Sideswipe9th (talk | contribs) →Sorry: Reply Tag: Reply |
Newimpartial (talk | contribs) →Sorry: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
:You've said a few times in the ANI thread that you never restored content against the objections of more than one editor. And that is true. However that's not how BLPRESTORE works. BLPRESTORE applies to any good faith BLP objection, even if you have a different interpretation of whatever BLP reason the content was removed for, and no matter how many editors are making the objection, you should still respect BLPRESTORE. The reason for this should be obvious to all. When BLPs are mishandled, there is a significant risk to harm towards the article subject and the encyclopaedia as a whole. Please stop fixating on the number of editors who objected on good faith BLP grounds, as that isn't how the policy works. |
:You've said a few times in the ANI thread that you never restored content against the objections of more than one editor. And that is true. However that's not how BLPRESTORE works. BLPRESTORE applies to any good faith BLP objection, even if you have a different interpretation of whatever BLP reason the content was removed for, and no matter how many editors are making the objection, you should still respect BLPRESTORE. The reason for this should be obvious to all. When BLPs are mishandled, there is a significant risk to harm towards the article subject and the encyclopaedia as a whole. Please stop fixating on the number of editors who objected on good faith BLP grounds, as that isn't how the policy works. |
||
:I realise that you're hurting right now. You're being hauled over the coals at ANI, and a great many unfair things have been brought up and used against you. And when this is over, regardless of the outcome, maybe taking a few days break to clear your mind and process all of the feelings surrounding this might be something you want to consider doing. Despite all that's been said, I still consider you a wikifriend. I'm not going to change how I interact with you because we're having a disagreement. I always value your input, even when I disagree with it in part or in whole. I'm not going to treat you any differently than I have done in the past. If you want my advice or input on a topic where you think I can be helpful, I will always be there to give it, you only need to ask. Whether you reciprocate that or not is ultimately your choice, but I hope that with time you'll come to recognise that I'm not laying into you or ignoring your perspective. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th#top|talk]]) 18:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
:I realise that you're hurting right now. You're being hauled over the coals at ANI, and a great many unfair things have been brought up and used against you. And when this is over, regardless of the outcome, maybe taking a few days break to clear your mind and process all of the feelings surrounding this might be something you want to consider doing. Despite all that's been said, I still consider you a wikifriend. I'm not going to change how I interact with you because we're having a disagreement. I always value your input, even when I disagree with it in part or in whole. I'm not going to treat you any differently than I have done in the past. If you want my advice or input on a topic where you think I can be helpful, I will always be there to give it, you only need to ask. Whether you reciprocate that or not is ultimately your choice, but I hope that with time you'll come to recognise that I'm not laying into you or ignoring your perspective. [[User:Sideswipe9th|Sideswipe9th]] ([[User talk:Sideswipe9th#top|talk]]) 18:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
||
::I am going to respond to the first part of this in some detail, because I realized that we are still talking past each other about important aspects. You can talk about being {{tq|experienced editors}} all you want, but one of the ways experienced editors can make mistakes is by antagonizing other editors when we hold an understanding that we believe is correct and supported as a community interpretation of policy, and to be wrong about that. We don't know what we don't know. |
|||
::So I was wrong about how the community understands the scope of BLP requirements and BLPRESTORE. I knew the community to hold a fairly high bar for what can be excluded as "contentious material about a living person" under [[WP:3RRBLP]], and I mistakenly applied that interpretation to the flip side of the situation, thinking the community would go along (to be clear, I acted in error and won't be doing that again). |
|||
::Until yesterday, my understanding of [[WP:BLP]] sourcing requirements was that they apply ''only'' to statements made about identifiable living people (including, of course, insinuations about them). Just as no right-thinking editor could invoke 3RRBLP to insist that a factual and sourced statement about, say, the laws in the jurisdiction a person lives in, be removed from an article, I also assumed that a {{tq|good faith BLP objection}} could only be understood as such if it were made in reference to content that is actually {{tq|about a living person}} in the sense meant by policy. Further, I did not believe that a concern that was purely about the quality of a source, rather than the article content itself, counted as {{tq|disputed material}} in terms of BLPRESTORE. So based on these beliefs, I felt that the orignal removal and the second removal were hoth instances of [[WP:CRYBLP]]. It wasn't that I felt it was fine to revert back because only one editor objected; my blind spot was that, until a second editor stepped in, it didn't occur to me that this situation ''could possibly be'' a valid BLPRESTORE situation. In fact, I'm not sure I fully understood the implications of the situation until writing this up in such detail. I now understand that I need to treat any potentially sincere BLP objection, very broadly construed, as triggering BLPRESTORE criteria. |
|||
::So, obviously, my perception of that situation was wrong in key respects. Many editors believe that all content is protected material requiring BLP sourcing - I still find the policy basis for this extremely dubious (and I wouldn't wikilawyer this on the flip side, to remove non-biographical material from a biography under 3RRBLP based on trumped-up concerns), but I respect that this view is strongly held by some and would not add content back in in similar situations without explicit consensus. |
|||
::So where I feel you are {{tq|ignoring my perspective}} is where you opined that {{tq|The question for me is, what is the minimum possible sanction that would prevent future disruptions like this}}, and concluded that some kind of TBAN is required. This was after I had said, {{tq|I will not repeat edits that resemble in any way those reverts to a BLP article or that BLUDGEONING}}, a commitment I made in my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1140811224 first reply] to the ANI and which I have now explained at some length. |
|||
::From my track record, I can understand that editors want assurances that I won't bludgeon future discussions, and I am open to various mechanisms for that. But based on that same track record, there is simply ''no'' reason to think I will make another profound error on BLP norms; I haven't before, and I won't again. So when you take for granted that this it ''is'' a real {{tq|article space problem}} and are only willing to entertain the question {{tq|Of the two TBANs, which do you think is the more appropriate?}} - well, I feel unheard and unseen and, yes, that you have ignored my perspective in your persistent framing of the situation. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:05, 22 February 2023
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022
Hello Sideswipe9th,
Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.
Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.
Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.
Suggestions:
- There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
- Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
- Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
- This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.
Backlog:
Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello Sideswipe9th,
- Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
- 2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js
to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Fluoxetine
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Thank you for jumping in at Talk:Fluoxetine when I was too busy, and doing a thorough and much better job than I would have ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC) |
Suggestion
Hello, Sideswipe9th! You might be interested in endorsing an essay in which creation I participated – WP:NOCONFED. Of course, this is just a suggestion, nothing more. Cheers! — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 21:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Wi Spa controversy
Thank you for bringing WP:BLPRESTORE to my attention. Please see the new talk topic "Should the Article Name the Suspect?". Mox La Push (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Assuming good faith
I assume that your incorrect reference to policy [1] was in good faith. But please be more careful in future. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Sweet6970: No assumption of bad faith was made when I said the restoration of that section was against policy, as I did not speculate on the reason why it was restored. I only remarked that it was restored. I will ask you again, will you please self-revert your restoration of that section as it has been restored against policy? Sideswipe9th (talk) 13:28, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- I may be misreading, but I think Sweet6970 is saying she is assuming good faith by assuming your citation of BLPRESTORE was an error—one that could be prevented by being more careful in the future.
- Sweet, I think the actual good-faith assumption here would be that Sideswipe9th has a different interpretation of the policy than you, not that she made an error. In my view, your interpretation of BLPRESTORE—which I take to be that implicit consensus is enough to restore such material—is the incorrect one. If you think you're likely to continue depending on this interpretation, I encourage you to bring it up for discussion at WT:BLP. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:18, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- to Firefangledfeathers: That is really not very far from my assumption – I was assuming that her action was in good faith. As regards implicit consensus – I noted that you had amended the material, so that in practice you had accepted it, which indicated to me that there was consensus to include it, because I did not expect you to edit against consensus (and, for clarity, I am not accusing you of this). My intent with my revert was to go back to your version, except for the technical bot edit of 19:22 of 7 February. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's not the biggest deal in the world, but if it were me on the receiving end, I'd take "I assume you and I interpret policy differently" over "I assume you made a mistake" any day.
- I didn't intend to indicate support for the content by my editing. I suppose I could have made it clearer via edit summary with something like "I oppose this content, but here's some fixes anyway". I did make a comment to that effect at the talk page. Whether or not my edits contributed to the appearance of implicit consensus, I really do think an interpretation of BLPRESTORE as requiring only implicit consensus is problematic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
- to Firefangledfeathers: That is really not very far from my assumption – I was assuming that her action was in good faith. As regards implicit consensus – I noted that you had amended the material, so that in practice you had accepted it, which indicated to me that there was consensus to include it, because I did not expect you to edit against consensus (and, for clarity, I am not accusing you of this). My intent with my revert was to go back to your version, except for the technical bot edit of 19:22 of 7 February. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Nomination of Killing of Brianna Ghey for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Brianna Ghey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
NoahTalk 02:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Civility Barnstar | |
I wanted to thank you for your thread at Talk:Limited Run Games. You handled it perfectly and made it easy for a reader to quickly follow the discussion. Always remember to keep the op as neutral, specific and concise as necessary (as you did here). It's also a good idea to let opposition reveal itself without undue provocation (again good work). Don't forget to throw down the BLP card when applicable. It's not Wikipedia's purpose to be utilized as part of the echo chamber, although as a repository for information, we're bound to feel vibrations from time to time. Best wishes, and keep on truckin'. BusterD (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
- @BusterD: Thanks! I was actually waiting to see if there was any solid sourcing on this before applying BLP on the phrasing of the content, though there were very clear BLP issues in the text as you've said. The balance issues of The Times source aside, it at least had the potential to be used for some BLP compliant text had DUE been met. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's very helpful to make yourself even more familiar with how to reference WP:RSNP. And to the charge of bias, it's often illuminating (and mentionable in discussion) to observe the various biases of presented sources. You don't have to be shy about saying it when they're saying it. A flagship Murdoch property, The Times is regarded as reliable but with a clear rightward bias. So for example if the other applied sources were WSJ and the NYPost, IMHO such sources would lack diversity, because such truth is apparently being dictated these days from the same NewsCorp board room. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @BusterD: You're absolutely right! I had forgotten to reference RSP in my replies! It and the RSN archives are my go-tos when citing whether or not a source is reliable.
- Your example on the NewsCorp board room is definitely an interesting one. There's more than a few editors I interact with regularly who would see The Times, WSJ, and any one of Murdoch's Australian papers as fully separate and diverse sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's a line from the first Matrix film in which Neo is asking about the display interface and Cypher says "I don't even see the code." Perhaps what I've opined is controversial, but it's hardly unfounded and merely coincidental. I don't always agree with the outcomes on Wikipedia, but I believe in the process. Thanks again for showing yourself what side you're on. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @BusterD: now that is a truly epic series. I still need to watch the most recent one, maybe I'll get around to it this weekend! Thanks again :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- I just recorded it, so we need to reconvene at some point. Remember, "You do not truly know someone, until you fight them." Funny, I learned that in eighth grade... BusterD (talk) 22:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- @BusterD: now that is a truly epic series. I still need to watch the most recent one, maybe I'll get around to it this weekend! Thanks again :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- There's a line from the first Matrix film in which Neo is asking about the display interface and Cypher says "I don't even see the code." Perhaps what I've opined is controversial, but it's hardly unfounded and merely coincidental. I don't always agree with the outcomes on Wikipedia, but I believe in the process. Thanks again for showing yourself what side you're on. BusterD (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's very helpful to make yourself even more familiar with how to reference WP:RSNP. And to the charge of bias, it's often illuminating (and mentionable in discussion) to observe the various biases of presented sources. You don't have to be shy about saying it when they're saying it. A flagship Murdoch property, The Times is regarded as reliable but with a clear rightward bias. So for example if the other applied sources were WSJ and the NYPost, IMHO such sources would lack diversity, because such truth is apparently being dictated these days from the same NewsCorp board room. BusterD (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Killing of Brianna Ghey
On 17 February 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Killing of Brianna Ghey, which you created and nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
RfC closure
It was only open for ninety minutes, and only three (or perhaps four) people suggested the RfC was malformed. Perhaps you could wait a bit longer next time? Tewdar 09:35, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Tewdar: while I recognise early procedural closes of RfCs can and often are controversial, which is why I don't do them often, there was a rough consensus that the RfC had serious procedural issues that would have made it invalid. I've seen plenty of admins make similar determinations on this issue, and I feel confident that in these circumstances that the closure was fair, even if controversial. There's nothing preventing all of the editors at Talk:Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory from workshopping a new RfC on the same issue, and that doesn't have the same procedural problems as the one I closed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- On the other hand, perhaps the massive ANI discussion may not have happened if the RfC had been allowed to continue for another 24 hours or so. I suppose we shall never know now... Tewdar 15:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Tewdar: With the interactions between Sennalen and Newimpartial, I think an ANI discussion was kinda inevitable. I don't think an RfC with a rough consensus of it being flawed had any measurable impact upon that.
- P.S, I dunno if you have my talk page watchlisted or not. If you do let me know and I'll stop pinging you with replies like this! Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- On the other hand, perhaps the massive ANI discussion may not have happened if the RfC had been allowed to continue for another 24 hours or so. I suppose we shall never know now... Tewdar 15:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, I don't have you watchlisted... I've unwatchlisted all obviously controversial pages, so that I have to actively pursue drama now... 😁 Tewdar 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Tewdar: Wait, you unsubscribed from your own talk page? Is that even possible? :P Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- Actually I believe you can! Good idea! 😂 Tewdar 17:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Tewdar: Wait, you unsubscribed from your own talk page? Is that even possible? :P Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, I don't have you watchlisted... I've unwatchlisted all obviously controversial pages, so that I have to actively pursue drama now... 😁 Tewdar 17:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Killing of Brianna Ghey
I would note that the article is under the 1 revert rule as specified in the editnotice. You've made more than one revert in 24 hours that doesn't seem to be exempted. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Dreamy Jazz: Oh no! That definitely wasn't intentional. So that I can self-revert, what were the other revert(s)?
- I know I'd made one revert over two edits ([2], [3]), which on the whole I considered to be disruptive blanking by the IP editor and left an appropriate warning on their talk page, which I'd usually consider to be exempt under 3RRNO#4. Was the other one the copy-edit on the images ([4])? I'd have considered that part of the ordinary back and forth copy-edit cycle. My only other edits since the 1RR was put in place was removing a sentence that failed verification ([5]), which would be exempt under 3RRNO#7, and fixing an accidental spelling mistake made by another editor ([6]).
- Can I also ask, as I'm just curious, why a 1RR restriction was put in place as the first level of protection? If I'd been requesting protection at RFPP I'd have asked for semi or ECP as the first level, or maybe the lesser used consensus required. 1RR seems quite a high level of protection to put in place on an article that's still being actively developed and copy-edited. I'm not challenging that it's in place, I'd just like to understand why that protection level and not one of the other levels we have. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- There was quite a bit of back and forward between extended confirmed and non-extended confirmed editors over what to put in the "attack" parameter in the infobox, which is when I imposed the 1RR. They were not discussing on the talk page, instead using edit summaries, and my intention was to encourage talk page discussion over a edit-war. This calmed down a little time after 1RR was imposed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- The last diff I can find on this edit-warring is at Special:Diff/1139875477. I wanted to avoid protection in the first instance as there was extended confirmed editors on both side of the argument in places (e.g. Special:Diff/1139795590 and Special:Diff/1139795686) which would have made anything but full protection not a full method of curbing disruption. Furthermore, I saw good faith edits by non-ECP users that would have been stopped by ECP protection. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- There was quite a bit of back and forward between extended confirmed and non-extended confirmed editors over what to put in the "attack" parameter in the infobox, which is when I imposed the 1RR. They were not discussing on the talk page, instead using edit summaries, and my intention was to encourage talk page discussion over a edit-war. This calmed down a little time after 1RR was imposed. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 12:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
My error
Apologies for the error and I just wanted to make clear I am not User talk:2603:7000:3B40:B500:28D5:89AD:26D2:494 I am having bad day and I probably shouldn't be on the internet today. Sparkle1 (talk) 12:49, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Redirect to Brianna Ghey's page under her deadname
I saw you just removed a user's attempts to add Ghey's deadname to her page. You may also want to do something about the redirect page (Redacted) the same user created under her deadname after having their edits reverted. I don't believe I have the permissions to do anything about that. Maivea (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Maivea: Already ahead of you. If you refresh the diff on your end it should show up as a non-existent revision. I've got that page watchlisted now though incase anyone else tries to do it. Thanks for the heads up :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. Have a nice rest of your day. Maivea (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Maivea: Any time! Just so you know how to handle this sort of situation yourself in the future, take a look at WP:REVDEL. There's information there on what sort of information can be hidden, and how any editor without the tools to do it like ourselves can request it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much. Have a nice rest of your day. Maivea (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
ABA dispute
Hey, thanks so much for your contributions on the ABA page. Unfortunately debate is still ongoing, so I have raised a formal dispute resolution thing. I've named you on it as someone who's been part of the debate (albeit not very recently). I hope that's okay!
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Oolong (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry
I just can't see how restoring SPS content from the stable version of an article, two times, against the objections of one editor (not to the content but to the sourcing), could possibly be an egregious violation
.
I mean, you and I both see actual egregious BLP violations on a regular basis, and I just can't get into your head and understand how you see one there. I get that my edit was wrong, and I won't do it again, but it wasn't disruptive (the article space conflict was over long before the ANI started), nothing I did made the article worse than it had been for weeks, and yet you are insisting that there is some immanent risk of disruption for which a ban is the only solution. It doesn't feel in any way preventative; it feels like I've done something wrong (as we both recognize) so you feel I must be punished.
There might have been a time when we could be wikifriends, but I'm losing all respect for your judgement of conduct issues at this point. I will try to remain civil, but it will be a very cold civility like I sometimes manage with Colin and Koyla, who also decided recently that it would be fine to just ignore my perspective and lay into me because it suited their understanding of the world. Blech. Newimpartial (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Newimpartial: Like in all things, there are levels of egregiousness.
- You're correct when you say that we see a lot of truly awful shit regularly, and are often the first responders for making sure that it gets removed or rewritten, and rev-delled or suppressed as necessary. And compared to that, this is obviously mild. However in my eyes that's the wrong comparator. We are both experienced editors in this content area. We know, or should know, the ins and outs of all of the relevant policies and guidelines that shape both content and conduct in this area. We need to know this, not just so that we can make sure that any content we contribute is in the best interests of the community, but also so that when disruptive elements do arise they can be handled in an appropriate manner.
- For me, this was an egregious policy violation because we know the ins and outs of that part of the policy, because we are the experienced editors. If an inexperienced editor had made this same mistake, I would cut them some slack due to their inexperience and advocate for giving them a warning and coaching. On the other hand, if an experienced editor made this mistake, and there's more than a few other names that we're both familiar with that this would equally apply to including myself, then they should be held to a standard appropriate to their experience level.
- You've said a few times in the ANI thread that you never restored content against the objections of more than one editor. And that is true. However that's not how BLPRESTORE works. BLPRESTORE applies to any good faith BLP objection, even if you have a different interpretation of whatever BLP reason the content was removed for, and no matter how many editors are making the objection, you should still respect BLPRESTORE. The reason for this should be obvious to all. When BLPs are mishandled, there is a significant risk to harm towards the article subject and the encyclopaedia as a whole. Please stop fixating on the number of editors who objected on good faith BLP grounds, as that isn't how the policy works.
- I realise that you're hurting right now. You're being hauled over the coals at ANI, and a great many unfair things have been brought up and used against you. And when this is over, regardless of the outcome, maybe taking a few days break to clear your mind and process all of the feelings surrounding this might be something you want to consider doing. Despite all that's been said, I still consider you a wikifriend. I'm not going to change how I interact with you because we're having a disagreement. I always value your input, even when I disagree with it in part or in whole. I'm not going to treat you any differently than I have done in the past. If you want my advice or input on a topic where you think I can be helpful, I will always be there to give it, you only need to ask. Whether you reciprocate that or not is ultimately your choice, but I hope that with time you'll come to recognise that I'm not laying into you or ignoring your perspective. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to respond to the first part of this in some detail, because I realized that we are still talking past each other about important aspects. You can talk about being
experienced editors
all you want, but one of the ways experienced editors can make mistakes is by antagonizing other editors when we hold an understanding that we believe is correct and supported as a community interpretation of policy, and to be wrong about that. We don't know what we don't know. - So I was wrong about how the community understands the scope of BLP requirements and BLPRESTORE. I knew the community to hold a fairly high bar for what can be excluded as "contentious material about a living person" under WP:3RRBLP, and I mistakenly applied that interpretation to the flip side of the situation, thinking the community would go along (to be clear, I acted in error and won't be doing that again).
- Until yesterday, my understanding of WP:BLP sourcing requirements was that they apply only to statements made about identifiable living people (including, of course, insinuations about them). Just as no right-thinking editor could invoke 3RRBLP to insist that a factual and sourced statement about, say, the laws in the jurisdiction a person lives in, be removed from an article, I also assumed that a
good faith BLP objection
could only be understood as such if it were made in reference to content that is actuallyabout a living person
in the sense meant by policy. Further, I did not believe that a concern that was purely about the quality of a source, rather than the article content itself, counted asdisputed material
in terms of BLPRESTORE. So based on these beliefs, I felt that the orignal removal and the second removal were hoth instances of WP:CRYBLP. It wasn't that I felt it was fine to revert back because only one editor objected; my blind spot was that, until a second editor stepped in, it didn't occur to me that this situation could possibly be a valid BLPRESTORE situation. In fact, I'm not sure I fully understood the implications of the situation until writing this up in such detail. I now understand that I need to treat any potentially sincere BLP objection, very broadly construed, as triggering BLPRESTORE criteria. - So, obviously, my perception of that situation was wrong in key respects. Many editors believe that all content is protected material requiring BLP sourcing - I still find the policy basis for this extremely dubious (and I wouldn't wikilawyer this on the flip side, to remove non-biographical material from a biography under 3RRBLP based on trumped-up concerns), but I respect that this view is strongly held by some and would not add content back in in similar situations without explicit consensus.
- So where I feel you are
ignoring my perspective
is where you opined thatThe question for me is, what is the minimum possible sanction that would prevent future disruptions like this
, and concluded that some kind of TBAN is required. This was after I had said,I will not repeat edits that resemble in any way those reverts to a BLP article or that BLUDGEONING
, a commitment I made in my first reply to the ANI and which I have now explained at some length. - From my track record, I can understand that editors want assurances that I won't bludgeon future discussions, and I am open to various mechanisms for that. But based on that same track record, there is simply no reason to think I will make another profound error on BLP norms; I haven't before, and I won't again. So when you take for granted that this it is a real
article space problem
and are only willing to entertain the questionOf the two TBANs, which do you think is the more appropriate?
- well, I feel unheard and unseen and, yes, that you have ignored my perspective in your persistent framing of the situation. Newimpartial (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to respond to the first part of this in some detail, because I realized that we are still talking past each other about important aspects. You can talk about being