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 | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 12 | 5 | 17 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 5 | 10 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 4 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 1 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 143 sockpuppet investigations
- 17 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 0 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 1 requests for RD1 redaction
- 19 elapsed requested moves
- 6 Pages at move review
- 34 requested closures
- 75 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 37 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Moving forward: Deferring GENSEX cases to AE
 |
|
Should the community encourage or require GENSEX cases to be brought at AE, or make no change? 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Potential encouragement ("soft") and requirement ("hard") wordings are given below; these are not the only wordings that could be used.
- Soft: Something like Reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies are usually best-suited to Arbitration enforcement (AE), except when the matter is very straightforward or when AE is unavailable for procedural reasons (for instance, a requested sanction exceeds AE's authority, or a party against whom sanctions are sought is not aware). Beyond these two exceptions, any uninvolved administrator may, at their discretion and at any time, close an AN or AN/I discussion in this topic area in favor of review at AE; if the filer would not be able to start the thread, the admin should do so for them.
- Hard: Something like Reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies, other than truly unambiguous disruption, should be filed at Arbitration enforcement (AE) unless there is a procedural reason that AE would not be suitable (for instance, a requested sanction exceeds AE's authority, or a party against whom sanctions are sought is not aware). Any uninvolved editor may speedily close a thread brought in contravention of this rule, directing the filer to AE; if the filer would not be able to start the thread, the closer should do so for them
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [Wording changed 19:01, 4 March 2023 as part of converting to RfC. RfC preface added 19:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)]
- Nom statement [partly moved from old preface 19:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)]: So, whatever the outcome of the above, it's clear that the thread was a shitshow. And the Newimpartial thread was a shitshow. In fact every GENSEX thread I can recall at AN(I) since I resumed editing 2 years ago has been a shitshow, apart from slam-dunk "new user using slurs"–type reports.We have a venue for this. It is called Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement. It avoids basically all of the BS we see in these kinds of contentious threads. The vast majority of AN(I) GENSEX discussions fall within concurrent AE jurisdiction, especially now that WP:AC/CT has loosened the definition of sanction awareness. There is no reason that we need to continue hearing these cases at AN(I) if we don't want to... and does anyone actually want to?I've had this idea bouncing around my head the past week and it's just seemed more and more reasonable as things have progressed, especially as we've seen difficulties in finding admins willing to close these threads. Thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would oppose, as I dislike the precedent this would set - AE and ArbCom are there to supplement, not replace, the self-management of the broader community. BilledMammal (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would also suggest that you convert this to an WP:RFC, as editors have begun to !vote on it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I mean this completely sincerely: if someone in the community thinks the community can self-manage a topic area that is under CT, I would encourage them to go to WP:ARCA and to ask us to revoke the Contentious Topic designation for that topic area. We should not have the extraordinary grant of power, which is ArbCom delegating its broad authority directly to admins, is the community can handle it. I have repeatedly supported ways to eliminate areas from the CT/DS designation or to narrow their scope (see AP2) precisely because I think the community should handle what it can. So if something is a designated CT it means to me that the community isn't, at this time, able to self-manage that topic area and if the community actually is able to self-manage we need to restore the area to normal rules for admins and editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Edit: I should note I was making a general point here about any given CT. I think there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal of Tamzin's so am not expressing an opinion on that. Merely responding to Billed Mammal's thinking of how CT exists with-in dispute resolution. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I might do that for some of the more obscure CT's, but to clarify my point here wasn't that I think that the community can fully self-manage this topic area, but that the community can partially self-manage every topic area that is under CT, and I don't want to set the precedent that they can't. BilledMammal (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- This goes back to our discussion last September. I appreciate your viewpoint that the community has failed to manage disputes in areas formally identified as contentious topics. Nonetheless, I think the arbitration enforcement system will be overloaded if every dispute is just passed up the chain automatically. I think editors need to exercise judgement and continue to try to handle issues at the lowest level possible. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I mean this completely sincerely: if someone in the community thinks the community can self-manage a topic area that is under CT, I would encourage them to go to WP:ARCA and to ask us to revoke the Contentious Topic designation for that topic area. We should not have the extraordinary grant of power, which is ArbCom delegating its broad authority directly to admins, is the community can handle it. I have repeatedly supported ways to eliminate areas from the CT/DS designation or to narrow their scope (see AP2) precisely because I think the community should handle what it can. So if something is a designated CT it means to me that the community isn't, at this time, able to self-manage that topic area and if the community actually is able to self-manage we need to restore the area to normal rules for admins and editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC) Edit: I should note I was making a general point here about any given CT. I think there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal of Tamzin's so am not expressing an opinion on that. Merely responding to Billed Mammal's thinking of how CT exists with-in dispute resolution. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would also suggest that you convert this to an WP:RFC, as editors have begun to !vote on it. BilledMammal (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support hard - The Newimpartial and Tranarchist threads were among the worst things I've seen on this site when it comes to wiki drama. No need to have such a thing when AE can do it cleaner and more efficiently. I also believe this would lead to better results for everyone involved since we won't have involved users contributing, which undermines the integrity of consensus imo. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 18:35, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- My reservations that an admin panel at AE cannot handle certain types of disruption that require topic familiarity that skirts the edge of what we consider WP:INVOLVED aside, I'm somewhat in favour of the hard proposal, but either could work for me.
- The biggest technical hurdle I see for making AE the primary/sole noticeboard for this would be the requirement that AE requires autoconfirmed before you can post a thread without it being removed. That obviously rules out editors with less than 10 edits over 4 days, but also rules out IP editors. If this does go ahead, a common sense exception for WP:MEAT might need to be made so that any uninvolved editor/admin, at their discretion can move/re-post the thread at AE on behalf of the non-autoconfirmed editor, with the checks and balances that the editor moving the discussion takes some responsibility for the move. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: In my mind, the AE autoconfirmed requirement would fall under "unavailable for procedural reasons". So would clear lack of awareness or requests for sanctions that exceed AE's powers (most notably sitebans). If that should be clearer in either proposed wording, I'm happy to clarify. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Aah yeah. If you do follow through with BilledMammal's suggestion above of converting this to an RfC, I would suggest clarifying that in the wording before making it a RfC. Otherwise, unless this side discussion becomes a monster thread of its own, it's probably fine just being clarified in these replies for now. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Sideswipe9th: In my mind, the AE autoconfirmed requirement would fall under "unavailable for procedural reasons". So would clear lack of awareness or requests for sanctions that exceed AE's powers (most notably sitebans). If that should be clearer in either proposed wording, I'm happy to clarify. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose.
There are cases when reports can involve multiple issues. If only one of those issues is editing in GENSEX, it should not be the case that we are more or less requiring this sort of stuff to be sent to WP:AE.WP:AE can also be really difficult when trying to demonstrate issues that draw evidence from a large number of diffs (there's a hard cap on 20 diffs). I agree that WP:ANI has problems when it comes to these sorts of disputes inasmuch as it draws a lot of tangentially involved people to these discussions, but I do think that the filer should be able to elect to go to WP:ANI if they think that the open-ended format of the noticeboard will allow them to communicate their concerns more clearly to the community. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reports involving gender-related disputes or controversies are usually best-suited to Arbitration enforcement
is overly broad, even in the soft version.- In light of Tamzin's amending of the RfC prompt above, I'm amending my !vote for relevance. I still don't like the phrasing
close an AN or AN/I discussion in this topic area
(I'd prefer something like close an AN or AN/I discussion about disputes primarily involving conduct in WP:GENSEX so as to be extremely explicit regarding when admins can and cannot close ANI discussions), so I remain weakly opposed at this time. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- In light of Tamzin's amending of the RfC prompt above, I'm amending my !vote for relevance. I still don't like the phrasing
- For what its worth, as I read through the thread, I did think "much of this would have been avoided had this been transferred to, or originally filed at, AE." CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Support, undecided on variant. It's a CT for a reason; using CT procedures for a CT is a nobrainer. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)- Question: if this is becoming an RfC, where is the text actually proposed to be added? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I imagine this could work as a standard community-authorized general sanction. It doesn't need to go into policy anywhere. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Why would it be a general sanction? Why is it not just a noticeboard procedural rule along the liens of "you must notify someone you're reporting"? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I imagine this could work as a standard community-authorized general sanction. It doesn't need to go into policy anywhere. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:59, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Specifically,
support the soft variant. "Truly unambiguous" bothers me on the harder variant, thinking of cases like the recent Scapulus, who was handled swiftly at ANI, but where some editors did see it fit to show up later to complain about freeze peach. Clearly this was addressed well at ANI, but "truly unambiguous" is at least not unambiguous in this case. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)- I wrestled a lot with that wording (and the closer can always take note of general support for one option or the other, but not for some specific wording, and implement accordingly). But to explain my reasoning, the core challenge is that there have been a lot of cases—both with editors seen as anti-trans and those seen as pro-trans—where someone has felt "Surely this is blatant disruption, easy indef", and it's turned into days or weeks of nonsense. So I acknowledge that "truly unambiguous" is really strong wording, but it's the best shorthand I could think of for "Disruption that you, ideally as an experienced user familiar with what is and isn't considered disruptive in GENSEX, know will lead to a summary indef." Common sense would, of course, continue to govern either of these options, and AE would always have its inherent authority to reject a case, thereby making itself procedurally unavailable and allowing AN(I) to proceed. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:42, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- SnowRise brings up another point I didn't notice, that according to the hard option, any uninvolved editor could close a thread they deem should be at AE. I think this is an exceptionally bad idea. This means that even in a case where admins are unanimous that some behaviour is unacceptable, any sufficiently out-of-touch editor could declare a case not unambiguous enough and complicate the process excessively. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Update after further reflection: I think both variants risk curtailing the community's ability to self-govern and adapt by consensus in this area. I do think the idea has merit but allowing a move to be forced by either an individual admin or any editor is harmful, and I fear leaving everything up to AE admins could threaten our ability to respond flexibly to various kinds of disruption. I definitely agree that threads about more long-standing editors turn into huge messes on ANI and probably would do better at AE, but I don't think either of these proposals is the right way. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Question: if this is becoming an RfC, where is the text actually proposed to be added? ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support hard As I mentioned above, (
... it appears that is now simple for editors with a certain POV ... to remove other editors who oppose them from contentious areas without using the correct venue, which would be AE
) when these discussions end up with the community they turn into the inevitable shitshows that this one and the NewImpartial one have been. We simply need to remove them from this arena, because otherwise the next one will be exactly the same. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC) - Converted to RfC per comments above, with some tweaks to wording per @Sideswipe9th and Red-tailed hawk. More generally, I stress that the wording above is just two ideas of how to do this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support with a preference for the hard variant, as I think the future will be like the past. I can appreciate the potential problem that a report can cross over multiple issues, but experience leads me to think that the most disaster-prone issue within such a report will dominate. A report that includes both a GENSEX issue and, say, edit-warring over WP:CITEVAR will become a trainwreck over the former. XOR'easter (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know what the solution is. This topic is one of several prime candidates for WP:ADVOCACY, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:SPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:PUSH, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:NOTHERE. I don't like advocacy editing, but equally well we may need a balance of editors who have strong POVs to bring in-depth knowledge to controversial articles. It can't be allowed to be beneficial to WP:WIKILAWYER and gang up on opponents or we will get more SPAs and non-autoconfirmed users pig piling on culture war enemies. From what I have seen the normal ANI process works pretty well, and the admins manage to separate behavioral issues from content. The whole !vote thing is problematic because as we see a big deal is made of distilling it down to numbers rather than the much-touted abstract "consensus". Whatever the solution, I think this topic and a few others like it stand to test Wikipedia's processes for dealing with problem editors. —DIYeditor (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Immensely strong oppose. First off, this is a procedurally invalid proposal, even with the addition of the RfC tag: enforceable rules regarding disruption (particularly those with such broad implications for arresting disruption across a vast swath of articles) cannot be made by the admin regulars of AN alone, supplemented merely by the editors already involved in this singular dispute and a handful of others brought in by a FRS notice. If you want create binding guidelines on this project, you need to use the WP:PROPOSAL process: identify the WP:PAG you want to alter (or suggest a new standalone policy namespace), and then host a discussion on that policy's talk page with a notice at VPP, or just host the discussion at the Village Pump to begin. AN is absolutely not the right (indeed, is arguably the worst) forum to be suggesting new policy. If this should go further rather than being swiftly shot down, the discussion needs to be moved.
- Second, putting aside the procedural considerations, I think the proposal (good faith though it obviously is) is a non-starter on its merits as well. Mind you, I think the present case giving rise to this proposal probably is an instance of a case that arguably should have gone to AE. But creating a mandate that all behavioural concerns arising out of GENSEX topics go to AE, aside from being inconsistent with how we handle every other WP:CTOP (our new handle for discretionary sanctions for those unfamiliar) issue, is clearly an unworkable proposition under our current community schema for arresting disruptive behaviour--and the particular wording proposed here (in both variants) only further invites confusion and difficulty. Without meaning offense to Tamzin, it's the worst kind of rule cruft where the community clearly needs some degree of flexibility and redundancy. While I do believe that CTOP should be invoked more liberally in edge cases to bring matters to AE (as a more streamlined process less amenable to pile-on by biased/involved parties) ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns in a way that this overbroad proposal would clearly and significantly abrogate, for limited gain.
- Under this suggestion, any behavioural issue imputing the GENSEX topic area would be effectively stripped out of the hands of the broader community to impose CBANs or otherwise address disruption, and those decisions held in reserve for editors with a high level of permissions at AE. While I reiterate that this would actually be a good thing in a non-trivial number of cases, as we should use AE more extensively than we do for CTOP issues, a firm requirement directing all disruption involving GENSEX to AE is clearly overkill that would significantly reduce the broader community's ability to adjudicate longterm issues and otherwise jam-up our ability to effectively arrest disruption. Further, encouraging rank and file editors to start closing down ANI discussions that touch upon certain topic areas (in a way that would currently be treated as clear disruption itself) would be ripe for abuse: anybody who's spent any degree of time at ANI can predict just how flexible a vast number of editors will be with judging themselves as "uninvolved" in the dispute: the technical excuse that they didn't participate in the immediate dispute would still permits editors who are heavily involved in the issues in general (or who have beef with the filer, or are regular defenders of someone who comes to ANI again and again) to thwart oversight by invoking this rule.
- Honestly, I could go on for quite a while: there are so many potential knock-on effects to this proposal which would needlessly complicate addressing user conduct in this topic area, and so many ways that it's one-size-fits-all approach does not connect with our current otherwise context-sensitive (and somewhat overlapping, as a good thing) remit of different forums for addressing disruption. But the overarching concern is that it drastically reduces the community's options for little practical gain, pulls oversight for determinations that ultimately should fall into the broader community's hands on occasion, and would introduce all kinds of opportunities for gamesmanship (ostensibly the very thing it comes to address). I just think it's a very poorly considered proposal. But again, if nothing else, it needs to be considered by the community at large in an appropriate forum, which AN decidedly is not. SnowRise let's rap 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't really understand your procedural objection, Snow Rise. This proposes rules that would apply only to WP:AN and WP:AN/I. There's not even any change in how AE would operate, other than possibly getting more GENSEX cases than before. This is a vastly less impactful change than, say, placing WP:GS/RUSUKR under an extendedconfirmed restriction, which was handled by a simple thread at AN/I. I don't even think an RfC was strictly required here, but I'm following the path of least resistance.As to the various negative effects you're worried about, I guess I'll focus on one thing you've said:
ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns
. Can you point to evidence of this actually being the case in the GENSEX area? In GENSEX AN/I threads I've been involved in, even when there's been some ultimate consensus, I really can't think of any that I would say show healthy self-governance. This strongly negative view of AN/I's handling of GENSEX issues is shared by, as of this comment, every commenter in this thread who substantially edits in the topic area, including ones who often sharply differ on content matters. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)- Hi Tamzin: I'm going to divide my responses between two posts, since these are semi-discrete issues, in order to faciliate any response and further discussion that may result:
- I don't really understand your procedural objection, Snow Rise. This proposes rules that would apply only to WP:AN and WP:AN/I. There's not even any change in how AE would operate, other than possibly getting more GENSEX cases than before. This is a vastly less impactful change than, say, placing WP:GS/RUSUKR under an extendedconfirmed restriction, which was handled by a simple thread at AN/I. I don't even think an RfC was strictly required here, but I'm following the path of least resistance.As to the various negative effects you're worried about, I guess I'll focus on one thing you've said:
- Regarding the procedural/placement issue, the mere fact that this change would pertain to how ANI operates hardly means that it will impact only the regular (mostly admin) editors at AN--let alone that it would only be of interest to this highly select segment of the community. This change would impact a vast number of editors working accross countless articles who may have recourse to bring behavioural concerns to the community at ANI. For that matter, considering almost every single hypothetical future thread that this proposal would seek to invalidate would typically have landed at ANI, rather than AN, placing it here rarifies the air even further, in terms of the regular editors who are likely to see it based on it's placement.
- This is clearly not an "AN/I only" issue: it very obviously touches upon fundamental authority, consensus process of, and decision making generally reserved to the community at large (as opposed to the administrative corps in particular) and the proposal would heavily impact the community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area, relative to how literally all others operate. Such a discussion should take place in a cnetralized and highly visible community space, not just within site of a handful of admins, those already connected to a singular dispute, and handful of others pulled in via a typical FRS. At an absolute minimum you should make a posting a notice about this discussion at the village Pump and making sure the discussion is on the WP:CD ticker. And frankly, I just strongly recommend you move the entire discussion to VP itself. Otherwise, even if you get a consensus for the proposal here, you are just begging for an uproar afterwards, with accusations of an admin power grab, however good faith the intention here. I mean, if nothing else, what is the good-faith, community-respectful argument against moving this to a place where the community at large is more likely to be able to be aware of and weigh in on it? SnowRise let's rap 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- On the proposal impacting on the "community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area", how would you respond to the point raised above by Barkeep49 that I'd like to build upon in the next paragraph. Not sure if this should be a reply to your first or second point however, if you feel that it's better answered in response to the second, feel free to move this comment as a reply to your second point.
- Because prior disruption in this content area has required significant ArbCom intervention, and the committee's remit is to operate on
serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve
, has the community already not demonstrated a significant inability to address long-term disruption in this content area? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)- No, with all due respect to Barkeep, that is a conclusion I believe is unsupported by compelling evidence, and certainly not one I am aware of ever having been endorsed by the community or by ArbCom in particular. WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them, or is per se incapable of doing so. Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here, relative to some others, for completely obvious reasons. None of that militates for the conclusion that the broader community and our long-established rules and processes do not have a central role to play in addressing a heightened level of disruption in such areas--either as a general matter or, certainly, in terms of an express point of community consensus that has ever been adopted on this project. When we say "contentious topic" we mean "contentious topic", not "a topic the general community does not have a role in regulating". That's a massive non-sequitor and leap in logic, in my opinion.
- This is clearly not an "AN/I only" issue: it very obviously touches upon fundamental authority, consensus process of, and decision making generally reserved to the community at large (as opposed to the administrative corps in particular) and the proposal would heavily impact the community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area, relative to how literally all others operate. Such a discussion should take place in a cnetralized and highly visible community space, not just within site of a handful of admins, those already connected to a singular dispute, and handful of others pulled in via a typical FRS. At an absolute minimum you should make a posting a notice about this discussion at the village Pump and making sure the discussion is on the WP:CD ticker. And frankly, I just strongly recommend you move the entire discussion to VP itself. Otherwise, even if you get a consensus for the proposal here, you are just begging for an uproar afterwards, with accusations of an admin power grab, however good faith the intention here. I mean, if nothing else, what is the good-faith, community-respectful argument against moving this to a place where the community at large is more likely to be able to be aware of and weigh in on it? SnowRise let's rap 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- CTOP (and DS before it) exists merely to grant relaxed use of certain tools in areas where rapid response to disruption is more likely to be needed, not to declare the rest of the community as irrelevant to such a fundamental function: if anything, the existence of a CTOP determination for a particular topic increases the likelihood the broader community may have to occasionally intervene directly concerning disruption connected with that topic, not that it should be forbidden access to it's normal role in that process: that's an incredibly counter-intuitive read on the purpose of CTOP in my opinion, and certainly not captured anywhere in the policy pages that describe those processes.
- And again, I say this while being broadly supportive of an hierarchy and an important division of labor running adjacent to the community->admin corps->ArbCom->WMF ladder. But this particular proposal would take a particular topic area and isolate it more or less entirely from established non-admin community tools and norms for expressing consensus on problematic behaviour, and taking consensus action accordingly. I just don't see how that can be justified on the mere basis that this is a highly divisive subject matter: so are countless other topics, including (by definition) every other WP:CTOP subject. Are we going to follow suit for each of those topic areas and essentially hand the entirety of our decision-making apparatus on behavioural issues surrounding contentious topics to the administrative corps alone? I very much hope not: I think it would be an immensely detrimental development in the history of this project. Regardless, such a massive change to the status-quo with such significant impacts upon how we conduct this project and hold eachother accountable to community standards absolutely must be discussed with the fullest possible involvement of the community at large, not just here in the hallowed halls of AN. SnowRise let's rap 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- On the conclusion from Barkeep I've built upon, the Arbitration policy that I linked to before, and was ratified by the community, does pretty clearly state that the Committee's remit is to handle content areas that
the community has been unable to resolve
. WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them,...Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here
Those two things aren't necessarily separate. Yes some of the CTOP topics are inherently divisive in broader social systems off-wiki, but because of that many of them are also topics that the community has historically had an inability to address. Some exceptions to this apply, for example while the Shakespeare authorship question is a CTOP area, outside of Shakespearean scholars and literary historians it's not really a topic that's divisive in a broader social context. As would the very Wikipedia specific Manual of Style and Article titles and BLP areas.- Let me put it to you another way. If was the community who had authorised the sanctions, even if ultimately the end result of the AE and wider discretionary powers for admins is the same, that would have been a clear demonstration that the community was able to handle disruption. However because this required an ArbCom case to be put in place, that alone is a pretty strong indicator to me that this is a content area that the community, for whatever reason, is unable to handle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've left myself open to being misconstrued by not being as clear as I could and should have been and so that has happened in this discussion. What I have said is that the community cannot self-manage Contentious Topics. If the community were self-sufficient and able to self-manage it would be inappropriate for it to be an ArbCom designated Contentious Topic. On the whole I am of the firm belief that this community is incredibly capable of handling large and thorny problems of both content (which is obviously out of bounds for ArbCom) and conduct. Because of this I think some members of the community will sometimes think that Contentious Topic is just a shortcut to make life easier - in this case I saw it in Billed Mammal's stating that ArbCom is supplementing the community in Contentious Topics. It goes beyond that. In a designated Contentious Topic there are going to be significant shortcomings in the community's abilities to self-manage. But being unable to self-manage does not mean the community finds itself helpless in managing a Contentious Topic. Hence my edited comment that there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal, which I continue to have no real opinion on. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification, Barkeep: your observations described in those terms, my own perspective substantially overlaps with yours. Sideswipe9th my response also touches upon your last post, but I'm doubling up here in responding to Barkeep to avoid redundancy. Let us assume for the moment that a CTOp being invoked in a topic area is a tacit statement that the community has been unable to handle issues in a topic area with the usual tools. I think the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that, but let's take that for granted in the present discussion so we can move on to more central points. Because the more critical/dispositive consideration here is that the increased tools that CTOP authorizes are meant to supplement existing administrative and community actions, not replace them. Even if we assume that any time ArbCom authorizes CTOP in a given area, it comes inherent with the message that the community is not getting the job done with typical methods, that is still a non-sequitor with the conclusion that ArbCom has declared that the rst of the community is not to take its own actions to arrest disruption in that area, where and when it can (be it at ANI or wherever). Not only does that conclusion not follow from the given premise, but we have a massive body of processes where the community clearly does regularly restrain problematic editors in CTOP/historical DS through processes taking place outside of AE. And this parallel activity has been undertaken as long as DS/CTOP have existed.
- On the conclusion from Barkeep I've built upon, the Arbitration policy that I linked to before, and was ratified by the community, does pretty clearly state that the Committee's remit is to handle content areas that
- And again, I say this while being broadly supportive of an hierarchy and an important division of labor running adjacent to the community->admin corps->ArbCom->WMF ladder. But this particular proposal would take a particular topic area and isolate it more or less entirely from established non-admin community tools and norms for expressing consensus on problematic behaviour, and taking consensus action accordingly. I just don't see how that can be justified on the mere basis that this is a highly divisive subject matter: so are countless other topics, including (by definition) every other WP:CTOP subject. Are we going to follow suit for each of those topic areas and essentially hand the entirety of our decision-making apparatus on behavioural issues surrounding contentious topics to the administrative corps alone? I very much hope not: I think it would be an immensely detrimental development in the history of this project. Regardless, such a massive change to the status-quo with such significant impacts upon how we conduct this project and hold eachother accountable to community standards absolutely must be discussed with the fullest possible involvement of the community at large, not just here in the hallowed halls of AN. SnowRise let's rap 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- So the end result remains the same: a finding of CTOP in no way forestalls the broader community from exercising it's own prerogative to implement TBANs or other CBANs (to take just one example of what the community is permitted to do in CTOP areas). Surely if the contrary was the case, we would have adjusted the relevant policies on CBANs to reflect this fact years ago. CTOP merely authorizes the use of advanced tools to block or otherwise restrain problematic actors a little faster, and makes WP:AE an option for reporting and getting a faster administrative response. What CTOP clearly does not do is forbid the community at large from also using its own discretion in conjunction with these liberalized tools, as it can (and does) use such community decisions/CBANs parallel to regular administrative blocks, in any other topic area where disruption arises. Again, that would be an absurd conclusion: why would we want the community to be less proactive in responding to areas of heightened disruption? Clearly we want (or at least entertain the occasional need for) increased use of CBANs alongside the use of CTOP/1RR blocks and AE filings. Insofar as CTOP/DS language has ever said "DS/CTOP is meant for areas where the community is having trouble keeping the disruption in check", it is for the purpose of explaining the need for looser standards for when warnings, blocks, and other preventative administrative actions can take place--not for the purposes of saying "these issues can now only be addressed at AE". If it were the latter, then countless of our policies and much of the history community bans would read completely differently. SnowRise let's rap 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- What I think this very fair analysis of Contentious Topics misses out on is that certain editors/discussions are, themselves, signals that the community is unable to handle something. This is why not only can admin act sooner and sanction with more severity than they can outside a CT topic area (what SR focuses on) but also can act with first mover advantage and knowing that their actions are less likely to be overturned on formal appeal because of the higher than normal requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- So the end result remains the same: a finding of CTOP in no way forestalls the broader community from exercising it's own prerogative to implement TBANs or other CBANs (to take just one example of what the community is permitted to do in CTOP areas). Surely if the contrary was the case, we would have adjusted the relevant policies on CBANs to reflect this fact years ago. CTOP merely authorizes the use of advanced tools to block or otherwise restrain problematic actors a little faster, and makes WP:AE an option for reporting and getting a faster administrative response. What CTOP clearly does not do is forbid the community at large from also using its own discretion in conjunction with these liberalized tools, as it can (and does) use such community decisions/CBANs parallel to regular administrative blocks, in any other topic area where disruption arises. Again, that would be an absurd conclusion: why would we want the community to be less proactive in responding to areas of heightened disruption? Clearly we want (or at least entertain the occasional need for) increased use of CBANs alongside the use of CTOP/1RR blocks and AE filings. Insofar as CTOP/DS language has ever said "DS/CTOP is meant for areas where the community is having trouble keeping the disruption in check", it is for the purpose of explaining the need for looser standards for when warnings, blocks, and other preventative administrative actions can take place--not for the purposes of saying "these issues can now only be addressed at AE". If it were the latter, then countless of our policies and much of the history community bans would read completely differently. SnowRise let's rap 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- As to the substantive arguments, you may very well be correct that regulars in the GENSEX space consider ANI an intractable travesty: while my background and editorial interests in both biopsychology and human rights semi-frequently bring me into contact with existing disputes in this topic area, I don't engage with the area with the regularity of such editors. However, a few thoughts as to that: first off, that is not exactly a rare perspective about ANI's complications, issues, and the general caliber of discussion there from editors in...oh, I don't know, let's say every single topic area under the sun. That low opinion of what can happen at ANI (unavodiable to a certain extent by virtue of the fact that it specializes in intractable disputes) does not automatically invalidate the role that space serves or the necessity for preserving the ability for concerned community members to bring issues there for the community's consideration.
- So I would say the onus is upon you as the party proposing such a massive carve-out to explain why this one topic area should deviate so drastically from how our policies and procedures operate for every other topic. I mean, have you even considered the fact that your proposal would essentially make it impossible for any disruptive party in the GENSEX area to hereafter ever receive a CBAN from that area (or the project in general) as a result of their conduct? That's a pretty humongous abrogation of the community's inherent purview as it has historically existed on this project--and yet also just one of several such outsized implications of the proposal. Is GENSEX so much more inherently disruptive an area so as to seize the entirety of all such determinations from the community at large, even when compared against other DS/CTOP topics? I just don't think so. The community needs to be able to weight in on longterm abuse regardless of the topic area, and your proposal would instead shift that role entirely to just those admins participating at AE. That's incredibly problematic to me, for more reasons than I can begin to list here.
- For that matter, putting aside for the moment how extensively this proposal would usurp the broader community's role in preventing disruption in this area, and hamstring our ability to respond to longterm abuse, I am equally, if not more, concerned about the impacts upon the interests of the reported parties. For all the issues inherent to ANI, it does permit for more shades of grey to enter the discourse than does AE. Taking TT's case as an example, some of us were compelled to modulate our recommendations based on the nitty-gritty details and context of the dispute. Let's remember that the responding admin at AE has a fundamentally different role from the closer of an ANI thread. At ANI the closer must, to some degree, take stock of any ameliorating factors which gained significant support among respondents, because they are finding a community consensus in the discussion. At AE, the admin's role is much more that of the party actually making the determination in the first instance, based on the information provided by involved parties. That's a fundamental difference that effectively narrows the decision making from a group (which can, in the aggregate, often reach a more nuanced and reasonable conclusion that balances competing interests) to a single person, who is more likely to act in a very black and white (or at least far more idiosyncratic) fashion.
- Again, sometimes that is precisely what we want, for the sake of efficiency and fairness. But often we want the broader community weighing in, in complicated or nuanced cases with competing community interests, and creating a blanket rule that would just completely pull that decision making into the authority of a increasingly smaller subset of the community is a bad direction to take, and even more questionable when you consider that the proposal is that we do it for a given topic area on the justification that "it gets ugly at ANI sometimes when we discuss this subject matter", because 1) what topic would that not apply to? and 2) sometimes the areas with the most contention behind them are the ones we want the community at large to be able to dig into, to avoid oversimplifcation in the handling of those disputes. SnowRise let's rap 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Moral support - I'm generally in favor of making ANI operate more like AE (read: get rid of threaded discussions between the OP and accused party), and thus for as long as AN/I continues to not look like that, I'd generally support delegating more to AE over ANI. But, I do agree with Snow that there's procedural issues with raising this proposal here (at least as anything other than testing the waters), and beyond that would be more in favor of a proposal that cuts down on threaded discussion at ANI rather than just delegating work away from there in a piecemeal fashion. signed, Rosguill talk 20:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Reading through the proposal again, I guess my above reasoning puts me in the soft camp? But I don't think we need more guidance for this topic area so much as modest changes to how ANI operates, and for as long as ANI continues to be a free-for-all, AE will be a preferable forum for addressing pretty much any conduct dispute that it has authority to address. signed, Rosguill talk 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's a fine line between accused having an opportunity/obligation to respond to their accusers and the potential for accusations of WP:BLUDGEONing and the current format makes it hard to tell which is happening. Very much agreed with you @Rosguill. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't believe this is something we need to formalize. However, a few times in this saga I've said that it would be a good idea for the closing admins to suggest that future incidents of this type might be better suited for AE. I still stand by that. I suppose this is similar to the Soft version above, but less formal. We can make a recommendation, but we don't need to make the process so rigid by reducing out flexibility to handle new situations at the most appropriate place. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support, preferring hard This case has pretty conclusively proven that in a controversial topic area it's possible to remove an opponent who has not actually done anything wrong just by showing up to ANI. Needless to say, this is bad. So I support any reform that would fix this situation, including this one. Loki (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
who has not actually done anything wrong
- hmm, seems like a questionable summary to say the least. Crossroads -talk- 01:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose, this is a completely inappropriate carveout of one topic area, basically making WP:CBANs impossible for that topic. That is unprecedented and disempowers the community. It is not the place of a few people on AN and a few people unhappy with the recent closes to give/take that away. And the idea that AE is inherently superior to ANI is questionable. The limits there make it hard to document a pattern of misconduct; and without a pattern, it's easy and common for bad behavior to be handwaved away as though it is an isolated incident, or just sour grapes from transphobes or whatever. Crossroads -talk- 01:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Crossroads: CBANs are beyond AE's authority and would thus obviously not be covered by this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- That is not at all obvious, and besides, then why propose this? It was two CBAN discussions that sparked this idea in the first place, and is motivating some of the votes. A technicality of "the discussion has to be explicitly for a CBAN from the get-go" would make it much harder for problems to be addressed because it's not common for one editor to have all that evidence personally and know that it is that severe. Crossroads -talk- 02:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- CBANS are pretty much exclusively a product of ANI discussions, so if you create a rule which prevents the community from bringing disruption attached to a given topic area to ANI, you effectively are creating a situation where a CBAN can never be applied to a user who has proven disruptive in that area. So, yes, your proposal very much removes CBANS (or similar actions taken as an expression of community will) as an option in any case of disruption that took place in the GENSEX topic area. Indeed, under your proposal, even an LTA or a suspected sock of a previously CBANned editor couldn't be brought to ANI to be dealt with if the disruption touched upon GENSEX editing. I honestly don't wish to be rude, Tamzin, so I hope you will forgive how stridently I am about to word this, but the fact that you didn't recognize this extremely obvious result of the proposal suggests you made it without due consideration for its very broad and numerous impacts. SnowRise let's rap 02:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there are two possibilities here. One is that I didn't consider the possible negative outcomes. The other is that you're wrong about those negative outcomes being remotely likely. Unsurprisingly, just as you tend to think your analysis is correct, I tend to think mine is. Perhaps after ~15kB of reiterating your parade of horribles that will come to pass if we so much as discourage these discussions, now would be a good time to step back and let others decide how valid your concerns are. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tamzin I'm fairly sure I've seen you a lot around AN/ANI so I'm fairly surprised that you're so unfamiliar with how CBANS work. While some CBANs start from the get go as someone reporting some behaviour problem an proposing a CBAN, I'd say most CBANs do not work like that. Instead they start of with someone reporting some misbehaviour. Others than may report more misbehaviour. Sometimes the OP responds extremely poorly as well. Eventually someone decides their behaviour is bad enough and proposes a CBAN. The community discussions/!vote this and we hopefully come to a consensus. Even better if it is an uncontentious consensus although sadly that isn't always the case. The organic nature of CBAN discussions means that saying this proposal excludes CBANs simply makes no sense. How can a proposal exclude CBANs when we have no idea if a CBAN may result until we've discussed? Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Nil Einne: I'm well aware of how CBANs work. I'm also well aware that there has not been consensus to CBAN someone for edits primarily relating to GENSEX since... Since when? I can't think of a time in recent memory, and I can think of one particular case where a CBAN proposal failed despite strong evidence of systemic discrimination against trans editors. If someone gets TBANned at AE from GENSEX, and continues to disrupt in other realms, then AN/I can still handle it, probably much less dramatically. "User:Example was indef TBANned from GENSEX last month at AE. They have since made comments X, Y, and Z regarding abortion. This user is clearly NOTHERE and further sanctions re in order" has a much better chance at AN/I than "User:Example has been saying A, B, C in this dispute about trans pronouns and D, E, F in this thread on gender dysphoria and also unrelatedly X, Y, Z about abortion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzin (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Look, I don't want to get in a cycle of counter-criticisms with you, especially because I can recognize that your proposal is a goodfaith response to seeing one too many trainwrecks in this area that could have driven away a valuable contributor (thankfully, from the above, it seems we have avoided that outcome with TheTranarchist). However, I will say that the vast majority of the "15kb" you reference is a necessary response to your hand-waving away observations about some pretty major consequences of your proposed course of action--which I would not describe as a "parade of horribles" but rather a series of results that would be direct consequences of that policy were it implemented, and which (far from being hypothetical or hyperbole), would be automatic and inevitable outcomes.
- Tamzin I'm fairly sure I've seen you a lot around AN/ANI so I'm fairly surprised that you're so unfamiliar with how CBANS work. While some CBANs start from the get go as someone reporting some behaviour problem an proposing a CBAN, I'd say most CBANs do not work like that. Instead they start of with someone reporting some misbehaviour. Others than may report more misbehaviour. Sometimes the OP responds extremely poorly as well. Eventually someone decides their behaviour is bad enough and proposes a CBAN. The community discussions/!vote this and we hopefully come to a consensus. Even better if it is an uncontentious consensus although sadly that isn't always the case. The organic nature of CBAN discussions means that saying this proposal excludes CBANs simply makes no sense. How can a proposal exclude CBANs when we have no idea if a CBAN may result until we've discussed? Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, there are two possibilities here. One is that I didn't consider the possible negative outcomes. The other is that you're wrong about those negative outcomes being remotely likely. Unsurprisingly, just as you tend to think your analysis is correct, I tend to think mine is. Perhaps after ~15kB of reiterating your parade of horribles that will come to pass if we so much as discourage these discussions, now would be a good time to step back and let others decide how valid your concerns are. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Crossroads: CBANs are beyond AE's authority and would thus obviously not be covered by this. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- As Nil Einne, Crossroads and myself have already explained, almost all CBANs result from discussions where they were not suggested at the outset, and your personal recollections and feelings about their necessity not withstanding, there's no good reason to believe the community might not need to CBAN someone in this area from time to time, and no argument for stripping that option from the community's potential responses to disruption. Considering we just had two such CBANS of the sort that you describe as uncommon in one day, and considering there have been numerous other GENSEX TBANS implemented at ANI over the years, clearly the need for such tools is not as super rare as you suggest. And frankly, anti-trans sentiment is a reason why we should be concerned to preserve this option, not toss it away, because it's equally (if not more) likely that the next person we need to indefinitely remove from GENSEX editing will be a problem user aligned against trans rights.
- And even as regards that rare exception where a CBAN proposal is a part of the initial complaint, that actually highlights another can-of-worms knock-on effect that would result from the framework you are advancing here. Because as soon as people adjust to this new dynamic, here's exactly what is going to happen: every single time that an editor with an ounce of WP:BATTLEGROUND in them at the moment wants to bring what they perceive to be disruption in the GENSEX area to ANI, they are simply going to include a request for a CBAN in their filing, because that will become the most obvious way for them to get past the arbitrary "must be an issue that AE cannot address" threshold that is a part of your model. And I fail to see how forcing every complaint filed at ANI over GENSEX disruption to start out with the posture of a proposed CBAN is going to make the resulting discussions less inflamed. SnowRise let's rap 07:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Just spitballing. What about a system in which CT issues are still reported at ANI, but they can be forwarded to AE if it's determined that there was disruptive behavior? This would theoretically retain the benefits of the discussion format, but it would end the discussion before the thousands of words dedicated to arguing about whether sanctions are warranted and what sanctions are applicable. Of course, this system would not address the legitimate concerns raised by Crossroads above. I also think that any solution should involve reform that allows for topics to be delisted from CT more easily per Barkeep49. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Puts the cart before the horse. If "it's determined that there was disruptive behavior" then a conclusion has already been reached and an appropriate sanction or warning can issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Having watched AE proceedings over the years, I am quite confused on why anyone would see that as an improvement in venue. In fact the ability for a single admin to supervote by design, has been a detriment to the encyclopedia in my opinion. Arkon (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- oppose. this is instruction creep. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose in a number of ANI cases involving an DS area, I have suggested that it might be simpler to take things to ARE. Indeed in a number of cases where someone was not formally aware, I've given alerts as a result of an ANI cases and if the problems were minor enough I've suggested perhaps it would be easier to just leave things be for now and take it to ARE if it repeats. I haven't done so since it changed to CT mostly because it's just something I do where I happen to see a case where this might help. In other words, I fully support the idea that often it is better for areas well covered by CT to be simply handled by CT rather than going through normal community discussion.
However I'd oppose trying to force cases must be treated as CT without very strong evidence that this is the best for the community. And to be clear this includes the soft variant as it also include a degree of force.
As noted above, there are numerous possible consequences for this e.g. how we handle cban or other sanctions that aren't something CT can impose. Note also that CBANs technically include topic bans even from CT areas. While I am personally not fussed whether an editor is subject to a community topic ban or a CT one, there is always going to be editors who feel a community ones is better since it will require a community consensus to remove. (After all, we even had community site ban of an editor because the community was concerned about an earlier arbcom decision to unban the editor.) There's also how this affect cases that might be better for the community to handle since they are more complicated than the simpler disruption in a certain topic area CT handles best.
I'd even more oppose it for any specific CT area (instead of all CT areas) without strong evidence there's a reason to treat these as special areas. I'm far from convinced that the two reason cases resulted in this are the worst we've seen at ANI. And concerns over people trying to get rid of opponents covers pretty much all CT areas and frankly anything contentious which isn't CT. E.g. the notability/ARS wars.
Most importantly though, IMO this is simply a bad idea at this time. To some extent there is an aspect of hard cases make bad law here. But more importantly, emotions are clearly still running high over those two recent cases. I don't think it likely holding this discussion at this time is going to improve that or ensure we make a good decision. Instead we get comments like "
who has not actually done anything wrong
". Clearly quite a few members of the community do not agree with that for one or both of those editors. This includes many who are not opponents. While a discussion like this is always likely to be contentious and may get controversial comments, the best outcome and least disruption and harm to the community will come if we hold it when editors aren't already affected by two recent controversial cases, cases which resulted in this proposal. Fanning the flames when emotions are still so high is not going to benefit the community.To be clear, I'm not suggesting any editor involved in this proposal ill motivations, I have no doubt they're genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia and fix a problem that they feel was highlighted by recent cases. However having good motivations doesn't stop an editor making bad decisions and I feel that's clearly the case here. (Actually part of the reason why they have made such a bad decision is precisely why we should not be doing this. Perhaps they weren't able to see what they may have seen when if it wasn't so soon after those two cases namely that it was a terrible idea to discuss this right at this moment.)
- Oppose per most of the above, especially SnowRise. Not going to repeat it all. I do think that an "ARBGENSEX2" case is ultimately inevitable, but it will be after the community has failed to be able to resolve the problem without having to defer to ArbCom. And that time is not upon us yet. I agree also especially with Crossroads in observing that AE is not a good venue for establishing long-term patterns of disruption, only short-term "outbursts", because of its strict limits. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 05:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - While I recognize that Tamzin's suggestion is entirely a good faith effort to deal with a pressing problem, I believe that SnowRise's analysis of the results that would occur if this were put into effect to be more accurate and representative of the general history of AN and AN/I. Community discussion can result in a CBAN, which requires that the community overturn it. It is therefore a more powerful sanction then an admin-imposed AE indef, which -- like every other admn-imposed sanction -- can be overturned at any time by any individual admin (for whatever reason). We should not lose the potential use of CBANS as an option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: I'm fairly sure you're wrong about CT sanctions as alluded to by User:Barkeep49 and maybe others above. As documented at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction, these can't simply be overturned at any time by an individual admin for any reason. That can only happen when it's an indef and was imposed by a single admin and it's been more than a year or the imposing admin is no longer an admin. Otherwise if the imposing admin agrees (including when imposing the sanction) but note this sort of means it's not overturned solely by any admin. Oh and if it's imposed by a single admin, they (but only they) can change or remove it themselves without needing to ask anyone. Maybe more importantly a case which makes it to AE will often result in discussion before sanction is imposed by rough consensus of admins in which case none of this applies and it needs to be appealed either at AE or AN or by arbcom. To be clear, this is only for sanctions imposed under CT. I believe in some cases an admin will just quickly impose a sanction as an ordinary admin action rather than under CT and AE will decide to just leave it at that. (And as noted to some extent even if it is imposed under CT, if by a single admin which I think is another possible outcome of an AE report, this admin could allow it to be treated like a regular sanction and overturned by any admin by saying so when imposing it.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I may be confused about that, I'm not certain, but it *is* certain that if all GENSEX issues are required to be settled at AE, then a CBAN is out of the question, and I still consider a CBAN to be a more powerful sanction, because it comes from the community at large. It may be more cumbersome to *reach* a consensus to CBAN, but the direct consensus of the community is, to my mind, a stronger action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: I'm fairly sure you're wrong about CT sanctions as alluded to by User:Barkeep49 and maybe others above. As documented at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction, these can't simply be overturned at any time by an individual admin for any reason. That can only happen when it's an indef and was imposed by a single admin and it's been more than a year or the imposing admin is no longer an admin. Otherwise if the imposing admin agrees (including when imposing the sanction) but note this sort of means it's not overturned solely by any admin. Oh and if it's imposed by a single admin, they (but only they) can change or remove it themselves without needing to ask anyone. Maybe more importantly a case which makes it to AE will often result in discussion before sanction is imposed by rough consensus of admins in which case none of this applies and it needs to be appealed either at AE or AN or by arbcom. To be clear, this is only for sanctions imposed under CT. I believe in some cases an admin will just quickly impose a sanction as an ordinary admin action rather than under CT and AE will decide to just leave it at that. (And as noted to some extent even if it is imposed under CT, if by a single admin which I think is another possible outcome of an AE report, this admin could allow it to be treated like a regular sanction and overturned by any admin by saying so when imposing it.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- OpposeAs a general principle leave it to us on the ground to thrash things out. The existing structure can take care of those fairly rare times we can't.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - I appreciate Tamzin making an effort to find a way to improve our resolution of disputes and to avoid having difficult mega-threads like these two ANIs we just had. However, I am among those who does not believe that AE is better at resolving disputes than ANI (although I do believe in some cases we should make some ANI threads more formal, like AE, to e.g. reduce bludgeoning). I also don't think AN is the right place to decide structural changes to ANI; that should be at the pump; the Administrator's Noticeboard is not an appropriate place for any RFC in my view. Discussions here will attract attention from administrators, and RFCs might bring in FRS, but that's still not a pool representative of the overall community. Ironically, my procedural objection is rooted in the same principle as my substantive objection: fundamentally, if you reduce the pool of decision-makers from "everyone" to "administrators", you don't end up with a better decision. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently we're testing the theory. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- So much for that. Closed promptly with "It is debatable whether ... that would be a matter for AE". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Apparently we're testing the theory. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral on the soft proposal, though I think it should be worded to encompass all CT areas, oppose the hard version. I do think AE is a better venue for most CT-related conduct disputes, and I hope our admins feel empowered to strongly suggest that newly filed ANI reports be moved to AE when possible. I would be fine with admins closing such discussions and directing the OPs to AE, though I think all it should take to reopen them is the OP saying "no, I definitely want this to stay at ANI". I oppose the hard proposal as GENSEX doesn't need this treatment over other CT areas, and because I agree with those that are concerned about missing out on some ANI-specific potential remedies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: I've placed a notice of this discussion at WP:VPP and listed it on the WP:CD ticker: these issues and the proposed solution have implications far too broad to be considered by just those of us here. SnowRise let's rap 22:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - My lead reasoning will remain that our community members are intended to be able to pick their forum, depending on what they think can work best (I suspect GENSEX regulars are likely aware of the options). I oppose revoking that choice. There are more personal reasons someone might have this reason (e.g. So long as I continue to find complex discussions harder to understand in separated discussion than ANI rambling but more continuous format (while many are fiercely the opposite); or someone preferring to have an area settled by the general editing base than a small subset of admins), that encourage them to prefer one format over another. In terms of proposer's request to find alternate solutions, then I believe they may be best off indicating what the most problematic factors are, then mitigations to those can be advised, which may well more be in execution than mechanics. Time? Length of reading? Both no doubt come with negatives, but the flipside is both indicate significant numbers of editors trying to find a solution and struggling. A shift to AE may well resolve on those two aspects, but at the issue of cutting the people participating, or the views & evidence given. In which case, it's not a solution, but a tradeoff. We deal with tradeoffs all the time, but for any tradeoff, the proposal should be noting the negatives that arise and why we should accept their cost. I do not believe those costs are sufficiently covered here, with either option. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've been a bit conflicted on this but I think I'm coming down on the side of weakly supporting the soft version of this proposal.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. It is my firm belief that this proposal would not have been made if it had been any other topic area. Gensex editors should not be treated any differently from other editors that wind up at ANI. Gensex editors are not special and exceptional. Wikipedia is not here to coddle any editors, regardless of their editing experience and editor level. Gensex editors must follow the same Wikipedia community policies that affect non-gensex editors, and if one of them pushes an envelope too far, he/she/they must face the same action and consequences faced by editors who have engaged in similar behavior in non-gensex articles. ANI is where issues regarding a user's conduct need to be discussed and determined. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. For the same reason I opposed making ANI more like AE, there is a need for a place to report issue that has no bar of entry. No matter how low that bar can be made. Maybe taking discussions to AE is a good idea, and could be suggested once a report has been made, but there shouldn't be any formal direction on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Strong oppose hard, neutral on soft - AE is too bureaucratic. Allowing an admin to move a discussion to AE puts the bureaucratic responsibility to the admin, not the (possibly new) user who wants to file a complaint. Animal lover |666| 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Neutral to support on hard, support on soft - I know this sounds vague, but in this case, any solution is better than no solution. The way I see it, most GENSEX editors have it significantly harder on virtually every level and WP might not be well equipped to handle all of it with its existing administrative structures. @Tamzin I hope this will not come off as if I am rushing through the nuances of this proposal; rather, I am trying to say that this is one of those cases where, in principle, I'll support attempts to lessen the burden on GENSEX editors, even if those are not "perfect" by WP standards. I'll add that to VP discussion. And I really think some editors in ANI should take WP:WALLOFTEXT to heart. Ppt91talk 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cases from all other topic areas can be brought here (can't they?). I don't see how it is helpful to make an exception for GENSEX. Editors should not be curtailed from raising important issues so that the most people can see them. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. Does not seem appropriate; cases should be filed where appropriate as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see even from the previous ANI threads that GENSEX topics are unique in a manner that would make AE the only appropriate venue, especially since AE tends to languish in my experience from lack of input. If there's thoughts that ANI itself could be restructured to address issues, that's worth talking about (BilledMammal's suggestions etc.) But I don't actually see how this solves any problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Actively trying to reduce community involvement in banning people for their problematic behaviour is counter to the core consensus-based approach to community management. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose Snow Rise's very valid concerns around procedure and CBANs have still not been addressed. Obviously contentious topics like GENSEX invite contentious editing which is why said topics are over-represented at ANI, doesn't mean we need to palm them off elsewhere and out of the hands of the community. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
A plea: Propose a better solution
I don't think I have ever felt truly desperate on Wikipedia before. I have not come here trying to offer a magic bullet to this problem. I have presented two drafts of solutions to a problem that is making a highly sensitive topic area unsafe to edit in. Most people who edit GENSEX have been neutral to supportive of this proposal. It has largely been the "AN(I) regulars" here saying no, we have to continue to stew in this mess—a kind of mess that, no doubt, AN(I) regulars are used to, else they wouldn't be AN(I) regulars. The people in this topic area do not edit so they can have month-long dramaboard threads. We edit because we see issues in Wikipedia's woefully inadequate coverage of gender issues. Inhumane treatment of BLP subjects. Coverage of sociological subjects that is sourced to Tumblr blogs rather than academic papers. Coverage of highly sensitive biomedical subjects that is sourced to Tumblr blogs rather than academic papers. All to push both pro- and anti-trans narratives, sometimes in the same sentence.
So I'm begging y'all, please. As a fellow editor. As someone who has poured her heart into writing two GAs in this topic area. This is a request for comment. I am requesting y'all's comments: Propose a better solution. Propose something that does not drive away editors from a topic area desperately in need of them. I still think my ideas work fine or would only nned slight tweaks—in particular "soft", which may oppose !votes haven't really addressed—but if you disagree, I get it. That's how consensus works. But there is a massive problem here. I don't think anyone familiar with the facts disputes that. If you won't support either these solutions, then something else. Please. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- The same sort of plea could be made about every WP:CTOP subject area. There's nothing magically special about this one. What you have boils down to a complaint about how WP:ANI operates, and we all have complaints about how ANI operates, but there isn't a clear consensus on how to improve it. "Carve my preferred topic out of ANI" isn't a solution, and an RfC predicated on that idea isn't going to be the vehicle by which we arrive at ANI reform. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 23:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
- I edit in quite a few CTOP areas. I am not aware of another one that routinely triggers weekslong battles of this sort at AN/I. But if your response to a request for a better proposal is "I acknowledge a systemic problem, oppose a solution, and have no better solution to offer," all right, noted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Instead of engaging in a petty straw-man argument, try reading what I wrote more carefully. To spell it out: This proposal is basically a poisoned well. If you want to propose ANI reform, do it in a clean proposal in an appropriate venue and there may be enough other editors fed up with ANI for the same reasons to support some changes. (Comment length/frequency limitations are a pretty commonly suggested idea, so that's a likely starting point.) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I edit in quite a few CTOP areas. I am not aware of another one that routinely triggers weekslong battles of this sort at AN/I. But if your response to a request for a better proposal is "I acknowledge a systemic problem, oppose a solution, and have no better solution to offer," all right, noted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- (
Peanut gallery comment) I may be overusing this template, but I really want to make clear that I'm a newbie here. I don't mean to be a bother. In my lowly opinion, the first substantive community response to a new editor's behavioral issue should not be a vicious, humiliating, overlong, utterly unsympathetic ANI case. And if you're just going to hand out a TBAN anyway, you might as well make it policy to slap an editing restriction on anyone with more than one warning in the GENSEX topic area. It would eliminate a lot of the pointless bureaucracy.In my lowly opinion, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (Metric friends may substitute '28 grams' and '0.45 kilogram'. /j) If the WP:Adopt-a-user program were reasonably effective I wager you wouldn't find even half as many chronic, intractable
behavioral problems in this area. You can try to whip GENSEX into shape all you like, but do you really think that increasing sanctions will entice new users to come edit the area? (I certainly am not enticed. Thank god I stay on the refdesks.) If the broader community were more proactive and less reactive in responding to flawed editing, things would surely not escalate so rapidly.In any case I don't really have a concrete suggestion. I would greatly like to see increased collegiality between old and new editors with a more developed mentorship program. But anything that gets the community to act before things have escalated to a TBAN is a better solution than what exists presently. Stop punishing people when you veterans haven't even figured out how to solve the underlying problem. In the meantime (I know my comment is unrealistic), I think AE is probably a better place than ANI for things like this. But maybe it would be best to introduce an "AE mode" for use at ANI, so discussions could be more structured yet not as limited in scope and jurisdiction. Just a thought.I don't mean to be impolite with this comment, just impassioned. If I've been incivil, let me know and I'll strike it. Shells-shells (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)- I'd be all for a radical restructuring of AN/I—perhaps limiting it into actual incidents and creating a separate Administrators' noticeboard/Recurring issues without threaded discussion—but that seems even less likely to happen than fixing the handling of GENSEX discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Shells-shells, topic bans are not "punishment", they are protection of the project from recurrent disruption. I don't know what you think AE does, but go observe it for a while, and you'll see that it largely hands out topic bans (and blocks). It is unlikely that either of the GENSEX editors recently sanctioned at ANI would not have been sanctioned at AE. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have read WP:PUNITIVE, yes, which is why I specifically used the word
punishing
. With the exception of its first sentence—I would rather saybans should not be "punishment"
—I completely agree with your comment. Shells-shells (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC) Shells-shells, topic bans are not "punishment", they are protection of the project from recurrent disruption.
- They are both. It's meant to be protective, but it's absolutely a "you did something wrong and now we're taking away your ability to edit here" punishment. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have read WP:PUNITIVE, yes, which is why I specifically used the word
- Well, I do think there are some issues with that framing: it's really the low hanging fruit/Wikipedia equivalent of a politician's baby kiss to say ANI is ugly and that we wish the process of dispute resolution could be more collegial--and less dispiriting for newcomers in particular. But nobody is excited when a dispute or issue grows to the point that it lands at ANI, let alone when a CBAN has to be issued, and when I check in at ANI, I fairly regularly see people doing their best to make the process (borrowing upon your wording here) as un-vicious, un-humiliating, and sympathetic as they can, in the circumstances. But let's have a dose of realism and pay at least lip service to some important constraints here: sometimes there are values and priorities of our community and methodology (for providing reliable, neutral, factually-accurate material to serve the needs of our readers) that have to take precedence over encouraging the editing of every contributor, in every area, all the time.
- That important caveat said, my overall thoughts are that you've identified a fruitful area here--indeed, maybe one of the few areas that actual stands a chance of improving the situation in question, as it stands. I think you are very much correct that more effort at the front-end, when onboarding volunteers, could pay immense dividends in the long run, in terms of decreased disruption, acrimony, and need to re-set editorial conduct when problematic patterns have already been formed. As you say, mentorship in one form or another is surely an under-exploited potential tool. I think there's a cognitive bias at work here that is not at all uncommon to institutions of governance: we are fixated with and dissuaded by the upfront costs, failing to rationally apply a longterm analysis.
- On the other hand, I am not surprised that "adopt-a-user" has failed to catch on: what a patronizing choice of title for such a program. I imagine it has an especially discouraging impact on precisely the type of editors we are talking about here and would most like to reach with such a scheme: those who come here specifically to edit in CTOP areas: some of those editors would be just simply battleground and avoidant of the idea of the need for guidance by nature and others, as a consequence of what their communities have historically had to deal with, are justifiably sensitive to implied condescension. Anyway, that last point is a nitpick observation. I agree the mentorship angle is something this community needs to invest in. Not just to ameliorate the issues being contemplated here today, but for purposes of editor retention and community unity/harmonized outlook.SnowRise let's rap 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I may simply be naïve, but I don't think ANI is really as bad as people say. It seems to work pretty well as an ad hoc tribunal, or as a grand jury. But once in a while it gets acrimonious, and the last people who should be subjected to an acrimonious ANI thread are new users. In fact I think there's far too much bureaucracy facing new users anyway (even excepting ANI), but that criticism is also
low hanging fruit
. There ought to be better options, with lower stakes, in the first place.I agree completely with your second and third paragraphs. It would be wonderful for a mentorship culture to develop here, and 'Adopt-a-user' may well need a rebranding. Shells-shells (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I may simply be naïve, but I don't think ANI is really as bad as people say. It seems to work pretty well as an ad hoc tribunal, or as a grand jury. But once in a while it gets acrimonious, and the last people who should be subjected to an acrimonious ANI thread are new users. In fact I think there's far too much bureaucracy facing new users anyway (even excepting ANI), but that criticism is also
- On the other hand, I am not surprised that "adopt-a-user" has failed to catch on: what a patronizing choice of title for such a program. I imagine it has an especially discouraging impact on precisely the type of editors we are talking about here and would most like to reach with such a scheme: those who come here specifically to edit in CTOP areas: some of those editors would be just simply battleground and avoidant of the idea of the need for guidance by nature and others, as a consequence of what their communities have historically had to deal with, are justifiably sensitive to implied condescension. Anyway, that last point is a nitpick observation. I agree the mentorship angle is something this community needs to invest in. Not just to ameliorate the issues being contemplated here today, but for purposes of editor retention and community unity/harmonized outlook.SnowRise let's rap 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Throwing this out there: ArbCom. We pay them to deal with problems that are, well, really bad. We haven't actually tried this yet; WP:GENSEX is not a "real" case. HouseBlastertalk 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've said before that I think a GENSEX2 case is ultimately inevitable, but why do you think an ArbCom proceeding would be preferable? It would ultimately take several months, dig even deeper into various individuals' editing habits, and probably result in more sanctions, on more editors, that are harder to appeal. Few things drive editors away from a topic area better and faster than WP:RFARB attention. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know that I would agree that such a case would be per se a bad thing: if it gets to the point that ArbCom forms a case, presumably it will be a situation where there are at least potentially bad actors needing scrutiny--which would not be a happy occasion but would surely be better than their hiding their heads in the sand. That said, it would all come down to the particulars whether it would be a positive development in the aggregate.
- I've said before that I think a GENSEX2 case is ultimately inevitable, but why do you think an ArbCom proceeding would be preferable? It would ultimately take several months, dig even deeper into various individuals' editing habits, and probably result in more sanctions, on more editors, that are harder to appeal. Few things drive editors away from a topic area better and faster than WP:RFARB attention. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those caveats made, I agree with your central point: I don't see how such a case would really remedy the systemic issues being contemplated here. For all its overriding authority, ArbComs remedies in a situation like this are rather limited. They can make a subject CTOP (and this one already is), they can sanction individual editors, sometimes they publically hold harmless someone who got pulled into a dispute through no disruptive fault of their own, and they can take steps to protect individuals from harassment. All vital work, such as it goes, but making substantial changes to our community structures and processes, at least in this context, is largely outside of their remit. To the extent we want to reform ANI or any of our other community processes, it's just not something we can pass to their shoulders. The buck stops here. SnowRise let's rap 01:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- It depends what the issue is? If the issue is certain editors who cannot behave in the topic area, but the issue becomes too obfuscated in ANI discussions for the community at large to get involved, then ArbCom would be a good venue to deal with it. DS I don't think dealt with these problems too well either, and ArbCom directly does I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those caveats made, I agree with your central point: I don't see how such a case would really remedy the systemic issues being contemplated here. For all its overriding authority, ArbComs remedies in a situation like this are rather limited. They can make a subject CTOP (and this one already is), they can sanction individual editors, sometimes they publically hold harmless someone who got pulled into a dispute through no disruptive fault of their own, and they can take steps to protect individuals from harassment. All vital work, such as it goes, but making substantial changes to our community structures and processes, at least in this context, is largely outside of their remit. To the extent we want to reform ANI or any of our other community processes, it's just not something we can pass to their shoulders. The buck stops here. SnowRise let's rap 01:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry T. I do feel bad about opposing one of your remedies without proposing an alternative. The thing I keep hoping for in GENSEX is a group of three to five admins that hang around. It's the main difference I see between GENSEX and American Politics or Pseudoscience. The early intervention of an admin warning is little seen in GENSEX. I'm looking for things like "If you continue to bludgeon discussions/to misgender the article subject/to rely on evidently unreliable sources/to skirt the bounds of civility, I will block you." They'll have been witness to the patterns of editing that might eventually prove to have been problematic. The only other suggestion I have is stricter enforcement and clerking at AE. If we're counting on that as the good option, let's tune it up. Though I do think there are deep problems in GENSEX, I don't share the view that it's at the top of the CT/general sanctions problem pile. Within the past year, we've had knock-down-drag-outs tied to Armenia-Azerbaijan, Russia-Ukraine, AmPol, and Palestine-Israel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- If there were no sanctions imposed, would you be making your proposal or this plea? Arkon (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Two out of three sanctions proposals went "my way", including one that I literally proposed, and the third one I only weakly opposed, so... -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't feel like an answer. There was literally nothing different in these reports than the thousands of reports before it, other than the accused throwing out so many bytes of text without reprimand. If your concern is separate from the results, you may want to wait and propose in isolation. I think divorcing your concern from the results may be helpful to your cause. Arkon (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have not framed this thread as an objection to the outcome of the TT thread. I've framed it as what it is: about that thread, and several others, being "shitshow"s. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 02:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't feel like an answer. There was literally nothing different in these reports than the thousands of reports before it, other than the accused throwing out so many bytes of text without reprimand. If your concern is separate from the results, you may want to wait and propose in isolation. I think divorcing your concern from the results may be helpful to your cause. Arkon (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tamzin here is clearly frustrated with the manner in which WP:ANI operates generally in these sorts of cases, and I don't think that this is purely some reaction to being dissatisfied with a single closing statement. She is being extremely candid in this thread, and, while I disagree with her proposal above, I do share her sentiment that there are certain topics and situations where ANI is not capable of handling disputes without consuming an inordinate amount of community time in exchange for at most marginal benefit to the community. She's being sincere here regarding her motives, and I don't think it drives the conversation forward to insinuate otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Two out of three sanctions proposals went "my way", including one that I literally proposed, and the third one I only weakly opposed, so... -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- For three months, trial structured discussion at ANI:
- ANI reports are to be titled using the format "Editor name(s), topic area(s), type(s) of disruption". For example "BilledMammal, Platypus, Disruptive cite-tagging"
- Editors wishing to make a statement on the report should create a fourth level section (====) titled using the format "Statement by editor name". There is no word or diff limit, but editors are advised that the longer it is the less likely it is to be read.
- Editors may edit their statement as required; normal requirements to ensure that replies are not deprived of context are waived, and editors making replies are advised to quote any relevant sections.
- Editors may reply to no more than five statements; there are no limits to the number of replies they may make to those statements. Editors may additionally reply to any statement that discusses their behavior. Replies should not introduce new information, and should instead seek to clarify or discuss the information raised in the editors statement.
- Statements should remain closely related to the initial topic raised. If additional behavioral issues need to be raised, including behavioral issues related to the editor who opened the discussion, editors should create a third level section (===) using the same format of "Editor name(s), topic area(s), type(s) of disruption".
- To propose community sanctions, editors should create a fourth level section (====) titled "Proposed sanctions on Editor name(s)".
- Editors !voting on community sanctions proposals should keep their !vote concise and reference their statement for more detailed arguments and evidence. Editors may not reply to other editors community sanction !votes.
- The intent of this suggestion is to keep discussions on topic, to prevent bludgeoning and impenetrable walls of text, and to try to introduce a level of neutrality into the opening of the discussions. It also attempts to keep things less structured and limited than AE, as I don't believe that level of structure is appropriate here.
- Issues I see are that the structure will be excessive for some discussions (for example, WP:ANI#IP range from Poland, trouble with one article - although I do believe the proposed title format of "Polish IP range, Weedkiller (album), edit warring" would be more informative than the existing title), that it will make boomerangs more difficult, and that the structure will be difficult for editors to enforce. However, if editors are interested in attempting to apply structure to ANI, I hope that making a proposal - even an awful one - will at least spark a discussion on what that structure could look like. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bill, I know it's a big ask, but I think a rudimentary mock-up in a sandbox might be helpful here: perhaps it's just me, but I am having a bit of difficulty visualizing the overarching format of how these pieces fit together. SnowRise let's rap 03:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: See here; I hope it manages to make it more clear. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely helps. Was close to what I had in mind when I originally !voted "Let ArbCom (or delegate) sort it out in a more structured way" because of the mess of accusations and counter-accusations threaded together. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Reading sectioned discussion is always a massive pain to try and understand any lengthy discussion - I've never seen a good explanation of how to easily read replies and replies to replies in a smooth fashion in such a discussion, as well as seeing how the discussion tone in general changes as it runs. So on that basis alone, I'd be against any such trial - but especially as a general ANI structure. I believe points 1, 4, 6 do have serious potential value to them, and point 5 could be used in certain circumstances/categories of discussion, although I'd like to see a clarification on how it worked with threads that raised multiple behavioural issues initially. Would each need its own section? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely helps. Was close to what I had in mind when I originally !voted "Let ArbCom (or delegate) sort it out in a more structured way" because of the mess of accusations and counter-accusations threaded together. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Snow Rise: See here; I hope it manages to make it more clear. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- Bill, I know it's a big ask, but I think a rudimentary mock-up in a sandbox might be helpful here: perhaps it's just me, but I am having a bit of difficulty visualizing the overarching format of how these pieces fit together. SnowRise let's rap 03:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- First Law of Wikipedia Reform: Calls to reform a page, made on the page to be reformed, will result in no reforms. Levivich (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea_lab)#Allow administrators to enforce structured discussions in CT/GS to workshop a possible proposal. I feel that keeping it separate from this discussion may help keep it focused. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion
Jasper Deng recently closed Talk:Hurricane Orlene (2022)#RfC - User created map or NHC Map as an non-admin, uninvolved closure. In the closing comment, Jasper Deng singled me out saying me stating a neutrally worded RfC was “inappropriate and disruptive”. Per Wikipedia:Closing discussions, the closing comment sure be neutrally worded. In the discussion, there was previously no mention of the discussion being disruptive or inappropriate. I then attempted to work the situation out on Jasper Deng’s talk page in User talk:Jasper Deng#Request for a strikethrough. My request for the comment to be made more neutrally worded (with support from myself, the RfC starter on the closure) was met twice with no. Based on their full wording of the discussion closure, “Elijahandskip In light of the RfC we already had, this is inappropriate and disruptive. At the least, this is the wrong forum; such a change would have to be projectwide and discussed at WT:Weather. We will not be using the NHC-made maps.
”, I highly suspect this user should not have closed the discussion as they appear to be biased and refusing to stay neutral in their closing remarks. The comment sounds more like something you would see in a RfC comment, not a closing discussion remark. In closing discussions, one person should not be singled out under any condition, let alone being pinged in the closing remarks.
As such, I request the closure to be overturned and request a new person to close the discussion (As noted on Jasper Deng’s talk page, I support the closure of the discussion). Jasper Deng also appears to not have any idea about how to properly close discussions, so a potential warning or topic-ban from closing discussions should be considered until they can properly show that they understand how to stay neutral in closing discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Important Extra Note: Discussion was originally started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jasper Deng’s closing of a discussion, but was noted to have been placed at the wrong venue due to it involving an RfC. This is an exact copy/paste of the discussion starting message on that page, as directed by an admin. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. From what I can gather, this is a dispute among the members of the same project about an article within the scope of that project that implicates a possible WP:CONLEVEL-type conflict of consensuses where on one side there is the outcome the project-wide RfC (involving a template with a pre-collapsed portion of the caption), and on the other there are MOS:COLLAPSE and MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. This should have been addressed in a dialogue about: (1) whether objectively there is a discrepancy; (2) how to resolve the ostensible discrepancy, probably within Template:Storm path. Has there been a significant discussion about the appropriateness of collapsing? The underlying cause for this appearing on a noticeboard is how the RfC starter was talked to prior to starting the RfC: "no consensus", "works fine", "no reason to change" (ignoring the stated reason). So maybe something needs to be done to help these editors move along, and ANI definitely didn't seem like the right environment for that. But I'm not sure if I'm correct on all the facts; I prefer not making any further comments in this discussion. —Alalch E. 02:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Partially correct. The main reason I brought this to the noticeboard wasn’t more of the WP:CONLEVEL issue (as I didn’t even think of that at the time), but the improper closure of the RfC and borderline personal attacks through a non-neutrally worded closure. The WP:CONLEVEL is an issue, especially since it was used to justify closing the discussion pre-maturely. The closing comment was more of an actually !vote rather than a closing comment. That was why it was brought to the noticeboard. Somewhat a stem off of WP:CONLEVEL, which was the justification for the closure. So I see two interlaced problems: the WP:CONLEVEL closure ideology and the use of the RfC closure as a way to “get back” at what the person calls a “disruptive” editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is getting out of hand. What do we need to do in order to curb these ongoing incidents? Is it now necessary, as Robert McClenon suggested, to declare that weather and tropical cyclones in particular are contentious topics?--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Some topics are contentious topics because they have battleground editing because they are regions of the world that have been historical battlegrounds where people have died. Tropical storms also tragically cause human deaths. Does that in turn mean that tropical storms are subjects of battleground editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think in this case it is because of people who have died, but for some reason the Wikiprojects around weather-related topics seem to have become a hotbed of WP:OWNership, WP:CONLEVEL issues and off-wiki canvassing to an extent I haven't seen since WP:EEML in the ancient times. The latest big dust-up is at WP:ARBWPTC (I know you're aware of this, I'm more summarizing to give context for people who may not be). Contentious Topics, Discretionary Sanctions and General Sanctions are typically declared not because the topic itself is contentious, but because there are repeated user conduct disputes that the normal tools the community has are unable to break. The Shakespeare authorship question, for example, hasn't killed anybody as far as I know but is still designated a Contentious Topic. While AE wouldn't be adept at dealing with off-wiki coordination due to the private nature of evidence, it might not be a bad idea for AE to get a crack at handling the conduct disputes. Perhaps it could be folded in with WP:ARBCC to cover "weather, storms and climate change" by motion in the same way that WP:GENSEX was created. Community-level General Sanctions could also be another option. Additionally, it might be a good idea to hold a Community-wide RFC to discuss CONLEVEL and the role of WikiProjects versus local talkpages in determining consensus, since it might need to be updated or clarified. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- User:The Wordsmith - I was being sarcastic about the deaths. But, in my opinion, there are at least two classes of contentious topics. There are those that are contentious because of nationalistic editing, because the subject matter is inherently contentious, and those that are contentious because one or more editors are just stubborn. And you know that I was aware of an ArbCom case in which I provided evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Exactly I saw that you had posted evidence on the case, so I made a note indicating that my summary was more for other editors who hadn't seen the history. And noted on the sarcasm, it can sometimes be hard to pick up on in a place like this. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- User:The Wordsmith - I was being sarcastic about the deaths. But, in my opinion, there are at least two classes of contentious topics. There are those that are contentious because of nationalistic editing, because the subject matter is inherently contentious, and those that are contentious because one or more editors are just stubborn. And you know that I was aware of an ArbCom case in which I provided evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- At the moment, the biggest problem with the Weather/Tropical Cyclone projects at is that we have just updated the general colour scheme, which is/was expected to cause a lot of disruption, as this is a big and major change that several people who use our maps don't like and want RV'd but were needed for us to meet Wikipedia's standards around accessibility criteria. I will note that during the various discussions surrounding the colours, an RFC was held that went over the track maps in detail and noone brought up using the NHC maps. Probably because it creates problems around what maps to use in other basins, where we are not able to use maps from the RSMC/TCWC for various reasons, including them not being generated or being allowed on Wikipedia for copyright reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- That seems odd. Per the closing remarks in the RfC I started about NHC maps, Jasper Deng eluded to it already being discussed, saying “
We will not be using the NHC-made maps
” while calling the discussion, “innapropriate and disruptive
”. But on the noticeboard discussion, you point blank just said it was never brought up? So what, WP:CONLEVEL and WP:OWN are legit major issued right now. Jasper Deng solely closed an RfC, speaking for the WikiProject as a whole, for a discussion that had not taken place before. That right there seems to be enough grounds to support a topic ban from closing discussions. Jasper Deng has edited Wikipedia for a long time (over 14 years), and clearly has an understanding of the rules and processes on Wikipedia. What is everyone’s thoughts on the topic-ban proposed? Elijahandskip (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- That seems odd. Per the closing remarks in the RfC I started about NHC maps, Jasper Deng eluded to it already being discussed, saying “
- At the moment, the biggest problem with the Weather/Tropical Cyclone projects at is that we have just updated the general colour scheme, which is/was expected to cause a lot of disruption, as this is a big and major change that several people who use our maps don't like and want RV'd but were needed for us to meet Wikipedia's standards around accessibility criteria. I will note that during the various discussions surrounding the colours, an RFC was held that went over the track maps in detail and noone brought up using the NHC maps. Probably because it creates problems around what maps to use in other basins, where we are not able to use maps from the RSMC/TCWC for various reasons, including them not being generated or being allowed on Wikipedia for copyright reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think in this case it is because of people who have died, but for some reason the Wikiprojects around weather-related topics seem to have become a hotbed of WP:OWNership, WP:CONLEVEL issues and off-wiki canvassing to an extent I haven't seen since WP:EEML in the ancient times. The latest big dust-up is at WP:ARBWPTC (I know you're aware of this, I'm more summarizing to give context for people who may not be). Contentious Topics, Discretionary Sanctions and General Sanctions are typically declared not because the topic itself is contentious, but because there are repeated user conduct disputes that the normal tools the community has are unable to break. The Shakespeare authorship question, for example, hasn't killed anybody as far as I know but is still designated a Contentious Topic. While AE wouldn't be adept at dealing with off-wiki coordination due to the private nature of evidence, it might not be a bad idea for AE to get a crack at handling the conduct disputes. Perhaps it could be folded in with WP:ARBCC to cover "weather, storms and climate change" by motion in the same way that WP:GENSEX was created. Community-level General Sanctions could also be another option. Additionally, it might be a good idea to hold a Community-wide RFC to discuss CONLEVEL and the role of WikiProjects versus local talkpages in determining consensus, since it might need to be updated or clarified. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Some topics are contentious topics because they have battleground editing because they are regions of the world that have been historical battlegrounds where people have died. Tropical storms also tragically cause human deaths. Does that in turn mean that tropical storms are subjects of battleground editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip: My best advise for this whole issue, drop the stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Elijahandskip: I feel that you are overreacting here and trying to open Pandoras Box just for the sake of opening it here, as it almost certainly has been discussed somewhere on Wiki over the last 20 years, but I only looked at the Colour RFC, rather than the 50+ archives of WPTC/WPWX. If it hasn't its probably because its obvious that it would cause problems with what maps to use in other basins, where we are not able to use maps from the RSMC/TCWC/JTWC becasue they are not generated or allowed on Wikipedia because of copyright.Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely. I'm frustrated with the way WikiProject has become, and I think a community solution to handle this WikiProject (or making weather a contentious topic) is urgently needed to put a stop the drama that had consumed the WikiProject for some years, maybe ever since 2016-17. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- I note the topic is already mentioned on EEng's very useful list. That should be enough to give the participants cause to think about what people in general think about their obsession. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment – I will say that it is highly embarrassing to have yet another noticeboard incident out of this Wikiproject, and it is sad that this project is quickly becoming known to many editors as one of the biggest problem areas across the whole encyclopedia. United States Man (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's making weather-interested users to look bad by this point. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is nothing procedurally improper about an uninvolved editor closing an RfC early as "inappropriate and disruptive". It is not inherently non-neutral to describe a discussion as such. If there is no dispute that the discussion itself should remain closed, I would also endorse the idea of moving on. Mz7 (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- But should Weather have general sanctions? That question wasn’t yet answered. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I dont think we need general sanctions as we have to remember that we are a multi-national wikiproject and some drama will always happen through misunderstandings. As an example, most weather project members are from the US, I am from the UK while Mario is Indonesian and we all talk a slightly different version of english and have different ideas of how to present stuff.Jason Rees (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the rampant sockpuppetry, multiple ArbComs, canvassing issues, and AN(I)‘s about the project, it seems to be a contentious enough topic to require a discussion about general sections. There isn’t normally this much drama in other projects. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. I don't see these issues happening this much if weather is designated a contentious topic. It will still happen, but it is going to be on a more controlled manner. MarioJump83 (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Considering the rampant sockpuppetry, multiple ArbComs, canvassing issues, and AN(I)‘s about the project, it seems to be a contentious enough topic to require a discussion about general sections. There isn’t normally this much drama in other projects. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- I dont think we need general sanctions as we have to remember that we are a multi-national wikiproject and some drama will always happen through misunderstandings. As an example, most weather project members are from the US, I am from the UK while Mario is Indonesian and we all talk a slightly different version of english and have different ideas of how to present stuff.Jason Rees (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
- But should Weather have general sanctions? That question wasn’t yet answered. 74.108.105.35 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Declare WP:Weather a contentious topic?
Based on the evidence above, should WP:WEATHER be declared a contentious topic? 72.68.134.254 (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- We're not quite in the right venue for that. Designation of a WP:CTOP needs to be done by ArbCom either as a motion or a full case. Be sure you have all of your ducks in a row before you initiate such a case, in other words proof of failed prior attempts to resolve disputes. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Without expressing an opinion on the idea, the community has authorized CTOP-like arrangements before without ArbCom, such as has been done on Cryptocurrency and professional wrestling. Courcelles (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Do we really need to do this? I fear that the answer may be "yes" but does this really belong with the other topics on this list such as the Arab–Israeli conflict? I mean, the weather is not a particularly contentious topic among the general population - it only seems to be a few fanatics who insist on making it so. Wouldn't it be better to get rid of those few fanatics? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- That probably would be for ArbCom to decide. And didn't we already have some wheather-related cases, which apparently didn't go for the nuclear option? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones was primarily about off-wiki coordination in the project, we did not necessarily look at the topic itself as a contentious issue. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wasn’t Russia-Ukraine declared contentious by general consensus at AN? 47.23.10.234 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- That happened prior to DS becoming CTOP. I should also note that, from what I understand, CTOP is not intended to short-circuit community-authorised sanctions regimes. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 00:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wasn’t Russia-Ukraine declared contentious by general consensus at AN? 47.23.10.234 (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Cyclones was primarily about off-wiki coordination in the project, we did not necessarily look at the topic itself as a contentious issue. Primefac (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- That probably would be for ArbCom to decide. And didn't we already have some wheather-related cases, which apparently didn't go for the nuclear option? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:26, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this, but I'm not sure AN is the right venue, and if it is, gain enough attention in the wider Wikipedia community.Strong support I'm done with the drama that consumed this project for years. And I think this should be made a RfC. MarioJump83 (talk) 12:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)- It's not a contentious topic, it just has a large concentration of contentious editors. There's a distinct difference - stuff about the Balkans or PIA or contemporary U.S. politics is inherently contentious, the same doesn't really apply to spinny clouds. It's just that weather for some reason attracts, quite frankly, a lot of immature editors who struggle to get along with one another. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe discretionary sanctions then? 98.113.8.17 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- You made my day, IP editor -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 00:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- "it just has a large concentration of contentious editors" Isn't that exactly what the phrase means in wiki speak? We designate topic areas as contentious based on editor behavior not some judgement of their contentiousness outside of wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. For example, Longevity is a contentious topic. Longevity is just about... well, the oldest people on planet Earth. You might argue that the debate on science vs pseudoscience is sufficient enough to make it contentious, but it's not something that at first glance you would inherently consider a topic charged with vitriol such as the Balkans. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, this is why people much smarter than myself handle declaring things contentious topics. If doing so will make it easier to block spinny cloud editors who misbehave, count me in support. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. For example, Longevity is a contentious topic. Longevity is just about... well, the oldest people on planet Earth. You might argue that the debate on science vs pseudoscience is sufficient enough to make it contentious, but it's not something that at first glance you would inherently consider a topic charged with vitriol such as the Balkans. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe discretionary sanctions then? 98.113.8.17 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Frankly I'm so sick of seeing content disputes brought to AN/I as if they were actual behavioral issues because the editors at that project can't play nice together, if someone can come up with a proposal to declare weather contentious, I'm there. Valereee (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I mostly "TLDR" the other stuff above, but if this is a contentious topic, then everything needs to be. Not everyone agrees on everything anyway. That being said, I made a whole list of things that I wanted the severe weather project to be this year. Since then, I've broken up some arguments, got banned for 31 hours for breaking the rules, contemplated leaving Wikipedia entirely, and been attacked by multiple IPs all under the Andrew5 label. I know that it was my fault for putting us in the spotlight, but this needs to get under control. Enough is enough. This is yet another total "Bruh" moment. C'mon people. ChessEric 03:15, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Multiple contentious editors make it a contentious topic, and a procedure for dealing with them is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- By the way, every IP comment on this discussion should be ignored. They are Andrew5 socks. ChessEric 14:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Neutralhomer unblock request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Neutralhomer has requested an unblock. They previously requested an unblock almost a year ago here which was declined (strongly) by the community. I make no claims of endorsement; I am copying this over as a result of monitoring unblock requests. I will ping the prior closer, Sandstein, as well as the admins involved in indefinitely blocking this user. --Yamla (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am requesting an unblock with the standard off. What I plan on doing if unblocked is coming back to work on a couple articles that I brought to GA/FA status. What I won't be doing is making waves or causing scenes. I would like it that my potential work speak for itself instead of other's "feelings" about me. This block is approximately a year and a half long at this point. I believe the potential "harm" to the community by me being unblocked has long since passed. If unblocked, I will be the most monitored editor in the history of the project if unblocked and I'm quite OK with that. Finally, as previously stated, I am open to working with an admin regarding any and all edits I make, 1RR restrictions, and the like. I'll leave this up to you all. If you require a response, give me a couple to respond as I won't be monitoring this appeal constantly. Full disclosure: Should a CU be requested prior to unblock, I have changed ISPs, so my IP will most likely register differently from where it previously was. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- A few questions: Do you understand why you were blocked? Do you have anything to say about what the block was for and why it was issued? Do you feel the block was justified based on what you did? And lastly, what corrective actions are you taking to avoid being blocked for the same reason in the future? Answers to all of these questions are a minimum prerequisite to the consideration of an appeal. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Finally, you should also be aware that a site ban was considered in your last block appeal. You may wish to review very closely and reflect upon the actions that you took that led to a site ban being considered. I am dead certain other editors are likely going to bring that up as well, so you should be prepared to explain that. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
(Copying from user talk Valereee (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC))
- Do you understand why you were blocked?
- Yeah, I went off the rails in the "defense" of another user. I went too far and was blocked for it.
- Do you have anything to say about what the block was for and why it was issued?
- As I said above, I took my "defense" of another user, who I saw as being bullied, too far. That's on me.
- Do you feel the block was justified based on what you did?
- This will be a controversial take, but I don't believe an indef block was necessary. 6 months, sure. 1 year, understandable. But indef and even after 6 months, compounded by a complete disaster of a thread above (where all my forms of communication were blocked/ignored), I believe it ran into punitive instead of preventive. I can already hear the "but blocks are not punitive" arguement and while I acknowledge the rule, I think we have to also acknowledge that blocks are issued for reasons that are not necessarily fair or correct. Wikipedia and it's editors are not very forgiving nor willing to correct an incorrect action. That said, I live by a "restorative justice" frame of mind. That actions can be punished, but the person can repair that harm they caused. I believe that a year and a half is sufficient time to protect the project.
- [W]hat corrective actions are you taking to avoid being blocked for the same reason in the future?
- I will be staying away from AN and ANI. Not involving myself in any discussions that I am not a part of. Ignoring users who are looking to start a fight or what I might preceive as a fight. Basically, keeping to myself.
- I am aware of the site ban discussion, but I don't believe it took place (I could be wrong). If one did, I was not made aware of it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- There was no site ban. The block log was clarified to say there is no site ban.'-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I specifically said that a site ban was considered. I did not say there was a site ban in place. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment. There doesn't seem to be much of a change from why I opposed the last unblock request per my post here. Neutralhomer, you're still going with "going too far in defence of another"? No, that's not why you were blocked. You were blocked because you made outrageous personal attacks on other editors. It's that simple. Do you accept that or not? DeCausa (talk) 21:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. NH's answer to the above
That is what I meant by "going to far". I was told not to rehash things from the past, but stick to the potential future. I'm trying to do that.
I don't buy that. NH, if your answer to WaltClip's first and second questions were "I made gross personal attacks for which there was no justification" that isn't re-hashing anything. Instead you used weasel words that not-so-subtly tries to imply it wasn't wholly your fault. Similarly, your third answer doesn't explain why you won't behave so badly again - it's about avoiding those who put you in that position. If you return with that thinking it's just going to happen again. DeCausa (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose. NH's answer to the above
- Oppose I think this appeal falls well short of what is expected given the events that led to the block and the revocation of talk page access that ensued. "I would like it that my potential work speak for itself instead of other's "feelings" about me" insinuates that any oppose is based on "feelings" as opposed to evidence. Also, "I believe the potential "harm" to the community by me being unblocked has long since passed", with scare quotes around harm, makes it appear, to me, as mocking the block as unncessary. The replies to the questions posted by Valereee above set off so many alarm bells. My read of the appeal and responses is that Neutralhomer doesn't really think they did anything deserving of an indef block, that it was some sort of over-reaction by the community. Finally, their response that they will avoid any future blocks by "keeping to [himself]" just isn't viable on a project that's built on cooperation, collaboration and communication. It's a sad truth that some individuals just aren't capable of editing here effectively despite their best intentions. -- Ponyobons mots 22:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those were actually questions from Waltcip, I just copied the answers over. Valereee (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant the replies that you posted. Sorry if that was unclear.-- Ponyobons mots 22:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, just didn't want to take credit for someone else's work. :) Valereee (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant the replies that you posted. Sorry if that was unclear.-- Ponyobons mots 22:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those were actually questions from Waltcip, I just copied the answers over. Valereee (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Still inclined to oppose because
Wikipedia and it's editors are not very forgiving nor willing to correct an incorrect action
is still indicative to me that he thinks he's in the right, but could support a conditional one where he's blocked from Wikipedia space to enforce the keeping his nose clean element because otherwise I think we're back here all too soon. Star Mississippi 00:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)- For the record, no I'm not willing to mentor you and I do not wish to hear from you via email, which is why I deleted it unread. And your two sentences were:
I think we have to also acknowledge that blocks are issued for reasons that are not necessarily fair or correct. Wikipedia and it's editors are not very forgiving nor willing to correct an incorrect action.
I see no acceptance there and more of the same including comparing block logs. No thanks. I think we're better without their edits. Firmly in oppose now. Star Mississippi 02:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)- as I clearly need to spell it out per this. NeutralHomer, I am not interested in mentoring you. Because I say you would benefit from one, does not mean I'm volunteering to do so. You are not owed mentorship, but it's possible someone would volunteer. I am not and will not be volunteering as it would not be a good use of my time. You'll note I was willing to possibly support before you continued to litigate last year. That is not moving on. Star Mississippi 16:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, no I'm not willing to mentor you and I do not wish to hear from you via email, which is why I deleted it unread. And your two sentences were:
- Oppose unblock. I am among many administrators who have blocked this editor. Neutralhomer has been blocked over 20 times, going back over 15 years to 2007. This editor's offenses include gross personal attacks, edit warring, harassment, incivility, baiting an administrator, incivility, sockpuppetry, more sockpuppetry, gross incivility, saying that certain editors should be executed, edit warring, disruptive editing, wikihounding, misuse of Twinkle, false accusations of vandalism, severe off-Wiki harassment, edit warring, battlefield behavior, bludgeoning ANI, baseless accusations of racism, battleground mentality, a spurious but intimidating legal threat, and sending unwanted emails to several editors. This editor has been indefinitely blocked four times. A large majority of productive, long term editors have never been blocked. Their time and energy is an invaluable and limited resource, and this editor has been a massive time sink ever since the days that current high school students were infants in their cribs. I am all in favor of last chances, but believe that this editor has used up their last chance. I feel compassion for the person behind this username who is clearly intelligent, and hope that they can find a less stressful hobby that they will enjoy. But all the evidence indicates to me that they are chronically unable to edit Wikipedia without severe conflict with other editors. Cullen328 (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose with regret. I typically look for reasons to say yes to unblock requests, especially if the user has been gone for over a year and there is no evidenceof WP:BE. But I'm afraid I just can't go there with this one. Neutralhomer has one of the longest block logs I can remember seeing, and almost all for the same behavior. At some point you have to just admit that some people are temperamentally unable to work on a collaborative project. Looking at this objectively, if I supported an unblock here I think people would question my judgement. And they would be right. Frankly, I'd probably support a site ban if one were proposed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Carrying over a batch of replies
- @Deepfriedokra: I didn't think there was, but I wasn't sure. For the record, I was replying to WaltClipper's question, not making insinuations. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 17:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @DeCausa: That is what I meant by "going to far". I was told not to rehash things from the past, but stick to the potential future. I'm trying to do that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Ponyo: The "harm" (with quotes) was actually me quoting a user from the previous discussion. Nothing scary, just a quote. Keeping to myself is, quite literally, GNOMEish edits. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Star Mississippi: Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said I thought I was right. I, quite literally, admitted I was wrong (and have previously). I would like to note that I previously asked you if you were willing to do a mentorship. You "deleted" that request unread. So, I renew that request. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: Could you show me where I said "that certain editors should be executed"? Also, would you mind adding my responses (it's supposed to be done by an admin). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer, I found this on your talk page:
You have been blocked for 1 month for suggesting on Talk:Equality Maine that another editor should be tortured and executed. (I've been trying to post this damned notice for the past five minutes...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Cullen328 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)- In reponse to my comment, Neutralhomer posted the exact quotation on their talk page:
You should be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered, and sent to the gallows for the way you have acted.
Uninvolved editors can decide whether or not this quote is exculpatory. It was hyperbolic but also exceptionally intimidating to the editor on the receiving end of the death threat. I realize that this specific incident was a long time ago, but it is part of a longstanding pattern of misconduct that continued right up until the most recent indefinte block. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- In reponse to my comment, Neutralhomer posted the exact quotation on their talk page:
- carried over from user talk -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Another Further (to Cullen), while you are correct, I have been blocked over 20 times (for the record, twice by you), I wouldn't say "[a] large majority of productive, long term editors have never been blocked." Calton was blocked a total of 18 times, twice indef, and still continued to edit up until 2021. He was everything you described (of me) and more and yet, he was allowed to edit. He started in 2006 (I in 2007) and we had the same number (give or take) of edits. I, in my opinion, have been the better editor with GAs and FAs. So, not all "time sinks" are indef-blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Neutralhomer, I found this on your talk page:
- Carried over.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Y'all might want to check for responses and perhaps cary them over. Going to bed, myself.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Carried over.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock and Support Site Ban I think we are at the point where a site ban might be best. It's becoming clear the community does not want to lift the block on NeutralHomer. Their block log is extensive to say the least, and as Cullen said above this goes back 15 years. It's not just a recent string of events that has done this. We've gone past any last chances at this point and it's time to end this once and for all. Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone CAN edit" not the "encyclopedia anyone SHOULD edit". This is not a criticism of the person mind you, just that I don't think their mindset will work collaboratively with the community anymore. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose I haven't previously encountered Neutralhomer but this block log is pretty appalling. I count 21 separate blocks including 4 indefinite blocks. The reasons cover most of the possible block rationales including incivility, harassment, edit warring, sockpuppetry, personal attacks and "Don't say that editors should be executed". Many of these blocks were undone with some conditions or a promise to change behaviour which obviously haven't worked. I can't think of anything we could possibly gain from unblocking this person which would justify it. Hut 8.5 13:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I badly want to hear from someone who thinks Neutralhomer ought to be unblocked. I know we on Wikipedia have been a fan of saying "okay, this is your last chance, the really really last chance! No more after these, we mean it!" but I can understand why this is the case; we want to preserve those editors who are still able to contribute significantly to Wikipedia either with GA's or FA's, as well as understand that some editors do have personalities that predispose them towards language that may be considered uncivil. If anyone at all can see a reason to lift this block, I really want to hear it, because I'm at a loss. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I guess I'd prefer to see NH conditionally unblocked with some very strict limitations based on their past behavior and zero tolerance for any repetition of any of the long list of those behaviors, and maybe close monitoring by someone willing to do so. But I also think that NH could have had a much, much stronger case here if they'd gone to, say, simple wiki and contributed there for all these months productively and unproblematically. Valereee (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose - at some point, we just have to say "not a good fit for the project". And per Cullen. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Reluctant Oppose I'm someone who believes that inclusion is important, even if I disagree with them. So it pains me to !vote this way. First, I think the phrase noted above "You should be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered, and sent to the gallows for the way you have acted." is clearly hyperbolic. If someone took that as a death threat, I think their skin needs to be toughened up a notch. For the record, I've been accused of murder on WP and had actual death threats IRL to the point that the FBI visited my home more than once and a police cruiser was outside my home 24/7 for 45 consecutive days...my point is that I'm not numb to the threat aspect, but that's pretty weak for an indef block. I concur that a
punishmentpreventative action certainly was in order to discourage future discourse along these lines, but for that alone it's too much. But after further reading, it's clear that this is not an isolated incident, but one in a VERY long string examples of inappropriate conduct. I could certainly see a time in the future where we could change our minds, but I don't see that today. My suggestion: do something that demonstrates you can control yourself in online discourse in contentious matters and come back after a year with a clean record as an example. That will certainly assuage some concerns, though I'm not saying it will be a cake walk. Buffs (talk) 17:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC) - Oppose Unblock - I haven't been involved in any of the previous disputes with Neutralhomer, but have observed some of the past drama, and have looked at their block log, which requires scrolling to view on a full-sized free-standing screen. (Maybe I should view it with a 60% view.) I am deeply wary of unblocking an editor who has been blocked for both incivility and sockpuppetry. If we give this editor what we say is one last chance, why will "one last chance" be taken seriously either by this editor or by any other difficult editor? Didn't we already give Neutralhomer at least one previous last chance? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - I will support a Site Ban if one is on the table, but I am not sure if one is on the table. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think the site ban issue as moot as user is de facto site banned in that no one would unblock unilaterally. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Noting Neutralhomer has withdrawn their unblock request.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I blocked Glory Be To Jog a few moments ago. A CU who is watching this thread might wish to run a check...or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like a LTA making our lives interesting. But who? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- So many to choose from.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am the opposite of a skilled sockpuppet detective, but I suspect that this vicious sock attacking me is some random sad sack on the internet trying out a JoeJob instead of the editor we have been discussing. At least I hope so. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I just got hit again by presumably the same disturbed person socking in an unfriendly fashion. Please watch my talk page. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am the opposite of a skilled sockpuppet detective, but I suspect that this vicious sock attacking me is some random sad sack on the internet trying out a JoeJob instead of the editor we have been discussing. At least I hope so. Cullen328 (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- So many to choose from.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like a LTA making our lives interesting. But who? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Killing of Tyre Nichols, copyvio?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi everyone. Currently, the vast majority of Killing of Tyre Nichols is blanked due to copyvio concerns raised by WikiWikiWayne. WWW has not explained which sources are supposedly copied from or closely paraphrased. They have acknowledged at the talk page that they're too tired and beset by some personal issues to narrowly tag just the copyvio material. As I understand it, the process at WP:Copyright problems takes many days, and no editors that aren't clerks or admins can edit the copyvio tags. One user, Combefere, has already been blocked for doing so (see WP:ANI#Combefere removed copyvio notice twice). I checked every source in four sections of the article and did not find any copyvio or CLOP. Would an admin mind taking a look, and removing the tags if appropriate? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Firefangledfeathers – Thank you for your good work! Did you check section blocks of text or did you check sentence by sentence? I did sentences, but let me tell you my workflow. The lead had bloat. I raked it for cruft and fluff and got it close to MOS:LEAD quality. Then I spied a weird sentence in the body that looked copied or closely paraphrased. Yup. Guilty. Then they kept coming so I tagged the body from the lead end to the top of See also. Then I look up and the lead has been partially reverted. One sentence looks like a vio. I follow the ref and the sentence is a fraternal twin of the ref's headline, so I just tag the sentence and report my tagging to the copyvio notice board. I included the source ref. Fourteen hours later, that one-sentence vio is still up and ugly. I am not safe to blank anything of any size at this juncture. Sigh. Life goes on and Bob's your Uncle. Cheers!
{{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}04:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)- I checked every sentence and source in the sections I mentioned: §Tyre Nichols, §Autopsy, §Grand jury indictments, and §Court hearings. The version I checked is this one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I’ve unhidden the text given the check by FFF. Basically, WWW has stated that they have a family emergency. Therefore WWW cannot identify specifically where the problems are. In that case, we should not hold the article hostage unless someone, anyone, can point to which sections the copyvios are. starship.paint (exalt) 09:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Posting a comment of mine from Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols as it's relevant to this discussion:
Thanks to an editor an ANI, I was to able identify an edit in the revision history that added copyrighted material to the article. This edit introduced text from https://web.archive.org/web/20230207230916/https://wreg.com/news/local/tyre-nichols/city-8-more-officers-may-face-charges-in-tyre-nichols-case/. The text was removed in this edit. This may not be the only case of copyright infringing text being added but at least it's something to work with going forward. Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I identified these edits using the wikiblame tool. Philipnelson99 (talk) 11:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)- Wait, so the only infringing text was added by WWW to begin with? signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's so hard to tease out exactly what WWW objected to. They referred once to the headline of this CBS piece, and there is article text that says the same thing as the headline. To me it's obviously a WP:LIMITED situation, but I do think WWW had a good-faith CLOP objection. That said, I thinking tagging/blanking the whole article for the two lines (one in lead, one in body) was sub-optimal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- In isolation, effectively blanking a whole page, failing to identify a clear reason why, while simultaneously profusely responding to talk page and ANI comments, only for it to turn out that the only identifiable potentially-offending content was added by them in the first place, on a politically-charged AP article, is a pattern behavior that stretches one's ability to assume good faith. signed, Rosguill talk 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Rosguill I'm not sure what WWW was talking about when they effectively blanked the page. And maybe they were indeed confused about how the template worked but they have repeatedly accused editors trying to understand the situation of bad faith. When another editor identify directly copy/pasted potentially infringing text, I was surprised to find the editor that added it was WWW. The copyright close paraphrasing may be an issue but WWW accused a single editor of adding copyrighted material when WWW had added a direct copy/paste over a month ago. WWW went to WP:DRN and called the other editor "rabid" and "militant". WWW may be going through personal issues but this conduct is not good for the encyclopedia.
- WWW if you take issue with my comments here and accuse me of stalking and harassing you, I just want you to know that was never my intent.
- Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, having read the discussion here, at Talk:Killing of Tyre Nichols, and at DRN, I'm going to go ahead and indefinitely block WikiWikiWayne for WP:GAME violations (i.e. the false copyvio alarm) and personal attacks (primarily against AgntOtrth at DRN and the talk page, but WWW has also been pushing at the limits of civility with others as well). AGF leads me to assume that all of this behavior can be explained away by off-Wikipedia stressors, but it has gone on long enough and disruptively enough that a block is needed until WWW's life calms down, at which point they will be able to make an adequate unblock request. signed, Rosguill talk 18:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- In isolation, effectively blanking a whole page, failing to identify a clear reason why, while simultaneously profusely responding to talk page and ANI comments, only for it to turn out that the only identifiable potentially-offending content was added by them in the first place, on a politically-charged AP article, is a pattern behavior that stretches one's ability to assume good faith. signed, Rosguill talk 16:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's so hard to tease out exactly what WWW objected to. They referred once to the headline of this CBS piece, and there is article text that says the same thing as the headline. To me it's obviously a WP:LIMITED situation, but I do think WWW had a good-faith CLOP objection. That said, I thinking tagging/blanking the whole article for the two lines (one in lead, one in body) was sub-optimal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, so the only infringing text was added by WWW to begin with? signed, Rosguill talk 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks SP! If any admins agree with that move, could they please consider unblocking Combefere, who came to the same conclusion about the lack of specific copyvio concerns? Pinging the blocking admin, Stifle, in case he'd like to weigh in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and unblocked Combefere, as a block seems clearly unnecessary at this point. signed, Rosguill talk 19:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mass deletion
A sock of a blocked (and globally locked) user has been making hundreds of redirects; I don't want to leave them hanging around so they can sneak back with a new account/IP and convert them into articles under the radar, but deleting them by hand will take a while. I'm wondering if anyone can suggest a handy 'nuke all creations that have not been edited by anyone else' script? Girth Summit (blether) 16:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/massRollback.js is quite what you want, as it's a mass roll back, not a mass delete. But perhaps Writ Keeper has one that will work? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Girth Summit, there is Special:Nuke that allows you mass delete pages created by a user, but you still have to check the history of each page (there is a handy link), because the extension does not allow you to only select pages that haven't been edited by anyone else. — Salvio giuliano 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can get you a list of redirects created by this user that haven't been edited by anyone else, if you can provide their user name. BilledMammal (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Assuming I have the correct user, the list of redirects created by them and only edited by them is:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
If you need it in a different format please let me know. BilledMammal (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks BilledMammal - yes, that's the right account. I was actually OK just going from their contribs - if the creation has a bold 'N' next to it, that tells me it's a new creation, and if it has '(Current)' next to it then I know it that nobody else has edited it. I'll have a play with Special:Nuke now. Girth Summit (blether) 16:44, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- There are nine that they edited multiple times but that no one else has edited:
- BilledMammal (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Girth Summit: if Nuke doesn't work, copy BM's list to a user subpage then use Twinkle's "d-batch" function. It can delete every page linked from te subpage (so use a clean one!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks - that d-batch function looks interesting. I've done most of them with Nuke, but might come back and have a play with that to see how it's done. Got to go out now though, will return to it later. Cheers all. Girth Summit (blether) 16:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks all for the speedy suggestions. I think I've pretty much nuked everything they did with that account now. Girth Summit (blether) 19:21, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
Comma-crazy editor
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
TobadoDobato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spraying commas seemingly at random across many many articles. Others have contacted them about it already but they have only accelerated. Seems like a clear case of WP:NOTHERE to me. Thank you, Mr.choppers | ✎ 17:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Tool
Is there a tool that allows the user to view another editor's edit on a talk page before they post it, for example when the other editor previews it? And is this tool supposed to be only available to administrators? If so, is it a violation for an ordinary user account to use the tool? Bob K31416 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- . . . How . . . would that even work? Maybe I'm not understanding the question, but it seems impossible to see the future in that way. Perhaps you mean see the text while they are typing it? Like some messaging apps? I don't think Wikipedia has such functionality. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- When an editor presses the "Show preview" button, I thought they were sending their work to Wikipedia, which then responds by sending the preview to the user's screen. Is that how it works? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, the Preview page only is shown to the editor working on the edit, and not sent for publishing. It's not going to be available to anyone but the editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- How does the preview display get on the users screen? Is all the processing done somehow on the user's computer? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- When you preview a page for editing, the page reloads with the edit shows as how it will look when published. There is not a way for anyone else to see this at all, the edit doesn't exist until the Publish button is pressed. In other words it's local to the browser you are using to make the edit. You could access Wikipedia on a 2nd device in your home, go to that exact same page and not see the edit you're working on, until it's published. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Bob K31416 (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I had an after thought. Re "In other words it's local to the browser you are using to make the edit." — I tried to test that by going to the sandbox. I composed an edit. Then went offline. Then pressed "show preview". Instead of previewing, I got a message that I was offline. Not clear why I would have to be online to preview the edit if it was local to the browser. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's local to the browser by saying if you are logged into Wikipedia on that specific browser you can see it. You can't on any other browser. But again, no one else is able to see that edit until you publish it. And if you close the browser or logout, that edit is gone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore "[I]f you close the browser or logout, that edit is gone." I'm not sure that is the case any more, at least if you are using the new reply tool. Most edits (e.g. to articles and non-talk pages and ones where I pushed "edit" to use the normal source editor) seem to behave as you have said, but I've noticed that with the new reply tool if I don't push cancel, and leave the page or close the browser and come back to that page, the reply tool reloads with my abandoned comment. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Same. It's actually kind of useful. I can write my reactionary screed, close the page without publishing, walk away and sleep on it, and when I return 15 days later get an excellent relearning of an important lesson. Valereee (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @RickinBaltimore "[I]f you close the browser or logout, that edit is gone." I'm not sure that is the case any more, at least if you are using the new reply tool. Most edits (e.g. to articles and non-talk pages and ones where I pushed "edit" to use the normal source editor) seem to behave as you have said, but I've noticed that with the new reply tool if I don't push cancel, and leave the page or close the browser and come back to that page, the reply tool reloads with my abandoned comment. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's local to the browser by saying if you are logged into Wikipedia on that specific browser you can see it. You can't on any other browser. But again, no one else is able to see that edit until you publish it. And if you close the browser or logout, that edit is gone. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- When you preview a page for editing, the page reloads with the edit shows as how it will look when published. There is not a way for anyone else to see this at all, the edit doesn't exist until the Publish button is pressed. In other words it's local to the browser you are using to make the edit. You could access Wikipedia on a 2nd device in your home, go to that exact same page and not see the edit you're working on, until it's published. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- How does the preview display get on the users screen? Is all the processing done somehow on the user's computer? Bob K31416 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, the Preview page only is shown to the editor working on the edit, and not sent for publishing. It's not going to be available to anyone but the editor. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- When an editor presses the "Show preview" button, I thought they were sending their work to Wikipedia, which then responds by sending the preview to the user's screen. Is that how it works? Bob K31416 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Fenetrejones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This editor has made 4,077 edits, and does not appear to understand categorization.
- With this edit on October 7, 2020, they added an unsourced category, which was reverted here by User:Elizium23 with the edit summary "WP:CATV unsourced". A warning was left on Fenetrejones' talk page here.
- November 30, 2020 - warning about categorization by User:Binksternet.
- January 5, 2021 - Comment by User:Beyond My Ken: "Please note that there is a requirement that any category added to an article must have evidence supporting that category in the article. It is not sufficient to cite outside sources, you must have confirmation in the article. You've been adding cats without support. Please stop."
- On February 10, 2021, there was a dialogue with User:Binksternet about adding unsourced categories at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories must be definitive.
- On July 3, 2022, another lengthy discussion by User:Praxidicae and User:25stargeneral about unsourced category additions at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories.
I could fill this page with diffs of warnings and explanations I have left recently for this editor about categorization--both about adding unsourced categories, and about overcategorizing articles--but this editor does not appear to "get it"...and being Catholic from Kentucky must also mean you are Catholic from the United States. I hate seeing BLPs get messed up. The assistance of others would be appreciated. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I tried several times to explain categorization to Fenetrejones after they kept messing with the biographies of Nazi leaders Hans Fritzsche and Wilhelm Keitel, classifying them as religious based on a description of them talking to a chaplain right before they were executed. See the discussion at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories must be definitive. Fenetrejones is guided by their own rules, frequently violating WP:No original research. I don't see any good way forward from here, with stubbornness combined with WP:CIR problems. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I stopped original research a while back. Fenetrejones (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I tried several times to explain categorization to Fenetrejones after they kept messing with the biographies of Nazi leaders Hans Fritzsche and Wilhelm Keitel, classifying them as religious based on a description of them talking to a chaplain right before they were executed. See the discussion at User talk:Fenetrejones#Categories must be definitive. Fenetrejones is guided by their own rules, frequently violating WP:No original research. I don't see any good way forward from here, with stubbornness combined with WP:CIR problems. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Some of these edits are old and I have learned from those like the Mugabe one. Fenetrejones (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- can you at least provides diffs that aren't almost a year old? Slywriter (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Today - The category "Catholic from Rhode Island" was already on the article, so they added the category "American Roman Catholics" too.
- March 7, 2023 - This person is a Baptist and is in a Baptist category, so they added a category for being a Protestant too. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Cause that category includes many notable people Fenetrejones (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Fenetrejones:Probably the "Baptist" category populates the "Protestant" category, so adding it is redundant. Ditto with Catholic from Rhode Island. Populates American Roman Catholics. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- okay thank you Fenetrejones (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Fenetrejones:Probably the "Baptist" category populates the "Protestant" category, so adding it is redundant. Ditto with Catholic from Rhode Island. Populates American Roman Catholics. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 03:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Cause that category includes many notable people Fenetrejones (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
You keep saying "ok thank you", but nothing changes. With this edit On March 7, 2022, I specifically told you:
Please read WP:CATSPECIFIC: "Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs." This means if you add the category "food from Chicago", you would not add the category "food from Illinois" , because that would not be the most specific category. The policy also says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
But then you kept doing it. Just yesterday, you must have done it 50 times: [1][2][3].
The same is true for adding unsourced categories. On March 7, 2023, at Ralph Abraham (politician), you added the category "Protestants from Louisiana", even though there was nothing in the article about his religious affiliation. On your talk page I asked you why you added this unsourced category, and you responded: "there was a category that said 'Baptists from Louisiana' already there".
And that's why I'm here, because editors keep telling you stuff, but you're not listening. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
- Topic-ban from categorization. This user clearly doesn't understand how the categorization system works, and is not learning despite a lot of input. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 04:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban from categories. I don't think improvement will happen. Binksternet (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic ban from categories.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - @Deepfriedokra, Binksternet, and SMcCandlish: There doesn't seem to have been an improvement. Please see this edit today where the category "Catholic politicians from Massachusetts" was added. However, the parent category "Catholics from Massachusetts" was already in the article. There are many more examples, and another warning about categories on their talk page. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've unarchived, hopefully to right board. Never was closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support topic-ban from categories. The use of categories is a feature of Wikipedia that editors do not need to use, and that is technically subtle, so that the rule that competence is required can be applied strictly. An editor who doesn't understand categories but uses them incorrectly should be prevented from using them, and can edit articles instead. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support TBan from categories. Robert McClenon puts it perfectly - editors do not need to use categories to add/improve content, a ban from them is no kind of impediment to editing productively. They should only be edited by people who understand them, or by people who are eager to understand them and can demonstrate a clear learning curve. This editor keeps on making the same mistakes, and seems to be unwilling or unable to take on board the advice they've been given. Girth Summit (blether) 20:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support category TBan, mainly per Robert McClenon. There are significant BLP concerns with categories; if you have a demonstrated and continued history of inappropriate categorizing, as is the case here, you should be prevented from introducing the errors.-- Ponyobons mots 20:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- support topic ban but can it be temporary? Fenetrejones (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support category TBan also per Robert McClenon. And the comemnt immediately above this, re: "support topic ban but can it be temporary?" by Fenetrejones. It just seems to reinforce the WP:CIR rationale. Heiro 01:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support indefinite topic ban from categories. Indefinite does not mean forever, but this editor needs to make an articulate and convincing unblock request in at least six months or more, showing that they fully understand categorization and what has been problematic in their editing to date. Cullen328 (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support TBAN from categories and categorization. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mistake
I have made a huge mistake archiving threads at the ANI noticeboard. Could someone please reverse it. A healthy dose of trout, too, please. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 01:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) That should do it! I've also left a U1 deletion tag for the archive since it was, at least, the most likely case. If it isn't might as well give me a dose as well. Otherwise, here's a whack! Update: Aw, I skipped past G7! If anyone wants to whack me, go ahead! Tails Wx 01:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Cheers for that Tails Wx. I'm sure there's plenty of fish to go around. X750. Spin a yarn? Articles I've screwed over? 02:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Anti Vandalism (patroller) tool for Wikipedia Android App
Hello all,
The Android team has heard many requests from the community to have ways to ensure that the edits made in the apps are of good quality. With the team's recent release of a native watchlist, contribution history, and edit history, as well as the addition of the undo and rollback button on the diff screen, there is an opportunity to create a moderating solution in the app. We would like to do this in partnership with the community.
We would like to invite you to test the first iteration of the patrolling tool designs. Your input at this stage will allow us to improve the tool before development as well as gather important feedback for the second iteration of the tool.
If you are interested in joining, please reply to this post or send me a message.
Thanks. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 05:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ARamadan-WMF: I’d be interested in participating! EpicPupper (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @EpicPupper, I will email you right now. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, ARamadan-WMF I am a productive editor and administrator who has been editing on Android smartphones for well over ten years. My recommendation is the same as it has been for the last ten plus years. Shut down the Android app and all alternative sites because the misnamed "desktop" site works just fine and is fully functional on Android devices. My long and prolific edit history proves that what I say is true. For many years, you guys have been promising that maybe sometime soon, the Android app would be fully functional. All along, the fully functional option has been available to you for free, the misnamed "desktop site". Rename it the "universal site" and all your Android app problems will be solved instantly, for free. You can read my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing which I wrote eight years ago, but you and all other WMF staffers will always ignore it, because it reveals what a massive waste of time and money all this app and mobile site nonsense really is. Here's the bottom line: The misnamed "desktop" site works vastly better on Android devices than any of the software solutions that have been developed by the San Francisco supervised code monkeys since George W. Bush was president. I say that as an editor who has loved San Francisco and coders for half a century. Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well said. An Android App vandalism fighting tool is attacking the symptom, not the root of the problem. casualdejekyll 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly I'm attempting to assume good faith here and try and think of a reason why an android app might be better than simply using the mobile version of the website in the built in browser. Really the only thing I can think of (with my limited knowledge of how web browsers and stuff function on smart phones) is that some older smartphones and/or mobile web browsers may not perform nearly as well as a desktop/laptop/computer/whatever you want to call a non-mobile device for editing. Other than that I can't really think of anything. Maybe the time and effort on the Android app would be better spent developing a version of Wikipedia for the Nintendo Switch so people don't have to use the unofficial web browser.[Joke] ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well said. An Android App vandalism fighting tool is attacking the symptom, not the root of the problem. casualdejekyll 14:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, ARamadan-WMF I am a productive editor and administrator who has been editing on Android smartphones for well over ten years. My recommendation is the same as it has been for the last ten plus years. Shut down the Android app and all alternative sites because the misnamed "desktop" site works just fine and is fully functional on Android devices. My long and prolific edit history proves that what I say is true. For many years, you guys have been promising that maybe sometime soon, the Android app would be fully functional. All along, the fully functional option has been available to you for free, the misnamed "desktop site". Rename it the "universal site" and all your Android app problems will be solved instantly, for free. You can read my essay User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing which I wrote eight years ago, but you and all other WMF staffers will always ignore it, because it reveals what a massive waste of time and money all this app and mobile site nonsense really is. Here's the bottom line: The misnamed "desktop" site works vastly better on Android devices than any of the software solutions that have been developed by the San Francisco supervised code monkeys since George W. Bush was president. I say that as an editor who has loved San Francisco and coders for half a century. Cullen328 (talk) 08:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @EpicPupper, I will email you right now. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 06:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. I need a way to revert vandalism on the go. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Santiago Claudio
I'm not sure if this the right place to post this information, but here's my message. Santiago Claudio (talk · contribs) is slipping back to his old habit again editing this article, even though, it will be checked, verified & removed eventually? The information is moved on the article's Talk section & this is the response I received from the user:
Sorry, I don't go out of my house most of the day for many years now, and I've never went to that library for that reason. Santiago Claudio (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
This isn't a response. It's more likely that the user wants to avoid or dodge my message. The user does it in that article, previously. That user has done it in other articles in the past before the infinite block of 49 days. That page is based on original research, but majority of my post are still there & some of them are deleted for a reason. The user still continues & I never bring back deleted post that's been checked, verified & removed previously. My post is verifiable. While, the user's information is already covered in the section. The user does this deliberately on-purpose, especially on inactive articles that haven't been updated for a while or long time. Why? Just because an article hasn't been updated for a while doesn't mean it's inactive. Perhaps, users are trying to find & research useful information that's pertinent to the subject. It takes a very long time to check/verify information & sources. I only edit certain materials, such as, punctuation, spelling & sometimes updating outdated internet pages that are no longer available. The user just edits everything in sight, is very impatient & wants to move forward quickly. I only have 944 total edits to my name compared to 33,359 total edits to your name. Wikipedia seems like a game or competition to that user, that is, "How many articles can be revised & edited in 24 hours?". The user brings previous information that's added & deleted to be very entertaining. The reason that I'm not active is because reading & writing messages can be long & intimidating. Also, if an issue arises regarding my post, I will likely be inundated with posts on both article & personal page of the Talk section. I have a limited time replying to messages. The user must be here for attention, credibility, notoriety, popularity, recognition & reputation. I'm here to bring information that wasn't brought to this site's attention before. That user should leave articles alone, especially relating to languages in Wikipedia. I want a proper follow-up response, in hopes that the user will never do it again & a resolution to this matter. The errors that user makes are frustrating, irritating & displeasing. NKM1974 (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NKM1974, it sounds like you're frustrated, and I'm sorry for that, but I'm not sure you're in the right place. This board is to inform about/discuss things that aren't chronic or acute behavior problems but that administrators might want to be aware of.
- I'm thinking maybe go to WP:Teahouse and post a much shorter and clearer description of the issue, with 3 or 4 WP:diffs illustrating what kinds of edits the other editor is making that you feel are problematic, and ask for advice on how to handle. The folks there can tell you if there's a noticeboard you should be at. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Valereee, I will go to the WP:Teahouse & gather all the evidence of that user before & after the ban. NKM1974 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @NKM1974, don't gather too much evidence! No one wants to look at 40 diffs or even ten. Find the 3 or 4 that best illustrate the problem, and if you have others, you can mention that you can provide them. But if you provide ten and the first three someone randomly looks at aren't compelling, most people won't bother looking at the rest. Valereee (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Valereee, I will go to the WP:Teahouse & gather all the evidence of that user before & after the ban. NKM1974 (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Rollback Talk:GamCare
Hi. Could someone with rollback rights please rollback this talk page to the last edit before user Ajmain000 vandalised it? TIA Gbawden (talk) 10:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Done It was just the three most-recent edits, no special tools needed to undo that. DMacks (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. I tried to undo the first edit and I got a message that it couldn't be done due to intervening edits. Thanks for your help Gbawden (talk) 10:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Gbawden Did you try to Undo the edits, or use Twinkle? The rollback-like function on Twinkle does basically the same thing as rollback, and I suggest that you try it out when you need to revert multiple edits in the future. The Night Watch (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's also manual reverting if you don't want to install Twinkle. AP 499D25 (talk) 01:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you're going to revert edits one-by-one, you need to start from the most recent, not the oldest. (But also there are much better ways to do this, e.g., by using the history to open the last good version.) --JBL (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Gbawden Did you try to Undo the edits, or use Twinkle? The rollback-like function on Twinkle does basically the same thing as rollback, and I suggest that you try it out when you need to revert multiple edits in the future. The Night Watch (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Request for review of Discospinster as admin
Discospinster has undone the removal of unreliably sourced opinionated content and requested consensus for the removal. I believe he is purposefully leaving up misinformation due to his bias, when it should be removed until AFTER consensus is reached to have it up. ClearConcise (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- 6 reverts in 10 minutes. How did you think that was going to work out for you? ValarianB (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- That was clear as day edit warring, as you went leaps and bounds over WP:3RR. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ClearConcise: You failed to notify Discospinster of this thread, which is required.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't aware it was required, hopefully this is how you notify @Discospinster. @ValarianB... it's also 6 reverts from Discospinster, so how should it work out for that? Of course it's an edit war, and I'm perfectly okay with discussing it in talk and coming to consensus, but it should be removed until AFTER consensus is reached. The misinformation shouldn't be left up while it is being disputed. ClearConcise (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ClearConcise: A ping is insufficient notification, please see the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've done it for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Bbb23 Thank you, cause I'm not following how to do a notification from the message in red at the top of this page regarding notifications. ClearConcise (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- For future reference all you really need to do is post a comment on their user talk page; the template does that in a way to save you some typing, but it's not required to use the template. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, the template will give you a very formal message, but you can say "yo I reported you at ANI" and that's sufficient notification. Loki (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- For future reference all you really need to do is post a comment on their user talk page; the template does that in a way to save you some typing, but it's not required to use the template. 331dot (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Bbb23 Thank you, cause I'm not following how to do a notification from the message in red at the top of this page regarding notifications. ClearConcise (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've done it for them.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ClearConcise: A ping is insufficient notification, please see the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, wasn't aware it was required, hopefully this is how you notify @Discospinster. @ValarianB... it's also 6 reverts from Discospinster, so how should it work out for that? Of course it's an edit war, and I'm perfectly okay with discussing it in talk and coming to consensus, but it should be removed until AFTER consensus is reached. The misinformation shouldn't be left up while it is being disputed. ClearConcise (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- So, moving on from so the somewhat minor infracture of failure to notify, perhaps Discospinster could tell us how, in their interpretation, their six reverts in nine minutes and then their blocking the party they were edit-warring with, fully complies with their responsibilities under WP:INVOLVED. SN54129 15:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The editor continued to quickly revert even after I left a note on their talk page explaining the issue, with no response. Furthermore I changed the content to make it clear that the claims of bias were in fact claims (i.e. opinions). In my opinion, those further reverts were acts of vandalism and I was justified to make a partial block. ... discospinster talk 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Discospinster: Your opinion should be based on policy: INVOLVED is clear (
editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved
), WP:VAND is also clear thatEven if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism
. You misused WP:ROLLBACK to achieve your ends. Finally, WP:ONUS is also clear thatThe responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
And yes, while all policies are caveated by "...except obvious vandalism", you of all people should know that this was a content dispute and that you went too far. I suggest removing the PB and everyone moving on.. fast. SN54129 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)- My opinion was based on policy, and you referred to it above. Given the comment about "misinformation" (here and comments on ChatGPT's talk page: "These accusations are being used as a tool to try and garner pity for the so-called "victims" and they need to be removed from this encyclopedia article."), and the fact that the user has made few other edits, and none since 2017, it is even more clear now that User:ClearConcise is editing towards an agenda and not in good faith. I stand by my actions. ... discospinster talk 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not come to this article with an agenda and I am insulted by your accusation. I was merely reading an article and when I saw an agenda on the page and I took action to improve the article by removing the agenda. ClearConcise (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, let's get something clear - you want us to believe that you, in good faith, had no agenda, but you are not remotely willing to extend said good faith to Discospinster, whom you have described as "purposefully leaving up misinformation due to his bias"? --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am willing to extend good faith to Discospinster and engage in talk and come to consensus. Shouldn't the disputed content be removed until that consensus is reached? ClearConcise (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, it should not, unless it's a BLP violation or something really, starkly, WP:INAPPROPRIATE for some other important reason. This is not such a case. —Alalch E. 17:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, that's not how it works. WP:BRD: You were bold, they reverted, now you discuss. It's not a BLP, it's not unsourced, so, you don't get to unilaterally declare it's not acceptable. You have to actually justify it, with your words. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am willing to extend good faith to Discospinster and engage in talk and come to consensus. Shouldn't the disputed content be removed until that consensus is reached? ClearConcise (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wait, let's get something clear - you want us to believe that you, in good faith, had no agenda, but you are not remotely willing to extend said good faith to Discospinster, whom you have described as "purposefully leaving up misinformation due to his bias"? --Golbez (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did not come to this article with an agenda and I am insulted by your accusation. I was merely reading an article and when I saw an agenda on the page and I took action to improve the article by removing the agenda. ClearConcise (talk) 16:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- My opinion was based on policy, and you referred to it above. Given the comment about "misinformation" (here and comments on ChatGPT's talk page: "These accusations are being used as a tool to try and garner pity for the so-called "victims" and they need to be removed from this encyclopedia article."), and the fact that the user has made few other edits, and none since 2017, it is even more clear now that User:ClearConcise is editing towards an agenda and not in good faith. I stand by my actions. ... discospinster talk 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no notification of a message in my talk readily visible on the site (that I see anyway). I was not aware that you had left a note on my talk page. I have responded to it, and you have not responded to me, does that show that you are not engaging in good faith? It's not vandalism to remove misinformation that is pushing an agenda. In the same vain, I could just as easily say it is vandalism to continue putting it back. The content should be removed until AFTER a consensus is reached, and the fact that @Discospinster banned a user for removing their own "vandalism" and continues to leave this disputed information up until that consensus is reached is proof of Discospinster's bias. I have engaged in talk regarding this page, and I ask that Discospinster be removed from being able to admin a page they are showing bias on, and that I be unbanned. ClearConcise (talk) 16:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not only is there a message on your Talk page, but you responded to it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The way I see it, you were both edit warring, as no exception applied, as far as I can see. So a block was certainly warranted, though Discospinster should not have been the one to impose it and, to be fair, they could have been blocked as well. — Salvio giuliano 16:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. The harder part is what to do about it now.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- As far as ClearConcise is concerned, I was thinking that the block could be lifted as long as they accept not to make further edits to the article until the discussion on the talk page has achieved consensus, since there is no need to act quickly and we can let the discussion come to a natural conclusion. As far as Discospinster is concerned, on the other hand, I'd like to see some acknowledgment that their conduct violated WP:INVOLVED and reassurances that this was an occasional misstep unlikely to be repeated. — Salvio giuliano 16:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, we both should be blocked but I will still ask that the disputed content be removed until there is a consensus on whether it should be there. ClearConcise (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, so much for my suggestion. In that case, the block is still necessary to prevent further edit warring. — Salvio giuliano 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- As mentioned above WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I of course agree not to edit until there is consensus as you suggested, I just think it's clear it should come down until that consensus is reached. ClearConcise (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't how ONUS works, you don't get to remove something that had been included for a while and became subject to implicit consensus and enforce your removal through edit warring, demanding others to form a consensus until you yield. It's great to try bold removal, but once challenged, there's only one way: talk page. ...and if regular talk page discussion doesn't work there's WP:DR: ask for a third opinion, seek mediation, try the NPOV noticeboard and the dispute resolution noticeboard. There's tons of stuff available, and making six reverts is not among them. —Alalch E. 17:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree I messed up with the edits, but I disagree that this is not how ONUS works. ONUS is specifically for this reason... to put the burden on the person who seeks to keep disputed content. ClearConcise (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not when there is already, as I said, implicit consensus. In either case, invoking ONUS means that your disputant can't WP:STONEWALL to protect the status quo and has to engage in a conversation if they want retention, but it doesn't mean that you can enforce removal through edit warring. ONUS is not a license to edit war. If someone is not respecting ONUS by insisting on inclusion and not engaging substantively in a discussion, you need to ask for a third opinion or try many other mechanisms of dispute resolution. —Alalch E. 17:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the info. I'll read up on this 3rd opinion thing. ClearConcise (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'll let admins and others judge the actions of DS. I agree with ClearConcise in that policy is that something added is added through consensus and only shares that consensus until disputed and then ONUS is on the those wanting to keep or add to prove it belongs. However, I agree with Alalch E. that the where is the most important aspect and the most egregious breech with regard to the article. Consensus through discussion. Not discussion through edit summaries but on the talk page. --ARoseWolf 17:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the info. I'll read up on this 3rd opinion thing. ClearConcise (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not when there is already, as I said, implicit consensus. In either case, invoking ONUS means that your disputant can't WP:STONEWALL to protect the status quo and has to engage in a conversation if they want retention, but it doesn't mean that you can enforce removal through edit warring. ONUS is not a license to edit war. If someone is not respecting ONUS by insisting on inclusion and not engaging substantively in a discussion, you need to ask for a third opinion or try many other mechanisms of dispute resolution. —Alalch E. 17:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree I messed up with the edits, but I disagree that this is not how ONUS works. ONUS is specifically for this reason... to put the burden on the person who seeks to keep disputed content. ClearConcise (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- This isn't how ONUS works, you don't get to remove something that had been included for a while and became subject to implicit consensus and enforce your removal through edit warring, demanding others to form a consensus until you yield. It's great to try bold removal, but once challenged, there's only one way: talk page. ...and if regular talk page discussion doesn't work there's WP:DR: ask for a third opinion, seek mediation, try the NPOV noticeboard and the dispute resolution noticeboard. There's tons of stuff available, and making six reverts is not among them. —Alalch E. 17:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- As mentioned above WP:ONUS, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. I of course agree not to edit until there is consensus as you suggested, I just think it's clear it should come down until that consensus is reached. ClearConcise (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, so much for my suggestion. In that case, the block is still necessary to prevent further edit warring. — Salvio giuliano 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. The harder part is what to do about it now.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Discospinster: Your opinion should be based on policy: INVOLVED is clear (
- The editor continued to quickly revert even after I left a note on their talk page explaining the issue, with no response. Furthermore I changed the content to make it clear that the claims of bias were in fact claims (i.e. opinions). In my opinion, those further reverts were acts of vandalism and I was justified to make a partial block. ... discospinster talk 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well so much for WP:AGF and not casting WP:ASPERSIONS.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- You lost me; to whom are you referring?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've unblocked CC; it's clear that either that needed to be done, or DS needed to be blocked from the page too. Unblocking seemed the path of least drama. DS should not take any further admin actions on that page, and should re-read WP:VANDALISM if they honestly believe that's what they were reverting. That was not vandalism. I'm pretty disappointed in their doubling down. If either one of them makes a revert on that page again before there is a consensus for it, I'll block them for continuing to edit war. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- At some point, we should all acknowledge User:Rhododendrites; while we argue about who is to blame for what, he's been editing the article - without reverting - to improve it and address some of CC's concerns while not blanket removing it. Hat tip. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with Floquenbeam's actions here. The least invasive approach while also making crystal clear which bright lines cannot be crossed.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- A clear cut wp:involved violation is a serious thing should as a minimum get what Salvio suggested which was: "As far as Discospinster is concerned, on the other hand, I'd like to see some acknowledgment that their conduct violated WP:INVOLVED and reassurances that this was an occasional misstep unlikely to be repeated." If DS won't do even that there a problem that needs fixing. North8000 (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Vandalism needs to be clear-cut for the exception to 3RR to apply; doubly so for a subsequent use of admin tools. And what was the urgency here? Why could this not have gone to AIV? At the very least I'd have expected DS to post here for review. DS needs to acknowledge error here; this is a textbook violation of WP:INVOLVED. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this needs explanation. Valereee (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I also agree. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1, I'm afraid. It would be hypocritical of me to say I've never got carried away in an edit war, but reverting the same edit by the same person on the same page six times in rapid succession then blocking your opponent is a poor show. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've looked into this a bit further, and there's some ameliorating factors. It appears DS had no history with this page, so unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I'm assuming he saw this at recent changes. In such a case, I have no problem with reverting and blocking for obvious vandalism. I question whether this was obvious, and especially whether it was obvious at the time. There were verifiability problems, as was made clear in subsequent edits. Also: if you're going to revert and block, why wait for six edits? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly if they rerevert, don't revert a second time, go to talk page (BRD) or give a warning or something, anything other than 3RR. SwampedEssayist (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've looked into this a bit further, and there's some ameliorating factors. It appears DS had no history with this page, so unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I'm assuming he saw this at recent changes. In such a case, I have no problem with reverting and blocking for obvious vandalism. I question whether this was obvious, and especially whether it was obvious at the time. There were verifiability problems, as was made clear in subsequent edits. Also: if you're going to revert and block, why wait for six edits? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1, I'm afraid. It would be hypocritical of me to say I've never got carried away in an edit war, but reverting the same edit by the same person on the same page six times in rapid succession then blocking your opponent is a poor show. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I also agree. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have to agree, this needs explanation. Valereee (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Discospinster is one of the very few administrators, perhaps the only of them, I ever had to warn about edit warring. That was three months ago, Special:Diff/1123628128, in response to this content dispute in the Kannada article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The IP in that case was removing well-sourced content with increasingly belligerent sniping in edit summaries. Without comment on anything else, reverting POV warriors in India related topics doesn't bother me; not being able to would rapidly degrade the quality of articles in that topic area. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at WP:GS/CASTE, I have to admit I can't really argue with that. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The IP in that case was removing well-sourced content with increasingly belligerent sniping in edit summaries. Without comment on anything else, reverting POV warriors in India related topics doesn't bother me; not being able to would rapidly degrade the quality of articles in that topic area. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see a major problem here. One of the criteria for vandalism (WP:VAND) is "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" and that's exactly what ClearConcise was doing. OK, DS should not have blocked them directly and should have reported them to WP:AN3 (where they would undoubtedly have been blocked), but the result is, in the end, the same. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of course there was a reason. It doesn't need to be a good one; the point is that anything done in good faith (such as demonstrated by the edit summary of [4]), no matter how disruptive, is not vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Seriously? The edit summary was "This is an opinion piece cited by biased unreliable sources" yet they removed an entire section including sources such as the New York Post, Mint, USA Today, the Boston Globe and The Verge. Were they all "opinion pieces cited by biased unreliable sources". Here's a clue - no, they weren't. ClearConcise was not acting in good faith and was committing vandalism - they needed to be at least partial blocked. At the moment, they aren't, so we've failed on that one. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, we have a shortcut for the New York Post at WP:NYPOST ("generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics"). I'm not saying ClearConcise was right content-wise, nor that they have not been edit warring. All I'm saying is that your vandalism accusation lacks actual evidence. At very, very least we can surely agree that this wasn't "obvious vandalism" of the type exempted for reverting by WP:3RRNO #4, unless you're now also questioning my well intentions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'll give you the New York Post (I was getting confused with the NYTimes - I'm not American) but I'm sorry, removing an entire section with an edit summary which bears no relation to what you're actually doing is, simply, vandalism. And of course I wasn't criticising your intentions, simply pointing out that CC needed to be removed from editing that article. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:3RRNO: "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ahem. "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" (WP:VAND). Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- But a reason was given, here. I have no opinion either way on whether the content should be in or not, but it was not obvious vandalism. GiantSnowman 20:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Which is the point where I'd say that the reason doesn't need to be a good one, closing the circle the discussion has now run. We're missing the point of this thread though: Discospinster has broken WP:3RR and blocked their edit warring opponent. As both is prohibited, an apology, clarification, something assuring that it won't happen again, is requested. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed, but as an absolute minimum. Blocking an edit war 'opponent' is a very serious mis-use of tools. GiantSnowman 20:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Er, actually, the reason does need to be a good one ("Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content (is provided in) a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content" - WP:VAND again). This one was not only frivolous, but simply false. Black Kite (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- As long as ClearConcise believed that their editing was improving the encyclopedia, it wasn't vandalism. It isn't even vandalism if removals are made with completely unvoiced good intentions. The distinction between vandalism and non-vandalism disruption is about intent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I hate to repeat this, but that's not what WP:VAND (which is a policy) says. It clearly says that removing encyclopedic content with no good reason given is vandalism. Giving a reason which is clearly untrue is not a good reason. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is a difference between having a reason and voicing a reason in an edit summary. The first sentence of the policy tries to explain this in bold and italic formatting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it clearly says, in bold and italic, "any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism". Removing encyclopedic content six times with an edit summary which is clearly untrue is not good faith. I'm not entirely sure how much clearer this could be. Black Kite (talk) 20:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Black Kite, what makes you so sure this was not a good faith effort? Crazynas t 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't know how many ways you can be told, but just because you don't think it was a good reason, doesn't mean it wasn't. I still believe it it's a good reason, and now I'm only wondering how long I need to wait for Discospinster's lack of talk to be considered stonewalling so I can remove the section again (for good reason). ClearConcise (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Um, so that's a threat to continue an edit war in the name of ending an edit war? Wow. — Trey Maturin™ 20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've engaged in good faith talk, and I'm simply wondering how long someone is expected to wait before it is considered stonewalling. Why is everyone being so obtuse? ClearConcise (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Good faith talk (perhaps) but appallingly bad faith editing on the face of it. You. Were. Edit. Warring. Whatever happened next was on your own head. — Trey Maturin™ 20:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It takes two to edit war. There was no reason for Discospinster to vandalize my edit. (see, I can make meaningless accusations too) ClearConcise (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not about the accusations now. You are now involved and have no reason to edit that page anymore. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Vandalise" has a very specific and loaded meaning on Wikipedia, as you well know. Your use of it here is inappropriate, as you also well know. I withdraw my (admittedly sarcastic) agreement that you are talking in good faith. You're not. You're trolling. — Trey Maturin™ 20:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- + 1. I didn't really have an opinion on this discussion either way until they started replying in a hostile manner on this thread. And I'm starting to doubt whether this thread was begun with intentions of actually discussing an admin's conduct. I believe admin's conduct isn't a serious enough topic on the wiki, but acting this way isn't good for anyone. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1 as well. I was more in agreement with Black Kite on this and now seeing the editor's comments... EvergreenFir (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I was banned by a party to an edit war, I've been called a troll by Trey Maturin, falsely accused multiple times of egregious vandalism, and now threatened by Black Kite to be perma banned, and I'm being hostile? Wow. ClearConcise (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- You came to AN of all places, did you expect it to be a cakewalk and that your own actions would not be scrutinized? Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Is there some reason we should expect coming to AN of all places to be be difficult? Levivich (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- ClearConcise, if you are editing in good faith, there is exactly one single thing you can do to prevent digging a hole that is hard to get out of: Stop participating in this AN thread unless you are asked something. I hope that my messages above make clear that I'm not questioning your good faith, so perhaps you can take that advice from me without assuming it's hostile or biased against you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- You came to AN of all places, did you expect it to be a cakewalk and that your own actions would not be scrutinized? Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- + 1. I didn't really have an opinion on this discussion either way until they started replying in a hostile manner on this thread. And I'm starting to doubt whether this thread was begun with intentions of actually discussing an admin's conduct. I believe admin's conduct isn't a serious enough topic on the wiki, but acting this way isn't good for anyone. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It takes two to edit war. There was no reason for Discospinster to vandalize my edit. (see, I can make meaningless accusations too) ClearConcise (talk) 20:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- In your case, about this one specific section? Forever. Someone else will have to do it; you doing it would be continuing an edit war. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ClearConcise Bare minimum, in a generic context (not specific to this dispute), if you have brought it up on the talk page and there has been no response for 24 hours and the person has edited within that 24 hour window, then you would be justified in taking action. However, in this situation, where you have already engaged in an edit war and the dispute is at AN, wait at least until this thread is closed, or a week, whichever is longer. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Honestly, the people saying in this situation not at all, ever, are probably right. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Good faith talk (perhaps) but appallingly bad faith editing on the face of it. You. Were. Edit. Warring. Whatever happened next was on your own head. — Trey Maturin™ 20:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've engaged in good faith talk, and I'm simply wondering how long someone is expected to wait before it is considered stonewalling. Why is everyone being so obtuse? ClearConcise (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I would definitely not recommend that course of action. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- While I'm thankful for your clarification that you have been editing in good faith, I should point out that you specifically should not be removing the section again in any definite amount of time. You have reached a point where discussing on the article's talk page, and trying to convince others to make the edit, is the only legitimate option left. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can assure you that a 7th revert on that article would be the last edit you would make here. Black Kite (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Um, so that's a threat to continue an edit war in the name of ending an edit war? Wow. — Trey Maturin™ 20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is a difference between having a reason and voicing a reason in an edit summary. The first sentence of the policy tries to explain this in bold and italic formatting. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I hate to repeat this, but that's not what WP:VAND (which is a policy) says. It clearly says that removing encyclopedic content with no good reason given is vandalism. Giving a reason which is clearly untrue is not a good reason. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- As long as ClearConcise believed that their editing was improving the encyclopedia, it wasn't vandalism. It isn't even vandalism if removals are made with completely unvoiced good intentions. The distinction between vandalism and non-vandalism disruption is about intent. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ahem. "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" (WP:VAND). Black Kite (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Per WP:3RRNO: "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language."--Bbb23 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'll give you the New York Post (I was getting confused with the NYTimes - I'm not American) but I'm sorry, removing an entire section with an edit summary which bears no relation to what you're actually doing is, simply, vandalism. And of course I wasn't criticising your intentions, simply pointing out that CC needed to be removed from editing that article. Black Kite (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well, we have a shortcut for the New York Post at WP:NYPOST ("generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics"). I'm not saying ClearConcise was right content-wise, nor that they have not been edit warring. All I'm saying is that your vandalism accusation lacks actual evidence. At very, very least we can surely agree that this wasn't "obvious vandalism" of the type exempted for reverting by WP:3RRNO #4, unless you're now also questioning my well intentions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Seriously? The edit summary was "This is an opinion piece cited by biased unreliable sources" yet they removed an entire section including sources such as the New York Post, Mint, USA Today, the Boston Globe and The Verge. Were they all "opinion pieces cited by biased unreliable sources". Here's a clue - no, they weren't. ClearConcise was not acting in good faith and was committing vandalism - they needed to be at least partial blocked. At the moment, they aren't, so we've failed on that one. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of course there was a reason. It doesn't need to be a good one; the point is that anything done in good faith (such as demonstrated by the edit summary of [4]), no matter how disruptive, is not vandalism. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Let me ask the admins commenting here: say you were to encounter a user with fewer than 50 edits, on a page you have never edited nor been involved with in any way, who is mass-removing content, refusing to discuss, and undo-reverting anyone who tries to make any change whatsoever within one minute of the edit, and prior to this the user has not edited in six years. Would you block them? I would, I often have in the past, and I wouldn't think twice about it in the future. Likewise I find myself not thinking twice about endorsing Discopsinster's use of admin tools to throttle a clearly disruptive and tendentious editor, per the "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion" provision of WP:INVOLVED. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Totally agree. Some people - including some admins - appear to wish to enable obvious disruptive editors. I am unclear as to the reasons for that. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1. A decade ago, when I first dipped my toe into editing here, "involved" meant "invested in the article in question". Then it meant "invested in the article or editor in question." Then "invested in any way." Then "interested in any way." Then "has previously edited the article or spoken to the editor." Then "once commented on a thread about the article or editor." Now we're suddenly at "reverted what appears to be obvious vandalism by an uncommunicative editor and then blocked that editor." No comments on whether this was the correct course of action, just a belief that the very appearance of being "involved" is enough to condemn. Time to draw a line on this insane instruction creep. — Trey Maturin™ 20:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I do not have your tenure, but I share your sentiment. DS should have sought redress at AIV. Or DS could have just blocked sooner and called it WP:DE (which it was). Or semi-protected the page. But because they reverted more than 3 times, we're here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. It would be nice to have a discussion about admin conduct in these situations but I don't think this thread was made in good faith. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say more communication with the editor and more formal warnings at minimum. Without them, it looks more like a content dispute than addressing WP:DE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'd say more communication with the editor and more formal warnings at minimum. Without them, it looks more like a content dispute than addressing WP:DE. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. It would be nice to have a discussion about admin conduct in these situations but I don't think this thread was made in good faith. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:11, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I do not have your tenure, but I share your sentiment. DS should have sought redress at AIV. Or DS could have just blocked sooner and called it WP:DE (which it was). Or semi-protected the page. But because they reverted more than 3 times, we're here. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm in this boat too. I revert tons of editors on AP, gensex, COVID, caste and other similar topics when I see the obvious removal of sourced, consensus text. If someone were removing far-right or spread COVID disinformation from an article where it is well sourced and obviously has at least implicit consensus with an edit summary like "removing untrue information from biased sources" is it really revert or block for an administrator? That type of summary is so common in vandalism it triggers edit filters. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1. A decade ago, when I first dipped my toe into editing here, "involved" meant "invested in the article in question". Then it meant "invested in the article or editor in question." Then "invested in any way." Then "interested in any way." Then "has previously edited the article or spoken to the editor." Then "once commented on a thread about the article or editor." Now we're suddenly at "reverted what appears to be obvious vandalism by an uncommunicative editor and then blocked that editor." No comments on whether this was the correct course of action, just a belief that the very appearance of being "involved" is enough to condemn. Time to draw a line on this insane instruction creep. — Trey Maturin™ 20:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please look at that history again and change or remove your accusation. Undoing the Undo of my change is not "undo-reverting anyone who tries to make any change whatsoever". ClearConcise (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- They're completely correct. The only mistake that Discospinster made was letting you vandalise the article six times. You should have been blocked well before that. Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll take another look.
- 21 March, 18:10-18:20 ([5]): You removed approximately 4,000 bytes of material you disagreed with, eventually the entire "accusations of bias" section and a portion of the "limitations" section, calling out the sources as opinion pieces. The opinions were notable opinions published in relevant reliable sources and were attributed either to those sources or to the individuals or organizations who originally stated them as opinions, per WP:OPINION. This was your first edit since September 2017, and your removal was reverted in parts by
fivetwo (corrected below) different editors over the next couple days. - 22 March, 14:09 ([6]): you returned and again removed the entire "accusations of bias" section and the same section from "limitations". Thus, you undid any edit anyone had made in the interim.
- Over the next few minutes, Discospinster's first edits to the page again restored the reliably sourced sections, with explanation, and they began copyediting presumably to clarify your concerns. You reverted to restore your version within three minutes.
- You then began blanking the content with no explanation at all, and each one of your reverts is within one minute of the previous edit. This did not stop until you were blocked, and you did not attempt to discuss at all until 14 minutes after you were blocked from editing the article.
- 21 March, 18:10-18:20 ([5]): You removed approximately 4,000 bytes of material you disagreed with, eventually the entire "accusations of bias" section and a portion of the "limitations" section, calling out the sources as opinion pieces. The opinions were notable opinions published in relevant reliable sources and were attributed either to those sources or to the individuals or organizations who originally stated them as opinions, per WP:OPINION. This was your first edit since September 2017, and your removal was reverted in parts by
- Allow me to also point out that WP:ONUS says that "[t]he responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", not "all content must be removed unless and until User:ClearConcise personally approves of it". Numerous editors contributing to the section including the
sixthree (corrected below) who restored the content after you removed it are a good sign that it was your removal that was controversial, and per WP:EW and WP:BRD (and numerous other policies and guidelines) the onus is on you to explain why the information should be removed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)- I think this pretty much settles this entire issue. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I don't think anyone has yet observed that Discospinster part-blocked ClearConcise specifically from editing only the article, which I've also done to force an editor to engage rather than blocking them outright. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think this pretty much settles this entire issue. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Totally agree. Some people - including some admins - appear to wish to enable obvious disruptive editors. I am unclear as to the reasons for that. Black Kite (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose I would ask the administrator why they choose to revert six times? Look, we don't edit war with vandals, we block and move on. The fact that they (Discospinster) continued to revert and not report or block implies to me they knew that this was not prima face vandalism, and means this falls on the side of being a content dispute. Does anyone looking at this edit history think that after Discospinster's fourth, putting their toe across the line, revert that ClearConcise would suddenly get the message and stop? Crazynas t 21:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- If they were seeing it as straight up vandalism, then yes. We extend a tremendous amount of rope to vandals. We extend a preposterous amount more to people who should know better. We extend an almost infinite amount to obvious trolls. The one edit warring here was the original troll, not the sysop. Perhaps the admin should've blocked the troll earlier/quicker rather than extending the rope the troll was dishing out for themselves (not an admin, but I would've blocked after the second revert), but that decision has to lie within the realm of admin discretion. — Trey Maturin™ 21:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is why I have stock in rope companies and glue factories EvergreenFir (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- If they were seeing it as straight up vandalism, then yes. We extend a tremendous amount of rope to vandals. We extend a preposterous amount more to people who should know better. We extend an almost infinite amount to obvious trolls. The one edit warring here was the original troll, not the sysop. Perhaps the admin should've blocked the troll earlier/quicker rather than extending the rope the troll was dishing out for themselves (not an admin, but I would've blocked after the second revert), but that decision has to lie within the realm of admin discretion. — Trey Maturin™ 21:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, for me it's the so-many-reverts-so-fast of an edit that wasn't actually clear vandalism, then block that needs explaining. We can argue whether it was clear vandalism -- although in this case it doesn't actually look like it; the edit summary was "This is an opinion piece cited by biased unreliable sources. Are you going to post a summary of all "accusations" that are made by biased unreliable sources?" -- but certainly this removal wasn't anything that was urgent. This wasn't a BLPvio or anything close to egregious. It was content being disputed and removed because of a concern about sources. Why not instead of edit-warring, open a talk section and ping the other editor for an explanation? If there's no answer, revert again, and if they revert again without coming to talk, sure, p-block from that article to force them to the talk page.
- That said, I think this is an issue that just needs to be acknowledged and not repeated. I kind of feel like maybe DS got caught up in things. Valereee (talk) 13:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose I would ask the administrator why they choose to revert six times? Look, we don't edit war with vandals, we block and move on. The fact that they (Discospinster) continued to revert and not report or block implies to me they knew that this was not prima face vandalism, and means this falls on the side of being a content dispute. Does anyone looking at this edit history think that after Discospinster's fourth, putting their toe across the line, revert that ClearConcise would suddenly get the message and stop? Crazynas t 21:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Some of this looks surreal. A two person clear cut edit war and a 3RR one, (BTW I would have agreed with DP in that content dispute) and one of the two users involved uses admin tools to block the other. And some are saying that there's no problem here. And not even a response from DP to the graceful easy way out suggested by Salvio? North8000 (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Black Kite here, and from the initial comments in this thread I did not have that view, but actually looking at the edits reverted I cant see them as good faith edits. Making some vague wave to a single source while deleting a whole chunk of material along with other sources is not a good faith edit. I think an involved block to stop the immediate edit-warring was fine, but it should have been brought for some review at AN3 or elsewhere shortly thereafter. nableezy - 21:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, this is a very long thread considering we are clearly being trolled here. If I wasn't about to go to sleep, I'd seriously consider a block here. Someone else may want to consider that. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not an admin (because why the fuck would I put myself through that hell in order to get more fucking hell all of the time) but yes, this is clear and outright trolling. Block the troll and then we can talk about whether the sysop actions in question need further consideration. But not until we block the troll. — Trey Maturin™ 21:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't see the problems with the block that others do. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- What nableezy said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wait. Six other users reverted op? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at it. It looks like one other editor reverted the removal prior to DS getting involved. [7]
- I might be missing something though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- No? Where would you even get that from? — DVRTed (Talk) 22:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- See the above comment by @Ivanvector:
Numerous editors contributing to the section including the six who restored the content after you removed it are a good sign that it was your removal that was controversial, and per WP:EW and WP:BRD (and numerous other policies and guidelines) the onus is on you to explain why the information should be removed.
Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC) - (edit conflict) I counted five before DS restoring portions of the first removal, but I see now that I miscounted. The partial reverts that led to all of the removed content being restored were by LightNightLights ([8], [9]) and Félix An ([10]). Three other editors also edited different parts of the article before CC reverted again, and then DS reverted. So to be "fair" they were reverted by three editors, not six. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- See the above comment by @Ivanvector:
- Wait. Six other users reverted op? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- What nableezy said. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I don't see the problems with the block that others do. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not an admin (because why the fuck would I put myself through that hell in order to get more fucking hell all of the time) but yes, this is clear and outright trolling. Block the troll and then we can talk about whether the sysop actions in question need further consideration. But not until we block the troll. — Trey Maturin™ 21:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also agree that ClearConcise's edits appear to be vandalism. look at the edits they were making yesterday before the edit war, e.g. claiming
There is no article supporting this claim.
while deleting a citation to an academic paper [11]. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yep, this is a very long thread considering we are clearly being trolled here. If I wasn't about to go to sleep, I'd seriously consider a block here. Someone else may want to consider that. Black Kite (talk) 21:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- What I'm seeing here is an admin and a non-admin engaged in an edit war over POV, and the use of admin tools to win said edit war. Everyone agreed that it was clear-cut until a couple other admins arrived and tried to endorse the use of admin tools to win an edit war, using a blatant misinterpretation of WP:VAND and attempting to WP:BAIT OP. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think you may win the award for "worst take in the thread". 192.76.8.84 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Seconded. From what I can tell, DS hadn't interacted with that article until now, so it seems a bold claim that he did it "to win an edit war". I tend not to care about edit wars on articles I'm not actively involved in. It also smells of not assuming good faith, which, I mean, would certainly match the OP's attitude. --Golbez (talk) 22:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- yeah, you clearly haven't read all of the comments here then... Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1. I'm glad somebody suggested OP to stop actively participating on this thread and they decided to do so because the attempts to bait the OP on this thread is painfully obvious. — DVRTed (Talk) 22:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
no I'm saying YOU haven't read all of the comments here. this situation is far more nuanced than your description suggests. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)- I wasn't responding to (You) nor was I questioning whatever you said (or didn't say). — DVRTed (Talk) 23:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Pardon my interruption, but I think your repeated comment that
you clearly haven't read all of the comments here
is discourteous and not conducive to a collegial atmosphere. In general the temperature in this thread is already far too high, and I don't think comments like these are helping much. Would you consider striking them? Shells-shells (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think you may win the award for "worst take in the thread". 192.76.8.84 (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hm. It's okay to use admin tools to win an editing dispute if the other bloke is a badwrong vandal type? I smell Boris Johnson level hypocrisy.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- For the record, I dont think DS was in an editing dispute, I think all their actions at that page were administrative in nature. Its not like DS had some past editing history showing that they really wanted this material in the article. So I dont think thats an accurate description of what happened. I was about ready to scream bloody murder after the start of this thread, but actually looking at the sequence I see legit nothing wrong here. nableezy - 00:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- If the "editing dispute" consists of a "vandal type" vandalising an article by repeatedly deleting massive chunks of sourced content giving explanations which are evidently false [12] then yes, it is acceptable to use admin tools. It is quite clearly spelled out in relevant policies (WP:INVOLVED WP:EW etc) that cleaning up after "vandal types" is an acceptable reason to overrule policy. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- In addition see no evidence that there was an "editing dispute" in the first place. Discospinner did not contribute to the article text, was not involved in the editorial process at all, and their only involvement in the article was reverting the blanking and a block, both of which are administrative actions. The only edit they made was a trivial wording tweak [13], which in no way reaches the level required for WP:INVOLVED to be an issue. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 00:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- And yet no editing dispute has been presented. There was unproductive behavior and editing that an admin was correcting in an article they had no previous involvement with. The desire to stretch WP:INVOLVED to encompass such activity is strange. At best, a criticism not reporting to AN for review by other admins is due. The idea that an admin should be admonished for attempting to resolve the issue through editing, instead of immediate page block is well... Backwards. Slywriter (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I re-added the content on the ChatGPT article about the AI praising Biden while refusing to do the same for Trump, citing Snopes, which is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. Félix An (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. I reject what Slywriter and 192.76.8.84 say. Once you've edited an article, you should not perform administrative interventions resulting from editor behaviour on that article. This is quite simple and easy to understand.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Except not that simple at all. Obviously, if you have been editing as a normal editor on an article, you should usually refrain from taking administrative action on it except in the most obvious of cases (and even then, not if you have been in dispute with the editor concerned). However, as in this case, if your interaction with the article has been limited to an administrative one (in this case reverting the repeated removal of sourced content with a fraudulent edit summary) then there is no issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think reverting is an editorial action and not an administrative one. I think it's as clear as day that DS should have gone to AN3 about this. We need these rules about involvement because they (imperfectly, but importantly) help prevent various kinds of abuse.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's a ridiculously oversimplified way of looking at the issue. Whether reverting is an editorial or administrative action is context dependent. If someone replaces an article with profanity or deletes all it's content or replaces it with spam then reverting them is simple vandalism clean-up and is an administrative action, reverting becomes an editorial action when you revert someone in a good faith content dispute. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think an administrative action is an action that you need administrator tools to perform, and an editorial action is one that any editor can perform. The only scope for complexity that I see is whether rollback is an administrative action; I don't think it is but you could defensibly argue the other side. Reverting without using rollback is normal editing that you don't need to pass RFA to perform and doesn't invoke WP:ADMINACCT. It's a pity because if DS had just used AN3, this would have been a straightforward case of RBI.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I think an administrative action is an action that you need administrator tools to perform, and an editorial action is one that any editor can perform.
Bullshit. There's a whole range of administrative actions that do not not require administrator tools to perform. Closing a thread at WP:AE is an administrative action, but only requires editing a page. Giving an editor a logged warning under the contentious topics regime does not require administrative tools, but is an administrative action. Closing a contentious XFD as "keep" does not require administrative tools, but is an administrative action. Closing a thread at AN/ANI with consensus to topic ban an editor does not involve the use of the tools, but is an an administrative action. Closing a contentious RFC does not require the use of the tools, but is an administrative action. You need to look at the context of what the admin was doing, not just the technical means used to do it. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)- If your position is that issuing a DS warning is an "administrative action", then I don't just disagree, I also don't understand how you can think that? A DS warning is a prerequisite for some kinds of administrative action but it's something any editor can do and is routinely done by involved parties. You also bring up discussion closes, and I agree that a discussion closer ought to be accountable for their close and WP:ADMINACCT applies, but, it's called a "non-admin close". The clue's in the name there, I would think.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- A logged CTOP warning goes in the AE log. It's an entirely different issue than issuing a DS alert, which any editor can do. An alert does not presume misconduct, whereas a logged warning is only given in response to such. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Did you actually read what I wrote? When I said "giving a logged warning" I meant "giving a logged warning", not "giving a contentious topic alert". I meant following the CT procedures, giving an official warning as a sanction and recording it in WP:AE/Log. That is an action restricted only to admins but no admin tools are required, you only need to be able to edit a semi-protected page.
- Closing any kind of contentious or controversial discussion is an inappropriate thing for a non admin to do per WP:BADNAC point 2. Closing those discussions is an action restricted to administrators, despite no admin tools being required. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- If your position is that issuing a DS warning is an "administrative action", then I don't just disagree, I also don't understand how you can think that? A DS warning is a prerequisite for some kinds of administrative action but it's something any editor can do and is routinely done by involved parties. You also bring up discussion closes, and I agree that a discussion closer ought to be accountable for their close and WP:ADMINACCT applies, but, it's called a "non-admin close". The clue's in the name there, I would think.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think an administrative action is an action that you need administrator tools to perform, and an editorial action is one that any editor can perform. The only scope for complexity that I see is whether rollback is an administrative action; I don't think it is but you could defensibly argue the other side. Reverting without using rollback is normal editing that you don't need to pass RFA to perform and doesn't invoke WP:ADMINACCT. It's a pity because if DS had just used AN3, this would have been a straightforward case of RBI.—S Marshall T/C 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's a ridiculously oversimplified way of looking at the issue. Whether reverting is an editorial or administrative action is context dependent. If someone replaces an article with profanity or deletes all it's content or replaces it with spam then reverting them is simple vandalism clean-up and is an administrative action, reverting becomes an editorial action when you revert someone in a good faith content dispute. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with S Marshal. Editing an article is editing an article. Doing it as part of your recent changes patrolling does not "supercharge" your edits with a priori justifiableness, imbue your edits with an aura of indisputability etc. Recent changes patrolling is just why an editor arrived to a certain article, but once they have edited it, this editing is equally subject to the normal editorial process as any other editing of articles, and they've taken upon themselves to conduct themselves as a "normal editor". —Alalch E. 11:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Except that's not how it works in reality, otherwise an admin who had reverted, even once, a good-faith but disruptive edit would not be able to prevent an editor from continuing their disruption. And that's good-faith disruption; in this case there wasn't even the first tenet of that, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think that's too black-and-white. For one thing, I really don't think we should be requiring admins to check the edit history to see if they've ever edited that article before they semi it for a few days. But even in cases where they have edited it heavily and/or recently, I don't have an objection to an admin doing what they believe any reasonable admin would do. Reporting something like obvious vandalism by multiple IPs because the subject is in the news just turns what could be a few seconds of one person's time into multiple minutes of two people's time, possibly significant time of the first admin because they may feel responsible for babysitting the article while waiting for help to arrive. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think reverting is an editorial action and not an administrative one. I think it's as clear as day that DS should have gone to AN3 about this. We need these rules about involvement because they (imperfectly, but importantly) help prevent various kinds of abuse.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Except not that simple at all. Obviously, if you have been editing as a normal editor on an article, you should usually refrain from taking administrative action on it except in the most obvious of cases (and even then, not if you have been in dispute with the editor concerned). However, as in this case, if your interaction with the article has been limited to an administrative one (in this case reverting the repeated removal of sourced content with a fraudulent edit summary) then there is no issue. Black Kite (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- No. I reject what Slywriter and 192.76.8.84 say. Once you've edited an article, you should not perform administrative interventions resulting from editor behaviour on that article. This is quite simple and easy to understand.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I re-added the content on the ChatGPT article about the AI praising Biden while refusing to do the same for Trump, citing Snopes, which is a reliable source according to Wikipedia. Félix An (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Discospinster does a lot of recent changes patrol. She had no connection to that article. She reverted a non constructive editor, warned, and then blocked them from the article. This is in no way inappropriate. And I will add that ClearConcise, on the other hand, does give the appearance of editing with an agenda. Perhaps someone should review their edits?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not happy with the precedent being set here. Essentially, if an editor removes (what they believe to be) inappropriate POV language, then anyone who "has no previous activity on the article" can come along and violate 3RR to put it back, but only the remover is at fault. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Correct, it is an unhappy precedent to give so much attention to this person who showed up today to revert sourced content six times without discussion, comes here, accuses an admin in long standing of bad faith while simultaneously they couldn't be arsed to do the bare minimum requirements for a post here, and their punishment was solely that they were blocked from the article that they were edit warring on without engaging in any discussion. Yes, it is an unhappy precedent that people pointing this out are accused of baiting and misrepresenting policy. --Golbez (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Reading through this entire discussion, my opinion has gone back and forth about this incident. But looking at Discospinster's recent contributions, they spend most of their time reverting vandalism and blocking disruptive editors. I think they just happened upon this article and had no involvement in it prior so this wasn't a content dispute. They might be chided at reverting an edit that many times but we are talking about an active administrator making an error, not a serious case of INVOLVED that needs to be pursued. I also might have brought the page block here to AN for discussion but we don't know what was going on with DS today, this could have happened in the middle of the night for them or they had other work to take care of. This is not making excuses, this is just an acknowledgement that this is a volunteer activity for all of us and we don't have to respond on other people's desired schedules. This is not the way that I would have handled this incident but, honestly, I don't deal with vandalism a lot and I try not to second-guess admins who focus on areas of the project I have less experience in. At this point, I just hope Discospinster returns to make a final comment after reading through these comments, not to make an abject apology but just to present their side of the story and most likely confirm what others have said here. Any way, I agree with a lot of what has been said but I also understand how editors in good faith could see this situation differently. I think it helps to look beyond this one article to look at the edit histories of those involved to put this dispute in some context. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did make a couple of comments above that explained my intent. I've read through the comments here and really the only thing that stands out is to is the suggestion that I'm in the wrong because I should have blocked sooner. That's a new one for me. ... discospinster talk 13:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- DS, I hate to pile on, but you wrote above (bolding where IMO you turned yourself into an editor having a content dispute): The editor continued to quickly revert even after I left a note on their talk page explaining the issue, with no response. Furthermore I changed the content to make it clear that the claims of bias were in fact claims (i.e. opinions). In my opinion, those further reverts were acts of vandalism and I was justified to make a partial block.
- And, really, the other editor responded in two minutes to your post on their talk with an explanation of why they thought the removal was justified. I'm not sure why you're doubling down on this. We all have the experience of looking back and thinking, yeah, I could have handled that better. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Discospinster: if
the only thing that stands out
is that you should've blocked sooner, then that's worrying; as multiple editors and admins have commented, you shouldn't have blocked at all. The chronology is a red herring. SN54129 15:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)- I think @Liz is spot on. I deal with similar instances, even on articles I've edited in the past. IMHO, WP:INVOLVED does not mean admins cannot used tools to stop disruption on articles they've ever edited before or on topics they have been involved in. It does mean you cannot use tools to "win" or to punish someone you disagree with. It also means you should refrain from using tools if there is an appearance of bias. But none of that is the case here with DS.
- Despite what @Serial Number 54129 has said, I 100% think DS should have immediately used warning templates and, after level-3, blocked the user for their disruptive editing. Or DS could have semi-protected the page for WP:DE. Note that the disruptive editor had been reverted by other users and had been engaging in the behavior at least a day beforehand. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, if you want to split hairs, EvergreenFir; the point is, they should not have got into an edit war at all, whether they wanted to block or not. SN54129 11:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I did make a couple of comments above that explained my intent. I've read through the comments here and really the only thing that stands out is to is the suggestion that I'm in the wrong because I should have blocked sooner. That's a new one for me. ... discospinster talk 13:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- That edit was obviously not vandalism, because it hits multiple criteria at WP:NOTVAND. Someone patrolling for vandalism shouldn't have even touched it, because it's not vandalism. The edit warring wasn't WP:3RRNO exempt (it was just regular edit warring), and the block was WP:INVOLVED. Good unblock. I agree with those above that this was a content dispute and a textbook INVOLVED violation. Now I think we also have an WP:ADMINACCT issue due to lack of meaningful engagement here. Levivich (talk) 14:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree wth all of that. I'm completely baffled by many of the posts in this thread. But that's nothing new. DeCausa (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- By my count, five or six admins have now demonstrated in this discussion that they misunderstand the WP:Vandalism, WP:Edit warring, and WP:Dispute resolution policies in a way that affects the use of admin tools. This was such a minor issue that could have been solved with a "whoops my bad", but now it's looking more like a systemic issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Lying in your edit summary while blanking material does not magically transform the vandalism of blanking reliably sourced material into something other than blanking reliably sourced material. Does anybody actually think that blanking was done in good faith? If not, an admin responded to disruptive editing the way disruptive editing is meant to be responded to. nableezy - 18:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think lying is a very strong word here. To me this look like POV-pushing by someone who may sincerely believe the sources were unreliable. Don't get me wrong, I think CC is a problematic editor and I doubt they'll be here long if they don't straighten up and fly right, but can we really conclude they were intentionally lying? Valereee (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The initial summary was All of the claims are unverifiable claims from sources that are themselves biased and/or opinion pieces. A, no they are all verifiable, and b, no the sources are not all biased or opinion pieces. Fine, maybe lie is too strong. How about making manifestly untrue claims that do not withstand even ten seconds of scrutiny? nableezy - 18:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Valereee How is this [14] anything other than lying?
There is no article supporting this claim.
they say, while deleting an academic paper that directly supports the claim. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)- As usual, 192 nails the exact point. Black Kite (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've unfortunately taken us on a tangent, but wrongheadedness is not the same as lying, and it doesn't constitute vandalism. Valereee (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know I thought the follow up edits removing things saying they were opinion pieces looked like bad faith removal of properly sourced content. I could be wrong though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure I'm following, but absolutely agree if there were bad-faith edits that removed properly sourced content, that's absolutely a bad thing, and we need to deal with it. But it's still not necessarily vandalism that is an urgent issue that justifies 6 reverts in 9 minutes, an edit to try to deal with the complaints, and then a block. Valereee (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm specifically talking about this edit. I'm honestly to the point where I don't know if DS's actions were justified. It certainly seems like edit warring, but I feel like I would've probably reverted the linked edit above. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure I'm following, but absolutely agree if there were bad-faith edits that removed properly sourced content, that's absolutely a bad thing, and we need to deal with it. But it's still not necessarily vandalism that is an urgent issue that justifies 6 reverts in 9 minutes, an edit to try to deal with the complaints, and then a block. Valereee (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Valereee How is that edit "wrongheadedness"? They claimed that
There is no article supporting this claim.
while deleting the citation that directly supported the claim. They were flat out lying about content not being supported by citations. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)- IP192, I have seen multiple well-intentioned editors who completely disagree on what a source says. I'm not actually sure this sheds any light on this issue, though: whether or not the editor was lying, it's still not vandalism. It still doesn't justify edit-warring. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The article
Yet, research suggests that ChatGPT exhibits a pro-environmental, left-libertarian orientation when prompted to take a stance on political statements from two established voting advice applications.
- The source
Prompting ChatGPT with 630 political statements from two leading voting advice applications and the nation-agnostic political compass test in three pre-registered experiments, we uncover ChatGPT's pro-environmental, left-libertarian ideology.
- I don't know how you could present that as the article not supporting the claim.
it's still not vandalism
Illegitimate blanking of encyclopaedic content is vandalism, it's litteraly listed at WP:Vand#Blanking. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)- I would have asked if by "no article" he meant that it was a WP:PREPRINT and then agreed with the edit if no further publication info could be found. fiveby(zero) 21:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- We appear to be disagreeing on what "where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary" means. Which is fine, we can disagree, but at some point I think it would be valuable for experienced, well-intentioned editors, and especially administrators, agree on whether misinterpreting sources -- even intentionally -- constitutes clear vandalism and exempts one from 3RR and especially from INVOLVED once you yourself have edited the contested content. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- IP192, I have seen multiple well-intentioned editors who completely disagree on what a source says. I'm not actually sure this sheds any light on this issue, though: whether or not the editor was lying, it's still not vandalism. It still doesn't justify edit-warring. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know I thought the follow up edits removing things saying they were opinion pieces looked like bad faith removal of properly sourced content. I could be wrong though. Philipnelson99 (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think lying is a very strong word here. To me this look like POV-pushing by someone who may sincerely believe the sources were unreliable. Don't get me wrong, I think CC is a problematic editor and I doubt they'll be here long if they don't straighten up and fly right, but can we really conclude they were intentionally lying? Valereee (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Lying in your edit summary while blanking material does not magically transform the vandalism of blanking reliably sourced material into something other than blanking reliably sourced material. Does anybody actually think that blanking was done in good faith? If not, an admin responded to disruptive editing the way disruptive editing is meant to be responded to. nableezy - 18:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It also hits multiple points at WP:VAND. Frankly though, if I'm seeing an editor with 40 edits reverting six times to remove a mostly RS-sourced section in an article, I'm going to assume that's disruptive, if not vandalism. I'm actually astonished at the number of people who think DS has done something wrong here, and am wondering why they are supporting an editor that is blatantly trolling us. Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the edit, I think CC is likely a net negative, but I do think DS overstepped, yes. As I said once above, as he appears to have seen this at recent changes, I don't think he's using admin tools to further his POV: but it's borderline enough that he should have sent this to AIV, or asked for independent review. This is not the standard I've seen applied to identify disruptive editors; ARBPIA and ARBIPA topics would be a lot quieter if admins editing them could do this sort of thing non-controversially. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I dont think that last part is true. It seems to me more about consternation about admins generally than the edit specifically. And I was on that side based on the description in the OP and the initial comments too, like wait what they reverted how many times and then blocked???? But all the reverts are straightforward vandalism patrol, and I put that in the administrative tasks bucket even if that is something that non-admins can do (like say close RM or RFC or AFDs, as keep at least). I dont get how anybody can actually look at the edits and find anything to blame DS on besides her not issuing the vandal warnings prior to p-blocking. nableezy - 19:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree with Vandamonde. Valereee (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I give up. You're being trolled and there are loads of people who I actually respect criticising an admin for dealing correctly with a troll. That's the situation we're in now. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- But, BK, it doesn't actually matter whether in this case, this is someone who should be blocked. What matters is that we come to some agreement on how admins should arrive at that. Valereee (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I give up. You're being trolled and there are loads of people who I actually respect criticising an admin for dealing correctly with a troll. That's the situation we're in now. Black Kite (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- But the relevant rule here isn't even WP:VAND but WP:3RRNO, which allows edit warring only over obvious vandalism (their emphasis), which is defined as
edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism
. There's a bunch of well-intentioned users here who don't agree it constitutes vandalism. So, that's it, Discospinster can't edit war over it. - Also, obviously, once you're in an edit war you don't get to block your opponent for vandalism. I don't really care about Discospinster's motivations at that point: I accept that they had perfectly good intentions, but despite that, all of their actions in this situation were wrong.
- (Furthermore I really think Black Kite is misreading WP:VAND, because it gives wide latitude for any good faith reason for removing content, and the rest of the page is clear that mere "disruptive editing or stubbornness" is not vandalism.) Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- An edit summary that is a flat-out falsehood is not a good faith reason for removing content as has been pointed out multiple times above, most notably by the 192 IP. But, whatever. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not a good reason for removing content, certainly. But that's not what "a good faith reason" means in this context. Even obviously disruptive reasons are good faith as long as they're not deliberately intended to harm the project. And I don't see any evidence that this was: it was an obviously bad edit but not a bad-faith edit and therefore not vandalism. Loki (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- An edit summary that is a flat-out falsehood is not a good faith reason for removing content as has been pointed out multiple times above, most notably by the 192 IP. But, whatever. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree with the edit, I think CC is likely a net negative, but I do think DS overstepped, yes. As I said once above, as he appears to have seen this at recent changes, I don't think he's using admin tools to further his POV: but it's borderline enough that he should have sent this to AIV, or asked for independent review. This is not the standard I've seen applied to identify disruptive editors; ARBPIA and ARBIPA topics would be a lot quieter if admins editing them could do this sort of thing non-controversially. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Discospinster, maybe there is a "middle of the road" was to resolve this. If this happenned again tomorrow, and that exact same full set of reverts had already occurred, what would you do? North8000 (talk) 19:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's a bit unfair, since if it happened tomorrow, this conversation has already happened, and could have a chilling effect. For example, I'd probably be less likely to do these actions, not because I disagree with them, but because of waves arms wildly at this trashcan of a thread. Not worth the hassle. --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Of course this situation would influence it. I think that "guiding effect" would be a better term than "chilling". North8000 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, boy. I've been on Wikipedia maybe 5 days, but what the heck, I'm going to comment. I think that DS acted inappropriately, but that CC is legitimately wrong. I think that too many people are trying to figure out whether DS or CC is wrong, but the reality is that both wrong. I won't speak on the subject of what action to take, but let this be another opinion to consider. (I'm so probably going to regret this soon >-< SwampedEssayist (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think the core issue here is the conflicts that arrive when multiple levels of AGF begin to interfere with/reinforce each other. A clear example of the cascading effect is this: On the first level we have an AGF question, whether or not the edits were vandalism (the difference is of course intent)... On the second level we have another AGF question, given that the edits were reverted as obvious vandalism we would appear to be required to AGF that to Discospinster they did appear to be obvious vandalism (a question that is IMO completely independent of whether the edits actually were vandalism). On the third level we appear to have the question of whether this conflict was brought to this noticeboard in good faith, and in the ensuing conversation we seem to get into fourth and fifth layers even. To me AGF here means that we cut both of them a break and trust that both have learned their lesson, if in the future this becomes a pattern we can revisit the limits of AGF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- While I'm a little more critical here, I agree the appropriate response on a practical level is "no action". Loki (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think I agree with that sentiment. Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I support that. SwampedEssayist (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I broadly agree. AGF to me means that we should assume everyone thinks that they're doing the right thing, but not necessarily that they are. As far as a "solution", Floq solved the issue two hours after it started by unblocking and setting an expectation of no further edit warring. At this point, I'm much more worried about the fact that there's no agreement, even among admins, about the most basic readings of policies like WP:Vandalism and WP:Dispute resolution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm also somewhat concerned at how DS got drawn into edit war as an admin... SwampedEssayist (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- While I'm a little more critical here, I agree the appropriate response on a practical level is "no action". Loki (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I've got no idea how to resolve the conflicting interpretations of whether this was a vandalism situation or an INVOLVED block. And let's face it, at this point we're not likely to resolve this to anyone's satisfaction. But I would like to point out that the OP's editing philosophy, as stated on his userpage, is as follows:
Given the username, you should see I'm here to keep the internet clean and simplified. When you've removed all you can remove, what's left is beautiful.
While their recent controversial edits may align well with their own editing philosophy, said philosophy does not align well with how we do this whole encyclopedia thing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- Agreed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes! Yes! Yes! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think the best way to "solve" this is to carefully review some of these policies to be more in harmony and harder to bend toward one's own interpretation, as throughout the whole thing everyone has used the same policies against one another. Is there a way to reach a new consensus on WP policies? I'm not too good with the noticeboards yet. SwampedEssayist (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- While policies are technically subject to revision, the realistic answer is that we are not going to revise major policies such as INVOLVED and VANDALISM in the aftermath of a minor controversy that will be all-but-forgotten within a few days. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- This is minor? >~< I'd hate to see a big one. SwampedEssayist (talk) 13:46, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- While policies are technically subject to revision, the realistic answer is that we are not going to revise major policies such as INVOLVED and VANDALISM in the aftermath of a minor controversy that will be all-but-forgotten within a few days. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Philipnelson99 (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
If I were trying to troll AN in to spending hours discussing edits that literally nobody thinks are good I could not have done it this well. Round of applause for the OP. nableezy - 02:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well said, Nableezy. Also, I'm with Black Kite. These edits were vandalistic--they removed verified content with a false edit summary, and then they come here to hang DS out to dry? NOTHERE. Pity so many of us were biting. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Removing content sourced to a WP:PREPRINT is vandalism? Asking for a friend. fiveby(zero) 04:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, but claiming all the sources are opinion pieces when the sources cited include this straight news and this straight news is. nableezy - 05:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Some users cannot come to an agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing.
Editors that do not understand this should refrain from editing until they read the relevant policy, and admins that do not understand this should have their user rights called into question. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- How do you come to agreement on a lie? Those are not opinion pieces. Somebody is repeatedly removing something and claiming what they are removing is not what they are removing. And, since you missed the several times it was quoted from the relevant policy, Ill try to quote it again for you.
Removing encyclopedic content without any reason, or replacing such content with nonsense. Content removal is not considered to be vandalism when the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary.
Yes, there was an edit summary. That edit summary was simply not true. Whether it was intentionally not true or unintentionally not true, it was not true. And literally nobody is defending the edit. But yet we are going on two days of this section lol. nableezy - 06:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- The fact that we disagree with the reason doesn't mean that there's no reason. That's the difference between vandalism and other types of disruptive editing, and it's an important difference when admin tools come into play. If it's
unintentionally not true
, then accusations of vandalism are not only incorrect, but actively disruptive. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- I am not saying I disagree with the reason. I am calling the reason a lie. The disruption is removing things with a lie as the reason why. Disruptive editing, and not just vandalism, is also revert-worth. And also block-worthy. nableezy - 06:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I "bit", as Drmies would put it, because I think that WP:INVOLVED matters and I do not accept that reverting vandalism is an "administrative action". I have raised no objection to any proposal to block the OP, and in the circumstances I would not object. But we apparently do need to nail down what's an admin action and what isn't.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Drmies: Amen, brother. Amen! -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I "bit", as Drmies would put it, because I think that WP:INVOLVED matters and I do not accept that reverting vandalism is an "administrative action". I have raised no objection to any proposal to block the OP, and in the circumstances I would not object. But we apparently do need to nail down what's an admin action and what isn't.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am not saying I disagree with the reason. I am calling the reason a lie. The disruption is removing things with a lie as the reason why. Disruptive editing, and not just vandalism, is also revert-worth. And also block-worthy. nableezy - 06:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that we disagree with the reason doesn't mean that there's no reason. That's the difference between vandalism and other types of disruptive editing, and it's an important difference when admin tools come into play. If it's
- How do you come to agreement on a lie? Those are not opinion pieces. Somebody is repeatedly removing something and claiming what they are removing is not what they are removing. And, since you missed the several times it was quoted from the relevant policy, Ill try to quote it again for you.
- No, but claiming all the sources are opinion pieces when the sources cited include this straight news and this straight news is. nableezy - 05:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is clearly sincere disagreement, here, Drmies. Whether or not the OP was attempting to troll us, we clearly need to come to some agreement on whether an admin should be blocking even an editor who should be blocked after that admin has started editing the disputed content. It's not somehow taking the bait to be able to see that this is actually a point where experienced, well-intentioned editors are in sincere disagreement. Maybe we need to take the OP and DS out of the picture and just open a discussion about when and how an admin turns themselves into an editor. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly agree. SwampedEssayist (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Removing content sourced to a WP:PREPRINT is vandalism? Asking for a friend. fiveby(zero) 04:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
IMHO most people would identify the original edit as a problematic edit, not vandalism, that there was a two way edit war and a 3RR one, and that DP was wp:involved. And we have folks here trying to say that all three of those statements are false, and you need to determine that all three are false in order to determine that the block was OK. And worst case scenerio DP just needs a trout. We might be seeing a process problem here inherent to admins reviewing an admin action. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree. This is definitely revealing some problems with how WP cases are handled, because we're now at each other's heels over policy interpretations, was it "good faith", was it "vandalism", etc. before we can even move on to what should be dished out to the parties involved. This is highly inefficient handling of a case and we need to figure out a way to wrap this up soon in a way that everyone (quote unquote) can agree with. SwampedEssayist (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with N8 that no more than a trout is needed, but the need for even just a trout does first need to be acknowledged by DS. I'm going to share a blast from my own checkered past. Reasonably similar concern. Someone pointed the issue out to me, I said, "That's fair, it felt to me like [X] but I can understand how it didn't feel that way [to the other person]." That was the end of it. Not even sure I actually got a trout, IIRC. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am dissapointed noone noticed Cite arXiv, no damn clue if that is what the OP was saying, and probably doesn't matter. but that template should cause any editor to look twice. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I guess so. I do want to emphasize that it's hard to be familiar with every discussion about every citation template especially ones from seven years ago. I'm not saying that excuses adding it back it or that there isn't an obligation on an editor restoring an arXiv citation to check to see if it is actually WP:RS. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- additionally, if you didn't know that arXiv allows user uploaded content, it's actually kind of hard to tell that it's NOT published academic content and the edit summary
There is no article supporting this claim.
seems like an outright contradiction if working under that assumption. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- It's a deceptive template, and almost all legitate usages should probably be turned into {{Cite journal}}. I have no idea when or if an admin stopping edit waring should look at the content. But i would expect that, when it did become a content question and editors felt confident enough to start throwing out 'troll', 'vandal', 'lying', etc., they would have exercised their due diligence. They didn't. arXiv should have been an immediate read flag. It might be a contributing factor nobody needs blamed or shamed over, just if admins are not aware of WP:PREPRINT, they should be. fiveby(zero) 14:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am dissapointed noone noticed Cite arXiv, no damn clue if that is what the OP was saying, and probably doesn't matter. but that template should cause any editor to look twice. fiveby(zero) 13:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Without getting into whether these edits meet the definition of vandalism, or not, am I reading this correctly that there is an actual belief that if an admin reverts vandalism, that we are now considered WP:INVOLVED? If so, that's so asinine, that's actually comical. If that comes to pass, I might as well turn in my mop. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Why {{ec}}? SwampedEssayist (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, @Jauerback, you are not reading this correctly. The question is whether DS became involved when they started editing the disputed content and continued to revert the other editor when DS's edits were reverted. Other are arguing that because the OP is probably NOTHERE, no harm no foul. Valereee (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe S Marshall needs to clarify, because he has made these comments throughout this discussion:
...because I think that WP:INVOLVED matters and I do not accept that reverting vandalism is an "administrative action"...
andI think reverting is an editorial action and not an administrative one. I think it's as clear as day that DS should have gone to AN3 about this. We need these rules about involvement because they (imperfectly, but importantly) help prevent various kinds of abuse...
andI think an administrative action is an action that you need administrator tools to perform, and an editorial action is one that any editor can perform.
Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe S Marshall needs to clarify, because he has made these comments throughout this discussion:
- An admin who blocks his opponent in 3RR edit war sounds like WP:INVOLVED to me, but CC was clearly making bad edits (what I would say is vandalism, but the good faith thing...). Not very professional or admin-like imho. SwampedEssayist (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Close Challenge: AMPOL2 TBAN of Korny O'Near by ScottishFinnishRadish
Re Proposal: WP:GENSEX topic ban for Korny O'Near, broadly construed. My challenge is not about GENSEX, but about ScottishFinnishRadish's closing comments and imposition of an AMPOL2 ban on top of a GENSEX ban.
- 1. The topic heading did not hint about an AMPOL2 ban.
- 2. The closer comment says "clear consensus", ScottishFinnishRadish later admitted there was no clear consensus for AMPOL2 and suggested rough consensus instead, but "clear consensus" is still there.
- 3. The closer comment only mentions "consensus" but the WP:CBAN requirement is "consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute". I asked ScottishFinnishRadish which if any critics were excluded due to this, and got a non-answer.
- 4. Even if the unstated decision was that all the critics were uninvolved, and even if the critic who merely said "Though I think a topic-ban from American Politics would help as well" is included, and even if the critic who was an IP was included, that's only 13 or 14 out of over 30 participants. Not much greater than the number (9) who opposed any tban at all. (I'm mentioning counting because ScottishFinnishRadish mentioned "ratio" in the closer comment and mentioned "majority" later).
- 5. CBAN also requires to "assess the strength and quality of the arguments made", and that should mean not including the critic who said Korny O'Near made an edit in "support of Nazis", and should mean including diffs. So I asked "what diffs in the ban proposal are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX?" and later "what diffs, supplied by the AMPOL2 accusers, in the ban proposal, are AMPOL2 and not GENSEX?" adding "The diffs in the lists you mention (from 17:59, 8 March 2023 and 23:30, 8 March 2023) would all fit in GENSEX broadly construed, except these two talk-page comments re Jordan Peterson 7 July 2022 and 7 October 2022." ScottishFinnishRadish seems to believe that something which was GENSEX-plus-AMPOL2 justifies an AMPOL2 ban, I believe the ban on GENSEX covers such a thing so adds nothing to justification of an AMPOL2 ban, and so the only relevant diffs were those two comments on the Jordan Peterson talk page.
- 6. Three minutes after Korny O'Near wrote that 7 July 2022 talk page post (to support keeping a quote), ScottishFinnishRadish wrote in the same talk page thread indicating no objection to keeping the same quote (it's still there). Yet eight months later it's okay as tban support.
- 7. The critics in the discussion emphasized WP:CPUSH, ScottishFinnishRadish mentioned civil POV pushing in the closer comment and a later comment -- but CPUSH is just an essay. Emphasizing an essay violation should not in my opinion be regarded as strength of argument; I would have asked ScottishFinnishRadish's opinion but could not because ScottishFinnishRadish decided to stop replying (see the Korny O'Near talk page) after it had gone on for a few days.
- 8. Initially ScottishFinnishRadish made a remark, later retracted, which could have discouraged discussion of the tban by others while it was shown.
- 9. About 12 editors participating in the proposal discussion, including ScottishFinnishRadish, mentioned disruption. But only 3 of them were supporting an AMPOL2 tban.
- 10. In the proposal discussion, only one comment mentions "indeffing" near the same place as AMPOL2. Yet ScottishFinnishRadish imposed an indefinite ban.
- 11. ScottishFinnishRadish more than once hinted or suggested that the proposal could or should have gone to WP:AE. An obvious question is: so then why not close the proposal and say move to WP:AE? Korny O'Near had received a DS/Alert. If the proposal had gone there, the requirements for clarity, and non-old diffs, and explanations of how a remedy or sanction is violated, and no IPs, and examination by a special board, would have made matters much tougher for the accusers.
...
So I (to quote WP:CLOSECHALLENGE requirement #1) "believe the closure was not a reasonable summation of the discussion". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- UPDATE: two editors made changes to my post and I restored the original citing WP:TALKO. Also I fixed a bad link in my post, apologies to ScottishFinnishRadish about that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I WP:BOLDly changed the format (not content) of your post to make it more-readable by converting numbers to MOS:NUMLIST format, so that it was less of a WP:WALLOFTEXT. But if you want your post to be in this wall-of-text format, be my guest. I also changed the section heading to be more logical and useful, which is explicitly allowed in the WP:TPG. Edit: It appears an anon has again BOLDly split up your walloftext. I would support that edit, but it is, as you've said, ultimately up to you how your post is formatted.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- UPDATE: two editors made changes to my post and I restored the original citing WP:TALKO. Also I fixed a bad link in my post, apologies to ScottishFinnishRadish about that. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I find it telling that at not point do you contend that the block isn't necessary to prevent further disruption. From my perspective you look like a lawyer trying to get a guilty client off on a technicality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Topic heading doesn't determine consensus. Not sure why this matters.
- Yeah, I didn't bother updating the close because it was already archived and there is no functional difference. A topic ban isn't less topic banny because the consensus had a different adjective.
- The underlying edit dispute was Wes sideman and their interaction with Korny. Unless I should investigate the full edit history of everyone who responded to determine their level of involvedness with GENSEX and AP topics, and run an interaction analysis on each editor and Korny there's no way to disregard huge swaths of responses as would be necessary to change the consensus.
- I don't recall the exact count, and I don't have my notes from the close, but assuming 13 or 14, that was significantly more support for an AP tban than no sanction, and importantly, it was also more than the support for a GENSEX topic ban alone.
- Similar arguments were made during the discussion, and they did not seem to strongly sway the views of those responding, unlike many of the support statements, which were cited in multiple other supports.
- I didn't have a problem with a single edit 9 months ago considered in isolation? Also, the diff doesn't work, so I'm not exactly sure what I didn't have a problem with.
- I didn't want to see Korny respond and then have to block them for a topic ban violation on their own talk page. Responding to
As I'm sure you've realized, WP has a leftist/establishment bias which permeates controversial articles here. You seem to be "fighting the good fight" by trying to "restore balance" and fairly represent the other side.
wouldn't have been exempted from the topic ban, and I was hoping to stop a discussion Korny couldn't take part in from expanding more than it already had. When Korny objected I reverted my close. - The other responses mentioning behavior that they thought was disruptive but didn't characterize by invoking the word "disruption" can't be considered when assessing if there is consensus that the behavior was disruptive?
- Most responses didn't mention a time, and by default topic bans are indefinite.
- Because "I'm stopping community discussion and consensus building to move this discussion" isn't covered in what an admin can do when dealing with WP:CTOP. If only someone thought of opening a community wide discussion on how to handle this.
- I know Peter didn't have a number 11, but I'm adding one. Can we try and object to closes within a week or so? 10+ days is a long time to remember my train of thought and internal weighting when assessing a long discussion.
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- 1. It matters because headings saying gensex turn away people (e.g. me) who don't care about gensex but would have cared about ampol2, and it matters because the natural meaning of "support" alone is "support the proposal" rather than "support all off-topic additions". 2. It matters becaues the closer statement is supposed to reflect actual consensus and this is one of the ways it doesn't. 3. So now we discover that the underlying dispute wasn't gensex or libsoftiktok or ampol2 it was solely a clash with another editor. 4. No disputing, it's one of the points where I can't understand why you think it matters. 5. If by "similar arguments" you mean several people asked for evidence and diffs,true, so for specifically ampol2 there should have been more than two. 6. Sorry about the link, it's fixed now. It wasn't "in isolation" it was specifically about one of the two ampol2 diffs. 7. This is a reasonable explanation and I withdraw this point. 8. I fail to see how you know what "they thought was disruptive" if they didn't say so. 9. Some which did mention a time mentioned less than indefinite, you can call it default but it's still the case it wasn't a summary of the discussion. 10. CTOP says consider whether a "regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project". 11. I have to allow for possible discussion, including waiting for answers, before challenging. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse SFR's close (involved as I participated in the discussion, though I opposed an AMPOL2 TBAN) - This close challenge has very little (if any) merit:
- in reviewing a close, it is only our job to determine whether the closer was equipped to perform it, and that their assessment was fair and within the realm of acceptability. Not whether or not we agree to the close in every single aspect. I did not vote for an AMPOL2 TBAN in the discussion as I thought Korny O'Near's contributions to that area had some merits and did not see enough evidence for me to support it. But I think an AMPOL2 was well within the realm of possibility given the arguments proposed and preponderance of those arguments among participating community members.
- Peter Gulutzan's points 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 are pure gobbldygook and have no merits in this discussion.
- Their pt 1 is irrelevant, as CBAN discussion closes are about the entire discussion, not about the header. There is no basis in policy or guideline which requires the final close to be reflected in the initial section header.
- Their pt 2 is clear and obvious WP:WIKILAWYERING, as SFR refers to clear consensus in the overall close, which could reflect the GENSEX TBAN even if the consensus for the AMPOL2 ban was present but less "clear". It truly does not matter and this point is a waste of all of our time.
- Their pt 3 is an absurd burden on any closer, that they should individually participant-by-participant evaluate the "involved" nature of each commenter? That would result in no discussions ever being closed. It falls on the participants themselves to identify their involvement (and the involvement of others), and several participants did this. SFR is not "required" to describe the involvement of each participant in their close. To do so would be an undue burden on any administrator, and to invoke it here is, again, patent WIKILAWYERING.
- Their pt 6 appears to be a paltry attempt to claim SFR is somehow "involved". If OP cannot describe in easy terms how SFR's off-hand participation in that thread nearly 12 months ago in an entirely unrelated topic renders them "involved", then this is also patent WIKILAWYERING.
- Their pt 7 is an attempt to say that essays such as CPUSH should not be used in discussing closes. This is absurd, as CPUSH is an obvious argument in favor of tendentious editing. Citing an essay is an extremely common practice in these discussions, as long as that essay contributes to a violation of policy or guideline. If such were not allowed, then doubtless there would be legions of disruptive editors all over this site, and no one would ever get banned by the community.
- Their pt 8 describes a comment that was up for 60 minutes that stated absolutely no opinion on the matter. It simply advised others (and most notably KO) that responding to the discussion could be a problem since TBANs are broadly construed. As such, the discussion has risk of "taunting" KO. This has absolutely no bearing on the close, was an entirely advisable statement, and would make no difference to this discussion or close if it had been left up. It simply stated facts.
- Their pt 9 is patent wiki-lawyering, as numerous other participants described obvious disruptive behavior even if they did not use those exact words.
- Their pt 10 is also irrelevant, as it doesn't matter what participants say about duration. Duration is the discretion of the blocking admin, in order to prevent future disruption.
- Their pt 11:
ScottishFinnishRadish more than once hinted or suggested that the proposal could or should have gone to WP:AE. An obvious question is: so then why not close the proposal and say move to WP:AE?
Because that would be a major waste of time and effort (and a violation of WP:FORUMSHOP) to have all participants reproduce their arguments elsewhere. Our job is to write a wikipedia, not to administer a due-process court system.
- Their pt 4 is counting WP:NOTAVOTEs, which is not how closing discussions works, and not how evaluating consensus works.
- Their pt 5 is just arguing that they disagree with other participants, and I disagree with it en face. It's also an example of OP attempting to re-litigate the dispute, rather than the close itself. The disruption on Jordan Peterson was not related to gender-related disputes, even if Jordan Peterson broadly has had such disputes on that talk.
- All in all, this is an obviously meritless close challenge based on OP's attempts to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. That is not a great way to argue anything on this site, as it dilutes the strength of any arguments which had even a small ounce of merit. This discussion should be speedily closed itself as pure wiki-lawyering from a cheerleader of the blocked user's opinions. Frankly, this gets quite close to being a WP:BOOMERANG for OP, but I think a WP:TROUT would be enough in this instance. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 15:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Involved, but my involvement was to express non-support due to lack of provided evidence. Some evidence was later provided, but I hadn't made up my mind by the time it was closed. Suffice to say I think the case was borderline. Regardless, the close looks within the range of reasonable closes which could emerge from that thread, and that's what matters. There was clearly support for some kind of sanction, and most of the people who supported a topic ban explicitly mentioned AMPOL. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- My eyes! Sorry, I don't think I can make it through that first post, but I'll repeat what I said at KON's talk: What I'm seeing on a brief run-through at that discussion is that pretty much everyone who specified added AmPol to the mix. Some folks simply !voted support, but if they mentioned GENSEX they were highly likely to also mention AmPol. I think this close was justifiable. Valereee (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Korny has said a few times now that they're done with Wikipedia (1, 2, 3). It would be reasonable to close this on WP:NOTBURO grounds, as the outcome of this discussion will not have an effect either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Involved in the general area, involved in the ban discussion. I was honestly not suprised by the result, not because I found the evidence compelling (I voted in opposition) but because of the Tranarchist and Newimpartial topic ban discussions that had closed five days before this one was closed. And if you take a look at those discussions you'll find that a lot of the people who opposed the topic bans for those two were well in favor for the topic ban for Korny. Further the differences in alleged misbehavior and evidence is starkly different. In those two you had allegations of BLP violations (with diffs) and bludgenoning (with diffs) whereas for Korny had allegations of CPUSH (with diffs). Simply put the Korny topic ban was a WP: SANCTIONGAME where editors were more willing to let go of misbehavior by likeminded individuals and were more willing to sanction someone harshly if they were opposite the ideological aisle. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Are you talking about the Tranarchist discussion that ended with a t-ban on GENSEX (by a closer who identifies as queer) and the one about Newimpartial that also closed with a t-ban from GENSEX? Valereee (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those are the discussions yes, though they both got larger outside input than the Korny discussion did. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, @Kyohyi, I'm not following your point. You said they both got larger outside input than the Korny discussion did. Can you clarify what you mean w/re the close review? Valereee (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Tranarchist, and NewImpartial discussions had larger community participation than the Korny discussion did. This demonstrates that those discussions had a more proper consensus than the Korny discussion did. There were a non-trivial number of editors who supported sanctions against Korny who opposed sanctions against Tranarchist and NewImpartial. Considering the allegations, evidence presented, and political leanings of the sanctioned editors, the Korny discussion had a number of editors who were willing to overlook BLP and Bludgeoning issues (the Tranarchist and NewImpartial discussion) while asserting Korny was disruptively pushing a POV. This, to me, looks like WP: SANCTIONGAME, and since there was less participation than the other two discussions, we have a greater risk of a false consensus based off of it. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- If I hadn't been involved I would have closed both of those threads far earlier than they got closed, with less community participation and the same end result. Sometimes we don't need to leave a discussion open for two weeks of the subject getting kicked in the teeth and hanging in the wind to continue having the same consensus that was apparent a few days in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't address the argument being made. The argument is that some editors opposed sanctions when the arguments and evidence was BLP violations and bludgeoning when the people under scrutiny were of one ideological bent. In turn those editors supported sanctions when the arguments and evidence was CPUSH when the person under scrutiny was of an opposing ideological bent. This, I'm saying is sanction gaming. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- We could look at it that way. Or, we could just say that these are three complicated cases with different kinds of evidence about nuanced issues that require independent consideration on their own merits, and then proceed to focus on the actual case at hand rather than assume bad faith. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- That doesn't address the argument being made. The argument is that some editors opposed sanctions when the arguments and evidence was BLP violations and bludgeoning when the people under scrutiny were of one ideological bent. In turn those editors supported sanctions when the arguments and evidence was CPUSH when the person under scrutiny was of an opposing ideological bent. This, I'm saying is sanction gaming. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- If I hadn't been involved I would have closed both of those threads far earlier than they got closed, with less community participation and the same end result. Sometimes we don't need to leave a discussion open for two weeks of the subject getting kicked in the teeth and hanging in the wind to continue having the same consensus that was apparent a few days in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Tranarchist, and NewImpartial discussions had larger community participation than the Korny discussion did. This demonstrates that those discussions had a more proper consensus than the Korny discussion did. There were a non-trivial number of editors who supported sanctions against Korny who opposed sanctions against Tranarchist and NewImpartial. Considering the allegations, evidence presented, and political leanings of the sanctioned editors, the Korny discussion had a number of editors who were willing to overlook BLP and Bludgeoning issues (the Tranarchist and NewImpartial discussion) while asserting Korny was disruptively pushing a POV. This, to me, looks like WP: SANCTIONGAME, and since there was less participation than the other two discussions, we have a greater risk of a false consensus based off of it. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, @Kyohyi, I'm not following your point. You said they both got larger outside input than the Korny discussion did. Can you clarify what you mean w/re the close review? Valereee (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Those are the discussions yes, though they both got larger outside input than the Korny discussion did. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's possibly the most nonsensical take on a discussion that I've ever seen here. And I've been here 17 years. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Your opinion is noted. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps we should ask these editors why they opposed bans on Tranarchist and NewImpartial but supported on Korny, instead of assuming bad faith. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- You say this as if they didn't provide their rationale's in the votes.
- Are you talking about the Tranarchist discussion that ended with a t-ban on GENSEX (by a closer who identifies as queer) and the one about Newimpartial that also closed with a t-ban from GENSEX? Valereee (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse per Valereee. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse close (note I supported a GENSEX ban but was neutral on an AMPOL ban). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse close per Valereee. I have been involved in this area (outside of this wiki) to know that GENSEX-related topics in here especially intertwine with AMPOL for most part. MarioJump83 (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Endorse - while I view 10 days as by no means particularly unreasonable, most of the remainder of @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s rebuttal works fine. I too prefer to see each significant sanction be prominently noted in bold, but it's a) not required, b) reasonable to assume that you would read the discussion and it's clearly noted at the start of almost every participant what they're !voting on. It's not clear consensus - it's rough consensus, certainly. In fact, on AMPOL when I was counting the policy backed !votes, it actually went back down to a "net zero" around the middle, before a significant shift (to c. +6, if anyone cares). SFR could have gone for a timelimited TBAN on AMPOL (as opposed to GENSEX, which was clearcut on indef nature), but an indef tban would appear to be the more commonly requested one, and so the obvious choice. I do want to partially dispute one position above - that of INVOLVED participants. If Gulutzan was able to demonstrate that various users were involved, then that would be fair grounds to ask for a reconsideration by SFR. Likewise, a sanity check by the blocker on the issue is worthwhile, but they are not obligated to do a detailed from-scratch verification on the discussion participants. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I happened to upload a file for fair use on the Hunter Biden laptop controversy page many weeks ago. A poll on the talk page affirmed editors' consensus to include that file as an illustration for a section of that article. The file is an image of the cover page of a tabloid newspaper. I provided what I believe is a valid rationale for fair use of that image on that article page in that context. The file can be seen on the Post website, here and has been reproduced in other media that discuss the Post's story, for example Business Insider and other RS publications. See, e.g. this recent use.
@Explicit: deleted the file and has not responded to my numerous requests on their talk page and via Wiki-email to reconsider/engage with respect to the deletion and the basis for fair use. Upon a quick look at their talk page, I see many other editors who, like me, have asked for Explicit's attention to their deletions, with no constructive response from Explicit. I think I understand fair use, but I am certainly no expert on the subject. However I believe it's unacceptable for Explicit to make large numbers of deletions and then fail to respond to the editors who uploaded the files in good faith.
I'd like to get the file reviewed and understand what if any further documentation is needed to establish it for use on the article page. I cannot find my original explanation, which I presume was deleted along with the file itself. I also would like Admins to consider whether Explicit should be permitted to continue deleting files while failing to respond to editors on their talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Email is not adequate notification. Doug Weller talk 17:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Doug. I first pinged many times in posts on their user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I notified Explicit about this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I already did that about an hour ago. SkyWarrior 17:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I notified Explicit about this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Doug. I first pinged many times in posts on their user talk page. SPECIFICO talk 17:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- If it is just one file, wouldn't the proper venue be WP:DRV and not this noticeboard? Courcelles (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- To confirm, the file at issue is File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG? If so, there was no explicit source given for the image (a direct link to where you got it from) which is sufficient cause to delete an image. I see why this file was deleted, but NOT why you haven't gotten this explained clearly, assuming I'm looking at the right file. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- And I see now I am talking about the right image. The content on the file page was "2020 Newspaper headline page, not currently for sale. Widely reproduced in media that have discussed it, per Fair Use.
- This page shows story that launched public controversy that is the subject of Hunter Biden laptop controversy. Not material that is for sale. Provides context for an important section of that Wikipedia page. The image does not reproduce the text of the news article itself."
- Sorry to say, that, yeah, I agree with deleting this as tagged for no explicit sourcing. But I also think it's easily fixed, just link to where you got it from. What I don't like is that Explicit could have explained this in the last couple weeks. That's an ADMINACCT issue. (Sorry for my multi-edit rambling... the more I looked into this the stranger it got.) If you'll agree to link the source and write a NFCC rationale that's a bit more explicit about how it's useful, I'll be happy to undelete it and if necessary it can be referred to FFD. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- To confirm, the file at issue is File:NY Post Cover 10 14 2020.PNG? If so, there was no explicit source given for the image (a direct link to where you got it from) which is sufficient cause to delete an image. I see why this file was deleted, but NOT why you haven't gotten this explained clearly, assuming I'm looking at the right file. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Courcelles. SPECIFICO, you might want to just re-upload the file using Wikipedia:File upload wizard, which will collect all of the necessary information and neatly arrange it in a template for you. I'm a bit concerned about the lack of responsiveness in terms of WP:ADMINACCT, but that could be easily resolved if Explicit just left a message here promising to reply to queries involving his use of the tools in a timely manner from now on—hopefully that's what will happen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for folks' comments. As I said, I am not surprised to have made an error in the documentation, but direct communication either before or after the deletion would have prompted me to attempt correcting it and saved much needless attention to this. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) I'm not an admin so I can't see the image, but based on what's posted above I just want to add that fair use and non-free content use aren't one and the same. Wikipedia's non-free content use policy has been intentionally set up to be more restrictive than non-free use as explained in WP:NFC#Background and WP:ITSFAIRUSE. There are many things acceptable as fair use being used out in the real world that most likely wouldn't be considered WP:NFCC compliant, and non-free content isn't allowed simply because lots of other people are using it as "fair use". So, it would be better not to mix up the terms because it just adds to confusion. So, adding a source might resolve the WP:F4 issue, but it wouldn't automatically make the file's non-free use policy compliant. Further assessment might be necessary at WP:FFD. Just for reference, a newspaper front page image is similar to a book cover, album cover, magazine cover, etc. in that specific sourced critical related to the image itself is generally needed per WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and WP:NFC#CS for non-free use to be considered justifiable. Simply having lots of stuff about what the NYP wrote in Hunter Biden laptop controversy about the controversy isn't necessarily something that needs a non-free image to be seen to be understood by the reader. Just glancing through the article, I don't see anything specifically about this image (even though I can't see the image) which means I'm not really seeing how omitting it is affecting anyone's understanding of the article. Those are likely the kind of things that will be pointed out if this is discussed at FFD; so, any sourced commentary about the image itself you can find to add to the article would help strengthen a claim for non-free use. Finally, I've looked at the article's talk page and I've found Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy#NYP image, but I wouldn't say that's a consensus to use an non-free image of the front page. Once again, it would probably be better to discuss things at FFD since a local talk page consensus can't supersede policy per WP:CONLEVEL and FFD is the venue (like the other XFDs) for community discussion over the image. Moreover, instead of re-uploading the image, it would probably be better just to find the source and then request the file be restored via WP:REFUND or WP:DRV. F4 deletions, I believe, are eligible for REFUND; so, simply providing a proper source for the image might be enough to get it restored. If not, then there's WP:DRV where the file's deletion can be discussed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
I am no longer active on the English Wikipedia to the extent I was prior to 2023. I don't look at my talk page much and a simple WP:REFUND request would have resolved the issue. ✗plicit 23:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are still performing a large number of deletions. "I don't look at my talk page much" is not really compatible with WP:ADMINACCT, which requires you to respond promptly to queries about your administrative actions. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Explicit, this is a disappointing answer. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Explicit, it appears that you have carried our roughly 500 adminstrative actions in the past week or so, and yet you say
I am no longer active on the English Wikipedia to the extent I was prior to 2023
. That's jarring. You can freely choose to not use your tools if you wish and therefore pay little attention to your talk page, but if you choose to use your tools at a rapid-fire pace, then you are obligated to be responsive to good faith inquiries on your talk page. Please state definitively whether or not you acknowledge your obligations under WP:ADMINACCOUNT. Thanks. Cullen328 (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)- +1 Valereee (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1, as admins we're required to respond to queries about our admin actions. Even a simple "I'm sorry I don't have time to look right now but you can ask at [relevant noticeboard]" is better than radio silence. You can't be an admin and be incognito (much as we might wish we could sometimes). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:45, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- +1 Valereee (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Explicit, it appears that you have carried our roughly 500 adminstrative actions in the past week or so, and yet you say
Explicit deletes many files at exactly 00:00 every day. Explicit says he is not as active anymore. I believe him. After all, this is clearly automated deletion of files, because no man could delete so many files at exactly the same time each day. Automated deletion of files is bad because it violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when the community does not approve it first. Explicit must be held accountable for botting without community approval. Maine 🦞 12:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Looking through the logs, I see that Twinkle is being used. The admin version of Twinkle has a button to batch-delete pages, such as every page in a maintenance category. So, it would be possible to say, review the files in the category from 2330 to midnight and then push the button at midnight, but the sheer fact that I went back 1,500 logged actions and didn't see a minute missed (I.e. the deletions happened starting every day at exactly midnight UTC) makes me wonder if you are on to something here about a script being used to make these deletions without review of each deletion? Courcelles (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Today, I'll submit an arbitration case. If automatic deletions have been occurring, this is a flagrant abuse of the administrator toolkit, especially given that Explicit has been unresponsive. After doing this for so long, Explicit's deletion rights must be revoked, necessitating their removal as an admin. Maine 🦞 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maine Lobster, I strongly encourage you to leave that for a more experienced editor to do, if they deem it appropriate and necessary. At a minimum, Explicit should be given time to explain their actions to this board. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- The case is clear. I will do what needs to be done unless you want to do it today instead. Maine 🦞 13:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly warn you against doing so. You do not have the administrative/backroom experience to show that you can construct an arbitration case. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of Maine Lobster's inability to understand Twinkle, there's nothing to build an arbitration case about, anyway, as no-one has yet pointed out (a) even one example of Explicit's deletions being wrong, let alone a continuing pattern, or (b) any evidence that the deletions are being done without human overview. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Most, if not all, of these deletions really are that clear-cut. A file's description page doesn't have the requisite information, somebody tags it and (hopefully) notifies the uploader, they get a few days to fix the problem; if they don't, it's eligible for immediate deletion. An admin just needs to check that the tag was correct and has been there long enough. It's a very simple process that requires very minimal human review, so it's not surprising to see an admin using Twinkle to delete en masse.
The only issue here is Explicit's lack of response to queries about their deletions. Hopefully they'll commit to being more responsive in future and that will be the end of the matter. No need for drama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're really telling me that Explicit, who claims they're not active, went through 500 files for manual review in the last five days? Something isn't right here. Maine 🦞 13:50, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know whether they did or not, only they know that; but you could probably manually check 500 articles in two or three hours. It's really just checking that the tag is correct, a matter of a couple of seconds. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maine Lobster really needs a WP:CIR block as a timesink, it's obvious they don't have a clue and they're not willing to listen to instruction or advice. They've already been told twice [15] [16] to stop messing around at administrative boards and both times have agreed with the message and said they will stop. Their comments on these boards are at best clueless, spamming threads with "Support, Editors who ... need to go" is not useful behaviour [17] [18] [19]. They've already been told about signature accessibility issues [20] but don't seem to have listened to that. They have repeatedly introduced BLP vios into the project, having about 20 edits oversighted/deleted as a result, and even more ridiculously they've been using anti-vandal tools on the people removing their BLP violating comments [21] and filed edit warring threads against people removing their poorly/unsourced additions [22] because they were misrepresenting sources [23]. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'm discussing with them at their talk. Valereee (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Most, if not all, of these deletions really are that clear-cut. A file's description page doesn't have the requisite information, somebody tags it and (hopefully) notifies the uploader, they get a few days to fix the problem; if they don't, it's eligible for immediate deletion. An admin just needs to check that the tag was correct and has been there long enough. It's a very simple process that requires very minimal human review, so it's not surprising to see an admin using Twinkle to delete en masse.
- Regardless of Maine Lobster's inability to understand Twinkle, there's nothing to build an arbitration case about, anyway, as no-one has yet pointed out (a) even one example of Explicit's deletions being wrong, let alone a continuing pattern, or (b) any evidence that the deletions are being done without human overview. Black Kite (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I strongly warn you against doing so. You do not have the administrative/backroom experience to show that you can construct an arbitration case. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- The case is clear. I will do what needs to be done unless you want to do it today instead. Maine 🦞 13:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Maine Lobster, I strongly encourage you to leave that for a more experienced editor to do, if they deem it appropriate and necessary. At a minimum, Explicit should be given time to explain their actions to this board. BilledMammal (talk) 13:18, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Today, I'll submit an arbitration case. If automatic deletions have been occurring, this is a flagrant abuse of the administrator toolkit, especially given that Explicit has been unresponsive. After doing this for so long, Explicit's deletion rights must be revoked, necessitating their removal as an admin. Maine 🦞 13:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Two things: Explicit really needs to show up, and MaineLobster needs to back off for orchestrating drama and maybe write some articles—and change their signature to comply with accessibility standards. Drmies (talk) 13:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is concerning, but not a "go directly to Arbcom, do not pass go, do not collect $200" situation. Those are exceedingly rare, and the odds a 200 edit account would spot one when you have highly experienced editors, multiple admins, and even a few former arbitrators in this thread that aren't seeing it that way is so vanishingly small. Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- If there is another batch of deletions at 00:00 25 March 2023 UTC, we're going to be in that exceedingly rare situation. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- What is the issue with my signature that needs to be addressed? I am willing to make any changes that are necessary, however I would like to know the reason behind it. Maine 🦞 13:51, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I'll answer at your user. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is concerning, but not a "go directly to Arbcom, do not pass go, do not collect $200" situation. Those are exceedingly rare, and the odds a 200 edit account would spot one when you have highly experienced editors, multiple admins, and even a few former arbitrators in this thread that aren't seeing it that way is so vanishingly small. Courcelles (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)