollection of doing this. --Lo2u (T • C) 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Done, though I think it was a lot simpler than it let on - the two copies to other pages can pretty much be ignored (near as I can tell there wasn't much in the way of content changes) and so everything should be where it should be. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Consensus required on COVID?
Question regarding the Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Coronavirus_disease_2019#Application_notes sub-section, which was cited to me at the Wuhan article. It says Editors are reminded that onus is on the editor seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. Any content or source removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale should not be reinstated without prior consensus on the article's talk page.
, which is effectively a consensus required restriction across the COVID topic area. It was approved by consensus here. The meaning of the section was questioned in exactly this manner by PackMecEng at the time but their question wasn't answered. None of this is announced on any of the talk notices or editnotices, which is standard for consensus required restrictions, and as far as I know no admin is enforcing it (certainly there's no such enforcement in the sanctions log). So, what exactly is this? Is this consensus/restriction actually in force and should it be added to the notices, or is it effectively abandoned and should the sub-section be removed? My feeling is that it was rashly decided and the latter applies here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that it's "disputed" content, to me, seems to more read as if it's saying "if you get reverted, don't reinstate" (or seek consensus beforehand) - basically a 1RR phrasing. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- ProcrastinatingReader, that's just WP:ONUS. This is "actually in force" in all articles. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- The first sentence yes, but the 2nd sentence seems distinct from ONUS to me. It reads like standard consensus required phrasing that you’d find in eg Template:American politics AE ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Agreed, first sentence is a restarting of onus while the second is basically consensus required with an extra
removed in good faith and citing a credible policy-based rationale
. PackMecEng (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- Actually another key difference is it says "should not" rather than "must" not. (While the consensus required supplement doesn't say either, it does say "must demonstrate consensus" as you would expect. Likewise the template {{Gs/talk notice}} and {{American politics AE}} use the phrasing "must obtain consensus". IMO "should not" turns it from consensus required to consensus very very strongly encouraged. Or the difference between 'if you do this, you're wrong (subject to very rare exceptions)' and 'if you do this, you're extremely likely in the wrong' That said, I agree that I'm not sure the wording is helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the wording (ie "should" vs "must") was carefully thought out and is intentional. Either these are general sanctions (the first paragraph a sourcing restriction, and the second paragraph a consensus required restriction), and should be noted as such, or if they're "should"s then they're both redundant to WP:BRD and WP:MEDRS and the text should be removed from the general sanctions page, since it wouldn't be a general sanction. Reading over the discussion my feeling is that the intent wasn't to actually create any general sanctions. Although, a "no preprints or non-peer-reviewed sources for medical content" general sanction in COVID seems like a decent idea. Not sure about the consensus required restriction, though; that's very broad. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Actually another key difference is it says "should not" rather than "must" not. (While the consensus required supplement doesn't say either, it does say "must demonstrate consensus" as you would expect. Likewise the template {{Gs/talk notice}} and {{American politics AE}} use the phrasing "must obtain consensus". IMO "should not" turns it from consensus required to consensus very very strongly encouraged. Or the difference between 'if you do this, you're wrong (subject to very rare exceptions)' and 'if you do this, you're extremely likely in the wrong' That said, I agree that I'm not sure the wording is helpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Possible (or more) sock voting on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Feldman
Hi admins; I have found the above AfD, with three !delete votes made within half hour of each other, which I all suspect to be the same user. User:Expertediting (one edit; to that AfD; reg'd yesterday) User:Wikieditor00011 (two edits; also reg'd yesterday) and User:Enteringediting (4 edits; reg'd yesterday; accused someone of being PAID) I all believe are the same person. If possible can someone look over and verify if this is true? All user's behaviour is suspicious to say the least, and could warrant yet another reopening of the AfD discussion. Thanking you all Nightfury 08:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Also note that Enteringediting just deleted this section, which I restored. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is the same AFD that triggered Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akronowner and is related to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Being held ransom to delete the page unless we pay" comment at AfD. MER-C 13:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Enteringediting has changed two votes made by others on the AfD to delete - this has been reverted by myself. Nightfury 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Enteringediting has tried blanking these comments from this board, after an only warning against doing so. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- And they just modified the AfD again. Pahunkat (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Enteringediting has tried blanking these comments from this board, after an only warning against doing so. Schazjmd (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Enteringediting has changed two votes made by others on the AfD to delete - this has been reverted by myself. Nightfury 13:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Enteringediting (talk · contribs) indeffed. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hello, I am sorry for using multiple accounts to vote delete. I didn't know that it's not allowed. Please don't relist the AFD. Please also unblock my other account Enteringediting. Your help will be highly appreciated. Wikieditor00011 (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've indef blocked User:Wikieditor00011. They can appeal via the account talk page, but I doubt it'll be heard sympathetically. Fences&Windows 17:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Extreme bias from editor on Cultural Marxism page
Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing, including provocations, fabrications and likely bigotry. Unblock request pendingEl_C 15:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)- Unblock request declined by RickinBaltimore, with talk page access disabled. El_C 15:53, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It appears that an admin by the name Bacondrum (on their page it says they are antifa socialist marxist) is unfairly editing a page, check the Talk page for Cultural marxism for more information about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I'm assuming they mean Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as Cultural Marxism is a redirect and that talkpage hasn't been edited since september last year Asartea Talk | Contribs 14:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes that's correct, my apologies. If you look you can see the user is heavily invested in it and himself espouses views that are opposed to such 'conspiracy theory'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Lab leak COVID conspiracy theory, again
- COVID-19 misinformation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (& see history), recent WP:POVFORK creation written by now-tbanned editor
- Wuhan Institute of Virology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This particular topic has been plagued with SPAs and POV pushing, the main one was recently topic banned, unbanned and rebanned (see: WP:GS/COVID19), and discussed at AN/ANI a few times. This is a long discredited conspiracy theory by consensus of scientists and all peer-reviewed publications, and most recently by the WHO. The SPAs are mostly relying on regular preprints published by two authors, Rossana Segreto & Yuri Deigin (such as this). It's all based on crappy sourcing (eg preprints & WP:OPINDIA [50]) and misrepresentations of existing sources. Today this tweet was published referencing the POVFORK page, which may explain the recent influx of newly created SPAs trying to push the theory, but they've been pretty relentless for months anyway.
There is an active GS in the topic. Can we get some administrative action here? This stuff is beyond tiring now. As soon as lengthy meaningless walls of text are debated on one talk page, folks move on to the next talk page and restart the conversation from scratch, or create new fringe articles. This isn't a legitimate content debate. It's just disruptive and tiring contributors out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: I don't have much time for paperwork at the moment, but I'm inclined to slap some sourcing restrictions on these pages as discretionary sanctions, and keep an eye on COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis for a couple days in case the edit war returns. I'm just not sure how much that would help since the primary issue is talk page bludgeoning. That's best dealt with by topic bans, but I don't really know the topic area that well, so if you want tbans handed out I recommend taking some time to present some representative diffs here or at WP:AE. — Wug·a·po·des 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Wugapodes: I think sourcing restrictions would be helpful, for sure. There was, and still is, an effort on various noticeboards to get an opinion that MEDRS doesn't apply and/or that preprints and opinion pieces are as valuable as peer-reviewed pieces and scientist commentary. Such a sourcing restriction on the affected pages, along the lines of valereee's or Poland, would provide support to editors and slow down the overwhelming rate of talk page fluff and forum shopping. There's also a discussion at ANI currently re a particular editor. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Just a note that the issue with the Segreto paper isn't that it isn't peer-reviewed (it's been published), but that it's a primary source. Another MEDRS concern is the astounding lack of credentials of the authors and apparent lack of editorial oversight in the BioEssays "Problems & Paradigms" series, which the Segreto and Sirotkin papers appear under. JoelleJay (talk) 05:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Unban request for Zombiedude101
Zombiedude101 (aka Zombiedude101z and more than ten other accounts) is requesting their ban be lifted. You can see the original community ban at WP:AN/Archive313. I have copied the following unban request from User talk:Zombiedude101. --Yamla (talk) 14:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- TL;DR I was blocked a long time ago for acts of vandalism. I accept that, I was a little shit in school. All's fair. HOWEVER, when I came back 5 years later to get my account unblocked I admitted that in the years in between I'd made edits on various IPs and alt accounts, which automatically got my appeal denied. I got angry and, frustrated, began making alt accounts (socking) so I could make constructive edits whether or not WP wanted me to. Which eventually led to the issue below: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombiedude101z#Let's_talk I feel my point above illustrates the grievances I have, to be honest. The only reason I'm blocked and banned is because I refused to go through the channels and get unbanned and decided to keep socking with constructive edits. So I've given it time, I've waited a year if not longer and I'm taking one more shot at coming in via the appropriate channels. I'm here to be civil, I have no intent of causing trouble. So you can let me return to making constructive edits as I had with Neall Ellis, Worm, etc and we can end this dispute. My attitude hasn't always been great and part of that was because I felt (and, to an extent, still feel) I was ignored and dismissed as a vandal without looking at the context of my situation. I got angry ans frustrated that legitimate edits I made were reverted solely on the basis I was 'socking'.
- To be clear, I am not trying to shift blame, I am simply trying to explain that the actions/attitude of others didn't mesh well with me at the time and the way certain things were done (such as how appeals would be locked, preventing me from responding to certain comments, or points that I raised being ignored rather than getting addressed) - that left me frustrated and inclined to push back. And, since it's a consistently recurring point put to me - I didn't make any death threats. That certainly wasn't me. So when I make comments like "I feel like every other point I raised was ignored with WP admins just pointing blindly at legislation and not using their heads to understand the context of the situation" I feel like this never gets addressed fully, like being treated like a bad faith editor when I was trying to show I was only interested in being useful. As an example of a good faith edit that was treated as bad faith - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neall_Ellis - this was recently restored for me and I don't see what's wrong with the content here. And ultimately - what harm is there in allowing me to return to making edits? One misstep and it's a few mouse clicks (or screen taps) to revert and block me.
- I also question why I had to wait until now to appeal. I didn't commit further block evasion in 2020, to what I recall. At least nothing to warrant waiting another year, I know that! Think it was a misunderstanding. The only thing I actually recall doing was reaching out to Yamla to talk to them about my ban, which should not have reset the clock.
- To cut a long story short - let's start on a clean slate. I've come across the wrong way (and some have misunderstood my intent) and should've been less hostile to people over how certain things were done. I do intend to clean up a few things, ie game affiliated articles, emulation, Wildbow's Web Serial Ward etc. Edits such as those made on my 'sock' accounts that were rolled back on the basis they were sockedits, since they were intended as constructive - not disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:Zombiedude101 (talk • contribs)
Strong oppose, and I request they not be allowed to appeal the ban via any venue, including UTRS, for another two years; violations should reset the counter. I don't buy the claim they made no death threat against a sitting senator and they don't address the racist usernames. But even if we ignore those problems, just take a look at the various UTRS appeals, UTRS appeal #39916, UTRS appeal #39701, UTRS appeal #40020, UTRS appeal #40022, UTRS appeal #40024, UTRS appeal #40038. These are not the actions of someone who will be a constructive member of Wikipedia. --Yamla (talk) 14:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Oppose per Yamla. Unblocking this user would be a massive timesink, and to be blunt we don't need an editor like this on the project. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Zombiedude here. I'm not here to sock but I felt I should be able to directly address people here since nobody has come back to my talk page to speak with me. I think we genuinely got off on the wrong foot when I came back in 2017/18 - and yeah, I made a bunch of UTRS appeals. That was because certain questions / points I raised weren't answered, the appeals were closed before I was addressed with the info I needed. It wasn't done in bad faith. Surely that I've waited more than a year to come backand work with the process rather than going back to making sockedits (which were intended as constructive, not vandalism) surely that's a show of good faith on my part? I will say again that I had nothing to do with racism or death threats, I don't know why that keeps getting brought up.
- Please, I'm asking for the benefit of the doubt. One misstep and you can give me the boot with a tap, I'm only asking for an otherwise clean slate and a chance to work with rather than against people. I'm editing off my phone at the moment so forgive any formatting errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:612E:EC00:2C40:441C:7A:7ACC (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- IP address blocked. Zombiedude101 knows perfectly well about WP:EVADE. They can leave comments on their user talk page which someone will copy over to this noticeboard. --Yamla (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- This actually brings up another problem. Looking at Special:Contributions/2A00:23C7:612E:EC00:2C40:441C:7A:7ACC/64, I see this contribution to Neall Ellis, one of Zombiedude's favourite articles. I haven't run a checkuser, but I can draw no other conclusion than that Zombiedude evaded their ban just last month, and this whole request to have the ban lifted is therefore in bad faith. --Yamla (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- IP address blocked. Zombiedude101 knows perfectly well about WP:EVADE. They can leave comments on their user talk page which someone will copy over to this noticeboard. --Yamla (talk) 14:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose You lost me at the point at which you socked on your own unban appeal thread.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, having handled some of the UTRS appeals I was prepared to sit this out. Unfortunately the zombie's impatience in socking his own appeal because of a lack of reply on his talk page for quarter of an hour, his use of an IP which shows up repeated block evasion, uncivil edit summaries (even where he correctly identifies a racist post), and uncharitable naming of users (the Scots wiki thing). Block all the socks TPA & UTRS access and reset the clock for another year (or two). Cabayi (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. The user editing here demonstrates to me that they are unable to edit within the framework of the policies and conventions of this project. Tiderolls 16:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per Yamla's statements and WP:BANEVASION. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose hasn't remotely respected the ban and has been a jerk even while socking. I definitely don't buy the claim that there was no death threat, unless that was just word games about what constitutes a "death threat". Someone from that IP admitted being Zombiedude101 a month after the edit, and in between there was a continuous stream of edits by what was obviously the same person with an interest in hamsters. The edit summaries from this sock are also revealing: don't rv my comments you prick...it's not a personal attack if it's true... the next time someone does it they're getting my boot up where the sun doesn't shine... I'll report you to the administration for being an obstructive scrote. Our main duty here is to the people who want to actually build an encyclopedia constructively, and they shouldn't have to deal with this. I would also support a restriction on appeals. Hut 8.5 20:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose. On the WP:AGF–WP:PACT continuum, it's plainly obvious this user is of the fool-us-thrice variety. I also agree with Yamla that a 2-year appeal moratorium + reset mechanism should be attached to the existing sanction. El_C 05:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Feedback required: Is my close on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDB Financial Services a BADNAC?
Hello. I would like some feedback from the admins or other experienced editors about a non-admin closure. A while ago I closed an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDB Financial Services (my close remarks). I admit I closed this a bit early (14 days had not yet completed, today is the 12th day). However, after looking at, I considered it relatively uncontroversial. I looked at other AfDs as well and many of them had no participation even after relisting. Among all of them, I found this one which had almost no conflicting opinions and was probably the least controversial. 2 participants suggested a Delete while 1 participant suggest a Merge/Redirect. Everyone was against having a standalone article. Based on the opinions in the AfD, on balance I closed it as a redirect (from what I understand, redirect is also a valid substitute for Delete as per WP:ATD-R). I also left a message on the redirect target, just in case someone wants to merge information. I understand that AfD is not a vote, but we need to take into account the arguments in the opinions.
However, the nominator Celestina007 undid my close on the basis that the AfD is controversial and it is a WP:BADNAC. We had a discussion on my talk page. Personally I am still not clear for what reasons is this a controversial close. I would like some feedback from admins/other experienced editors about this, so that I can also learn. Is closing the discussion early the main problem? Or is my result "redirect" the problem. Let's say if 14 days had gone by completely (with no additional inputs), would my close still be considered controversial? Should the result have been "Delete" instead of "Redirect"?
Thank you. I apologise in advance if I have caused any inconvenience. I admit I don't have experience in closing AfDs and this was one of the first ones I have closed. I look forward to your responses and learning more.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- DreamLinker, with only 2 participants, it just isn't much of a discussion, to begin with. El_C 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @El C: Thank you for your response. Yes, I definitely agree that a bit more participation would have helped. I will keep this in mind.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yes to what El C wrote. Ultimately redirect seems like a reasonable outcome and if I had seen this article there's a good chance that's how I'd have closed it. However, this shows a reason I think it unwise for non-admins to be closing articles, even when they're not wrong: they face added skepticism that sysops wouldn't. Sometimes warranted, sometimes not. Given that we are now up to two discussions about this on AN, perhaps it's time revisit the NAC discussions which always seem to agree that we need to provide more clarity about when NAC is appropriate at AfD but never quite get there on the details. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: Thank you for your explanation. I now have a better idea about AfD closures. It is certainly a lot more nuanced than I previously thought. It would definitely be helpful to provide a more concrete criteria for NAC. If you start a discussion about this, please let me know on my talk page. I would be happy to participate and provide my input.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- First, thanks to DreamLinker for asking for the review of their own actions. That's an excellent practice. So, to touch on a bunch of different things here:
- I don't think this was a terribly controversial close per-se, and probably would not have drawn any question had it been closed by an admin. As a NAC, I think it's marginal and better left to an admin.
- I don't see any reason to short-circuit the relist period; I would not have done that even in my admin capacity.
- Celestina007 was definitely out of line for unilaterally reverting the close. The way this should have played out after the NAC was Celestina007 posting to DreamLinker's talk page, "I disagree with your close, would you be willing to relist it?", and then DreamLinker responding, "Sure, no problem". Life would have moved on, and a minor error corrected with no drama-board involvement.
- -- RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @RoySmith: Thank you so much for your detailed response. It has helped me to understand the process better. I will be careful about NACs in the future and I also understand that it is best not to short circuit an AfD.--DreamLinker (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Comment — @Barkeep49 & El_C, @RoySmith, Hello guys, My thought process was & still is they had no business closing an AFD with one delete and one merge !vote, coupled with what they just stated above, I believe WP:NACPIT#1 (I know it’s an Essay) clearly references scenarios such as this by clearly stating if non sysops had inexperience in such areas that it was best to avoid NAC closure's. I am however fine with any way this plays out, but I believe Shaky AFD’s such as the aforementioned should predominantly be handled by admins. In retrospect i agree with @RoySmith that my unilateral revert of the action wasn’t good practice, i see now I shouldn’t have done so seeing as I was too INVOLVED, I apologize to the community for that. Celestina007 (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Celestina007, I'm not saying this was a good close. But, that doesn't mean you can unilaterally change it. Ask the closer to relist. Find some uninvolved admin and ask them to take a look at it. Bring the problem to WP:DRV, or to WP:AN. Any of those would have been better than just reverting the close on your own. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- @RoySmith, that’s exactly where I went wrong. Celestina007 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Celestina007, I'm not saying this was a good close. But, that doesn't mean you can unilaterally change it. Ask the closer to relist. Find some uninvolved admin and ask them to take a look at it. Bring the problem to WP:DRV, or to WP:AN. Any of those would have been better than just reverting the close on your own. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- Reverting the close wasn't right but that's already been discussed above.
... are you oblivious of the fact that non sysops aren’t allowed to close controversial AFD’s
[51] is a rude way to start a discussion. Also, if you start an AFD and it's closed as a redirect, challenging that close is almost always a waste of editor time (yours and others). A non-notable subsidiary/affiliate/product/brand/etc. should be redirected to the parent company, as a navigation aid... that seems extremely obvious. There's no sense in challenging it. I think it was not a controversial NAC (nobody was in favor of keeping). I think there are plenty of AFDs that close with two !votes, especially the more straightforward ones, so I'm not even sure relisting this was a good use of editor time. All around I think this was a good close and I think the closer has handled this whole situation extremely well. Hats off. Levivich harass/hound 20:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC) - I think the redirect outcome was not unreasonable, and I personally wouldn't have overturned the close; however, I agree that the decision should have been left to an administrator. There was indeed limited participation in the discussion, so for that situation we turn to the relevant guideline at WP:NOQUORUM, which mentions that
if no editor suggests that the corresponding article should be kept, then redirection is an option
in situations where there is limited participation. Of course, this should be weighed against the alternative options of relisting, closing as "delete", and closing as "no consensus", and since DreamLinker lacked the ability to carry out the potential "delete" outcome, they might be biased towards the other possible outcomes. I also agree that, in principle, Celestina007 should have started a less aggressive dialogue with DreamLinker before overturning the close unilaterally—even if Celestina007 were an administrator, this action would still have been improper per WP:NACD, which limits unilateral NAC reversals to uninvolved admins, and they were the AfD nominator. But with that being said, DreamLinker did mention in their closing comment,If you dispute my close, please feel free to reopen it.
, which could be interpreted as leave for even involved editors to reopen the discussion. Mz7 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:RFPP backlog
We are now approaching 60 requests and have about 30 hours backlog (in the European morning, we had about 36 h backlog, which was even worse). Some help would be appreciated.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Of course that place is eternally backlogged, but some of the 50-odd requests there have been posted for nearly 48 hours, so some admin action would be helpful... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
It looks like HJ Mitchell has cleaned the backlog up. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Appeal of a topic ban that was based on a reading error
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The main reason for my topic ban turned out to be a simple erroneous assumption (see the details below). I provided evidence for the error but the administrator who banned me then invented a new reason which doesn't justify a topic ban either. It's a dispute between that admin and myself over the content of a source. Complicating the matter even further is the fact that the admin, unlike me, is not familiar with the subject matter.
More important is the violation of Wikipedia policies during the ANI discussion and its closing. For example, WP:CBAN says: When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made.
That never happened. My arguments were not read, let alone assessed.
The details:
- Admin Rosguill, who closed the ANI [52], acknowledges that they have deliberately ignored my rebuttals to the allegations against me.[53]
- The decision to ban me was mainly based on a reading error. According to Rosguill, I have deflected a request to supply sources. This is not true. I did in fact answer that request in detail.[54] Ironically, I explained this in my rebuttals, the ones Rosguill ignored, see:[55].
- When their mistake came to light, Rosguill did not revert their ban decision but instead they invented a new reason to uphold it.[56] However, this new reason is not about disruptive editing but an argument about the right interpretation of a source. A difference of opinions about content is not a valid cause for a topic ban.
- Additional reasons provided by Rosguill to justify the ban were one old issue that was already dealt with, and two innocent remarks. See the discussion at: [57].
The reading error, the content dispute, and several other misunderstandings that arose demonstrate that Rosguill does not understand the matter very well. But just like with other editors who've involved themselves in this case, they're not prepared to consider the possibility that they might be wrong. Saflieni (talk) 00:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
When their mistake came to light, Rosguill did not revert their ban decision but instead they invented a new reason to uphold it
.[58] — I don't think that diff says what you think it says, Saflieni. El_C 00:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC)- The OP should be blocked for an unambiguous topic-ban violation here. (While it occurs in a section nominally about appealing the ban, it cannot realistically be construed as part of any appeal. They have not made any constructive contributions to WP since they were TBed 3 weeks ago.) --JBL (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have done this. There's no more appealing topic bans to Jimbo, as far as I'm concerned. No more appealing anything, in fact, in contravention of an existing restriction. With the possible exception of foundation-y stuff, perhaps. But it wasn't drafted as an appeal, anyway, so that matter is ultimately moot. El_C 01:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- The OP should be blocked for an unambiguous topic-ban violation here. (While it occurs in a section nominally about appealing the ban, it cannot realistically be construed as part of any appeal. They have not made any constructive contributions to WP since they were TBed 3 weeks ago.) --JBL (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Danielbr11 compromised?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am reasonably certain that Danielbr11 may be compromised, based on an unusual edit pattern.
The account was created at 2016-05-12 05:39, made one edit, then took a two year break. Came back, made about 40 edits, none of them reverted. Disappeared again for 6 months. Came back for one edit, not reverted. Then took a 9 month break, returning about 20 days ago.
Among the approximately 250 edits in 20 days, the overwhelming number of article edits have been reverted. There has also been premature noticeboard and arbitration cases. There is also a lack of consensus seeking.
So, this user forgot how to Wikipedia, became radicalized and is POV pushing, or the account got compromised by a bad actor. I think someone with the tools to do so should investigate the third possibility. Rklahn (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Their very first edit was an unsourced political/religious statement that was reverted within a couple hours. Woodroar (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have already partially blocked them from List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll after yet more ludicrous editing tonight, I suspect it is only a matter of time until they are completely blocked if they keep this up. Black Kite (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- The issue appears to involve List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll and edits like this. That page lists human-caused incidents that led to a large number of people being killed. Danielbr11's edit adds the claim that between 100 and 200 million people were killed by abortions in China based on consideration of single-cell embryos and some studies showing that life begins at conception. I gather that other claims of large killings not related to abortion have been proposed for that article. Danielbr11 has been indefinitely partial-blocked from editing that page but is free to continue at RSN and similar. I don't see a reason to believe the account is compromised but a rate-limiter should be arranged to prevent further time wasting such as at Talk:Christianity and abortion#China India and Russia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this. I really don't have the Wikipedia editor experience to truly understand the pattern here. Others have far more experience on this than I do. But I thought that once I seriously suspected the account got compromised, I should report it. Thanks! Rklahn (talk) 03:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- No problem reporting it, thanks. However, there is a problem with recent activity from Danielbr11 (talk · contribs) and that should be discussed now. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, the issue is also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Volunteer fabricating policies so perhaps this section can be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- OP here. Yea, I agree with Johnuniq. This is a dup, and should be closed. Rklahn (talk) 04:52, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm, the issue is also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Volunteer fabricating policies so perhaps this section can be closed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)