Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) OneClickArchiver creating The Rambling Man |
Timotheus Canens (talk | contribs) OneClickArchiver adding SPECIFICO |
||
Line 135: | Line 135: | ||
*I do not believe that I am considered an involved administrator. I have only interacted with TRM in an administrative capacity and the policy states that, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." I believe this policy is being misconstrued. It's intended to prevent an admin and an editor from engaging in say, a topic discussion, and then blocking that editor for 3RR. I have not interacted with TRM in his topic areas, such as Errors or main page content. {{Ping|Floquenbeam}} I think your proposal does not show proper judgement. Instead of addressing the issue, placing such restrictions would only allow us to pretend that there isn't an issue with the conduct displayed. "Less damage" would have occurred if TRM maintained a more civil composure. Finally, I stand by the merits of the original block. The edits were insulting and directed towards other contributors, which was a clear breach of the arbitration remedy. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Mike V|<b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b>]] • [[User_talk:Mike V|<b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b>]]</span> 16:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC) |
*I do not believe that I am considered an involved administrator. I have only interacted with TRM in an administrative capacity and the policy states that, "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." I believe this policy is being misconstrued. It's intended to prevent an admin and an editor from engaging in say, a topic discussion, and then blocking that editor for 3RR. I have not interacted with TRM in his topic areas, such as Errors or main page content. {{Ping|Floquenbeam}} I think your proposal does not show proper judgement. Instead of addressing the issue, placing such restrictions would only allow us to pretend that there isn't an issue with the conduct displayed. "Less damage" would have occurred if TRM maintained a more civil composure. Finally, I stand by the merits of the original block. The edits were insulting and directed towards other contributors, which was a clear breach of the arbitration remedy. <span style="font-family: Palatino;"> [[User:Mike V|<b style="color:#151B54">Mike V</b>]] • [[User_talk:Mike V|<b style="color:#C16C16">Talk</b>]]</span> 16:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
*I agree with Dennis Brown and T. Canens on a "strong, final warning" as an appropriate outcome. As Dennis said: "TRM really does need to dial it back a couple of notches. He's often right on the merits but horribly wrong on the delivery." Some allowance does need to be made for editing in a difficult and important area, and TRM does do some thankless work at ITN/ERRORS/DYK etc. But "grow a pair" and similar remarks are unambiguously abusive/belittling and unhelpful. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 18:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC) |
*I agree with Dennis Brown and T. Canens on a "strong, final warning" as an appropriate outcome. As Dennis said: "TRM really does need to dial it back a couple of notches. He's often right on the merits but horribly wrong on the delivery." Some allowance does need to be made for editing in a difficult and important area, and TRM does do some thankless work at ITN/ERRORS/DYK etc. But "grow a pair" and similar remarks are unambiguously abusive/belittling and unhelpful. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup> 18:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC) |
||
{{hab}} |
|||
{{Clear}} |
|||
==SPECIFICO== |
|||
{{hat|No violation has occurred. No action taken. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 17:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)}} |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br>Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning SPECIFICO=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|TheTimesAreAChanging}} 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|SPECIFICO}}<p>{{ds/log|SPECIFICO}} |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBAPDS]]/[[WP:1RR]]: |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=754787223 14:25, 14 December 2016:] SPECIFICO reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=754732352 this edit] of mine. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=next&oldid=754787223 14:28, 14 December 2016:] SPECIFICO reverts [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=754734224 this edit] of mine. |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=prev&oldid=754847955 20:49, 14 December 2016:] I warned SPECIFICO to self-revert, but they have ignored the message. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics#SPECIFICO_topic-banned 23:12, 22 April 2014:] SPECIFICO is topic banned from the [[Ludwig von Mises Institute]]; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Evidence#Mockery_of_article_subjects_on_talk_pages.3B_sarcasm_in_an_article evidence of misconduct.] |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]): |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=prev&oldid=718504194 22:13, 3 May 2016:] SPECIFICO is notified of DS by [[User:Coffee]]. |
|||
#SPECIFICO routinely leaves DS notices on the talk pages of other users, usually after a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=754791071 disagreement,] (see, e.g., [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Guccisamsclub&diff=prev&oldid=754792948], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&diff=prev&oldid=754814392], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging&diff=prev&oldid=753327093], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jack_Upland&diff=prev&oldid=748171399], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KMilos&diff=prev&oldid=748140787], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xabian40409&diff=prev&oldid=748139859], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BringthePaine&diff=prev&oldid=747837865], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Meatsgains&diff=prev&oldid=747853160]), but [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&diff=754827020&oldid=754814708 lashes out] when the shoe is on the other foot. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
It's almost certainly not a coincidence that SPECIFICO reverted my edits in particular. Other users have noticed SPECIFICO's pattern of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=753411971 "''misguided...at best''"] misrepresentation of my words and requesting [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=746904502 "''retaliatory and unwarranted''"] sanctions against me; shortly before the reverts, SPECIFICO told another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TParis&diff=prev&oldid=754509545 "''TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned.''"] SPECIFICO's only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=754244445 other revert] at [[2016 United States election interference by Russia]] was of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=754154965 material I expanded.] (SPECIFICO's interest in baiting me into a ban appears to be motivated by SPIs I filed against [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Oneshotofwhiskey User:Oneshotofwhiskey]; they were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Oneshotofwhiskey&diff=prev&oldid=747124247 all] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey&diff=prev&oldid=751737502 vindicated] and Oneshot was indeffed, but SPECIFICO characterized them as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=751648454 "''paranoid conspiracy theories about opponents'',"] after having previously [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=746208767 opposed a topic ban related to Oneshot's conduct] at [[Dinesh D'Souza]] and complimented Oneshot's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=744871501&oldid=744869331 "''constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments''"]—like [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTimesAreAChanging&diff=prev&oldid=744315403 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dinesh_D%27Souza&diff=744857044&oldid=744856505 this,] presumably.) |
|||
*SPECIFICO previously broke 1RR on November 22 with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=prev&oldid=751030958 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=751031294&oldid=751030958 reverts] (''again'' of material I added) at [[Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations]], though it did not occur to me to report them at that time. |
|||
I am also concerned by SPECIFICO's penchant for immediately threatening others users with sanctions on dubious grounds—which SPECIFICO has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sagecandor&diff=prev&oldid=754827020 done] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=754857884&oldid=754849520 twice] just within the past several hours; [[User:Soham321]] previously criticized SPECIFICO's proclivity for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=751345898 "''frivolous threats''"] here at AE. (Note that in '''none''' of these three instances did SPECIFICO actually follow through and report the user they threatened, while SPECIFICO now [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=next&oldid=754867100 denies] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=prev&oldid=754857884 "''that's a violation of ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful''"] was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=next&oldid=754868427 intended] as a threat.)[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=754877513&oldid=754871127 00:03, 15 December 2016:] I notified SPECIFICO that I had filed this AE report, having given them the chance to self-revert. |
|||
===Discussion concerning SPECIFICO=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br>Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by SPECIFICO==== |
|||
====Statement by Sagecandor==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
SPECIFICO and I were able to work things out [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SPECIFICO&diff=754833345&oldid=754831874], and I [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] that the notification is just a notification with no ill intentions. As for this arbitration enforcement report itself, I agree with the analysis by {{u|Dennis Brown}} at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=754883332&oldid=754878506]. [[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging==== |
|||
{{Ping|Dennis Brown}} This is where I plead ignorance. Recall that I did not report [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=prev&oldid=751030958 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations&diff=751031294&oldid=751030958 reverts] for the very reason you describe. However, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&oldid=754803004#TTAAC SPECIFICO recently filed a frivolous 1RR "report" against me on your talk page, even though they never explained what I had supposedly "reverted" in the first diff cited.] [[User:Volunteer Marek]]—who later [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&diff=754462361&oldid=754462292 struck out] his comment after realizing I did not make the revert in question—attempted to draw a distinction between what you call "''a single revert that used two edits''" and what he dubbed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dennis_Brown&diff=754452853&oldid=754392378 "''two different reverts''."] In that case, SPECIFICO seemed content to threaten me merely for making more than one ''edit'' to an article, and continues to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TParis&diff=prev&oldid=754522869 insist] that a second, unspecified revert occurred. (Obvious Oneshot socks have had no luck finding anyone that agrees with SPECIFICO's assessment; as [[User:Hut 8.5]] remarked: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hut_8.5&diff=754483002&oldid=754467532 "''If you're going to accuse people of 1RR violations then you need to show that the edits in question were reverts, that is they undid something someone else did. There's nothing necessarily wrong with editing the article twice in 24 hours if the edits aren't reverts.''"]) |
|||
I confess to being frankly baffled by the DS on American Politics, because there seems to be no consistent criteria for how they are applied in practice. SPECIFICO has twice reverted two distinct edits of mine in two different sections of two articles and faced no penalty—but that same user pushed hard to have me topic banned ''not'' for violating 1RR, but rather the additional stipulation "'''You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus'''" (which has been consistently abused by [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] editors)—and, in your telling, came very close to succeeding (although ''non-admins'' were almost unanimously opposed). If ''I'' had made these reverts, it seems almost certain SPECIFICO would have reported me—after all, they've reported me for much ''less''—and there's a very good chance I would not have escaped sanction. |
|||
(Of course, the thrust of the complaint against me soon became a handful of uncivil edit summaries; should I add an appendix on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=751657376&oldid=751656463 uncivil remarks by SPECIFICO?] Do you think I could get away with casually threatening editors the way SPECIFICO does, as documented above? '''How about the time SPECIFICO accused me of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=751648454&oldid=751647612 "''tendentiously canvassing''"] another user by informing them of an SPI I had initiated against the IP they were interacting with?''' [[WP:CANVASS]] has a specific meaning, though I've never heard it applied to SPIs: Should SPECIFICO be allowed to use the word as a random insult if they have no intention of pursuing what would be a serious violation of Wikipedia policy? SPECIFICO has clearly been skirting on the edge of what is acceptable for a very long time now, and failing to warn against that sort of conduct will only encourage more of it.) |
|||
So, you tell me: If [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=754732352 these] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia&diff=prev&oldid=754734224 edits] had been made by two different users, would SPECIFICO then have violated 1RR? What if SPECIFICO had reverted three or four edits of mine in quick succession? (Would that be "''a single revert that used three or four edits''"?) I'm deeply concerned that consistent standards are articulated here—not least of all because the total ''lack'' of consistency has allowed SPECIFICO to plausibly threaten users and coerce self-reverts even when the underlying policy rationale is far from obvious. (If SPECIFICO had asked me to self-revert rather than immediately running to you, I would have done so, even though I did nothing wrong.) It's as if the rules only apply to the outgroup, not the ingroup or the Wikilawyers; editors know where they stand and act accordingly.[[User:TheTimesAreAChanging|TheTimesAreAChanging]] ([[User talk:TheTimesAreAChanging|talk]]) 02:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning SPECIFICO=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
*Two sequential reverts are generally considered a single revert, as it isn't easy to make two changes in one edit without editing the page as a whole. From my perspective, this is a single revert that used two edits. There was no back and forth going on. I think I just closed an AE on you, TTAAC, in as gentle a way as I could given the support to topic ban you. I don't recommend climbing on a high horse here. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 00:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**I've already explained it, there is no need to try to drag it to an illogical extreme. This isn't new, and is in fact, standard operating procedure. If it were three or four, the result would be the same if the intent is clear. You can discuss the merits on the talk page of the article, but for the purpose of AE, it is not a 1RR violation. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 03:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
**The rest of this is meandering and not really AE specific. What happened on my talk page is meaningless and was worked out before I even saw the page. You brought the case, you were mistaken in how you interpreted 1RR. It isn't automatically intuitive, but if you think about what I said, it should make sense. He committed ONE act of reverting, it just took took two edits because they weren't in the same section. His intent was clear, demonstrated by only 3 minutes between edits. Had it been an hour, then it could be argued it wasn't a "singular" act, but was two acts. The rest isn't helpful to answer here. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2¢</b>]] 03:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*Agree wholeheartedly with Dennis. Try to step back from the drama. [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 01:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*This report is frivolous. [[User:Timotheus Canens|T. Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 01:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
*As my name's been invoked, I'm going to have to agree with Dennis above. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 07:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{hab}} |
{{hab}} |
Revision as of 21:01, 15 December 2016
The Rambling Man
The Rambling Man is warned that continuing to use unnecessarily harsh language is likely to result in being blocked. No further action is taken. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Request concerning The Rambling Man
The Rambling Man resigned their admin status during the Arbcom case in October. They now seem to be increasingly agitated about the performance of other admins. No doubt it is frustrating that they are no longer able to perform such tasks themselves. But comments of this kind do not seem civil and seem to be what Arbcom had in mind when when placing this sanction.
notification of The Rambling Man
Discussion concerning The Rambling ManStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by The Rambling ManMessing with the main page should not happen. If admins aren't fully commensurate with how to do this, they should leave it to others. Admins who have been asked to respond to questions, in particular relating to accusing editors of lying, before then blocking them need to be held accountable for their misbehaviour. Everything else I have to say has already be said at either my talk page, AN or ANI. P.S. I still want MikeV's previous enforcement notice to be redacted too. And given the block has clearly been deemed "premature" if not downright "incorrect" and/or "involved", we need to make sure MikeV doesn't make such mistakes in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by BencherliteWe have Template:Editnotices/Page/Template:In the news for a reason - to help admins know what to do / what not to do. Apparently the big red capital letters used for "ATTENTION" and the flashing image, File:Blinking Stop hand.gif, that it uses are not enough to draw some admins' attention to the three simple warnings underneath. Suggestions for how this edit notice can be improved would be welcomed, I'm sure. Perhaps the link to Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions and Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection need to be even bigger? In the meantime, admins not understanding that the main page is not the place to allow unprotected images *is* a big deal, given previous experience with unprotected images there and the instructions on how to do things, and I don't blame TRM for getting annoyed about this - particularly as this is not the only instance of unprotected main page images at ITN from the last few days. Nor do I blame TRM for getting annoyed about admins indicating that it's OK for admins who "don't know how do it" (not TRM's words) to make edits to the main page templates that need fixing by others who do know what they're doing. Robust and justified criticism of admins who edit our most high-profile page without following the long-standing instructions designed to help them is *not* the same as insulting or belittling. I'm commenting here rather than in the section for uninvolved administrators given my long-standing WP friendship with TRM. BencherliteTalk 00:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by WJBscribeI agree with Bencherlite. I am far more concerned about an admin having apparently added an unprotected image to the main page than with TRM for being forceful in pointing out the gaffe. We need admins to be careful editing the main page. That said I made the same mistake once - a fellow admin was kind enough to replace the unprotected image on commons with a photo of a piece of paper on which he'd written something along the lines of "Which idiot forgot to protect this image". I learned my lesson. I'm sure everyone involved in this incident has too. WJBscribe (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by 331dotI think it should be noted that TRM resigned his admin powers under threat of them being stripped from him. I don't see any insulting or belittling here, as Bencherlite and WJBscribe also state. I see annoyance, perhaps, but if TRM is going to be punished for being annoyed, then we all should be. Being annoyed is not the same thing as being insulting. 331dot (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Even if we accept that MikeV is not involved, he concedes that he wasn't aware of this discussion, and I think that was enough of a reason to reverse his block. 331dot (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Comment by NewyorkbradThis may be a bit off-topic, but can't someone just write a script or edit filter that would automatically prevent unprotected Commons images from being added to the main page, and thereby prevent that aspect of the problem from recurring? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by EEngI share the concern about TRM's difficult mode of interation, but I'm almost as concerned about Mike V having interposed his own (not-always-unclouded) judgment even while this process is underway – six minutes, in fact, after the one admin who had commented here opined that action was inappropriate. Too often I've seen him lay his heavy hand on the block button from on high (including imposing a block – quickly overturned – on me). EEng 05:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Patar knightI'm not an uninvolved admin because I reverted Michael Hardy's addition of the unprotected image at ITN. Keeping unprotected images off the Main Page is very important and is repeatedly mentioned in the editnotice, ITN admin instructions, etc. It seems unfair to block TRM for expressing frustration at other people's inability/unwillingness to follow clearly those laid out directions. I think an exception to the arbcom remedy, so that TRM is allowed to reasonably criticize other users for clear failures to follow procedure, should be read in. At best the last comment deserved a warning. Blocking this quickly seems like jumping the gun.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 05:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My KenI don't believe that TRM is forbidden to "criticize other users for clear failures to follow procedure" or any other reason, he's "prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." That's an entirely different animal, since one can criticize without insulting or belittling. I'm not making a judgement about whether TRM violated his sanction or not, just pointing out a relevant distinction. Concerning EEng's point, I think considering the recent dust-up between TRM and Mike V apparent on TRM's talk page, Mike V should probably have passed on blocking TRM, as his block raises the impression that it might have been motivated by bad feelings between them rather than by TRM's action, and this discussion was already open. It might be a good idea for Mike V to consider lifting the block and allowing the admins at AE to determine what action, if any, needs to be taken. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by FramDiscussion started at WP:ANI#Admin accountability and involvedness. Basically (independently) mirroring BMKs points above. Fram (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Dweller
Statement by Andrew D.This is just the latest incident as, since the Arbcom case, TRM has shown no contrition, does not appear to accept the Arbcom rulings and his aggressive language seems just as bad as before. I agree with Lankiveil that telling KrakatoaKatie to "grow a pair" was quite unacceptable, especially as she is a woman. Her response to this tirade was "Well. I tried. Nice. Way to chase your new helpers off. – I'm out". This demonstrates the effect of such language – it drives people away. Sanctions are therefore appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)I prev Statement by KatieI wasn't pinged when TRM went on his little tirade, nor was I pinged about this AE request. If one is going to tell me to do the anatomically impossible, the least one can do is notify me. For the record, I didn't do anything wrong at the ITN template. I saw the call for assistance at ERRORS several days ago and, with a couple of other admins, decided to try to help. I fixed the blurb and declined to change the image because I wasn't sure if there was consensus to change a blurb as significantly as what was proposed. Before I made the changes, I pored over the ITN instructions for hours – hours, because I didn't want to make a mistake. I previewed the template about eight times before I saved it. I marked the items done/not done, and kept the tab open so I could refresh the page to make sure I didn't screw up. I don't use the watchlist (haven't for years and years because it got to be several thousand pages), so when someone comments under me and whines about a mistake, I assume they're talking to me. If I had made a mistake, I would expect to be told in civil terms. I've made lots of mistakes across this project and I've almost always been notified in a calm manner. I don't think that will happen while TRM is patrolling that page, so I won't edit there again. I have other areas in which I can work where I know my contributions are valued. As tantrums go, this isn't very bad. My children have done better. I get rape threats, so TRM really needs to up his game if he's going to make me lose sleep. I don't care if he's blocked or unblocked. I suggest, however, that he not come to AN shouting about the lack of admins at ERRORS again. He's not likely to find many takers. Katietalk 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by IvanvectorThe remedy invoked states that TRM "is prohibited from insulting and/or belittling other editors." I agree that Andrew Davidson's diffs show examples of The Rambling Man violating that remedy, and the remedy dictates that TRM "may be blocked" (emphasis mine). We ought to consider Andrew D.'s first two examples to be constructive criticism delivered by a frustrated editor (as other commenters have noted) in a matter of importance. The third example probably also qualifies, though the phrase "drive-by so-called admins" is belittling and does seem directed at particular users. Those three comments violate the letter of the remedy, but I can't imagine any other editor would earn a block for such mild comments and nor should TRM. However the fourth example, telling a female editor to "grow a pair" would be a borderline personal attack by any user. TRM, with an active remedy specifically prohibiting such comments, should earn an AE block for this comment. The purpose of that block does seem to have been served by Mike V's action, however. A note of clarification: if the committee determines that Mike V's (now overturned) block serves the purpose of a block that would have been warranted from this enforcement request, please specify whether Mike V's block counts as a first block under the remedy, or if in the committee's view TRM has not been blocked under the remedy. It's going to come up again. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Now I'm going to ramble on a bit about WP:INVOLVED, if you'll indulge me. It's important that administrators be seen as neutral, for the good governance of the project, however we sometimes apply INVOLVED too liberally. It appears to me that Mike V is considered involved because he posted an administrative warning on TRM's talk page. I'm sure there's more to it judging by the number of commenters, but if that is all there is to it, Mike V is not involved. Furthermore, and this is more to my upcoming point, if any genuinely neutral administrator would have come to the same action, then an involved administrator's action is justified notwithstanding INVOLVED, and I think that that is the case here. So we're saying that TRM's block should be overturned only because the blocking administrator was involved, not because the rationale behind the block was wrong. We currently have only 526 active administrators; this year there have been 62 fewer promotions than demotions, and that gap is widening. The number of administrators available to be "uninvolved" in any particular issue is rapidly declining. If this trend continues of procedurally reversing administrative actions not because they are wrong but only because they were done by involved administrators, we will very soon be facing a situation where there are no administrators capable of acting against certain users and in certain topic areas. I encourage the committee and the community as a whole to consider this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC) trimmed for word count Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Jayron32I'm not sure, at this point, if we can or should do anything further here. This particular AE filing has been tainted by the bad block (which has recently been undone by consensus at a WP:AN discussion). Whether or not TRM should or should not have been blocked stopped being the issue when the blocking admin jumped the gun and blocked him unilaterally and in contravention of the early stages of this discussion. It may have played out that consensus would have eventually been that TRM was in violation, and that a block would have been merited, but we'll never know. Officially, IAR is the only rule I follow 100% of the time, and I've never been accused of following policy for policy's sake, but pragmatically, when one oversteps policy in THIS way, it muddies the water and makes just enforcement impossible. It seems to me that the only thing to do is to let this go at this point, don't re-block TRM regardless of whether he did or didn't merit it. Per WP:ROPE either TRM will abide by the terms of his sanctions, or he won't. If he does, than this block was unnecessary. If he doesn't, then another block will be coming. But the current CF in no way is resolvable, and we should just shut this down and call it a day. Let WP:ROPE be our guidance here... --Jayron32 14:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by BanedonI'm of opinion this is similar to the examples I originally cited in the case request, and if this had happened prior to my filing the case I would've cited it as well. When the person you're talking to responds with "Welp. I tried. Nice. Way to chase your new helpers off" that must be a sign of going too far. Seriously TRM do you have to act like this ... your behavior on ITN improved to the point I was thinking of nominating you for adminship in a year's time, and then this happens ... as long as Katie and Michael Hardy fit WP:HERE, they, like the rest of us, are on your side. Do you really, really, have to bash them for trying to help? Banedon (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Mr ErnieI find the 4th diff to be a violation of TRM's sanctions against insulting or belittling others. In light of MikeV's block and the subsequent unblock, I would suggest that we call this "time-served" and issue a strongly worded warning against future behavior. TRM has requested additional admin support at these main page venues, but insulting and belittling those who actually attempt good faith edits there does not seem like a sustainable way to improve involvement. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by Davey2010IMHO the 4th diff was a violation however because of the INVOLVED block I see no point in reblocking over it, Ofcourse like Jayron says had Mike not jumped the gun consensus may or may not have been to block but IMHO as it stands it's stupid to block someone, unblock them and then a few weeks later block them again ....., I would suggest we give TRM some rope (and a stern warning if it helps), close this and all move on. –Davey2010Talk 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by MasemInvolved only in so much as that I participate frequently at ITN. I think we all need to recognize editors are human and can make mistakes, even experienced ones. Yes, mistakes related to the main page are potentially more problematic, and editors are cautioned to avoid touching those templates if they are not sure on the process. But there is no need to chastise editors for a single mistake (its when it becomes a pattern after being toled about it before that we must become concerned), we're working collaboratively. I'm a bit worried about some of the above commentators putting the importance of the "sacred" nature of the main page over civility given the goals of this project. I would not say that the first three diffs are problematic on their own (others have shown the 4th being one of concern), but speaking as an ITN regular, TRM's attitude has started to creep up to where it was prior to the ArbCom case; it's not close, but the trend is very clear now. Otherwise ignoring the fourth diff, TRM should be TROUTED and reminded about the Arbcom case; but as to that 4th, I do feel a stronger statement should be made to caution TRM, but I don't have opinion if that should be anything more than a statement of concern to TRM. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning The Rambling Man
|
SPECIFICO
No violation has occurred. No action taken. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning SPECIFICO
It's almost certainly not a coincidence that SPECIFICO reverted my edits in particular. Other users have noticed SPECIFICO's pattern of "misguided...at best" misrepresentation of my words and requesting "retaliatory and unwarranted" sanctions against me; shortly before the reverts, SPECIFICO told another user "TTAAC needs to be blocked or banned." SPECIFICO's only other revert at 2016 United States election interference by Russia was of material I expanded. (SPECIFICO's interest in baiting me into a ban appears to be motivated by SPIs I filed against User:Oneshotofwhiskey; they were all vindicated and Oneshot was indeffed, but SPECIFICO characterized them as "paranoid conspiracy theories about opponents," after having previously opposed a topic ban related to Oneshot's conduct at Dinesh D'Souza and complimented Oneshot's "constructive and usually policy-based ... edits and comments"—like this and this, presumably.)
I am also concerned by SPECIFICO's penchant for immediately threatening others users with sanctions on dubious grounds—which SPECIFICO has done twice just within the past several hours; User:Soham321 previously criticized SPECIFICO's proclivity for "frivolous threats" here at AE. (Note that in none of these three instances did SPECIFICO actually follow through and report the user they threatened, while SPECIFICO now denies "that's a violation of ARBAP2 and you might be surprised one day to be called on the carpet. Do be careful" was intended as a threat.)TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Discussion concerning SPECIFICOStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SPECIFICOStatement by SagecandorSPECIFICO and I were able to work things out [9], and I assume good faith that the notification is just a notification with no ill intentions. As for this arbitration enforcement report itself, I agree with the analysis by Dennis Brown at [10]. Sagecandor (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging@Dennis Brown: This is where I plead ignorance. Recall that I did not report these reverts for the very reason you describe. However, SPECIFICO recently filed a frivolous 1RR "report" against me on your talk page, even though they never explained what I had supposedly "reverted" in the first diff cited. User:Volunteer Marek—who later struck out his comment after realizing I did not make the revert in question—attempted to draw a distinction between what you call "a single revert that used two edits" and what he dubbed "two different reverts." In that case, SPECIFICO seemed content to threaten me merely for making more than one edit to an article, and continues to insist that a second, unspecified revert occurred. (Obvious Oneshot socks have had no luck finding anyone that agrees with SPECIFICO's assessment; as User:Hut 8.5 remarked: "If you're going to accuse people of 1RR violations then you need to show that the edits in question were reverts, that is they undid something someone else did. There's nothing necessarily wrong with editing the article twice in 24 hours if the edits aren't reverts.") I confess to being frankly baffled by the DS on American Politics, because there seems to be no consistent criteria for how they are applied in practice. SPECIFICO has twice reverted two distinct edits of mine in two different sections of two articles and faced no penalty—but that same user pushed hard to have me topic banned not for violating 1RR, but rather the additional stipulation "You ... must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus" (which has been consistently abused by WP:BATTLEGROUND editors)—and, in your telling, came very close to succeeding (although non-admins were almost unanimously opposed). If I had made these reverts, it seems almost certain SPECIFICO would have reported me—after all, they've reported me for much less—and there's a very good chance I would not have escaped sanction. (Of course, the thrust of the complaint against me soon became a handful of uncivil edit summaries; should I add an appendix on uncivil remarks by SPECIFICO? Do you think I could get away with casually threatening editors the way SPECIFICO does, as documented above? How about the time SPECIFICO accused me of "tendentiously canvassing" another user by informing them of an SPI I had initiated against the IP they were interacting with? WP:CANVASS has a specific meaning, though I've never heard it applied to SPIs: Should SPECIFICO be allowed to use the word as a random insult if they have no intention of pursuing what would be a serious violation of Wikipedia policy? SPECIFICO has clearly been skirting on the edge of what is acceptable for a very long time now, and failing to warn against that sort of conduct will only encourage more of it.) So, you tell me: If these edits had been made by two different users, would SPECIFICO then have violated 1RR? What if SPECIFICO had reverted three or four edits of mine in quick succession? (Would that be "a single revert that used three or four edits"?) I'm deeply concerned that consistent standards are articulated here—not least of all because the total lack of consistency has allowed SPECIFICO to plausibly threaten users and coerce self-reverts even when the underlying policy rationale is far from obvious. (If SPECIFICO had asked me to self-revert rather than immediately running to you, I would have done so, even though I did nothing wrong.) It's as if the rules only apply to the outgroup, not the ingroup or the Wikilawyers; editors know where they stand and act accordingly.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning SPECIFICO
|