Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 913: | Line 913: | ||
*******Yes, as they are not complying with policy, as has been agreed to by everyone but you. Unless there is an objection from another administrator or editor in good standing, I will be deleting under BLPDELETE. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC) |
*******Yes, as they are not complying with policy, as has been agreed to by everyone but you. Unless there is an objection from another administrator or editor in good standing, I will be deleting under BLPDELETE. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*I notified the DRV community of this [[WP:BLPDELETE]] review at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 28#Operation Voicer]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC) |
*I notified the DRV community of this [[WP:BLPDELETE]] review at [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 28#Operation Voicer]]. [[User:Cunard|Cunard]] ([[User talk:Cunard|talk]]) 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC) |
||
*{{small}|Just a note: I wouldn't put too much weight on Bitter Oil's opinions. The primary purpose of the account (created in April) appears to be to post on [[Talk:Jimbo Wales]] (25/102 edits), and their articlespace experience, at least using this account name, is minimal (46 edits in 2 1/2 months). There's very little indication in the edits of this account to show that they are familiar with Wikipedia's standards. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=906409430&oldid=906409273] [[User:Beyond My Ken|Beyond My Ken]] ([[User talk:Beyond My Ken|talk]]) 00:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)}} |
|||
== Would appreciate uninvolved admins help at [[WP:NPOVN]] == |
== Would appreciate uninvolved admins help at [[WP:NPOVN]] == |
Revision as of 00:46, 28 July 2019
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Open tasks
V | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CfD | 0 | 0 | 11 | 43 | 54 |
TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 |
FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
RfD | 0 | 0 | 5 | 26 | 31 |
AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
- 0 bot-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 5 user-reported usernames for administrator attention
- 3 bot-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 3 user-generated requests for intervention against vandalism
- 154 sockpuppet investigations
- 10 Candidates for speedy deletion
- 1 Fully protected edit requests
- 0 Candidates for history merging
- 50 requests for RD1 redaction
- 47 elapsed requested moves
- 3 Pages at move review
- 17 requested closures
- 152 requests for unblock
- 0 Wikipedians looking for help from administrators
- 26 Copyright problems
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Close review - Village Pump discussion on spelling of category names
- Discussion: WP:Village pump (policy)#RFC: spelling of "organisation"/"organization" in descriptive category names
- Close: [1]
- Closer: Cinderella157
- Discussion of the close: WP:Village pump (policy)#Post closure discussion
- Closer notified of this review: [2]
I have not been involved in this issue, other than responding to the RFC. I rarely touch categories, and I don't much care what the final outcome is here. However I strongly object to canvassing, and I very much dislike bad closures.
Grounds for overturn:
- A closer's job is to assess community consensus and apply policies and guidelines. The closer acknowledges that they did not even attempt to do so in their closing statement and in the post closure discussion. The simply disregarded WP:Canvassing, and they blindly assessed consensus of the canvassed participants in front of them. I believe a reasonable closer could have accounted for the canvassing. If a closer finds that canvassing has irredeemably corrupted the process, they can void the discussion. They can direct that the RFC restart from scratch. It is within reasonable discretion for a closer to be unable to resolve a case of gross canvassing, however it is not within discretion to willfully ignore gross canvassing.
- I fully agree that a closer can disregard votecount and close on the basis of policy, or close on the basis of weight of argument. I have personally closed a 20 vs 10 RFC in favor of the 10. However a policy based close needs to cite a solid policy basis, and a "weight of argument" close needs to cite a solid and respectable explanation. One of my main goals when closing is to ensure that the "losing side" receives a rationale which they can (unhappily) respect. We do not have that here. The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for "The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences". Huh? I don't recall ever seeing such a strange or hollow basis for closure. I am also puzzled how that has clear overriding weight against concerns of disruption-of-work.
- (edit: This is a supporting/explanatory factor, not a fundamental basis for overturn:) The closer has an unusually strong personal minority-bias on the language issue. A causal inspection of their usertalk reveals an exceptional personal inclination towards 's' over 'z'. In fact Google reports that "winterised" (with an s) is a borderline-fringe usage by 6.8% of the world. This evident personal bias, combined with a disregard for the blatant canvassing issue, combined with the fluffy-puffy "embrace our differences" rationale, creates an overriding impression of a Supervote.
I'm fine with however this ends up. But this close erodes confidence in our system of closures. Can we please get something respectable? A respectable outcome if possible, or a costly repeat-RFC if necessary. Alsee (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Supplementary information: This is the state of the RFC at the time of canvassing. It had been closed as The proposal has gained consensus to pass. The RFC was reopened and hit with a surge of opposes after the canvassing. Alsee (talk) 08:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want to get into the merits of the debate itself (fwiw, I supported standardisation) but I am really uncomfortable with the last objection here. When the question is a binary "do A or do B", everyone is going to look like a partisan if you approach it with this mindset. If you're going to challenge the closer for their use of a language variant, when they've expressed no opinion on the matter, who would be allowed to close the next one? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Andrew Gray I wouldn't have looked at their personal inclination, if not for the first two points. The first two points establish the problem with the close. I said that the third point combined with the first two create an overriding impression of a supervote. I consider it a supportive/explanatory factor. Alsee (talk) 07:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- It's a rather strange closing statement but from a brief look I'm not seeing a consensus for much in that discussion. The discussion did establish that the relevant policies/guidelines can be read as supporting either option, and that opinion on the subject is pretty divided. That largely takes care of the main reasons for closing either way. Given that all English speakers use one of the two variants exclusively, every single possible closer would have the "bias" that's being claimed here. Hut 8.5 21:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- The close needs to be re-done--it was an atrocious, wandering, closing statement that didn't actually summarize the discussion. --Izno (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have rarely seen a clearer case of no consensus than that discussion. Opinions are hopelessly split, everyone is talking across each other, no solid arguments made to persuade anyone. Seems like a solid close to me,and one that needed to be made because it looks like the whole thing was a huge time drain. Wikipedia's ENGVAR split is always going to be a somewhat tricky issue, but by and large we get through it without dispute. Suggest people drop the stick and move on. — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
- Amakuru, 3-to-1 support isn't usually considered a clear case of no consensus. Especially when opposes give no rationale that their position is in any way superior.
(For those who missed my point, my reference to 3-to-1 support is before the RFC was re-opened and one disruptive individual selectively canvassed11 wikiprojects13 national wikiprojects and noticeboards to manufacture a surge of opposes.) Alsee (talk) 07:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)- If you're going to make accusations of disruption, at least have the decency to notify me. As for the accusation of "selective canvassing", this was a proposal to mandate that an English word had to be spelt in a way different to that used in several countries or regions. Therefore it seems eminently reasonable that editors from those countries or regions should be alerted to a discussion that would specifically affect them with a neutral notification (there was little or no point in posting it to American/Canadian etc WikiProjects as the proposal would not affect their categories. I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change. Number 57 13:35, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Amakuru, 3-to-1 support isn't usually considered a clear case of no consensus. Especially when opposes give no rationale that their position is in any way superior.
I have responded in part to Alsee (the OP of this thread) in the post-close discussion here.
- I have not "ignored" the matter of VOTESTACKING.
- I have found "no consensus" (as distinct from "consensus against"). I am happy to amend if this needs to be made clearer. It is similar to the outcome of directing that the RfC start from scratch - an outcome acceptable to Alsee? If this represents the substantive reason for contesting the close, then I suggest there is "no reason".
The most compelling arguments are to embrace our differences
≠The closer declared an overriding "weight of argument" for ...
- particularly in the context of a "no consensus" close. WP:5P5 identifies "principles and spirit matter more than literal wording". I am not invoking WP:IAR. The principle of ENGVAR etc is to "embrace our differences", rather than argue about them when they are if little consequence (to understanding). COMMONALITY applies where understanding may be compromised. The former is therefore more compelling, since this here, is not a matter of "understanding". This is a matter of identifying the underpinning principles of policy and guidelines (as I believe the OP has implored me to do) since the guidelines cited do not specifically address the issue. However, in the circumstances, this was an observation of the discussion and not a finding of "consensus".- If I was brief in my close, and subsequently unclear, I apologise to the extent that the close template is a restriction. I believe it is reasonable to seek clarification of a close. I have responded to clarify. However, it is not appropriate to assume "bad faith", to misrepresent matters or to be uncivil in the process (see post close comments).
- I think that Amakuru's comments are particularly pertinent.
Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't recommend starting the RFC from scratch, at least not now. No consensus is a valid close of any discussion, and it means that at this time there is no agreement, and often a fair bit of dispute too. The result of such a discussion is to retain the status quo, whatever that is, and move on. Restarting is likely to just see the same participants come back and make the same points. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment - the views of the proposer @BrownHairedGirl: would be of interest. Oculi (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn. The close was exceptionally poor and fluffy, and gives no appearance of even attempting to actually weight the discussion in light of the votestacking.
- It is utterly disgraceful that Number 57 continues to deny that they engaged in votestacking. After numerous expalanations by numerous editors at several venues, Number 57 still has the gall to say
I really don't understand why anyone has a problem with this, unless they have a case of sour grapes over the fact that a large numebr of editors from said countries were opposed to the change
. - It's very simple:
- Number 57 engaged in blatant votestacking by notifying only sets of editors who he considered most likely to agree with his view. Categories relating to nearly all countries may be renamed by this proposal, and editors from all countries may have views on this ... but Number 57 chose to notify only those who he believed would support his view.
- This was done stealthily, without any notification to the RFC that the notifications have been made.
- Number 57 has been admin for nearly 12 years, and a prolific contributor (over 190K edits). He has participated in enough discussions over the years to know exactly what he was doing here, so the despicable manipulativeness of his conduct has no defence of ignorance or error. Any remaining shred of good faith I might assume in N57's conduct has been destroyed by his vile attempt to claim that objections are
a case of sour grapes
. This doubling-down on his highly disruptive misconduct makes Number 57 completely unfit to be an editor, let alone an admin. If I have the time and energy to pursue the case for a desysopping of Number 57, I will do so ... and I will do it with great sadness, because I previously had high regard for Number 57's work. - The whole process of consensus-formation breaks if an editor (and esp a highly-experienced admin) betrays the community's trust in this way. Regardless of whether the community proceeds to give Number 57 a well-deserved desysopping and/or CBAN, the result of that duplicity should not stand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:56, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I won't be endorsing the close, but I came here after BrownHairedGirl pinged me in a separate but related discussion mentioning Number 57, which confused me, so I followed the breadcrumbs back up the trail and came here. I have no idea how I stumbled upon that RfC, whether I was "canvassed" there, but I think it's an assumption of bad faith to assume Number 57 votestacked. I don't see any problem with notifying users of non-American English about this RfC, since it would disproportionately impact them. Those voting from non-zed using countries were not persuaded to vote in any way by Number 57, and the suggestion Number 57 changed the outcome of the discussion by notifying users tells me there wasn't going to be consensus for this anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 16:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, and I'll ping User:Number 57 - the reason this is blatant ing is because of selective and targeted notification. 57 selectively notified only those who were predictably more inclined to view the proposal unfavorably, while deliberately not notifying others who would also be impacted by the proposal, and who would clearly be more likely to view the proposal as beneficial to their work. If 57 is unwilling or unable to understand that many people would benefit from the proposal, if they are unwilling or unable to understand that it is Canvassing to selectively notify likely-allies, then I am concerned that it may be necessary to look for any past or future pattern of canvassing. We generally let individual instances of canvassing off with a warning, but I believe 57 is experienced enough to know better. I believe any pattern of canvassing would be grounds for a topic ban against publicizing any RFC anywhere, to prevent future disruption caused by similar problems understanding or applying appropriate notification vs inappropriate notification. Alsee (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I still disagree, and I think you proved your point here - you're assuming "many people would benefit from the proposal," but there's clearly a large group of people who oppose, and they are the very people who are disproportionately impacted by the change. I think this is the one which I was shocked to see it was closed in favour of standardisation, since it's a big change and one that goes against our current rules. Plus, we're both biased. The three users who have chimed in who weren't involved have either said there's no consensus anyways, or the close should be overturned on purely procedural grounds, but King O'Malley lived a long time ago and I would be shocked if you got support even if arguendo all projects had been notified "equally". SportingFlyer T·C 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn - given that Australia/New Zealand seem to be particularly and vehemently opposed to 'ize' (all from Aus/NZ opposed, mostly post-canvas), I expected that an Australian would rule themselves out as a potential closer (User:Cinderella157 claims to be from Queensland). There was a glut of 'opposes' immediately after Number 57 votestacked, several listed under the members list for Wikproject Aus. Either one notifies all Wikiprojects, or none. Oculi (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note: the closer, Cinderella157, has now been blocked for violating an ArbCom topic ban from World War II. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cinderella157. Sandstein 21:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore Lourdes's original close per Oculi and BHG's reasoning above. Lourdes's first close was a correct assessment of consensus. The subsequent unclose-plus-canvassing/votestacking was disappointing. The second close was more or less a punt. Not sure what the best way forward is; perhaps just restore Lourdes's original close. (non-admin, voted z in RfC) – Levivich 18:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse per Amakuru. Sure, the closing statement could have been worded better, but I can't see how this could have been closed as anything other than no consensus. Iffy★Chat -- 16:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse as per Amakuru and Iffy. I came from the Village Pump to see what the outcome of the discussion was. I think the topic is so divisive that there is no option but to state that there is 'no consensus'. I note the accusations of vote stacking, but if this is the case, the accusations should be brought to a formal process. A further point is that if there was "vote stacking" to people opposed to the proposal, could it not be argued that the original discussion was perhaps also "selectively canvassed" to people who were biased towards the proposal? This suggests that any request for discussion was not properly signposted to the people / teams / communities that would be affected: I am not sure that I can support the original close on this basis. I also don't think it's a wise idea to set precedent as someone had suggested on the original page to ignore the objections. I again state that I think going with "no consensus" is the best idea with this topic where it will be difficult to get agreement. Master Of Ninja (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- "
could it not be argued that the original discussion was perhaps also "selectively canvassed" to people who were biased towards the proposal?
" No, you can't. Policy No personal attacks defines personal attacks to include Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. The RFC was run at Village Pump and advertised on Central Notice. This is normally the highest and most unbiased level of advertisement we give for RFCs. If you are going to make accusations that one-or-more person(s) canvassed on the support side then you are required to present evidence of canvassing. Alsee (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)- Do note I am note making a personal attack at all - I am making a comment on policy. I note that it was "advertised" - however I feel the topic was not promoted widely enough, especially for something that does not seem to respect WP:ENGVAR. To close such a debate without offering a wider discussion seems against WP:ENGVAR. And the whole point of WP:ENGVAR is to make sure we stop these kinds of unnecessary debates, especially in a topic that has been re-opened twice. Could it be that this topic is not a "normal" topic and needs to be discussed more widely? On another note for the whole community, I do see Cavalryman V31's comment that no-one wanted to close the topic, and someone had to have the courage to do it - I will not get involved in the allegations of WP:CANVASSING as this needs investigative skills beyond me and is best addressed by someone else. However if we do re-open or re-close the debate who as a community should close this - it just seems from reading the comments that potentially anyone could be accused of bias on some of the criteria discussed? I do not know the answers to these questions, I just mulling them over. We should try and get some closure to this as the the original debate looks like it was started in April. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- "
- Overturn. I voted in that RfC in support of the change, but a few things in the process really don't sit well with me. First, I agree that there was a very one-sided notification post original closure. Not understanding why that can stack votes to one side is pretty astonishing. Since this isn't a "lets decide for Australia what goes in an Australia article", but a "How does en.wiki handle a category style", either you notify everyone, or no one. The other 75% of the community has the same rights and same vote weight as do the other 25%. Another issue I have it with the actual close. What the hell did all those words even say?
Perhaps this might be done in a more formal way and make this explicit to categories (CREEP to avoid CREEP - irony)
- a more formal way than an RfC? Can this even get any more evasive? Also, if you don't care to investigate allegations of vote stacking, then maybe closing RfCs isn't for you. I expect someone that closes any discussions to check any allegation brought up, understand guidelines and not cite an essay in their close, which itself has no place even in the discussion. --Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC) - Endorse no consensus per Amakuru. The truth is no one wanted to close this RfC and it effectively sat dormant for a month (after another had started a close but decided against exposing themselves by doing so) before Cinderella had the courage to do the job. On a side note, I find Alsee’s third argument above particularly galling, their bias against anyone who does not use American spelling is clear, declaring Cinderella incapable of making an impartial decision for spelling a word (that is completely unrelated to this RFC) in a way that they do not consider correct. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC).
- Overturn, with no prejudice against either Cinderella157 or Number 57. Cinderella claims not to have considered canvassing at all, and despite this being an important part of a closer's responsibilities, they appear to suggest that doing so effectively is not possible (bullet point #2). Their responses are also hostile to the idea of a challenge, which suggests a lack of neutrality - as seen in bullet point #3 from the same diff, which appears to claim that either Alsee's challenge or those who supported the proposal are involved in
"vilifying groups of editors" for following different spelling conventions
. I'm not sure that Number 57 was necessarily wrong given their stated reasoning, but the allegations still need to be accounted for. As always, reclosing could very well produce the same outcome, but the existing close does not meet the expected standards. Sunrise (talk) 05:42, 12 July 2019 (UTC) - Overturn, though I agree that there is no consensus, the RFC should have lasted longer and be closed by someone more neutral. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 03:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 09:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- More evidence of biased notification canvassing by Number 57: This edit selectively pinged several allies to the RFC. However Number57 did not include a ping to Jayron32, who also participated in the discussion[3] and who had defended the original consensus close. It looks like Number57 felt that only people who agree with them deserved to participate in the RFC. Alsee (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Alsee, if this had been done another way and all of the affected categories had been presented at CfD for renaming, and all of those categories’ associated WikiProjects been notified of the proposal (standard procedure), then largely the same WikiProjects as notified by Number 57 would have been notified. I am not leveling accusations of vote stacking against the BHG for not notifying the affected WikiProjects, but I do believe it was remiss not to have, as it was largely categories overseen by them that were affected. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC).
- Absolutely not true, @Cavalryman V31. That's most kindly described as a highly creative and imaginative account of my actions, but more accurately as a severe misrepresentation.
- The fact is that the range of affected categories is global. It includes all non-English-speaking-countries, so the idea that this proposal is somehow targeted at one particular set of countries is simply false. On the contrary, one of my main reasons for making the nomination in the first place is the number of sterile CFD discussions about which format to use for some country X which isn't even English-speaking. (If I recall correctly, the two discussions which prompted me yo finally open an RFC which I had been considering for years were discussions relating to the Netherlands, and to Qatar).
- If, as Cavalryman posits,
all of the affected categories had been presented at CfD for renaming
, and all related Wikiprojects had been notified, the result would have been that probably every single Wikiproject would have been notified, regardless of its topics or location. That's because the range of categories involved is so vast, and most national WikiProjects have interests in topics beyond their own boundaries. - So the claim that it was somehow
remiss
not to notify a particular set of countries is utterly false. A global proposal needs global notification ... so instead of spamming a message to 1000 WikiProjects, I placed the proposal at most central location, and notified it on WP:CENT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)- BrownHairedGirl, I apologise that you feel my comments are
a severe misrepresentation
, that was far from my intent when making them and I believe your intentions are very much well meaning. The fact is it is known some countries do use “ise”, yet your RfC was to standardise to “ize” for all (“ise” was not offered as an option). I acknowledge the inconsistencies with non-English speaking countries, but this RfC was always going to be controversial for a number of Commonwealth countries and that is why I believe their WikiProjects should have been notified. It is my opinion that the only really compelling argument I have seen for standardisation isAssessing it [the quantity of CfDs] would require a lot of editor time, but editor time is increasingly scarce
, this places back of house editor actions over page appearance for readers. Kind regards, Cavalryman V31 (talk) 08:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC).- If, by 'page appearance for readers', you are referring to categories at the bottom of the page, there is no chance of any sort of uniformity. Tim Cahill's categories are a complete mix, as he plied his trade globally, and the global Category:Sports organizations established in 1911 contains Australian entities amongst others. Oculi (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Cavalryman V31, you continue to miss the two core simple points:
- this proposal could be be controversial or acclaimed or whatever in nearly every country.
- per WP:CANVASS Notifications should be non-partisan both in content and in selected audience
- So notifying only WikiProjects of countries likely to oppose the change is every bit as partisan as notifying those likely to support it.
- The solution is simple: notify all, or notify none. I didn't think this was a sufficiently controversial issue to justify cross-posting to ~220 country-specific WikiProjects, and that doing so would look like spamming; so I used WP:CENT.
- In hindsight, it was more controversial that I initially thought. But while that might arguably justify notifying all countries, it doesn't justify votestacking by notifying only people expected to be on one side of the argument.
- As your closing comment about the substance, I have yet to see any trace of any evidence that readers actual object to the spelling. And its not simply a matter of editor time: one of the persistent problems of the current inconsistency is that it leads to miscategorisaton. Articles and categories categorised are repeatedly categorised in redlinked categories because editors have no way of knowing in advance which spelling is used for which type of org category, and no way of knowing whether the redlink indicates a mis-spelling or a non-existent category. Those miscategorised articles and categories don't appear in parent categories, and that missing categorisation is what really hurts readers, not one letter which they may consider unfamiliar.
- I also strongly urge you to reconsider the notion that the burden on editors is not a priority. The ratio of articles to active editors has nearly quadrupled in the last decade, from 430:1 in 2007 to 1650:1 in December 2018. Policies designed around assumptions of infinite editor time should have been ruthlessly discarded when the number of active editors began to fall off a decade ago. Clinging to those notions is a very effective way of reducing Wikipedia's chances of surviving the 2020s, because they divert so much editor time into inconsequentials that they leave less time for the stuff which actually matters, namely keeping article updated, and monitoring those articles for vandalism, POV-pushing etc.
- The objections to this sort of simplification miss that big picture. The demand for idealistic perfection in something that doesn't actually matter isn't a free option: it comes at the hidden price of scarce editorial time diverted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Cavalryman V31, you continue to miss the two core simple points:
- If, by 'page appearance for readers', you are referring to categories at the bottom of the page, there is no chance of any sort of uniformity. Tim Cahill's categories are a complete mix, as he plied his trade globally, and the global Category:Sports organizations established in 1911 contains Australian entities amongst others. Oculi (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- BrownHairedGirl, I apologise that you feel my comments are
- Response by closer: the following is a response by the closer (specifically and generally) since the previous response.
- Sunrise, it is inaccurate to state
[I did not] considered canvassing at all
, when I did, but not in the way some would prefer. Per your diff, I stated:I did not attempt to make a determination about the "substance" of the allegations
. To paraphrase, I did not attempt to make a determination as to whether the notifications by Number 57 constituted misconduct. - To whether the allegations (if substantiated) could be effectively addressed (per Sunrise):
- It is quite correct to make notifications to projects regarding a discussion of interest to the project. The allegation goes to the "selectivity" with which these notifications were made.
- The comments made here on how to address the allegation are quite arbitrary - they either wind-back to the earlier close or would discount opposing comments. In part, there appears the assumption that any opposing editor has come to the RfC as a result of the notifications. This is a generalisation and an assumption that falls to Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
- Neutral notifications made to any project are intrinsically correct. Disenfranchising a comment from editors that received such a notification assumes "bad faith" on the part of that editor. Discounting comments in such a way would (in my conclusion) severely compromise a close and would give reasonable and valid reason for it to be overturned. Consequently, I considered such a course inappropriate.
- To the comments by Alsee (and those that follow in this vein) that I am biased by my spelling preference:
- It is a red herring fallacy to assert that a person with a spelling preference for "ise" cannot close an RfC advocating "ize". The counter-arguement (equally fellatious) is that an "ize" speller is also inherently biased. Such logic would leave the close to someone who has never written English or knows nothing of spelling? There is no way for any closer to be immune from the suggestion of bias where the basis for such an allegation is that they do actually spell such words consistently.
- As well as being a red-herring arguement, it is also an Ad hominem arguement, which is inherently a personal attack, rarely an appropriate arguement to make and low in the heirarchy of disagreement,[4] since it does not address the central or most pertinent points.
- Implicit to Alsee's clam of bias is that any editor using "ise" is inherently biased (and those that use "ize" are not). I observed:
The comments made have the appearance to me of polemic ad hominem. "Vilifying groups of editors" for following different spelling conventions does not foster collaboration and respect.
[5] The quote is taken from and linked to WP:POLEMIC. - Alsee has claimed that my use of "ise" in "winteris[z]ed" is
borderline-fringe
andfar out of sync ... with the rest of the planet
. There are many misuses of statistics of which, I believe, this falls to overgeneralisation, possibly data dredging or simply a case of apples and oranges. It ignores the frequency of usage of the particular word in the two main English domains and how this can skew an observation such as that made by Alsee. All this statistic proves is that I am fairly consistent in my spelling. - My response to Alsee (though in not so many words) was to indicate that their comments did not (IMO) represent a particularly good arguement. It is inaccurate to construe from this that I am
hostile to the idea of a challenge, which suggests a lack of neutrality
. It is another ad hominem arguement with a conclusion based on an inaccurate premise.
- Implicit to Alsee's clam of bias is that any editor using "ise" is inherently biased (and those that use "ize" are not). I observed:
- Sunrise, it is inaccurate to state
- I apologise for the length of this response but it appears necessary to provide this level of detail. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn I am Australian; I opposed standardisation. I was not canvassed: I think I found the discussion on CENT, although that was after it had been reopened. While I think the close was "correct" – there was clearly no consensus reached – I think it needs to be closed by someone with more neutrality, given that Australians became the locus of the discussion. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn The point that particularly concerns me is that the close is not an accurate summarization of the discussion at all. I also do not understand why CANVASSING guidelines can be misconstrued and then essentially annulled in an RfC close, something that is bound to follow Wikipedia policies. Even, if I were to assume good faith, it would only take me as far as misunderstanding guidelines as they stand and not that, no canvassing actually occurred. I'm even more worried that if a new editor were to canvass in this manner, it would reflect horribly upon them but in this particular case, we will beat around the bush via "it only impacted this subset of editors, so I informed them", if that isn't canvassing, I don't know what is. I am not aware of Lourdes' close so I cannot comment on it, but this close should definitely be overturned, for lack of any support through the ensuing discussion. --qedk (t 桜 c) 06:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse no consensus per Amakuru, it could have been better explained, but there is no clear consensus and a lot of the above is sour grapes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, if you really want to apply pejorative terms such as
sour grapes
to those who object to blatant votestacking, then please make haste to change your username from the highly inappropriate Peacemaker67 to something more apt, such as User:Gaslighter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)- I think it's alright, BHG, if Peacemaker67 decides that invalidating other people's viewpoints with "
sour grapes
" (similar to N57) is the best way to prove their point, so be it. Amakuru atleast made their point as someone is supposed to, without feeling the need to invalidate their opinions as well, so kudos to them for doing so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's alright, BHG, if Peacemaker67 decides that invalidating other people's viewpoints with "
- Hey, if you really want to apply pejorative terms such as
- Endorse cloze - I'm going out on an IAR limb here, but I don't think there's any way that a discussion which boiled down to "let's prefer [North] American spelling over all other varieties throughout this enormously important and visible function of the project" could possibly have reached an acceptable consensus. I understand the rationale but I think it was a bad idea from the start, because no matter what it ends up being exclusionary to some significant portion of editors. I see the original close as flawed: this is a monumental change, and should have had much more support than it did to have been declared "passed" at that point. I also don't think Number57's posting of what appeared to be a neutral discussion notice at only WikiProjects for nations which would be expected to oppose the proposal was at all in good faith. But in the end, consensus is likely impossible to obtain here. Might I suggest that if standardiçation is an urgent concern, why not make an effort to be inclusive and agree on a word other than organiɂation? I don't know what that would be and maybe that would require rethinking category trees somewhat, but here's a list to get started.
- If on the other hand some editors insist that this must be decided in favour of Team Ess or Team Zed, then I suggest a panel of multinational uninvolved experienced closers be convened to reevaluate all of the discussions up to this point, being sure to select at minimum one editor from Britain, one from the United States, one from Canada, one from Australia and/or New Zealand (I'm not sure how distinct the language variants are there), and one from India/Pakistan, so as to avoid inherent bias. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Reopen My personal position would be to support the results of the close (don't standardize). However, I also understand the problem with selective notification. In this case the problem is you have obviously interested projects that would presumably voice opinions in one direction. You don't have obvious projects in the other camp. This is a case of the obviously interested focused group vs the nebulous masses. I personally think it would be best to agree to a few more notification locations, reopen and see where things go. I don't believe it will change the final result but BHG's concerns have merit. Let's not discount them. Springee (talk) 16:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Overturn Per WP:VOTESTACK,
Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view
. I can't see how notifying "the most affected editors" doesn't squarely fall into this category: they were admittedly notified entirely because they are associated with countries that use precisely the language the RFC proposed to deprecate. Even if we take at face value that "other Wikiprojects aren't affected", what would have been the harm in notifying them? If they are truly as disinterested as claimed, either no one would show up (due to this supposed lack of interest) or the few that did would cast a neutral, unbiased !vote. I don't see the problem here. We very well may have ended up a no-consensus anyway, but all we have now is an invalid result, and our only recourse is to reopen with a neutral notification on all wikiprojects.For the record, I did !vote in the RFC for "ize", but if the RFC ultimately closes "no consensus" or even "oppose", I'm perfectly happy with it assuming we correct this irregularity. CThomas3 (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Closing this close review
- @Alsee, Cinderella157, Number 57, BrownHairedGirl, and Lourdes: Pinging the initiator of this thread, the closer under review, an interested editor, the proposal's author, and the previous closer; respectively I would like to review the above discussion. Is there any objection among you five for me closing this AN thread as a NAC? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- MJL, no objection. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL, I would prefer that it was closed by an editor with a lot more experience, ideally by an admin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: This is really not an appropriate discussion to be closed by a non-admin. It’s contentious, complex, and in need of experience. Triptothecottage (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl and Triptothecottage: I figured as much. Glad I asked ahead of time! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- MJL, no objection. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Unblock request by RussianDewey
- RussianDewey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
RussianDewey is asking to be unblocked:
I wanna thank Mr.Just Chilling for unblocking my talk page, this is a huge privilege and opportunity to bring my case to the community on why I should be unblocked.
I have been exiled and indefinitely banned for two years, I have taken serious time to think about my actions very deeply, because number 1, I love Wikipedia and what it stands for in terms of being a platform that provides a wealth knowledge and I consider myself a Wikipedian at heart who loves to contribute and build on that knowledge and make sure Wikipedia grows even BIGGER. Secondly my past actions are out in display, I have probably committed every Wikipedia sin possible, I will do anything in order to gain the trust of the community back and uphold Wikipedia standards and rulings to the highest degree. I hope I have the full fledge trust of the community, I know I did Sockpuppet activity and let me tell you whats in the mind of sockpuppet like me "I can get away with it", in reality I can never get away with it, maybe if I start editing other articles but still,I want to do this the right way and I HAVE A PASSION A STRONG PASSION in certain areas of Wikipedia like Medieval History and Ottoman History, and Wikipedians will always catch a sockpuppet.
I want to be unblocked so I can I contribute to Wikipedia professionally and with the utmost respect to my fellow Wikipedians, I realize my behavior before was not a good way to represent my self and I realize that my sock puppet behavior was very counter productive. I am not saying welcome me with a clean slate but instead let me keep my history (good and bad) so I can be a better example,and I don't expect to be FULLY UNBLOCKED, I would love to have a mentor, and not edit until I receive a permission from him. I can be under such system for whatever length time of time you guys desire.RussianDewey (talk) 07:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I've already run a check and found nothing. After this request sat in the unblock queue for around three weeks, taking it to the community was suggested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Leaning support per clean Check, WP:ROPE, etc. It appears that he edits for the most part in good faith, and I don't see anything too terribly damning to oppose. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Before I get all teary-eyed (which I nearly did) and endorse unblock, the original block was for a "a battleground mentality and inability to collaborate" per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#RussianDewey. Even though it's been four years, and RussianDewey has professed his undying love for Wikipedia, I'd like to see this addressed. In struggling through his talk pages, I found that it's been said that his very first edit was combative. What has changed? Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- To clarify, I'm waiting for apellant to reply concerning matters covered in the ANI thread that led to original block. Not to his troubles w/ no wiki tags. The outbursts that followed and bombastic responses are what cooked his goose at that ANI. Hoping for the best. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Jack Sebastian: The most recent sock blocked was User talk:Alexis Ivanov for harrassment and personal attacks
- To clarify, I'm waiting for apellant to reply concerning matters covered in the ANI thread that led to original block. Not to his troubles w/ no wiki tags. The outbursts that followed and bombastic responses are what cooked his goose at that ANI. Hoping for the best. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- His first edit was this. I'm not sure to what extent it's normal for one to first edit on another user's talk page, but while I do see some zeal in the diff I don't see anything too combative. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:26, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- John M Wolfson,Thanks. That takes care of that. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- That was in March. By June 9, things had changed. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
So intimidation is how you work. I will not be intimated by a rat, try being civil next time.
Hmm, that does throw a wrench into the works. I still lean support per ROPE, but I would not oppose a reblock if he does in fact "hang himself", as it were. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)- I stand corrected. It was the 21st Dennis Brown called it the "very first" in the ANI thread so long ago. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have asked him (by which I meant RussianDewey, not DB} to respond on his talk page. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown has left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're kidding! Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Dennis Brown has left Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support unblock. I have seen years ago no wiki tags added to articles and other pages. There was a software glitch years ago. It looks like RussianDewey believed that admins were badging them and that escalated the drama. Things might of been different if admins were more understanding. The edits are overwhelming done in good faith. I can't say that about a few others who have not even received a single warning from a Wikipedia administrator for adding clear-cut WP:BLP violations. QuackGuru (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Still trying to fight your unrelated personal content dispute by all means. I feel somehow disgusted by that.--TMCk (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)- Struck off-topic borderline personal attack. Take it out side or get a room. Or ANI Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - People can reform, the user has had time to think about things. Second chance deserved. Foxnpichu (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question - Has the user been indef blocked before and come back to demonstrate the same behavior that got them blocked? I'm a huge believer in redemption, but how many bites at the apple should RussianDewey get? I also wonder if the user has been editing here anyway, under the radar as a sock, and wants unfettered access again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently NRP
already [ran] a check and found nothing.
Just below where he posted the request. Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC) - See block log. The last block was 2ya for socking. (December, 2016) As you say, it's the stuff that lead to the original indef that has me awaiting apellant's response. Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Apparently NRP
- Unblock request for an account with 41 mainspace edits that has been blocked for four years? Seems like an attempt at some tasty trolling given the earlier interaction history and the literary merits of the appeal. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- weak support per 2nd chance and the length of time that has passed. Appeal seemed sincerely contrite and reflective of a change. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I’m not generally a fan of third chances. They tend to create unblockables. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: Just curious, where does the idea of the third chance creating unblockables come from? Crazynas t 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Administrators are as a group cautious, which means that usually a new block after any unblock requires double the disruption for it to stick. My standard for unblocks is similar to what BrownHairedGirl below is saying: does the potential for benefits to the encyclopedia outweigh the known risk for disruption. Once someone gets to their second justified indef, the answer will almost always be No.Unblocking at that point means they'll just keep being disruptive and we'll ignore them for 6 months to a year before trying a bunch of sanctions that don't work until they eventually lose interest in the project or get blocked after years of frustration. I'm not going to name any names, but it's something I've noticed over time. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:42, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Weak support given the length of the time they've been blocked for and some indication they may have changed attitude. If unblocked they'd better understand that any more battleground behaviour will be the end of their involvement with WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support, with the strict understanding that there shall be zero tolerance for battlegrounding, incivility or harassment. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. 41 mainspace edits, and a block log which isn't a whole lot shorter. Sockpuppetry, which wastes a lot of community time in cleanup. Note too that the sock was busy at ANI, from this dose of timewasting nitpicking on an admin's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KrakatoaKatie&diff=prev&oldid=748686645#An_Inquiry
- So I'm seeing a pile of negatives here on the conduct front.
- But what positive things does this person bring to the project of building an encyclopedia? I see a poor command of the English language, which doesn't bode well for work on articles. Even if the new claims of good intent are sincere, they come without one of the pre-requisite skills.
- Sorry, but I think this person has already wasted enough of the community's time. I don't see any point in trying again. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think the editor is young. Now that they are a bit older they want to come back and contribute. QuackGuru (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Unblock. I'd rather give them a try with a known account than throw away the key and have them sneak back with an undisclosed account. Jehochman Talk 01:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose unblock somewhat strongly, per [6] (Alexis Ivanov being RussianDewey's confirmed sock). After pulling a one-month block for personal attacks, they spent the next month and a bit harassing the blocking administrator, and after being told to knock it off ([7], especially [8]), didn't seem to think there was anything wrong with prominently listing that administrator's name as a vague "future project" on their user page. That earned them a six-month block before being discovered to be a sockpuppet. They have not addressed that incident at all in their unblock request, and I see no reason to believe they've learned anything from it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral: This may be a case that requires RussianDewey to work on a different project for a time without incident prior to returning to English Wikipedia. This could be another language variant of Wikipedia (including Simple English Wikipedia), but could also be Commons or Wikisource. In particular, there would need to be evidence not merely of content creation without incident, but interaction with others without incident (i.e., work entirely within walled gardens that's gone under the radar, as is common on some low-traffic projects, would probably not suffice). As BHG notes, there are only 41 mainspace edits on this account, and all of those are in a two-month period in 2015. If we saw some more work elsewhere demonstrating a change, then perhaps those reticent to support an unblock would be more convinced. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 13:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support 4 years since anything substantial other than talk page contributions? Wants another chance? Says he's learned his lesson? Let's give him a chance to prove us wrong. Should he prove us wrong, instant permaban. Edits would be easy to undo, so I don't see that being a significant problem. Buffs (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Replies from RussianDewey--
- To my initial question:
Dlohcierekim (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)I just read the ANI, and I see you asked a question "What has changed?", simple I believe there is a room of improvement for Wikipedia in many articles and I wanted to approach this the right way. I also seen my previous incidents and those are very cringey to look at. RussianDewey (talk) 00:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Russian Dewey replied thusly (to @BrownHairedGirl:)--
I want to respond to Brown Haired Girl first, yes I didn't express my English as elegantly as I would love, but the good thing is various editors come in and fix any grammatical mistakes, are you saying everyone here has to be grammatically correct 100% of the time. Various editors don't speak English as their first language and they contribute heavily, and secondly she questioned my positive contribution, I would say right of the bat my main contribution was fixing names, dates, locations and expanding/creating templates. It takes very long time in order to grasp certain historical era and then to have the knowledge to write in depth, even though for you it seems not a lot of positive contribution it's still something I contributed that nobody else was doing, but it's something I'm working towards it, CPLAKIDAS is one of the guys I look up-to and try to emulate. and my response to Ivan Vector, is that these incidents happen a year or more ago and I'm not gonna justify any of my despicable behaviors, I did talk about number 6, and for 7 and 8, I did mention how I want to abide by the rules, I think at those points I was very hotheaded and felt like Wikipedians were against me, so I was on the road to self-destruction, right now I'm on the road to redemption.Sorry for the late reply I was busy RussianDewey (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Reality check, please. What you call your "
main contribution
" was actually only 41 edits to articles. In those 41 edits, I see you asserting several points of fact, but I don't see even one case of you adding a source for anything you write. - As to your claim to be
expanding/creating templates
, I see only three edits in template space[9], all to the same template. They consist of you edit-warring, and misusing edit summaries to insult a long-standing productive editor. - And despite making only small changes to text, you still seem envisage that you will need other editors to clean up after your unsourced edits.
- So I see nothing positive in any of what you did, and plenty of problem even in those article/template edits. It is clear that you were a significant net negative even before you began the battleground conduct and the socking, and even before you abused the sock to waste so much of other people's time.
- With nothing at all on the positive side of the balance sheet, and a long list of problems on the negative side, I can only say a firm "np". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Reality check, please. What you call your "
- I would give him/her another chance. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Closure review- Order of paragraphs in lead of MEK article
I'm writing to request a review at the closure of the RFC I started on the order of the paragraphs in the lead of People's Mujahedin of Iran. The RFC was closed by Cinderella157. Before coming here, I discussed the issue with Cinderella157, where I asked how he had found the 'chronological order' arguments to be "compelling". Some users, including me, believed that guidelines MOS:LEADORDER, which says the lead should "make readers want to learn more"
and WP:BETTER, which says the lead should summarize "the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable,"
had to be applied. This is while, others believed that 'chronological order' of the paragraph had to be kept since they thought the lead could get misleading if the orders were changed.
The closing user believes that the users in favor of having the paragraph on the terrorist cult designation of the group in the second place, were not specific enough, while I told him (with modification) his evaluation of the comments were not accurate since comments [10], [11] and [12] specifically describe the paragraph in questions as having a vital info which can be interesting for the readers. So, I believe in the closure of that RFC by Cinderella157 the arguments made based on guidelines were discredited. Can an experienced admin address my request please? --Mhhossein talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Response by closer,
- It is not sufficient for a comment citing a guideline or like to have weight simply because a guideline or like is cited. It must be relevant in some way to deciding the issue at hand.
- The issue to be determined was the ordering of paragraphs in the lead.
- The guidance cited does not go to deciding the issue at hand.
- MOS:LEADORDER considers where the lead prose falls within other elements of the lead. It does not give guidance on selecting the ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose - the question to be resolved. It does link to MOS:INTRO.
- MOS:INTRO gives guidance on the first para and first sentence. While it touches on the lead prose in total more fully, it does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
- WP:BETTER and the subsection WP:BETTER/GRAF1 touches on the lead specifically. The advice is much as MOS:INTRO and does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" within the lead prose.
- In WP:BETTER, the Layout section does not give guidance to resolve ordering of "ideas" but links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout (see below).
- Neither of the two links cited are relevant to resolving the question of the RfC. This was pointed out to Mhhossein in the response I gave at my TP:
[The] links made in support of the move actually made broad observations about the structure of the lead, and were not specific, save the first paragraph or referred to the order of the many other elements (eg infobox etc) other than the running text. They did not lend weight to the proposal.
[13]
- The existing lead is based on a chronological organisational structure. The proposal was to simply reorder the last paragraph to second position (without other adjustment) - thereby breaking the organisational (chronological) structure being used. For this reason, maintaining the chronological structure was seen as a compelling arguement.
- It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure:
... not because any lead should be written in a chronological order but because this particular lead has used chronological order. Having done so, moving the paragraph per the proposal then places it out of sequence.
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout in the section MOS:BODY. There, it states
... articles should still follow good organizational and writing principles regarding sections and paragraphs.
However, one does not need to burrow through layers of Wiki guidance to acknowledge such principles.
- It was explained to Mhhossein at my TP that I was not mandating that the lead must follow a chronological structure:
- This is a longer answer as, apparently, the shorter version at my TP was not sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 03:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "longer" response, but I still believe you're just ignoring the arguments by labeling them as being broad and not specific. I agree that none of the mentioned guidelines comment on the 'order' of the paragraph, but they're saying the lead should
"make readers want to learn more"
. That MEK was once designated as a terrorist group by UN, UK and US and that it's a Cult (as many experts believe), is something at least three users said were interesting and vital. So, why should such a vital info be sent down the lead? - As a user closing the discussion you had to assess the consensus by addressing all the guideline-based arguments, which I think you failed to do. --Mhhossein talk 11:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the "longer" response, but I still believe you're just ignoring the arguments by labeling them as being broad and not specific. I agree that none of the mentioned guidelines comment on the 'order' of the paragraph, but they're saying the lead should
Further comments
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Netoholic
- Prior recent/relevant discussions
- User talk:MJL#Council proposals (permalink)
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Netoholic_reported_by_User:Bilorv_(Result:_24_hours)
- User talk:Netoholic#Blocked (permalink)
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men
Background
Netoholic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Netoholic has (in several words) challenged my close of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men as out of process,[14][15][16] WP:INVOLVED,[17][18][19][20][21] WP:BADNAC,[22] a form of WP:GAMING,[23][24] edit warring,[25][26] and the like. I have disputed all of those claims at my talk page. Despite actively discussing this matter with me, decided to revert my close again (more background on my talk page and ANEW report). They have since been blocked for edit warring.[27] As Bilorv so succinctly put it: The person who was edit warring is the one who made six reverts, deliberately trying to game 3RR, not the people who made two reverts each, with encouragements to discuss the matter in their edit summaries.
I am submitting this closure for self-review since Neto is blocked. It's not that I don't stand by my close at this point. It's that Netoholic has flat out stated that nothing less than this proposal being up for several years would be sufficient to them.[28] I feel that is an absurd request to make from an editor who seems to be demonstrating clear WP:IDHT.
Should I be reverted and what is to be said of the actions concerning Netoholic? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Survey
- Endorse per the deletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Men after an AfD in which the closer wrote (in part)
Consensus appears to be that this project violates WP:POINT and/or WP:NPOV, plus concerns about the clarity of the scope, the redundancy to existing projects (chiefly WP:MEN) ...
Netoholic violated WP:FORUMSHOP by making a council proposal page, and there were no (other) supporters of the project despite widespread discussion about it so it's clearly not a productive area to keep discussing over and over again. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC) - I don’t really see much of anything to close. It had three participants. Wikiprojects on the whole are dead (with a few notable exceptions such as MILHIST) and I honestly had no clue that the “WikiProject Council” even existed beyond a weird logo on talk pages that we’d never bothered to get rid of. Pointless close because a three person discussion about a loosely/not at all regulated part of Wikipedia doesn’t consensus make. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse - project was clearly a duplicate or fork of WP:MEN, or else so broad in scope (things of interest to men? as in, basically everything?) as to be useless. Netoholic should focus this energy on rejuvenating WP:MEN if that's their interest. Maybe they didn't intend their project proposal to be pointy, but it became pointy anyway. Might I also suggest marking the WikiProject Council proposals process historic if it's so poorly attended? Expecting things to wait years for approval indicates a process that has outlived its usefulness. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I’d agree with this. I’m not exactly thrilled with Netoholic’s behaviour here and don’t really think the close should be “overturned” but I also don’t really see much of a point to it since that can hardly be called a discussion. If people want to create a WikiProject, let them and then sort it out at MfD if it causes issues. Most of them no one will even notice. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
... sort it out at MfD if it causes issues.
At the MfD of the proposal page, three editors !voted close and the closer wrote "Closing/archiving the proposal should not require MfD intervention." [29] Looks to me like consensus to close. Endorse. – Levivich 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)- Reclose with an uninvolved closer This is a mess all around. I don't quite see how RL0919 gets keep from this discussion. So I would say that is a bad close that should be overturned and if this weren't already here and I was made aware of it I would take it to DRV. The fact that there was something to nominate (again) is POINTY behavior, which is only shown further by the edit warring that went on around that so good block there. However, MJL was clearly not an uninvolved editor in all this and as such should clearly not have been the person closing this. I don't think his close was wrong, but the reason WP:RFC calls for an uninvolved editor is precisely so that accusations of bad faith on the closer's part are harder to level. And while this isn't the forum for it I would support efforts to mark the WikiProject Council as historical. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse This is typical IDHT territory and Netoholic needs to be probably TBanned from these spheres, because because his arguments seem to be approaching MRA-esque stuff very rapidly. But, MJL, you were not the best-placed editor to close this. ∯WBGconverse 16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49 and Winged Blades of Godric: I would agree that I may not have been the best person to close this, but that is why I made my offer to discuss this out first with Neto.[30] I was rather shocked that they chose to edit war over it rather than actually just be cordial and polite. I'm not unreasonable, and I generally revert when asked for the right reasons.[31] I'd like to additionally discuss the topic ban that WBG mentioned. It might be overdue here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Endorse This is typical IDHT territory and Netoholic needs to be probably TBanned from these spheres, because because his arguments seem to be approaching MRA-esque stuff very rapidly. But, MJL, you were not the best-placed editor to close this. ∯WBGconverse 16:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged: I have no opinion about whether or not this proposal should be closed, but I hope that I was clear that the result at the Miscellany for deletion (writing that out in full as a reminder that "deletion" is part of the name) discussion about the proposal was only that the proposal page should not be deleted, not that it shouldn't be closed. Closing or not closing proposals isn't the focus of MfD as a forum. If the participants on the page can't resolve it there (which it seems they can't), then a dispute resolution venue such as this one is the right place for that to be decided. --RL0919 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- As the person who pinged you, I think your close was clear. I just don't see how you reached a consensus of keep from that discussion especially as only a couple months before a different MfD came to a delete decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- One MfD was about an actual WikiProject and the other MfD was about a proposal for a possible WikiProject, so I don't see different results as that surprising. In the discussion I closed, out of eight participants only the nominator and one other flatly favored deletion, with a third being open to deletion as an option. Most of the rest wanted the page kept but the proposal closed. I think it is very reasonable to ask why the author of the proposal would look at that MfD and think it was appropriate to revert the subsequent closure of the project proposal, but in the MfD close itself I was trying to stick to only addressing the normal remit of MfD. --RL0919 (talk) 18:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- As the person who pinged you, I think your close was clear. I just don't see how you reached a consensus of keep from that discussion especially as only a couple months before a different MfD came to a delete decision. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well given the pretty strong consensus against the project's existence at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men, and the lack of any support other than the OP for creating the project in the discussion in question, we clearly don't have consensus for creating the project. Anybody who does want to create it needs to define it in such a way that it has a meaningful scope which isn't just that of WP:MEN and similar projects on gender issues. A projects focusing on the men's rights movement and related topics would clearly duplicate WP:MEN and there wasn't any articulated benefit for having a project to improve biographies of men. Hut 8.5 20:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm looking at Netoholic's block log. A lot of it is irrelevant ancient history, but two 24-hour blocks in the last three months suggest there is still a problem with unnecessary edit warring. The entries in the block log suggest that Netoholic was under a 1RR restriction at some point. Is now a good time to re-impose it? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- IMO the problematic recent history extends beyond just the edit warring blocks:
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#User:Netoholic and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Deletion TBAN
- The WT:Notability (academics) RfCs [32] [33]
- Created WP:WikiProject Men (deleted, now a redirect to WP:MEN), then Category:Men's history (deleted), then WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men (no consensus), and then edit warred over the close of the proposal page (subject of this thread)
- Repeated reversions at...
- WP:NPOVN over a notice about an WP:MR thread about Chairman (1, 2)
- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) (1, 2, 3)
- Steven Crowder (1, 2, 3, 4)
- Chairperson (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
- Template:Masculinism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
- Template:Masculism sidebar (1, 2, 3)
- Masculism (see the history in May) – Levivich 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with this assessment -- edit warring is actually a fairly minor aspect of the whole story. --JBL (talk) 17:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- See also: reverts at The Wachowskis article: 1, 2, 3. Also: I was made very uncomfortable by this comment regarding an article about a murdered trans woman. Here is my reply that notes how off-base that comment was. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Reclose with an uninvolved closer. This may have been the correct outcome of the discussion (given Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men). However, the close does not reflect the actual discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men (3 comments - Netholic + 2 others) - there's certainly no consensus for opening the WikiProject (or, given 3 participants, for much of anything) - however the only talk of a redirect is by the closer. Furthermore, MJL is clearly involved given their numerous comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men. Icewhiz (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: It's pretty established I was involved despite my initial protest and grumblings to such. The redirect portion of the close was brought by Jo-Jo Eumerus's initial close of MFD:WP:MEN and then UnitedStatesian's first close of WP:COUNCIL/P/Men (the latter who've I pinged before regarding this issue but doesn't seem to want to get involved further). Either way, if whoever closes this thread wants to reclose mine, then that's fine with me.
I'd just prefer to see this matter conclusively resolved, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz: It's pretty established I was involved despite my initial protest and grumblings to such. The redirect portion of the close was brought by Jo-Jo Eumerus's initial close of MFD:WP:MEN and then UnitedStatesian's first close of WP:COUNCIL/P/Men (the latter who've I pinged before regarding this issue but doesn't seem to want to get involved further). Either way, if whoever closes this thread wants to reclose mine, then that's fine with me.
- Reverse close. Netoholic and I do not always see eye to eye (to put it mildly), but I don't see the harm in this proposal being left open. (Disclosure: I was, briefly, a member of Netoholic's original WikiProject Men.) WanderingWanda (talk) 06:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why did the proposal get closed at all? Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals do not normally get "closed". It's usually pointless to start a WikiProject page when you only have three possible participants (I ran the numbers years ago; you need a lot more than three people to keep the group going for even one year), but there's no bureaucracy over there. I've wondered, in fact, whether the proposal process ought to be shut down, or replaced by hard requirements that are designed to minimize the risk of creating a soon-to-be-inactive WikiProject (e.g., "Get six active participants to sign up, not counting any newbies, or we'll delete your WikiProject page"). But pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men don't need to be closed, and since nobody is required to make a proposal to create a WikiProject page, it seems particularly strange to have a formal closure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: In this case, the relevant WikiProject page was deleted. Neto needs consensus to bring it back, but that hasn't happened here. idk if this is the best place to discuss the WikiProject Council system or not. I just know that this discussion, like all discussion pages there, need to come to a close eventually. That's just at least according to the page itself. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's perfectly normal for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Men to get closed; it's closing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men that's unusual. If you meant "He created it, and then we deleted it at MFD", then the message should probably say that, with a link to the MFD discussion, rather than saying that it was "not created", which (it sounds like) isn't actually true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing: In this case, the relevant WikiProject page was deleted. Neto needs consensus to bring it back, but that hasn't happened here. idk if this is the best place to discuss the WikiProject Council system or not. I just know that this discussion, like all discussion pages there, need to come to a close eventually. That's just at least according to the page itself. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Revert close, and TBAN Netoholic. The close by @MJL was broadly correct in substance, but MJL was involved so should have recused themselves. The close should be reverted so that someone else can close it.
- That's a small detail, easily sorted.
- The real big issue here is that Netoholic has a severe and log-standing WP:IDHT problem. The core of it is very very simple: WikiProjects are venues for editors to collaborate, but there is almost nobody who wants to collaborate with Netoholic on this topic. So at this time there is no case for making a WikiProject Men.
- Sadly, Netoholic's response has come perilously close to full spiderman. We have had the same basic issue sprawling over into multiple venues, always with the same outcome, but Netoholic ploughs on regardless. It's time to topic ban Netoholic from anything related to gender. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Request to remove Topic ban
Per this ANI discussion, I was banned from sorting, relisting or closing discussions at AfD. That was my big mistake not to follow the instructions. I must apologize for that. Now I am a completely changed person. I won't do anything which may harm the community. Please accept my apology and remove the Topic ban. Thanks! ~SS49~ {talk} 16:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SS49: Will you return to clerking at XfD? That is the question and one which you...slightly skirt around? in your request. ——SerialNumber54129 16:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Serial Number 54129:, sorry I missed that. I won't return to clerking at XfD. In my opinion relisting and closing at AfD should be limited to administrators. ~SS49~ {talk} 16:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support: It's "only" been four months as opposed to my preferred six, but the unequivocal renunciation of the behaviour that led to the ban leaves no room for envelope pushing or other games. Although, arguably, if one is effectively topic banning oneself from a theatre of activity, some might argue that there's no point in lifting it; however, I can't disagree with someone wanting to remove a stain from their character if we allow them to, which we do. Also noting that my previous concern was that the penny had not dropped—it seems now to have—and that WP:ROPE applied—it still does. @SS49: I think you should probably realise—not a threat, but a fact—that should there be any further troublesome clerking anywhere, this is likely to be revisited and not with a topic ban. How do you feel about that? ——SerialNumber54129 16:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Are you hoping to have this TBAN lifted because you don't want it on your record or because it's stopping you from doing work you'd like to do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose for all the reasons from the previous discussion but also because I see no benefit to the community if this is lifted. Praxidicae (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'd support, on the basis that anything other than !voting in an AfD will result in an indefinite block. That would be no non-admin closures, no re-listings, no sorting, nothing other than a regular comment. Nick (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can support this, we take the ban off the books with the explicit understanding that we will hold SS49 to their word that they will not return to clerking. Sounds reasonable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- So what purpose is there in lifting the topic ban? I still see absolutely no reason why they should be trusted with this or what value it adds if they are still giving us "their word" (which ftr, was absolutely meaningless last time) if their only intent is to continue to abide by the existing ban anyway. Praxidicae (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Given that one of the first things the editor did after being topic banned from "sorting, relisting and closing discussions at AfD" was...more delsorts [34], and that they've delsorted AfDs multiple times since then [35] [36] [37], I find the promises not to do those things a bit odd. Like Praxidicae, I see no benefit to the encyclopedia from lifting the ban early (or, in my opinion, at all). Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- That was in the AfDs nominated by me. While nominating articles for deletion we have to fill the box. From now I won't sort even AfDs created by me. ~SS49~ {talk} 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- [38] was not, and it happened right after the topic ban was placed. Simply put, on multiple occasions where you could have adhered to the topic ban rather than doing what you wanted in Twinkle, you repeatedly chose the latter. Bakazaka (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't know the difference between ban and block so I did that just to find out the difference. Apologies . ~SS49~ {talk} 22:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Was SS49 warned, blocked, or otherwise sanctioned for that, and did he violate it again despite such action? —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Did SS49 keep the promises they made in the previous ANI discussion? Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Answered above. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Bakazaka there was that single transgression hours afterwards - but they also self reported it, apologized, and did not, as far as I can see, repeat the transgression. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- You linked to SS49 saying
I recently nominated an article for deletion and sorted the deletion discussion. Sorry for the mistake. Thought sorting is not an issue.
Note that they subsequently did the same thing multiple times (linked above),including only 3 hours after the apologystriking because I got a timestamp wrong, there are still two subsequent incidents, despite TonyBallioni clarifying that anything other than !voting in AfD was prohibited, and despite apologizing for it as a "mistake". Not sure which part of this is unclear. Bakazaka (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- I don't see two subsequent transgressions - unless you (User:Bakazaka) are referring to them creating an AFD in June, and another in July (that were both uncontroversial). Nor do I see a prohibition on creating AFDs. I see no behaviour issues related to the topic ban since the day of the topic ban. Nfitz (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- You linked to SS49 saying
- (edit conflict)@Bakazaka: My question was serious. I wanted to know, since you've done the legwork, whether there was discipline for that specific violation and whether there were subsequent violations. While I believe that SS49's topic ban should be lifted at this point, I'm also open to having my mind changed.
At this time, I'm thinking that a single violation so close in time to the topic ban itself—which is generally a time of confusion and frustration for an editor—just as easily indicates a mistake as it does deliberately and knowingly flaunting the topic ban. People often screw up just after they're topic banned, and people often lash out just after they're topic banned. In neither case is it out of malice or a willingness to break the rules for rulebreaking's sake.
I also credit the absence of harm from this one infraction—it being delsorting rather than the relist/NAC actions that originally got him in trouble—in addition to the fact that nobody seems to have noticed it until now as mitigating factors in my mind.
I take your attempted inference to be that the violation indicates malice, or perhaps incompetence and inability to follow rules—you don't say exactly what you're inferring, so it's left somewhat up to me to guess. Neither inference rings true to me based on what you've pointed out. If there were a pattern of misconduct after the ban—whether repeated violations after warnings, or causing disruption in other areas not covered by the ban, that was sustained for a sufficient period after the ban was enacted—I could be convinced to oppose lifting the ban. But I'm not seeing a pattern, I'm seeing a single incident. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC) - Bakazaka, That was done just to complete the process. While AFDing a box appears which is required to be filled. If you say it is better not to complete, I won't do it again. I thought the box should be filled completely. ~SS49~ {talk} 01:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- User:Bakazaka there was that single transgression hours afterwards - but they also self reported it, apologized, and did not, as far as I can see, repeat the transgression. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Answered above. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- Did SS49 keep the promises they made in the previous ANI discussion? Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was no prohibition from creating AFDs - and including sorting is listed as a step in AFD creation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion. I'm not sure why we'd want to encourage people not to make the normal notications. And I only see that they've only created two AFDs since March (which were both uncontroversially upheld as delete). I can understand the desire to have the user avoid closing and relisting. But what's the concern with sorting User:Bakazaka - it's rarely controversial. Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The concerns about sorting were discussed in detail in the previous ANI discussion, which is why sorting was explicitly included in the topic ban under discussion here. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- There was a bit in the ANI (a couple of complaints over a month before the ANI discussion) - unless I missed something. One was just about formatting (some extra spaces), and the other was a request to only use sub-categories rather than the super-category, which was immediately agreed to, and not repeated. This didn't seem to be a lingering problem, even at the time of the ANI discussion. Nfitz (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- The concerns about sorting were discussed in detail in the previous ANI discussion, which is why sorting was explicitly included in the topic ban under discussion here. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- [38] was not, and it happened right after the topic ban was placed. Simply put, on multiple occasions where you could have adhered to the topic ban rather than doing what you wanted in Twinkle, you repeatedly chose the latter. Bakazaka (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
- That was in the AfDs nominated by me. While nominating articles for deletion we have to fill the box. From now I won't sort even AfDs created by me. ~SS49~ {talk} 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Support as a reasonable request, articulated reasonably.(see below) I do not support the “don’t do delsorting after this or you’ll get blocked” condition since it’s just another way of saying “topic ban.” Either we lift the restriction or we don’t. There’s no middle ground. That said, if SS49 were to immediately go and start clerking at AfD after this is lifted, contrary to his assurances here that he has no such interest, then we could reasonably infer that he had lied to get out of his TBAN, and reimposing it or blocking him would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)- Oppose per discussion with Bakazaka above. The original ban had no exceptions for delsorting when starting an AfD. Delsorting is optional when starting an AfD, and as far as I can tell Twinkle won't throw an error if you don't put anything in the delsort box (and it says "delsort" so there's no confusion there). And SS49's ban explicitly says that delsorting is covered. So, frankly, I'm not impressed with SS49's "oops", "if you say so", and "I won't do it again" responses to these issues. And let's be realistic: Even if Twinkle did require you to fill the delsort box when starting an AfD, this is not a new problem. The limitations of automated and semi-automated tools are never an excuse for violating policy or sanction. If SS49 thought it was required to fill the delsort box to make Twinkle work, he should have been starting the AfDs manually, like we all used to do years ago. All the instructions are still there at WP:AFD. And so, "Twinkle made me do it" is no excuse.
With that in mind, all four of the diffs Bakazaka points out are relevant, and all four are delsorts after the ban was in force. The first was mere hours after the ban, and the most recent was less than a month ago. Earlier I defended SS49 on the basis of "no pattern" and that the one diff that was a clear, obvious violation was no pattern. Having realized my presumption that "own AfD" delsorts weren't covered by the ban was incorrect, it is now clear that there is a pattern that has continued without a clear end. Two would have made a pattern. Four makes a clear pattern.
On the other hand, those were uncaught (presumably because they weren't disruptive). Moreover, the main way SS49 was originally disrupting was through relists and NACs. A reading of the thread that enacted the ban makes it feel like delsorting was just "lumped in" as part of "AfD clerking" tasks rather than a particular area of disruption. As such, this feels somewhat de minimis.
But then we have all the clear statements to SS49 that delsorting was not allowed. There's the discussion at TonyBallioni's user talk and GoldenRing's statement in closing the ban discussion. And yet in spite of that, SS49 didn't understand or appreciate that doing any delsorting was a violation? It might be one thing if there was a policy-based argument coupled with a mea culpa, but what SS49 has done here has essentially been to plead ignorance. I'm sorry but in light of the issue raised in the original ban discussion—that there was a clear competence problem—I think this action needs to be tabled at least until the six month mark.
I don't think there's a need to impose further sanctions as a result of the discovered violations, however. This is based on my observation that they are essentially de minimis. Let's just close this and get back to our normal activities. While I don't think SS49 would go and immediately break his promise not to violate the conditions of lifting the ban, that's not the problem we need to be careful of: It's little disruptions that go unnoticed for a long time. That, and my objection to "unbanning with conditions matching the original ban scope" (which is tantamount to making this an undocumented editing restriction) means I must oppose this request. Sorry, SS49. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per discussion with Bakazaka above. The original ban had no exceptions for delsorting when starting an AfD. Delsorting is optional when starting an AfD, and as far as I can tell Twinkle won't throw an error if you don't put anything in the delsort box (and it says "delsort" so there's no confusion there). And SS49's ban explicitly says that delsorting is covered. So, frankly, I'm not impressed with SS49's "oops", "if you say so", and "I won't do it again" responses to these issues. And let's be realistic: Even if Twinkle did require you to fill the delsort box when starting an AfD, this is not a new problem. The limitations of automated and semi-automated tools are never an excuse for violating policy or sanction. If SS49 thought it was required to fill the delsort box to make Twinkle work, he should have been starting the AfDs manually, like we all used to do years ago. All the instructions are still there at WP:AFD. And so, "Twinkle made me do it" is no excuse.
- Meh. The intent of the ban was pretty clearly to prohibit AfD clerking. I really don't see it as being intended to prevent them from properly submitting AfDs. It seems like this should be common sense. We don't engage in mindless bureaucratic nitpicking, we care about the spirit of the law. I find Bakazaka's strenuous objections to be a bit bizarre, tbh. I mean, there was one violation, which was self-reported with assurances that it wouldn't happen again, and it hasn't. Trying to frame correctly-filed nominations as violations is dubious. I'm not particularly convinced that SS49 is the best editor, or that they're deserving of the advanced permissions they hold, or that they're competent. But I can not hold the AfD noms against them. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- You don't need to delsort to properly submit an AfD though. We're not talking about the AfD category code that's part of the whole thing, we're talking about doing delsorts. It's not mandatory, as far as I can tell Twinkle doesn't require it, and even if it did the rules about automated tools makes that no excuse. There are four violations, not just one. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It's listed as an inherent procedural aspect of making an AfD though. It does not say "mandatory" or "optional" either way, but it is an inherent part of deletion process as written. It's not convincing that self-deletion sorting is the problem that the TBAN was intended to address, which was pretty obviously self-appointed clerking, to which sorting was an aside, not the primary issue. I get where you're coming from, and I don't think you're being unreasonable. I'm just meh about it, which admittedly reflects my view on this user's presence overall. I can't decide whether they're headed towards an RfA or towards an indef block. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Swarm that deletion sorting was not the sort of behavior that caused the ban, however can understand those who say that its breaking argues against lifting this ban. If the consensus is to keep the ban I would hope that the closer would do so allowing an exception deletion sorting for SS49's AfD nominations going forward. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough. It's listed as an inherent procedural aspect of making an AfD though. It does not say "mandatory" or "optional" either way, but it is an inherent part of deletion process as written. It's not convincing that self-deletion sorting is the problem that the TBAN was intended to address, which was pretty obviously self-appointed clerking, to which sorting was an aside, not the primary issue. I get where you're coming from, and I don't think you're being unreasonable. I'm just meh about it, which admittedly reflects my view on this user's presence overall. I can't decide whether they're headed towards an RfA or towards an indef block. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- You don't need to delsort to properly submit an AfD though. We're not talking about the AfD category code that's part of the whole thing, we're talking about doing delsorts. It's not mandatory, as far as I can tell Twinkle doesn't require it, and even if it did the rules about automated tools makes that no excuse. There are four violations, not just one. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Meh. The intent of the ban was pretty clearly to prohibit AfD clerking. I really don't see it as being intended to prevent them from properly submitting AfDs. It seems like this should be common sense. We don't engage in mindless bureaucratic nitpicking, we care about the spirit of the law. I find Bakazaka's strenuous objections to be a bit bizarre, tbh. I mean, there was one violation, which was self-reported with assurances that it wouldn't happen again, and it hasn't. Trying to frame correctly-filed nominations as violations is dubious. I'm not particularly convinced that SS49 is the best editor, or that they're deserving of the advanced permissions they hold, or that they're competent. But I can not hold the AfD noms against them. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support The request seems reasonable. There was one clear transgression about sorting, within hours of the topic ban, which was self-reported with an apology. The debate seems to be about three AFD listings (I'd only seen the June and July ones previously, but there was a third in March that I'd missed). As there was no prohibition of AFD submissions, and the delsorting that occurs automatically as part of that seems a bit grey, I don't see any need to use this to keep the ban - which starts to appear to be punitive to me, rather than preventive. The primary issues in the original discussion were closing and relisting AFDs - the sorting issues raised were very very minor (one was a formatting issue, and the other was related to subcategories), that were sorted out weeks earlier. There's a very clear commitment to avoid closing or relisting AFDs. It won't harm the project to give some rope here. Nfitz (talk) 04:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I don't see what will change from four to six months in this case, and we've always got WP:ROPE if it goes pear-shaped. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose There's zero benefit to lifting a ban when the user who is subject to the ban says they will respect it even if it is lifted. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Your username in the list of editing restrictions never encourages you. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I get the motivation to go for a withdrawal of the ban, but when the conditions are identical to the ban itself, we just have the equivalent of someone saying “I don’t like my name on the list, can we just do this off the books?” That’s not how Wikipedia works, and the call for that sort of underscores a concerning lack of clue, which I believe is a symptom of what triggered the original ban discussion. Like as SN54129 pointed out, it has only been four months. The standard offer (which pretty well forms the core of our relief from sanctions practices) calls for six months. To me, you need to make the case for an exception. In light of the violations revealed above—even if they’re technical, even if they’re uncaught, even if they’re not disruptive—I don’t think you can make the case for an exception anymore. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Your username in the list of editing restrictions never encourages you. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Everybody deserves a second chance, and this user has agreed to reform. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Agreed, improving editors is what Wikipedia is all about! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support user !voting only; not doing the other stuff. Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Dlohcierekim Unless I'm mistaken, they're not prohibited from that. Praxidicae (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support I am not sure if I'm allowed to !vote here, or even edit. But, I just wanted to say-- I came to know the user only after the ban had come into effect, and didn't know of it until I saw this discussion. The user has never struck me as someone out to do anything other than contribute to the encyclopedia, and they haven't shown any behaviour that looked even marginally questionable to me. I am frankly shocked at how they seem to have approached communication and action, in the run up to the ban. I don't think there's anything that harmful in what they've done against the conditions of the ban, more than mere technicality; which I am willing to accept were due to ignorance rather than malice. As such, I want to see this ban lifted, if only to see how they behave afterwards. I think it ought to be enough to put some condition akin to "one admin can take such and such action against you at their personal discretion if you repeat your disruptive behaviour after this ban is lifted", to lift the ban, to show that the community has the user's best interests at heart as well as the Project's. Agree that it's more punitive than preventative at this point. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 18:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Move to close
As this has been open for ~7 days now. I don't know who put the original topic ban in place, but if an univolved admin could please review? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- It was GoldenRing who logged the original community decision. Courtesy ping! ——SerialNumber54129 12:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Golly, was it? There you go. I don't think you need my input here, though. GoldenRing (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Buffs, Indigenous Girl and CorbieVreccan
Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was recently blocked for 24 hours and banned from Order of the Arrow as an arbitration enforcement action. This was overturned on appeal. However, there does seem to be a problem here between Buffs, Indigenous girl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and CorbieVreccan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
The problem seems to have started over the use of a blog source in Order of the Arrow (see this discussion and following). This escalated to this RSN discussion, in which Buffs first labelled these sources "a WP:FRINGE opinion of 2-3 people" (diff). This was repeated in this discussion, in which Buffs used the Black Panthers, white supremacists and flat-earthers as examples. Indigenous girl took fairly strong exception to that, seeing it as equating indigenous Americans with flat-earthers and white supremacists.
There has been extensive bickering since then. Indigenous girl appears to have taken to following Buffs around. The articles that they have both edited this year are:
- Order of the Arrow (IG's first edit 6 minutes after B's edit)
- War bonnet (IG's first edit 20 minutes after B's edit)
- Nathan Phillips (activist) (IG's first edit 2 hours after B's edit)
- Cultural appropriation (IG's first edit 24 hours after B's edit)
- Indigenous intellectual property (IG's first edit six days after B's edit)
- Boy Scouts of America (IG's first edit 39 minutes after B's edit)
- Scouting in Vermont (B's first edit ten hours after IG's edit)
- Scouting in Massachusetts (B's first edit 17 minutes after IG's edit)
For these last two, it should be noted that they are part of a very long string of similar edits by Buffs to state-level scouting articles (diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff, diff) and Indigenous girl has stated that she was "following his lead" editing Scouting in Massachusetts (diff diff Corrected diff GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)).
On this basis, Indigenous girl came to El_C to report "The guy is still following me". Buffs was blocked for 24 hours over the Scouting in Massachusetts edit. Buffs then hatted a section of OR on Talk:Order of the Arrow (diff) and, as far as I understand it, it was on this basis that El_C banned him from the page (the ban that was later overturned).
All along the way here, CorbieVreccan has been dipping his oar in and pouring petrol on troubled waters. If you read around everything presented above, you'll find plenty, but most recently followed Buffs to my TP (diff).
I am therefore proposing a community-imposed IBAN between Buffs on the one hand and Indigenous girl and CorbieVreccan on the other. GoldenRing (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I first thank GoldenRing for his synopsis; it is concise, yet comprehensive. Given that scope, it's clear he took a fair amount of time compiling everything. Thank you so much for the effort.
- Second, I didn't realize IG was following me so much, but it explains a lot.
- Third, my comparison to such absurd groups (Flat Earthers, et al) was to point out that even a large group doesn't necessarily make an opinion notable enough for inclusion per WP:NPOV. I stand by my assessment that there has been no evidence presented to the contrary. The opinion of Corbie is that the existence of any Native American objections warrant inclusion and WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to them because of past oppression.
- Lastly, I am not interested in suppression of differing opinions. I've encouraged them, but ONLY if they meet the criteria of WP:NPOV and WP:OR/WP:SYN criteria. Right now, we aren't there. We HAVE made progress (especially recently) on several issues at hand. Other topics are stalled despite multiple attempts at WP:DR; I believe we will eventually resolve those as well, but it will take time. I do not believe an IBAN is in the best interests of WP or progress. Accordingly, I oppose solely on those grounds at this time as restricting the ability to talk through problems/issues will not help matters. I think that walking through a structured discussion with an agreed-upon, neutral third party mediating discussion would be significantly more effective at resolving these issues.
- If my facts are in error, I welcome corrections and I will happily strike accordingly. Likewise, I've given my 2 cents.
Unless specifically requested by uninvolved editors, I'm going to refrain from further replies.I expected people to read the evidence above and comment on it, not present new material. I'm not going to sit idly by while lies and half-truths are spouted about me. Buffs (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC) (remarks updated 15:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC))
- Query - Thank you @GoldenRing: for some extremely good detective work and 3rd party assistance. I'm afraid @Buffs: I'm going to immediately ask you for an additional reply - could you highlight a specific area or two (page etc) where you've made progress with the named users. Normally I'm reticent to support an IBAN where the users in question are against them, but there are circumstances where that doesn't hold up. That said, I'd like to see more before judging. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely: [39] [40] [41] (diffs #1 & 3 verbatim as proposed by me on the talk page: [42] [43] after discussion). These are three of the four major points discussed on the article's (admittedly messy) talk page. While the third one isn't perfect, the only primary objection I have is the addition of quotes. It's certainly VERY close. To date, I have no reply after asking for clarification, but I can wait. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Those changes made by Indigenous girl were both opposed by Buffs on talk.[44],[45] She was only able to make them because he was banned or blocked at the time. I do not wish to interact with Buffs anymore, and have not wanted to since his first incivility issues back in March. However, I don't feel it is correct or fair to characterize Indigenous girl's edits to shared topics of interest such as Warbonnet or Scouting articles that incorporate Indigenous materials as "following" simply because Buffs, having been on Wikipedia longer, edited some of those articles first. The articles may have come up on her watch list due to being edited; that doesn't mean she was following him. His recent behavior for which he was blocked clearly shows he was following her after a series of conflicts. He was warned to leave her alone by multiple admins and he would not stop. Now he's asking that he not be given a ban from interacting with her, which is also telling. I think he should, once again, leave her alone. But she should not be the one banned from articles on which he has been disruptive. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Yes, I do take exception of equating indigenous people to fringe, white supremacists and flat earthers. He can deny he did this intentionally but it is very apparent he did as he did it more than once. It was not necessary to use those examples to illustrate a point. Buffs was spoken to about this:
- I am not sure how I could have possibly followed Buffs to the first diff because I had never interacted with him previously.
- With regard to the above and following four edits, I do in fact have Corbie on my watchlist. I contributed because I had something to contribute after Corbie edited. Corbie is on my watchlist because I'm fairly certain they have nearly all indigenous articles on their watchlist and this is my topic of knowledge. I am not attempting to further any sort of agenda as Buffs has repeatedly proposed aside from having fair, balanced and well sourced articles.
- With regard to the BSA article I admittedly looked at Buffs contribs. I do not recall what precipitated it. I saw that I could add content. I in no way conflicted with Buffs with my edit.
- Buffs followed me the Scouting in Vermont article and his initial edits had nothing to do with his claim that I intentionally violated BLP in order to push an agenda. He did replace two words, that I fully admit changed the context but this was a an accident on my part. With regard to Buffs extensive topic edits, they began after I edited the Scouting in Vermont page. I also edited additional Scouting articles prior to him editing the long string of articles. I edited the Massachusetts article specifically to correct a language issue. I also had Scouting in Minnesota on my list as there were issues with links (these were later corrected by another editor). Buffs neglects to mention that he said, "I come across something in my editing that Corbie or IG have done, I'll just bring it up here first" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Buffs&diff=904522939&oldid=904517899 I am aware of this statement because I was paying attention to an admin's content regarding Buffs due to the entire situation. Buffs did not bring it up anywhere.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scouting_in_Vermont&diff=prev&oldid=904244165
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koshare_Indian_Museum_and_Dancers&diff=prev&oldid=904415718
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tribe_of_Mic-O-Say&diff=prev&oldid=904429449
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mid-Iowa_Council&diff=prev&oldid=904486755
- There is no mention that I was previously hounded by SolarStorm1859(lostpwd). SS participated in edit warring on Buffs behalf and Buffs thanked him.
- While being hounded by SS Corbie and I were also followed to the point of ridiculousness by Citation Bot which led to the Bot being blocked for repair. It was assumed that Citation Bot was being driven by SS https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=901736143 however the first follow utilizing Citation Bot was made by Buffs. This is incredibly important and should be taken seriously.
- There is also the issue of Buffs refactoring the talk page of OA to hide my comments and closing the conversation while being an involved editor. Buffs was previously warned about refactoring. I added the content because he has asked for proof regarding a language issue. I was simply trying to comply with his request. I stated clearly that I was aware it was OR and that I had no intention to post it in the article and that it should probably be added to the individual's article.
- Buffs asking for more information:
- "Corbie (or anyone else), feel free to prove me wrong and just put the source here. If it's so obvious, it should be easy to find it by Monday. I'll wait." :*https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=903913927
- An admin warned Buffs not to refactor contribs:
- I add content Buffs asked for, he refactors my contribs and closed the conversation as an involved editor after having been warned about doing exactly this previously. This was also done shortly after coming off of the 24 hour block for following me.
- What I posted was on the talk page according to Wikipedia policy, "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
- There is far more to this issue that meets the eye. While I find it unfair that a IBAN would prevent me from working on articles I have put a considerable amount of time into, if that's what is necessary to prevent further conflict in the future I'm begrudgingly okay with it.Indigenous girl (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Noting I just stated I was begrudgingly in support of the IBAN and Buffs just posted to my talk page. Is it possible to self-impose an IBAN? Because I am really quite done with any interaction. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you ask Buffs not to post on your talk page again, most admins agree that a failure to follow that request is grounds for a block, or at the very least a stern warning, leading to a block if it happens again. Of course, if you do that, you should not post to their talk page either. But a full-blown IBAN? - no, community consensus is needed for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if he would not post to my talk page while on-going issues are being dealt with. I asked him back in March to please leave me alone https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=889908093&oldid=889893187 his response was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=889908093 My request back in March was not due to edit conflicts but by the way he interacted with me which is addressed by point by an admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABuffs&diff=890164118&oldid=889923361#March_2019 Also I went to another admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMark_Ironie&diff=prev&oldid=889936995#Buffs_and_incivility In order to work on certain articles I had no choice but to continue to interact. I don't want or expect to have a congenial working relationship with Buffs but I do expect to not have to deal with unnecessary condescension (noted in the warning from the admin above) I choose not to deal with the insults. I shouldn't be expected to. I should have simply walked away from the handful of articles we were both invested in improving months ago. He did thank me for two recent edits and I do feel that it is important to note that on his behalf. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think "Please do not tag or address me any further. I am uncomfortable interacting with you" (19:11, 28 March 2019), followed by a refusal to abide by that request, is pretty clear. She may have been forced to interact to a limited degree on article talk if she didn't want to abandon the articles they both edit, but the other following and now posting on her talk is a violation. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it if he would not post to my talk page while on-going issues are being dealt with. I asked him back in March to please leave me alone https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=889908093&oldid=889893187 his response was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Order_of_the_Arrow&diff=next&oldid=889908093 My request back in March was not due to edit conflicts but by the way he interacted with me which is addressed by point by an admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABuffs&diff=890164118&oldid=889923361#March_2019 Also I went to another admin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMark_Ironie&diff=prev&oldid=889936995#Buffs_and_incivility In order to work on certain articles I had no choice but to continue to interact. I don't want or expect to have a congenial working relationship with Buffs but I do expect to not have to deal with unnecessary condescension (noted in the warning from the admin above) I choose not to deal with the insults. I shouldn't be expected to. I should have simply walked away from the handful of articles we were both invested in improving months ago. He did thank me for two recent edits and I do feel that it is important to note that on his behalf. Indigenous girl (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you ask Buffs not to post on your talk page again, most admins agree that a failure to follow that request is grounds for a block, or at the very least a stern warning, leading to a block if it happens again. Of course, if you do that, you should not post to their talk page either. But a full-blown IBAN? - no, community consensus is needed for that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Noting I just stated I was begrudgingly in support of the IBAN and Buffs just posted to my talk page. Is it possible to self-impose an IBAN? Because I am really quite done with any interaction. Indigenous girl (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I want to fill in a bit more on the Citation bot and SolarStorm issue here.
- I'm adding the permalink on the closed ANI case on the harassment by SolarStorm:[46]. We really should have done a full sock investigation at the time. SolarStorm1859 admitted making the edits WP:FOLLOWING Indigenous girl and myself,[47] and was indef-blocked for it. but...
- I don't know how I missed it at the time, probably because of all the dense bot contribs. But now we have the diff that shows Buffs started the following of my edits with the bot:[48][49]. Two edits fiddling with parameters, then the bot driver's name is removed from the bot (as was possible then, which is why it was blocked for retooling:[50]).
- Then the (now nameless) bot driver starts following Indigenous girl:
- This was rightfully considered a violation of WP:FOLLOWING. But we didn't look far enough back to see who first drove the bot. We all assumed it was just SolarStorm. There is also a strong possibility that SolarStorm and Buffs are the same user. I should have asked for a more thorough SPI at the time. SolarStorm1859 and his various accounts are indeffed. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Buffs and SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) are Unrelated technically, having gone through this data during a joe-job in UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Whenever I asked if any checkusers could check the IPs on the bot, I was told it was not possible. Is this correct? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think it runs on its own IP, so it wouldn't be helpful. I know for a fact that it didn't show up on any of Buffs IPs, but that isn't saying much since it probably uses its own. SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) was pretending to be Buffs in UTRS, fwiw, I'm highly confident of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Whenever I asked if any checkusers could check the IPs on the bot, I was told it was not possible. Is this correct? - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Buffs and SolarStorm1859 (lostpwd) are Unrelated technically, having gone through this data during a joe-job in UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- This was rightfully considered a violation of WP:FOLLOWING. But we didn't look far enough back to see who first drove the bot. We all assumed it was just SolarStorm. There is also a strong possibility that SolarStorm and Buffs are the same user. I should have asked for a more thorough SPI at the time. SolarStorm1859 and his various accounts are indeffed. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support That this immediately devolved into a wall of garbage is exactly the problem. GMGtalk 00:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is an unhelpful reply, GreenMeansGo. If you don't want to follow through the details of this argument, you can refrain from weighing in with an ill-informed opinion. This is a meaningful dispute to the participants who are trying to resolve it. It's certainly not "garbage" to them. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Liz: While the reply's tone was a bit flippant, I'm not sure that's quite fair. GMG has been fairly involved throughout the situation (his name turned up a lot in the material I reviewed to put this together) as far as I can tell in a capacity as helpful as it was possible to be. The above wall of text is indeed one of the symptoms of the problems here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I've been involved round about this dispute I believe since March. I have repeatedly asked the participants to refrain from walls of text and bad faith accusations. In response to a request for an IBAN for a problem caused by walls of text and bad faith accusations, we have more walls of text and bad faith accusations. These users are terminally incapable of working together and appear to have managed to drive off anyone who has attempted to intervene. Intervening here means committing 100% of your on-wiki time just trying to make sense of things, and the participants then only assume you are on "a side", and accuse you of making threats and hounding. If ArbCom is interested (though I doubt they are) I have told Buffs via email in no uncertain terms that he is part of the problem here as well. GMGtalk 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, the problem here is that Corbie and IG follow one another around reliably agreeing with each other. Corbie is want to enforce a two person consensus based on their reliably following one another and reliably agreeing. Corbie is also want to call anyone who disagrees with them a racist, and call anyone who is persistent a harasser. Buffs can't seem to make a point in less than a page's worth of text, and Corbie and IG can't make a rebuttal in less than that either. IG wants to say "leave me alone" but yet wants to continue the content dispute, which means "buzz off and leave us to our two person consensus". Buffs is frustrated that no matter how much of a detailed argument he makes, he runs up against the two person consensus, and IG and Corbie are frustrated because he won't buzz off and leave them alone with the consensus they've formed. Neither Buffs nor Corbie really want a neutral third party to intervene. What they really want is for someone to enter the ring in their corner and tell the other side to shut the hell up so they can "win". GMGtalk 01:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Liz that your original comment wasn't helpful. I endeavored to keep my remarks short When GoldenRing brought 3 months worth of edits and 100+ diffs, it's a lot to cover and nuances are missed. That said, your further explanation was immeasureably helpful. I concur that the party-of-two consensus allows for a lot of material that wouldn't stand the light of day on higher-trafficked articles. I disagree that I don't
really want a neutral third party
. A random person is likely to side with me or CV; I'd prefer a mediator who can handle things even-handedly. Overall, thanks for the input! Buffs (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I concur with Liz that your original comment wasn't helpful. I endeavored to keep my remarks short When GoldenRing brought 3 months worth of edits and 100+ diffs, it's a lot to cover and nuances are missed. That said, your further explanation was immeasureably helpful. I concur that the party-of-two consensus allows for a lot of material that wouldn't stand the light of day on higher-trafficked articles. I disagree that I don't
- @Liz: While the reply's tone was a bit flippant, I'm not sure that's quite fair. GMG has been fairly involved throughout the situation (his name turned up a lot in the material I reviewed to put this together) as far as I can tell in a capacity as helpful as it was possible to be. The above wall of text is indeed one of the symptoms of the problems here. GoldenRing (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- That is an unhelpful reply, GreenMeansGo. If you don't want to follow through the details of this argument, you can refrain from weighing in with an ill-informed opinion. This is a meaningful dispute to the participants who are trying to resolve it. It's certainly not "garbage" to them. Liz Read! Talk! 02:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I apologize, GreenMeansGo for what I mistook as a glib and unhelpful response. I didn't know that you were so aware of the ins and outs of this complex dispute. I'm grateful for anyone who wants to wade through these deep waters and I'm sorry if my response to you was seen as a put-down. I know I have little patience for it myself, so I probably shouldn't have been the one to judge others. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- In the course of this months-long interaction between the three editors, I've observed a timeline pertinent to this discussion. I'll try to keep this presentation neutral but it does focus on Buffs' actions.
- 1. As far back as 28 March 2019, Indigenous girl (IG) asked Buffs to stop interacting with IG. IG came specifically to my talk page to ask for help. In the course of looking into it, I placed a civility warning on Buffs talk page. It was deleted along with the conversation 19 hours later with an edit summary "I've read it".
- 2. On 30 March 2019, Bishonen left a detailed and itemized warning on Buffs' talk page. After a significant amount of back and forth between two over it, the day after the conversation was over, Buffs deleted it from his talk page.
- 3. El C engaged with Buffs starting on 28 June 2019. El C attempted mediating between all three editors for several days. (I'm not diffing that; it's too extensive.) On 2 July 2019, El C blocked Buffs for 24 hours for personal attacks and harassment. Much more convo on Buffs' talk page during the block while Buffs requested unblock and review. After the block expired, a procedural decline was added by User:TonyBallioni
- Four admins, including myself, attempted to intervene during these months with warnings and a block. All them found fault with Buffs' behaviour. I know Wikipedians sometimes have a short memory on editor behaviour beyond a few months. If it isn't causing an immediate problem, then past actions are not pertinent. AGF, y'all. Buffs is a longtime editor but his past contribs are riff with exactly this behavior and attitude. While deleting warnings and unflattering discussion from his user page is perfectly within his rights, I know my instinct is to wonder why, particularly if it happens multiple times over the same issue. That's obfuscating editor and/or admin interactions to anyone looking at it. Mostly I've seen this from problem editors, not editors in good standing.
- I would have blocked Buffs for continuing harassment of IG near the beginning of all this but I had commented in an RfC on the reliability of a source and at the Reliable sources Noticeboard on the matter. I was thus involved near the beginning although I've mostly kept my distance since then.
- Note that the July 2 block is different than the later article ban that was overturned. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- What Mark Ironie also leaves out is that he, CV, and IG are also active contributors together at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Indigenous_intellectual_property: [59] with nearly unanimous agreement on every issue, so there is significant COI concerns, IMNSHO. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mark Ironie: please refactor your comments to reflect what I was actually blocked for; I was not blocked for personal attacks of any kind. Likewise, it should be noted that this was the same block that IG set me up on and that GoldenRing so eloquently illustrated. It was an edit done solely to trap me and was the wiki equivalent of jumping in front of a truck and complaining that the truck hit them. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: I hesitate to nay say you but, technically, those are the reasons on the block itself. Has El C said otherwise? I *really* don't think we want to go down the path of revising facts of events on-wiki; the block and the listed reason remain indisputable facts. I disagree with other editor's versions of the timeline. Mine starts earlier and takes into account other parts of the editing pattern of this particular sequence. My opinion, my analysis. I do not want to argue this now. This off topic but I'm really not sure about this truck metaphor you're using. Jumping in front of a truck might not leave anyone to complain. They might be dead. Are you the truck and IG the jumper? I'm sorry, but this conveys a violence that's not apparent to me? So, no, I will not refactor my comments. I admit to being irked by your suggestion editors refactor to remove references to harassment. Yes, off-wiki it is a legal term and crime. On-wiki, it is a policy. I apologize if you find these comments confrontational; it is definitely not my intent. I remain confused by some of your remarks but I'm satisfied with the presentation and analysis by all the editors, even if I disagree. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- You (apparently) don't hate to do anything that denigrates me, even if it's twisting the facts. The block states: "(Personal attacks OR violations of the harassment policy)" not AND (emphasis mine). It's a boilerplate comment. Not once have I been accused of WP:NPA violations. Now that I've demonstrated you're incorrect, I'm asking that you strike your remarks per WP:CIVIL (specifically #5).
I do not want to argue this now.
Apparently you do.this conveys a violence that's not apparent to me
OMG. This is EXACTLY the problem. You're so intent on reading hostility and violence into my motives that you're missing the point. It's a scam. Where I'm from, it's a COMMON scam it's been around for years. It is not real. It is fake victimhood for the sake of eliciting pity...and it's working. I'm not advocating for violence of any kind.- These are the sort of remarks I've had to deal with for about 3 months. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- You have repeatedly read nefarious motives into actions that are explicitly endorsed under policy.
- I ask to have people strike portions of their remarks that are demonstrably untrue and your response is "Um, I'm sorry but no, I will not refactor or change my analysis. This is incredibly inappropriate to ask me to do this, Buffs. Actually I think this looks a lot like bullying."
- I update my talk page per WP:TALK and your response is basically "only guilty people do that".
- I explain it's a scam. You insinuate that I'm advocating violence.
- It seems to me that you are VERY willing to read into this whatever you want if it fits your prejudices/preconceptions/anything else that denigrates me. Buffs (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: I hesitate to nay say you but, technically, those are the reasons on the block itself. Has El C said otherwise? I *really* don't think we want to go down the path of revising facts of events on-wiki; the block and the listed reason remain indisputable facts. I disagree with other editor's versions of the timeline. Mine starts earlier and takes into account other parts of the editing pattern of this particular sequence. My opinion, my analysis. I do not want to argue this now. This off topic but I'm really not sure about this truck metaphor you're using. Jumping in front of a truck might not leave anyone to complain. They might be dead. Are you the truck and IG the jumper? I'm sorry, but this conveys a violence that's not apparent to me? So, no, I will not refactor my comments. I admit to being irked by your suggestion editors refactor to remove references to harassment. Yes, off-wiki it is a legal term and crime. On-wiki, it is a policy. I apologize if you find these comments confrontational; it is definitely not my intent. I remain confused by some of your remarks but I'm satisfied with the presentation and analysis by all the editors, even if I disagree. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mark Ironie: please refactor your comments to reflect what I was actually blocked for; I was not blocked for personal attacks of any kind. Likewise, it should be noted that this was the same block that IG set me up on and that GoldenRing so eloquently illustrated. It was an edit done solely to trap me and was the wiki equivalent of jumping in front of a truck and complaining that the truck hit them. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- What Mark Ironie also leaves out is that he, CV, and IG are also active contributors together at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indigenous_peoples_of_North_America#Indigenous_intellectual_property: [59] with nearly unanimous agreement on every issue, so there is significant COI concerns, IMNSHO. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support the IBAN as proposed. It seems apparent that this is a straightforward two-way issue. I have a hard time buying the harassment narrative when there are so many examples of IG apparently following Buffs over the course of months. Obviously there are issues with Buffs' behavior, but IG's claim that she's being harassed seems dubious. It's concerning that Buffs' claim that he was being followed was dismissed, when it was apparently true. This seems like a good cautionary lesson to be objective and fair when a claim of harassment is made, and not jump straight into crucifying the alleged perpetrator. I recently reviewed this case at AE, and I was under the impression that it was not being well-handled by El C and needed to be additionally investigated by the community. I applaud GoldenRing taking the initiative here. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support IBAN on Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - Amended 25 July 2019, after reviewing all the diffs, and all parties' actions since this thread was opened (such as Buffs' misrepresentation of the diffs he posted here, and Mark Ironie's diffs here). For details: Indigenous girl never violated policy in action or spirit, and my earlier comments on the matter: If we're going to look at timelines.... - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 03:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- as I indicated in my first comment above,[60]. Since I buried the lede in a longer comment, reiterating it here and bolding in that comment, as well. Best, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 21:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Amending Slightly: I don't normally put comments up-thread like this, but I might as well keep it all in one place:- I apologize to the tl;dr crowd for how long this is, but it's been going on since March. If people can't be bothered to read and actually look at the diffs, how can they be relied on to make any sort of ruling?
- I want to note, as a long-term Wikipedian, admin, and as one of the most active participants at Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America that Indigenous girl's edits have never appeared to me to be in any way an attempt to harass or intimidate Buffs, and therefore are not a violation of the spirit of the WP:FOLLOWING policy. To my assessment, her priority was the 'pedia. Buffs is the one using violent language against her: "she jumped in front of the truck and claimed I hit her."[61]. He really likes this image of hitting her with his truck:[62]. There are also other issues here that are not public, but are before Arbcom privately. You all had no way of knowing that.
- Indigenous girl has been editing in one of her fields of expertise - Indigenous cultures - to correct mistakes in articles, add sources and sourced content, and markedly improve these articles. Some of these articles had been listed at the Indigenous Wikiproject for attention. This work is one of the most valuable services she performs for the Wikipedia community, and a look at her talk page, her contribs, and the wikiproject will show how often editors ask for her help, as we have so few Wikipedians with her level of expertise and access to sources. To my eye, her edits were never about Buffs. But Buffs responded emotionally and with incivility and WP:OWNy reactions to her edits. And mine. And yes, he continued and continues to try to force interactions with her after she asked him to leave her alone, in ways that were far beyond just editing articles in the same fields of interest. If she continued to try to reach consensus on talk, rather than abandon the articles, I don't think that should be held against her or seen as some sign that she wanted to interact with him.
- I think both their lives will be better if they don't interact so I
support the mutual iBan on Buffs and Indigenous girlsupport the IBAN on Buffs [see amended statement above. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 03:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)]. I also think Buffs should stop focusing so narrowly on this tiny cluster of articles, as it's practically all he's done for the past five months.
- I think both their lives will be better if they don't interact so I
- I also want to note for the record that I did not follow Buffs, either to edit in a benign way or to harass. I was the first one to edit the articles Golden Ring lists above. I had never heard of Buffs until he became argumentative on Order of the Arrow:[63], then Warbonnet:[64], Cultural Appropriation:[65], and Indigenous intellectual property:[66].
- While I respect that Golden Ring is trying to bring peace to this situation, and that is admirable, I do not agree with his asessment of several major and central aspects of this conflict. This is understandable as it is longstanding and complex. This is why I commented on Golden Ring's talk page to note additional info that was buried in five months of talk page chaos, as one admin to another. (Albeit an involved admin.) One comment to another admin is not "following" Buffs.
- While I would be quite happy to never interact with Buffs again, and I agree to avoid him, I would like Buffs to be one-way iBanned from dragging me into this anymore. I don't think my warnings to him about his incivility and POV-pushing have been out of line. Nor do I think I deserve to have a formal iBan on my record. I was doing the usual cleanup, sourcing and content creation on articles that I usually do, and Buffs started following me around in a disruptive, draining manner, quickly escalating to incivility and a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. That's how this started.[67],[68],[69],[70],EIT
- Perhaps some of you think I was over-protective of Indigenous girl. I think that's fair. She's newer to the 'pedia and has at times been overwhelmed here. But please understand that few of those commenting here have seen everything that went on over the past five months, including those who are claiming they have. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
One comment to another admin is not "following" Buffs.
The hell it isn't! You've followed me all around WP. Any time I bring up something to another admin, there you are to jump right it to tell that admin, "NO! HE'S WRONG!!! Here's every single thing I can intentionally distort to earn some pity points" No one asked you for your opinion! You were never asked! I don't need you perpetually correcting me no matter where I go, so butt the hell out!!! Now you're accusing ME of following YOU?! That's rich. [71] [72].- In a perfect world (or even one where a site took their own policies seriously), someone would ask CV to retract his response or provide evidence per WP:IUC. Instead, the silence is deafening. No warnings. No blocks. He's an admin. He's in the club. That means he doesn't have to follow the rules.
- Unbelievable... Buffs (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional Oppose I stopped virtually all edits on the articles in question (see submission) to seek consensus on the relevant talk pages. As such, virtually all the pages have problems that need to be addressed. On the Order of the Arrow article, there are disparaging remarks in the notes based on WP:OR/WP:SYN/assumptions in contradiction to what WP:RS say about its founder. Indigenous Intellectual Property is a collection of claims and neglects to mention it's Cultural Appropriation's basic definition doesn't even match the dictionary. I could go on, but that leaves the underlying issues at status-quo. If an IBAN is enacted, it leaves the articles in the condition they are in...the way CV and IG want them. Of course they support IBAN. They are just going get exactly what they want and I will be unable to change anything because they will immediately claim "IBAN VIOLATION! He edited something I did 3 weeks/months/years ago!"
- Now, if CV and IG are going to leave these articles alone and want nothing to do with me/discussion, then there's no need for a community-imposed IBAN. I'll agree here and now not to intentionally talk to them on any talk page (including their user talk pages). I'll make the necessary changes to the aforementioned pages [73] [74] and we'll go on our merry way. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Request I ask that those who have made remarks about SolarStorm and I being the same person/Citation Bot acting at my behest please strike them. I'm not either of them and there is no evidence to back such baseless aspersions. Likewise, "harassment" is a crime. I request that those who have used this phrasing please change it. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps I was unclear. WP:IUC (specifically 2d & 2e) have been violated. I request they be struck per Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility step #5. This doesn't seem to be an unreasonable request. I've offered to do the same. Buffs (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Much of what has been said by IG, CV, and MI (Mark Ironie) has been half-truths, wrong, or in some other way misleading. I think you can see the pattern pretty easily based up on what was brought up by GoldenRing, Mr rnddude, et al. I started to put together a comprehensive list, but quickly realized it would be too long (some of the bigger highlights below). Likewise, I think that most of you can look at these and see it.
Highlights a few of the bigger points of contention from this page. If you want more, it can be easily provided. Buffs (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Thereby making it pointless to add it in the first place. Your point’s been made. You don’t think it’s a “real” word in the Lenape language. Published sources say otherwise. All you have to back your opinion is WP:OR which is inconclusive at best and WP:syn by assuming connections and malfeasance that are not in reliable sources. I mentioned earlier that there is one unresolved issue on the page: this is it.
|
- Support the IBAN per Buffs. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment While the others have refrained from any substantial editing of the the contested articles in order to respect this process at AN, Buffs went to two of the articles last night. Buffs also posted here several times, with extreme vitriol. He called the IBAN "a joke", which is an insult to everyone here who has tried to bring some peace to this situation, notably Golden Ring. Even though I do not agree with Golden Ring's assessment of Indigenous girl's edits, Golden Ring does not deserve to have his efforts on Buffs' behalf called "a joke." Buffs then went to revert to his preferred versions of the contested articles. along with insulting, aggressive edit summaries. On Order of the Arrow, it was with a short essay/argument in the edit summary. On Cultural Appropriation, he removed sourced content about collective intellectual property, claiming the sources don't support it, when there are three sources (still there) that cite the content, including two with the name "collective intellectual property" in their titles. The collective intellectual property phrasing was resolved on the talk page in April. Buffs later tried to start the same discussion on intellectual property again, despite the content now being sourced. People in the previous discussion said they were sick of going in circles with him. So last night, he said he was taking their refusal to engage as "no objection" and therefore, consent.[76] This is an example of the tendentious editing that has been ongoing with him. If the IBAN is enacted, I think it is clear that he has already started trying to game the system in an effort to make sure the articles are the way he wants them. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- What are you? A self-appointed personal watchdog that hounds me at every turn? I don't need a critique of every edit of mine. Stop WP:FOLLOWING me! As for the rest of the comments you happily took out of context in order to malign me...please read what was actually written and not this atrocious "summary" from someone who has stated they want to block me even though they admit I've done nothing wrong.
- I did not call IBAN "a joke". I said the evenhandedness in this interaction is "a joke". Again, please read what was actually written, not this summary
- As for the two articles. There is no insult in either edit summary, just a detailed explanation. Again, please read what was actually written, not this summary
- As for each edit/summary, OA: there is no disagreement on the talk page that the comment and assessment are WP:OR; just an assertion without a WP:RS to back it up. The other was a quote where one word was changed (thereby altering the meaning) and attribution was not given; it was presented as a summary in violation of MOS:QUOTE (by definition, that's plagiarism...I don't even know who put it in there, nor am I attributing that action to any person). I altered that to include the full language of the quote of the source that even CV added; implying I'm being disruptive for adding something CV added...I'm at a loss for words. For CA, I explained the problem and asked for input over a month ago. It is literally impossible to reach a consensus when one "side" exhibits ownership of articles and refuses to discuss. I removed the weasel word "many" as the sources given do not state how many actually object. Likewise, he is correct that two articles include "collective intellectual property" in their headlines, but neglects to mention that ALL the given sources state that "collective intellectual property rights" are not recognized by anyone. They are advocating that such rights be granted. You cannot advocate for something to be changed and claim that's evidence that rights (that no one recognizes) doesn't justify a summary that CA is "a violation of the collective intellectual property rights of the originating, minority cultures": no such recognized rights exist! As such it was removed per WP:RS and WP:V. Again, please read the actual sources + what was actually written, not MI's misleading summary.
While the others have refrained from any substantial editing of the the contested articles in order to respect this process at AN...
: well, that's just plain false: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84]
- Buffs (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- What are you? A self-appointed personal watchdog that hounds me at every turn? I don't need a critique of every edit of mine. Stop WP:FOLLOWING me! As for the rest of the comments you happily took out of context in order to malign me...please read what was actually written and not this atrocious "summary" from someone who has stated they want to block me even though they admit I've done nothing wrong.
Let's look at the diffs Buffs offers us, shall we? (Note that Golden Ring started this discussion on 16 July 2019.)
- "77" I reverted a user who put in POV language like "according to extreme positions" and deleted sources. I reverted to the stable version of the article - This is the only diff since the AN discussion has started.
- "78" an IP reverts Indigenous girl on July 15. Before this AN was posted.
- "79" IG reverts IP on July 15, before this AN proposal
- "80" I revert a source removal on July 13, the editor then apologizes on talk and the edit stands. This is two days before this AN thread.
- "81" July 10, six days before this thread, IG edits in line with consensus on talk page. This is all old news
- "82" ditto July 10
- "83" m I remove a dangling bracket- July 10
- "84" I hotlink a title, per talk page discussion, July 11. Five days before this AN discussion starts.
That's the "evidence" Buffs has. A wall of diffs that say nothing. None of this is substantial editing on the contested articles since this discussion began. This is typical of what we've dealt with from him since March - misrepresentations and bad-faith attempts at wikilawyering. Please also see what Mark Ironie posted about Buffs edits the other night, which are Buffs reverting to Buffs' preferred versions on the contested articles, complete with buckets of incivility at everyone here. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Request this IBAN be extended to Mark Ironie as well
An IBAN seems all but assured now. If enacted, I'll abide by it, but I ask that Mark Ironie be added to the list as well. Like CV, he continues to inject himself into discussions, demonstrated more WP:FOLLOWING behavior, and intentionally misconstrue/introduce falsehoods in discussions of what I've said. See above. Buffs (talk) 05:13, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- This is patently false. Ironie has not recently edited any of the 8 articles listed by GoldenRing. He made only a short comment at this AN about you accusing IG, CV, and Ironie of misleading or false statements, a vote in the RfC at Talk:Order of the Arrow (well in line with the eventual consensus), and nothing else. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Will a subhead help focus attention?
This was put into this thread above but let me see how simple I can make it. Indigenous girl (talk · contribs · count) has repeatedly asked Buffs (talk · contribs · count) since March to leave her alone, to not interact with her and stay off her talk page. She said clearly for Buffs to stop and consented to an IBAN here. Buffs said he did not support an IBAN then twice edited IG's talk page, here and here. This clearly falls under harassment policy and is a blocking offense. What more can IG do if Buffs will not accept boundaries on interaction with her? This is an example of Buffs behaviour right here, right now. This has been ongoing for months. No Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- What you conveniently ignore to mention is that the second edit is Buffs removing their comment from IG's talk page and vowing to
never post on your talk page again
. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)- The problem is that I can't tell you to leave me alone, and then use that as a basis to win a content dispute, or then continue to follow your edits and say that anything you do is harassment. If someone is harassing you then that should be brought before the community and adjudicated as such, or it should be brought privately to ArbCom, or it should go to T&S. GMGtalk 01:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- EIA often leaves stuff out, but it finds that IG is following Buffs edits to articles significantly more than Buffs is to IG.[85] Even in the rare case that IG has edited an article first, it is apparent that IG follows Buffs' edits. Look at, for example, Talk:Cultural appropriation. Within an hour of Buffs starting a thread about the article, IG shows up to engage. Oh, and that's in April, supposedly a month after she asked Buffs to leave her alone. I don't buy this "harassment" narrative.
... or it should go to T&S
- Oh god no, please not again. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)- Thought occurred to me to look at the overlap between CorbieVreccan and IG, since GMG mentions that they witnessed tag-teaming behaviour. 580[86]/853[87] (~68% of total) of IG's 853 edits overlap with CV in some fashion. Focusing on just mainspace, 205/382[88] (~54%) of IG's edits overlap with CV in some fashion. Talk space as well 171/184[89] (~93%) of IG's edits overlap with CV in some fashion. In all three cases, most of those overlaps are recorded on articles where the "min time between edits" is less than 24 hours. Now this doesn't prove tag-teaming/meat puppetry in itself, but it is telling that the first random edit I pick to look at, I find this. IG's first ever edit to the DAP page is to support CV's proposal 12 minutes after they posted it. Coincidentally, also her first edit made in five months.[90] Mr rnddude (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
... or it should go to T&S
- I second the motion that we should dismiss THAT idea (unless there's something going on I don't know about). Buffs (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)- Contrary to popular belief, T&S has a broader job description than blocking a particular popular/unpopular enwiki admin. The last interaction I had with them involved a pedophile on Commons, and the one before that had to deal with a user several of us suspected was being paid to manipulate Wikimedia projects on behalf of a national government. GMGtalk 00:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Contrary to popular belief, T&S has a broader job description than blocking a particular popular/unpopular enwiki admin. The last interaction I had with them involved a pedophile on Commons, and the one before that had to deal with a user several of us suspected was being paid to manipulate Wikimedia projects on behalf of a national government. GMGtalk 00:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thought occurred to me to look at the overlap between CorbieVreccan and IG, since GMG mentions that they witnessed tag-teaming behaviour. 580[86]/853[87] (~68% of total) of IG's 853 edits overlap with CV in some fashion. Focusing on just mainspace, 205/382[88] (~54%) of IG's edits overlap with CV in some fashion. Talk space as well 171/184[89] (~93%) of IG's edits overlap with CV in some fashion. In all three cases, most of those overlaps are recorded on articles where the "min time between edits" is less than 24 hours. Now this doesn't prove tag-teaming/meat puppetry in itself, but it is telling that the first random edit I pick to look at, I find this. IG's first ever edit to the DAP page is to support CV's proposal 12 minutes after they posted it. Coincidentally, also her first edit made in five months.[90] Mr rnddude (talk) 03:30, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- EIA often leaves stuff out, but it finds that IG is following Buffs edits to articles significantly more than Buffs is to IG.[85] Even in the rare case that IG has edited an article first, it is apparent that IG follows Buffs' edits. Look at, for example, Talk:Cultural appropriation. Within an hour of Buffs starting a thread about the article, IG shows up to engage. Oh, and that's in April, supposedly a month after she asked Buffs to leave her alone. I don't buy this "harassment" narrative.
- The problem is that I can't tell you to leave me alone, and then use that as a basis to win a content dispute, or then continue to follow your edits and say that anything you do is harassment. If someone is harassing you then that should be brought before the community and adjudicated as such, or it should be brought privately to ArbCom, or it should go to T&S. GMGtalk 01:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mark Ironie: While it may be true that IG
has repeatedly asked Buffs since March to leave her alone
it is also true, as documented above, that IG has repeatedly followed Buffs to articles he is editing since March. What do you expect, that asking someone to stay away from you means you can drive onto their front lawn and force them to leave home? It's clear that IG has tried to frame this as Buffs hounding her; the reality is that IG follows Buffs around, gets into arguments where neither of them behave well, then complains about it. When IG said to El_C, "The guy is still following me" that was in fact the first time Buffs had ever followed her anywhere; in every other case, IG had followed Buffs. GoldenRing (talk) 13:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
What is IBAN
I've read what I've seen. @GoldenRing: can you further explain what that entails? We might not need any more input if I've been misreading what you're advocating. I think I agree with at least 90% of it. Given that IG and CV already voiced support, we might be in agreement and we can stop this. Additionally, thank you for pointing out the hounding problems from IG. Buffs (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: I believe the IBAN policy explains things clearly. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: I agree. WP:IBAN sets out the terms of an interaction ban quite clearly. GoldenRing (talk) 20:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree. I tried to WP:AGF and announce edits in advance only to have IG jump in front of me in order to get me blocked (the effects of which are IG, CV, and MI bringing it up ad nauseum and mischaracterizing it despite evidence to the contrary), so with IG's persistent bugging, please bear with me if I'm not about to just AGF so readily
- "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means" is exceptionally vague. Am I expected to analyze every edit on every page just to see if 2 other editors have ever edited it and, if so, if my edit will change something they wrote some time in the past 12 years? If that's the case, what we're looking at here is a de facto topic ban from ANYTHING related to Native Americans (even remotely) and a plethora of other articles/random articles. I've already been blocked for the "dastardly" act of reverting a WP:BLP violation, making innocuous edits, or doing what an admin suggested only to get blocked/banned. I'm a little wary of such an ill-defined application.
- Likewise, I'd like at least a warning of some kind for CV and IG; hell, I'd support a 1 minute block just so it's on their record. I'm not looking to get them blocked for anything other than an insignificant amount of time. I generally don't do warnings; they are no more than an opinion. In hindsight, that was a mistake and I should have been giving warnings and asking others to warn them as well (since, apparently, that's allowed as evidence of wrongdoing). I won't make that mistake again. Buffs (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing:A clearer definition would be "Don't touch any new edits since the IBAN went in place". If that's the case, we're fine and we're in agreement. An IBAN is not even necessary. I'll agree to all the terms listed under IBAN effective immediately right now and we can end this.
- If I start working on something, it wouldn't be impossible for IG to jump in to make ANOTHER edit. Obviously there are inattentive admins who are only looking at the evidence presented to them rather than the whole picture. Then we start this whole drama again. WP:AGF is out the window on this one. I want terms to be crystal clear if I'm going to be facing people who are out to smear me using underhanded tactics. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Changing things the other editor subject to an IBAN wrote a long time ago is something of a grey area; the rule is, if in doubt, don't do it. It's necessarily subjective and rather ill-defined, as it's perfectly possible to do a simple revert on someone else's edits from years ago if a page is not much edited, while it's also possible to cross another editor's path only a few days apart yet not be considered to be "interacting" if there have been many intervening edits. Generally speaking, yes, you need to be careful once you're subject to an IBAN to check if you're reverting something the other subject of the ban wrote, and if you're not sure, don't make the edit. Wikipedia doesn't depend on you alone. There are exceptions to most bans, but you'd better be very sure they obviously apply before you use them; in general, it's better to leave it to another editor (contact me or another admin by email if you think it's urgent). Regarding your statement that an IBAN is not even necessary: I disagree. An IBAN has two differences from what you suggest: Firstly, it is unquestionably enforceable and that seems important in this situation right now. Secondly, it affects all the parties in a way that is not up to them to interpret; you are not the only one who would be affected by this ban, and I think this is a situation where we (or at least I) want the restriction to be not subject to your (or the other parties') agreement. People who attempt to game IBANs are generally given short shrift and it's important to remember that this ban would cut both ways. It's good to know that you agree to the terms of the ban, though. GoldenRing (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Then, it's that simple. It's too grey for me to agree to. IG has proven she's willing to follow me and use underhanded tactics in order to get me blocked. IG, CV, and MI are also willing to twist the truth and distort facts. WP:AGF is just plain absent here and WP:IUC is the norm with two admins not only endorsing it, but leading the charge. MI even wants to enact a block even though he admits I've done nothing wrong. A third is apparently willing to simply enforce claims without considering all of the evidence. This is a kangaroo court.
- ...and I'm the one that ends up with blocks and bans. There's not a SINGLE warning for IG and CV, much less a block. I have zero faith that we won't end up back here because of that grey area. IG's complaints of persecution here are completely self-inflicted and it took this long for ANY admin to say, "Hang on sec...Buffs has a point here. He's been unmercilessly hounded." At this point, in an effort of balance, I think a block (or at least a warning!!!) is in order here for IG, MI, and CV's talk page from another admin.
- Furthermore, why is there no call for a retraction of the inaccurate information above? I suppose anyone can just say anything they want. No one is bothering to check for accuracy. No one cares if wild accusations are thrown around. My name's being dragged through the mud with baseless accusations and no one is enforcing a retraction of these remarks. What the hell? Or are we just going to cluck our tongues? Tsk tsk.
- This does NOTHING to fix the blatant problems that are present on these articles. One RFC on the OA page WAS resolved and, lo and behold/despite claims to the contrary, I stood by it. Another was resolved, but no one will close it (two people agreed with me, one took another side). Other posts have been sitting for over a month with no input. WP policies might have had merit when there were more editors, but without community involvement or Admins willing to hear people out, WP is shooting itself in the foot. It leaves ONLY people who are willing to put up with atrocious ownership of articles or forging alliances in order to push a political agenda.
- Note that in EVERY instance where I was followed, CV and I were in a discussion already...WOW! IG shows up! I'm shocked...SHOCKED, I tell you. Then CV claims consensus to silence dissent. GMG is correct. This isn't consensus. It's meatpuppetry.
- Ultimately, an IBAN solves none of the problems with these articles and enables IG/CV/IM a way to further game the system to push an agenda. In the Order of the Arrow article, the "evidence" presented against the OA is a single protestor, an anonymous writer, and a professor who thinks that anyone dressing up as another is tantamount to attempting to silence an entire culture; it's pathetic. Additionally, remarks of doubt are added and OR introduced by an admin...and we have more silence. No one is addressing the actual problems. No one appears to be interested. Everyone is solely interested in everyone getting along with no conflict. Peace is NOT the absence of conflict. It's the presence of order. Right now, that's missing. People are just interested in completely neutral, tweet-sized discussions. If anyone has anything to say that changes the status quo, it's labeled "disruption" and the authors are smeared. WP:AGF? WP:CIVIL. What a joke. Buffs (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, I'll abide by whatever the community lays down. but I oppose it solely because (mark my words) it'll be gamed by IG/CV/MI in order to block me. Buffs (talk) 05:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Buffs: Changing things the other editor subject to an IBAN wrote a long time ago is something of a grey area; the rule is, if in doubt, don't do it. It's necessarily subjective and rather ill-defined, as it's perfectly possible to do a simple revert on someone else's edits from years ago if a page is not much edited, while it's also possible to cross another editor's path only a few days apart yet not be considered to be "interacting" if there have been many intervening edits. Generally speaking, yes, you need to be careful once you're subject to an IBAN to check if you're reverting something the other subject of the ban wrote, and if you're not sure, don't make the edit. Wikipedia doesn't depend on you alone. There are exceptions to most bans, but you'd better be very sure they obviously apply before you use them; in general, it's better to leave it to another editor (contact me or another admin by email if you think it's urgent). Regarding your statement that an IBAN is not even necessary: I disagree. An IBAN has two differences from what you suggest: Firstly, it is unquestionably enforceable and that seems important in this situation right now. Secondly, it affects all the parties in a way that is not up to them to interpret; you are not the only one who would be affected by this ban, and I think this is a situation where we (or at least I) want the restriction to be not subject to your (or the other parties') agreement. People who attempt to game IBANs are generally given short shrift and it's important to remember that this ban would cut both ways. It's good to know that you agree to the terms of the ban, though. GoldenRing (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
(←) Has anyone actually looked at that massive list of diffs Golden Ring posted in the original post here? All they prove is that Buffs continued to edit "Scouting in X State" articles after Indigenous girl. That's it. And the last diff: and Indigenous girl has stated that she was "following his lead" editing Scouting in Massachusetts (diff) is not even an edit by Indigenous girl, but is a comment by El C in an unrelated discussion. Mark Ironie (talk) 05:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mark Ironie: Thanks for the proofreading - I've fixed the "following his lead" diff (I got the oldid instead of the diffid). As for the "massive list of diffs", they demonstrate exactly what I said they do - that the only instances of Buffs "following" IG were made as part of a very long list of similar edits. Now, have you actually looked at the evidence that IG, despite asking Buffs to leave her along, nonetheless followed him around for months? GoldenRing (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Golden Ring, as to the many Scouting in the States diffs, which I really doubt people are looking at, the timeline clearly shows Indigenous girl was the first one to edit a Scouting in a state article: on 22:36, June 30, 2019, with a substantial edit to Scouting in Vermont. Buffs didn't start editing the Scouting in the states articles until after she did, at 22:45, July 1, 2019. I think it was clear he was trying to stake some kind of claim on them, with his rapid series of minor edits. After being called on this, when he kept posting his altered version of the timeline on his talk page, he kept leaving out her first edits. All the diffs for his edits to "states" articles show is that he went on that spree after her June 30 edits. This is what I've been trying to clarify all along. The other articles they've both edited are due to overlapping fields of interest - ie, that some of the Boy Scouts groups incorporate Native American symbology and activities, and some groups have been protested by Native American groups, or consulted with Native American groups. The BSA articles often have content about Native American cultures that needs better sourcing or correction of misinformation, and its from this that much of the conflicts have arisen. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Let me just fill some details of Buff's edits on 1 July 2019. After IG's edits to Scouting in Vermont on 30 June, Buff did 8 edits to state scouting articles in this exact order: Scouting in Arkansas, Scouting in Texas, Scouting in Oklahoma, Scouting in Vermont, Scouting in Hawaii (twice), Scouting in Vermont again, and finally Scouting in Utah.
- Note Buffs didn't edit these in alphabetic order. Buffs' purpose was, indeed, to follow IG. While Buffs did find IG had left out an important two words in a quote, this was not the point. Immediately after, Buffs said "I'll be continuing auditing language that no longer applies tomorrow in other scouting articles if I have time (there's a lot of "Boy Scout" vs the more-appropriate "Scouts" lingering from the change to co-ed in February)." Then we get to the edit IG did to Scouting in Massachusetts which Buffs characterized as a set-up and she-jumped-in-front-of-my-truck description. Thus we come to "Deny the abuse ever took place, then Attack the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable; then they will lie and claim that they, the abuser, are the real victim in the situation, thus Reversing the Victim and Offender." Thus we come to where fault has somehow, astonishingly, been pointed at IG rather than Buffs. There is something truly wrong going on here and it is not IG's actions. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@GoldenRing:@Buffs: The very basis of GoldenRing's original post here, setting out to show it was Indigenous girl who was following Buffs or some equivalence, is inaccurate and unsupported by the diffs used. I think GoldenRing jumped too quickly into a complicated situation, made assumptions based on a very superficial understanding. GR really did not understand the issue was Buffs hounding and following Indigenous girl, that the crux was serious policy violations on Buffs' part. Buffs has attempted to silence Indigenous girl and continues to engage in efforts to drive her off WP. It has never been some simple "who followed who" to articles that could be resolved by assigning blame through editor interaction tools. That completely sidesteps the core issues involved over months.
|[User:Buffs|Buffs]] is one of the most tendentious editors I've ever seen. Here is a Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion from March, 2019. (Disclosure: I made one comment in it.) GreenMeansGo very significantly contributed to the discussion. It's long but a taste of how conflict is handled with Buffs. Please carefully check the diffs, links, policy citations, etc. in Buffs' comments/arguments and whether Buffs represents them accurately in his text. Of course, check Indigenous girl, CorbieVreccan, and other's links as well for comparison. Draw your own conclusions. This is one instance of many.
Note the progress of the discussion in this current AN thread. It started with GoldenRing reversing Buffs harassing and following Indigenous girl on-wiki. According to GR, now IG is following Buffs but without invoking the WP:HOUND policy, and GR asks for an IBAN on both Buffs and IG. As it has gone on, Buffs has become increasingly agitated about the IBAN and opposes it for himself, explicitly stating one or all of the others under IBAN will game the system to get him blocked. Now, CorbieV is to be included. Buffs wants to include me as well, not for the minor two comments I made back in March or for editing these articles (I have not) or for providing statements here on my observations but for violating hounding policy. Apparently, gathering diffs and evidence to post here is now considered "hounding". Buffs is very clear on these points: Everyone else is at serious fault here and Buffs is the victim. Buffs alone is upholding standards/policies of WP to high standards and wholly blameless in events.
Buffs has asserted that the reason CorbieVreccan has not been sanctioned for incivility is a special administrator favouritism and crony-ism at work; in short, The Cabal. Buffs thinks me posting about what I consider bad faith edits at this time to be hounding/stalking him rather than additional evidence for consideration here.
My reason for showing diffs from within this discussion is because they provide some of the clearest, easy to understand, and immediate examples of Buffs' deficits in policy interpretation and their application in other situations and discussion. I think Buffs believes he has an excellent grasp of WP policies and guidelines.
The WP:FOLLOWING policy is about harassment, about intimidation and silencing, not about people editing articles in shared fields of interest. Even a cursory glance at Indigenous girl's contribs show most of her work involves Native American and First Nation articles. This is one of her areas of expertise. CorbieVreccan also does substantial work in the same areas. Both were established in these fields before they encountered Buffs.
Also, as I noted above, with diffs, as this thread has been open, IG and CV have refrained from any substantial editing on the contested articles, and respected this process, while Buffs has decided to edit aggressively and scream at people here on AN.
It's my opinion that only Buffs deserves an IBAN, although possibly much more. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- The users involved here need to quit WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion and let the community review this for themselves. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Update: recruitment finished for moderation of harmful content on Wikipedia research study
The Berkman Klein Center, with support from the Wikimedia Foundation, is studying content moderation practices by the Wikipedia community by interviewing Wikipedia content editors and administrators.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Understanding_content_moderation_on_English_Wikipedia
We posted a similar message on the Administrators Noticeboard in May, and since then we’ve spoken with 10 editors. Thank you to those who have volunteered to participate thus far.
We’re searching for five more editors and admins with a range of experience to be interviewed about the processes and guidelines for content revision, content deletion, and quality control of English Wikipedia.
The interviews will particularly focus on gaining an understanding of the community’s overall approach and decision making about handling harmful content both on articles and talk pages. We are interested in understanding how this works from your direct experience and your knowledge of the experiences of other editors and admins.
The ultimate goal of the interviews is to help the Wikimedia Foundation identify the strengths and gaps in the community’s efforts to moderate harmful content and to improve the quality of content and positivity of conduct on the platform.
Our preference is to conduct the conversations through video chat or over the phone. However, we can accommodate the preferences of those who would feel more comfortable answering questions through email; we’d much rather communicate with editors over their preferred medium than not at all! Our preference is to record the conversations for those who are willing. However, all the answers we receive from the interviews will be aggregated; no answers will be associated with specific editors’ names or pseudonyms in communications with the Wikimedia Foundation or public reporting. Any specific examples or anecdotes mentioned in interviews will only be included in the report with prior permission of the interviewee. You will also be free to skip any questions and to end the interview at any time.
If you are willing to participate in a 20-25 minute conversation to help the Berkman Klein Center and Wikimedia Foundation understand more about harmful content on Wikipedia, contact Casey Tilton at ctiltoncyber.harvard.edu or leave a note on his user talk page. Catilton (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- What is "harmful content"? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's specified on the linked page:
illegal speech, harmful speech, vandalism, and other types of speech detrimental to Wikipedia and its community
. ‑ Iridescent 17:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)- All of which is perfectly acceptable of course...with the exception of
other types of speech detrimental to Wikipedia and its community
which is somewhat disconcertingly vague. ——SerialNumber54129 18:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)- As I read it, this is a legitimate piece of research aiming to establish what we think
other types of speech detrimental to Wikipedia and its community
should mean, not a typical WMF "verdict first, trial later" exercise aimed at inventing a "consensus" for the WMF's preferred position by cherry-picking participants they guess will support them. The Berkman Klein Center is a legitimate research institution at Harvard; this appears to be genuine research, not yet another attempt by Jan Eissfeldt to find a pretext to grant himself superpowers. ‑ Iridescent 19:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I read it, this is a legitimate piece of research aiming to establish what we think
- All of which is perfectly acceptable of course...with the exception of
- It's specified on the linked page:
- I've just participated in this - I didn't pick out any sign it was too ordained. I did get the feeling that they'd had some early pickups from the WMF but were listening to some conflicting viewpoints from editors and taking them on well. I also had some sympathy as Casey had the misfortune to start the interviews about the time FRAMBAN kicked off. If a DS Admin could do it that would fill in something I wanted to, but couldn't, talk about effectively. I'd say there might be an issue with the WMF mis-using results, but that the actual research looks interesting and worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Update - Thank you to the editors who volunteered to be interviewed. We were able to recruit enough to meet the goal. Catilton (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I can provide diffs of failed verification content going back years. Policy on Wikipedia is not being consistently enforced. I can also provide diffs of an editor being blocked for adding sourced content but the admin claimed it was not sourced content. A good case study is when an article is redirected. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Problems with Bosniak nationalism on Turkish Croatia article
Stil, this problem isn't solved
- It's about this. Santasa99 is systematicly removing any traces of Croatian history in that area, and presents the whole article in nationalistic views. --Čeha (razgovor) 07:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
To make matters worse, nationalistic POV is now protected. --Čeha (razgovor) 15:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Can/should I decline an unblock request from the same user more than once?
I declined an unblock request today. The user has filed a new request - their 3rd - which as far as I am concerned adds absolutely nothing new. I am minded to decline, and reblock without talk page access. Is that permissible or should I wait for another admin to review the request? --kingboyk (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking: "by convention, administrators don't usually review more than one unblock request regarding the same block." I'd say there that it adds nothing new and advise the next admin to revoke talk access. —Cryptic 00:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking. Thanks for setting me straight - much appreciated. --kingboyk (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- But of course, WP:COMMONSENSE applies. The point of the convention is that if you previously denied a request, you might be biased against the user when reviewing their next request, so you should let someone else handle it. If an editor keeps respamming the same unblock request in an attempt to WP:ADMINSHOP, that convention does not apply. Regards SoWhy 06:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's worth bearing in mind, thank you.
- In the case in question it hadn't quite reached that level. I left a note with my thoughts and another admin has declined the block and revoked talk page access. --kingboyk (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would go somewhere between Cryptic and SoWhy. If the blocked user makes the same request that was previously declined (by you, or by anyone else), I would revoke TPA myself (some exceptions might apply as every case is a bit different). There's nothing to prevent a declining admin from revoking TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- What I've done a number of times in cases like this is... I've declined an unblock, the blocked editor has then posted a new tendentious unblock request, and I've then revoked TPA (with a note that the next reviewing admin can reinstate it if they see fit, without needing to ask me). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- I would go somewhere between Cryptic and SoWhy. If the blocked user makes the same request that was previously declined (by you, or by anyone else), I would revoke TPA myself (some exceptions might apply as every case is a bit different). There's nothing to prevent a declining admin from revoking TPA.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- But of course, WP:COMMONSENSE applies. The point of the convention is that if you previously denied a request, you might be biased against the user when reviewing their next request, so you should let someone else handle it. If an editor keeps respamming the same unblock request in an attempt to WP:ADMINSHOP, that convention does not apply. Regards SoWhy 06:30, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's what I was thinking. Thanks for setting me straight - much appreciated. --kingboyk (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
please check my edit for rule violations
Book censorship in China please review my recent edit. self-reporting myself to minimize problems. The reference I removed from the article is defamatory to a wiki:BLP. I am unsure if my edit comment adequately describes the problem or violates the rules.the reference provided by another user which I deleted is about forum posts describing an official in a defamatory manner. The forum posts were made around the time that the communist party removed the term limits on presidency, a similar event that took place in the book animal farm surrounding a certain derogatory term which is also a character within animal farm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.7.235 (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- What? I mean, A) I'm not sure this is an AN issue; but then B) statements cited to reliable sources are not BLP violations just because you disagree with them; and C) most of the new content you added is original research. Remember per WP:BLP, material must be removed that may be defamatory if untrue. There is an argument that what was found on the Wikipedia article was unclear with respect to reality, but you have made no argument that the source was stating anything false, which would preclude defamation. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
statements must be supported by evidence. Animal Farm is not banned in china. It is available on loan from the leading state university in the country, PKU publishes articles about the symbolic meaning in the book, for which i provided references, something you cant do with a banned book, instead it will be in Law enforcement officer restricted file if its an analysis of a banned book in mainland China. I dont disagree with the facts presented in the reference I deleted. The problem is that Squealer (Animal Farm) is referred to using the common derogatory term consisting of two three letter words to simply refer to President Xi in the forum posts described in the reference. This is why it was censored, as it would be on wikipedia. Furthermore it doesn't actually support the statement that Animal Farm is banned. wikipedia:NOR is often used incorrectly. All posts are original research however the meaning of NOR is that you cant present novel interpretations of raw data or synthesize conclusions from various sources that do not specifically connect ideas. Animal Farm is available on loan, read and discussed in mainland chinese universities, something that cannot be done with banned books hence I provide positive confirmation that it is freely available. It is up to the other editor to provide a reference that supports the conclusion that it is banned in the country. 49.198.7.235 (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- You constructed new content that is based on search results and catalog listings to contradict another statement in the article. That is original research, and you will not be able to argue your way around it. I agree that distilling the content from The Independent to "Animal Farm is banned" is inaccurate, but that can be resolved by rewording, and is not an issue for administrative attention. As for BLP again, if a public figure is being insulted on social media, and those insults are getting news coverage, it would not be a BLP violation to describe what has been covered (aside from possible due weight issues), but that's not even what's happening at the article you edited - you're arguing for some kind of 4th-hand BLP violation, where the forum posts being referenced by the news article being referenced by the news article being referenced by Wikipedia contain insults against President Xi therefore it's derogatory... no. If you're here to debate how policies should be written, this is definitely the wrong page. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
resolved? 49.198.7.235 (talk) 09:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Request to lift IBAN
Since September 2018, I have been subject to an IBAN (see WP:EDRC) re Jytdog (talk · contribs). See ANI.
Since December, Jytdog has been indeffed by Arbcom, see User_talk:Jytdog#Block.
As it is over six months since both of these events, for which the IBAN has been moot anyway, I now request its repeal.
For clarity, this has arisen today as a result of an RfA. I believe that I am entitled to express an opinion at this RfA, per normal practice. However because of this IBAN, SchroCat has expressed the opinion that I am not: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Johnuniq#Oppose. Despite neither Johnuniq nor SchroCat being part of that IBAN. Accordingly I would like to have it lifted. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Which I should probably have done when I first posted this, @Ivanvector: and @Bishonen: as the admins who enacted the IBAN (guidance for appealing such should probably have a reminder for that). Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have not expressed anything of the sort. I asked you to provide diffs to your !vote to back up what is a personal attack without the use of diffs. In your first comment, you have expressed your personal opinion, without even bothering with diffs. - SchroCat (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support removal of IBAN as superfluous. Johnuniq (talk) 10:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support to avoid WP:BLOAT at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. I understand it's possible that indefinitely blocked users could be unblocked and thus we should know previous personal sanctions, but some spring cleaning could be done. For instance, Racepacket has been indeffed since 2012 and LauraHale has vanished, so surely the interaction ban could be archived elsewhere. --Pudeo (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support- although the request itself is peevish, and puts words into SchroCat's mouth that they never said, it's obvious that restricting someone from interacting with an indef banned editor is pointless. It's like being barred from a nightclub that burned down years ago. Reyk YO! 12:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - More than 6 months and seems appealable to me, —PaleoNeonate – 12:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - "Indef" is not infinite, Jytdog may be unblocked, and the IBan will be just as necessary when that happens. Otherwise, the rationale for lifting the Iban is spurious, at best. He's voted at RfA (
his usual "oppose"), that's enough. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks:
So, I am out of here. I am scrambling my WP password and deleting my gmail account and "Jytdog" will cease to do anything, anywhere. If you see any other Jytdog doing stuff in the future, anywhere, it is not me. (And no, I will be not be coming back here as a sock.) I urge Arbcom to do just do a motion and indef or site ban me.
- So please explain, given that Jytdog is both indeffed by Arbcom, and resigned by his own action about as strongly as he can, he "may be unblocked" in the future?
- As to RfA, then what does, "(his usual "oppose")" mean, other that to cast aspersions? I avoid RfA and almost never take part in it. I don't remember when I last did. I have, most unusually, voted at four RfAs in the last week, and they were 3/4 supports.
- The request itself is hardly "peevish". I voted oppose and SchroCat's uninvited reply to was to dismiss that twice as a personal attack: "Any chance you could back up your personal attack with some diffs?", "the less said about the outright personal attack the better." And yet, with this IBAN in place I am prevented from giving any such reply or explanation. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "His usual oppose" - I may have been confusing you with another editor, and since the RfA counters I usually go to both seem to be down, I have no evidence to support my claim, so I'm striking it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're probably thinking of a different Andrew D. Reyk YO! 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're precisely right. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're probably thinking of a different Andrew D. Reyk YO! 11:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Re: "His usual oppose" - I may have been confusing you with another editor, and since the RfA counters I usually go to both seem to be down, I have no evidence to support my claim, so I'm striking it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- User_talk:Jytdog#That's_all_folks:
- Oppose SHould Jytdog return, we would still need this. In Jytdog's absence, there is no way to assess if it no longer needed. Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Please note, this is preventive and not punitive as Andy has not left the past in the past. He carries it in his back pocket. It is not unfair as it is based only on Andy's inability to leave the past behind. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Dlohcierekim's argument is unfair. It means the negative actions of another editor permanently deny another editor the chance to eliminate a ban against them. I believe this IBAN is functionally unneeded, and generally is reasonable to improve as it is causing collateral effects without serving its primary purpose. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support as moot. In the unlikely event that a) Jytdog returns and b) resumes the same behavior, we can reevaluate. -FASTILY 22:17, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support as moot per Fastily above. Miniapolis 22:31, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support; we're often fine removing sitebans after six months if the editor hasn't misbehaved since the ban and has presented a good rationale. We shouldn't be stricter with a lesser restriction. Nyttend (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Jytdog has been gone for well over six months and this logged IBAN serves no purpose, except to irritate Andy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support this has been in place for nine months and Jytdog has been gone for six, and it hasn't served a purpose for that time. If, somehow, Jytdog returned, the situation could be re-assessed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just to make it clear, I disagree with this as a general way of dealing with IBans and absent editors. IBans include limitations on what the sanctioned editors can say about each other for a reason, generally because they have been saying nasty things, and thereby causing disruption. Then, when one editor leaves, for whatever reason, and cannot defend themselves from the criticism or insults of their partner in the IBan, we allow that other editor to say whatever they want about them?"Indef" is not "infinite", and many, many editors have returned from indef bans and retirements. This is far from an unusual occurrence, especially with long-time editors, who can't get rid of the itch to edit, and work hard to find some way back. When they do, if the IBan has been dissolved, we've left things open for a continuation of the same problem, and potentially have to live through the same disruption in order to get to another IBan. Far, far, easier to leave the IBan in place in case it's needed. That, I believe, should be the general way to deal with that asymmetrical situation, not to hand a license to one of the IBanned editors to slag off their opponent with impunity whenever they want to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- See my comment above. WP:STANDARD requests are often granted for sitebans after six months. Without any evidence of wrongdoing being presented here, why would we keep this lesser ban after ten months? Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I understand how it works, I simply don't agree that it's the best way to run things, per my comment above.Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Which comment would that be? The one you made up? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I generally don't copy my noticeboard and talk page comments from outside sources, so, to be precise, all of them are "made up" right out of my mind -- but I know that you are sarcastically referring to my saying "his usual oppose" about your vote on Johnuniq's RfA, which I've already explained - which I know that you already know, but still felt the need to make a sarcastic remark about. That, I think, speaks volumes about why you're subject to an IBan, and also why lifting it would be a mistake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- You were happy to make a pejorative accusation against another editor, without any attempt to check that it was true, and when that was challenged you were forced to strike it. Yet despite that, you later made reference to it "
per my comment above
" as if it still stood. My expectations are low enough, but I would appreciate some basic honesty here. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, if you read my comment above again, you'll see that I did make an effort to support my statement by going to the RfA counters listed on my "Code" page, but both were apparently down, so I couldn't get any data. Therefore, I went with what I thought I remembered, which turned out to be inaccurate, and which I struck out as soon as it was pointed out to me. I think that's pretty reasonable behavior on my part, but obviously you disagree. Your continued harping on this relatively insignificant matter is unfortunately indicative of why the IBan exists in the first place, and why lifting the IBan is not a good idea. You appear to be out for blood from anyone who looks crossed-eyed at you. See WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:AGF . Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- You were happy to make a pejorative accusation against another editor, without any attempt to check that it was true, and when that was challenged you were forced to strike it. Yet despite that, you later made reference to it "
- Oppose per BMK. ——SerialNumber54129 03:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - per BMK and Dloh. Sorry, but I totally reject the SO approach. The six month SO has, AFAIK, never applied to IBANs, because grudges and interpersonal conflicts do not just cease to exist after six months. It seems highly unlikely that we will never see Jytdog again, and/or that it will be reasonably productive to allow Andy to interact with an indeffed Jytdog, who can't defend himself. If the sanction is moot only because one user is not currently around, that's not a convincing reason to lift it. Andy makes no attempt whatsoever to address the root of the problem, and wants the ban overturned on the technicality that the other user is no longer around. That's not reassuring. The current status quo is absolutely harmless. The alternative of proclaiming the IBAN moot and then unrestricting Andy from taking back up his issues with Jyt, but without any way for Jyt to defend himself is hardly a better scenario. No convincing case has been made that the reasons for the IBAN no longer exist, and the technicality that Jyt is no longer an active editor is not convincing. ~Swarm~ {sting} 04:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- So there's no SO on IBANs, but we have to keep the IBAN just in case an SO does get applied to Jytdog's indef block (and irevocable resignation) from the whole site? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- SO's were always intended to be about indef blocks and site bans, the extension to IBans is what's new and under discussion here, so there's no reason that they wouldn't be used for their original purpose. And whatever gave you -- a very long term editor -- the idea that resignations were "irrevocable"? The password to the Jytdog account was scrambled, so -- if they were unblocked -- they couldn't come back with that account name, but they could come back with any other available account name, and the IBan between the two of you would (if not voided) still be in effect, since bans are to the person and not to the account. SO's have nothing whatsoever to do with resignations. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- So there's no SO on IBANs, but we have to keep the IBAN just in case an SO does get applied to Jytdog's indef block (and irevocable resignation) from the whole site? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per BMK and Swarm. The SO does not apply to IBANs and the tone of Andy's recent comments at RfA indicate that this problem has not gone away. GoldenRing (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dlohcierekim, BMK and Swarm. -- Begoon 08:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Basically, I think Andy has demonstrated that lifting the IBAN would be a poor idea. Needs to let it go, drop the stick, disengage, focus on something positive. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support People should not be held in perpetual bond of IBAN with indefinitely blocked users. Should Jytdog return, the IBAN can be reinstated, but for now, it's not needed at all. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Not being allowed to talk about another editor who's not around anyway is not much of a "perpetual bond", really. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Dlohcierekim, BMK and Swarm. –Davey2010Talk 19:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support Per preventative not punitive, etc. Like others, the present purpose of this apparently indefinite restriction alludes me. No objection to revisiting should there ever be an "interaction" in some unknown future and it is needed, but as of now, it serves no legitimate purpose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Please define, precisely, what is "punitive" about an IBan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- The other editor is indefinitely blocked for unrelated reasons. An IBan between the two is preventing absolutely nothing, since there's no interactions that can occur (other than blatantly egregious things like vandalising his user talk page, but that's an irrelevant hypothetical). Thus, this IBan, as of now, is doing nothing to increase the civility of Wikipedia, and is instead solely a black mark on Andy's record (which makes it punitive). In the (unlikely) case of Jytdog being unblocked, then it can be re-evaluated to see if it needs to be reinstated. But there's really no reason to keep a long-dusty editing restriction on the record for no other reason other than "he might come back someday". -A lad insane (Channel 2) 16:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @A lad insane: That is not true. I have linked to a situation in my oppose above to a situation where Andy was restrained from comment by this IBAN. Indeed, his whole reason for bringing this here is that the IBAN was restraining him from saying something. Judging by the tone of what he did say, it's a jolly good thing the IBAN is in place, because it has restrained him from saying something he oughtn't to have said. Even in Jytdog's absence, the IBAN remains necessary. GoldenRing (talk) 17:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Disagree. The only thing that RfA diff demonstrates is the interaction ban is suppose to remain to punish the User for "tone" on something that has only in the most round about fashion anything to do with interaction, even the person whose statement he quoted and critiqued, Johnuniq, says this IBAN is "superfluous" and votes to remove it, at this time. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- So what did I say that's so terrible? There is no IBAN in place against me and Johnuniq. You might not like it, but I'm permitted to oppose his RfA. Now (like so many RfAs) that's a general impression formed over years of occasional encounters. Yet the one concrete example I can give (and rightly, I was aked for diffs) was of Johnuniq defending Jytdog for comments which I still, and unashamedly, see as unacceptable anywhere on WP (You do realise that most of what I posted was a quote, yes?). And yet I can't discuss that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support (assuming there are no expired restrictions to be taken into account), as the other user is no longer editing for reasons unrelated to the interaction ban; there is no evidence that the behaviour has been repeated recently; and six months, same as the standard offer, should be enough unless there is a pattern that has led to, or is leading to, multiple editing restrictions with the same or other topics or users. Peter James (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional Support The purpose of an IBAN, as I understand it, is to reduce hostility on WP by limiting interactions between editors. An IBAN between editors of whom one is not editing seems to be punitive and ineffective. Support is contingent on generally leaving Jytdog alone (no talk page, no vandalism, no undoing all of his edits). A warning in his file with a note to admins that he should be leaving Jytdog information alone should be sufficient. Merely mentioning Jytdog at this point (especially when asked) should not be grounds for a block. Ergo, the IBAN should be conditionally lifted. Buffs (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- "Support is contingent on generally leaving Jytdog alone (no talk page, no vandalism, no undoing all of his edits). A warning in his file with a note to admins that he should be leaving Jytdog information alone" That is exactly the behavior that the IBan stops, so why replace it with another kind of sanction? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- That's what it does now. When it was put in place, it stopped the two of them from interacting. It's past its purpose, and most of what you mentioned would be considered disruptive even minus the sanction. -A lad insane (Channel 2) 23:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Given Andy Dingley's 's comments here and on the RfA, and in the light of Hijiri88's comment below, I don't think anyone can say with any certainty that the IBan is "past its purpose". It may seem that it should be on a conceptual level, but I think, rather, that the facts on the ground indicate that it's still holding back a fair amount of potential misbehavior from a pretty angry person. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Agree with Peter James, among others. Usedtobecool ✉️ ✨ 13:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support - (enacting admin comment) the purpose of the sanction was to shield Jytdog's editing from Andy's overzealous scrutiny. Since Jytdog has retired and is also Arb-banned, they cannot edit and thus the original purpose is moot. The sanction serves no purpose now except to beat Andy down over past transgressions, as many comments above of the form "Andy can't do this because of the sanction" (and not for any other reason) are amply demonstrating. If the editor behind the retired Jytdog account feels that they are being harassed in real life by Andy Dingley (of which I see no evidence) they should contact the Arbitration Committee or roll the dice with T&S; there's nothing for us to do here about it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Support The IBAN is no longer necessary. Also per administrator Ivanvector's rationale Lightburst (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Jytdog was blocked by ArbCom because they had agreed to accept a case over some incident(s) involving him, he declared his retirement, and ArbCom decided that if he was retiring they should block him pending an unretirement and formal opening of the case they had accepted. None of this had anything whatsoever to do with Andy, whose tendentious editing that led to the IBAN does not appear to have changed at all. And, most importantly, the IBAN currently serves to prevent disruption such as Andy invoking the boogeyman Jytdog's name to attack and harass other editors (whom he apparently views as "Jytdog-enablers") such as Johnuniq and myself: lifting the IBAN would just invite more disruption, and if anything I would think further sanctions to prevent this disruption are called for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC) (edited 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC))
- Also, in response to the
So please explain, given that Jytdog is both indeffed by Arbcom, and resigned by his own action about as strongly as he can, he "may be unblocked" in the future?
above, I should point out that no, Jytdog is indeffed by ArbCom as enforcement of his resignation, pending a return and an automatic opening of an ArbCom case. Essentially, Jytdog is subject to voluntary retirement and a suspended ArbCom investigation of his behaviour -- if this IBAN appeal had come before Jytdog's retirement but after the ArbCom case request was filed, we wouldn't be saying the ban was redundant because Jytdog was under investigation by ArbCom, so why is it suddenly redundant because he is both under investigation by ArbCom and retired? What good does appealing this ban do if it's redundant? I see a tendentious editor who harassed Jytdog and everyone associated with him, wanting the ability to continue to do so now that Jytdog is no longer here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)- You will, of course, be able to supply the diff for where I described Johnuniq as a "Jytdog-enabler". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- he was so ready to excuse the "dogshit" comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wow. Nice edit to your previous comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, it is a nice edit. It's also nice that I explicitly noted that I had made that edit. The only that wasn't nice was that I didn't apologize for misremembering that "Jytdog-enabler" was (apparently) not a direct quote from you. I read your comments together with Pudeo's, and apparently didn't notice that those exact words didn't come from you. That being said, had I said
Andy Dingley apparently sees me, Johnuniq, Bishonen, etc. as "Jytdog-enablers" (not a direct quote) and has convinced himself that Jytdog's ban somehow vindicated his own behaviour. This is the exact same behaviour that led to C. W. Gilmore's block -- I can't see why we would reward it in this case.
that would have been a pretty accurate summary. Now that my original comment has been fixed to say as much, I think we are done here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:05, 27 July 2019 (UTC)- Unsurprisingly, you have missed the point altogether. This is an RfA. It is about Johnuniq, not Jytdog. I have not discussed Jytdog, at least as far as is possible. I have never described Johnuniq as a "Jytdog-enabler": Jytdog was perfectly capable of acting as he did, all on his own. My point, and why I raised it at that RfA, is that when Johnuniq was presented with the context of Jytdog's comments (and why are you still so keen to excuse his description of "dogshit editors"? How on earth were they ever acceptable?) his reaction to them was to excuse them as "occasionally over-enthusiastic". Now this is nothing to do with Jytdog, but that's not an attitude I want in any new admins, hence my opposition to him.
- Now Jytdog has departed. I have no interest in him, I have no interest in any gravedancing. But further down the line, this IBAN has made appropriate and permissible interaction in an RfA difficult if not impossible. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, it is a nice edit. It's also nice that I explicitly noted that I had made that edit. The only that wasn't nice was that I didn't apologize for misremembering that "Jytdog-enabler" was (apparently) not a direct quote from you. I read your comments together with Pudeo's, and apparently didn't notice that those exact words didn't come from you. That being said, had I said
- Wow. Nice edit to your previous comment. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- he was so ready to excuse the "dogshit" comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- You will, of course, be able to supply the diff for where I described Johnuniq as a "Jytdog-enabler". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per BMK, Dlohcierekim and others. This is not mooted by Jytdog's block. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Fails to acknowledge wrongdoing and what got the IBan enacted in the first place. This is a politically motivated removal request so Andy can get back at someone who supported the IBan. Andy should not be mentioning Jytdog's name, grave-dancing, or in any other way violating the IBan. See also the points made above by BMK, Dlohcierekim, Swarm, Golden Ring, Hijiri88, and Mendaliv. Softlavender (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, per many of the above rationales, particularly Mendaliv, Softlavender and BMK. I wasn't going to !vote here, but given the rather combative approach it seems that anything that stops the subject being raised and rehashed is a good idea. Jytdog may well come back at some point, and rather leave the door open for further grief, it's probably safer to leave this in place. - SchroCat (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Refusal to acknowledge RfC closure
An RfC[91] has been closed on Tulsi Gabbard by Red_Slash, yet one editor, SashiRolls, refuses to acknowledge the validity of the closure and edit-wars to remove content agreed-upon in the closure. What should be done? (I posted about this on two other boards before being instructed that this was the right board for this) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, @Snooganssnoogans: please notify SashiRolls (as required). Second, please provide diffs when making accusations. Thirdly, the main question here seems to be whether Red Slash's closure of the RfC is correct. Based on what was said at the Help Desk, it seems several users disagree. If SashiRolls has edit warred, then you should file a report at WP:AN/EW.
- I didn't advise you to come here, but I advised SashiRolls to do so (sorry if I wasn't clear). According to WP:CLOSE, WP:AN is the venue that should be used for challenging RfC closures. Therefore, I propose that you file a report at WP:AN/EW if you wish to do so, but otherwise, that this section is used to discuss what seems a point of contention: was Red Slash's closure of the RfC a correct determination of consensus? I will notify Red Slash. --MrClog (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- IMO especially since it's been ~12 days, there's no point us having a discussion on the whether the closure was fair until and unless someone actually brings it here to challenge. Since Snooganssnoogans does not appear to disagree with the closure, there's no reason for us to discuss it solely due to their concerns. So either SashiRolls or someone else who disagrees brings it here then fair enough. The one exception would be Red Slash since it's well accepted that closers can bring their closure for discussion if they feel there are concerns or if they're unsure or just want a sanity check. Nil Einne (talk) 08:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- If SashiRolls want to challenge a close, they should first speak to the closer, then bring it here. If they are edit warring over the close, this would be a problem, but as MrClog said, we need diffs and frankly I'm not seeing the problem. They did undo the close once about 12 days ago [92] and as per my earlier comment I don't think this was the right way to challenge the close, but given it was a single time, not something us worth worrying about on AN even if it just happened. Someone could have just told them it's not the right way to challenge the close and revert which ultimate is I think what happened. After they reverted the close, they added some further comments [93], if the close had been properly undone this would not be a problem but since it wasn't really they shouldn't have but ultimately this stemmed from the way they undid the close so not worth worrying about. They posted one addition after the close was redone [94], again not worth worrying about especially since it seems to have been part of challenging a hatting. (I assume changing nbsp of someone else's comment was either a mistake or they were replacing a unicode one with that.) Since then, there has been little on the talk page. Recently there was this Talk:Tulsi Gabbard#WP:SYNTH problems [95] but whatever it is, it's not part of challenging or disputing the previous RfC. I had a quick look at the article, and none of the recent edits by SashiRolls seem to be related to the RfC either. E.g. [96] [97] mention India and Modi, but are not something dealt with in the RfC. I didn't check the edits on 15th or earlier since they're too old to worry about. So yes, I'm very confused why this is here, as I'm not actually seeing any active problem. If SashiRolls does not wish to properly challenge the close, then they will have to accept the result, but they don't seem to have really done anything on either the article or the article talk page that we need to worry about in recent times. (At least as viewed in the scope of the problem you highlighted.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I added part of my full opinion on the talk page at the time. But I think the close, the re-close, any reliance on the close, and the RfC in it entirety, are all sub-par. If anyone specifically requests it, an admin should probably jump in to do a proper close. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
(EC) @MrClog: Well I would put Wikipedia:Help desk#What to do when an editor refuses to abide by RfC closure? a bit different. Although SashiRolls did comment there, like this thread it was started by Snooganssnoogans. I don't understand why Snooganssnoogans feels the need to bring this up at all since as I said, I see no active editing against the RfC even if SashiRolls appears to disagree with it. SashiRolls, is ultimately entitled to keep that POV, they just can't act on it until and unless they properly challenge the close.
Snooganssnoogans mentioned bringing this to multiple boards before finding the right one, but ignoring they're still at the wrong board since there is no right board, when I see the Help Desk discussion I'm even more mystified. I thought maybe when Snooganssnoogans first brought this up it had only been a day or 2 since the RfC closure undone etc so they thought it was pertinent and didn't reconsider when they finally thought they'd found the right board. But that discussion on the Help Desk was only about 1 day ago. I didn't bother to find the first discussion, but I now think Snooganssnoogans really needs to clarify what they mean since they've accused SashiRolls of edit warring against the RfC yet it doesn't look like any such thing has happened for at least 10 days.
Even ~10 days is a stretch. I had a more careful look at the article itself, and the only thing I found which could in any way be said to be possibly against the RfC is [98]. A single edit. So all we really have is a single attempt to revert the close and a single revert to the article all over 10 days ago. So yeah, I really have no idea why this is here. Or at the help desk.
I would note in any case the RfC closure specifically noted at least two of the proposals needed to be reworded so ultimately some more discussion is needed somehow. Even for the final one, while it did not say it had to be re-worded it did not say there was consensus for the proposed wording so discussion on that also seems fair enough. I'm not necessarily saying reverting that edit was the right way to go about it, but it is even more reason for me to go, why are you wasting our time by bringing this here?
Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, I didn't bring this here originally, I only commented on it after Snooganssnoogans brought it here, based on what was said at the Help Desk. --MrClog (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- P.S. To be clear, I have no problem with your attempts to guide the editors. My only concern is that Snooganssnoogans seems to be making claims which don't seem to be well supported all over the place, and IMO wasting our time in so doing. Nil Einne (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I brought this here, because I don't want to edit-war with SashiRolls on the Gabbard page (which is covered by DS, 1RR and enforced BRD), which was inevitably where this was heading. I wanted to make sure that I was in the right to follow the closure of the RfC before I reverted SashiRolls's revert of the RfC text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nil Einne, SashiRolls has challanged the outcome at the Help Desk, which is not the proper place. I told them AN was the right place, but they haven't challanged it here. I agree that the situation is stale unless SashiRolls explicitely challanges the RfC closure here. --MrClog (talk) 08:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions
for reverting a sloppy reversion they made of another editor's contributionrelated to Jill Stein where I see frequently blocked Calton has come running to help restore Daily Beast in wiki-voice to 3 sentences in a sequence of 6 sentences. This strikes me as promotional editing for a corporate entity. Neither Snoogans nor Calton has discussed on the TP... but that's the usual order of business...)🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have been harassed since Aug 2016 by Snoogans, it seems to me to be their methodology whenever they want to force their views on BLP through despite significant opposition to their one-sided negativity. This was and has been the case on Jill Stein, which they have largely written, this was and has been the case on Tulsi Gabbard. If administrators wish to discourage such harassment, I would appreciate it. (In the past two days, I've received notifications from them from the Village Pump, the Help Desk, AN, and my talk page. I have also received threats of imminent DS actions
- You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- NORE garbage thrown at the wall to distract. ...blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors... is particularly rich because a) that's exactly what you're doing; and b) you were blocked indefinitely for your behavior, so you don't get to gas on about that.
- If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author
- Nope, because that's a false spin of a standard "attribution to reliable sources", no matter how many pejoratives you lard it with, a speciality of yours. It's the "promotional" part that's a new --albeit ridiculous on its face -- twist. --Calton | Talk 11:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- You've been blocked recently for similar aggressive comments about contributors rather than content. If you wish to comment as to why you think is it not promotional editing to include the names of muckraking newspapers in wikitext instead of attributing the opinions expressed in an article to its author, the discussion you ignored is at Talk:Jill_Stein#We_cite_the_news_outlet,_not_the_reporter. This is not the place to continue that debate; I invite you to comment on the TP if you wish to defend the multiplication of references to the Daily Beast on a BLP rather than sticking to the facts, as proposed.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Request for reclosure of RfC on Tulsi Gabbard's BLP (Assad/Modi)
I would like to formally ask that an administrator determine whether the RfC closed by Red Slash on 11 July 2019 properly analyzed the consenus or lack thereof and provided sufficient guidance for editing the text going forward. On the talk page, I asked Red Slash to justify the close which took no account of at least half of the written opinions, but was summarily dismissed. I apologize for not having had the time to look for the proper bureaucratic procedure to properly revert a bad close. I assumed the matter was settled when 2 people agreed with me, but apparently there is a need to have the proper paperwork done...
I see that the person championing the addition of negative phrasing (Snoogans) has already been reverted by an IP from Ireland. (I am not in Ireland.) It is true that in 2017, Gabbard expressed skepticism about Assad's use of chemical weapons, which -- as I understand it -- she walked back once sufficient information became available. The use of the present tense (has expressed) rather than dating the skepticism to 2017 and using the past tense seems to me transparently disingenuous. This is what NPR does in the citation:
In 2017, she expressed skepticism that Assad had used chemical weapons, and in a CNN televised town hall in March, when asked whether Assad is a war criminal, she hedged, saying, "If the evidence is there, there should be accountability."
As stated above (previous section) and in the section devoted to the RfC one admin has reviewed the close and found it lacking. Another opinion is requested.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 11:11, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- My determination would be as follows:
- A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("
The problem with using the quote, which presumably could be reliably sourced, is that saying it is an expression of support for Hindu nationalists is synthesis. Obama, the Clintons and Trump have expressed more praise for Modi than Gabbard, yet it would be misleading to say they expressed support for Hindu nationalists. That's the sort of writing one would expect in polemical writing. It would be accurate however that they like Gabbard supported normal relations with the Indian government.
"). This is particulrly important because, if true, it would be a violation of BLP (WP:BLPBALANCE). This has not been responded to. Because it seems that opinions are fairly balanced regarding A, and !oppose brings a compelling argument based on one of Wikipedia's core policies, which is not responded to, I am inclined to say that there is no consensus to include A. - B: Snooganssnoogans and Darryl Kerrigan support the wording of B. LokiTheLiar and Kolya Butternut support B if it were to be reworded. MrX, SashiRolls and Scottmontana (in part—I discarded their comment about Vox, as Vox has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RS/P) oppose B. It remains unclear how such a rewording should look and when it becomes acceptable for inclusion without violating WP:NPOV. NPOV is a core policy and it is vital that all text in the article adheres to this policy. I would as such say that this should be closed as no consensus for inclusion of B without prejudice to a reworded text, if there is conensus that that version does adhere to NPOV.
- C: Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut, MrX and Darryl Kerrigan support C. SashiRolls and Scottmontana oppose C. While Scottmontana brings a reasonable argument which is not responded to, the clear support for C shows that it was not strong enough to convince other reasonable Wikipedians. The rest of the comments are mostly "NPOV" and "not NPOV". As such, I would say there is consensus to include C.
- A: The main question seems to be whether A adheres to the NPOV policy and is properly sourced. Snooganssnoogans, LokiTheLiar, Kolya Butternut and MrX support the current wording of A. Scottmontana (an SPA), TFD, SashiRolls and Darryl Kerrigan oppose the wording. Msalt says the wording is acceptable, yet could be improved. What I find particularly important here is that TFD brings an argument as to why it is not NPOV. TFD states that, despite A being possibly accurate, it is presented in a misleading way ("
- I invite other editors to share their view as well. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[99], Guardian[100], NY Mag[101], Vox[102], and Intercept[103]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- The argument's central premise is that the text is biased (failing WP:BLPBALANCE) because the text suggests she expressed support for Hindu nationalists in a way that can convey the wrong message (that her support is more than just "standard diplomacy"). Regarding the sources: I was only able to find the Guardian source, Vox source and the Intercept source brought up during the discussion, but if I missed the others, feel free to point me where they were. If they haven't brought up during the discussion, I won't consider them, because I am judging the debate that took place at the RfC. About the sources: the Guardian only mentions "nationalists", not "Hindu nationalists". Vox says that reports mentioned "worrying ties" to Hindu nationalists (not support) and that she is supported by Hindu nationalists (but again, not that she supports Hindu nationalists. While the Intercept mentions that she supports Hindu nationalists in the title, it seems to be more nuanced in the article. The main point of criticism from TFD still stands, by the way, that the fact that she supported certain Hindu nationalists is presented in an unfair way in the sentence, suggesting she supports all or most Hindu nationalists. (Non-administrator comment) --MrClog (talk) 13:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Regarding #A, TFD presents nothing to support the argument that other political figures are more supportive of Modi and Hindu nationalists than she is. The language is supported by reliable sources such as the LA Times[99], Guardian[100], NY Mag[101], Vox[102], and Intercept[103]. Why is it incumbent on other users to rebut TFD's unsupported arguments? And even if other political figures are, what does that have to do with Gabbard? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- There is nothing in the RfC close that prevents editors from improving upon the proposed wordings. It just says there's consensus to include, and actually explicitly encourages rewording. So when looking at Sashi Rolls objection to #C (that it incorrectly implies that Gabbard still doubts chemical weapons were used in Syria) that can be remedied by a slight rewording. By the way, I opened the source (from 2019) at the end of the sentence, and it confirms that Sashi Rolls is correct on this point. It says:
"Gabbard has also expressed skepticism about the Assad regime’s widely reported and confirmed use of chemical weapons against its own people. As an Iraq veteran, Gabbard said, she wants solid evidence before weapons of mass destruction are used to justify intervention, citing the false reports of WMD in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003...Gabbard said Wednesday she does believe chemical weapons were used in Syria."
~Awilley (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, the body of the article clearly explains that since February 2019, she has changed her opinion on whether Assad used chemical weapons (I added that content as soon as she made the change[104]: she doubted that Assad used chemical weapons until February 2019). If someone holds a view at one point and changes it later, we cover both and delineate the chronology. We wouldn't remove that Hillary Clinton supported the Iraq War just because she later said that the Iraq War was wrong. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Awilley: I doubt that a reworded version won't lead to another dispute, seeing that apparently there is the need to organise RfCs about whether to include certain sentences. --MrClog (talk) 11:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- This RfC was started because Snoog failed to get consensus for their edits to the BLP back in February and March 2019. TFD, in the first comment on the RfC, characterized it -- in my view correctly -- as a biased attempt to enforce a particular POV. To respond to the previous comment, I do *not* believe that a version of C which accurately represents her position before the facts were established would be contested as long as it is made clear that once the facts were established her position changed, precisely because the facts were then established. As I said in my initial oppose, the only problem with C was that it misleadingly used the present (perfect) tense. I agree with your reading of no-consensus for A & B. I agree that if we change the wording of C to reflect that it was a position taken until evidence was established, for me at least, the problem with C is resolved.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 13:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I am incredibly disinterested in the whole ordeal and frankly uninterested at this point. I closed a long-overdue RfC, checked back and noticed that the close was just reverted out of thin air, and re-closed. I have no opinion on Ms. Gabbard as a person or as a candidate, and I only tried to determine a consensus based on logical arguments and reliable sources. Is there anything y'all need from me? Red Slash 16:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Red Slash, I would suggest giving a summary of why you believe consensus was the way you assessed it to be, unless you already provided such at a talk page (in which case a link is fine). The current closing statement only mentions what the consensus is, but not how you came to that conclusion. --MrClog (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{Do not archive until}} added. Please remove the {{Do not archive until}} tag after the review is closed. (I am adding this because RfC closure reviews frequently have been archived prematurely without being resolved.) Cunard (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Fram case opened
The arbitration committee have opened a case on Fram at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram. This case is to be held in private, with evidence and workshop proposals to be submitted by email — see the evidence and workshop case pages for instructions. For the Arbitration Committee, GoldenRing (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Fram case opened
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jan Howard Finder is a malformed AFD.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Is there any indication that this might plausibly be a good faith nomination, maybe by the subject themselves or their proxy? Setting up AFDs can be hard, so unless it's blatantly some sort of attack I'd say just reformat the AFD with the proper templates and see what happens. Primefac (talk) 18:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- EDIT: I'll leave the first half for discussion, but I've fixed the formatting in the meantime. If people !vote before this gets decided here I say we just leave well enough alone. Primefac (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
O HAI
I was IRL busy - did I miss much? Guy (Help!) 20:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Big drama was missed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- You could retroactively claim your absence as a dramatic resignation ;) Nosebagbear (talk)
- I saw a bit of that on teh Facebooks, but I struggle to understand the full extent of it. Reading the page you link, my money is, as always, with Newyorkbrad, as reliably thoughtful and nuanced as ever. Guy (Help!) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nah, just the usual. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Guy: Welcome back! Just more backlogs to get to.. RIP. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive errors on Denuvo wikipage
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lordtobi does not permit me to do changes on the above mentioned page. In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Denuvo&action=history you can see that all my changes were of good faith. You can also see my contributions, I never do any vandalism or smth like that. So please can you somehow prevent Lordtobi from doing this? Thank you.
- This is a content dispute, it does not belong here. Please discuss on the article talk page or WT:VG. Sergecross73 msg me 13:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Tots & little ones matter! and BLPDELETE review
Tots & little ones matter! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hi all, I have deleted Operation Voicer as an extraordinary and preliminary measure under WP:BLPDELETE and per that policy am seeking review here. I'm not really clear what is best to do here. The article was about a real pedophile ring, but contained extensive profile on the individuals involved, none of whom appear to be individually notable. I discovered this when Tots & little ones matter! was creating redirects for all of the individuals involved.
I honestly don't know how I feel about this. While I think having an article on the subject is likely appropriate, the way the article was written highlighted individual convicted criminals who were not otherwise notable in a way that we would not ordinarily allow, and on a subject that unfortunately people are using Wikipedia to accuse people of more frequently.
I'm also concerned that Tots & little ones matter! appears to be an SPA focused on creating articles on British pedophilia scandals. While some of these are undoubtedly notable, I am very concerned that they are giving undue weight to the sections on the individuals. This was something I discovered after I made the initial BLPDELETE deletion, and since there were multiple articles, I did not want to act without further consulting the community. I'm bringing this here for review and am fine with any outcome. I will also be alerting Tots & little ones matter! to BLP DS, but that doesn't preclude the community from taking action if it sees fit. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just a quick note on Robin Hollyson who repeatedly raped a 3-month-old baby and naturally received widespread news coverage because of this exceptionally shocking crime, he is no longer alive, so BLP is unlikely to be relevant to Robin Hollyson. The same applies to Neville Husband and Leslie Johnson.Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tots & little ones matter!, BLP also applies to recently deceased individuals. Content on Wikipedia about such people can still greatly impact the person's direct family. --MrClog (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Robin Hollyson died in January 2016. Is 3½ years ago still recent? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tots & little ones matter!, BLP also applies to recently deceased individuals. Content on Wikipedia about such people can still greatly impact the person's direct family. --MrClog (talk) 23:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tony, thank you for raising this here. I've been watching this too. I revdeleted some extremely detailed edit summaries, and asked the user to stop making them. He did stop doing that, although he didn't respond to my note. I remain concerned about the level of detail in the articles, the user name, and the singular focus. SarahSV (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- In response to my posting here that Tots did not respond to my note in March about his edit summaries, he has just written on his talk: "You did not ask for a reply. Please stop misleading other administrators by creating the impression you did." SarahSV (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- SarahSV, are you asking me to change my username?Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's the combination of the user name, the focus of your edits, and the level of detail you go into, including details that most people would find hard to read, never mind write about. The article Tony deleted is a good example. Do you have any suggestions as to how you could change your approach? SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- SarahSV, It is my understanding that wikipedia is UNCENSORED, meaning:
Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia.
- Your concern is solely about "content that some readers consider objectionable". Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. The concern is that you're going into WP:UNDUE detail about living individuals who we would not ordinarily consider notable. They don't have to be notable to be mentioned in an article, but you shouldn't be writing mini-stubs on their crimes and then creating redirects on their names to the section of the article and adding categories to them. I the creation of the redirects was what concerned me enough to delete that one article pending review, as you were effectively getting around review of new articles that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tony, WP:UNDUE deals mainly with opinions and points of view, which are not relevant to your concern. The amount detail I wrote about individuals always depended on the amount of detail in reliable sources. Deleting an article because of redirects was an extreme reaction on your part.
- Couldn't you have raised an AN topic just about the redirects to individuals, and then depending on other admin's views, maybe deleted the redirects to individuals and left me a note about it? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 00:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- One of the problems is that the articles milk all the sources for details, including tabloid journalism in local newspapers and websites (note WP:BLPSOURCES: "material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"). The articles could be rewritten to include only material written by the court reporters from high-quality national newspapers and BBC. The redirected names of living persons should be deleted. SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- SarahSV, you are conflating regional newspapers with tabloids, which I almost never use. The two types of sources are quite different. Regional newspapers in a country as large as the UK often serve as many readers and the same purpose as national full-sized newspapers do in smaller countries. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- One of the problems is that the articles milk all the sources for details, including tabloid journalism in local newspapers and websites (note WP:BLPSOURCES: "material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism"). The articles could be rewritten to include only material written by the court reporters from high-quality national newspapers and BBC. The redirected names of living persons should be deleted. SarahSV (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. The concern is that you're going into WP:UNDUE detail about living individuals who we would not ordinarily consider notable. They don't have to be notable to be mentioned in an article, but you shouldn't be writing mini-stubs on their crimes and then creating redirects on their names to the section of the article and adding categories to them. I the creation of the redirects was what concerned me enough to delete that one article pending review, as you were effectively getting around review of new articles that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's the combination of the user name, the focus of your edits, and the level of detail you go into, including details that most people would find hard to read, never mind write about. The article Tony deleted is a good example. Do you have any suggestions as to how you could change your approach? SarahSV (talk) 23:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- SarahSV, are you asking me to change my username?Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
But we don't ordinarily include detailed descriptions of criminals covered in regional newspapers. Wikipedia has significantly larger readership than regional newspapers, and as vile as these people's crimes are they are still living people and extensive coverage of them on Wikipedia could actually put them in danger if they ever get out of prison (or while in prison...)
We don't try to white wash, but we also don't write articles on every criminal who gets coverage in even a major regional paper. See WP:CRIMINAL. You are basically circumventing our policies on criminal notability by writing enough content for an article covering the worst parts of their lives, and then creating redirects to the subsections. SlimVirgin and I are trying to work with you here, and explain things to you, but you really do need to change your approach, because otherwise you are likely to be facing sanctions surrounding biographies of living people, either through consensus here or through the discretionary sanctions I alerted you to at the same time as opening this thread. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Two points: First, the concerns about WP:UNDUE and even WP:BLP are mostly content issues and probably shouldn't normally be handled by this board. Second, BLPDELETE doesn't appear to call for a review here particularly, but at DRV if someone complains. Being unable to view the contents of the article, I can't opine as to the propriety of summary deletion here (as opposed to the routine WP:AFD process), but I trust TonyBallioni's judgment here, as reinforced by SlimVirgin, both of whom are experienced administrators. Therefore, I endorse the deletion. There may be something a bit cutting edge in terms of policy happening here, but when it comes to genuine BLP issues, there's nothing wrong with erring on the side of deletion. Taking into account the salient points raised here by my learned colleagues, there may be grounds to discuss new guidelines or policies governing our coverage of sex crimes, whether or not the perpetrators are living persons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah. The policy is a bit vague: allowing unilateral deletions with discussion afterwards, which to me sounds like AN, though it also mentions DRV elsewhere. When I discovered there were potential problems with other articles created by Tots & little ones matter!/the username/the SPA bit, I thought here made the most sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tots, you wrote above: "you are conflating regional newspapers with tabloids". The BLP policy cautions against relying on "tabloid journalism", and some of the regional reporting you're using is very definitely that. Wikipedia should follow the high-quality secondary sources. In this case, that will mostly mean the BBC, The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, The Independent, and their Sunday equivalents, plus academic sources and government reports. I wouldn't rule out filling in gaps with regional media, but you've used regional papers and websites to offer a huge amount of detail. SarahSV (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mendaliv, you may review the Operation Voicer article here. Please try to identify a specific BLP violation before endorsing deletion.
- Tony's reference to WP:CRIMINAL is taking issue solely with redirects to named individuals. I did not believe the redirects were circumventing anything, because Kabeer Hassan already has such a redirect, and administrators took no action. Having read WP:CRIMINAL and considered how redirects might be circumventing it, I would actually delete the redirects myself now if I could. However, I do not have administrator privileges, so I obviously cannot. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Tots & little ones matter!: You can request deletion of things you've created yourself by tagging them with {{db-g7}} (if you're the page creator and there have been no other editors). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Done. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Tots & little ones matter!: You can request deletion of things you've created yourself by tagging them with {{db-g7}} (if you're the page creator and there have been no other editors). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tony, your concern "extensive coverage of them on Wikipedia could actually put them in danger if they ever get out of prison" has nothing to do with Wikipedia's BLP policy. The policy exists to protect individuals against libellous falsehoods and to prevent articles from filling up with pointless trivial gossip. There was nothing trivial or false about the crimes I was writing about. Children are safer when there is greater public awareness of the threats they face. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Uh, no. The BLP policy very much is intended to both protect the name and the physical safety of individuals. Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. It is appropriate to simply list the individuals involved in your articles, and maybe include slightly more details at an appropriate weight, but the more we have this discussion, the more concerned I am that you are going to continue with what you apparently see as a mission here. While that may be noble, you certainly won't find me defending the actions these people did, the way you are doing it is not compatible with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and you need to change. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Here are some examples of articles not created by Tots & little ones matter!:
- Huddersfield grooming gang
- Telford child sexual exploitation scandal
- Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
- Oxford child sex abuse ring
- Halifax child sex abuse ring
- Newcastle sex abuse ring
- Banbury child sex abuse ring
- Derby child sex abuse ring
- Rochdale child sex abuse ring
I don't know how they compare to the ones created by Tots, but I am quite sure that the same standards should be applied to all. Bitter Oil (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here's another:
- Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) TonyBallioni mentioned it above, but the username "Tots & little ones matter!" strongly suggests that the user is here to right great wrongs. Based on the user's repeatedly-stated interest in creating "public awareness" of certain people and certain topics, they've pretty clearly on a WP:SOAPBOX. It's not quite to the point of WP:NOTHERE, since they are generally contributing neutral facts, but every so often there's opinion creeping in - usually a choice quote from police/judges/what have you about how terrible the events were or how important it is to report that sort of thing which is otherwise irrelevant to the article's content. Also, some of the article titles are going into lurid detail ("Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring," for example, while technically accurate, is a bit much). I guess my point is that while I can't point to a blatant rule violation, I'm really iffy on this user's actions. Also, after having gone through this editor's contributions, I'm going to go throw up or something. creffett (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Creffett and TonyBallioni: I have moved the Norwich article to the more neutrally-titled Norwich sexual abuse ring for the second time. @Tots & little ones matter!:, please do not unilaterally move it again. ——SerialNumber54129 09:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're "iffy" about quoting police on the seriousness of a crime and how it merits reporting? To you, the notion that child sexual abuse is a serious crime is "opinion creeping in". (Wow!) WP:NPOV actually allows the inclusion of points of view, if that's what you think those quotes are, so long as any alternative views in reliable sources are given due weight, of which there are none in the example you gave. The quotes are entirely permitted under NPOV. The idea that child sexual abuse is a serious crime is self-evident and not exactly contentious. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
You're "iffy" about quoting police on the seriousness of a crime and how it merits reporting?
That is not what Creffett said.To you, the notion that child sexual abuse is a serious crime is "opinion creeping in".
That is also not what Creffett said. Creffett has pointed out, accurately in my opinion, that your username and conduct indicate someone that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but is instead seeking to right great wrongs and raise awareness of child sex abuse. While raising awareness of these horrific crimes is indeed a noble pursuit, it's not the job of an encyclopedia to raise awareness of anything. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 04:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)- Actually, it is one of the things Creffett wrote: "every so often there's opinion creeping in - usually a choice quote from police/judges/what have you about how terrible the events were or how important it is to report that sort of thing". Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, "opinion" was the wrong word (perspective-pushing, maybe?), but you're misquoting me. Nobody is debating whether child sexual abuse is a crime, the issue at hand is the use of Wikipedia's voice to give opinions on the content of an article. Wikipedia's role is to report facts, not to give opinions on the article's topic. By adding those selected quotes, you're making the article less about facts and more about your issue of choice. If you want to tell people how terrible (insert topic) is, try the 11 o'clock news. creffett (talk) 13:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, it is one of the things Creffett wrote: "every so often there's opinion creeping in - usually a choice quote from police/judges/what have you about how terrible the events were or how important it is to report that sort of thing". Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 05:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- To summarise, the main concerns of TonyBallioni and SlimVirgin are:
- TonyBallioni wrote: "See WP:CRIMINAL. You are basically circumventing our policies on criminal notability by writing enough content for an article covering the worst parts of their lives, and then creating redirects to the subsections ... you really do need to change your approach."
- I have already deleted the redirects. I have shown that I understand this concern and taken it on board. Deleting the Operation Voicer article because of redirects was disproportionate.
- SlimVirgin wrote: "One of the problems is that the articles milk all the sources for details, including tabloid journalism in local newspapers and websites (note WP:BLPSOURCES".
- This concern relates largely to sourcing from regional newspapers. SlimVirgin was involved in writing the BLP policy and may have privately held a much broader idea of what constitutes a tabloid than most of us. SlimVirgin's apparent view that regional newspapers are to be considered tabloids in WP:BLPSOURCES was not communicated adequately on the policy's article and doesn't appear to have been agreed with the community. I cannot have been expected to read SlimVirgin's mind when choosing my sources. I would be open to choosing BLP sources differently, especially if I see evidence that SlimVirgin's very broad idea of what constitutes a tabloid has community support or is stated on a Wikipedia policy page.
- SlimVirgin also asked: "Do you have any suggestions as to how you could change your approach?"
- I could use a more limited range of sources in future when writing BLP content and be more inclined to exclude certain sources. I could review articles that I have written and look for and remove what could perhaps be considered inadequately sourced BLP material. I would like greater clarity on this, perhaps a definition, explanation or list of sources that the Wikipedia community agrees are unsuitable for BLP content.
- I could use a different username.
- As stated above, I have already deleted the redirects to named individuals. I will not create any more.
- Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- The safest thing is to stick to high-quality national media and not go into so much detail. The article that was deleted, Operation Voicer, relied 16 times on a Daily Mirror article, once on the Daily Record, once on BreakingNews.ie, and numerous times on local media. It's written in a tabloid style with one-sentence paragraphs, unnecessary quotes, and a subsection for each of the convicted with the men's names as headings. It's unclear from the article how many children were involved; the Daily Telegraph reported that seven men assaulted three children. The article would have to be written and sourced differently to be BLP-compliant, and would have to demonstrate why the topic is notable enough. SarahSV (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Where exactly does the BLP policy deal with article style? Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Bitter Oil has helpfully stated that "the same standards should be applied" to my articles that are being applied to others such as Banbury child sex abuse ring and Newcastle sex abuse ring. The Banbury article contains six sources, three of which are local. Bitter Oil is clearly of the view that this is enough to demonstrate notability and is perfectly fine. It is only SarahSV who seems to believe otherwise. Wikipedia's BLP policy says nothing about local sources, and they are used in every article Bitter Oil mentioned, so this is clearly acceptable. Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- SarahSV, you wrote that you objected to "details that most people would find hard to read, never mind write about". This is undeniably a gripe you have about finding the subject matter upsetting. You appear to be bending and stretching BLP policy as a means of removing what WP:UNCENSORED describes as "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so". WP:UNCENSORED emphatically states "Wikipedia is not censored" and that doing so "is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Tots & little ones matter! (talk) 07:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tots & little ones matter!, I know you think you are doing right, but please think about taking a break for a day or so before you comment, as your temper seems to be getting a little stretched here and you are coming across as a bit aggressive (that's just the impression I get, so forgive me if I'm wrong). Sarah and Tony are trying to help you here, and to ensure that the encyclopaedia maintains neutral and within decent standards (avoiding righting great wrongs, the privacy and safety of all those involved and avoiding publishing excessive detail, etc). Both of them are seasoned and experienced editors and both have written content about emotive subjects, but have done so with sensitivity and precision. I know it's difficult, but please try to work with them to bring the articles into line with the standards we have here. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Tots & little ones matter!, don't take my comment as endorsement. I think all of these types of articles are magnets for problems. Having said that, yours are no worse. TonyBallioni should not have deleted Operation Voicer. Bitter Oil (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- The safest thing is to stick to high-quality national media and not go into so much detail. The article that was deleted, Operation Voicer, relied 16 times on a Daily Mirror article, once on the Daily Record, once on BreakingNews.ie, and numerous times on local media. It's written in a tabloid style with one-sentence paragraphs, unnecessary quotes, and a subsection for each of the convicted with the men's names as headings. It's unclear from the article how many children were involved; the Daily Telegraph reported that seven men assaulted three children. The article would have to be written and sourced differently to be BLP-compliant, and would have to demonstrate why the topic is notable enough. SarahSV (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- We have a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard for this, note. Uncle G (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- A few thoughts.
- This is probably not the best venue for this, but we're here now. I do suppose this could be procedurally moved over to WP:DRV but it sounds like we're now discussing both the article as well as the creator's editing, so that swings it back towards discussion here.
- I agree with the deletion, if only to remove large chunks of very specific information about otherwise non-notable individuals (I think the phrase above was "mini-stubs"). It's all sourced, but it's still inappropriate levels of detail and content.
- The second point being said, I see no issue with recreation or restoration iff the perpetrators get no more than a listing (or maybe a sentence) of mention.
- Regarding the creator's overall editing habits, I have not had a chance to look into it, but I would agree based on what others have said that they should probably be cautious going forward with what some people view is an agenda. Username isn't in great taste but I don't see any immediate violations that would require a name change. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Here’s another lurid and overdone article: Kidwelly satanic child rape cult. I just moved the title to Kidwelly sex cult because that is how the case is described by sources. I also think the intensely detailed information about the perpetrators and their crimes should be trimmed by about 80%. Would I or others be justified in doing major trims on this and similar articles, citing this AN discussion as justification? I am not proposing a whitewash or any minimization of their crimes, but I think the crimes should be summarized as is done with most criminal cases - rather than giving blow-by-blow descriptions of every act as well as minute details (tattoos, missing teeth, names of their dogs) about the personal lives of the perpetrators. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree; I'd suggest that the tabulated information under sentences be kept, as that contains the pertinent information—name, age, charge and sentence, etc.—and the mini-bios go ASAP. Not only do they read rather disturbingly—salacious, almost—but per WP:NOT, we needn't have that level of detail in an article. ——SerialNumber54129 17:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- The use of the same syndicated article, sourced to a different newspaper carrying the same article on each occasion, to give the appearance that it's more heavily referenced than it is, should go for a start. There's no possible way anyone reading the articles could fail to notice that (e.g.) [105], [106] and [107] are all the same article in a different font (and all from local newspapers in areas not remotely near Kidwelly), which sets off my WP:ABF right there. ‑ Iridescent 17:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, after reading the Snopes [108] article that talks about fake news site that specializes in voyeuristic clickbait in the guise of discussing pedo crimes: A User with the clickbaity name might want to ensure that others do not see his or her writing in that wink, wink, (Ugh) vein, even if 'TOTALLY the TRUTH', and invite others to edit it extensively. We are not here to promote anything in the guise of 'all the lurid details' and yes, BLP has a section on restraint in WP:BLPSTYLE among others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't just a red herring, this is disinformation. Tots etc didn't use that source. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- You may have misunderstood Alanscottwalker. Tots' MO seems creepily similar. Miniapolis 23:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC) (mother of three, grandmother of seven )
- You totally misunderstood. I never said they used a source. It was an analogy to poor and worse writing, that Wikipedia does not want. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't just a red herring, this is disinformation. Tots etc didn't use that source. Bitter Oil (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- MelanieN, I agree about the need for rewrites and a decision as to whether these cases are all notable. Also agree with Iridescent about the repetitive sourcing. There is a focus on salacious detail in articles, titles (e.g. BBC investigation into pre-pubescent rape evidence failures, deleted as a copyvio, and Norwich child rape and sadistic abuse ring, which became a redirect, now deleted by Iridescent), and in the edit summaries I revdeleted in March. SarahSV (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin and MelanieN:, to be honest, I'd personally be willing to delete under WP:BLPDELETE if there is agreement to it here. Tots is clearly an agenda driven right great wrongs SPA, and there have been numerous issues identified in their writing about living people in what is perhaps the most sensitive BLP issue there is. There are questions about which of these are notable, and sorting through that in combination with a rewrite on every page Tots has created would take substantial work on the part of experienced editors and admins and even then stuff may be missed. The best solution to me seems that they need to rewrite any notable incidents from scratch with rigourous application to the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- What happened to "focus on the edits, not the editor"? I don't like these kind of articles anymore than you do, but they should be dealt with in the same way that we deal with other articles. By editing them to fix any issues. I dropped that very incomplete list of similar, pre-existing sex abuse articles here to make a point. Tots' editing and sourcing is no worse than the articles we already have. Possibly better. Take Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example. It has 10 redirects to it, including one for each of the four men who were convicted. Tots didn't create that article or even edit it. Why don't you ask them to read the policies about neutrality again, change their username and move on? Bitter Oil (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, actually, their articles are worse. They have significantly worse sourcing, significantly more detail about the perpetrators, and were also what was what I stumbled upon. Their behaviour is what we are reviewing here, not every other pedophilia article (which likely do have issues as well.) The concern is that there is one user who has made it their sole mission on Wikipedia to "tell the stories" of abused children, and in doing so is creating articles that need to be completely rewritten to comply with our policies and guidelines. We don't ignore that because the rest of the topic area has issues. We fix the problem we're presented with when we're presented with it, and then move on to the next ones when we can. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Should it matter if their mission is to tell the stories of abused children if they do it in a way that conforms to our policies? There are editors here who have made it their mission to document every episode of the Simpsons. Maybe I missed it in all the hubbub, but I haven't seen a specific example of an edit made by Tots which is a BLP issue. Is Kidwelly sex cult a BLP issue? If it is, why hasn't anyone removed the BLP issues or started a discussion about them? If Tots' username is a problem, why hasn't anyone asked them to change it? If their sourcing is an issue (and it is) let's deal with it. This seems to be a lynching because people are uncomfortable with the subject matter. Bitter Oil (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, as they are not complying with policy, as has been agreed to by everyone but you. Unless there is an objection from another administrator or editor in good standing, I will be deleting under BLPDELETE. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Should it matter if their mission is to tell the stories of abused children if they do it in a way that conforms to our policies? There are editors here who have made it their mission to document every episode of the Simpsons. Maybe I missed it in all the hubbub, but I haven't seen a specific example of an edit made by Tots which is a BLP issue. Is Kidwelly sex cult a BLP issue? If it is, why hasn't anyone removed the BLP issues or started a discussion about them? If Tots' username is a problem, why hasn't anyone asked them to change it? If their sourcing is an issue (and it is) let's deal with it. This seems to be a lynching because people are uncomfortable with the subject matter. Bitter Oil (talk) 22:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, actually, their articles are worse. They have significantly worse sourcing, significantly more detail about the perpetrators, and were also what was what I stumbled upon. Their behaviour is what we are reviewing here, not every other pedophilia article (which likely do have issues as well.) The concern is that there is one user who has made it their sole mission on Wikipedia to "tell the stories" of abused children, and in doing so is creating articles that need to be completely rewritten to comply with our policies and guidelines. We don't ignore that because the rest of the topic area has issues. We fix the problem we're presented with when we're presented with it, and then move on to the next ones when we can. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- What happened to "focus on the edits, not the editor"? I don't like these kind of articles anymore than you do, but they should be dealt with in the same way that we deal with other articles. By editing them to fix any issues. I dropped that very incomplete list of similar, pre-existing sex abuse articles here to make a point. Tots' editing and sourcing is no worse than the articles we already have. Possibly better. Take Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal as an example. It has 10 redirects to it, including one for each of the four men who were convicted. Tots didn't create that article or even edit it. Why don't you ask them to read the policies about neutrality again, change their username and move on? Bitter Oil (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SlimVirgin and MelanieN:, to be honest, I'd personally be willing to delete under WP:BLPDELETE if there is agreement to it here. Tots is clearly an agenda driven right great wrongs SPA, and there have been numerous issues identified in their writing about living people in what is perhaps the most sensitive BLP issue there is. There are questions about which of these are notable, and sorting through that in combination with a rewrite on every page Tots has created would take substantial work on the part of experienced editors and admins and even then stuff may be missed. The best solution to me seems that they need to rewrite any notable incidents from scratch with rigourous application to the BLP policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well, after reading the Snopes [108] article that talks about fake news site that specializes in voyeuristic clickbait in the guise of discussing pedo crimes: A User with the clickbaity name might want to ensure that others do not see his or her writing in that wink, wink, (Ugh) vein, even if 'TOTALLY the TRUTH', and invite others to edit it extensively. We are not here to promote anything in the guise of 'all the lurid details' and yes, BLP has a section on restraint in WP:BLPSTYLE among others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I notified the DRV community of this WP:BLPDELETE review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 28#Operation Voicer. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- {{small}|Just a note: I wouldn't put too much weight on Bitter Oil's opinions. The primary purpose of the account (created in April) appears to be to post on Talk:Jimbo Wales (25/102 edits), and their articlespace experience, at least using this account name, is minimal (46 edits in 2 1/2 months). There's very little indication in the edits of this account to show that they are familiar with Wikipedia's standards. [109] Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)}}
Would appreciate uninvolved admins help at WP:NPOVN
I started a post Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#NAMBLA content on Harry Hay about NPOV concerns on Harry Hay. It’s a bit long with lots of repeated content but the proposed content section at the end has the sources included.
It was very helpful in dismissing some sources, and suggestions of better ones.
I’ve read every reliable source available and presented proposed content for inside the article—which in many ways contradicts what is in the lead and article presently—but it’s been crickets to get feedback or review for including it.
Personally I doubt any of it is weighty enough to be included in the lead; or that category pedophile advocacy is appropriate. I was hoping that would be the natural conclusion once others were able to see how little there is in reliable sources on this.
I ran across Wp:Bludgeon, and it recommend asking here for uninvolved help here. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Possible undisclosed paid editing
Was wondering if an admin might take a look at Special:Contributions/86.182.213.38 since the IP may be involved in some undisclosed paid editing per this Teahouse discussion thread. Perhaps an admin help the IP sort through this and figure out a way to for the IP comply with WP:PAID. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've blocked, since they state that they are paid but specifically refused to comply with WP:PAID. 331dot (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
User has a potted history with contributions including original research, synthesis, copyvios (on Commons), the addition of factually incorrect information [110] and straight forward vandalism [111]. Created a user page recently proclaiming he doesn't give a shit; added to it today with a pa on myself & Redrose. I don't care about the pa, I've had much worse, but it's just symptomatic of someone who is degenerating to WP:NOTHERE status. Nthep (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
JoshuaistheFalco reply: You accuse me of being disruptive and potty. You and Redrose do not allow me to contribute or edit an article without it being called out. You accuse me of original research yet a news article is valid. You then say a potted history with disruptive behaviour. How about the anonymous editor who called Pelsall a town and it is not. Also you take photos down I contribute and yet any copyrighted photos are allowed like from Burslem station. I took that down as it was copyright. I create articles but of course others are then removing my edits.
Wiki is a one rule for admin and another for non admin. Tyranny imo.
JoshuaistheFalco reply finished: — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 13:55, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- FWIW, some of JoshuaistheFalco's recent edits are blatant vandalism (here and here, for example). Peacock (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I called them out for WP:SYNTH, among other things. They will take a local authority's feasibility study or long-term transport strategy plan and use it as a source for a claim that there is a project to reopen a long-closed railway line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay whatever I'm not bothered anymore. I really am not. I'm outraged by the whole admin can do what they want. Those little acts of vandalism was to see who the main admin are who keep bugging me. It was you two and a local authority strategy has more confirmation and know all than that of a blogger on a news website. You hate me its clear and I really don't care. Pick on me but leave everyone else alone.
Signed JoshuaistheFalco — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- For the record I haven't called you potty. I didn't raise this report because of differences of opinion I have with you about WP:INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:IMAGELEAD. My concerns are over the recent edits to Pelsall and Brownhills in the face of sourced information and then descending into vandalism -"to see who the main admin are who keep bugging me" - isn't a justification or excuse. As for the image point, if that was you who removed the image from Burslem railway station then you're failing to recognize an image freely licenced by the copyright holder over copyright violation when images taken by others are uploaded with the uploader claiming them as their own work. Nthep (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
This account created in 2008 with no edits apparently exists solely for making content available in userspace that is not available in mainspace. -- GreenC 16:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Seems like a straightforward case for WP:MFD under WP:UP#COPIES or one of the policies directly after it (WP:STALEDRAFT, WP:FAKEARTICLE) - or even just blanking it and applying Template:Userpage blanked, as WP:FAKEARTICLE suggests when dealing with article-like user pages that haven't been edited in an extended period of time; deletion isn't strictly necessary in a case like this. I doubt anything else needs to be done given that the user in question only made two edits, both over ten years ago. --Aquillion (talk) 16:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've nominated it at MfD. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)