Wikipedia talk:Editor review/Antiuser

Review by Nothughthomas

Nothughthomas's review of antiuser is precisely what a review is intended to generate:

Wikipedia's Editor review process allows users' behavior and contributions to Wikipedia to be evaluated by peers, who will provide constructive feedback on areas for improvement.

Since nobody has given any specifics for how/why Nothughthomas's review fails to be an evaluation of antiuser's behavior on Wikipedia, it is not appropriate to remove it.

The commentary after the review is a back-and-forth. I personally don't see any personal attacks (though it is at least partially off-topic). ^Bongo_matic 03:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AIN#Incident with User:Nothughthomas. This user has been harassing me and others, and have been nothing but disruptive. I have no qualms with their review staying, as I believe I've handled the situation properly, but their review is heavily biased and not at all accurate. The claim that I have been pushing POV is blatantly false and the user is just making stuff up to try and get to me. XXX antiuser ^eh? 03:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - it's clear harassment. Bongomatic, have you reviewed the various ANI threads about this editor so far? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just realised that you've readded this "review". Tell me, where does NotHughThomas provide evidence that AntiUser pushes a POV on articles? That's a serious accusation, she'd better be able to back that up with some evidence. I'd like to understand how it could be considered constructive in any way? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Review is not an administrative process. it is a place for editors to offer their opinions. If this were an ANI or an RFC or any other sort of proceeding, your question might be relevant. But it's not. It's a place where the editor to be reviewed actively has solicited the views of others. The review is for the reviewee's benefit only—any comments that antiuser disagrees with he can ignore. ^Bongo_matic 04:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't trump WP:HARASS. As AntiUser is OK with the "review", then I'll not remove it. But if he wants it gone, it's gone. You have not addressed my question on where the evidence exists that AntiUser was pushing a POV. Do you not agree that this is a serious accusation? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was okay with having it on there since I assumed people would realise User:Nothughthomas' comments were baseless, but after seeing Bongo's reaction, I'm afraid people might think those are legitimate concerns. I've been on Wikipedia for nearly 5 years and haven't had so much as a warning for my edits, so I take offence to false accusations like those raised by User:Nothughthomas. Therefore I've changed my mind and would like that sham review removed. XXX antiuser ^eh? 06:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. It's gone. Bongomatic, don't readd it back in again. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want the opinion of editors you disagree with / cranks / etc. you should either (a) state your desired review contents at the top of your request for review; or (b) withdraw the review. ^Bongo_matic 06:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was not a review, it was an outburst by a user who has a bone to pick with me, and who has been blocked for being disruptive and attacking editors. This is a request for review, not a request for made up accusations that have nothing to do with my edit history. XXX antiuser ^eh? 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well you should probably have it oversighted then—definitely don't want it to besmirch your reputation even in the edit history. ^Bongo_matic 07:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I need to go that far. The AIN thread and the block are still there to support my claim. XXX antiuser ^eh? 07:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Editor review, "Reviewers and reviewees should adhere to Wikipedia's behavioral policies at all times." I have a number of questions for Bongomatic:

Do you really think this was in line with existing policies?
Do you really think that cranks and trolls should be allowed to file reviews against editors?
In what way was the review constructive?
How precisely did you want AntiUser to respond to the accusation that he is POV-pushing?
Do you agree that this was unsubstantiated? If so, why did you readd the review?

After that sarcastic oversight comment, I think we'd better get some answers. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, please assume good faith. You may interpret my previous comment as sarcastic, but there is no basis for such an interpretation. My view is that statements on this page are not material in damaging the reputation of the reviewee. However, anyone who disagrees would logically conclude that the statements are also harmful to let rest in the edit history.

Second I will answer in bullets as I'm not an expert with getting numbered lists to continue after multiple paragraphs of different indent levels

Do you really think this was in line with existing policies? There were a number of statements made by Nothughthomas. None of them appears to me to violate any of Wikipedia's behavioral policies:

Grade 6/10 (Good But Needs Improvement) - Though generally well-intentioned, userid:antiuser often gets carried away with advancing a POV to the exception of being able to consider or digest more mainstream, and academically accepted, ideas. As well, he can be quick to take umbrage and will jump to filing ANI complaints at the slightest hint of offense. He might benefit from a thorough review of Wikipedia policies and procedures and learning to walk away when things get heated instead of trying to get in "one last punch", but, ultimately, has the potential to evolve into a very good WP contributor within the next few years.

While perhaps not accurate, and certainly expressing a critical opinion, not unWP:CIVIL.
Regardless of the edit history between the two, expressing an opinion where outside opinions are sought cannot be considered to be Wikihounding, and hence I don't see this as WP:HARASSment.
Obviously not WP:LEGAL threat.
Obviously not a WP:PA.
Not obviously WP:SOCK puppetry, and don't think such has been suggested (if it is, that's a different kettle of fish).
Obviously not WP:VANDALism.
Obviously not edit WP:WARing.
Obviously not WP:OWNERSHIP of articles.
Expressing a sought opinion does not appear to violate WP:CONSENSUS.

The two behavioural policies that were violated here were

WP:HARASS - while you may not have been following what was going on on the WP:AN/I thread, and you evidently have never had an encounter with this editor before, you should be aware that NotHughThomas became exceedingly aggressive towards AntiUser when AntiUser informed them they had used the wrong tag on David Lewis Anderson.
WP:PA - it is indeed a personal attack to assert that an editor pushes their own point of view without any evidence or even details of the articles in which they have allegedly done this.

So, yes, they did violate behavioural policies. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of what I was talking about in my above review of the contributor. See: WP:NOTTHEM. If contributor works on this (WP:NOTTHEM) a little, however, he can be a great and valuable asset to Wikipedia.

Not unWP:CIVIL—an explication of a previously stated opinion (again, not necessarily correct), not uncivilly stated.
Responding to the previous statement is not WP:HARASSment. Note that the reviewee didn't ask for Nothughthomas to cease posting on the review page.
Obviously not WP:LEGAL threat.
Obviously not a WP:PA.
Not obviously WP:SOCK puppetry.
Obviously not WP:VANDALism.
Obviously not edit WP:WARing.
Obviously not WP:OWNERSHIP of articles.
Expressing an opinion in this manner does not appear to violate WP:CONSENSUS.

I don't really think it's constructive to get in "one last punch" in an editor review. You solicited feedback and I provided it. You are welcome to acknowledge or disregard it as you see fit.If you are not concerned with the spirit of WP:NOTTHEM (1. do not attack other editors, 2. do not make excuses, 3. AGF, 4. assume AGF), but only the legalese and letter of WP:NOTTHEM, that is certainly your right. In my editor review of you I said you were "GOOD." If you only want people to grade you as "EXCELLENT" or "PERFECT", you may want to state that at the outset.

Responding to the previous statement is not WP:HARASSment. Note that the reviewee didn't ask for Nothughthomas to cease posting on the review page.
Obviously not WP:LEGAL threat.
Obviously not a WP:PA.
Not obviously WP:SOCK puppetry.
Obviously not WP:VANDALism.
Obviously not edit WP:WARing.
Obviously not WP:OWNERSHIP of articles.
Expressing an opinion in this manner does not appear to violate WP:CONSENSUS.

I assure you, I can maintain absolute impartiality, even when a user is "block shopping" me to admins. The fact that I graded you as "Good" is, I think, evidence of that. However, your explanation is noted and acknowledged without prejudice.

Responding to the previous statement is not WP:HARASSment. Note that the reviewee didn't ask for Nothughthomas to cease posting on the review page.
Obviously not WP:LEGAL threat.
Obviously not a WP:PA.
Not obviously WP:SOCK puppetry.
Obviously not WP:VANDALism.
Obviously not edit WP:WARing.
Obviously not WP:OWNERSHIP of articles.
This statement does not appear to violate WP:CONSENSUS.

Do you really think that cranks and trolls should be allowed to file reviews against editors? Yes, provided they do not violate policy, and preferably in a manner that doesn't violate guidelines. I think muzzling certain contributors from making contributions to certain areas of the project, other than through community or ArbComm action, is not a good idea.
In what way was the review constructive? That's a question that only the reviewee can answer. There are lots of reviews that are not considered constructive by their recipients. Unlike a talk page, however, it doesn't seem in keeping with the review process for such comments to be deleted either by the reviewee or anyone else, unless it is defamatory.
How precisely did you want AntiUser to respond to the accusation that he is POV-pushing? I don't want antiuser to do anything in particular. Indeed, I don't think any response is necessary. The review is for the benefit of the reviewee. He can consider whether this editor's view—regardless of whether he agrees with it—is a conclusion that other editors may arrive at. Either way, if he feels that the opinion is not valid, he could add a comment below along the lines of, "I disagree with [x], [y], and [z]. However, thank you for taking the time to opine here."
Do you agree that this was unsubstantiated? If so, why did you readd the review? Because I don't think that sought opinions need to be substantiated. This is not an RfA, an RfC, an ArbComm proceeding or anything else that has meaningful on-Wikipedia (or RW) consequences. Suppose someone else had written, "I think your contributions to bringing article [x] to FA status were marvelous!" but didn't substantiate that the editor had actually made substantial contributions to bringing article [x] to FA status—should that be deleted? ^Bongo_matic 09:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me apologise for assuming that you were being sarcastic about the oversight comment. That was wrong and I totally withdraw that statement (I will do so on my user talk page shortly).

However, addressing each of the sentences in the review in turn:

Though generally well-intentioned, userid:antiuser often gets carried away with advancing a POV to the exception of being able to consider or digest more mainstream, and academically accepted, ideas.

The two behavioural policies that were violated here were

WP:HARASS - while you may not have been following what was going on on the WP:AN/I thread, and you evidently have never had an encounter with this editor before, you should be aware that NotHughThomas became exceedingly aggressive towards AntiUser when AntiUser informed them they had used the wrong tag on David Lewis Anderson.
WP:PA - it is indeed a personal attack to assert that an editor pushes their own point of view without any evidence or even details of the articles in which they have allegedly done this.

As well, he can be quick to take umbrage and will jump to filing ANI complaints at the slightest hint of offense.

Not only is this not accurate, but it mischaracterizes AntiUser. So far as I'm aware, the only reason they submitted the ANI complaint was because they were told to do so by an administrator. This is not the first editor who has gotten abuse from NotHughThomas, and in fact NotHughThomas has been on WP:AN/I before for similar incidents. So again, this is a personal attack on the editor, and another example of general harassment.

He might benefit from a thorough review of Wikipedia policies and procedures and learning to walk away when things get heated instead of trying to get in "one last punch", but, ultimately, has the potential to evolve into a very good WP contributor within the next few years.

That's just patently offensive. There is no indication or evidence that AntiUser violated any policies or procedures. If anything, they were fairly calm in a sustained attack on their person. I note that AntiUser refrained from commenting except to clarify a few unsubstantiated accusations by NotHughThomas. Implying that a user who has been a productive member of Wikipedia since 2005 may become a "very good WP contributor within the next few years" is plain insulting. Furthermore, they have now asserted that the editor was getting in "one last punch" when the offensive behaviour was initiated by NotHughThomas. Again, this is not what is occuring here, and the current block that NotHughThomas is of nobodies fault but their own. Ironically, in this review I see the very behaviour that NotHughThomas deplores so loudly and vociferously.

This is an example of what I was talking about in my above review of the contributor. See: WP:NOTTHEM. If contributor works on this (WP:NOTTHEM) a little, however, he can be a great and valuable asset to Wikipedia.

Why is this editor referring to the guide to appealing blocks? AntiUser has never been blocked, and I cannot see that this will happen to them in the future.

I don't really think it's constructive to get in "one last punch" in an editor review. You solicited feedback and I provided it. You are welcome to acknowledge or disregard it as you see fit.If you are not concerned with the spirit of WP:NOTTHEM (1. do not attack other editors, 2. do not make excuses, 3. AGF, 4. assume AGF), but only the legalese and letter of WP:NOTTHEM, that is certainly your right. In my editor review of you I said you were "GOOD." If you only want people to grade you as "EXCELLENT" or "PERFECT", you may want to state that at the outset. Thanks.

In no way is this a constructive comment. Bongo, your concern is that the general back and forth leads to review of behaviour and editing practices. Here AntiUser is being accused of wikilawyering, not assuming good faith, making excuses and making personal attacks. In what way is that an acceptable response?

I assure you, I can maintain absolute impartiality, even when a user is "block shopping" me to admins. The fact that I graded you as "Good" is, I think, evidence of that. However, your explanation is noted and acknowledged without prejudice.

Here NotHughThomas is accusing AntiUser of forum shopping for administrators. Do you really think that this is acceptable? As for their "your explanation is noted and acknowledge without prejudice", this implies that there is actually something that needs explaining. That is not an assumption of good faith.

Now given all of this, I find it a bit disturbing that trolls and disruptive editors like NotHughThomas can file reviews without any mechanism for these unreasonable reviews to be removed. It really makes me wonder why anyone would put themselves forward to a process like this. Certainly AntiUser started realising that it may make him unfairly look bad, so that's why I messaged him noting that he can ask for this to be removed at any time. Which AntiUser did, and I think that was fairly sensible. I don't see why he should look like an unreasonable editor by one who has now provided a full apology for their bad faith review (I'm using a diff because they have a tendency to blank their page). The review was in no way constructive, as the only specific point was that they went to WP:AN/I. The contention that AntiUser foists his POV didn't refer to any specific areas on Wikipedia where this was occuring. Even had AntiUser been doing such a thing, which he isn't, there is literally no way that AntiUser can work with this because it's so vague.

If a review is not actionable or constructive, and was clearly just made to gain the upper hand in an ongoing or current dispute, then I don't think it should be allowed. Which is precisely what I did - I removed it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just addressing your last point - if anyone thanked me for contributions to bringing some article to FA status when I didn't make significant contributions to it, I would've said just that. I'm looking for a honest review of my actions as an editor, and in my opinion Nothughthomas' post was neither honest nor a review. XXX antiuser ^eh? 10:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]