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 three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
Open tasks
| V | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 18 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 43 | 43 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
- 19 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 4 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 4 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 8 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 119 sockpuppet investigations
- 23 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 3 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 39 requests for RD1 redaction
- 141 elapsed requested moves
- 4 Pages at move review
- 24 requested closures
- 102 requests for unblock
- 1 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 21 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article
I'm writing to request a review at the closure of the RFC I started on the order of the paragraphs in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran. The RFC was closed by Cinderella157. Before coming here, I discussed the issue with Cinderella157, where I asked how he had found the 'chronological order' arguments to be "compelling". Some users, including me, believed that guidelines MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more"
and WP:BETTER, which says the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable,"
had to be applied. This is while, others believed that 'chronological order' of the paragraph had to be kept since they thought the lead could get misleading if the orders were changed.
The closing user believes that the users in favor of having the paragraph on the terrorist cult designation of the group in the second place, were not specific enough, while I told him (with modification) his evaluation of the comments were not accurate since comments [1], [2] and [3] specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. So, I believe in the closure of that RFC by Cinderella157 the arguments made based on guidelines were discredited. Can an experienced admin address my request please? --Mhhossein talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Response by closer,
- It is not sufficient for a comment citing a guideline or like to have weight simply because a guideline or like is cited. It must be relevant in some way to deciding the issue at hand.
- The issue to be determined was the ordering of paragraphs in the lead.
- The guidance cited does not go to deciding the issue at hand.
- MOS:LEADORDER considers where the lead prose falls within other elements of the lead. It does not give guidance on selecting the ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose - the question to be resolved. It does link to MOS:INTRO.
- MOS:INTRO gives guidance on the first para and first sentence. While it touches on the lead prose in total more fully, it does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
- WP:BETTER and the subsection WP:BETTER/GRAF1 touches on the lead specifically. The advice is much as MOS:INTRO and does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
- In WP:BETTER, the Layout section does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" but links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see below).
- Neither of the two links cited are relevant to resolving the question of the RfC. This was pointed out to Mhhossein in the response I gave at my TP:
[The] links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal.
[4]
- The existing lead is based on a chronological organisational structure. The proposal was to simply reorder the last paragraph to second position (without other adjustment) - thereby breaking the organisational (chronological) structure being used. For this reason, maintaining the chronological structure was seen as a compelling arguement.
- It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure:
... not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence.
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout in the section MOS:BODY. There, it states
... articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs.
However, one does not need to burrow through layers of Wiki guidance to acknowledge such principles.
- It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure:
- This is a longer answer as, apparently, the shorter version at my TP was not sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "longer" response, but I still believe you're just ignoring the arguments by labeling them as being broad and not specific. I agree that none of the mentioned guidelines comment on the 'order' of the paragraph, but they're saying the lead should
"make readers want to learn more"
. That MEK was once designated as a terrorist group by UN, UK and US and that it's a Cult (as many experts believe), is something at least three users said were interesting and vital. So, why should such a vital info be sent down the lead? - As a user closing the discussion you had to assess the consensus by addressing all the guideline-based arguments, which I think you failed to do. --Mhhossein talk 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "longer" response, but I still believe you're just ignoring the arguments by labeling them as being broad and not specific. I agree that none of the mentioned guidelines comment on the 'order' of the paragraph, but they're saying the lead should
- The "guideline based arguements" were quotes taken out of the fuller context and, which you acknowledge, do not comment on the order of paragraphs or ideas. That the matters are "interesting and vital"! are a matter of personal opinion or preference. The interesting and vital nature (compare with other elements in the lead) that would make these paramount is not established by objective criteria. Who says these are more important than anything else? Presenting such evidence would have established the matter was more than a personal opinion that was being expressed. On the other hand,
articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles
. This falls to WP:BLUE, if nothing else. The way that ideas are organisised may be a matter of personal preference, however; the arguement made was that the proposal disorganises the structure that has been adopted. That arguement is not a matter of opinion or personal preference but falls to objective criteria. Of course, the proposal might have rewritten the lead (rather then just a cut-and-paste) where there was another "good organisation" that presented the ideas in other than a chronological order. That would be another question altogether. But then, I have pretty much said all of this already. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)- No Wikilawyering please. Multiple users said the paragraph on the terrorist and cult designation was important to them, so why did you simply ignored their comments. Moreover, it's pretty much clear that one of the most important landmarks regarding the group is that it was once designated as a terrorist organization, so, yes, it's "interesting and vital"! You see, none of the users objected the fact that the paragraph in question contained important and interesting materials (this is only YOU who is comparing it with other elements!!!). They, the objecting users, just used the chrono order as a pretext to object. The rest of your comment is also wikilawyering; the quote you misused, i.e.
articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles
, is just a general comment on the overall narration which should govern the article, which is clearly right. That said, it's not saying how the lead should be framed. So, nothing changed; You ignored various "guideline based arguments" and closed the discussion in favor of those who had not guideline to support them. --Mhhossein talk 12:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- No Wikilawyering please. Multiple users said the paragraph on the terrorist and cult designation was important to them, so why did you simply ignored their comments. Moreover, it's pretty much clear that one of the most important landmarks regarding the group is that it was once designated as a terrorist organization, so, yes, it's "interesting and vital"! You see, none of the users objected the fact that the paragraph in question contained important and interesting materials (this is only YOU who is comparing it with other elements!!!). They, the objecting users, just used the chrono order as a pretext to object. The rest of your comment is also wikilawyering; the quote you misused, i.e.
- The "guideline based arguements" were quotes taken out of the fuller context and, which you acknowledge, do not comment on the order of paragraphs or ideas. That the matters are "interesting and vital"! are a matter of personal opinion or preference. The interesting and vital nature (compare with other elements in the lead) that would make these paramount is not established by objective criteria. Who says these are more important than anything else? Presenting such evidence would have established the matter was more than a personal opinion that was being expressed. On the other hand,
- The arguement appears to be that the lead should not
follow good organizational and writing principles
and that guidelines which are silent on the order of paragraphs somehow give weight to the matter of ordering paragraphs sinceMultiple users said the paragraph on the terrorist and cult designation was important to them
[emphasis added] even though other multiple editors disagreed, thinking that good organisation was actually important? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2019 (UTC)- The point which you ignore is that 'good organization' was not in danger with my suggestion. To put it another way, saving the chrono order is not the best way for having a 'good organization'. Some time you need to show why the subject is worthy of attention; this is just what the guideline says explicitly:
"make readers want to learn more."
--Mhhossein talk 13:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- The point which you ignore is that 'good organization' was not in danger with my suggestion. To put it another way, saving the chrono order is not the best way for having a 'good organization'. Some time you need to show why the subject is worthy of attention; this is just what the guideline says explicitly:
- The arguement appears to be that the lead should not
Further comments
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Revert closure and topic ban Cinderella157 - This is the second poorly executed RfC closure by User:Cinderella157 that I've come across in the last few days (the first was this one, which also prompted a closure review directly above this thread). I don't know if it's a coincidence, but it seems like a pattern to me. Either way, it's becoming clear to me that Cinderella157 doesn't understand a few key things about closing controversial consensus discussions:
- These discussions often take place over a long period of time, and involve a large number of editors. A lot of time and effort goes into these discussions; participants feel invested in the discussion. To close such a discussion with a very brief and unclear closing statement can be very disappointing to the dozens of participants, and it represents a lack of respect for the time and effort that was put into thoroughly discussing the topic at hand. In short, these kinds of contentious discussions deserve a thoughtful and clear closure.
- Even when a discussion ends in no consensus, the closing statement can still provide an important summation of the salient points of the discussion. It can point out aspects of the discussion where agreement was found, and other aspects where it was not. In many cases, this closing statement serves as a historical record of the overall results of the discussion, and future discussions will often point to this historical record as a way to review the path that consensus has taken on this topic over time. To close such a discussion with a brief and unclear closing statement obscures this historical record, making it more likely that future discussions will rehash the same points rather than moving the discussion along and getting it closer to a compromise consensus.
- I don't have the time or interest to study Cinderella157's contribution history to see if he has been closing many other discussions in the same manner. If he has, I would support a topic ban on Cinderella157, preventing him from closing any discussions. Even if these two closures are outliers, I would still encourage Cinderella157 to avoid closing discussions and find other tasks instead.
- I'm also not sure I agree with the result of the closure either. I briefly scanned the discussion and my hunch is that I'd lean towards finding consensus for the "Second" argument (opposite of Cinderella's closure) at best, or closing it as "no consensus" at worst. If anything, at least the voters supporting the "Second" result actually provide relevant guidelines and policies that support their decision. Not a single voter on the "Last" side provided any relevant guidelines or policies in support of their position; they simply expressed their personal preference for the order of the lead. Cinderella157 writes that he finds the argument for a chronologically-ordered lead to be "compelling", but provides no explanation for why he finds it more compelling than the policy-based rationales on the other side. He even admits in this very discussion above that there are no policies or guidelines that require the lead of an article to describe the subject in chronological order. If I were the closing admin, I would have likely closed this discussion much differently. I'd recommend that the closure is reverted, and an uninvolved administrator is asked to provide a real closure. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mind ye, two crap closures does not make a crap closer: with no pattern established, I suggest that a topic ban would be overkill to say the least. If a pattern does emerge this can and should be revisited, but until then, no cause. ——SerialNumber54129 17:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neither the close review nor the proposal subsequently made have garnered any particular interest and a considerable amount of time has past since either were put forward. Such a proposal (and other comments made with it about this particular close) should be made with more than than the acknowledged "scant" consideration given. For the record, the other close review referred to is now archived here. My closes may have been brief but there is little space given by the close templates to give a fully reasoned rationale for a close (see my response above). I have, however, been quite prepared to give a fuller rationale for a close, when asked. If anyone sees any substance in either the review or proposal, I could respond in detail (noting I will be away for about a week) but otherwise, I think it is time to put this to rest. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- But the other discussion also said the RFC was closed by you improperly. --Mhhossein talk 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This close was well explained and substantiated. Cinderella157 is a good editor, and this seems a pretty unfair report against him. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- No one is saying that Cinderella157 isn't a good editor, but I'm saying that there seems to be evidence piling up that he/she is not a particularly good closer of consensus discussions. Non-admin closures of contentious discussions need to be good. Even WP:NAC says "A non-admin closure is not appropriate [if] the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator." This RfC involved around 15 different editors, and the outcome was a close call, and it was somewhat controversial. If the closure was properly explained and well-reasoned, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. But, Cinderella157 simply said "I found this argument compelling" without even explaining why it was more compelling than the other side's argument. If I had participated in this RfC, I would've been upset by this closure. There is clearly very little interest in this closure review by anyone else, so it's unlikely anything will happen as a result of it. My advice to Cinderella157 would be to stay away from non-admin closures of discussions when the consensus isn't relatively obvious. ‑Scottywong| confer || 02:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- This close was well explained and substantiated. Cinderella157 is a good editor, and this seems a pretty unfair report against him. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- But the other discussion also said the RFC was closed by you improperly. --Mhhossein talk 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure
An RfC[5] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.
- I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [6] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [7], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [8], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [9] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [10] [11] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.
Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.
Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [12]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.
I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?
Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions
for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contributionrelated to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions
- You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.
- If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author
- Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by SashiRolls noted: [13] (The arbcom case was rejected as premature and referred to ANI.[14]) Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive303#Unblock appeal by SashiRolls. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [15] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Your altering of the header[16] makes my comment completely and utterly incomprehensible. Furthermore there is no legitimate reason for altering the header (it's an undisputed RS description). Your altering of the header is a perfect example of disrupting and harassing behavior (not even mentioning the creepy rambling "can someone please get Snooganssnoogans sanctioned?" collection of off-topic disputes that you dug up on off-wiki forums for disgruntled Wikipedia editors about me and decided to spam on an unrelated article talk page), yet you're now here whining about it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Whatever. There is a double-standard at the Signpost. People criticized in mainstream publications have their pseudonyms protected, whereas those brought up on frivolous charges at ArbCom (quickly rejected) are pilloried in the first sentence of the Arbitration report. For those interested in what Wikipedia is actually supposed to be about (i.e. verifiability) here are three examples of wikitext Snoogans has added in the last two weeks that are unsupported by the sources (2 of which are whoppers): [15] I will walk away from Snoog's ownership behavior for their TP section title, despite it being a violation of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable as noted on the TP. For someone who doesn't want to edit-war... there they are bullying, again. Anyone want to tag-team me? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.
source: AP It is true that your deliberate misreadings are attracting attention and making many a good Wikipedian ashamed that such behavior is seeminglyThe arrest and strip search of the Indian diplomat escalated into a major diplomatic furor Tuesday as India's national security adviser called the woman's treatment "despicable and barbaric."
toleratedencouraged by the power structure here. That said, I probably wouldn't have pointed it out had you not been rude to yet another person on the TP. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the #1 whopper listed is one I discovered last night checking something you were edit warring with someone else over on the Tulsi Gabbard page: the arrest of an Indian consular official. That had been in the article for so long I just assumed it was true, that she must have criticized the arrest. But in fact I'd been led astray by your spin. She did not criticize the fact that the official was arrested. Not at all. She criticized how she was arrested (strip-searched despite consular immunity), because it threatened to lead to quite a diplomatic rift between India and the US.
Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)
I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...
I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:
In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."
As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- My determination would be as follows:
- A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("
The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government.
"). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A. - B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
- C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.
- A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("
- I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[17], Guardian[18], NY Mag[19], Vox[20], and Intercept[21]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- MrClog, I do not see A: "Gabbard has expressed support for Hindu nationalists, including Indian prime minister Narendra Modi" as suggesting she supports "all or most" Hindu nationalists. In context it sounds like there were specific instances of expressing support for particular Hindu nationalists. Jacobin, which The Intercept linked to, was brought up in the RfC discussion in response to TFD: "Gabbard has been one of Modi’s most prominent boosters in the US. 'He is a leader whose example and dedication to the people he serves should be an inspiration to elected officials everywhere,' she said of Modi in 2014."[22] And why is the title of The Intercept story, "TULSI GABBARD IS A RISING PROGRESSIVE STAR, DESPITE HER SUPPORT FOR HINDU NATIONALISTS", not enough? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[17], Guardian[18], NY Mag[19], Vox[20], and Intercept[21]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says:
"Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria."
~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[23]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Snoogansnoogans wrote, "TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is." First, when criticizing me, I would appreciate it if you would notify me. Second, you misrepresented what I wrote: "Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists."
Obama invited Modi to the White House and visited him twice in India. Here is part of the text from their first meeting:
- It is an extraordinary pleasure to welcome Prime Minister Modi to the White House for the first time. I think that the entire world has watched the historic election and mandate that the people of India delivered in the recent election. And I think everyone has been impressed with the energy and the determination with which the Prime Minister has looked to address not only India’s significant challenges, but more importantly, India’s enormous opportunities for success in the 21st century....the Prime Minister shared with me his vision for lifting what is still too many Indians who are locked in poverty into a situation in which their lives can improve....we discussed how we can continue to work together on a whole host of issues from space exploration, scientific endeavor, to dealing with humanitarian crises like Ebola in West Africa....And throughout this conversation I’ve been impressed with the Prime Minister’s interest in not only addressing the needs of the poorest of the poor in India and revitalizing the economy there, but also his determination to make sure that India is serving as a major power that could help bring about peace and security for the entire world...."[24]
I can find similar statements from Bill and Hillary Clinton, who visited Modi when he came to New York, and by Trump when Modi visited Washington.
If you don't know anything about U.S.-India relations, then you shouldn't add criticism about politicians for their views on it.
As far as I can see, this request is merely a content dispute and suggest we close it.
TFD (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn this close. I agree completely with MrClog's analysis above. I can't imagine how anyone can come to the conclusion that "B" had consensus. Red Slash writes in the RfC closure, "A, B, and C should all be included.", but only two !voters thought that B should be included. (!Voters who were in favor of changing B are, by definition, not in favor of including B as written.) I also agree with the comment in the post-close discussion on the article talk page that
there are two ways to deal with a rejected close: one is to say shut up how dare you, the other is to ask how any problems can be satisfactorily resolved.
Disappointed that Red Slash chose the former. I would appreciate if Red Slash, in closing something like this, gave a breakdown of their thinking similar to what MrClog wrote above. Otherwise, don't close RfCs if you don't want to give more than a couple sentences of explanation for your close. – Levivich 16:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC) - Uphold Red Slash's closure. Red Slash found consensus for A and C, and Red Slash stated that "B [...] should [...] be included [... and] B should be slightly reworded." I infer this to mean that a consensus should be found for new wording for B before it is included. Red Slash's comments above support this interpretation. It is clumsy, but I don't see that as a reason to overturn the close. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project
Hello all,
I’m writing to let you know about a new project, IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation, that the Wikimedia Foundation is starting.
Because people in general are increasingly technically advanced and privacy conscious, our users are now more aware of the collection and use of their personal information, and how its misuse may lead to harassment or abuse. The Foundation is starting a project to re-evaluate and enhance protections for user privacy through technical improvement to the projects. As part of this work, we will also be looking at our existing anti-vandalism and anti-abuse tools and making sure our wikis have access to the same (or better) tools to protect themselves.
The project page is on Meta. This project is currently in very early phases of discussions and we don’t have a concrete plan for it yet. We’d like your input. And please share with other people who you think would be interested. SPoore (WMF), Strategist, Community health initiative (talk) 17:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Wow, they're really talking about retiring editing by IP addresses. Never thought I'd see that happen. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's not really what it's about. You'll get a different bunch of random strings for a username instead of an IP address. Think "IP addresses without the ability to effectively block them". Talk page is over there... -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not really what it's about.
Seems to me it's exactly what it's about. Using privacy as a fig leaf, we're all but being told that we'll no longer see IP addresses for people editing anonymously. Instead there'll probably be the equivalent of an automatic checkuser every single time someone edits anonymously (e.g., it'll look for a cookie as well) and then the edits will get assigned to some random string of characters. I can see no reasonable justification for this absolute waste of money. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)- Mendaliv, Retiring editing by IP addresses presumably means that unregistered editors are no longer allowed to edit. As that is not what is contemplated, I'd say it is not "exactly what it's about". Only in a hyper-technical can can we say that if non registered editors can still edit but their IP address will not be shown - then we won't have editing by IP addresses. S Philbrick(Talk) 20:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's not really what it's about. You'll get a different bunch of random strings for a username instead of an IP address. Think "IP addresses without the ability to effectively block them". Talk page is over there... -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I went to comment, but after seeing that negative assessments were castigated as "not welcome here", I deleted my comment. The whole idea is stupid, and that you can't actually say that it is stupid on the talk page is even more stupid. I thought that my opinion of the WMF couldn't get any lower, but I was wrong -- what a group of bozos who have no idea whatsoever what it's like to edit. We need a wholesale makeover of the WMF to people who understand what it's like in the trenches. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- I had that problem on meta some years ago and I don't think I've been back. It is a backslapper's echo chamber - (P.A removed ). - Sitush (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, that's why I don't plan on going over there to comment on this "idea". I think we might need to adjourn to VP to get an RfC declaring the community's opposition to this latest usurpation of our local governance. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- If the anti-vandalism (and anti-COI, etc…) tools are improved and automated enough, such that administrators are no longer needed, then this could be a good idea. Step 2 would be improving and automating the editing tools, such that editors are no longer needed. Κσυπ Cyp 05:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- If you liked WP:FRAM, you'll love this. This has all the hallmarks of a WMF sham consultation - where the outcome has already been predetermined, dissent or being told "that's worse than useless" (which is what the proposal is) is not tolerated and the choice of a venue such that the out of touch WMF snowflakes get the feedback that they want to hear, not the feedback that they need to hear. If this garbage hits this project, the instigators should all be community banned - we regularly ban volunteer editors who do a lot less damage to the encyclopedia. MER-C 09:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- I encourage Beyond My Ken to go back to that page. I also encourage Mendaliv and Sitush to go to that page as well, as I did. Calmly, and using persuasive arguments based on logic and reason, explain why this is a bad idea, and propose alternative solutions. That would be a great service. Calling it "stupid" there and venting here is of very little value. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Cullen, I would -- and I believe I am capable of mounting a cogent argument -- if I had any reason at all to believe that the proposers of the project are open not to suggestions for tweaking it, but listening to the reasons to completely abandon it. I do not think that is the case, it is much too connected to the (mistaken) ideological heart of the WMF, that it must allow anonymous editing. The whole idea flows from that preconception, and if they're not willing to abandon IP editing in the face of the evidence that it has done almost immeasurable harm to their projects, then I see no hope that they would listen to any argument to dump this god-forsaken idea. No, I'm afraid it will have to be someone less cynical then myself who makes that argument, I see the whole thing as a fait accompli, and their interest in criticism as purely superficial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yep, this. You can see it by reading the "impact report". The need for this is presumed from the outset and all the counterarguments are presumed to be the equivalent of "old men whining about the good old days". I'm not going to demean myself by wasting my time on people like that, and I encourage you all to do something more productive with your time than more failed attempts to "work within the system". —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- WP:DUCK apparently doesn't apply there. That is a real shame. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I truly believe that the two of you are failing for some reason to take a very simple step to make our opposition crystal clear. But I respect your personal autonomy and so instead, I encourage anyone else reading this thread to go to that page and speak out on behalf of the English Wikipedia editors who fight 24/7/365 against vandalism, trolling, defamation and disinformation. This is really important. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- At the risk of voicing an unpopular opinion, it would be good to hide IP addresses given the amount of personal information they disclose, which is then kept forever in article histories which can be viewed by anybody (this often includes fairly precise information about where the editor lives, as well as information about who their employer is if they edited from work, etc). The way in which this is done needs to be optimised to support admins though. I'd suggest that people engage with the WMF's consultation process to point this out: the project is at a very early stage, and it looks like all options are on the table. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- None of which would be a problem if they were simply required to make an account. A supremely easy solution - and one that's not "on the table" because the WMF rejects it unilaterally. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. I've said so in the discussion at Meta and will do so when I'm contacted for follow-up consultations in response to signing up for them. Requiring registered accounts seems to be the best, as well as the simplest, solution here. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- That solution is currently disallowed by the meta:Founding principles which are just as important, and would require a very broad consensus to overturn. And the practical consequences are uncertain. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, they'd have to change their principles... so? The practical consequences are obvious, and the benefit to the encyclopedia would be immediate. Instead, they choose to bend over backwards with their heads between their legs to keep something that the real world has outgrown many years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Instead of trying to go to all this effort to try and hide IPs .... wouldn't it not be more sensible and more quicker just to do away with IP editing altogether ? ....Yup it goes against their Founding_principles but still IMHO IP editing is long outdated and no longer serves a purpose it once used to serve. –Davey2010Talk 20:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- The WMF may see your lips moving, but they're not going to hear what you say. They've been deaf to the obvious for a long, long time now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- You can already see it on the meta talk page. Aside from trying to answer straightforward questions, the WMF staffers are only engaging with with people offering ideas on how to implement this project - they are ignoring people saying not to do it. WMF is giving us the illusion of choice. They'll accept our input on how to mask IPs and how to design new vandalism-fighting tools, but they've already decided that we are getting these features whether we want them or not. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- My hope is that they are committed to either getting this right or dumping it, though I suppose the WMF's history doesn't back me up on this. From my impression, they are going to work on this up to a point - that point being a model for increasing anonymous user privacy and improving anti-abuse tools - and if at that point the solution appears non-viable then they won't do it. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Has the WMF backed away from a WMF originated idea following substantial negative feedback without committing development resources before? But yes, it is becoming increasingly clear that this project is infeasible. MER-C 16:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- There have been a few times when the WMF has backed away from one of their ideas because it turned out to be infeasible, such as user merging. But I'm not sure if they ever have primarily due to negative feedback. That said, I also do see some value in what they are trying to do -- Tim Starling's comment identifies some limitations to the status quo that might be fix-able as part of this project. I'm curious to see what they end up proposing as a more operationalized solution. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well we may need a policy on EN:Wikipedia on what to do if it gets implemented. I would suggest that editing from a masked IP address be prohibited by policy here. But that IP editors who disclose their IP address be permitted. Otherwise it will be similar to editing though open proxies. It should be blockable via an edit filter. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Do you really think that the WMF would allow us to override them like that? I doubt it, and we'd have another FRAMGATE on our hands. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- There have been similar situations where brinksmanship on the part of the community has forced them to back down a little (i.e., forced a compromise). Though in practice the Foundation has just slowly gotten its way. I don’t think it’s a valueless exercise insofar as the continued disrespect of the community by the Foundation just adds to the public record of their misdeeds and hopefully can be harnessed to impact their donation streams. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Switching to logged-in only editing would be good for privacy and for the project. Simonm223 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
VPN editing
It gets worse. This is only one aspect of the latest We Make Failures "strategy" "plan":
m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Working Groups/Community Health/Recommendations/Safety
> Supporting anonymizing technologies like TOR, VPNs for the users that would require the support.
(The next line is the proposal above.) Are the WMF seriously considering force-repealing WP:No open proxies? Who the hell is responsible for this stupidity? MER-C 14:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's probably along the lines of "provide support for editors in countries like China and Turkey". --Izno (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- They have not argued why IP block exempt isn't sufficient. And how does whoever administrating this tell between genuine editors in Turkey and socially engineering LTAs? MER-C 17:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
MER-C, I think machine learning tools could be used for that. Nevertheless, open proxies ban should stay in place, and checkusers should still be able to see IPs. Oranjelo100 (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree on that aspect. ML/AI is not a silver bullet, especially in adversarial environments (e.g. algorithmic trading, cybersecurity). Like I said earlier, We Make Failures engineering needs to demonstrate competency in ordinary anti-abuse tools before they move on to one of the hardest aspects of data science. MER-C 08:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know if WMF has technical expertise but it's not that hard (relatively) to create a learning program that can analyse patterns. Should be far better than the old CU tool. Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- There was actually an interesting research paper presented by a university team at WikiMania that found that editors using Tor (before the individual proxies were blocked) averaged more positive contributions than standard IP editors. They looked at edits over about a 10 year period. They were trying to argue that there are valid reasons why these editors prized privacy and Wikipedia should consider allowing them to edit. Of course, it would make holding editors accountable for their edits a challenge but then many IP editors jump around an IP range. Liz Read! Talk! 15:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Proposal: General sanctions on post-1978 Iranian politics
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The administrator noticeboards have seen a seemingly endless stream of discussions related to conflicts in post-revolutionary Iran, and more specifically, on conflicts between the current government and entities challenging it. Examples include the following; AN, July 2019, ANEW, June 2019, ANI, May 2019, ANI, March 2019, ANI, February 2019, ANEW, November 2018, ANI, September 2018, ANI, August 2018, ANEW, January 2018, ANEW, January 2018, and ANI, November 2017. As a point of interest, the conflicts in this topic are not new; see this discussion from September 2015, for instance. There have also been a series of caustic arguments on various talk pages; see, for instance, the archives at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. These discussions have tended to become bogged down as a result of mudslinging between involved parties: attempts by uninvolved users to intervene are few and far between.
As a result, very few sanctions have been issued, and disruptive behavior continues unabated. The one exception is that participants at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran were persuaded by El_C to accept the terms of WP:GS; in my opinion, that is too small a set of editors, and too restricted a locus. To curtail further disruption, I believe it is now necessary for admins to be able to issue sanctions, including topic-bans, without extended noticeboard discussions. I am asking for community authorized general sanctions, rather that ARBCOM-authorized discretionary sanctions, because I think the evidence for disruption is clear enough that the community can act on this immediately, and because ARBCOM is a little busy at the moment, and so filing a full case request would be doing the community a disservice.
I have discussed this previously with El_C, who is one of few admins to have issues sanctions or warnings in this area outside of ANEW, and El_C agrees with me about the necessity for such sanctions. @Dlohcierekim, EdJohnston, Drmies, Black Kite, Nyttend, and Oshwah:, you have also participated in some of these discussions as admins; your thoughts would be welcome. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC) @Drmies, Oshwah, EdJohnston, and JzG: Apologies for the bother; I've amended the proposal to post-1978 politics, following a discussion with Nyttend and El_C below; I doubt it makes a difference to you, but procedurally, I think I ought to let you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support, as proposer. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I support--I think it's worth a try. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I agree that this is an action that's necessary in order to assure that an acceptable and collaborative editing environment is maintained consistently throughout this topic area. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 16:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – This sanction, if approved, could work like WP:GS/SCW which I think are reasonably successful in keeping the topic of the Syrian Civil War under control. EdJohnston| (talk) 17:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support — To reiterate, I think agreement to apply the specific GS to People's Mujahedin of Iran, an article which suffered from chronic edit warring, has proven to be quite successful. Slowly but surely progress is being made, whereas edit warring is now approaching zero (note that I did try to suggest applying the same thing to Fascism in Europe and did not even get a response from participants — so, you win some, you lose some). At any event, Vanamonde93's proposal to extend GS to other post-1979 Iranian politics articles, I am confident, would aid editors, article quality, and reducing conflict on the project overall. El_C 17:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Question Why post-1979? Is the revolution itself free from these disputes? If this area needs general sanctions, I would guess that it should be post-1978, unless you believe that items specifically from 1979 aren't being disrupted. Nyttend (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I don't think there's a political topic free of disruption on Wikipedia. I was trying to draw a line between a topic that has egregious localized disruption, and other related articles that merely have pedestrian levels of bad behavior. So far as I can tell, the conflicts on Wikipedia that prompted me to propose this stem from real-life conflicts between the current theocratic government of Iran and its opponents. As such, I haven't seen the same conflicts spill over into the revolution itself, yet. I'm not necessarily opposed to a broader regime of general sanctions; but I think that if a line must be drawn, it must be drawn at 1979 or 1953 (or 1905, when the constitutional revolution occurred); and it has been my impression that the community favors narrower areas of broad admin discretion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, if we're drawing a line at the Islamic Revolution, that's perfectly fine, but the revolution happened in 1979, and your proposal is post-1979, i.e. beginning in 1980. For example, the proposal doesn't cover the beginning of the Iran hostage crisis or any of the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. That's the reason I'm confused. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Nyttend. The revolution should be encompassed as well, since a lot of the disputes are rooted in it. El_C 00:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, if we're drawing a line at the Islamic Revolution, that's perfectly fine, but the revolution happened in 1979, and your proposal is post-1979, i.e. beginning in 1980. For example, the proposal doesn't cover the beginning of the Iran hostage crisis or any of the December 1979 Iranian constitutional referendum. That's the reason I'm confused. Nyttend (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Nyttend: I don't think there's a political topic free of disruption on Wikipedia. I was trying to draw a line between a topic that has egregious localized disruption, and other related articles that merely have pedestrian levels of bad behavior. So far as I can tell, the conflicts on Wikipedia that prompted me to propose this stem from real-life conflicts between the current theocratic government of Iran and its opponents. As such, I haven't seen the same conflicts spill over into the revolution itself, yet. I'm not necessarily opposed to a broader regime of general sanctions; but I think that if a line must be drawn, it must be drawn at 1979 or 1953 (or 1905, when the constitutional revolution occurred); and it has been my impression that the community favors narrower areas of broad admin discretion. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support for sure. In fact I'd cover anything where the troll of all trolls is involved - North Korea, China, US trade deficit, and so many more, but this one is obvious and long-standing. Guy (Help!) 22:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support – per nom – Levivich 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment If further evidence were required that this is getting out of hand, there's these two conversations in the last week. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Vanamonde93: I was surprised to see this discussion where, I think, active editors had to be pinged to comment. Also, El_C's intervention is shown to be pretty excellent, but slow. Surely much better than the previous condition. Now, your arguments are really seen and considered. --Mhhossein talk 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Second look at the scope of the sanctions
Following my discussion with Vanamonde93 I think the scope of the sanction are too wide and requires further discussion. Just see the examples brought to our eyes by Vanamonde93; Nearly most of the cases are related to MEK and the OP, I think, fails to raise his concerns, which I think are quite right, on proper ground. The remedy should be devised for areas with continued and repeated disputes. So, just asking for sanctions on "post-1978 Iranian politics" is not really fair without showing how this wide topic need such a thing. Multiple examples from various cases of 'continuous dispute' should be the minimum requirement; that said, I think the major issue lies with the MEK-related articles at the moment which was nicely handled by El_C for the main article. (pinging involved parties for attention @Drmies, JzG, Levivich, Nyttend, EdJohnston, and Oshwah:). --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Why too wide? What is in scope that should not be? Guy (Help!) 13:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Guy: I think this is the OP who needs to prove the scope contains enough articles with diverse subjects making the scope wide enough. But as you requested please see Assembly of Experts, 2016 Iranian legislative election, Guardian Council, Assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Iran), Combatant Clergy Association, Islamic Consultative Assembly and etc., though there are plenty of other examples. Please note that we're talking about continuous conflicts requiring remedies. --Mhhossein talk 18:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would oppose any proposed reduction in scope, because there are severe conflicts within this topic that are unrelated to the MEK. As exhibit (a) I present to you 2019 Persian Gulf crisis, where the conflict is indubitably a spillover from Iranian politics (rather than from US politics). There's also Hafte Tir bombing (only peripherally related to the MEK); and somewhat lower levels of conflict at Manshour Varasteh (also only peripherally related), Mohammad-Javad Azari Jahromi, 2017 Iranian presidential election, and Ebrahim Raisi. Reaching further back, there's others; and those aren't conflicts that have been resolved, it's rather that the locus of conflict has temporarily shifted. Also, fundamentally, these conflicts are driven by people with strong opinions being unable to set those aside and edit within a policy-based framework. Reducing the scope of the sanctions will allow far too much opportunity for anyone sanctioned to continue problematic behavior in a closely related area. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- For your information, both Hafte Tir bombing and Manshour Varasteh are heavily related to MEK. Also, can you show us what conflict there's in Ebrahim Raisi for instance? Please note that conflicts between editors are often seen in various articles, but here we're talking about continuous disputes/conflicts requiring remedies. I mean come with something please! As for people having "strong opinions" regarding subjects; what's the relationship between this and making the scope of the article unnecessarily wide? --Mhhossein talk 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't buy that. Unless our article grossly misinterprets the subject, Hafte Tir bombing is only related to the MEK because they were accused of it without evidence; that's a tenuous connection at best, and it's exactly the sort of connection that has been endlessly wikilawyered at AE. When editors are sanctioned for an inability to follow NPOV, they need to be removed from the area of conflict. A very narrow scope for a general sanction does not help with this. Why are you so strongly opposed to the current scope? If you edit within policy, it should affect you at all; if all of you people editing in this topic edit within policy, the sanctions have no consequence whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to list the sources here, but your latest comments on Hafte Tir bombing, i.e. "a tenuous connection at best" and "is only related to the MEK because they were accused of it without evidence", are just personal viewpoints regarding the subject which probably contradict numerous high quality reliable sources (comments special:diff/867882764, special:diff/904031175 should be enough for list of sources saying MEK did the bombing). Also, I'm not suggesting a "a very narrow scope", I'm just saying the the remedy should be as wide as necessary, but not wider (to make it unnecessarily wide!). I strongly oppose the current scope, since "writing laws is easy, but governing is difficult!" and it's just meaningless for the remedy to cover areas which does not need such an attention. Needless to say that I, having been edited withing policy, don't fear the consequences of the remedy and that I was of the first users who welcomed the restrictions which was then placed over MEK article, so your argument is not applicable. Instead, please show that all articles lying under post-1978 Iranian politics need to be sanctioned. --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- These sanctions are just fine, it was about time. Sanctioned users actually have to edit within policy, what an outrage /s. Seriously though, post-1978 Iranian articles have been plagued by disruption for years now, this is the right step. --HistoryofIran (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not going to list the sources here, but your latest comments on Hafte Tir bombing, i.e. "a tenuous connection at best" and "is only related to the MEK because they were accused of it without evidence", are just personal viewpoints regarding the subject which probably contradict numerous high quality reliable sources (comments special:diff/867882764, special:diff/904031175 should be enough for list of sources saying MEK did the bombing). Also, I'm not suggesting a "a very narrow scope", I'm just saying the the remedy should be as wide as necessary, but not wider (to make it unnecessarily wide!). I strongly oppose the current scope, since "writing laws is easy, but governing is difficult!" and it's just meaningless for the remedy to cover areas which does not need such an attention. Needless to say that I, having been edited withing policy, don't fear the consequences of the remedy and that I was of the first users who welcomed the restrictions which was then placed over MEK article, so your argument is not applicable. Instead, please show that all articles lying under post-1978 Iranian politics need to be sanctioned. --Mhhossein talk 13:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't buy that. Unless our article grossly misinterprets the subject, Hafte Tir bombing is only related to the MEK because they were accused of it without evidence; that's a tenuous connection at best, and it's exactly the sort of connection that has been endlessly wikilawyered at AE. When editors are sanctioned for an inability to follow NPOV, they need to be removed from the area of conflict. A very narrow scope for a general sanction does not help with this. Why are you so strongly opposed to the current scope? If you edit within policy, it should affect you at all; if all of you people editing in this topic edit within policy, the sanctions have no consequence whatsoever. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- For your information, both Hafte Tir bombing and Manshour Varasteh are heavily related to MEK. Also, can you show us what conflict there's in Ebrahim Raisi for instance? Please note that conflicts between editors are often seen in various articles, but here we're talking about continuous disputes/conflicts requiring remedies. I mean come with something please! As for people having "strong opinions" regarding subjects; what's the relationship between this and making the scope of the article unnecessarily wide? --Mhhossein talk 18:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Rooting For Team Red, Rooting For Team Blue, And Rooting For Individual Players On Team Blue
This is a request for advice, not necessarily a request for administrator intervention. I think that a couple of editors have identified a real problem on the pages about current US presidential candidates, but I don't have a clue as to how to address the problem they describe. Thus I am asking for advice on what to do, if anything.
At Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again I saw this comment from Masem:
- "We seriously need to apply NOT#NEWS to politician pages. As an encyclopedia, we should not be trying to document every single one of their views, and certainly not in the real-time nature of typical news reporting."[25]
Then Levivich added this:
- " I think there is a larger problem than one or two editors, though, and it's exactly what Masem points out above: the US politics area has turned into a political newspaper, with editors fighting to stick in the latest quotes from second-rate media (e.g., the Daily Beast). Every article on US presidential candidates, for example, are complete junk, filled with, "In August 2019, so-and-so said such-and-such," or "This newspaper wrote that so-and-so is this-and-that", etc. etc. It needs a major overhaul and a reintroduction to NOTNEWS. I think I am among many editors who have given up on editing in that topic area."[26]
I happened to notice the problem at the Tulsi Gabbard page (Giving undue WP:WEIGHT to certain negative opinions published in obscure sources) and I am dealing with that issue in the usual way, but what of the larger problem that Masem and Levivich describe? Where would I even start if I wanted to make things better? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's a sea change needed across all of Wikipedia. I am not going to reiterate my long-winded stance on the lack of NOT#NEWS enforcement particularly in the AP2 topic area (and not limited to that), but needless to say, we need editors to think about what material is being report "right this second" and how much of that material is going to be valuable in 5-10 years, and how much of that is just the fact news stations have 24/7 hours of broadcast time they have to fill. Understanding the difference between something like the reactions to the latest shootings in the US, versus a Tweet sent out by a presidential candidate. Because we have let NOT#NEWS weaken, we get these articles that are tons of proseline, filling in every possible news story that the topic is in, which is not what we should be doing. But its hard to force a policy on this, we need a sea change in how editors see the news and write about it, and to exactly that point, I don't know how to push that even more beyond stressing the need for "encyclopedic" writing, not "newspaper" writing. --Masem (t) 15:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think one fairly simple stopgap measure (for the bigger elections) would be to spin off "political positions" and "20xx campaign" from the person's BLP. Most of the motivation for the BLP-stuffing I've seen is the desire to affect the opinions of those who google the person once and idly read their BLP once. In 2016 I suggested that all 4 candidates should have their political positions page separated from their BLP to lessen the attraction of posting the week's smear to each candidate's BLP (this courtesy was afforded to 3 of the 4 main candidates). The logic is this: since the political positions page and 20xx campaign page aren't the top google responses... most who want to spin google will lose interest. BLPs could be full protected / flagged revisions / etc. As for the wider question about news, I'm not so sure. It was interesting to follow various social movements / events (DAPL, overthrow of le pouvoir in Algeria, Sudan, YVM, Western Libya Offensive etc.) and I'm not sure these pages have done so much damage to the encyclopedia as what is being done on BLP in AmPol. The difference may be -- in part -- the media being cited, I suppose, and the goal of informing rather than persuading. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Doesn't fix the problem. Those spinouts would remain BLP pages and will still suffer the same problem. It's sweeping the issue under the rug. Yes, I do think that Google's draw to Wikipedia may change if those are spun out, but that's not really feeding the issue as most of the problems seem to come from semi to readily experienced editors. --Masem (t) 16:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think one fairly simple stopgap measure (for the bigger elections) would be to spin off "political positions" and "20xx campaign" from the person's BLP. Most of the motivation for the BLP-stuffing I've seen is the desire to affect the opinions of those who google the person once and idly read their BLP once. In 2016 I suggested that all 4 candidates should have their political positions page separated from their BLP to lessen the attraction of posting the week's smear to each candidate's BLP (this courtesy was afforded to 3 of the 4 main candidates). The logic is this: since the political positions page and 20xx campaign page aren't the top google responses... most who want to spin google will lose interest. BLPs could be full protected / flagged revisions / etc. As for the wider question about news, I'm not so sure. It was interesting to follow various social movements / events (DAPL, overthrow of le pouvoir in Algeria, Sudan, YVM, Western Libya Offensive etc.) and I'm not sure these pages have done so much damage to the encyclopedia as what is being done on BLP in AmPol. The difference may be -- in part -- the media being cited, I suppose, and the goal of informing rather than persuading. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 15:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, if you say so. I have noticed that those who hurry to oppose spinning off BLP pages are those who help curate negative information on those BLP... some evidence: (Gabbard, Stein). Theoretically at least, they would be less tempted to do so if their voices weren't so easily multiplied by google. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem goes well beyond just presidential candidates. WP:NOTNEWS is very frequently ignored when it comes to WP:BLP issues in general. I think a revision to WP:GNG to identify that coverage in reliable sources does not automatically confer notability for information regarding BLPs might help. That and perhaps giving WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT a bit more assertive language concerning notability and routine news coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think this is about WP:Summary style. Writing in summary style requires writing in Wikivoice and that requires consensus, which requires collaboration. By contrast, writing in WP:QUOTEFARMs allows an editor to take a quote from a particular WP:RS (especially a recognized RS, like a green one from WP:RSP) and then "defend" it to the death, arguing that it must be included because it's a verbatim quote from a recognized RS. So we end up with alternating quotes from RSes instead of summary prose in WikiVoice... and battleground behavior on the talk page instead of collaborative editing. Some thoughts on solutions:
- Further deprecate quote farms, perhaps just in BLPs or BLPs in DS areas (BLPs are a DS area, but I mean like AP2 BLPs, PIA BLPs, etc.), perhaps just for mainstream news sources. Or maybe for recent events articles? Something like, "quotes from mainstream news sources are strongly discouraged" maybe added to WP:MOS? This will force editors towards collaborating to come up with consensus language in Wikivoice rather than sparring with RS quotes.
- Write a WP:Summary style specifically for BLPs or political BLPs. WP:BLPSUMMARY? Or maybe MOS:POLBLP?
- Do we have a "model article" for politician BLPs? Not every politician BLP can be based on FA political BLPs like US presidents. But what does an "ideal" article for, say, a first-term national legislator, look like? How much detail? How much about their personal life? Their political positions? Their controversies?
- One of the aspects of this problem is our poor existing mechanisms for content dispute resolution. For example, say Guy and I want to include Quote A, and Masem and Sashi are opposed to it or want to include a countervailing Quote B. The four of us can go around forever and never reach a consensus (that an uninvolved editor will close), and too often it comes down to one side dragging the other to a noticeboard over a conduct complaint (alleging WP:DE, WP:TE, etc.). If the four of us write walls of text, other editors won't help at DRN or by closing our RfC (or worse, we get a bad close, or an admin protects the wrong version, etc.). If an editor sees a poorly-written article that violates NOTNEWS, but there are a group of editors WP:OWNing the article, we don't really have a way to address that. Someone was recently writing about binding content dispute resolution–I think it was Isaacl? (Apologies if I'm mistaken.) Maybe pilot that (or a return of mediation?) in the area of political BLPs? – Levivich 18:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have written recently on binding content dispute resolution, and plan to release a proposal for discussion. Although I'm not optimistic that consensus can be achieved at this time to mandate such a process, perhaps there may be cases where the interested parties would voluntarily agree to it. (The "binding" part, though, would be hard to enforce without a larger consensus in place.) isaacl (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think you've made a very good observation about quote-farming Levivich. I'll admit I have no idea if there's an AmPol2 project page where such modifications to the MOS and examples of model BLPs could be discussed. I did notice there were some comments made on the H R Clinton FA (BLP) recently by the principal author. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- A few more points:
- First, in general, adding material to a PROSELINE approach is often easiest for newer editors. Find where the event happened in a list of dates, throw that event and source in there. End of store. So we get articles that reflect dates of announcements of planned events, or focusing too much on social media announcements, or the like. Filling out timelines is alluring. Same if you have another type of structure that is easy to organize and add too. (evidenced by "Reactions" sections of every world gov't to a mass death event; and the fact that if you leave an empty line in an infobox template, editors will want to fill that in with something). So part of the problem is natural tendencies of the editors to fill in as much as they can. But that's only part of the reason, and not something easy to fix.
- Second, I would argue an additional consideration that I have seen, going back to the Gamergate situation, though I think the behavior I described was starting before then.
- As the Gamergate situation outside en.wiki started to ramp up, we get media that was clearly critical of those calling themselves part of Gamergate. Because of "verifyability, not truth", our article reflected that. We got wave after wave of brigading IPs and new editors trying to force the minor/fringe viewpoints of Gamergate, which ultimately led to the 300/50 page protection because of that disruption.
- However, I think emboldened by fighting those editors, existing editors on WP started thinking that to fight fire with fire, more emphasis on whatever the reliable sources published was necessary. Technically all within policy, but this, to a degree, meant than anytime a report dropped about GG, it needed to go up onto the article to assure that non-RS could be used to counter it. This in turn would often lead to any criticism of notable individuals tied to GG to be included appropriately - again, technically within BLP policy.
- So now we're in a situation where we have one of the most hated Presidents in power, the media on edge in trying to report as much negative material about him, his ideas, and people that tend to share these ideas. Add in elements like the alt/far right, white nationality/supremancy, etc., and there is a LOT of media effort going to characters these people and groups as "bad" as far as they can do within ethical journalism. This leaves any material supportive of those groups in the minority (but which also tend to be FRINGE views). We end up documenting still under "verifyability, not truth", reflecting the media's take on the situation which frequently omits the views from the other side of the aisle. So just like at GG, we have new IPs and editors trying to insert the counter-views, which experience editors review, and bolster the media coverage by insert every mention of the topic in the news. This then extends to those that are seen favorably in the media's eyes as well. It has become this war of attrition as to document every ounce of media coverage that indirectly helps extend the media's general dislike for certain people and groups.
- Now, I do not think any experienced editor is doing this on purpose or maliciously. I think its a pattern that developed that seemed natural and the right way to fight back against disinformation, all within policy. And because this has become popular in political circles, it has spread to other areas as well. I can fully understand editing this way feels right, as well as doing as much as WP can do without actively engaging in righting great wrongs. But, in the end, it has created this pattern that does ultimately run aground against NOT#NEWS - editors are writing for the now, not for 5-10-20 years down the road. There are other ways to fight disinformation attempts that still stick to policy and without weakening our articles on controversial figures, and still staying current on factual information. But we need editors to recognize this pattern, how it came about, and how to get out of it. There is no easy immediate solution, and one that I don't think can be implemented by establishing a new policy or guideline, but just reworking how some policies and guidelines are meant to interact. --Masem (t) 15:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment, soibangla, please read and take this discussion to heart. A number of your edits including these [[27]], [[28]] are the sort of thing that is under discussion here. This [[29]] isn't something to be proud of. Springee (talk) 02:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Springee, pinging me here is inappropriate. You got a gripe with me, take to my Talk page. Then again, don't bother. soibangla (talk) 02:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Let me offer a contrarian view. Let's start with policy. WP:NOTNEWS begins by saying "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events."
- Point 1 on "Original reporting" says that editors cannot engage in original reporting. I am unaware that any active editor engages in original reporting, so that is not an issue in my opinion. For example, I attended a local political event on Sunday where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and California Governor Gavin Newsom spoke frankly about the political implications of the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. I added no text about those speeches to Wikipedia because I am not a reporter, Wikipedia is not a newspaper and I do not believe that any reporters were present. I did, however, upload a portrait photo I took of Newsom to Wikimedia Commons. I see no ongoing problem of Wikipedia editors trying to add their own original reporting, and if it does occur, it can be dealt with promptly and decisively. Point 1 closes by saying "Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information."
- Point 2 on "News reporting" wisely chides us not to include "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" because that "is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Accurately and neutrally summarizing how reliable sources characterize the political positions of notable politicians cannot possibly fall under this language. The policy language in this section explicitly does not exclude "including information on recent developments".
- Point 3 on "Who's who" basically applies to WP:BLP1E which is not relevant to biographies of clearly notable politicians.
- Point 4 on "Diary days" says we should not list all the ongoing events of a celebrity's day. I do not see a lot of content saying, "On February 30, candidate A flew to metropolitan area B where they spoke to farmers in rural community C, soccer moms in suburban town D and ethnic communities in big city E." Is that a problem? I do not think so. Any editor should revert that type of content on policy grounds if they see it.
- None of the things derided here as violations of NOTNEWS are genuine violations of that actual policy language. Instead, they are things that a few editors here do not like. The fact of the matter is that Wikipedia's Main page has a prominent section called "In the news" that always features half a dozen or so current news articles of worldwide importance. Another fact is that 99% percent of Wikipedia articles about historic events of the last 18 years started out as summaries of newspaper coverage, and evolved over time into excllellent articles through the normal editing process. Another fact is that post 1932 American politics is covered under robust discretionary sanctions that give administrators heightened unilateral powers to deal with disruption and aggressive POV pushing in this broad topic area. The great weakness of the NOTNEWS policy language is that it recommends Wikinews as an alternative. Wikinews is a moribund project rated #59,184 in website popularity. Take a look at their article about the El Paso shootings, which is amateurish crap compared to the excellent and rapidly evolving Wikipedia article. Currently #3 in their news feed is "Wikinews attends Texas Haunters Convention", an article so bad that it defies description. So, sending editors interested in recent historic developments off to Wikinews is fit only for Alice in Wonderland. It's cray-cray.
- WP:QUOTEFARM is a link to an essay that begins by saying "Quotations are a fundamental part of Wikipedia articles. Quotations—often informally called quotes—provide information directly; quoting a brief excerpt from an original source can sometimes explain things better and less controversially than trying to explain them in one's own words." Of course, quotes can be overused but editors cannot rely on the QUOTEFARM essay for advocating radical reduction of quotes because it is not a policy or a guideline, and says no such thing.
- All that stuff about Gamergate is really just an argument that we should abandon our core content policies that call for neutrally summarizing what reliable sources say, and instead let fringe, extremist figures spout their vile advocacy on Wikipedia in some misguided sense of "fairness". The day that happens is the day I resign from Wikipedia.
- Instead of radically counterproductive measures, what we really ought to do is rely on the normal editing process, and our core content policies and widely accepted guidelines. That is what has made Wikipedia (despite its flaws) the #5 website in the world. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I actual disagree: coverage of a running candidate's political positions is "routine coverage" from the news, presuming it doesn't cause any further controversy. Or at least the manner of how we get one aspect of the position from one source, another aspect from another source, etc. While it is not wrong to build up a politician's positions this way, it's not writing from the encyclopedia long-term view. We want editors to look more at summary works that better encapsulate all elements of the positions than trying to piecepart from disparate sources. NOT#NEWS discourages the latter by nature of what today is routine reporting, given how many news channels there are running 24/7 coverage, compared to when NOT#NEWS was developed. --Masem (t) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- To further add, this is nothing about trying to push fringe views, but instead getting editors to wait for better summarizing reliable sources to cover more subjective elements than trying to stay that current; this further removes the likelihood that FRINGE sourcing would be used if we are basing coverage on more retrospective articles than "written this moment" ones. This is not about the factors at work behind GG but only using the editing patterns from experienced editors in the GG case as an early example of this type of problem. This is happening, regardless if GG happened or not. --Masem (t) 14:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I actual disagree: coverage of a running candidate's political positions is "routine coverage" from the news, presuming it doesn't cause any further controversy. Or at least the manner of how we get one aspect of the position from one source, another aspect from another source, etc. While it is not wrong to build up a politician's positions this way, it's not writing from the encyclopedia long-term view. We want editors to look more at summary works that better encapsulate all elements of the positions than trying to piecepart from disparate sources. NOT#NEWS discourages the latter by nature of what today is routine reporting, given how many news channels there are running 24/7 coverage, compared to when NOT#NEWS was developed. --Masem (t) 14:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Instead of radically counterproductive measures, what we really ought to do is rely on the normal editing process, and our core content policies and widely accepted guidelines. That is what has made Wikipedia (despite its flaws) the #5 website in the world. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
A possible solution is being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tulsi Gabbard again. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
My views:
- (1) It is very rare that recent reporting gets added to articles and the reporting is shown to be wrong. When it does happen, it's usually sources of marginal reliability such as Fox News (the RS status of which some editors above defend even though it has a record of fabricated stories and even though peer-reviewed publications say it is unreliable on certain issues) and Newsweek (which maybe once was a RS but should not be one anymore). So the argument that RS get things wrong and we should therefore adopt a policy of an arbitrary waiting period is weak.
- (2) Most of the content that gets challenged on NotNews grounds is content that does in fact have long-term encyclopedic value. Opinions that something does not have long-term encyclopedic value are arbitrary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases that I've witnessed just seem to be WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. A recent example of this was a prominent senior White House official appearing on a national talk show and telling lies about the health care policies of the Trump administration - it was removed on NotNews grounds (despite extensive RS coverage) but then on a RfC there is unanimous support for its inclusion. Masem may think it's irrelevant that gubernatorial candidate X intends to kick Y thousand people off of Medicaid when he gets into office, but I personally disagree. Simply relying on RS coverage and talk page dispute resolution ensures that agreement is found on what is due weight and what violates NotNews.
- (3) It is far easier to comprehensively cover an issue in an encyclopedic way when the topic is fresh and where all the sources are easily accessible. As someone who edits both on issues that happen now and which happened 10+ years ago, it is incredibly hard to add encyclopedic text to events that occurred years ago. The way to cover an event in a comprehensive and neutral manner is to write it up with contemporaneous sources, and then tweak in the years that follow if comprehensive works appear (usually these works do not rebut contemporaneous reporting).
- (4) There's a bizarre distrust in the media in the comments above. I don't know to what extent these editors are familiar with the work of historians and social scientists (or non-cable news media for that matter), but publications in these fields are replete with contemporaneous reporting by the very same news outlets that the editors above treat as lesser sources of dubious quality. They also reflect an unwarranted disdain for journalism, a field comprised of people working under horrid job security and little pay, yet who do priceless work. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- 1, 2, and 3 I would address as the fact that when you have 24/7 news coverage, it looks like we can stuff a lot of material into current event articles, but in actually that doesn't help in the long run for these stories, and it is better to write these from a summary standpoint, after the dust has settled and we can separate better fact from opinion and speculation. For example, Watergate scandal is one of the US's biggest political gaffes, and it was heavily covered by the media, but at that time, the media was not 24/7 - you had your morning paper, your morning and evening news, radio news updates, and maybe a special run. Because of this, the coverage is much more focused on actual events rather than speculation and opinion. The focus today on what any talking head says in an article or television news is far too displaced because we don't know the context if that commentary is going to be relevant or not when the event is over. I do appreciate the argument that older events, even with Google and archive.org, can be more difficult to write for because those sources become harder to find, but we should be trying to focus on how those events were covered years after they happened, rather than at the time. And if you are really wanting to document the news in real time, that is what Wikinews is for. We can then incorporate material in a more encyclopedic fashion from the Wikinews articles once we know how best to present the situation.
- 4 is not about distrust of the news, but simply its bias. Doesn't mean they are any less reliable, but they are going to be overly focused on some things and less focused on others, where if we were talking a truely neutral format there would be more "equal time" to a degree. That lobsided focus does influence our articles because of UNDUE and "verifyability, not truth" if we are using the immediate news reports as our basis. If we wait for the dust to settle and use more summarizing sources, that lobsided-ness tends to go away or shows why it was justified. --Masem (t) 15:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think your rebuttal to 1,2,3 reflects a misunderstanding of the kind of content that's being added to political articles. No one is citing cable news segments, and I certainly do not add speculation and opinion (unless the opinions are written text authored by recognized experts) to articles. If such content is added, it usually gets removed immediately and uncontroversially. And the suggestion that we wait years for the birdseyeview historical assessment is impractical, because there are not going to be multiple high-quality peer-reviewed books on every subject, and not every peer-reviewed history book is written in a way that makes it easy to add relevant text to Wikipedia. Also, while I do add lots of peer-reviewed content and I would also prioritize a study over a contemporary news report, there are not many Wikipedia editors with easy access to gated journals and books. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- You may take care, but 90% of most arguments I see pop up at AN/ANI/AE related to AP2 is due to how current commentary from any old person is being included into an article, so there is a significant segment of editors that do not. No, we don't have to wait years, but we should wait for a few months to try to figure out what are the appropriate high points that 5-10 years down the road will be most important. I would actually argue that trying to figure out what is most important around a controversial situation as it is happened is approaching the "original journalism" aspect as it is assigning perceived importance to information before secondary sources have a chance to filter it. Now, there's a very grey line here because we also do the same on breaking disasters, and, myself in video games, writing about on the spot updates to works and the like. But I think in comparison, with these type of events, we know what is generally going to end up in these articles (For a disaster, when and where, what happened, how many died, for example) so we can recognize what is worthwhile information from past experience. But in political events, for one, that's generally impossible to know. Maybe a comment from a regular expect on the matter would be fine, but again, its generally the commentary from any random talking head that gets added. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I also completely reject that the media is biased against Trump or conservatives, if that's what's being suggested (something you mentioned earlier). If anything, I think the media unduly tiptoes around bigotry, falsehoods and conspiracy theories, and is afraid to call things as they are. As a result, by following RS, we are actually being overly careful. That's for example why I was forced to advocate that we refer to Steve King's racist rhetoric as "racially charged rhetoric", because that's how RS portrayed it one point in time (the RS changed its description of him as become more explicitly racist) rather than calling it "racist rhetoric". Also, of the peer-reviewed publications that have been published about political events in the last 5 years, they typically describe things far more bluntly than the purportedly anti-Trump media does, which suggests that media RS are being overly careful. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. Not that the media are being gov't watchdogs, they are doing that job appropriately, but they are doing it in a manner that I would say with ridicule and contempt to a point of trying to convince the public of their viewpoints. The media's job is not to try to sway the public but to inform them - unfortunately, this is the new status quo with "opinionated journalism" as adopted by sites like the AP. Now, we're not talking as bad as FOX here in terms of their advocacy, but they are advocating in addition to reporting, and we have to be wary of using the on-the-spot advocacy in en.wiki. The less we focus on trying to write from the breaking news and more from the long-term picture, the better off we are to avoid injecting media's opinions on the matters. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, I am bewildered that you continue to recommend Wikinews, which is an abysmal failure. My time is too valuable to me to spend more than five minutes every six months looking at that trash heap, if only to verify for myself again how bad it truly is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have been here for years and wasn't even aware it was a thing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Because it was established by the WMF to be for more "news reporting" than "encyclopedia". WMF hasn't turned it off so it remains a viable project. The problem is chicken-or-egg - we need more editors to use it so that it gets more attention so that more editors use it, etc. The failure of Wikinews does not mean its functions should be done by en.wiki. --Masem (t) 17:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I submit that "viable" is not defined as " WMF hasn't turned it off". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- A simple change (which will never be implemented because reasons) would at the same time invigorate Wikinews and get rid of 90%+ of the conflict on Wikipedia. A simple announcement on every page saying "Wikipedia is purposely out of date by at least 48 hours. For late-breaking news on this topic see Wikinews". Sounds radical? Are we an encyclopedia or are we a newspaper? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think it would be interesting to pilot this on one article and see how it goes. – Levivich 23:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- The entire Wikinews concept is strange. Who would read a news aggregation service by Wikipedia editors as opposed to reading a normal news outlet? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Same answer as to why readers would turn to an encyclopedia to read about current news instead of a normal news outlet. Unfortantely, I have seen it argued that too many reader put their trust in WP to be so up-to-date to surprass news outlets in terms of current-ness as a reason to not follow NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 23:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- News stories are rarely written in an encyclopedic and comprehensive way. I don't know about you but I find myself reading a news story or a study, and then checking Wikipedia for the additional context that the study or news story lacks. For example, today, I appreciated that some great editors had written the Bruce Ohr page with contemporary reporting from 2018 to clarify the reports that emerged today. A few weeks ago, I was out of luck because I wanted to learn more about William Barr's role on criminal justice reform in the 90s after reading one 2019 story on his "key" role in tough-on-crime reforms, but unfortunately no editors had added contemporary high-quality reporting from that time, so the Wikipedia article had horrible coverage of his role in criminal justice reform. I had to add such content myself, but I could only find it in peer-reviewed criminology publications (databases for academic journals are better than databases for news reporting), which resulted in some improvements but the page's coverage of his role in tough-on-crime reforms still remains incomplete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- We do not have to be up to date to provide that context that helps a reader coming from a news story to find out more. The problem usually starts when people start to double guess of what will be important in the future from a few days of current news coverage, and rush to insert the speculations, commentary, and opinion stuff. Coming back a few weeks or months after the events have died down, where there should be a better sense of what is actually important, would be key factors - or even if it is worth including to start. Today, a few weeks or months arent going to change news availability. And the lack of Barr's stuff in 90s is a factor of WP being a volunteer work. I bet that there's better coverage of newspapers and magazines of the time, but that's not going to be readily online, as you found. (I have found that the NYtimes actually has most of their back issues online, so adding "Site:nytimes.com" to a search on William Barr brings up a lot of possible sources like [30]). I do understand the argument that it would be nice to make sure we document sources "now" while they are available before they fall off the digital landscape, but realistically, that's on the order of years or decades, not weeks or months, and we can easily wait those weeks or months to have a better understanding of events to know what to use instead of trying to distill a massive amount of news in a short bit. --Masem (t) 23:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe this just speaks to me cognitive abilities, but I struggle to remember the details and nuance of political events older than one month (I am sure this is not just me). In my experience, writing about something six months down the line with six-month old reporting, as opposed to writing it with contemporary reporting as the stories are released, results in sloppier and incomplete editing that is more likely to lose nuance and violate neutrality. And in my experience, the reliable sources very rarely highlight the wrong things and overemphasize silly things of non-encyclopedic value - things that a hindsight view should expose. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- To that regard, there's two things. First, I'm often in the same boat in other topics that I can't write with an sureness if its been several months since I last read up on it. But the exercise of searching and reviewing the detail via a Google News searchs often helps to fine tune how to think about the topic in a more summary manner, since I'm not likely to read through every source that exists, and because GNews typically goes in reverse chrono order, I'll get the aftermath first and have a better idea of what's more important as I move backwards in time. Second, there is absolutely nothing wrong to drop links to articles that are believed to be relevant in the future but shouldn't be added immediately, on the article's talk page. {{refideas}} exists for this, but you may have more than that. Or a user page, or the like. So there's a way to keep "clippings" so that when you are sure things can be written with a more hindsight view, you have a body of work to remove.
- And I strongly disagree with reliable sources placing importance/highlighting the wrong things. The press went crazy on Covfefe to the point we had an article on that. Fortunately, saner heads on WP prevailed, and recognized this as part of a broader, more enduring topic of Trump's use of social media. This is all tied to the bias on the media, particularly with Trump and those associated with him, trying to find any and all weaknesses to write about. This is what happens in 24/7 news coverage, any tiny issue can be seen as big major front page story if there's no other interesting news going on. --Masem (t) 00:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe this just speaks to me cognitive abilities, but I struggle to remember the details and nuance of political events older than one month (I am sure this is not just me). In my experience, writing about something six months down the line with six-month old reporting, as opposed to writing it with contemporary reporting as the stories are released, results in sloppier and incomplete editing that is more likely to lose nuance and violate neutrality. And in my experience, the reliable sources very rarely highlight the wrong things and overemphasize silly things of non-encyclopedic value - things that a hindsight view should expose. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- We do not have to be up to date to provide that context that helps a reader coming from a news story to find out more. The problem usually starts when people start to double guess of what will be important in the future from a few days of current news coverage, and rush to insert the speculations, commentary, and opinion stuff. Coming back a few weeks or months after the events have died down, where there should be a better sense of what is actually important, would be key factors - or even if it is worth including to start. Today, a few weeks or months arent going to change news availability. And the lack of Barr's stuff in 90s is a factor of WP being a volunteer work. I bet that there's better coverage of newspapers and magazines of the time, but that's not going to be readily online, as you found. (I have found that the NYtimes actually has most of their back issues online, so adding "Site:nytimes.com" to a search on William Barr brings up a lot of possible sources like [30]). I do understand the argument that it would be nice to make sure we document sources "now" while they are available before they fall off the digital landscape, but realistically, that's on the order of years or decades, not weeks or months, and we can easily wait those weeks or months to have a better understanding of events to know what to use instead of trying to distill a massive amount of news in a short bit. --Masem (t) 23:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- News stories are rarely written in an encyclopedic and comprehensive way. I don't know about you but I find myself reading a news story or a study, and then checking Wikipedia for the additional context that the study or news story lacks. For example, today, I appreciated that some great editors had written the Bruce Ohr page with contemporary reporting from 2018 to clarify the reports that emerged today. A few weeks ago, I was out of luck because I wanted to learn more about William Barr's role on criminal justice reform in the 90s after reading one 2019 story on his "key" role in tough-on-crime reforms, but unfortunately no editors had added contemporary high-quality reporting from that time, so the Wikipedia article had horrible coverage of his role in criminal justice reform. I had to add such content myself, but I could only find it in peer-reviewed criminology publications (databases for academic journals are better than databases for news reporting), which resulted in some improvements but the page's coverage of his role in tough-on-crime reforms still remains incomplete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Same answer as to why readers would turn to an encyclopedia to read about current news instead of a normal news outlet. Unfortantely, I have seen it argued that too many reader put their trust in WP to be so up-to-date to surprass news outlets in terms of current-ness as a reason to not follow NOT#NEWS. --Masem (t) 23:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- A simple change (which will never be implemented because reasons) would at the same time invigorate Wikinews and get rid of 90%+ of the conflict on Wikipedia. A simple announcement on every page saying "Wikipedia is purposely out of date by at least 48 hours. For late-breaking news on this topic see Wikinews". Sounds radical? Are we an encyclopedia or are we a newspaper? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- I submit that "viable" is not defined as " WMF hasn't turned it off". Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- Masem, I am bewildered that you continue to recommend Wikinews, which is an abysmal failure. My time is too valuable to me to spend more than five minutes every six months looking at that trash heap, if only to verify for myself again how bad it truly is. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have to disagree. Not that the media are being gov't watchdogs, they are doing that job appropriately, but they are doing it in a manner that I would say with ridicule and contempt to a point of trying to convince the public of their viewpoints. The media's job is not to try to sway the public but to inform them - unfortunately, this is the new status quo with "opinionated journalism" as adopted by sites like the AP. Now, we're not talking as bad as FOX here in terms of their advocacy, but they are advocating in addition to reporting, and we have to be wary of using the on-the-spot advocacy in en.wiki. The less we focus on trying to write from the breaking news and more from the long-term picture, the better off we are to avoid injecting media's opinions on the matters. --Masem (t) 16:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think your rebuttal to 1,2,3 reflects a misunderstanding of the kind of content that's being added to political articles. No one is citing cable news segments, and I certainly do not add speculation and opinion (unless the opinions are written text authored by recognized experts) to articles. If such content is added, it usually gets removed immediately and uncontroversially. And the suggestion that we wait years for the birdseyeview historical assessment is impractical, because there are not going to be multiple high-quality peer-reviewed books on every subject, and not every peer-reviewed history book is written in a way that makes it easy to add relevant text to Wikipedia. Also, while I do add lots of peer-reviewed content and I would also prioritize a study over a contemporary news report, there are not many Wikipedia editors with easy access to gated journals and books. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
The real problem in this thread, Masem, is that you are pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree: I believe I'm restating the intent of points #1 and #2 under NOT#NEWS. Points that have gotten lost over the last several years. I mean, we had an RFC a couple years back that still affirmed NOT#NEWS is still a valid policy, not to be weakened nor strengthened in language, but given that we're seeing more and more conflict over trying to keep certain classes of articles (like politician) "recent" under claims that this is within the context of NOT#NEWS, tells me we may need to review that further (hence the discussion started here). --Masem (t) 17:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think Masem's analysis is spot on. Rather than "pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language" he is pushing back against us slowly and without a lot of thought falling into a habit of violating NOT#NEWS on the pages of US political candidates. Alas, certain individuals who have spent years rooting for Team Blue, rooting for Team Red, or rooting for individual players on Team Blue have taken advantage of our mistake and are inserting whatever NOT#NEWS advance their political agenda. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- As recently as today, I've encountered editors who chafed at excluding material that was WP:TOOSOON on the basis that it might take months to get the sort of secondary source coverage necessary to be due inclusion on Wikipedia. Frankly, WP:NOTNEWS is as notable in how infrequently it is observed compared to other elements of WP:NOT. When someone puts up a blog post, or an indiscriminate list of cruft, or uses a userpage as personal web space, the community shuts it down quickly. But when people try to treat Wikipedia as a newspaper, well, even AfD doesn't work at that point. So I'd strongly support anything we can do to prop up adherence to NOTNEWS. Simonm223 (talk) 12:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think Masem's analysis is spot on. Rather than "pushing a highly idiosyncratic misunderstanding of NOTNEWS, which is unsupported by the actual policy language" he is pushing back against us slowly and without a lot of thought falling into a habit of violating NOT#NEWS on the pages of US political candidates. Alas, certain individuals who have spent years rooting for Team Blue, rooting for Team Red, or rooting for individual players on Team Blue have taken advantage of our mistake and are inserting whatever NOT#NEWS advance their political agenda. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggestion
We could have a WP:CENT RFC on a proposed guideline for inclusion of material in political articles, so that all new content should meet one of the following:
- Covered in depth (more than repeating a press release) by three or more reliable broadcast or print, not web-only, sources.
- Still subject to ongoing independent print or broadcast coverage after 3 months.
- A policy that has become a focus of broadcast debates supported or opposed by multiple candidates.
I call out print and broadcast media because online publishing costs nothing. If a news organisation devotes costly resource to something, that implies a level of significance.
The blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now. Very few things get pruned when the news tornado moves on. And I would include serving politicians in this as well. Not every tweetstrom is notable. Guy (Help!) 12:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- There probably needs a bit more thought as it is not just limited - in this case political candidates, but generally any topic that has political implications. (Though politics is likely where 90% of the problems lie). Also to keep in mind, a few recent RFCs that we have to recognize exist and how conditions have changed to challenge them again or that what is being proposed is different: [31], and [32]. --Masem (t) 13:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- WP:BIASED probably ought to be invoked for all political news reporting along with WP:NOTNEWS. That would require us to consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources (such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering) and.attribute specific statements about living persons to their sources. We might find we've eliminated most wrangling over the reliability of specific sources not specifically called out in WP:PUS.--loupgarous (talk) 23:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I like this Guy's suggestions, too. – Levivich 16:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- "blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now" You're wrong, to a slight extent — it's definitely a real problem now, but it's been a real problem for years. Look at an article about a prominent US politician whose time in highest office started after the beginning of Wikipedia, e.g. Donald Trump, and compare it to an article about a prominent US politician whose time in highest office ended before the beginning of Wikipedia, e.g. Bill Clinton. You'll see that blow-by-blow recentism is not really an issue with the latter: it's heavily weighted toward reliable secondary sources, not news reports. Or look at something non-political and examine its history, e.g. the multinational nuclear company Framatome. Its earlier history depends on retrospective coverage and is written in a style quite different from content dating from 2001 or later, which is heavily reliant on news reports. Or even something totally different, e.g. History of the Indianapolis Colts. In the earlier decades, we get retrospective coverage that compares seasons with seasons and provides a good overview. In the latter decades, we get tiny insignificant details, including how many passing yards they gave up in the first half of a lower-level playoff game. The solution is to require retrospective coverage, which we in the trade call "secondary sources", rather than using coverage originating at the time of the event, which we in the trade call "primary sources". Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- What Nyttend said. Where secondary sources, especially scholarly sources, exist, we should be ruthlessly replacing in-the-moment news coverage with those. It's an approach I and others have used successfully in other contentious areas. It doesn't require policy adjustments; it requires the experienced folks in a topic to be quite strict in how they understand and apply WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- While I mostly agree with this, I don't think you've followed it through to its natural conclusion; if news sources are not secondary sources (which you seem to implicitly accept) and an article relies on news sources, it has failed GNG and should be deleted. I think there is a problem with how WP:RS and WP:NOR are generally interpreted. There seems to be no clear consensus on whether news articles are primary or secondary sources and the policy doesn't make any definitive statement on it. What WP:NOR does say is summed up by
Secondary sources are not necessarily independent sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.
That seems clear to me that news reports are not secondary sources, and one of the footnotes to that policy says,Duke University Libraries offers this definition: "A primary source is a first-hand account of an event. Primary sources may include newspaper articles, letters, diaries, interviews, laws, reports of government commissions, and many other types of documents.
But the general approach in what might be termed "current affairs" topics is that news sources are independent and reliable and therefore good enough; whether they are primary or secondary sources is rarely even considered, and almost never as a separate concept to independent vs non-independent. A stronger statement in policy that news reports are primary, not secondary, would go a long way to clearing this up. The ramifications would be large; not being able to use news sources to argue that an article meets the GNG would lead to a flood at AfD, for instance. But would that be a bad thing in the long run? GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)- News reports, like this, are generally primary sources. News analysis, like this and this, are generally secondary sources. The trouble comes with things like this: an interview with a father who is talking about the life of his son. Is it primary or secondary? I think it's actually a mix of both, and I think that's what most news articles are: a mix of reporting and analysis. I think updating policy pages to clarify these issues will be extremely helpful to editors, especially new ones. – Levivich 18:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: I take your point about the fuzziness of the terms "primary sources" and "secondary sources" as used on Wikipedia. However, I don't think it actually affects my point above, which is really about sources covering things in real-time, versus sources covering them retrospectively. We've long accepted news reports as counting towards notability, etc; but my point is that even if they're useful for determining notability, they're next to useless for determining due weight on a prominent political topic. We need retrospective sources, and preferably scholarly sources, for that. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- News reports, like this, are generally primary sources. News analysis, like this and this, are generally secondary sources. The trouble comes with things like this: an interview with a father who is talking about the life of his son. Is it primary or secondary? I think it's actually a mix of both, and I think that's what most news articles are: a mix of reporting and analysis. I think updating policy pages to clarify these issues will be extremely helpful to editors, especially new ones. – Levivich 18:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Recentism isn’t a politics-only problem; I’d actually say it’s editorially the single biggest problem Wikipedia has, manifest in a various number of ways (from band articles that just repeat “on X date Y played Z”, to “X in popular culture” laundry lists at the end of a fictional subject) to this in politics. But realistically I don’t think the comparison to Bill Clinton makes sense, in that there are long-form books, etc. that we can rely on. At this point there isn’t a lot of (good) scholarship on Trump and these recent news articles, so you have to rely on daily press. Requiring a certain number of publications to pick up on a story before inclusion seems like a reasonable stop-gap measure. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- While I mostly agree with this, I don't think you've followed it through to its natural conclusion; if news sources are not secondary sources (which you seem to implicitly accept) and an article relies on news sources, it has failed GNG and should be deleted. I think there is a problem with how WP:RS and WP:NOR are generally interpreted. There seems to be no clear consensus on whether news articles are primary or secondary sources and the policy doesn't make any definitive statement on it. What WP:NOR does say is summed up by
- What Nyttend said. Where secondary sources, especially scholarly sources, exist, we should be ruthlessly replacing in-the-moment news coverage with those. It's an approach I and others have used successfully in other contentious areas. It doesn't require policy adjustments; it requires the experienced folks in a topic to be quite strict in how they understand and apply WP:DUE. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- "blow-by-blow recentism is a real problem right now" You're wrong, to a slight extent — it's definitely a real problem now, but it's been a real problem for years. Look at an article about a prominent US politician whose time in highest office started after the beginning of Wikipedia, e.g. Donald Trump, and compare it to an article about a prominent US politician whose time in highest office ended before the beginning of Wikipedia, e.g. Bill Clinton. You'll see that blow-by-blow recentism is not really an issue with the latter: it's heavily weighted toward reliable secondary sources, not news reports. Or look at something non-political and examine its history, e.g. the multinational nuclear company Framatome. Its earlier history depends on retrospective coverage and is written in a style quite different from content dating from 2001 or later, which is heavily reliant on news reports. Or even something totally different, e.g. History of the Indianapolis Colts. In the earlier decades, we get retrospective coverage that compares seasons with seasons and provides a good overview. In the latter decades, we get tiny insignificant details, including how many passing yards they gave up in the first half of a lower-level playoff game. The solution is to require retrospective coverage, which we in the trade call "secondary sources", rather than using coverage originating at the time of the event, which we in the trade call "primary sources". Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Appeal my Deletion TBan
I would like to have my Deletion TBan appealed. In the past, I was obsessed with the deletion process and even put an AFD list on my userpage as a scoreboard to flaunt my "achievements", but that is no longer the case. Over the course of the past year, I have been editing constructively to my topics of interest (anime, voice actors and video games) and fighting off vandals by reporting them to WP:ARV. I think I am ready to have my editing restrictions removed; I humbly request that my appeal be accepted. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Some past discussions: Sk8erPrince was banned from deletion processes in December 2016 (discussion), unbanned in July 2017 (discussion), and then had the ban reimposed about 18 days later (discussion). There are a number of other AN/ANI threads since the ban was reinstated involving Sk8erPrince of some concern (March 2019 and June 2019), and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sk8erPrince exists (Sk8erPrince was indeffed from March to September 2018). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the timeline. I admit to having socked before, and it was extremely foolish of me to have done so. That mistake almost cost my final chance in regaining most of my editing privileges, so I am thankful to the unblocking admin for giving me a final chance at redeeming myself. I would like to think that during this time (from September 2018-August 2019), I have done a good job at regaining the community's trust, with very little to no issues. Nowadays, I try my absolute best to communicate with other users when content disputes arise instead of deleting their messages off of my talkpage. While there were issues in the past regarding my attitude with AFDs, I can assure that it will not continue to prove to be a problem in the event that the TBan gets successfully appealed. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
- If the TBAN is removed what do you plan to do around deletion? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I intend to nominate articles that fail our notability guidelines for deletion, and vote to keep articles that I believe are worth keeping, giving valid rationales that is in line with the AFD guidelines.
I would also place speedy delete tags on blatant spam in accordance to G1 and G3.I will not keep a scoreboard if the articles I've nommed for deletion end up getting deleted. Instead, I would place the deleted articles on my watchlist to prevent them from being recreated unless the article has been improved exponentially since. Otherwise, I would place a G4 tag. Some of my issues in the past in regards to AFD include exhibiting a battleground mentality and biting at anyone that does not agree with my rationale (which is bigotry; I now understand that is *not* welcome on Wikipedia). I will be open to different perspectives and rationales, even I happen to disagree with them. With this, I hope that the community assumes good faith that I would contribute efficiently and effectively in that area if my TBan does get lifted. Sk8erPrince (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)- I say remove the ban and give him a chance per WP:ROPE. The above sounds heartfelt, and I am reminded of how disruptive I was when I first started editing Wikipedia in 2006. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't know.... I am a bit concerned about how Prince is with IPs recently [33], [34], [35]. He was also involved recently in an argument about the removal of maintenance tags from articles with no just cause.
He also technically violated his T-ban here [36].If he is going to lose his temper with IPs, then what is stopping him from doing the same at AfD? Actions speak louder than words and I encourage the deciding admin to look at recent past behavior before making a decision. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)- I would like to clarify something. I did not violate my TBan. Let me quote it for you: Sk8erPrince is indefinitely topic banned from any edits relating to deletion process on English Wikipedia, broadly construed. User is permitted to cast a single !vote for each of the pages created individually if they are listed for deletion, with no exception otherwise. This community sanction may be appealed no earlier than six months after the date of this closure.
- I don't know.... I am a bit concerned about how Prince is with IPs recently [33], [34], [35]. He was also involved recently in an argument about the removal of maintenance tags from articles with no just cause.
- I say remove the ban and give him a chance per WP:ROPE. The above sounds heartfelt, and I am reminded of how disruptive I was when I first started editing Wikipedia in 2006. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I intend to nominate articles that fail our notability guidelines for deletion, and vote to keep articles that I believe are worth keeping, giving valid rationales that is in line with the AFD guidelines.
- Unless I'm understanding the restriction wrong, it says that I could cast only one vote for AFDs. And that's what I did. I just cast the one vote, and nothing else. But if I'm wrong, then I would like to clarify that it wasn't an intentional violation, and I will not be casting any more votes in AFDs until this discussion is finished. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- PS:
I'm not exactly "losing" my temper with IPs if they're engaging in long term disruptive editing.A good majority of the IPs I report end up getting blocked. I'd say it's more than 80% of them. The Sailor Moon one in particular even got rangeblocked. I even brought up this issue on WT:Anime to inquire for advice before I even reported them, because I wasn't really sure what to do with their constant edit warring and reverting without any edit summaries. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)- You are correct in that the wording would need clarification per the original ban in 2016 saying AfDs created by you. As for IPs just dont feed the trolls, if an IP is trolling then just don't respond. Not providing an edit summary in these situations is better and more acceptable than exploding in edit summaries. For the record I have no problem with the T-ban being lifted if lingering behavior is addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, for the sake of this discussion as well as the current TBan in place, I can totally refrain from participating in any more AFDs to avoid potential complications. I might have misunderstood the wording, after all. But yeah, you have my word on that. I can also assure you that I'm not feeding the trolls, since I mainly just hand out warnings and report them when I spot them. But you're right - your suggestion is more sound, and it speeds up the troll disposal process even faster. Anyway, I intend to participate in AFDs with an open mind - not everyone's gonna agree with my perspective, and I am not gonna expect that everyone that participates in the discussion to vote for "Delete". And if they vote for Keep, I'm not gonna lose my temper because of that. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. My failure in recognizing that simple fact in the past was why I got the Tban in the first place. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry but your edit summaries say otherwise.... you are losing your temper in your edit summaries, and are giving them what they want by doing so. I can picture in my head you using something like "When are you going to STOP slamming citation needed tags? Do you honestly think refbombing THE HELL out of this article benefits anyone? JUST STOP. PLEASE." in an edit summary or during discussion dealing with an AfD. I want you to change my mind here as this is my stance. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I will let others weigh in here, I just don't want to see you lose your temper again knowingly or not at an AfD and get banned for it. Nobody wants that as you do make good edits to the encyclopedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I acknowledge that your suggestion for dealing with trolls in the future is more sound. That was not a good edit summary. In the future, I would revert troll edits and report them right away, instead of feeding them. Also, thanks for acknowledging my contributions to the project ever since I got unblocked. I am trying my best. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I mean, for the sake of this discussion as well as the current TBan in place, I can totally refrain from participating in any more AFDs to avoid potential complications. I might have misunderstood the wording, after all. But yeah, you have my word on that. I can also assure you that I'm not feeding the trolls, since I mainly just hand out warnings and report them when I spot them. But you're right - your suggestion is more sound, and it speeds up the troll disposal process even faster. Anyway, I intend to participate in AFDs with an open mind - not everyone's gonna agree with my perspective, and I am not gonna expect that everyone that participates in the discussion to vote for "Delete". And if they vote for Keep, I'm not gonna lose my temper because of that. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. My failure in recognizing that simple fact in the past was why I got the Tban in the first place. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are correct in that the wording would need clarification per the original ban in 2016 saying AfDs created by you. As for IPs just dont feed the trolls, if an IP is trolling then just don't respond. Not providing an edit summary in these situations is better and more acceptable than exploding in edit summaries. For the record I have no problem with the T-ban being lifted if lingering behavior is addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- So the ban was implemented over a year ago, you have continued to edit constructively, and you are asking to have your TBan removed? Seems fair if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 12:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - The last discussion was over 2 years ago and alot can change in that time .... I'm willing to support as per rope however if they screw it up and go back to their previous behaviour then the tban will be re-implemented for indefinitely and longer blocks may well apply but I'm sure that won't happen. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 12:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per WP:ROPE. The only way to test future behavior after a long period of decent behavior under a Tban is to remove the ban and be wary for further problems. --loupgarous (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Please don't make me regret this decision, I really hope you have learned from your past. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - in one of your comments above, you said you would tag blatant spam for speedy deletion under the G1 or G3 criteria. Can you please review that comment and see if you can find what's wrong with it? I'm concerned that your understanding of speedy deletion criteria is going to create a headache for administrators. Also, just a general observation: there is no need to keep a scorecard of your deletion activity. If you use Twinkle (and maybe similar tools?) it can be configured to automatically populate your CSD and PROD logs, and for AfD there's a tool for that. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I can. My apologies. I just looked over the criteria for speedy deletion once again, and I realized that G11 is actually the right tag for dealing with spam, not G1 or G3. G1 is for patent nonsense, such as utter gibberish like this; while G3 is for hoaxes - articles that are written to deliberately trick the reader into believing conspiracy theories and false information. I've struck my own mistake. I checked out the AFD tool as well, and I honestly find it way better than putting up a scoreboard, since the tool automatically updates the list for me. The community has also expressed disapproval of me putting a scoreboard on my userpage, and I agree with what they said. It's pointless; the tool serves the exact same purpose, and it is even more detailed. Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Request for lifting editing/creation restriction
It would be nice if these very old restrictions could be removed. I feel they are a dead letter. (Indeed the creation was supposed to be temporary.)
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 11 August 2019 (UTC).
- For clarity, I believe we're talking about these two discussions: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive218#Rich Farmbrough's persistent disregard for community norms and (semi-)automated editing guidelines and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive666#Automated creation of incorrect categories. The restrictions are as follows (taken from Taken from WP:EDR):
Imposed October 2010, andRegardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page (excepting those changes that are built-in to stock AWB or those that have demonstrable consensus or BAG approval). This includes but is not limited to: changing templates to template redirects, changing template redirects to templates (see here for AWB stock changes on this item, with the understanding that bypassing template redirects will only be done when there is a substantive edit being done), changing the spacing around headers and ordered lists (except to make an aberration consistent with the rest of the page), and changing the capitalization of templates. Furthermore, prior to orphaning/emptying and deleting categories or templates, the appropriate processes (WP:CFD/WP:TFD) should be engaged.
Imposed January 2011. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Regardless of the editing method (i.e. manual, semi-automatic, or automatic; from any account), Rich Farmbrough is indefinitely prohibited from mass creating pages in any namespace, unless prior community approval for the specific mass creation task is documented. The definition of "mass creation" and the spirit of the restriction follows Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass article creation.
- What reason does the community have to lift those restrictions? --Izno (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- It acts as a scarlet letter, and serves no useful purpose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC).
- You say that they were "supposed to be temporary", but they are both indefinite, which means that no one thought they were temporary at the time they were imposed, except perhaps for yourself, or they would have had a time limit placed on them. You give no reason for lifting them, except, basically, that you don't like them. Considering that you have been the subject of quite a number of sanctions over the years, included a de-sysopping for cause [37], there's no particular reason that the community should lift these sanctions absent a very good reason to do so. Please provide a rationale for their removal which is pertinent. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- I did not say they were supposed to be temporary, I said the creation one was:
- It acts as a scarlet letter, and serves no useful purpose. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC).
I would expect the restriction to be temporary by virtue of soon being superseded by an amendment to Wikipedia:BOTPOL#Mass_article_creation. I would be heartily grateful if (a) we didn't waste any more time on this particular case of this problem; (b) Rich accepts the amendment; (c) someone else does the heavy lifting on moving forward the policy change. If/when it happens, the new restriction should be removed as redundant.
— RD232 [the editor who imposed the sanction]
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- One editor speculating that a sanction would be superceded is not the same as a general expectation that the creation sanction would be "temporary". As I said, if they thought it would be temporary, they would have written it that way. They did not, they made it indefinite. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
Related:
- Block log.
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive227#Rich Farmbrough violating editing restriction
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive229#Review of Rich Farmbrough's cosmetic changes restriction
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive241#Rich Farmbrough's editing restriction
- desysopping
- failed re-RfA
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive128#Rich Farmbrough
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive131#Rich Farmbrough
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive149#Rich Farmbrough
--Guy Macon (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note: "desysopping" and "failed re-RfA" added by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Desysopping was as a result of a vacated arb case. And the RFA
was not failed butwent to 'crat chat which closed as no consensus at my request. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- You aren't helping your case by misrepresenting easily-checked facts. The 'crat chat you linked to above starts with "We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range". That's the definition of a failed RfA. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 has the result "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed." You had your chance to withdraw before the RfA closed. You didn't and the RfA failed. At this point our page at Law of holes may be helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I was referring to this. And I have amended my statement above to be more accurate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC).
- I was referring to this. And I have amended my statement above to be more accurate. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC).
- Desysopping was as a result of a vacated arb case. And the RFA
- Oppose Thanks for the handy links, Guy Macon. I had already gone over the Arbcom ruling and amendments. Rich's block log was, ah, informative. I won't say never but it would take a lot of convincing for me to go along with changing Rich's current restrictions. Old they may be but I'd say earned from the evidence. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The restrictions were earned through Rich's actions and after much discussion. They serve the useful purpose of preventing the resumption of those actions. If Rich wants to explain why those actions were wrong and to assure the community that they will not resume and to agree that an immediate block would be the proper outcome should any of them occur again then I might reconsider this. MarnetteD|Talk 00:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support my interactions with Rich have led me to believe that he is here in good faith and I therefore favor giving him another chance by removing these sanctions from eight years ago. Lepricavark (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- My question to Rich would be whether he intends to do either of the following: "making cosmetic changes to wikicode that have no effect on the rendered page" or "mass creating pages in any namespace, [without] prior community approval for the specific mass creation task".
I'm mindful of a recent discussion where it was suggested that we could lift a TBAN where the editor in question wasn't intending to go do the stuff that was banned would agree that he'd abide by the TBAN even though it was removed from the rolls (WP:AN#Request to remove Topic ban). In other words, the editor was agreeing to have an off-the-books TBAN, which struck me as improper for a few reasons. My way of thinking is that if Rich has no interest in doing those things but does want the bans lifted so, for instance, there's no concern with things that might be edge cases (i.e., whether a handful of articles means "mass creation", or whether the occasional cosmetic wikicode change merits being dragged to AE/AN/ANI), there should be little problem with this request provided there's no recent (say within 6 months-2 years) issues with violating them. I would not make that exactly a binding guarantee since, as I said in that other thread, it's tantamount to an off-the-books editing restriction, which we shouldn't be doing. Rather, I'd consider Rich immediately going back and doing the same stuff that got him these restrictions, we could reasonably infer that he had lied in order to get out of this restriction, and reimposing/blocking would be appropriate. And if he does go back and start disrupting but beyond "immediately", the same restrictions can be reimposed.
Another idea would be to add a sunset provision to both restrictions. Something like: "Effective on [date of closure], this editing restriction is suspended. On [date of closure + six months], if a community discussion does not reach a consensus to renew this editing restriction on the basis of Rich's conduct over the period since [date of closure], this editing restriction will automatically lapse. This paragraph is not intended to limit the community or an uninvolved administrator's ability to impose appropriate sanctions for disruptive conduct that is incidentally covered by the suspended editing restriction." Thoughts on this? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not a fan of the off-the-books restrictions and conditions either. I prefer a clearly defined set of conditions, explicit in the details. This is the current status quo. The sunset arrangement has problems as well, particularly if there is a delay on it (closure + six months or whatever.) This puts a burden on others to check up on Rich at a later time. Overriding some Arbcom decisions makes me a little queasy. There are levels of AFG and giving people another chance that I have trouble with. This is one of those times. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mark Ironie This is not an arbcom provision, it was imposed by [[User:RD232], who left the project seven years ago, without a !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- Right, my thought with the sunset provisioning is more if people think there's reason to give Rich a shot (i.e., if he's not violated the sanctions in a long time) but don't want to risk a full lifting right now. I'm with you as there being an added burden to watch for problems, but I'm really not sure how much of a burden that would be. People subject to long-running sanctions—Rich had both community-based and Committee-imposed ones (the latter having been vacated entirely in 2016)—tend to have no shortage of folks checking up on them as a matter of course. Here's an alternative thought though: "After [date of closure + six months], Rich may open a community discussion on WP:AN to request that his status be reviewed and a determination made as to whether the restriction is still needed. If this discussion, having duly considered whether the restriction is still needed, does not reach a consensus to renew this editing restriction on the basis of Rich's conduct over the period since [date of closure], this editing restriction will automatically lapse." That way, the burden is on Rich to ask at the end of the probationary period before the restrictions will be vacated. I'm certain that the AN regulars would provide a robust discussion. Anyway just my thinking on how to approach this procedurally if it's decided to be worth trying. I'm still not decided on whether it's worth trying at all. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would have thought 9 years is probably a long enough sunset provision.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- As far as I am aware, there is no such thing in Wikipedia policy as a "sunset provision", so citing it as a reason for lifting these sanctions is an invalid argument. Perhaps there should be sunset provisions. If so, then someone should propose it at WP:VPP and get it approved by the community. Until then, sindefinite sanctions stay in place indefinitely. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mark Ironie This is not an arbcom provision, it was imposed by [[User:RD232], who left the project seven years ago, without a !vote. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- Mendaliv I do not intend to make non-rendering changes which do not have consensus. Page creation as described is now written into policy, which, of course, I do not intent to break. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- Oppose - No reasonable rationale provided for removal. As demonstrated by the links above, RF has a history of being sanctioned, and a further history of then violating those sanctions, which means he simply cannot be trusted. Lifting the sanctions still in place leaves him free to take the same kind of actions that got him restricted in the first place. I don't trust him, and do not think that the community can afford to place its trust in him, any more than it did when he applied to be an admin again, and his RfA failed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Approximately 70% of the community supported my RFA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- Which put it in the discretionary range at the time, and the 'crats -- who are, after all, part of the community -- decided against promoting you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- No they didn't. To avoid placing them in an invidious position, and to avoid an adminship tainted by being a close call I asked them to close as no consensus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- The 'crat chat you linked to above starts with "We have an RfA that is numerically shy of the 70% expected for the typical discretionary range". In other words, a failed RfA. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rich Farmbrough 2 has the result "The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed." BTW, good job getting Beyond My Ken to agree that both of you stop WP:BLUDGEONING this page and then continuing to post comments after he stopped. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- In fairness, here's the timeline: Rich agrees to stop, BMK says he has no more good faith for Rich, and then BMK says he'll stop. Not sure it was nice of BMK to take a parting shot like that, although he could have wrote it before seeing Rich's agreement to stop. Lepricavark (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it wasn't a "parting shot". I made two (maybe 3??) comments, including one about the lack of good faith, turned my attention to other stuff (no edits, but a five minute gap in activity, according to my contrib log), and then came back to re-read the thread, which is when I saw Golden Ring's remark and immediately agreed to his suggestion. So, the history may look damning, but it doesn't actually indicated a parting shot, which it was not. In fact, I distinctly remember thinking that I wish I had seen Golden Ring's suggestion before I had added the previous comments, just for the sake of appearances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's fair. Stuff often gets overlooked in these conversations. Lepricavark (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- No they didn't. To avoid placing them in an invidious position, and to avoid an adminship tainted by being a close call I asked them to close as no consensus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- Approximately 70% of the community supported my RFA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 08:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- Support in the absence of evidence that the banned conduct has been a problem in the last, I don't know, two years? Eight years on, IMO we should be giving someone the chance to show they've changed enough in that time that the restriction is no longer necessary; if eight years is not enough, I don't see any way that these could ever be lifted. I don't object to the sunset clause proposed above, but don't particularly support it, either. GoldenRing (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per WP:Bygones (this page should exist). Seriously, restrictions from 2010??? I trust Rich to be wise enough not to be disruptive today, especially not in the manner he was disruptive nine years ago. — JFG talk 10:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Eight years is long enough for these restrictions to be lifted.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- An indefinite sanction is not "infinite", but it does stay in effct until it is lifted. It does not dissipate, or fade away over time, it is just as much in effect at this moment as it was the second after it was imposed. These "support" votes seem to be saying that the evidence the sanctions should be lifted is the fact that the sanctions have done their job well, so we no longer need them. Someone attempting to get a restraining order lifted on the basis that they had stayed away from the person for the 8 years the order was in place would be laughed out of court - the fact that the restrainimg order worked is the evidence for the restraining order continuing to be necessary. Add to that that other people are providing rationales for the sanctions to be lifted, while RF has made no argument of substance at all, and you have more than enough reason to reject this frivilous and unnecessary request. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have seen this Procrustean argument before. "It worked, so it was necessary. Had it not worked, a stronger sanction would have been necessary." By this logic indefinite is infinite.
- Moreover there are side effects, people oppose granting of bits based on things like this.
- I don't think that calling my request "frivolous and unnecessary" is WP:AGF - but then little you have said here is.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC).
- You are correct. Your behavior ran out every possible bit of AGF I had regarding you years ago. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose lifting the cosmetic restriction, as it was being broken as recently as Jan 2019. Primefac (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Could Rich Farmbrough and Beyond My Ken stop trying to bludgeon this request to death and let the community review it please? GoldenRing (talk) 15:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm game.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC). - Sure, I'll refrain from further comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm game.
- Support I don’t see any need for these to remain in effect. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mr Ernie, I respect your opinion/!vote, but have a question - regardless of whether it's a "good" restriction (i.e. let's put aside whether it's appropriate for the ban to be in place), do you think someone under a restriction should be violating it before they have it lifted? Primefac (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- support per WP:ROPE and the spirit of WP:UBCHEAP. The violation Primefac brings up is noted, but Rich's explanation was actually quite reasonable even if it violated the letter of the restriction. It's been nearly a decade; I think it's worth seeing how things go without the restrictions. Wug·a·po·des 22:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose: I wasn't going to take a stand on this, limiting myself to providing some related links, but since then I have taken a deep dive into the edits in question. Too many errors of the type caused by poorly-written automated tools combined with a failure to preview the edits and fix obvious screwups by the automation. Things like nuking a ]] without removing the matching [[. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just for clarity, this restriction does not apply to the type of edit you describe, only to edits which make no rendered difference. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC).
- Oppose as these restrictions really apply to all users. But most do not step over the line. Any mass action should have consensus. Our appealer here has not indicated that compliance will be observed, just that it is not nice to have restrictions. Mass editing requires mass checking and mass errors need mass fixing so much more care is required. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I see no evidence of a benefit to the community. Automated mass edits are difficult to safeguard on a good day, and user has not demonstrated a need to make them or the ability to make them safely. ROPE is not a good reason-- the user should convince the community the sanction is no longer needed before removing the sanction.-- Dlohcierekim 00:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't disagree, necessarily, but I guess my question is how Rich would show he can make these edits if he cannot make them? That's really the point of my rationale. If this is as recurring a time sink as Guy below says, perhaps the efficient route is to give Rich one last chance to prove us wrong, and if not we can resolve this quickly at that time. I'm fine maintaining the restrictions, I just think that, at this point, perhaps an ultimatum will save further drama in the future. Wug·a·po·des 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Graeme Bartlett. If these restrictions really apply to all users, what's the point of marking Rich with the aforementioned scarlet letter? By this token, you might ban someone from worse things, like "no replacing pages with obscenities" or "no disruptive sockpuppetry". If policy prohibits something, applying special restrictions to a certain person basically just gives enemies "gotcha" opportunities, which it definitely seems to me has been the situation with Rich. Just look for interaction between him and Fram, including five of the six "Related" links given by Guy Macon at 22:45, 11 August 2019. Nyttend (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- PS, for years I've noticed that Fram was frequently (maybe almost always) the one filing complaints about Rich. It's one thing if you edit in an esoteric area and one other person is basically the only one who has the chance to notice, but when you edit in a very public manner and one person is making most of the AN/ANI/AE/etc. complaints about you, to me it looks very much like you're being targeted, because if you really were the massive problem that's alleged, lots of people would have made such complaints. We shouldn't treat one person's persistent complaining as if it were truly representative of what most editors think. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just as a minor note, I might not have been raising anything at ANI or AE, but I've noticed a lot of these issues over the years (as can be seen in Rich's talk page archives) - this is primarily because I'm an AWB/bot user and Rich edits in the same areas that I do. Just because no one has put something on a noticeboard doesn't necessarily mean they don't notice; I just preferred to discuss the issues with them on their talk first. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that whether the complaints lead to sanctions is a key point. If editor A keeps reporting editor B and pretty much every time editor B gets a warning or a block, that's one thing. If there is a long string of the result being no violation, content dispute/not an ANI issue and/or boomerang, that's another thing entirely. Either situation is a problem -- somebody isn't responding to feedback. If I kept being reported and warned, I would figure out what I was doing wrong and stop. If I kept reporting someone and my reports didn't result in any action, I would give up and stop reporting that user. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- PS, for years I've noticed that Fram was frequently (maybe almost always) the one filing complaints about Rich. It's one thing if you edit in an esoteric area and one other person is basically the only one who has the chance to notice, but when you edit in a very public manner and one person is making most of the AN/ANI/AE/etc. complaints about you, to me it looks very much like you're being targeted, because if you really were the massive problem that's alleged, lots of people would have made such complaints. We shouldn't treat one person's persistent complaining as if it were truly representative of what most editors think. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Very much like in the other case on this board, people with this sort of block log would need to give a very good reason for why we should explicitly allow them to do things that all users should not do in any event, and I'm not seeing it. Sandstein 18:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I am not asking for that, I am asking for special restrictions to be withdrawn. These have a tendency to be hair-trigger, as you know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
- I am not asking for that, I am asking for special restrictions to be withdrawn. These have a tendency to be hair-trigger, as you know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC).
- Oppose I'd like to see a taking of responsibility for the original bad acts before restrictions are withdrawn. Not breast-beating, but a meaningful discussion of what the editor did wrong, and a statement of how the editor proposes to avoid the behavior which caused the block in the future. Not "It acts as a scarlet letter, and serves no useful purpose". I note the number of years that have elapsed since the restriction was imposed. All the more reason for an indication the editor understands the reason for the restriction and isn't just saying "Yeah, yeah, let's get on with it" before getting the keys to the road grader again.--loupgarous (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Proposed additional restriction (withdrawn)
|
Proposed: If the above appeal fails, Rich Farmbrough is not allowed to appeal or otherwise ask again that his restrictions be lifted until January 1st of 2020. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Edited 23:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
|
SlimVirgin's use of full protection at Moors murders
SlimVirgin has full protected the article to prevent improvements and demanded that any discussion take place according to Featured Article rules. Individual wikiprojects do not dictate content, how articles are edited, or what improvements can be made. Apart from locking the article in their preferred version, SlimVirgin demanding that discussion take place elsewhere is an egregious abuse of admin power over article content. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I see no evidence that this is SlimVirgin's preferred version; they don't seem to have edited that article in that article's past 1000 edits. Can you please clarify as to why specifically you think this is SlimVirgin's preferred version? --Yamla (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- She last edited the article in 2010, before protecting today. I'm struggling to see her "preferred version". I'm also struggling to see where FA is defined as a "wikiproject", any more the GA, B-Class, C-class are... - SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- (EC)See the discussion. "I've protected the page for 24 hours. I can lift or extend that according to whatever the editors who are working on it at FAR prefer." That is stating a preference for one group of editors contributions over another in order to control content on an article. I described FA as a wikiproject as its a kinder description than others have used. 'Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria' doesnt roll off the tongue as easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- 1. It doesn't state a preference for one group over another, just one process over another: anyone can partake at FAR, even all those who have been on the article's talk page. 2. "
Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria
"? thanks for the incivility, and/or your personal take on the FA process. We have a grading system and FA is part of it. If you don't like it, open an RfC to overturn it and see how far it gets you, but please don't insult the many, many editors who put so much effort into writing articles. - SchroCat (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)- @SchroCat: in fairness here, at Wikipedia:WikiProject
Editors there develop criteria, maintain various collaborative processes and keep track of work that needs to be done.
I'm also pretty sure, with a few exceptions, anyone can participate in any WikiProject. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @SchroCat: in fairness here, at Wikipedia:WikiProject
- 1. It doesn't state a preference for one group over another, just one process over another: anyone can partake at FAR, even all those who have been on the article's talk page. 2. "
- @SchroCat and Yamla: They expressed an opinion that a certain version was better without the tags [38] "
Tag bombing (subject heading) This needs to stop because it's making the page unreadable
". They then protected at the version [39] about 30 minutes later. Someone doesn't need to edit an article to have a preferred version. It may not have been their intention to protect their preferred version, but they did so, and therefore as I said below, at a minimum this creates a perception they are abusing their tools to protect their preferred version. The way this can be avoided is by not using your tools when you are involved. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- (EC)See the discussion. "I've protected the page for 24 hours. I can lift or extend that according to whatever the editors who are working on it at FAR prefer." That is stating a preference for one group of editors contributions over another in order to control content on an article. I described FA as a wikiproject as its a kinder description than others have used. 'Self-selected group of editors working to their own criteria' doesnt roll off the tongue as easily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Only in death, I decided to remove the tags & the red error messages because I strongly believe our readers deserve better and randomly chose the previously protected version [40] to revert to, [41]. I don't have a dog in the fight, haven't even been following and haven't a clue whose is the "preferred version". EEng reverted, [42], and I reverted a second time, [43] and honestly would have kept going even if I got my first block. It's no way to treat an article, regardless of what anyone thinks of the content or the editors. SlimVirgin protected, which was probably wise. Just thought I'd set the record straight. If you have an issue with my actions, fine, I'll take the hit. Victoria (tk) 20:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I, for one, don't think there is anything wrong with SlimVirgin's actions here. The article was clearly undergoing a slow motion edit war for which protection was an appropriate response. She may well have protected it in the wrong version but that's normal for this sort of action. I am not impressed by the head-in-the-sand reaction of some of the other editors of that article over claims that the article has sourcing errors, but I don't see SV's protection as taking sides in that debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- First, FA is not a Wikiproject, and anyone is welcome to edit FAs, including FAs at FAR, bearing WP:STEWARDSHIP in mind, which is policy: "Editors are asked to take particular care when editing a Featured article; it is considerate to discuss significant changes of text or images on the talk page first." I said I would lift protection early, or extend it, if the people working on the article wanted it. It's not unusual for me to say that when I add full protection. I protected for 24 hours because EEng had reverted three times to his extensive use of {{failed verification span}}, which was making the article hard to read; see this section for example. I suggested that, if he wanted to make heavy use of that template, he should post the article to a sandbox and do it there, which would be just as useful for editors. The FAR is now open at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1. Input there would be helpful. SarahSV (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Good protection. The behaviour of established, respected editors at the talk page of that article is shocking. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, I disagreed with SlimVirgin's actions, and told her as much, but I don't see them as being outside admin discretion, nor do I see evidence that she is abusing her authority. This discussion is only increasing the heat-to-light ratio; I'm getting sick of saying this, but really the only reasonable way ought of this mess involves us focusing on the specifics of the content. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I fully support the good call to protect the article. The talk page discussion says it all, and also the fact that this was brought to this noticeboard also proves how infected this situation is. If anything the protection is too short and the edit disputes will continue for sure as soon as the protection is gone. BabbaQ (talk) 22:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse protection; I've also just extended that protection by another week out of an abundance of caution. Please let me know if a resolution is reached before then. El_C 22:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think either side of this dispute is completely in the right here, but given that there is clearly edit-warring going on here, +1 good protection. I also suggest that Only in death not go accusing people of abusing tools to force "their" version of the article without evidence, it smacks of casting aspersions. creffett (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse protection and support El C extension as well.--MONGO (talk) 03:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Can we also acknowledge the quite bad timing of the FA status review nom of Moors murders. In the middle of a huge edit dispute.BabbaQ (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ, huh? That's precisely the time an article should be taken to FAR;
it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day
is explicitly necessary for an article to remain FA. ‑ Iridescent 06:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I see the FAR as an opportunity to depersonalize this mess and refocus on the actual article content. This sort of thing is what FAR is for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @BabbaQ, huh? That's precisely the time an article should be taken to FAR;
- IMO it was right for the article to be protected. It was wrong for SlimSV to do so, because they had already expressed an opinion on their preferred version and protected it at that version and there was no emergency requiring an involved admin to act. While everyone admin would have protected it at the WP:WRONGVERSION and of course it's quite common for someone to request protection just after they've reverted to their preferred version, an admin protecting at their preferred version at a minimum causes unnecessary ill feeling and perceptions that admins are entitled to use their tools to further their views in a dispute. Note that because the article should be protected, and because this is only a single instance there's actually nothing we can do here which is unfortunate. We're now at a situation where people are going to reasonably feel aggrieved and there's nothing we can do about it. This is precisely why involved admins should not act in an administrative capacity except in exceptional circumstances. If SlimSV had just waited for an uninvolved admin to act, e.g. El C or anyone at WP:RFPP perhaps people wouldn't be entirely happy, but I think most experienced editors will feel it's fair enough and the way things go. Nil Einne (talk) 07:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, in case people think this is something to do with me being unhappy because my preferred version wasn't protected, I only looked at the article after I wrote all above precisely because it didn't matter. Now that I've looked, I am of the opinion that the extensive tagging was not the best way to handle the concerns and it was better to revert and deal with them in some other way. There may have been a decent chance we could reach consensus on removing them on the article talk page. Or alternatively an uninvolved admin may have returned to the version when protection expired or protected at the wrong version by chance. Yet even if this didn't happen and we were stuck with the the tagged version for a while, this would not be a big deal and a far better scenario than an involved admin protecting at their preferred version. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- This only serves to air a grievance that was I thought others judged to be spurious, how was SV somehow "involved" in their unobjectionable administrative action? [ec] At least there is a clear admission that you thought it was the "wrong version", which provides some context to assuming a COI in others. There is an FAR for improving the article, if there is a problem with the version. ~ cygnis insignis 08:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Cygnis insignis: I don't know how explain more clearly whatever I've already said 2 times now. When someone expresses an opinion that they prefer a version of an article and fully protects it, their are involved, and their actions are objectionable. Also when I said "wrong version" I assumed it was clear I meant WP:WRONGVERSION especially since I already linked to it in the first reply. Every single version is the wrong version, that's the whole point. That's such a basic concept in administrative discussions, that frankly even if I hadn't linked it once I would have assumed it understood.
I admit I should have said "the right wrong version by chance", but reading it feel my point is still somewhat clear. I do think it was preferable to return to the version without the extensive tagging which yes, despite my preference is clearly by definition the wrong version, as is the version with tags since they are all the wrong version. As I see it, there are at least 3 ways we could have gotten there which would have been acceptable. By chance an uninvolved admin (rather than an admin who'd already said they preferred the version without tagging) protecting it at that version. By consensus i.e. at a community level. Or by an admin making an decision to return to the version of last protection without deciding which version seemed better.
What is not acceptable is for an involved admin, who had clearly expressed an opinion on which version was subjectively better to be the one protecting. And especially not if they were going to protect at the version they preferred. Even if they just protected without considering which version it was, this is impossible to prove and so still gives editors the impression that perhaps they are using their tools to advance their preference. I would add they continued to express the opinion that the version without tags was better, in case there was any suggestion their view was only that more tagging was inappropriate but they had no clear preference on the already added tags.
Rereading Cygnis insignis's reply maybe I should say this as well. In case there's still confusion I re-iterate again that the version SarahSV protected was my preferred version. The reason I'm arguing against what they did is not because I'm unhappy with the outcome. I already said there are several ways we may have gotten there but if we didn't it would still be preferable if we got there the correct way. This is one of the cases where there was no urgency and so process matters since it harms the community and causes unnecessary ill-feeling and unhappiness when it isn't followed. And so SarahSV should not have protected any version let alone their preferred version. The fact it's also my preferred version is in my mind at least further evidence this isn't a case of "sour grapes because you didn't protect my wrong version" but rather "IMO we shouldn't do this, it causes harm for no benefit since it's not super urgent so we could just wait for someone who doesn't clearly prefer one version to protect". Also I should mention I do not know and frankly never cared in either this reply or my earlier replies about whether there was any other difference between the contested versions other than the tags since that was beside my point.
- This only serves to air a grievance that was I thought others judged to be spurious, how was SV somehow "involved" in their unobjectionable administrative action? [ec] At least there is a clear admission that you thought it was the "wrong version", which provides some context to assuming a COI in others. There is an FAR for improving the article, if there is a problem with the version. ~ cygnis insignis 08:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- BTW, in case people think this is something to do with me being unhappy because my preferred version wasn't protected, I only looked at the article after I wrote all above precisely because it didn't matter. Now that I've looked, I am of the opinion that the extensive tagging was not the best way to handle the concerns and it was better to revert and deal with them in some other way. There may have been a decent chance we could reach consensus on removing them on the article talk page. Or alternatively an uninvolved admin may have returned to the version when protection expired or protected at the wrong version by chance. Yet even if this didn't happen and we were stuck with the the tagged version for a while, this would not be a big deal and a far better scenario than an involved admin protecting at their preferred version. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Unblock appeal by Darkfrog24
- Note: The below appeal has been posted on behalf of User:Darkfrog24 for review by the community. For the purposes of this appeal, Darkfrog24 will have their user talk page access restored for use for the sole purpose of the appeal.
I am writing to appeal an indefinite block from June 7, 2018. It started as an AE/DS block, but the enforcing admin then left Wikipedia. No one else had the authority to lift or change it until its one year of AE/DS-ness expired.
I think the immediate cause was this post: [44]. It looked to me like admin Spartaz asked me a question just then, but it was actually posted a few hours earlier before the appeal closed.[45]
I replied on my talk page. I now recognize that I was not permitted to answer him. I also understand that I am not permitted to refer even indirectly to anyone with whom I am under an IBAN. I did not intend the word "someone" to mean anyone specific, but I guess the admin didn't know that. I will report any escalation through formal channels. In the future I will avoid making any similar posts on Wikipedia.
I plan to focus on the same main areas as last time I was unblocked: updating articles using material written for Wikinews, helping at RSN and 3O, and so on.
These were constructive, uncontested, noncontroversial edits. As you can see from my edit history before the appeal, I was an asset to Wikipedia during this period, with no complaints, accusations, or fights. I also never interacted with the editor with whom I am now under an IBAN – a voluntary decision on my part.
I am a lead reporter in Wikinews, having drafted over a hundred now-published articles. This often leads me to new material not yet in Wikipedia. If my edit count seems low it's because I often add large amounts of text to mainspace with a single edit e.g. [46] and I was splitting my time across many parts of Project Wiki. Notable activity:
- Imported material to mainspace from 61 articles I originally wrote for the Spanish Wikipedia. [47] See my contributions [48] under "(translated from Spanish Wikipedia)".
- Updated several Wikipedia articles with new content from Wikinews. [49]
- One of the facts I added from Wikinews[50] made "Did you know?" [51]
- Over 100 contributions to RSN. [52]
- One RfC. [53]
- Three 3O cases. [54]
- Two ARCA cases, for one of which I was awarded a diplomacy barnstar. [55] in recognition of [56]
For future appeals of the 2016 topic ban, it is my understanding that the admins recognize that I reject the original accusations but as of June 2018 do not merely advise but require me not to present evidence about this. Instead I am required to focus on present and future positive contributions.
Please inform me if there's something I haven't understood, or if you want me to add or change anything. If you decide not to lift the block, I hope you will consider restoring talk page access. I will respond to any other issues the admins think necessary upon request. Because I am not permitted to reply here, please place questions and comments on my talk page. Thank you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Darkfrog24 responses
Copied across from usertalk page at Darkfrog24's request -- Euryalus (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Seraphimblade, I thought I'd made this clear in the appeal itself, but I guess I didn't:
I will continue to stay well away from the Manual of Style and not discuss style issues on Wikipedia for as long as the topic ban is in force.
I see others among you saying that their biggest concern with my user access being restored is that I would immediately return to what they call relitigating the original accusations against me. As GoldenRing points out, I've been clearly ordered not to. I will not discuss the matter on Wikipedia outside legitimate and necessary dispute resolution such as we are engaging in right now.
My plan for the topic ban appeal, a year from now, to prevent relitigation, is to list my plans for future contributions but add a line at the end, "If any admin here wishes me to address the original accusations, I am prepared to do so." I don't expect anyone will take me up on it, and if so, that's the end of it.
Is that acceptable?
In my time since the original sanction was imposed, I have also taken several steps to explore conflict resolution and deescalation, with noted success at 3O and noticeboards, as you can see from my edit history during the previous six months when I was unblocked.
Steven Crossin: If unblocked I will stay far from the topic area of MoS until the T-ban is lifted through normal procedures.
I have edited Wikipedia in a conflict free way in all the topic areas mentioned in the appeal (mainly RSN, and adding material from Wikinews and the Spanish Wiki). I have shown I am an asset to the encyclopedia, as you can tell from the six-month history before the last appeal.
These topics are also far from MoS with no gray-area issues. An AE admin made it clear that I am permitted to do style edits (wikignoming) of Wikipedia articles generally, so long as I don't discuss the edits, and in practice that caused no problems.
Seraphimblade, do you feel I have addressed your concerns?
If there is something else I haven't addressed here please ask and I will respond. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Community comments
Where is the link to the actual AE/DS block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- Basically, reading backwards through Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log, Darkfrog warned of discrentionary sanctions in 2015, topic banned in January 2016, topic ban expanded in February 2016, indefinitely banned later the same month, after discussion here. Related arbcom motion here. Appealed again in 2018 declined. Indeffed (again) here (oversight only diff). There is some weird shit in there, and arbcom might know more. There are also a half dozen declined UTRS appeals, btw. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. This appeal is missing the crucial point: Darkfrog24 must indicate that they understand exactly what the topic ban imposed upon them means, and will stay far away from it. The entire previous disruption was the endless requests for "clarification" regarding it. No more "clarification", stay far, far away from that area, doing nothing that could even be remotely construed as touching on it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with and share Seraphimblade's concern. I am glad that the user found usefulness elsewhere, but until they recognize that their behavior was wrong, we would be reinforcing these same impulses - which would recur. I suspect the user is playing along, checking the boxes she needs to get unblocked, and will likely try to avoid trouble. But not for long. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I think they’re a good guy, but based on my interactions with them, they are the type who will never get the point and honestly in good faith will think whatever disruptive behaviour they’re engaging in is helpful. While that doesn’t make them a bad person, it does make them a bad fit for the English Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Strictly speaking, for a petition for relief of sanctions (this really isn’t an “appeal” in the proper sense, which challenges the correctness or propriety of the original action), I don’t usually think it’s necessary to admit wrongdoing, though it can be persuasive. After all, there may be cases where there is a legitimate difference of opinion with the blocking admin. I’m not saying that’s the case here—actually it’s hard to tell what the whole story is from Darkfrog’s explanation, which I actually do find problematic. As such I’m in much the same boat as Someguy1221; there’s some weird stuff here that I don’t really understand. Moreover, seeing as there are suppressed diffs connected to blocks (per Someguy1221), I think we may want an oversight person to give an opinion on whether this request adequately addresses the block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- The suppressed diff is just a block notice. Doesn't appear related to the reason suppression at first glance, but I haven't looked closely. To clarify my stance above, yeah, it's similar to yours: he's rambly and doesn't really ever get to a point. I revoked his email access because he was sending multiple followup emails to a reviewing admin from UTRS via the email user function and they appeared to find it very frustrating. I'd put him fairly firmly in "Well meaning but bad fit for the project who doesn't get why." TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- The "weird stuff" was added to the page before the block notice, and removed afterwards. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, I was looking just at the diff you linked the block notice in. I think I remember there being a discussion on the list about this at one point. Anyway, having looked more closely at the suppressed material, I think it falls in line with my general impression here that this is someone who may have issues that are not best addressed through noticeboard discussions and that this may cause concerns in the future. I'm not really sure how else to put that, but yeah, I think it's likely to cause issues in the future... TonyBallioni (talk) 02:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- The "weird stuff" was added to the page before the block notice, and removed afterwards. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- The suppressed diff is just a block notice. Doesn't appear related to the reason suppression at first glance, but I haven't looked closely. To clarify my stance above, yeah, it's similar to yours: he's rambly and doesn't really ever get to a point. I revoked his email access because he was sending multiple followup emails to a reviewing admin from UTRS via the email user function and they appeared to find it very frustrating. I'd put him fairly firmly in "Well meaning but bad fit for the project who doesn't get why." TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - No convincing rationale provided. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per TonyBallioni who analyzes the situation persuasively and provides the right amount of additional information. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional support - appreciate above that there are quite a few issues. I don't necessarily agree that someone blocked should stay blocked forever. I think the standard offer should apply here, with a clear understanding that a) They must stay away from absolutely everything to do with the Manual of Style, in any description, and drop the subject about their topic ban. It's not exactly necessary to admit fault here, just a commitment to avoid the behaviour in future. Violations can be dealt with swiftly with blocks/reimposition of indef, but I think given their proposed work on Wikipedia I'd be open to them at least having a conditional unblock, perhaps with namespace restrictions if really seen as necessary. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 05:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. The main problem that led to this block was the interminable relitigation of the topic ban (trying to appeal to AE after being rejected at ARCA twice and various other venues). It seems from this request that Darkfrog24 acknowledges that further relitigation is not acceptable. The conditions of the topic ban (according to AELOG) are that it may not be appealed until twelve months after an unblock, and their IBAN may not be appealed until the TBAN is successfully appealed. I'm happy to see an unblock under those conditions; any TBAN violation or attempt to relitigate the ban should be met with an immediate re-block. GoldenRing (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Tony but also the idea that "if someone violates again, they'll be swiftly reblocked" is patently untrue around here, it's often harder to re-ban and undo the damage that's been done in situations like this. Praxidicae (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: In general you might have a point (though actually I see this said a lot but don't really see it happen), however this topic ban is under ARBATC and any admin can unilaterally block for violations. GoldenRing (talk) 13:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Other communications and behavior from the user in question lead me to believe that he is incapable of working collaboratively and actually listening. I'll leave it at that. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm unconvinced that will not re-enter the relitigation of the original topic ban, furthermore, based on their behaviour on IRC, where they repeatedly appealed their block (to the extent they were banned from the unblock channel) I have no confidence that they will not engage in obsessive litigious behaviour concerning disputed edits to content. I believe their editing behaviour, whilst absolutely good faith and well intentioned, is likely to result in significant disruption and excessive use of administrator time to manage. Nick (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've watched this case for a long time. While I do agree that Darkfrog's reaction to the original topic ban was less than ideal, I believe they understand that it will not be accepted. That said, all the subsequent issues stem from what was a blatant guideline-violating load of near-libelous BS that should have resulted in a WP:BOOMERANG block and almost amounted to harassment. Even the current block was an overreaction to Darkfrog asking for help to prevent further interaction with the slinger of false accusations. The fact is, Darkfrog was severely wronged, and their reaction since then is not only understandable, it's outright justified. The continued punishment (and at this point that's all it is, as it prevents nothing) of the wrong person is outright ridiculous. oknazevad (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Tony, "I don't get it" springs to mind when reading their unblock request, Also getting yourself blocked from the IRC unblock channel is worth a block alone. –Davey2010Talk 01:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support I second the comments by oknazevad, User:Steven Crossin, and GoldenRing, on these two principles: 1) him apparently having learned his lesson about his original mistakes including spilling gasoline on the campfire and 2) excessive sanctions. Admins should seriously research the background of GoldenRing's comments because they indicate a lot of wrongful conviction and harassment, aside from whatever actual transgression. I met Darkfrog24 a few weeks ago in #wikipedia-en on IRC, where he spends all his time building people up, and showing the utmost respect for the project. Never a bad word about anyone or anything, just a joy to be around all day. He's given editors careful, detailed, general advice when they ask. When the topic of blocking has come up, maybe if someone else jokes about getting blocked, Darkfrog24 was speaking of the remorseful regretful longsuffering for his block status. He has advocated to people not to get blocked, and explained the ways to generally avoid it. Generally speaking, based on that first impression, if I saw someone with that kind of personal attitude, that kind of a heart for the public works, that kind of eagerness to contribute ASAP, that kind of hurting for being unable to contribute, and with those academic credentials seen on his User page, I'd be seriously wanting that person as a contributor to public works. And then seeing his outstanding quality of writing on at least one article, I'd be wanting to drag that person in to Wikipedia. Being blocked for a year, and being unable to even appeal it for a year at a time, is like a sockpuppet parole or like a murder or burglary parole in real life. Speaking of which, I know people are saying that he was severely annoying in the past and climbing the walls about his block, but I believe his lack of sockpuppetry and his suffering over it shows a commitment to justice. He didn't ask for my comment but I looked this AN up and I just can't do nothing. Please find a justly sized parole sanction, and review his interim contributions. Thank you! — Smuckola(talk) 03:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I decided to review this with "would I support if he'd never mentioned his old cases in his appeals or now?", and with Steve as a mentor below, I think it's reasonable. It can certainly be irritating if someone wants to relitigate issues constantly, but they've been prohibited from that. I still feel that requiring people to concede every accusation before allowing them back in is unfair and just tests editors' lying skills. There are differences here from what we have seen before. Any attempt to relitigate should (re)trigger the indef, but factoring in the IBAN, TBAN and mentoring I think rope is legitimate. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- OpposeRight off the bat, Darkfrog24 has been incredibly persistent in their requests for unblock. In most cases, this persistence would simply be annoying, but in this case shows that Darkfrog24 has not understood the reason for their blocks. I believe that they are contributing in good faith but can not learn to drop the stick. The mentorship proposal is not encouraging to me either. Unblocks with mentoring only really work when the mentor is ready and willing to impose sanctions and when the mentee has already made strides toward resolving the issue that lead to the block. I don't see either of that in this case. Darkfrog24, I encourage you to continue working on other projects. Show that you know when it is appropriate to be persistent and when it is appropriate to back away from the horse carcass. Come back in no less than 6 months and make exactly one unblock request. Do not discuss it off-wiki except for a single request to restore talkpage access if necessary. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- AntiCompositeNumber (talk · contribs), I've made some suggestions below on namespace restrictions if they're unblocked under a mentorship agreement. While I don't have access to the block button, I won't be one to give them much rope, and any problems that occur, I'll be the first one to bring them right back here. Past editors that I've mentored can attest to my firmness, let's just say that. I definitely appreciate that it seems more value than it's worth to unblock, even on a very short leash, but if they are put on a short leash with the understanding a violation will lead to a swift re-block, I think they maybe should be given a chance. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 12:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Tony, mainly, but if he is unblocked then there must be an incredibly short leash - mentorship or no - with an immediate reblock if the mere thought of another "clarification" even begins to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing his mind. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I would offer the suggestion that if someone wants to take responsibility for Darkfrog's editing behavior here, I'd go along with it. However, the sole caveat is that whoever decides to take that responsibility gets precisely the same block as Darkfrog when/if she goes off the rails and tries to reframe the rules again. Now the question becomes - whoever chooses to back Darkfrog -v are they confident enough in Darkfrog's restraint to put their own editing freedom at risk? If not, you shouldn't support turning her loose in the wiki. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Would not be willing to accept such a suggestion. Offering to guide a user to ensure they keep their nose clean is one thing, being subject to sanctions if the user fails is another. For the record, I also think that if such a rule was ever imposed on a mentor, it would make them excessively punitive and harsh as their own neck is on the line, which I think would be counter productive. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Perennially disruptive editor with a ridiculous number of unblock requests. Softlavender (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I'm not an admin, but this seems to be a competent, good faith editor. Benjamin (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support: My support here is also reflected in comments of support in the Mentorship suggestion section below. I realize that unless that section is revisited by editors that commented with "no support here" (maybe by being asked?) this will likely be a token but I went into this very negative. Another "VERY" negative editor, User:TonyBallioni, with whom most comments I totally agree with stated, "do the potential benefits of unblock outweigh the known risks of disruption."[?], and I think they may. A supposed fact brought up by User:Softlavender might be reasonable but I don't feel in this case the Darkfrog is gaming the system and seems to have a genuine desire to contribute without future conflicts. For that reason I can overlook his hounding for another chance. Considering the proposed mentor will agree to a very [very] short leash and considering a big "fan" (User:Smuckola) of the subject has given support and I feel may even "keep and extra set of eyes on things", as well as would likely be sorely disappointed in being let down should Darkfrog fail to comply. I am sure some others invested here like User:SmokeyJoe, and I am really sure User:AntiCompositeNumber would be looking.
- @Mkdw: (for the Arbitration committee) seems to have made it clear in point #3 (directed to Darkfrog24) "You will have the option to accept the community's decision/conditions for an unblock should it be offered, or you shall remain blocked under the previous block settings.". I would think a primary "condition" would be an agreement of a block reinstatement should one of the admins here deem it appropriate and needed. I do not know of one here, even among those in opposition, that would not examine a complaint with fair scrutiny (there could be frivolous attacks or complaints from some future "opponent") or an immediate block reinstatement should the mentor decide it appropriate or other clear evidence is shown. Please See: User:JzG's oppose comments and "condition" "an immediate reblock if the mere thought of another "clarification" even begins to speculate about the merest possibility of crossing his mind.". This "condition" would be to follow policies and guidelines and not try to change, interpret, or seek "clarification". If in doubt, leave it out, or alone.
- This might be an allowed experiment (strict conditions) that would actually involve a mentor and an adhoc "committee" of editors and admins for oversight. This would surely be accepted by ArbCom since it could involve an immediate block reinstatement as such an "agreed upon condition" for reinstatement. I think this would alleviate fears of some possible damage because of slow procedures per User:Praxidicae or such as the mentioned "excessive use of administrator time to manage" per User:Nick, that did state "I believe their editing behaviour, whilst absolutely good faith and well intentioned,...". TonyBallioni does not seem to have a bad personal opinion of Darkfrog24, just that he will not be able to conform or that mentoring works. "IF" the conditions are so strict (very, very short leash), and he could see the possibilities if successful, and possibly agree as another "condition" to be the or a lead admin (with all the extra eyes for help) it would either prove his point or prove that there can be exceptions. I hope a consensus can evolve to give this a try. Thank you, Otr500 (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that (to Mkdw) and also the reasoning. I have not had any negative interaction with the subject but his being allowed to offer, ramble, or maybe even rant, would not help in the least that I can see. It might help in the future (I saw 6 months) but likely not. We are hamstrung and either he can maybe or hopefully "get it", that his past actions WILL NOT WORK, or he needs to be forever blocked if we can do that. I want other editors to understand the frustration that there is secrecy and gag-orders, that might very well be of the utmost importance, but how it hampers those of us that do not know "the whole story", and it just makes it crazy. If it were not for the mandate he (or anyone) discuss anything of the case mentioned I would just have agreed he does not belong. He has done something evidently serious and was "punished", is seeking to possibly "right that wrong", cannot defend himself, and "we" (that don't have access to that private information or any of the past actions that resulted in the punishment), must work within the realm of simply not knowing. The subject may very well not deserve another chance ---BUT--- I am at a lost as to why it would be fought against so hard when I see evidence that an editor (and several others) are agreeing to step in to try to see if it can work. They are either really gullible, or there must be some glimmer of redeeming qualities. I do not even see he is talked bad about personally. It seems it is thought he is generally a good person that cannot be involved in Wikipedia. Why not throw him one last rope. I won't have to worry in 6 months or a year because he will either have figured it out or hopefully be permanently gone (as there would then be bad things some could point to not under a gag) unless he resumes under a sock or something. Otr500 (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Mentorship suggestion
Coming to the community with a possible idea. In the past, I have mentored editors that have had somewhat problematic pasts after a discussion at AN, ANI or an RFC - (here and here). Acknowledging that there are issues presented above, I do think Darkfrog is sincere about trying to do better here and keep his nose clean. I'm wondering if the community would be open to an unblock if they're placed under mentorship, perhaps with similar conditions to the ones Knowledgkid87 was put under (and in addition to their current topic ban?). Appreciating that some may feel it's not worth the effort, I am willing to take this on in order so this user can be given another chance. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 08:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- As an addendum to the above, I would think that a namespace restriction would help Darkfrog prove they can keep their nose clean - I'd recommend starting with mainspace, mainspace talk, their own user space, file and category space, and a select few other Wikipedia namespaces they wish to work in (Third opinion and RSN I think is fine). Over time they could approach their mentor if they wanted to edit other spaces - the exception being their MOS topic ban obviously. Of course, the community may feel that this is too much trouble, but in the past this responsibility has been delegated to the mentor so the user isn't a constant burden on the community as a result of their unblock. If there's a problem, I'll be the first to drag them back here, or to ArbCom if I see fit. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Steve has had luck in the past working with users that have run into difficulty - I'm willing to support him here. — Ched : ? — 10:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Definitely - I've already !voted above in a general sene, conditional on this, but I wanted to push that I think it would be worthwhile. It's not always helpful but I think mentoring seems a reasonable use here, if Steven is willing to take it on. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose no. There are many issues with this proposal: the first being, as I indicated above, Darkfrog24 likely has issues that cannot be resolved through discussion and mentorship. I don't really know how much more explicit I can be than that while still respecting him. This proposal would not be able to address those, because he's indicated by his behaviour that he is incompatible with the English WikipediaThen there is also the issue that "Mentorship" is Wikipedia code for People who I will use to prevent me from being sanctioned again even if I am exceptionally disruptive and who will do nothing to actually change my behaviour. I have never seen a mentorship proposal work, and like many who are finally coming around to see that "reblocks are easy" is a fantasy, I'd argue that the idea of mentorship as an unblock condition that works is a hallucination. If someone is unable to edit on their own without the need for handholding they should not be unblocked. Pure and simple. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I very strongly oppose this and perhaps I'm missing something here but mentorship from an editor who is fresh off a 7 year break doesn't exactly seem ideal, especially given Wikipedia's changes over the last five years with regard to policy, consensus and general community standards. That aside, what exactly will mentoring do? I'm also concerned about the IRC canvassing that has happened here. Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- *shrug* It's worked before (mentorship). Nor was I one that cut the people I mentored slack - the user made a commitment to do X and that user failing to hold up their end would have been a poor reflection of me. I do disagree with your characterisation of me not being here for 7 years and thus not knowing my way around here or being familiar enough with policy and consensus - while my edits haven't been overly frequent until recently, I was somewhat active in 2018, 2017, 2016 etc and think I've demonstrated I still know how things work here. Nevertheless, Darkfrog here is asking for a chance. I'm here because I think they should get one, but at the same time, I don't know the user and I'm really not vested in this conversation. I'm not going to start an angry mob over this discussion if the status quo remains. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with you and that is okay. However, I believe that Darkfrog was given ample chances and threw them away, however the bigger issue here is, as Davey2010 said, is "I don't get it/WP:IDHT" behavior I don't see any evidence that they understand the reasons that they are currently indeffed or the opposition here. Mentoring doesn't help bullheadedness. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Fair point re bullheadedness, mentorship is not very effective in those situations. I guess the only other question I have is, in situations where a user is indeffed, what would one need to do to be unblocked? My understanding of the standard offer (of course, this isn't given to everyone) is that one doesn't necessarily need to apologise, but commit to avoiding the problematic behaviour in future, which seems to be the case here. If this request is indeed declined, what does it take for a user to regain the confidence of the community in future? Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The question on unblocks is simple: do the potential benefits of unblock outweigh the known risks of disruption. It is not about regaining trust, it is about whether or not the community is willing to take a risk to let you work to regain that trust. There is nothing here that suggest that would be anything other than a horrible idea in this case. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)r
- Fair point re bullheadedness, mentorship is not very effective in those situations. I guess the only other question I have is, in situations where a user is indeffed, what would one need to do to be unblocked? My understanding of the standard offer (of course, this isn't given to everyone) is that one doesn't necessarily need to apologise, but commit to avoiding the problematic behaviour in future, which seems to be the case here. If this request is indeed declined, what does it take for a user to regain the confidence of the community in future? Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Tony and Praxidicae - I have a saying in my head but out of respect for DarkFrog I won't say it ... so in polite terms I'll say "Mentoring won't fix it". –Davey2010Talk 16:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- You'll get no arguments from me - sorry I stumbled onto an AN thread anyway. — Ched : ? — 16:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Per TonyBallioni. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Some froggies change their spots. Steve is generous and experienced, and is commended just for offering. — Smuckola(talk) 20:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per others above, especially TonyBallioni. Softlavender (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Mentoring works, if done properly. I trust Steven Crossin (talk · contribs). I trust that he knows what it means, and the responsibilities. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comments (alternate: Food for thought): I just happened on this because I left a comment on TonyBallioni's talk page, saw it, and visited. WOW! I haven't reviewed the history so only know what I see. The subject apparently isn't allowed to respond here so I would have to bounce back and forth to his user page to glean possible information or seek third-party inquiries, and I have not. Two editors (one admin) that I respect opposed any "reprieve". TonyBallioni is adamant it is a lost cause ("horrible idea"), is very convincing as to reasoning so much that other editors just agree with what was stated, and I believe it is well thought out and "maybe" even possibly prophetic. User:SmokeyJoe has swung to supporting a reprieve with a mentor. On that note I see that User:Steven Crossin has some earned respect and I don't think "time away" is relevant because changes mentioned won't hinder the goal of "keeping someone away from the well they have a need to jump into." The subject stated "Steven Crossin: If unblocked I will stay far from the topic area of MoS until the T-ban is lifted through normal procedures. That is a concern. Why not find a new playground and "stay the hell away from the one that got you into trouble?" If Darkfrog24 is interested in returning to Wikipedia I would wonder why a permanent T-ban would not be placed on the table? Anyway, if a conditional reprieve didn't work everyone involved would be less forgiving in another instant of 3rd chance and I would just comment "agree with whatever Tony said". Also, everyone would have to acknowledge "I told you so" would be deserved. If successful I am sure he would not really mind being wrong as "exceptions" can occur. The issue of slow justice should the subject run for the well, seems to be answered satisfactorily. I am sure there would be enough eyes on the subject should a transgression occur or the mentor screams "pull the plug". I am really on the fence, and the wind was leaning me to the prophetic side, but a surprise would be a welcome change bolstered by the equalizing wind of SmokeyJoe's comments. Otr500 (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Otr500 (talk · contribs), I agree with your concerns regarding their topic ban. As I understand it, the topic ban is indefinite but not permanent. I disagree that a topic ban should ever be for life without any ability to appeal, however. People can change their ways. Perhaps instead of allowing an automatic appeal after one year since the last topic ban appeal, they must satisfy to the mentor in some way their contributions to the community first, and also give a rationale for why they want to edit in the topic banned area, before it can be considered. Once that time comes, restrictions could possibly be relaxed slightly and gradually, rather than all at once. I am not necessarily saying that this will be an overnight thing, and I will be encouraging (and restricting them) to certain activities, so they can gradually re-cement themselves as a member of the community. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Reply: I suppose it is a good thing I have ADHD. I can work in an area or not and bounce around. I am just wondering! What timeline would this normally involve and how long would you commit? Even the wording "overnight" brings images of short term failure. I am trying to wrap my head around how it would successfully work considering the negative rationale of User:TonyBallioni, User:Praxidicae, and User:Davey2010 that it won't work. Conditions would have to be discussed, and agreed upon by Darkfrog24 per User_talk:Darkfrog24#Restore user talk page access (point 3). These should include:
- A minimum length of time you agree to, as discretionary is too unsure,
- A definitive length of time on the T-ban,
- A review at the end of your timeline (or the minimum) if this is deemed appropriate.
- I hope at least the three names I just mentioned would agree to give input on restriction/condition discussions if consensus does determine a reinstatement. The reason for the review is to ensure not only that others agree when you feel a release is appropriate, but since a comment was made about mentor responsibility I think if all the criterion has been met then that is all that could be asked.
- "IF" a reinstatement with a mentor finds consensus and at a minimum the above is acceptable I would support such a move. If a consensus determines no then at least I tried. Otr500 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd say at least a 6 months to year as a minimum, I'm open to either. The topic ban at the moment on MOS should remain in place until that period is over. I think a review at the end of that period would be appropriate. It's up to the community here. I'm happy to take this on if the community is, but I of course understand the reservations here too. I've been inactive in the past for some periods, but I've come right back and I think my judgment is as good as it was back then. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 04:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would be alright with a year if others were. I had to leave some comments on his talk page before I even think about getting on board. There was just some issues and I needed some resolution on. I have a lot of reservations also with what I have read. I would think with his credentials and a change of attitude (if possible) he could make some great contributions in his field without ever thinking about MOS. I am glad I was more blessed with common sense because to me it seems really smart people can sometimes make really bad decisions.
- I also randomly looked at one of his contributions and he added 959 bytes to an article (Thermococci) with no reference or inline cite. The article has only one reference and possible referenced through the "Further reading" section. It was translated from the Spanish Wikipedia. Although he may have the knowledge to know the information is correct most of the rest of us (maybe excepting the other 27 editors involved) still consider unsourced material as possible WP:OR. I don't know if this will go anywhere but commend you for volunteering. I can only imagine it could be a challenge. Otr500 (talk) 05:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support (comments also in above section): I did not intend to get this involved. I suppose the block discussion ban meant I would be somewhat in the dark that is perplexing, but a main reason is the support of one editor to be a mentor and several other editors to "assist" in keeping an eye on things. A fact that there were some serious issues did not seem to present that any were egregious so lacking that I think that conditions can be laid out, extremely strict, and that the mentor will oversee a program to help ensure compliance. This will either work or prove to be an experiment in vain. I think "ANY" risk can be minimized through the use of the "conditions" and an immediate block reinstatement for failure to comply. With that I hope others will give this a try. Otr500 (talk) 06:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I'm sorry, but I've seen no evidence that DarkFrog is prepared to listen and work with an experienced mentor. They were given an enormous amount of advice in the best possible faith when they were going through their numerous attempts to relitigate their previous sanctions, and prior to that, they were given an enormous amount of advice when they were causing the trouble that resulted in those original sanctions. They ignored all of that advice and continued with their disruptive behaviour. We have a situation where DarkFrog is fundamentally unsuited to collaborative editing and I cannot envisage any way around that, other than perhaps confining them to editing in their own user space, I suppose. Nick (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- And those of us that wasn't initially involved, now because of a gag order, cannot know these "previous" things, how a first time was related to the second, and what actually was the problem. You surely have to see how that places a hamstring on things. It amounts to "he did something wrong, was sanctioned, we (or he) can't talk about it". He is an otherwise nice person, possibly means well, but is incorrigible --"trust us". That he did things that crossed lines and rubbed some of the wrong people the wrong way is not questionable, enough that I would surmise the comments I saw hinting at narcissism (gaslighting) might even be shared. I just think if he was given this very last chance and could not figure out how to conform with a parole agent, a warden and host of "guards" looking over his shoulder, then I would expect all involved (even any "fans") to jump on a bandwagon of supporting a permanent, lifetime (+20 without the possibility of parole), truly indefinite block. Tony made a statement that mentoring doesn't work and that an editor than needs one shouldn't be here. I am sure he meant a problematic editor as it would be absurd to take that with a literal meaning that even a new editor could not use and benefit from one.
- Some would also not have to then continually worry about warning him not to discuss the previous case that is under the gag order as he would be permanently gagged. I did inadvertently (by true accident) bait him on that. He was adamant that even if he wanted to share anything he couldn't so it does appear he can learn. Should he fail I think I would, as nice as possible, suggest to him that he seek psychiatric help for NPD as it would be clear even to a layman.
- I also want to disclose that I can see strong evidence of comments that assert that DarkFrog would assuredly fail. I see a pretty long list of editors willing to "take a chance" and invest and possible waste time, but I also see any possible "damage" to Wikipedia would be negated. From what I see it would be their time and admin involvement would be limited to "pushing a block button". Without knowing "the rest of the story" I can only go by 1)- he committed serious infractions. 2)- some editors are convinced he is a "lost cause", and yet some editors would like to "give it one last shot", and finally, 3)- I am struggling to see why WP:ROPE (I can't tell if it has been used before) would be so hard fought against when an editor above with 47 edits and a list of blocks that rival his edits, is more deserving. This editors seem to have proven he can make constructive contributions and if "somehow" we can figure out a way (hell make the "probation" time two years) to stop his apparently combative ways he could be an asset. All I can do is try and I have invested enough time on that aspect so you guys figure it out. Otr500 (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Arbitrary break
Things have gone somewhat quiet here, and I'm not seeing a clear consensus form either way for the block staying in place or Darkfrog being unblocked. Might I ask if anyone else has an opinion on their request, and subsequent suggestions, as I assume an unblock, even with restrictions, can only proceed with a clear consensus in the affirmative? Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 11:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Darkfrog24's behaviour has not been an issue when things are going well; it's when Darkfrog disagrees with some process or thing that things have historically gone south. This pattern has continued on Wikinews, as can be seen on their talk page (there was much more discussion on failed news articles but those are routinely deleted), with respect to the reviewer-reporter relationship, use of past tense in reporting, and attribution. See this section, for example, or this one. Darkfrog24 comes across as very stubborn and I'm not sure that a mentor will make a difference in their behaviour. Also it seems that in this edit on their Talk page (later struck), Darkfrog24 said
One accusation was that asking someone "Are you okay?" is gaslighting if I'm the one who says it. I was genuinely concerned about someone I'd worked with for more than five years who'd been acting weird, so I asked if they wanted to talk about it, and I got accused of trying to hurt them. To the accuser's credit, he later withdrew that accusation, but even after that at least one admin still insisted it was true.
This is in reference to this comment; "the accused" is the editor with whom Darkfrog24 is banned from interacting. I won't formally oppose but I'm not sure Darkfrog24 should be unblocked. Ca2james (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for providing this info. I'll have a read tomorrow and mull over - late here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- The appeal should follow the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Arbitration enforcement bans. Specifically:
- For a request to succeed, either
- (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
- (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
- is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
- In this case, the Arbitration Committee has referred the matter to the wider community here (at AN) on the agreed upon conditions listed at User talk:Darkfrog24#Restore user talk page access. Mkdw talk 04:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Improper WP:RFC closure on Talk:Richard B. Spencer.
User:Tvx1 closed an WP:RFC on whether to reflect reliable sources calling Richard B. Spencer a neo-Nazi in the lead of his article; in doing so, he both ignored an unequivocal consensus to include and "found" a consensus for a compromise that had almost no support (by my count, it is nearly two-to-one in favor of inclusion in some form compatible with the current version - which was the only question at hand - vs. those favoring exclusion.) The discussion was very lopsided in favor of inclusion, and many of the opposes were SPAs or cited things unrelated to policy. I'll also point out that in closing the discussions, Tvx1 ignored a specific request for an admin closure in Requests for Closure; while of course admin closures are not required, I feel that it's reasonable to respect a request for one when it's made, and that stepping into a situation that they themselves admitted was complex, while ignoring a clear request that the discussions be closed by an administrator, was clearly ill-considered. Finally, when I asked them for clarification and to explain their closure on talk, their explanation made it clear that this was a clear-cut WP:SUPERVOTE - they focused primarily on objections that had not been raised on talk (eg. Another factor I had to take into account is that we're dealing with a biography of a living person here. Natural precaution is taken with adding such a significant label to such an article.
, which is something for discussion to consider, but not something a closing admin can use to discount such a lopsided consensus to include, at least not in terms of assessing consensus - in certain cases, WP:BLP can trump local consensus, but misstating the consensus like this is not the way to go about it. Note that only a single opinion in the discussion, excluding the closer, directly cited WP:BLP concerns, so this was not them summarizing discussion, it was them expressing their own concerns about the material via WP:SUPERVOTE. That's the sort of objection that, if they had it and don't feel it was adequately discussed in the WP:RFC, they should have made as a contributor to the RFC rather than trying to force it through with a close.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I still stand by my reading of the discussion. I'm a completely uninvolved and neutral person on this subject and have no personal interest in the outcome being either way. I certainly did not WP:SUPERVOTE. I carefully weighed the arguments and presented sources. The arguments presented in support are actually no as strong as this user considers them to be. Also on closer inspection, the sources purported to support the proposal strongly did not turn out to actually do so. So after weighing up everything the balance between the different sides of the argument turned out be much closer than this user claims it to be. I also reject the claim that "many of the opposes were SPA's". Checking the contributions of the participants did indeed reveal SPA's in the RFC. They were present on both side though and only one such participant opposed the proposal. So that claim is simply false. Having stated that, I have no prejudice against my closure being reverted in favor of an admin closure if it is deemed necessary.Tvx1 18:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) It looks like a proper no-consensus close to me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing, and clear consensus, and neither was present in that discussion. What sources were put forward were pretty well discounted (for being in opinion pieces, marginal RS, just in the headline, or other reasons). There were some obvious socks or SPAs or whathaveyou, but even discounting those votes, what's left doesn't look like consensus to include to me. On the other hand, WP:BADNAC 2, likely to be controversial. – Levivich 18:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that, as a general rule, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence if we were to call a member of the U.S. Senate a neo-Nazi we'd need extraordinary evidence. But it's hardly extraordinary for a self-identified white supremacist (yes, he actually calls himself a white supremacist and imperialist) to be a neo-Nazi. Many white supremacists in America are also neo-Nazis. So in this case, the evidence we have presented is sufficient. GergisBaki (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Any RfC in this subject area should only be closed by an uninvolved neutral administrator. While non-admins can close RfCs, closes in controversial subject areas are likely to be controversial themselves, and having an admin close them significantly reduces the possibility of controversy. I recommend that the RfC be re-opened, and an univolved admin examine the RfC and close it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is true of extraordinary claims. Widely sourced claims that are in line witht he observed facts, not so much. Multiple reliable sources are presented to show he's a neo-Nazi. WP:CRYBLP doesn't overcome that. I don't doubt your good faith, but I think you were excessively deferential to an invalid policy argument. Guy (Help!) 14:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that, as a general rule, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence if we were to call a member of the U.S. Senate a neo-Nazi we'd need extraordinary evidence. But it's hardly extraordinary for a self-identified white supremacist (yes, he actually calls himself a white supremacist and imperialist) to be a neo-Nazi. Many white supremacists in America are also neo-Nazis. So in this case, the evidence we have presented is sufficient. GergisBaki (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I read the discussion as no clear consensus either. No consensus does mean that the article should stay as it is pending further discussion, I wouldn't support making changes to the content in question until an RFC does manage to garner a clear consensus, one way or the other. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 01:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I reverted the close. Not doubting good faith, but a disputed NAC is usually reversed pending closure by uninvolved admins. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JzG: that's not true at all. At DRV and MRV the established practice is to keep the close in place until consensus exists to overturn it, unless there are exceptional reasons otherwise. And I'm not aware that a different standard applies for RFC closes. That applies whatever the admin status of the closer. Please revert your reopening. — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I see that you've then gone on to support the motion, making your reopening WP:INVOLVED. Allowing further contributions in this fashion while a review discussion is taking place clearly muddies the waters. Put the close back, and let's assess it on its own merits. — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is true. From the beginning, a non admin close can be summarily reverted by any non involved admin. An RfC later clarified the obvious, that the reversion can’t be merely because the close was a nonadmin. A good reason to overturn the nonadmin close was that it was a BADNAC. Since MRV became official, once a disputed RM was listed, uninvolved admins became timid to boldly revert, preferring to let the MRV play out. This is less so at DRV, where NACs are frequently boldly reverted by DRV admin regulars. Reverting the RfC close was the right thing to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I see that you've then gone on to support the motion, making your reopening WP:INVOLVED. Allowing further contributions in this fashion while a review discussion is taking place clearly muddies the waters. Put the close back, and let's assess it on its own merits. — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JzG: that's not true at all. At DRV and MRV the established practice is to keep the close in place until consensus exists to overturn it, unless there are exceptional reasons otherwise. And I'm not aware that a different standard applies for RFC closes. That applies whatever the admin status of the closer. Please revert your reopening. — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Becoming INVOLVED, by !voting, is not retrospective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The close is being reviewed (this discussion), nothing should be done with it until this discussion concludes. But there's no sense wheel warring about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Quite, and I'm aware that I'm involved myself, which is why JzG should reinstate the close. Uninvolved Admins reviewing this close should be able to do so without the complication of the RFC being reopened and new votes coming in. — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- They can read this, that's what I did. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Quite, and I'm aware that I'm involved myself, which is why JzG should reinstate the close. Uninvolved Admins reviewing this close should be able to do so without the complication of the RFC being reopened and new votes coming in. — Amakuru (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I read the arguments, noticed that the close doesn't reflect them, and reverted because (a) it's a controversial NAC and (b) as above, and as per my own readong, it doesn't reflect the balance of the discussion. In the process, I was convinced by the arguments that the merits favour inclusion. That's a sepaarte issue. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The close is being reviewed (this discussion), nothing should be done with it until this discussion concludes. But there's no sense wheel warring about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Becoming INVOLVED, by !voting, is not retrospective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse close - having read the discussion, there is clearly not consensus on whether or not to directly describe Spencer as "a neo-Nazi" in the lede. There is however clear consensus that his close associations with neo-Nazis and his endorsements by neo-Nazis should be mentioned somehow, and exactly how to do that should be the subject of a new discussion. Any comments added subsequent to Tvx1's original close should be removed, and the editors who added them advised to add their comments to a new discussion. This RfC has been going since April and has as conclusive a result as it's likely to get, there's little sense in overturning and relisting. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- About that. Quick count (may be a couple out, I didn't keep the scratchpad where I toted this up before)
- Yes, Include, Keep if supported by sources (which it is): 18; No but go white supremacist (potentially including ties to neo-Nazism): 3; Clear no: 6.
- Of the No !votes, a couple seem to be arguing that he's not even alt-right, which is an absurd position given the sources.
- I would actually have suggested a second RfC offering (a) is a neo-Nazi; (b) is a white spuremacist with ties to the neo-Nazi movement or (c) exclude. I suspect that b would gain supermajority support. But to argue, as some did, that nobody calls him a neo-Nazi, seems to be wishful thinking. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well that sounds like a reasonable RFC to launch to me, and I'd support (2) myself. I see you have in fact launched it already, which is all the more reason not to have the original one running concurrently. The close by Tvx1 explicitly said "which exact sentence should be included can be decided in a new discussion", which is basically what the fresh RfC is. Can we now reinstate that original close, comment in the new RFC, and move on with our lives? — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't do a head count, I rarely do. I read the comments and saw a pattern emerging, having discounted the poor "nobody calls him a neo-Nazi" arguments and the equally poor "of course he's a neo-Nazi, duh" ones. What was left matches Tvx1's reading pretty closely. I endorse relaunching as a subsequent discussion, but suggest the original should remain closed. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well that sounds like a reasonable RFC to launch to me, and I'd support (2) myself. I see you have in fact launched it already, which is all the more reason not to have the original one running concurrently. The close by Tvx1 explicitly said "which exact sentence should be included can be decided in a new discussion", which is basically what the fresh RfC is. Can we now reinstate that original close, comment in the new RFC, and move on with our lives? — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse close. Aquillion, I think you and I have agreed more frequently than we have disagreed, but I think you maybe need to recalibrate here. This is more or less how I would have closed this discussion, because, and this is crucial, local consensus cannot trump BLP. Ever. Any reasonable closure needs to weight the arguments by policy, and there is a substantial difference between "has expressed support for neo-nazi ideology" and "is a neo-nazi". There needs to be very substantial support in the source material for the second option over the first, for the second to gain consensus. Note that I'm not endorsing either position here; I'm no fan of Spencer, but I haven't looked into this enough to have an opinion on this question. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- BLP is absolutely able to override a local consensus; it does not, however, determine a local consensus. If Tvx1 (or you yourself) wanted to argue that, despite a clear consensus that the sources justified that wording, the people saying so were wrong enough that their consensus went against WP:BLP and that that consensus therefore had to be discarded, the appropriate thing to do is to say so directly, not to intentionally misstate what the local consensus was. Doing so only serves to confuse discussions by pushing them into an incorrect venue and wasting the time of everyone involved - if you or Tvx1 are asserting that this is such a BLP issue that it overrules a clear consensus to include, then we should be having this discussion on eg. WP:BLPN. And while BLP can be invoked to override a local consensus, you recognize, I assume, that doing so is a fairly serious and unusual step that requires a stronger argument than just mis-stating the consensus (in a close, I'll note, that didn't even mention WP:BLP, for a discussion in which only a single contributor explicitly felt that WP:BLP applied.) There are correct and incorrect ways to raise BLP concerns about an article; this is not the right way to go about it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Local consensus determines how the BLP policy is to be enforced in any particular case. Waving one's hands mystically and intoning "BLP" is not how the policy works. The community in a consensus discussion has to determine how it is to be interpreted. If the local consensus seems to some editors to violate BLP, the issue can be taken to the noticeboards. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- BLP doesn't dictate binary outcomes, though. It implies that the standards of sourcing and of demonstrating due weight are higher than they would be otherwise. I'll admit that Tvx1 could have done a better job of explaining that, but the result was correct. This is water under bridge now, though, because it's been reopened...oh well. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC) (Added post EC); BMK, I can't tell you you're responding to, but if you really think I'm waving my hands and intoning "BLP", feel free to take it up on my talk page, because this discussion has run its course. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You're the one who made a blanket statement that local consensus cannot trump BLP, when, in fact, local consensus determines how BLP is to be enforced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- BLP is absolutely able to override a local consensus; it does not, however, determine a local consensus. If Tvx1 (or you yourself) wanted to argue that, despite a clear consensus that the sources justified that wording, the people saying so were wrong enough that their consensus went against WP:BLP and that that consensus therefore had to be discarded, the appropriate thing to do is to say so directly, not to intentionally misstate what the local consensus was. Doing so only serves to confuse discussions by pushing them into an incorrect venue and wasting the time of everyone involved - if you or Tvx1 are asserting that this is such a BLP issue that it overrules a clear consensus to include, then we should be having this discussion on eg. WP:BLPN. And while BLP can be invoked to override a local consensus, you recognize, I assume, that doing so is a fairly serious and unusual step that requires a stronger argument than just mis-stating the consensus (in a close, I'll note, that didn't even mention WP:BLP, for a discussion in which only a single contributor explicitly felt that WP:BLP applied.) There are correct and incorrect ways to raise BLP concerns about an article; this is not the right way to go about it. --Aquillion (talk) 02:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to note that a new RFC has been started in the mean time, but the first RFC's was close was undone and is also still receiving new input following that undo. Both RFC's are thus receiving input simultaneously which has been noted to be confusing by a participant to the later RFC.Tvx1 23:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JzG: Do you or anyone else have any objections to me, as a completely uninvolved admin, re-instating Tvx1's close of the original RFC with a neutral note linking to this discussion, and letting the second RFC decide the exact language? That seems to be the sensible way forward without getting into issues of what constitutes wheel-warring, how to resolve the two concurrently running RFCs etc... Abecedare (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I object to your "re-instating Tvx1's close", since that close was not an accurate determination of consensus, but essentially a supervote, and there has been additional input since the RfC was re-opened, which I see no policy reason to ignore them. If you want to make your own close, unprejudiced by Tvx1's close and with your own evaluation of the consensus, that would be fine by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: When I had left the above note I had read only the discussion at this AN page in detail and made the proposal with the aim of moving the process forward more smoothly. Since then I have made the 'mistake' of reading the RFC discussion and all the cited sources and have formed opinions that I can't be sure are based on the former alone. So I'll rule myself out from the closing the RFCs, although I may participate in the second RFC if I believe my input will be helpful. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I object to your "re-instating Tvx1's close", since that close was not an accurate determination of consensus, but essentially a supervote, and there has been additional input since the RfC was re-opened, which I see no policy reason to ignore them. If you want to make your own close, unprejudiced by Tvx1's close and with your own evaluation of the consensus, that would be fine by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose reinstating Tvx1's close. While not wrong, it was not a good close. It missed some important elements of the discussion, drew a weak conclusion, and merely shifted the real reading of consensus down the road. As a dubious close, and a BADNAC, it fails to provide confidence, and is therefore worse than having done nothing. The nonadmin closer's refusal to revert their closure when challenged is itself an immediate point of evidence of their poor judgement. NACloses are suppose to help processes, not create further drama requiring further processes. The UNINVOLVED admin's summary reversion of the bad close was the right thing to do. I am very confident that a subsequent close by an UNINVOLVED experienced closer with be much better than the reverted close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Even among the people who think the close should be overturned, there seems to be agreement that no consensus is not an incorrect close, just that the summary of the discussion was inadequate and the optics weren't great. Given that there are now two RfCs going on this, maybe we should reduce that number to one? Could we re-close the first as simply "no consensus" with links to this discussion and to the second RfC so that discussion doesn't get any more fragmented? Wug·a·po·des 06:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Current situation is untenable
- Uninvolved admin attention required - since starting this discussion, the original RfC has been reopened (by JzG) and has attracted new attention, and simultaneously a second RfC has been opened on the same page (also by JzG) reframing and asking the same question, which is just causing confusion. One of them needs to be closed but thus far JzG has declined to do so. Will an admin who has not already tried to do something here please intervene? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've reclosed the original RfC. I won't point to it as my greatest close ever, but it resolves the immediate process issue and defers judgement to consensus here and content questions to the new RfC, leaving (I think) everything tidy. GoldenRing (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Works for me. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've reclosed the original RfC. I won't point to it as my greatest close ever, but it resolves the immediate process issue and defers judgement to consensus here and content questions to the new RfC, leaving (I think) everything tidy. GoldenRing (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Resignation of Callanecc
Effective immediately and per his talk page statement[57], Callanecc (talk · contribs) has resigned from the Arbitration Committee. He has also relinquished the CheckUser and Oversight permissions. The Committee sincerely thanks Callanecc for his service and wishes him well.
For the Arbitration Committee,
WormTT(talk) 10:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Changes to functionary team
By motion, in accordance with the Committee's procedure on functionary permissions and activity, these permissions are removed from the following users:
- Fox (talk · contribs) – Oversight
- HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) – Oversight
- LFaraone (talk · contribs) – CheckUser and Oversight
- There'sNoTime (talk · contribs) – CheckUser and Oversight
Supporting: Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, Worm That Turned
The Arbitration Committee sincerely thanks Fox, HJ Mitchell, LFaraone, and There'sNoTime for their service. The Committee also extends its gratitude to the current CheckUser and Oversight permission holders for their contributions and service as functionaries.
For the Arbitration Committee,
Katietalk 17:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) and Icewhiz (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting about one another, except that they may submit (directly to the committee) responses to a proposed decision in these proceedings. Arbitrators supporting will desire immediate implementation under net 4 rules.
- For the Arbitration Committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding Antisemitism in Poland (temporary injunction)
User:Koavf adding thousands of AE templates
I’m on my phone after a power outage so I have to be brief: User:Koavf is adding thousands of edit notices announcing articles are in American English. This strikes me as a huge waste of server space and loading time. I do not see any consensus to go this. Moreover, the bot-like manner in which this happens strikes me as disruptive too. Koavf does not see this as problematic and waved off my concerns on their talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like Koavf has stopped for now. Last creation was a little over 20 minutes ago, after this discussion was started, so I don't think there's a need for an emergency block to stop the bot-like activity. I'm also not aware of a consensus to do this—though the "server space and loading time" concern was historically waved off with reference to some essay whose shortcut I've forgotten (basically that editors weren't supposed to concern themselves with infrastructure issues like that). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You're thinking of WP:Don't worry about performance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- But not of this? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- But what is the point of this? He is creating new pages like Template:Editnotices/Page/Africa_Peacekeeping_Program, with an edit summary claiming it is based on a template at the page (already). Why? Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the point is to keep his edit count growing at an incredible rate. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Dicklyon, Exactly. S Philbrick(Talk) 18:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Yeah I agree, this needs discussion prior to implementation. I think what's happening is that Koavf is just adding editnotices to everything in Category:Use American English. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Johnbod, To alert editors that a particular page has a particular type of English used on it. That's the function of the template. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the point is to keep his edit count growing at an incredible rate. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- But what is the point of this? He is creating new pages like Template:Editnotices/Page/Africa_Peacekeeping_Program, with an edit summary claiming it is based on a template at the page (already). Why? Johnbod (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- But not of this? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You're thinking of WP:Don't worry about performance. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Adding more notices/alerts/warnings etc, even when individually well-intentioned, just produces alert fatigue and trains editors to ignore even ones that are important. I can understand adding the {{American English}} template as an edit-notice to articles where EngVar has been demonstrated to be be a persistent and ongoing issue. But not in this manner, which I find to be disruptive. Abecedare (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Special:Nuke (limited to template namespace) may be a cleanup option here, unless these are generally considered useful. — xaosflux Talk 02:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the example of Africa Peacekeeping Program, picked at random from his contribs, is 1.5 lines long, & has had only 4 edits since creation in 2015, none contentious. Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnbod: agree, not really needed for editors there and the "per the existing template" argument is rather weak when that template looks to also be a drive-by without a need as well. Was added along with a use-date format template - when the article text doesn't actually contain a single date. — xaosflux Talk 03:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This certainly appears to be an inappropriate use of tool-aided editing, as it is being done by a non-bot account at a high rate of speed, resulting in flooding of recent changes. If such a run is considered appropriate, WP:BOTREQ can handle it. — xaosflux Talk 02:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Koavf, (without taking any viewpoint), please could a link to be shared, giving the background to this task proposal, and hopefully, demonstrating clear consensus to proceed? This will enable others to read + gain insight on the background. —Sladen (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf has a history of making mass edits without consensus to do so, and an unwillingness to respond to legitimate concerns when they are pointed out to him. I first came across this when he was adding WikiProject New York notices to articles which should properly have been tagged for WikiProject New York City. I asked him to watch out for this, and to fix the ones he'd already done, but he basically ignored me and I had to do it myself (by hand at the time). As Dicklyon said above, Koavf only really seems concerned about his edit count, which is over 2 million. There's no conceivable way he reached that level in 11 years without doing quite a lot automated editing, with or without consensus.I support mass deletion of these current edits. That edit notice should only be placed when there's been an actual problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I've never done any automated editing here and it's hurtful and rude to say that I'm only concerned about my edit count, when I've undone vandalism, created good and featured articles, amended templates, added alt text for accessibility, etc. What a mean thing to say. I don't recall this interaction about New York City templates and I'm sorry if I was dismissive: that's no excuse for you assuming bad faith on my part. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I looked back in my talk... Do you mean here (which does not seem dismissive) or here (where you say, "your plan seems good")? I'm not seeing the part where I "basically ignored" you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- "I've never done any automated editing here". You just made 495 edits between 21:27 and 21:49 today, that's 22 minutes in which you made an average of 22.5 edits every minute, or an edit every 2.6667 second. However you were doing it, that is definitely automated editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, I did semi-automated editing of pages that I also manually reviewed. E.g., that's how I edited at Talk:1:54. So are you going to ignore my question? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, I am not going to allow you to sidetrack the discussion. You made thousands of unnecessary edits without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- The answer to your question is: you did not follow through on what you said you would do, and just continued doing the exact things you had been doing, and I just dropped the matter instead of making an issue about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, Do you think the template should be brought up for discussion at WP:TFD? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think you know that this is not about the existence of the template itself, but your mass use of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee, I don't really see a distinction on a practical level but either way, I'm asking someone else a yes or no question, so I'd like his answer. I don't see the purpose of having a template that we don't use or using a template but only every now and again, even if it's applicable many more times, etc. That makes no sense to me. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You know perfectly well that there are many many templates that are used with very varying degrees of frequency, and that there has been no suggestion from anyone that this particular template should be deleted. You need to stop this disingenuous evasion and address the actual issue, which is your very rapid semi-automated adding of the template to so many pages. *That* is the only problem here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee, I did address the actual issue: I stopped doing that before this thread started, I responded to every question posed here to me, and I said that I wouldn't do what everyone objected to again: what more do you think I am supposed to do? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it was more about what less you needed to do, which is the irrelevant sidetrack of whether the template should be deleted - it plainly shouldn't. Ideally you'd also understand why what you were doing was disruptive, but as long as you've stopped it then I'm satisfied with that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boing! said Zebedee, I did address the actual issue: I stopped doing that before this thread started, I responded to every question posed here to me, and I said that I wouldn't do what everyone objected to again: what more do you think I am supposed to do? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You know perfectly well that there are many many templates that are used with very varying degrees of frequency, and that there has been no suggestion from anyone that this particular template should be deleted. You need to stop this disingenuous evasion and address the actual issue, which is your very rapid semi-automated adding of the template to so many pages. *That* is the only problem here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think you know that this is not about the existence of the template itself, but your mass use of it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- "I've never done any automated editing here". You just made 495 edits between 21:27 and 21:49 today, that's 22 minutes in which you made an average of 22.5 edits every minute, or an edit every 2.6667 second. However you were doing it, that is definitely automated editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sladen, There is no task proposal. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, appreciations for the clear and unambiguous answer. Below is a #Mass Delete? sub-proposal started by others. Please consider joining the discussion and proposing a WP:G7 mass-deletion. —Sladen (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a growing consensus here that these edits are unproductive and should not continue. Koavf, will you respect that, or do we need to impose a formal restriction? Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- In addition to the issues described above, he just gutted the cats at Penn & Teller. Please take away his Hotcat privileges. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Guy Macon, I am removing categories that apply to individuals rather than groups. Which ones should be re-added? Why did you revert me at Teller (magician)? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Holy crap! Why did these cat removals require eleven separate edits?? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Because if you did it in one edit, it would only add one edit to your edit count, duh. Fish+Karate 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This editor is obsessed with his edit count, and his edits are less productive than they could be as a result. GiantSnowman 12:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman, Nope. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: yep - you are livertally notable for the number of edits you make. GiantSnowman 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman, And I livertally had nothing to do with that promotion: all of it was done by others. Not sure how you want me to disprove your theories about my state of mind but I've never done anything to make myself known for my number of Wikiepdia edits to anyone in my personal or professional life ever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- You had nothing to do with that?!! The page statistics [58] show that you made the most edits to the Justin Knapp article of anyone (52, which is 31%), that you've added the second most text to the article (5,137 bytes or 36%) and that your percentage of authorship of the article is second at 20.4%. So the notion that you had absolutely no hand in the promotion of User:Koavf as a Wikipedia editor with an extremely high edit count is completely disingenuous. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman, And I livertally had nothing to do with that promotion: all of it was done by others. Not sure how you want me to disprove your theories about my state of mind but I've never done anything to make myself known for my number of Wikiepdia edits to anyone in my personal or professional life ever. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: yep - you are livertally notable for the number of edits you make. GiantSnowman 19:37, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- GiantSnowman, Nope. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, actually HotCat is convenient, and if I have to replace 10 categories it might as well take for me 10 edits (because it is a one-click procedure with feedback: it just does everything). However, removing categories with HotCat is two clicks: if you try to remove a category, it takes you to the editing mode, and you need to write an edit summary. Then it is of course easier to do it manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This editor is obsessed with his edit count, and his edits are less productive than they could be as a result. GiantSnowman 12:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, It didn't: it's just easier when I have open multiple tabs to do one click, go to another tab, allow that page to reload, and repeat. Plus, it allows visibility for exactly what was done in that edit and everyone can know what was removed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Because if you did it in one edit, it would only add one edit to your edit count, duh. Fish+Karate 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Newyorkbrad, Which edits? Adding the editnotices with AWB? I stopped that before this thread started. Yes, I'm not doing that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Just so that everyone is on the same page, can you confirm that you won't resume (at least, mass) editing of edit-notices in the future without first establishing consensus for the proposed changes and the target articles? Abecedare (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- In the absence of such a re-assurance, I support withdrawing AWB access and an editing restriction on mass tagging or page creation without consensus. –xenotalk 15:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abecedare, I will not resume mass editing/creation of edit notices prior without any consensus to do so. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:23, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Thank you. (Your phrasing is a bit odd but I am AGFing that none of us wish to create or hunt for possible loopholes, or shift the burden of establishing a consensus.) Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abecedare, I'm trying to be as explicit as possible precisely so there is no "gotcha" here. Not sure how it's odd but there is no built-in loophole or something. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Ok, then I am assuming that you understand that the burden would be on you to establish consensus before you undertake mass-edits (for reasons Xeno, Xaosflux, Vanamonde and others have already explained). Abecedare (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abecedare, Yes, that is correct. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Ok, then I am assuming that you understand that the burden would be on you to establish consensus before you undertake mass-edits (for reasons Xeno, Xaosflux, Vanamonde and others have already explained). Abecedare (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Abecedare, I'm trying to be as explicit as possible precisely so there is no "gotcha" here. Not sure how it's odd but there is no built-in loophole or something. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Thank you. (Your phrasing is a bit odd but I am AGFing that none of us wish to create or hunt for possible loopholes, or shift the burden of establishing a consensus.) Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: Just so that everyone is on the same page, can you confirm that you won't resume (at least, mass) editing of edit-notices in the future without first establishing consensus for the proposed changes and the target articles? Abecedare (talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- If anyone's interested, I've compiled a list of all edit notices that Koavf has created as part of this batch-tagging on User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/AmEng. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, it's yesterday that the passion for templating really kicked in, with about 8, 9/10ths on thta page (~1000?) being created since. An incredible amount in any case. Is there a batch-undo? ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- This appears to be misuse of the wp:template editor permission. –xenotalk 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Xeno, I had this user right prior to template editor permissions.
Template editor does not allow you to create edit notices. Template editor was not the permission that allowed this--you can see that I have made edit notices for years prior to the creation of this user right. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)- Koavf: I believe there was a technical change at some point. I think that a user without the permission could not have done what you did, if I'm wrong I will refactor. But now that you are aware, please be sure to follow the template editor guidelines when creating edit notices outside your own userspace. –xenotalk 17:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Xeno, Thanks, duly noted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xeno: edit-notice restrictions are part of the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. The
(tboverride)permission currently bundled with "Page movers" and "Template editors" allows non-administrators access to edit notices. Adding it to "page movers" was done more recently as an accepted side-effect. Koavf has access to this permission via both of these groups currently. — xaosflux Talk 19:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xeno: edit-notice restrictions are part of the MediaWiki:Titleblacklist. The
- Xeno, Thanks, duly noted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf: I believe there was a technical change at some point. I think that a user without the permission could not have done what you did, if I'm wrong I will refactor. But now that you are aware, please be sure to follow the template editor guidelines when creating edit notices outside your own userspace. –xenotalk 17:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Xeno, I had this user right prior to template editor permissions.
- Isn't it about time
this clown (pardon the expression)Koavf was blocked for at least a month? How about 6 months? Anyone who habitually places such substantial burdens on other editors needs much more of a wake-up call than he's previously gotten. I studied the block log, he's never stayed blocked more than 72 hours; he was blocked for 1 week once but unblocked the next day. Let him cool his heels for a more significant length of time. – Athaenara ✉ 17:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Athaenara et al, I don't support a block right now: the editor has stopped, the damage is under control. This does not take away from the fact that this was a pretty serious disruption, and it's in character--see the comments by User:Boing! said Zebedee, the rhetorical question by User:Mendaliv and the response by User:Fish and karate and User:GiantSnowman, etc. This is not good. Something needs to be done. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose a block per Drmies. I'm not too familiar with this editor's history, but an admin block at this point would be merely punitive rather than preventative. Also, I feel like the use of the phrase "this clown" was an inappropriate (if mild) personal attack and would respectfully suggest that Athaenara strike it - I recognize the editor is being frustrating, but the choice of words is unnecessarily inflammatory. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 19:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose blocking, there is no current situation that needs to be stopped, and no indication that lesser measures (e.g. removal of user groups, removal of AWB access) wouldn't be effective if there is an ongoing future concern. — xaosflux Talk 20:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose blocking at this time, but if someone else can have a go at explaining to koavf why they need to drop this particular stick, and why they should seek consensus before making the edits next time, it would be appreciated; I'm not getting through to them. Absent satisfactory assurances, I would support yanking AWB, and if necessary, template-editor/page-mover. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- a comment from the peanut gallery—this is kind of an amazing situation and I'm rather impressed by how the community is dealing with it through cool heads and editing-framework-guideline-based actions. Good community cohesion; good to see. Thanks. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Mass Delete?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Consolidated task discussion if these (and the then-orphaned associated talk pages) should be mass-deleted below. — xaosflux Talk 15:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'd generally support deleting these. Do we need a mass TfD? Or can this be done under G6? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I support mass deletion of these current edits. That edit notice should only be placed when there's been an actual problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support mass deletion (if possible) - As noted by someone above the template should only be used where Engvar is an issue ..... You don't add them on every single American article on the site ..... I would also support warning them that any future time-wasting edits such as these will result in a block. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 15:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support this to provide the consensus Ymblanter mentions above, thanks for that btw. ——SerialNumber54129 15:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Make sure to delete the talk pages also. –xenotalk 15:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Which talk pages do you mean? The edit notices do not have talk pages as far as I see (and should not have any).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Suchlike Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Penn & Teller. –xenotalk 15:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- They'd all be G8's anyway at that time. — xaosflux Talk 15:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please delete. Placing edit-noticies, which are supposed to serve administrative purpose, under wiki-project purview is akin to slapping on, say, the {{WikiProject India}} template across the WP:ARBIP pages. More broadly: right now we only have a how-to place guideline about edit-notices, probably because it is assumed that administrators, page-movers and template editors will act conservatively, respect current practices, and use their best judgment. I hope Koavf actions in that space are an isolated event and do not necessitate writing down of detailed guidelines. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- They'd all be G8's anyway at that time. — xaosflux Talk 15:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Suchlike Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Penn & Teller. –xenotalk 15:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Which talk pages do you mean? The edit notices do not have talk pages as far as I see (and should not have any).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support mass deletion. I believe that consensus at this AN should be sufficient for such action but will leave the bureaucratic/technical mechanics to admins better versed than I in those aspects. Abecedare (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mass delete Whether automated or not, these are too fast to have had any consideration paid to them. If they were that obvious ("Towns in Kansas" or "Drummers from California" would be reasonable for automatic tagging) then do we really need the tags? If the tags have any value as stopping argument, that's only possible if we have real faith in their accuracy and consensus to respect that. If Koavf can demonstrate their algorithm here as to how they were tagged, then maybe – but as is, we're better off without. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, There wasn't an algorithm: these were already tagged with the invisible {{Use American English}}. I don't think we should have that template and it serves a different function from {{AmE}}. I thought there was nothing controversial about saying that an article should be in American English when we already say that it should be in American English, hence, I was surprised that anyone objected. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- So what was your algorithm for doing this? (of course there was one). If it was "If {{Use American English}} is already on the main page, then add {{AmE}} to the talk: page" then I could support that (and it doesn't mean that either of these are unneeded). But was this the case for all of them? Do you have examples? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, Okay, maybe I just don't understand what you mean by "algorithm" but I think I've answered your question as best I understand it. My thinking or mental algorithm was: every article that has the invisible {{Use American English}} tracking template should have the visible edit notice {{American English}}. Again, that's what I don't see as being controversial. Obviously, there are some who are objecting to me doing this without prior approval because of its scope but it seems like there are also users who disagree with that and I don't understand their reasoning. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- If I'm not to advocate an indef block under COMPETENCE here, then I need to understand what you actually did. I haven't seen this. I can't see it in your editing history. Your comment immediately above suggests that you adding a tag template to the talk: pages of articles which already had the main article tagged. But it actually looks as if you were creating editnotices (i.e. separate entities) for these. That's quite a different situation.
- If you don't understand the difference, if you can't explain that, if you don't realise why that sort of massive million-article change requires serious consensus (and maybe even a change to MediaWiki!) then you shouldn't be doing it. There is no need to go to the editnotice level of complexity here and adding such to only a tiny handful of articles (two thousand is tiny as a proportion of articles) just makes them bizarrely distinct from other articles. This is such a bad change, and you seem to have no comprehension of that (and every time I've ever encountered you, I've been given the exact same impression of considerable naivety).
- If you don't just know this stuff already, then you just shouldn't be trusted with tools for bulk editing like this. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, I can't understand you. "I need to understand what you actually did". I thought I've said this many times--what is unclear? "Your comment immediately above suggests that you adding a tag template to the talk: pages of articles..." I never said anything about talk pages. I don't know where you are getting this information. "[i]t actually looks as if you were creating editnotices" Yes, that is exactly what happened: I didn't realize that is somehow unclear. How is an engvar editnotice being on <1% of articles different than {{Use American English}} (or some similar engvar equivlanet) being on <1% of articles? Yes, ideally all articles would have this explained, as well as the citation style and the date format to be used (as well as any other particularities) but Rome wasn't built in a day. What in principle would be the alternative? It seems like you're calling this naivete or some kind of incompetence but I'm striving to make myself as explicit as possible. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- We don't use editnotices for such a minor purpose. To change that is an extremely major change, or else an inconsistent one. We don't make such changes without discussion first. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Andy Dingley, These are created as editnotices. Not sure what you mean that we don't use them for that--we do.
- Only to comment on the need of two templates: the "in article wikitext" one is extremely helpful for any full page/offline editing or, at least in the case of the equivalent for date formats (like {{use dmy dates}}, for semi-automated scripting. You don't get the editnotice header in these cases, but the template there at the start is extremely useful in these cases. I definitely would not duplicate those templates to editheaders unless the language of the article has been in serious dispute and talk page consensus has resulted in some decision one way or another. --Masem (t) 18:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've deleted the 2285 pages that were mass created in the AWB run (8/19 and 8/20). There were so many, the nuke extension died 80% of the way thru. Without prejudice to deletion of the earlier ones. –xenotalk 16:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've deleted the rest. Consensus here is clear that these should not be placed unless and until there's an ENGVAR issue on the pages; no evidence of such has been demonstrated. No prejudice against recreation of those that meet this criterion, suggested by several people above. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, Can you please either put language to that effect at the template's documentation or have some kind of RfC to confirm that the community agrees that we should only include engvar editnotices in cases where there is or is likely to be some dispute about the variation? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Koavf, no--or NO. This should be obvious to anyone, and I think it is obvious to everyone who is here to write and maintain articles. That you would ask this question makes me doubt your purpose here. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drmies, What does that mean? Why is it obvious that an article should have {{Use American English}} but not {{AmE}} as an editnotice? That doesn't seem obvious to me. What do you think my "purpose" is? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- User:Koavf, put the straw man aside, please: it is not obvious to me that an article "should have" either one. I do not think that all articles need edit notices. I think that very few articles need edit notices. Someone in this thread noted that a plethora of edit notices makes all edit notices less visible; you should maybe give that some thought. It is clear to me that you a. either think all articles do or b. you didn't care and didn't give it a thought but you saw an opportunity to drop 2,500 or more templates into articles. If I hadn't placed a note on your talk page and here, how many would you have by now? I don't want to guess too much at your intentions, but you are awfully pleased at your edit count and the coverage you get for it; the editor who noted that it took you almost a dozen edits to make a couple of changes simply noticed what I noticed years ago: that you do things in many edits what others do in a single edit.
And here you are, bickering about common sense things after you've been hauled to AN and someone had to go and delete 2,500 of your creations (2,500--that's already crazy), and complaining to other editors about them deleting this or that individual edit notice. How can you even talk about an individual edit notice when you were churning them out at, what was it, Beyond My Ken, 20 templates per minute? You're seriously asking about Template:Editnotices/Page/1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game? Did anyone ever write something in BE in an American college basketball article?
So I see a bunch of problems: first of all, the mass creation of unnecessary templates without prior discussion, let alone approval. The speed with which these creations were dumped into our articles. The lack of care with which they were inserted, willy-nilly. Finally, what I can only see as a complete denial of the community concerns. People here are proposing yanking one or more or all of your privileges, and you're asking about an edit notice for Keith Flint--one might wonder if that question isn't psychosomatic addict insane. Drmies (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: 22.5 edits every minute, or an edit every 2.6667 second. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drmies, What strawman? Please stop making weird guesses about my beliefs or attitudes and just stick to facts like what I have done. Please show me what on this page displays a "complete denial of the community concerns".
- Pretty much every single one of your responses has been a denial of the community's concern, expressed by multiple editors in mutliple ways. You have shown zero appreciation of the problems here, either from IDHT or a lack of understanding, I cannot guess which. I agree with Drmies that your primary concern appears to be racking up edits and getting your numbers up, without any real concern for whether your edits are necessary or not.Your "beliefs and attitudes" are important, because we've moved beyond the obvious facts about the thousands of unnecessary and disruptive edits you made, and into questions about why you did it, whether you're likely to do it again, and what steps should be taken to prevent that. Removing AWB seems to be the logical step to take, but if you cannot clearly and cogently tell the community your purpose in making those edits, show that you understand why the community sees them as unnecesary and disruptive, and make a clear statement that you will not do any mass editing ever again without a clear consensus from the community, then other steps may need to be taken as well. up to and including a WP:CIR block.You cannot keep stuff-arming away the criticism that is being aimed at you, you must start to show some understanding of why it's coming your way. So far, I have not seen that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken As I have pointed out several times, there are two things I have seen: one is a problem of rate/volume and another is some problem in principle with the engvar editnotices. I genuinely had no expectation that adding engvar templates to articles that already had engvar templates would be a problem. I have no clue what "IDHT" is. If you care about my beliefs and attitudes, then you can ask me instead of guessing or making up lies (both of which are in this thread): it's not that hard and I'll answer every question posed in this thread, just like I have so far to everyone who has pinged me. It's confusing to me why you think I haven't clearly and cogently told the community my purpose in making those edits because I have multiple times here: it was to tell editors which variety of English should be used on a page when he goes to edit that page. I never expected prior to this that anyone would find that unnecessary (seems valuable to me) or disruptive (it isn't editing in the main namespace or in any way conflicting with existing content), so my edits were a good faith attempt to do something to enhance the encyclopedia. Evidently, others disagreed and they have since explained themselves as to why/how: I would have had no clue that it would be so contentious (if I did, I wouldn't have done it--I've spent a lot of time here answering questions, etc. that was not exactly what I had in mind or fun for me). The only mass editing I will do is mass editing that is already based on a community consensus of what is expected in articles--i.e. I will not add any innovative feature to any article (or other piece of the encyclopedia--it's not namespace-specific) that is not what others would typically expect from the standard settings of AWB, the outcome of some kind of discussion, or a request that someone made to me. The only mass editing I would do in the future would be edits that have a prior implicit or explicit consensus. Again, no idea what "stuff-arming" is: I keep on coming here to address every question, concern, and complaint that every individual makes directly, including when someone uses some language that makes no sense or presumes some special knowledge of my state of mind that is just used as a slur. Is there any objection here that I haven't addressed in some way? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Koavf, are you joking? Didn't you just say, "Why is it obvious that an article should have {{Use American English}} but not {{AmE}} as an editnotice?" And I never said "an article should have {{Use American English}}"? Seriously. But again, here we go: you focus on the one little thing where you think you have something on me (and you don't), and you skip over litterally everything else. And how do you even make one edit every 2.67 seconds? Drmies (talk) 02:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Drmies, Will you stop acting outraged and please just have a discussion? I cannot ignore your strawman if I have no clue what you mean. If you explain yourself, I can at least try to talk to you. I don't understand you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lesigh. Hard to have a discussion with you. Alright. "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." I said "those AmE edit notices are unnecessary". You say "Why is it obvious that an article should have {{Use American English}} but not {{AmE}} as an editnotice?" The "argument that was not presented by that opponent" (me) is "an article should have {{Use American English}}". I am saying this not really for your benefit, because you either understand this perfectly but are just playing dumb, or you really don't understand it, which begs the question of WP:CIR (I know, that's not the old-fashioned use of "begging the question", since there is no "initial point", as required by the term petitio principii, but that's by the by); I am saying this, I repeat, not so much for you, but to have the record show that a good-faith effort was made to explain things to you.
I do not think we should have your edit notices in every article, or in random articles. I also don't think we need to have that other template in random articles. I think your dropping these templates into random articles was a boneheaded move. There was no purpose to it, and no consensus for it, and given what it is that you do here (which isn't really writing content), I suppose I understand why you don't see that it is useless. But that it was disruptive, that should have been clear to you, and you will, I hope, have to live with a ban/restriction/sanction, because here we are again, at 10PM on a Tuesday night, when there are so many better things to do. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- If I can't understand what you mean because you refuse to say what you mean, then I don't know what you think that elucidates. Over and over again, you've hinted at some special, secret meaning that only you know with a wink but you're then explicit about things you cannot possibly know or are just inaccurate and rude otherwise. Maybe it's because it's late--what do I know? The fact that you can't understand why I placed these notices when I have explained why several times is telling. Also, I don't make one edit every 2.67 seconds but if I did, it would be logged at my contributions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- You did indeed edit at that rate, it comes directly from your contributions log. The number of edits in a set period of time was counted and simple arithmetical operations were performed on that data. You cannot deny it, that was your average rate of editing for that period of time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken 4.34×10^8 seconds/2,280,554 does not equal 2.67. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- (1) Stop pinging me, you've become an annoyance.(2) My math is here, and it is as clear as a bell. I never daid that you edited at that rate for the entire time you were making your unnecessary and disruptive mass edits, I gave a specific period of time (the first page of your contributions log at that moment) and calculated the rate during that time period. That you choose to try to obfuscate the matter instead of just owning up to results of simple mathematics seems to me to be typical for you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- One more thing: three times in this thread you have said "I don't understand", and once "I can't understand". I find that telling in the contexts in which these statements were uttered. Also, please don't ping me anymore; I've done all the explaining I can do regarding my statements. Any time you want to explain why you placed these notices, besides the unenlightening "because I could", that would be interesting. Also, how you make one edit every 2.67 seconds. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- "I don't understand" and its variations come frequently from Koavf:
- To Andy Dingley: "Okay, maybe I just don't understand what you mean by 'algorithm'"
- To Andy Dingley: "Obviously, there are some who are objecting to me doing this without prior approval because of its scope but it seems like there are also users who disagree with that and I don't understand their reasoning."
- To Andy Dingley: "I can't understand you."
- To Drmies: "I don't understand you. "
- To Drmies: "If I can't understand what you mean because you refuse to say what you mean, then I don't know what you think that elucidates."
- To Drmies: "I cannot ignore your strawman if I have no clue what you mean."
- To Vanamonde93: "The argument against it in principle rather than the volume or speed of creation is something that I didn't anticipate and don't understand."
- If an editor shows repeatedly that they don't or can't understand what other editors are explaining to them, even when it's explained multiple times and simplified as much as possible, then I think there is a larger problem which may need to be dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken And again, you resort to some vague generalities "there is a larger problem": this is a perfect example of something that's not intelligible. Just say what you mean, and it's not so obscure. Somehow, the "problem" is that I don't know about algorithms? That someone doesn't state what his strawman is and I'm on the hook for his argument about a logical fallacy? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- You may find that you're the subject of a sanction for something that to you is "not intelligible" (which equals "I don't understand", yet again). Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken And again, you resort to some vague generalities "there is a larger problem": this is a perfect example of something that's not intelligible. Just say what you mean, and it's not so obscure. Somehow, the "problem" is that I don't know about algorithms? That someone doesn't state what his strawman is and I'm on the hook for his argument about a logical fallacy? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lesigh. Hard to have a discussion with you. Alright. "A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent." I said "those AmE edit notices are unnecessary". You say "Why is it obvious that an article should have {{Use American English}} but not {{AmE}} as an editnotice?" The "argument that was not presented by that opponent" (me) is "an article should have {{Use American English}}". I am saying this not really for your benefit, because you either understand this perfectly but are just playing dumb, or you really don't understand it, which begs the question of WP:CIR (I know, that's not the old-fashioned use of "begging the question", since there is no "initial point", as required by the term petitio principii, but that's by the by); I am saying this, I repeat, not so much for you, but to have the record show that a good-faith effort was made to explain things to you.
- User:Koavf, put the straw man aside, please: it is not obvious to me that an article "should have" either one. I do not think that all articles need edit notices. I think that very few articles need edit notices. Someone in this thread noted that a plethora of edit notices makes all edit notices less visible; you should maybe give that some thought. It is clear to me that you a. either think all articles do or b. you didn't care and didn't give it a thought but you saw an opportunity to drop 2,500 or more templates into articles. If I hadn't placed a note on your talk page and here, how many would you have by now? I don't want to guess too much at your intentions, but you are awfully pleased at your edit count and the coverage you get for it; the editor who noted that it took you almost a dozen edits to make a couple of changes simply noticed what I noticed years ago: that you do things in many edits what others do in a single edit.
- Vanamonde93, Why did you delete ones like (e.g.) Template:Editnotices/Page/Keith Flint? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: because there's consensus here for a mass deletion. I think you need to re-calibrate your approach here; you're asking "why not?" with respect to edit-notices, whereas the question you should be asking is "why"? Edit-notices are a little-used tool. For a long time, we have only used them on articles where disruption is known to occur, to provide warnings to stop that disruption. I'm not interested in having an RFC; you're the one seeking to change this practice; if anyone needs to start an RFC, it's you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, There was a consensus for mass deletion of the edit notices that were added in the past couple of days but deleting every edit notice I've created seems outside that scope. Maybe I'm misreading it. I don't know of any policy (guideline, more, etc.) about edit notices only being in the case of controversies about that particular issue any more than there is a policy about not adding {{Use American English}}. If that can be added without there being a pre-existing controversy, then why not {{American English}}? Yes, my attitude is one that if things aren't prohibited, they are allowed. If I know of any convention, rule, guideline, law, etc. then that would show it's prohibited or otherwise discouraged. I would never have expected that tagging an article to use a certain variety of English when it already has a tag to use that variety of English would have been controversial. The argument against it in principle rather than the volume or speed of creation is something that I didn't anticipate and don't understand. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- There was little to nothing in this discussion about timeframe; most of the objections are about needless additions, specifically, additions of EngVar templates to articles without an EngVar dispute. If there are other edit-notices you have created, I can undelete them; but every one I spot-checked was an EngVar notice. There are many things on Wikipedia that are allowed but are still a bad idea. You've been here long enough that you ought to have realized this was a bad idea; but even if you didn't, your response to Drmies on your talk page was quite sub-par. The argument against it has already been presented to you, so I don't know why I need to reiterate it, but in any case; they will build edit-notice fatigue, which is a problem because most other edit-notices are used for quite serious warnings. Also, there have been concerns raised with respect to high-speed editing above that Xaosflux or someone else is better placed to explain to you, but which you are expected to understand in any case if you're going to be carrying out high-speed edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, Please undo your indiscriminate deletion from prior to the past 48 hours. Edit notices such as Template:Editnotices/Page/Ghislaine Maxwell actually do address articles where there is confusion about the variety of English to be used. Your assumption shouldn't be "I'll just delete everything out of scope of this conversation from the past six years, figure it out": please restrict the deletions to the ones that were the focus of the conversation in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- The deleted talk page of the edit notice suggests that there was opposition to having an edit notice there already before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, Talk:Ghislaine_Maxwell#American_English_but_DMY_dates? implies that there is a need, since this topic has both American and British bases.
- @Koavf: Sorry, but no. First off, in the example you link, the edit-notice isn't helping anything. Second, and more importantly, the formal deletion proposal above was for the pages linked to on Jo-Jo Eumerus's subpage. Everything I deleted was within scope. I'm happy to undelete any non-EngVar edit-notices, because the discussion didn't go into those in detail; but though I asked you above, you haven't pointed me to any. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, I have, in fact, made non-engvar editnotices such as Template:Editnotices/Page/1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game (which you did not delete). I don't know what all of them are because you deleted several thousand, so I'm sure there are some in there that fall outside the scope of this discussion, even if you disagree that it's bound by a timeframe.
- I doubt it very much; perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus will tell us exactly how he generated his list, but it was intended to be a list of edit-notices that only included the EngVar templates. And (I really don't know why you're not getting this) the mass deletion proposal was about that list. At this point I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I'm stepping away. If you want to open a discussion here challenging my actions, feel free; I doubt it will go anywhere. Also, FTR, I made about 900 deletions, including talk pages, so of the order of 500 editnotices. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- What I did was a) to compile a list of all templates that Koavf had created through Special:Contributions/Koavf, in batches of 500 (i.e this URL), b) stripped out all the non-editnotice templates, c) double-checked for non-EngVar edit notices and d) stripped out all formatting other than the links to the edit notices and the dates so that people could if necessary restrict any action to editnotices within a specified timeframe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I did go back to December 2018 and no further as there was no indication of any batch or mass addition of editnotices before that time and it's quite some time back too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- What I did was a) to compile a list of all templates that Koavf had created through Special:Contributions/Koavf, in batches of 500 (i.e this URL), b) stripped out all the non-editnotice templates, c) double-checked for non-EngVar edit notices and d) stripped out all formatting other than the links to the edit notices and the dates so that people could if necessary restrict any action to editnotices within a specified timeframe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I doubt it very much; perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus will tell us exactly how he generated his list, but it was intended to be a list of edit-notices that only included the EngVar templates. And (I really don't know why you're not getting this) the mass deletion proposal was about that list. At this point I feel like I'm repeating myself, so I'm stepping away. If you want to open a discussion here challenging my actions, feel free; I doubt it will go anywhere. Also, FTR, I made about 900 deletions, including talk pages, so of the order of 500 editnotices. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, I have, in fact, made non-engvar editnotices such as Template:Editnotices/Page/1992 Troy State vs. DeVry men's basketball game (which you did not delete). I don't know what all of them are because you deleted several thousand, so I'm sure there are some in there that fall outside the scope of this discussion, even if you disagree that it's bound by a timeframe.
- The deleted talk page of the edit notice suggests that there was opposition to having an edit notice there already before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Bot Policy (WP:ASSISTED) spells out that
Contributors intending to make a large number of assisted edits are advised to first ensure that there is a clear consensus that such edits are desired.
. — xaosflux Talk 18:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, Please undo your indiscriminate deletion from prior to the past 48 hours. Edit notices such as Template:Editnotices/Page/Ghislaine Maxwell actually do address articles where there is confusion about the variety of English to be used. Your assumption shouldn't be "I'll just delete everything out of scope of this conversation from the past six years, figure it out": please restrict the deletions to the ones that were the focus of the conversation in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- There was little to nothing in this discussion about timeframe; most of the objections are about needless additions, specifically, additions of EngVar templates to articles without an EngVar dispute. If there are other edit-notices you have created, I can undelete them; but every one I spot-checked was an EngVar notice. There are many things on Wikipedia that are allowed but are still a bad idea. You've been here long enough that you ought to have realized this was a bad idea; but even if you didn't, your response to Drmies on your talk page was quite sub-par. The argument against it has already been presented to you, so I don't know why I need to reiterate it, but in any case; they will build edit-notice fatigue, which is a problem because most other edit-notices are used for quite serious warnings. Also, there have been concerns raised with respect to high-speed editing above that Xaosflux or someone else is better placed to explain to you, but which you are expected to understand in any case if you're going to be carrying out high-speed edits. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93, There was a consensus for mass deletion of the edit notices that were added in the past couple of days but deleting every edit notice I've created seems outside that scope. Maybe I'm misreading it. I don't know of any policy (guideline, more, etc.) about edit notices only being in the case of controversies about that particular issue any more than there is a policy about not adding {{Use American English}}. If that can be added without there being a pre-existing controversy, then why not {{American English}}? Yes, my attitude is one that if things aren't prohibited, they are allowed. If I know of any convention, rule, guideline, law, etc. then that would show it's prohibited or otherwise discouraged. I would never have expected that tagging an article to use a certain variety of English when it already has a tag to use that variety of English would have been controversial. The argument against it in principle rather than the volume or speed of creation is something that I didn't anticipate and don't understand. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Koavf: because there's consensus here for a mass deletion. I think you need to re-calibrate your approach here; you're asking "why not?" with respect to edit-notices, whereas the question you should be asking is "why"? Edit-notices are a little-used tool. For a long time, we have only used them on articles where disruption is known to occur, to provide warnings to stop that disruption. I'm not interested in having an RFC; you're the one seeking to change this practice; if anyone needs to start an RFC, it's you. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- ″Yes, ideally all articles would have this explained, as well as the citation style and the date format to be used (as well as any other particularities) but Rome wasn't built in a day.″. These have historically been some of the contentious areas of Wikipedia editing, and we do not need to see them turned into a giant land rush. That way, conflict and ill-feeling lie. If there's no trouble about this at an article in the first place, do not start it by slapping on templates and edit notices. This history of these disputes, and of other ways in which people have variously staked claims to articles over the years, should teach that the approach to this should be reactive, not proactive. Uncle G (talk) 19:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Uncle G, "the approach to this should be reactive, not proactive" I'm not seeing how/why you drew this conclusion. Stating date formats, citation styles, and English variants at the outset would stop petty edit-warring about that later. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Please read WP:BEANS. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson How is adding {{use list-defined references}} and {{use mdy dates}} at the top of an article when you first create it "stuffing beans up your nose"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- A) This isn't about those templates, this is about your editnotices.
- B) An editnotice might entice those with mischievous intent to disobey it, especially if it doesn't have pre-existing consensus. I agree that the chances of that are fairly low, but all the same proactive warnings run the risk of reverse psychology. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just another indication that Koavf simply doesn't understand the simplest of concepts, and apparently feels that making mass disruptive and controversial edits now will avoid "petty edit-warring" later. Never mind that we'll have go through World War III first, as long as Koavf gets his edit count increased. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, Again, I never thought that it would be controversial to add a template to an article that already has a template stating the same thing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I never thought that it would be controversial to add a template to an article that already has a template stating the same thing.
Isn't that related to CFORK? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson Not sure how: what do you mean? I suggested deleting the templates like {{Use American English}} in favor of the style like {{AmE}} but the community decided to keep both. What am I supposed to do? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I see, so the problem is not your making unnecessary and disruptive mass edits without consensus to do so, the problem is that the template exists. Apparently, the mere existence of the template makes it imperative that Koavf place that template on every conceivable article it might apply to, regardless of whether doing so is justified or useful. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Noting here for confused editors that I've moved the list of edit notices which was previously on User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/AmEng to User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/AmEng. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Koavf's response
Can we talk about Koavf's response (including initial lack thereof). Even now he still seems not to see the problem? GiantSnowman 19:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- My general opinion from the start has been AWB should be revoked until a time where Koavf understands what they did wrong and promises not to repeat it, I'm not really seeing an understanding above but ofcourse I'm probably a minority on this. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 19:57, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm generally in agreement that AWB probably should be revoked until Koavf demonstrates an understanding of what sorts of mass (semi-)automated edits are uncontroversial and what sorts require a discussion first. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
There's also a question of template editor permissions which is what allows the creation of edit notices in the first place. The mass creation of edit notices without prior consensus seems to fall under WP:TPEREVOKE 1 and maybe 2. Wug·a·po·des 20:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)So it turns out pagemover also allows creation of editnotices, and removing both TPE and PMR just to prevent changes to editnotices would definitely not be a good idea. Wug·a·po·des 21:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)- It might. I’d want to see more evidence of the pattern element of TPEREVOKE #1, rather than a single run of mass creations. I’m also not as sure whether by “editing protected templates” they mean creating editnotices. I know the TPE userright is needed to create them, but I feel like that criterion is referring more to, say, editing templates with lots of transclusions in an obviously controversial way rather than creating editnotices. But just my thoughts, I could be wrong. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that is a reasonable reading. What I'm mulling over is whether the issue is automated editing or using advanced permissions to make changes that are hard for other users to revert. If Koavf is generally productive with AWB, and the issue is using it to create edit notices, I think it would be better to keep AWB and remove TPE. On the other hand, if they are generally productive in editing templates and edit notices, but the issue is semi-automated editing, then revoking AWB and keeping TPE might be better. I haven't looked through the contribution history thoroughly to have an opinion yet. Wug·a·po·des 21:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would consider creating edit notices, "editing protected templates". A single large run doesn't necessarily constitute "a pattern" though. — xaosflux Talk 21:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- It might. I’d want to see more evidence of the pattern element of TPEREVOKE #1, rather than a single run of mass creations. I’m also not as sure whether by “editing protected templates” they mean creating editnotices. I know the TPE userright is needed to create them, but I feel like that criterion is referring more to, say, editing templates with lots of transclusions in an obviously controversial way rather than creating editnotices. But just my thoughts, I could be wrong. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm generally in agreement that AWB probably should be revoked until Koavf demonstrates an understanding of what sorts of mass (semi-)automated edits are uncontroversial and what sorts require a discussion first. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Davey 2010 Andy Dingley (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Leaning towardsSupport revocation of AWB per Mendaliv.one of the permissions, although I'm not sure which one at this point. He seems to be usually competent enough at AWB from looking at his contributions, but his attitude above and the testimony of others leads me to suspect that he might not have the temperament for it. I don't know enough about his TPE history to comment about it at this time.– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)- Well, I would bear in mind that a revocation isn't permanent. Like I don't even think it'd be a particularly uphill battle to get AWB back with some time, and I'm sure Koavf would have tasks to do and experience using AWB on other wikis uncontroversially to point us to. Wugapodes raises an interesting point, that in order to block creation of editnotices, we'd have to revoke both template editor and pagemover. My thought though is that the touchstone of this problem is that Koavf was using automation to do it. Had it just been a pagenotice here or there it wouldn't have been such a bother, and if it did get someone's attention eventually, it would've been handled without much hubbub. But once you throw AWB into the mix, you have the recipe for torches and pitchforks. So I think pulling AWB would be best, unless there's a compelling reason not to. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed, and modified accordingly. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I would bear in mind that a revocation isn't permanent. Like I don't even think it'd be a particularly uphill battle to get AWB back with some time, and I'm sure Koavf would have tasks to do and experience using AWB on other wikis uncontroversially to point us to. Wugapodes raises an interesting point, that in order to block creation of editnotices, we'd have to revoke both template editor and pagemover. My thought though is that the touchstone of this problem is that Koavf was using automation to do it. Had it just been a pagenotice here or there it wouldn't have been such a bother, and if it did get someone's attention eventually, it would've been handled without much hubbub. But once you throw AWB into the mix, you have the recipe for torches and pitchforks. So I think pulling AWB would be best, unless there's a compelling reason not to. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, I support removing AWB. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I support removing whatever enables this editor to do this kind of thing, including AWB. I do not see, in the responses here, that this editor is blessed with a lot of common sense, but one cannot mandate that, I suppose. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) We cannot mandate WP:Common sense, per se, but WP:Competency is required and WP:Communication is required."Competency" doesn't simply mean knowing how to use the tools of Wikipedia, it also means knowing how they should be used, when they should be used, and what limitations the community places on their use or are obvious to anyone with common sense.Similiarly, "communication" doesn't mean simply typing words, it means understanding what is being told to you and acting upon that understanding. If an editor cannot understand what other editors are trying to explain to them, and says, over and over again, "I don't understand", "I can't understand", or "that's not intelligible", then they're not communicating, no matter how many comments they post, and regardless of how many millions of edits they've managed to rack up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support removal of all advanced rights and AWB access and, if possible, access to Hotcat (possibly a topic ban for that). A collaborative person would have looked at this enormous discussion and thought "omg, I'm right and everyone else is wrong, but this is causing an immense of trouble so I will stop immediately". Johnuniq (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support removal of AWB as the user doesn't appear to understand what might be controversial use of it.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment; if people are leaning towards AWB (ie. automation/semi-automation) removal, would the following work:Something like this worked out reasonably well in the long-term for another editor, in a similar situation in the past—there is the freedom to contribute + perform manual edits (per all the normal processes/guidelines); and there is the freedom to contribute + perform semi-automated edits (per all the normal processes/guidelines). Koavf, would you be comfortable with something like this? ie. clear separation of human vs. bot/semi-bot activities? —Sladen (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Sladen: anyone can apply for a bot account, even if they just are going to use it with AWB to do certain things. BOTREQ is a place where you can request bots do something; actually doing something with a bot requires a WP:BRFA to approve each specific task. Tasks don't get approved for "general" stuff, but that would certainly be the way to do something like "add 100,000 edit notices" or "add a million templates". The BRFA process has checks in place to make sure there is actually community consensus for tasks, and the bigger the task the more the BRFA approvers usually seek. — xaosflux Talk 20:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sladen, Of course, that's fair. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Topic ban proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taking Koavf's many assertions above that they "don't understand" at their word, this editor lacks the competence (see Drmies' "one cannot mandate that" comment above) to wield these Engvar, date format, and other hidden style recommendation templates and editnotices in an appropriate fashion, and furthermore is unable (assuming good faith) to understand the criticism offered to them in the threads above. As many editors have observed their actions as being disruptive, I propose: Koavf is topic-banned from (1) placing, removing, or modifying any edit notice on any page on English Wikipedia, excepting in their own user space; (2) placing, removing, or modifying any template on any article recommending the use of any national variety of English, any date format, or any other optional style format, without seeking prior consensus for the change on a case-by-case basis; (3) any change to multiple articles (a "mass edit"), with or without the use of semi-automated tools, without seeking prior consensus for the mass changes.
- Support as proposer. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector: perhaps add a prohibition on mass creation of pages regardless of editing method, in any namespace without specific consensus to perform that task? –xenotalk 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xeno: I'm of two minds: on one hand I think that's covered by "any change to multiple articles" (although you said pages), but also I don't see that that's been identified as a problem. Unless you're saying that would be a simpler restriction to enforce? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector:: Prefer pages and to be more explicit, as this is a stronger mass creation prohibition than exists at WP:MASSCREATION (which only addresses "reader-facing" items). –xenotalk 11:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Xeno: I'm of two minds: on one hand I think that's covered by "any change to multiple articles" (although you said pages), but also I don't see that that's been identified as a problem. Unless you're saying that would be a simpler restriction to enforce? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, I "understand the criticism offered to [me] in the threads above": they were about volume/velocity of edits and the assertion that engvar templates were not needed and since they were not needed, shouldn't have been added. Is there something I'm missing? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- It was not a mere "assertion", it was the clear, unambiguous, and unanimous judgment of the community that the templates weren't needed and shouldn't have been added. It's not a matter for debate, so that the next time you can say "Well, that was just an assertion, I don't understand what's wrong with what I just did." What we're trying for here is some guarantee, or at least a reasonable assurance, that there won't be a next time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, You make it a sport to make the worst possible reading of what I write. Please stop. Latching onto the word "assertion" for your outrage is just petty. The problem was "He doesn't get it" so then I explained it. If you don't like the word "assert" (which means to to declare with assurance or plainly and strongly; to state positively.) then just insert whatever other word you want here. I don't know why you're so hostile to me personally with every word in my posts. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- You pinged me again - I asked you to stop that.You have no one to blame except yourself for questions being raised about your statements. As with several other things you have said in this discussion, the phrasing of your statement above and the addition of unnecessary quotation marks makes it appear that you are crafting loopholes to use in the future; other editors have commented on this. There's also the number of times you claim not to be able to understand what other editors are saying, even when it's perfectly clear to other participants in the discussion. You seem incapable of making a clear, cogent, unambiguous statement, so it's hardly odd for others to question exactly what you mean when you finally do say something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- You have actually got to be kidding me: I've been as explicit as possible and said, "I'm saying this so there are no gotchas or loopholes" and have been thanked in this thread for being direct. If I don't understand what someone means by an algorithm or a strawman that he doesn't explain or when someone says, "Well, this all implies a bigger problem, *wink-wink*" cryptically tacked onto the end of a message, that is all irrelevant noise to complain about later. The actual issue that was raised above was "Does he understand why we're objecting" and I gave the two things that I understood them to be. Do you have anything to add to that or are you going to keep on complaining that I don't know anything about algorithms?―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- <facepalm> (*sigh*) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- So, again, since you didn't answer my actual question: is there anything that I'm missing about what the complaints were about my behavior? My guess is no. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- <facepalm> (*sigh*) Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- You have actually got to be kidding me: I've been as explicit as possible and said, "I'm saying this so there are no gotchas or loopholes" and have been thanked in this thread for being direct. If I don't understand what someone means by an algorithm or a strawman that he doesn't explain or when someone says, "Well, this all implies a bigger problem, *wink-wink*" cryptically tacked onto the end of a message, that is all irrelevant noise to complain about later. The actual issue that was raised above was "Does he understand why we're objecting" and I gave the two things that I understood them to be. Do you have anything to add to that or are you going to keep on complaining that I don't know anything about algorithms?―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- You pinged me again - I asked you to stop that.You have no one to blame except yourself for questions being raised about your statements. As with several other things you have said in this discussion, the phrasing of your statement above and the addition of unnecessary quotation marks makes it appear that you are crafting loopholes to use in the future; other editors have commented on this. There's also the number of times you claim not to be able to understand what other editors are saying, even when it's perfectly clear to other participants in the discussion. You seem incapable of making a clear, cogent, unambiguous statement, so it's hardly odd for others to question exactly what you mean when you finally do say something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Beyond My Ken, You make it a sport to make the worst possible reading of what I write. Please stop. Latching onto the word "assertion" for your outrage is just petty. The problem was "He doesn't get it" so then I explained it. If you don't like the word "assert" (which means to to declare with assurance or plainly and strongly; to state positively.) then just insert whatever other word you want here. I don't know why you're so hostile to me personally with every word in my posts. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, here are all the times in this discussion where you've explicitly stated "I don't understand" or some variation indicating you did not comprehend what was being plainly explained: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]. This is what I mean by taking you at your word that you don't understand. I think you also don't understand the magnitude of the cleanup job you handed administrators by mass-adding thousands of unnecessary editnotice pages. You suggested on your talk page that you planned to add these to every page using American English ({{Use American English}} currently has 18,582 transclusions) and then planned to move on to British and Canadian English as well (205,283 and 5,068 transclusions respectively). That's just shy of a quarter million pages, though from the discussion above it seems you stopped at about 2,500 when Drmies intervened. Even that number took two administrators with advanced scripts and another reviewing the list manually most of a day to clean up. We banned Neelix when they hit something like 80,000 redirects, which took several years to clean up. You were going for more than three times that number of unnecessary page creations. Presumably after that you may have moved on to {{use mdy dates}} (171,388) and dmy (991,749) for another million and a bit pages. It's ridiculous that it did not occur to you to ask if that was a good idea first. WP:MASSCREATION prohibits this, since you're looking for a guideline, but Drmies' "common sense" argument certainly also applies. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, And did any of those times contradict, misinterpret, or otherwise distort what the community was complaining about? Which is (again, feel free to correct me): a large volume/high velocity of edits and a conclusion/assertion/assessment/consensus (so there's no "gotchas" here) that the edits in and of themselves weren't helpful (/necessary/needed/required/demanded/etc.)? Is there anything else I'm missing when I say "I don't understand what you mean when you say that you doubt my purpose here or where I don't know of any policy or guideline about something and there is, in fact no policy or guideline about that thing or I never studied algorithms in math class (but I clearly explained my reasoning and method already) or I don't know what strawman someone claims because he never explained it (twice). None of those is saying, "I don't know why this thread was called" they are all saying, "I don't know what an algorithm is" or "You didn't say what you mean when you say 'there is a larger problem' without explaining yourself". The "IDHT" argument is, "I refuse to listen to your complaints" which is 100% not true here. What is happening here in everything I just linked is someone saying something that is tangential to the complaint about my behavior (like asking if template creation is CFORK when it's not and I didn't even make the templates in question). Groping around for the most desperate bad-faith reading of what I wrote is something that I would not expect from admins, and yet here we are. Yes, I acknowledge the community's concerns as addressed several times here: 1.) too much editing in too short a time (without any explicit consensus for that editing) and 2.) the actual substance of the edits not being appropriate. There is not "I refuse to listen", there is "I don't know what weird side-eyed complaints you have about me personally when you say, 'there's a bigger problem here' or 'strawman' or 'algorithm' and don't actually say what you mean". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- The combative nature of your comments suggested (to me, and apparently to many other editors) that either you did not understand how you were causing disruption, or you did understand but were defending your actions (implying that you intended to continue). Your insistence that commenters here are "groping around for the most desperate bad-faith reading of what I wrote" suggests the latter: my impression is that you're being defensive and don't intend to take any of this as valid criticism but as a personalized attack on your editing. To be honest some of what has been written here is much more personal than I would like to see. I don't really care one bit (or several million bits) if you make many trivial edits when you could have made one comprehensive edit, and I care even less if you do it intentionally to inflate your edit count, or whatever else has been alleged. The editor who called you a clown should have been blocked, I'm sorry I was not around when that happened. But there is valid criticism here. I do see and I do appreciate that you're explaining now how you understand, notwithstanding that there are guidelines about all of these things (many of which you're expected to be familiar with before getting access to AWB, but many userrights are handed out like candy around here) but nonetheless it took a small army of editors stepping in to try to explain things before you acknowledged that anything might have been wrong in the first place. And that's why I proposed a ban, because it really didn't seem like you were getting it.
- As an effort to demonstrate that you understand, could you go through the three points I proposed in my ban, and discuss why I would have proposed those points in particular and what you will do differently if the ban is not enacted? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector, And did any of those times contradict, misinterpret, or otherwise distort what the community was complaining about? Which is (again, feel free to correct me): a large volume/high velocity of edits and a conclusion/assertion/assessment/consensus (so there's no "gotchas" here) that the edits in and of themselves weren't helpful (/necessary/needed/required/demanded/etc.)? Is there anything else I'm missing when I say "I don't understand what you mean when you say that you doubt my purpose here or where I don't know of any policy or guideline about something and there is, in fact no policy or guideline about that thing or I never studied algorithms in math class (but I clearly explained my reasoning and method already) or I don't know what strawman someone claims because he never explained it (twice). None of those is saying, "I don't know why this thread was called" they are all saying, "I don't know what an algorithm is" or "You didn't say what you mean when you say 'there is a larger problem' without explaining yourself". The "IDHT" argument is, "I refuse to listen to your complaints" which is 100% not true here. What is happening here in everything I just linked is someone saying something that is tangential to the complaint about my behavior (like asking if template creation is CFORK when it's not and I didn't even make the templates in question). Groping around for the most desperate bad-faith reading of what I wrote is something that I would not expect from admins, and yet here we are. Yes, I acknowledge the community's concerns as addressed several times here: 1.) too much editing in too short a time (without any explicit consensus for that editing) and 2.) the actual substance of the edits not being appropriate. There is not "I refuse to listen", there is "I don't know what weird side-eyed complaints you have about me personally when you say, 'there's a bigger problem here' or 'strawman' or 'algorithm' and don't actually say what you mean". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- It was not a mere "assertion", it was the clear, unambiguous, and unanimous judgment of the community that the templates weren't needed and shouldn't have been added. It's not a matter for debate, so that the next time you can say "Well, that was just an assertion, I don't understand what's wrong with what I just did." What we're trying for here is some guarantee, or at least a reasonable assurance, that there won't be a next time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector: perhaps add a prohibition on mass creation of pages regardless of editing method, in any namespace without specific consensus to perform that task? –xenotalk 19:06, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Ivanvector Your topic ban proposal is good, and I support it, but I also agree with xeno that a prohibition on mass creation of pages is needed as well, and I continue to believe that removal of AWB is called for. If I recall correctly, don't the AWB rules call for it not to be used in any controversial way? Well, judging from the length of this discussion, this was controversial. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sorry as I too agree with Xeno and BMK - Given the amount of mass-created edit notices a mass creation prohibition would be good here, I'm also in agreement with BMK in that AWB should be revoked from them. –Dave | Davey2010Talk 21:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support in addition to any and all other sanctions that might be imposed by the community in this thread. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support all proposed sanctions. The user means well, we assume, but the inability to see that Wikipedia is not about having the most trivial edits is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support AWB removal and topic bans proposed above until Justin figures out what was explained at length here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support AWB removal and topic bans proposed above. This conversation includes plenty of the "I didn't hear that" and the passive-aggressive style of response that indicate a serious problem. Far better to make tens of thousands of thoughtful, careful edits, rather than millions of rapidfire edits. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support AWB removal, the topic ban Ivanvector proposes, and a topic-ban on mass creation, as Xeno proposes. The unwillingness to listen in the discussion here has been quite unfortunate. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support 100%. – Athaenara ✉ 03:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just a note: if there is broad support for xeno's page creation ban, point (3) of my proposal can be modified to read "(3) any change to or creation of multiple
articlespages ...". Such a restriction would also inherently prohibit the use of AWB. I support this modification. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC) - Support AWB removal and proposed TBANs, I'm saddened that we're proposing sanctions on such a prolific editor but I would likewise expect such an editor to understand why the community sees their actions as a problem (and to have thought about this mass-edit more before taking action). If their response had been "sorry, I thought it was a useful addition, my bad, I'll make sure to get consensus next time" I would be inclined to let them off with a slap on the wrist, but they either can't or won't understand the problem, so sanction away. creffpublic a creffett franchise (talk to the boss) 14:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support AWB removal and TBANs, per the disingenuous and apparently deliberate inability to understand the issue. Grandpallama (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support AWB removal and TBANs. Have seen several unnecessary mass edits from Koavf over the years that I could only assume were to rack up an edit count, so this is long overdue. Ss112 16:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support 3 on AWB removal. No strong opinion on TBANs, I see the bulk aspect as being the problem here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support all generally. I'd prefer to see a carve-out for #3 that makes clear that repetitive types of edits that are routinely made by other editors shouldn't be problematic (e.g., using Twinkle to tag articles or nominate articles for deletion). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Maya Rani Paul and Jogesh Chandra Barman or, RHaworth and speedy deletions
Recently, my two stub articles were deleted. Maya Rani Paul was a member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly and Jogesh Chandra Barman was a member of West Bengal Legislative Assembly and ex Minister of West Bengal Provincial Government. According to Wikipedia's notablity guidelines, they are notable. I have given proper references in these article too. But an user put a speedy deletion tag and the pages were deleted. I want these pages to be rescued.--S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll cover admin request and DELREV on the user's talk page. no need for ANI actionNosebagbear (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)- @Nosebagbear: No, please, don't do that. These were severely inappropriate deletions, and I for one would like to hear what RHaworth has to say about them. RHaworth: I cannot see how you can have decided to delete those pages after reading them, which, to me, means that you didn't read them, and used the batch-delete function on CAT:CSD. I have, incidentally, reversed the deletions as being inappropriate applications of CSD. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: RHaworth has made 488,273 page deletions. They are #2 behind MZMcBride's 805,727 deletions, who I believe ran automated process to delete pages (their history is very hard to follow). Similarly, it would be very concerning if RHaworth also used automated processes to delete pages, depending on what they are and how they are used. For example, massdelete per G5 is not uncommon, at least not in my line of business. I was looking at RHaworth's recent deletion log, and I noticed many times where the deletions come at a very rapid clip. For example, look at 18:06-07, 20 August 2019 (UTC) where there are I think 21 deletions of IP Talk pages for vandalism. I'm not contesting the merits of the deletions as I only looked at a couple, but the question is did RHaworth review the tags before deleting. I don't know how to tell the process that was used from the log (someone more technical might). There are other parts of the log where pages are deleted quickly, but that was the most glaring I noticed (I didn't go back any further). I also find the idea of deleting an article that is tagged by an apparent disruptive account without review to be ass backwards. When I come across a tag from such a user, my immediate inclination is not to delete, but I certainly review it with additional scrutiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Bbb23, yes, indeed. I'm less concerned with "borderline" decisions; the number of those is always going to be proportional to the number of deletions they've made. The critical question to me is whether they are examining the articles they are deleting. To my mind there are very few circumstances in which even a basic examination isn't required, and failing to perform it isn't the same as an overzealous deletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: RHaworth has made 488,273 page deletions. They are #2 behind MZMcBride's 805,727 deletions, who I believe ran automated process to delete pages (their history is very hard to follow). Similarly, it would be very concerning if RHaworth also used automated processes to delete pages, depending on what they are and how they are used. For example, massdelete per G5 is not uncommon, at least not in my line of business. I was looking at RHaworth's recent deletion log, and I noticed many times where the deletions come at a very rapid clip. For example, look at 18:06-07, 20 August 2019 (UTC) where there are I think 21 deletions of IP Talk pages for vandalism. I'm not contesting the merits of the deletions as I only looked at a couple, but the question is did RHaworth review the tags before deleting. I don't know how to tell the process that was used from the log (someone more technical might). There are other parts of the log where pages are deleted quickly, but that was the most glaring I noticed (I didn't go back any further). I also find the idea of deleting an article that is tagged by an apparent disruptive account without review to be ass backwards. When I come across a tag from such a user, my immediate inclination is not to delete, but I certainly review it with additional scrutiny.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: No, please, don't do that. These were severely inappropriate deletions, and I for one would like to hear what RHaworth has to say about them. RHaworth: I cannot see how you can have decided to delete those pages after reading them, which, to me, means that you didn't read them, and used the batch-delete function on CAT:CSD. I have, incidentally, reversed the deletions as being inappropriate applications of CSD. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23. Another way to look at this is that RHaworth has been volunteering here for many years, helping keep this place free of trash on a scale that most other administrators don't come anywhere near. Out of literally hundreds of thousands of deletions, there are occasional misfires, but I imagine his error rate is a lot lower than most. And deletions are easy enough to reverse if needed. That all said, I completely agree that it's disheartening and frustrating to write a new article only to have it be speedily deleted. I agree with Dicklyon that indefinitely blocking SHUBHAM SARITA is possibly overkill at this time, even if the bulk of this mess lies with SHUBHAM SARITA's actions. It depends whether SHUBHAM SARITA was also socking and causing other disruption. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MZMcBride: To be clear, I don't expect admins to be perfect; we're human; mistakes happen. But there's a variety of mistakes. There's many errors that are perfectly understandable and excusable, even though they're errors; deleting a CSD#A1 as an A3 instead; deleting something as a copyvio even though it was a source that copied from Wikipedia; deleting something as an A7 because you didn't know that winning X award was a big deal; deleting something as an A7 because you searched for source but mistyped the name; deleting something as a G11 that could have been rescued because there was an older, non-promotional, version that you missed because you were tired and grumpy. I've made some of these mistakes. Between those of us here, we've made them all. But I think it's clear that any admin, reading either of these pages, would never have hit the delete button; and therefore, RHaworth deleted them without reading the pages. That is not an excusable mistake, that's an egregious error of judgement. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23. Another way to look at this is that RHaworth has been volunteering here for many years, helping keep this place free of trash on a scale that most other administrators don't come anywhere near. Out of literally hundreds of thousands of deletions, there are occasional misfires, but I imagine his error rate is a lot lower than most. And deletions are easy enough to reverse if needed. That all said, I completely agree that it's disheartening and frustrating to write a new article only to have it be speedily deleted. I agree with Dicklyon that indefinitely blocking SHUBHAM SARITA is possibly overkill at this time, even if the bulk of this mess lies with SHUBHAM SARITA's actions. It depends whether SHUBHAM SARITA was also socking and causing other disruption. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you @Vanamonde93: for pinging me before I'd finished writing to Nazmus. I've dropped notice to RHaworth. Neither of these articles looks like an appropriate CSD at all. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: No problem; if you want to handle the conversation with the user who placed the tags, feel free; I have as much newbie conversation as I can handle on my hands at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I did, but in the meantime the user was indef blocked for WP:CIR. My timing is clearly off tonight Nosebagbear (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Nosebagbear: No problem; if you want to handle the conversation with the user who placed the tags, feel free; I have as much newbie conversation as I can handle on my hands at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think another factor to consider is the conduct of SHUBHAM SARITA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who nominated the pages for speedy deletion. I'm not sure if the taggings by this user are innocently misguided or intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point after pages they created got speedy deleted. That doesn't excuse bad review of the tags, of course, but admins sometimes have bad days. —C.Fred (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I see that the fleet-footed Ponyo has indeffed them while I was still digging through their contributions, and it was a justified block. I did, however, come across this tag (sorry, admins only), placed by the blocked user and also deleted by RHaworth, which wasn't necessarily a bad deletion, but wasn't a CSD#G1 page; the subject was clearly identifiable. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Due to a substantial history of socking regarding this topic, I was already looking very closely at SHUBHAM SARITA's edits when this thread was opened. The CSD tags added were inapplicable and disruptive. It doesn't appear they were reviewed prior to the "delete" button being engaged.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't usually do A7's anymore. They don't look A7able to me too often.-- Dlohcierekim 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's not much point in debating an a7 deletion since neither were a7'd....Praxidicae (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't usually do A7's anymore. They don't look A7able to me too often.-- Dlohcierekim 21:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Due to a substantial history of socking regarding this topic, I was already looking very closely at SHUBHAM SARITA's edits when this thread was opened. The CSD tags added were inapplicable and disruptive. It doesn't appear they were reviewed prior to the "delete" button being engaged.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I see that the fleet-footed Ponyo has indeffed them while I was still digging through their contributions, and it was a justified block. I did, however, come across this tag (sorry, admins only), placed by the blocked user and also deleted by RHaworth, which wasn't necessarily a bad deletion, but wasn't a CSD#G1 page; the subject was clearly identifiable. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- These were blatantly inappropriate speedy deletions, neither was at all promotional, they didn't qualify for speedy deletion for any other reason, and I don't see how someone could conclude that they were candidates for deletion. Hut 8.5 21:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Concur on "not promotional" and I am reminded of past discussions on RHaworth's deletion practices. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Concur as well, A1 and G11 were not appropriate speedies (and I say this as someone who can be trigger-happy with the G11). Also not A7, they meet NPOLITICIAN. I hate to say it, but these were bad speedy deletes. creffett (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- May be connected to their self-acknowledged "shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach" - see here. I wonder if there is a way to determine how many CSD nominations someone has denied? - suspect not. - Sitush (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I take an extremely dim view of the way that this matter was taken straight to ANI without giving me a chance to rectify things myself. My reaction is: OK, I made two mistakes. Both were corrected within half an hour. Why do we need a long discussion? The deletions were three minutes apart - they were not done using the batch deletion tool. In each case I saw a very short article where the only references to English language sources were to purely formal listings. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- RHaworth, The article creator brought this here, because they were understandably piqued; and your mistakes were only fixed in half an hour because they were brought here. If you say you're not using batch-delete, fine; but then these are rather egregious errors. CSD#A1 is for articles where the subject is not identifiable. A biography that just has a full name wouldn't qualify. I don't think anybody wants to escalate this, but after three similar AN discussions in a few months time, you need to give us more than just "oops". Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- RHaworth English sources are not and should not be a requirement for notability, and deficient sourcing of any type is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. These are bad excuses for bad deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- RHaworth, The article creator brought this here, because they were understandably piqued; and your mistakes were only fixed in half an hour because they were brought here. If you say you're not using batch-delete, fine; but then these are rather egregious errors. CSD#A1 is for articles where the subject is not identifiable. A biography that just has a full name wouldn't qualify. I don't think anybody wants to escalate this, but after three similar AN discussions in a few months time, you need to give us more than just "oops". Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I take an extremely dim view of the way that this matter was taken straight to ANI without giving me a chance to rectify things myself. My reaction is: OK, I made two mistakes. Both were corrected within half an hour. Why do we need a long discussion? The deletions were three minutes apart - they were not done using the batch deletion tool. In each case I saw a very short article where the only references to English language sources were to purely formal listings. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Like Dicklyon I think an indef block may be too severe for SHUBHAM SARITA - thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- No. They should be required to demonstrate their competence by making an unblock request. Any reasonably well worded request should be accepted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's a credible case for sockpuppetry here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivek.k.Verma/Archive, Special:Undelete/Vivek Verma (Singer). In a totally-not coincidence, Kundaliniwar created Draft:Vivek Verma two days ago with identical content. I also suspect UPE here - reaching for Twinkle and patrolling new pages, ostensibly to infiltrate NPP, is getting more common. Checkuser needed. MER-C 11:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm also concerned about RHaworth's CSD history. For example, this one discussed at length in this thread. Another user tagged it for deletion with a patently invalid reason. Even a cursory look would have told RHayworth that this was incorrectly tagged, but he deleted it anyway. That's not an honest mistake, it's just careless. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- I asked him to restore it, and he did, but only after blaming the victim. He also moved it to another title without leaving a redirect. Not sure why he did that; it left the original author with no way to locate their missing sandbox. I had to go create the redirect myself. The default for Special:MovePage is to leave a redirect. To not leave a redirect you have to go out of your way to uncheck the box. I'm mystified why somebody would go out of their way to take the less helpful option. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
CSD isn't the half of it... ——SerialNumber54129 17:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's been brought to my attention three different ways already. Risker has already asked for a response, but Praxidicae said she saw it as a joke. I'm baffled, honestly, by their general inability to take feedback seriously, though they're not unique in that respect. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's creepy and inappropriate, particularly for an administrator. Just my two cents. If a non-administrator said that I think we'd be looking at sanctions. At any rate, I've had issues with RHaworth deleting things speedily that should go through the normal AFD process, although in my case he was pretty easy going and sent me a copy of the page after I asked. I don't think he's a bad person, just needs to think before he hits "publish changes" -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- It looks to me like the instigation of that post was this arbitration motion. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- RHaworth, so far as I can tell, you have made more than 50 edits since last participating here; why haven't you returned to this discussion? There's many experienced editors asking, or implying, that you need to, at the very least, promise to be more careful. By refusing to participate, you're making it more likely that someone will seek formal sanction; don't let this escalate more than it has to. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The article, Samastha is currently misleading
The Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama was an Islamic organisation in the State of Kerala. The parent organization has been split up several times and finally divided into EK Faction and AP Faction. Actually Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama is not active but the name Samastha Kerala Jamiyyathul Ulama is now used by both groups. This article is currently misleading. Because this article talks about the two organisations mixed, Undivided Samastha (the parent organisation was live till 1989) and EK Faction (one of the factions). Let me tell you some examples: No Current members for Mushawara, executive bodies, members and headquarters for Undivided Samastha but they have available for EK Faction and AP Faction. The contents are related with EK Faction was moved to the correct destination, EK Faction.
Can any admins explain for me, Why my edits was reverted? Kutyava (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Without saying anything about the content itself, this is not the place to settle a content dispute. I suggest you go to the dispute resolution noticeboard
or the village pumpto get this sorted out. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Without saying anything about the content itself, this is not the place to settle a content dispute. I suggest you go to the dispute resolution noticeboard
- Looking at the diffs,User: Kutyava, User:GorgeCustersSabre gave you explicit reasoning here and administrator User:Drmies advised you to discuss your addition on the talk page. Essentially, you were bold, GeorgeCustersSabre recerted, now you need to discuss, like it says on WP:BRD. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 20:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson, isn't the village pump for ideas, policies and stuff? Kutyava, note that Wikipedia values verifiability over truth. Irrespective of that, admins don't have a veto on content. You might find the BRD cycle of Wikipedia editing helpful, as suggested above. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 21:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson, isn't the village pump for ideas, policies and stuff? Kutyava, note that Wikipedia values verifiability over truth. Irrespective of that, admins don't have a veto on content. You might find the BRD cycle of Wikipedia editing helpful, as suggested above. Usedtobecool ✉ ✨ 21:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Can we range block on this type of behavior?
I have found a very odd IP editor who's only edits across different IPs have been to add the claim that some old Just Dance game titles are coming to modern video game systems, a claim I can't even find in user forums to validate, nor would it make sense. Reverting is usually done and the editor disappears for a few days then comes back and adds it again to a few articles. They don't editor warring (reverting the removal) they don't respond to anything talk page released and don't do anything else.
Unfortunately they have a shifting IP:
All these appear to be out of Santiago Chile. Doing the rough hostmask calculations shows it would be something like 201.189.192.0/18.
These are more annoying than disruptive so the questions are: are these something we can block a range of IP addresses to prevent, and if this range is too large for this situation. --Masem (t) 23:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's a bit more disruption than that. GMGtalk 00:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't hate blocking this range at all, and if you look at the history of Ha*Ash, besides all the other stuff, there's really no choice. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Putting on the CU hat, the rangeblock appears to be appropriate in both range and duration. There is more to look at from the CU perspective, but I'm heading to bed so either I will continue to look at it tomorrow, or one of my colleagues might step up. Risker (talk) 04:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure why anyone would worry about a school being blocked. Most libraries in the US are IP blocked and the entirety of T-mobile in the US is too. ♟♙ (talk) 17:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's at least partly historical convention for blocking, that school IPs tend to get used by a lot of people and in almost all cases whatever abuser is behind the need for a particular block is often gone and graduated at the end of the school year. The fact that most libraries are blocked and an entire major mobile ISP is blocked are both actually concerning—in my view more concerning than school blocks. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Gary Null
At least two admins are in receipt of legal threats on behalf of Gary Null (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr. Null is unhappy that we have an article - or at least one that views him from a reality-based standpoint. Please watchlist the article and talk page. If you are also contacted, please email me and I will put you in touch with the other affected admin. WMF Legal are aware. Guy (Help!) 15:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)