Standard texts
edit| Meat-puppetry |
|---|
|
| Admin coaching requests |
|---|
|
Hi, I'm glad to see you are interested in developing your wiki-knowhow by seeing admin coaching. Without any prior judgement whether you are ready or not to seek others views on adminship, it is always good to see others aiming to improve themselves. If you are looking for occasional hints and tips on your editing, I would be glad to give you some to-the-point feedback and pointers, and a helping hand for a while. (Of course what you do with them, and how others view your work, is down to you always!) If you're interested, you'll want as a first step to set yourself up with an email account, and then let me know. |
| RfA - whats needed. |
|---|
|
90% of a successful RfA is three things - learning to be responsible, stable, and answerable for your actions even in the midst of chaos; being engaged, measured and thoughtful enough to gain others respect; and having wiki-focus, judgement, and broad awareness of what janitorship's about. |
| Request for IP information on contributors. |
|---|
Hi, I noticed your request for information on a contributor to Wikipedia. I thought I'd drop a line as well as the one by the administrator you contacted. As a rule, Wikipedia is tightly bound by the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. In general, no information is ever released outside those guidelines. To underpin that, even the administrators themselves are not allowed to know more information on identity than you yourself can see -- this is restricted to a very small group of editors who can look behind a username to an IP address, and these operate under a tight code of mutual cross-checking and would be instantly stripped of such rights for even hinting about location or other information they could tell from an IP, if it contravened that policy. Part of the reason for this is that Wikipedia is accessed, and edited, by a wide range of users, often in countries where the laws are not as generous towards free speech as one might expect here. As a rule, vandalism, including defamatory or unpleasant comments, is handled by the editorial community, which deals with such cases as a matter of routine. I've listed some resources you might find helpful, and it's likely if the comments are unhelpful, or blatently damaging, that you will be able to obtain speedy rectification. Having reviewed the edits in question though, I can suggest that whilst annoying to you, they are not of a standard that merits more than usual editorial handling - revert them or seek dispute resolution or (if constantly being added in bad faith) administrator input from the noticeboard. Details of all these are below.
Hopefully one or some of these will help. You've probably come across many of them already here and there. If you need to know more or want further advice on handling, please do ask. Yours, |
| NPA/CIVIL | ||
|---|---|---|
| It's a well established principle both from policy and arbcom practice, to everyday editorial conduct norms and admin handling, that preventing people from performing disruptive activity, making personal attacks or being uncivil, and dampening behavior that stirs drama and inflames disputes, are all legitimate uses of blocking policy.
Even for incivility there is strong precedent that a block is protective, for example this block decline by a current arbcom member, stating (to another editor):
The protective use of such blocks, and the damage caused by such conduct not being inhibited, is emphasized and re-emphasized in policy pages. For example see:
user X breached the bright line rule WP:3RR which is there to dampen and curtail revert warring no manner whether right or wrong and replace it by dispute resolution. She responded to declination by making the following personal attacks [Y][Z]. [...Accordingly I concur with the block, and in the circumstances and, given the [(link) previous record] of blocks for harassment, incivility that had already been escalated somewhat past the minimal 24 hours, I concur that a week's block is an appropriate use of judgement.] |
| COI Article creation. |
|---|
| Hi,
I notice you've written an article on Mike Silverman, which looks like your first article. I thought I'd drop you a note to fill you in what to expect next.
You may want to read our guideline on conflict of interest; broadly what this says is, it's best you tell independent editors of any points you wish to raise, rather than fix them yourself, unless they are obvious (grammar, factual mistake). That way it's clear the article was independently written. The guideline also contains a note of the problems which can arise if ignored, and it's worth reading that section carefully. If you do decide to edit, then there are three main policies you need to know: Wikipedia is neutral (neutral point of view), does not contain personal comments, thoughts, or personal knowledge/opinions of editors, but only what can be shown to be published in reliable sources (no 'original research'), and verified reliably (verifiability). You might also find this page useful: Business' FAQ. And of course, good conduct is valued and sought. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me via my talk page. If you have a problem please ask, rather than let it spiral. Thanks! |
| Will review, but better to fix it yourself. |
|---|
| Dear Mr. X,
We have received your letter regarding X, and our volunteer community is beginning a review of the article in question. We note here, as we always do in response to such complaints, that anyone (including you or Mr. X) can edit a Wikipedia article to remove or change inaccurate or misleading information. Most readers find that editing an inaccurate article is both a less expensive and more satisfying remedy than legal action. If you would like to do so yourself, and you have any difficulty doing so, please contact [our volunteer coordinator, Cary Bass], who will assist you. Generally, any edits of an existing article should be accompanied both be an explanatory note in the header for the edit and, if possible, by an explanation for the changes in the Talk page of the article. In addition, revisions are more likely to be respected if undertaken by a registered user of Wikipedia rather than by an anonymous user. Registration is, as always, free of charge. We realize that self-help is sometimes counterintuitive in an era in which we are transitioning from one-way mass media (newspapers and broadcasting) to a more collaborative model (including wikis such as Wikipedia), but we encourage you to explore this option on your client's behalf, even as we ask our volunteers to review the article as well. |
| Checkuser usage |
|---|
Checkuser is governed by three policies, which can be summarized:
|
| Oversight/suppression usage |
|---|
| When oversight or revision delete are used, it's almost without exception for serious reasons, for example where there is a concern over potential defamation or breach of privacy policy in the post. Not mere offensive comments, and not mere undesirability. A significant number of users cross-check each other on it, and there is an audit committee on english wikipedia to investigate any concerns as well. Privacy issues are taken extremely seriously.
When oversight or suppression are used, it's book policy that oversighters almost never discuss or disclose anything, beyond what can be seen openly in the public logs. The trust required is why oversighter selection is a big deal. The underlying reason for the policy is that sometimes just having confirmation that a person or topic was targeted can be enough to do serious harm, when genuine cases such as stalking and serious harassment etc are intended by someone, if you think about it. (And if some were answered and others weren't then things might be read into a non-answer.) So the standard answer to all inquiries of this kind by any oversighter is "we don't discuss such matters, but we will look and check nothing untoward has happened, if you would like"
|
| Articles being "approved" by some users |
|---|
| Discussion above covered some kind of "approved version". From an outside viewpoint, some thoughts:
In terms of encyclopedic content, there isn't such a thing as "approved" or "agreed" versions, nor has there ever been. Articles are authored by users as part of the wider community in which all can participate, not by some central group who have the authority to make "agreements" that bind all editors. This is central to how Wikipedia works. If there is a content dispute, it is resolved by the community, with a subject entitled to a voice. But normal policies and communal standards apply:
What we do not have is "approved versions" that some vague group of editors have agreed and which nobody else can easily edit. (Even protected articles can have a request made, and protection is not a desirable long term state for an article precisely since it prevents collaborative editing.) We have instead, norms about content, editorial conduct, and disputes, that address contentious topics. Again those are the same on all topics. In such circumstances one must edit carefully and be sure to edit in an appropriate manner, and discuss concerns that may arise. Just an outside view on one aspect discussed above. Hope it helps. Talk:Don Murphy/Archive2 |
| Position and mandate of Arbitration Committee |
|---|
| (In response to a comment that arbcom is not "smarter or more mature than the community", or was appointed by the community)
Wikipedia runs on a set of careful checks and balances, and Arbcom is voted by the community, but actually not a community appointment. It's formally appointed from outside the community, to handle matters that historically were always handled outside the community in the years before its creation and have never been "community matters" or "taken away" in the past from the community, but were always handled outside the normal communal process. I would also express disagreement that the community always makes better decisions than those it votes annually as being some of its most trusted and insightful users. By its nature the community will contain almost entirely users who have not been voted to be the most trusted and insightful of its users, and also, on average its decisions may probably be more susceptible to "mob emotion" and the like. Blunt but blindingly obvious and needs saying. Example of the moment:- Cato was appointed to checkusership via a community, supported for unban multiple times by a community -- and was seen through (repeatedly, and every time despite mass attempts at gaming) by an arbitration committee. Wikipedia_talk:Removing_administrator_rights/Proposal#Comment_by_FT2 |
Principles
edit| RULES v POLICY |
|---|
| Commonsense and spirit, not rules:
For me it's likewise -- thats when I'm doing work myself like AFD or disputes. But for policy, I word it to help others who might not have "judgement".... I feel if I assume "they will understand the spirit" all we get is argument and dispute. So i try to clarify a lot of it, without setting down fixed "rules". Principles, but a bit more close to how we actually do it as "best practice" sort of thing. It seems to help a lot... editors tend to use them to be sure what not to do :) and whats not okay for others to do :) But yeah... it'll be a cold day in hell before you find me writing something saying how many hours a block should be, do block on this, not on that... You're right. As experience grows its all about the spirit of what we're doing, not the wordage :) [irc] |
| Purpose of blocks and bans |
|---|
| No editor should be removed other than for clear, well defined, serious, damaging, unremedied (or anticipated) problems associated with their editing. If they are, then something's probably not right.
I'm sure there are exceptions, and also note this is a very simplistic version of a very complex subject, but that's about the "one line summary" of it. |
| Conduct norms apply to all |
|---|
| See diffs: Wales Nov 07 |
| Norms apply to established admins too |
|---|
|
The problem here is, [User] has already had shorter blocks. He's already been through Arbcom. By removing the reality of the situation from him - by endorsing that longer blocks will be retracted into trivial ones upon emailing - you are preventing him from recognizing his position and learning. What do you want -- drive him into a community ban instead? Two arbcom clerks both agreed that 1/ a comment that "anyone believing in this is a moron or an absolute whacko" meets WP:NPA ("disparaging") and that 2/ those "believing" (and targetted) are not believers in the abstract, but editor-believers. The comment continued, "the perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern". I disagree. Gratuitous incivility to even those completely wrong, is our concern, if it is posted on the wiki. I notice and acknowledge the circumstances that have been described by all sides at WP:AE. The problem is, SA has had a lot of rope. Lots of it. Other admins are trying to help him recognize "you just don't do that" without him hitting a ban (I tried myself in January before matters got busy here), which requires setting clear (and sometimes unpleasant) boundaries. As Rlevse commented, your untoward reduction basically makes that unnecessarily more difficult. WP:AE is a final stop where the only concern is breach of arbcom decisions. There more than anywhere, WP:BLOCK comes into play -- if there is disagreement, discuss it with the blocking admin. I feel this was ill judged in an already difficult situation, and would ask that you take this well, and please consult more beforehand with the blocking admin themself, where circumstances may exist, before reduction in future. Please bear in mind the real possibility that your actions may at times not always benefit the project as you'd wish, if they don't follow current communal norms and expectations, or respect others' approaches a little more. |
| NPOV in contentious topics |
|---|
Much more relevant than this, ID is a topic on Wikipedia. It will have multiple views, and we document and cite the significant ones. We do not need to form a view ourselves, whether it is "scientific" or not, to accurately do most of this, since our view is not as important as neutrally reflecting the significant views (and due weights) that are held and their respective voices. We do not need to treat ID differently from any other contentious topic, in principle, to do that. Think of it as "just data" if that helps. It's just a topic of an article, where we aim to characterize (describe) the subject, the debate/s and the significant view/s, with neutrality, good cites, and fair weight, rather than re-enact them. All the arguments and differences that exist, are "just information someone might want to know about it", including whether X or Y consider it scientific, how it's used, the controversies attaching, support and dissent, and so on. (The main and authoritative voices for a large part of it will probably be scientific ones, but that doesn't change these basic approaches.) |
| Civility | ||
|---|---|---|
| A comment on civility policy and the present case
The aim of a civility policy (if it can be said to have an aim) is roughly this:
Because speech is capable of shades and nuances, it is not possible to draw a line on what is going to have these effects. Sometimes the harm is explicit (a person gets visibly upset or provoked). Sometimes it is implicit or minor (someone gets stressed or discouraged or upset and we don't know about it). What we can all agree on is that avoiding these ways of speaking will have the best chance of avoiding their results. As a pragmatic measure, we have a communal agreement on this that in 7 years has not changed. If anyone feels we should not have a civility policy, and that consensus will support that view, then argue it there. Until then, civility as a policy stands. We also have a dispute resolution process. These are basics for the project right now, so this should be familiar ground. Dispute resolution means we try a number of ways to resolve problems. If as a community we can't, and the problem is intractable, it may eventually be submitted by any user for Arbitration. The arbitration process is exactly what it says, and exactly what enforceable arbitration means in the "real world". Experienced users hear all sides and all evidence, and form a view on what is best or most appropriate going forward, and that decision by agreement is then binding on all those involved in the dispute. Lastly, we do not operate an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST at dispute level, any more than at content level. The fact that some other user does or does not do something, never excuses a user doing so. At most it may raise an issue of fairness, that the other should have had their actions considered as well, or that provocation should be considered. But that can easily lead to "well he did this/no he did that" spirals. What is better is the simple rule, that each person is responsible for their own conduct. If they feel they have a cause for upset, they should be able to rely upon policies (including Wikipedia:Civility) and the community to help and if needed defend them, and not have to suffer barbs with no effective recourse, or see no deterrence to such behavior being enacted effectively by others. That is basic. <user>, for better or worse, has had his conduct considered at arbitration. The decision in the case was that he has a history of speaking rudely, uncivilly, or the like, which had to end, because of the explicit and implicit harm such styles of speech can do within the project. Therefore he was told any such speech would result in blocking. I don't much care if <user> was talking about a specific person, or his comments might be construed as such. The aim of civility policy - and it is a policy - is to give editors recourse and protection against those whose manner of speech polarizes, negatively impacts, or poisons, the atmosphere. Whether OTHERSTUFFEXISTED or not, calling or labelling other people - whether specific or general - as "shits", or groups of people that some here will identify with, as "pieces of shit", is going to breach everything that civility policy is intended to achieve.
It's an un-endorsement of the conduct that Wikipedia:Civility is intended to cover, and a recap of the basics why we have such a policy, why it's a norm, what its intended function for the community is, and the like. Frankly the amount of time that goes into bickering and "were they/weren't they okay", when we might simply say "that was/wasn't okay but let's deal with it briefly and then get on with content development", is a waste and a tragedy. It's a complete distraction from the aims of this project. Every dispute that is about how an editor acts, rather than what an article should best look like, is wasted time, goodwill and energy. (We can't avoid them because 'anyone can edit', but we can each consider how best to minimize their disruption and impact, and avoid doing actions likely to incite them ourselves.) Every such dispute has the same top level decision - that's not what we're here for and anything/anyone fuelling the development of a difference over content into one of personality or conduct, is actively not helping the project. All such behaviors are best resolved by not doing them, or by requesting then to end, and if they persist, that is what administrators have their tools for, to enforce (fairly and after due warning) that they end. Users here are not in the everyday world of drama and bickering; they are expected to actively seek ways to work with others. Those other ways might be great off wiki; they might be good to get "status" elsewhere if that's what one cares about. They aren't how we do it here, even if provoked, even if it's what we'd do off-wiki, even if we bitterly disagree or find someone or something loathesome or grossly wrong. You don't do them here, whether it's <user>, a newcomer, an established user, an arbitrator, me, you, or anyone. That is what Wikipedia:Civility is saying. In 7 years not one edit to the contrary has made it into that policy by consensus to say "but sometimes it's okay to insult people we don't like or disagree with". Endorsement? My endorsement is for people (and I don't care newest noob or most entrenched admin/arb) who choose to edit here, to hold themselves to conduct where they actively refrain from introducing unnecessary friction, of any kind, by any means, or enabling the escalation of any content matter or difference of opinion into energy-sapping conduct issues. That is what Wikipedia:Civility is about, not 20 users/admins arguing "was word X to person Y technically offensive". Each editor (admin, arb, anyone)'s aim should be to see a project free of such, so they (and we all) can get on with adding content in a collaborative and productive manner that aids the project to develop, not get mired in distraction, or stall over idiotic internicine feuds, nor be willing to see them escalated to waste more users' goodwill, time, and energy in doing so. That is what dispute resolution means - to resolve disputes. And the best way to do so is that each editor here does their utmost to avoid them moving that way in the first (and second) place, no matter what, and always speak in a way that tries to foster these values. That is why some kinds of speech are not okay, because they can overtly or covertly impact on the community, its editors, their energy and motivation, and our content. It might not be how everyone acts in the wider world, but here between editors, according to a policy that has never been revoked, mitigated or overturned, it's expected.
Tempting logic, but no. However big the project is, only one person controls your (my, <user>'s anyones) words. Whether Wikipedia was a thousand users, or ten million, your choice of words would be unaffected by knowing how many other editors existed. Size doesn't come into it. Put bluntly, whether Wikipedia is small, or huge, <user> does not have the right to demand of other users, that they be okay with being called (labelled as, implied to be) "pieces of shit" on the wiki, and no user can reasonably imagine this will help the project. I cannot conceive a single way in which someone might ask "do you really think this will resolve the dispute, de-escalate the tensions, calm problems, or otherwise help the project" where anyone here would say "Yes! Let's call (label, imply) them pieces of shit!" is a feasible answer. The purpose of the policy is not to outlaw words, but to outlaw known unhelpful manners of interaction. Whilst some leeway is given, this was an editor who has been formally told as an arbitrated decision "you're stepping over the line too easily, and that has to end, now", and was unable or unwilling in this instance to do so. The precise purpose of sanctions, blocking tools, warnings, and the like, and why they exist, is because indeed a degree of self-management is needed to edit. The same way as we expect neutrality and act if that is repeatedly not given, even though that too is not easy/normal for everyone. As said above, it might not be how everyone acts in the wider world, but here between editors, according to a policy that has never been revoked, mitigated or overturned, it's expected. In the "real world" people may have bias, here they are expected to leave it at the door. Same thing. We do have expectations on personal and editorial conduct, it isn't an "anything goes" environment, and "I (you, me, him, <user>, whoever) seems incapable of meeting them" isn't an excuse after a while.
You're making the same error that many have. This isn't about what A calls B. It's about the principles behind how editors interact. "How does it hurt the project" is four bullets at the very top of this sub-section, the very first thing.
"If it's true then I should be able to call them it" is a poisonous doctrine here. "If it's productive (helps the project, seeking to calm and help resolve the dispute, may help get us back to editing, clearly identifying specific editorial issues or policy breaching conduct they need to change, etc) is far the better guideline. What is seen as true, varies hugely. Arguing it in the terms you think of, will indeed have guaranteed effects over time, but not useful ones: Polarization. Divisiveness. Entrenchment. Defensiveness. Articles whose edits get decided because of alliances not content. Good users who see this as effort-draining idiocy and "not what they came here for", leaving. You (me, him, anyone) don't have the "right" to poison the atmosphere, or to call people an insulting name because you believe it is "true", any more than you have the "right" to insert your own personal opinions or POV into an article or edit war or block others in a content dispute because you think it's "true". (And nor do they, it should be noted.) These are human nature, but not okay here, and that's the bottom line. If you (me, anyone) do, you should expect others to remonstrate, correct, explain - and ultimately warn, seek dispute resolution, use tools, or seek Arbitrated sanctions, to stop you. The aim of civility policy - and it is a policy, and has never been overturned or diminished - is precisely to give editors recourse and protection against those whose manner of speech polarizes, negatively impacts, or poisons, the atmosphere. |
Article snips
edit| New editor during edit war |
|---|
|
Just a courtesy note, following a recent edit, The X article is one of several targetted by internet trolls and vandals. Views, including cites from research, should not be trusted (sadly) unless you check them yourself personally, and in full, and in context, and ensure you understand them. There are strong views both sides, and you're treading in an area that's been heavily vandalized in the past. I therefore strongly offer advice that you do your own research on the subject, ignoring initially what other editors say, and check for yourself with google. There are many sources on both sides, but history suggests that at present, some got cited partially and selectively, and you are therefore likely to fall foul if you follow the lead of others representations here (positive or negative) on the topic before gaining any of your own research and understandings from your own sources. Rather than purport to say "I can tell you what to think" (which I can't), I would rather say, do not assume that you know much, until you have read it up yourself. Then, tread a toe carefully, testing whether your view is actually a neutrally balanced one, on the grounds that whatever might be verifiable and balanced, that is probably your best way to find it. Hopefully this will help give you a good starting point, even though it is a most uncommon "heads up". It's been an unusually warred-over article. Thanks! |
| External links |
|---|
| We're in general happy to use any sources, provided they seem to be credible, reliable, and verifiable. The quality of the source is an integral part of that assessment, and in general one should try to source from more solid sources not less solid ones. However on subjects like this, the websites of those who practice the subject or seem to be recognised in their subcommunities as speaking with a credible voice, may well form a notable viewpoint which needs representing, and whose sources are their own statements online. In other cases, online websites are the better source. We draw a line at citing websites in order to promote their owners interests, with the view that if a website has a genuine benefit to an article, other editors will judge this, not the owner or affiliated parties. Hope this helps. As for your four, I think the last of them is interesting (it's one I've seen before) and would convey much of the subject to third parties; the point is, one doesnt cite websites "just because they're there". there needs to be some considered thought if they're beneficial for encyclopedic purposes. See WP:LINKS. |
| OR |
|---|
| Hi,
I notice you've had some dispute centering around the movie, and original research. I thought I'd drop a brief note to clarify.I don't know what you know, so I'll try to not assume. We write the content of articles based on information that anyone can verify, now or in the future, published by reliable sources -- meaning, sources that have widespread recognition as credible and that what they publish they have themselves probably checked. Like alot of reference works, this means that sometimes, facts will be "known" that are not in fact able to be sourced from reliable sources, in which case, we actually try to avoid adding them. Even if it means Wikipedia is slightly out of date on some cutting edge stuff. if it matters, some other source will usually mention it, and we can use that. Examples of sources which are not usually treated as reliable include posts on forums (because anyone can post them), and files held by individuals but not referenced by some actual reliable source (such as a magazine, TV station, information site of repute, etc). If you can find a reliable source that states this item exists, then it will be possible to include it. Unfortunately even if you, I, and 1000 others download a film, it isn't "reliable" or "verified" because no mainstream source has noted it, recognized its existence, and so on. I hope this helps a bit. It's not perfect (few things will be), but it's a communally agreed compromise we use to balance the risk of including material that later editors will judge flawed. We know that as a result sometimes valid information is excluded, and communally, we have accepted that compromise and situation. If you need more clarification, let me know. Best, - [1] |
| IRC conduct |
|---|
|
Just a quick clarifier on the above. Following the above being passed to me, I looked back in the channel logs. This is what I found. One user, (NAME), was angry, and exasperated at the choice he did not agree with, of who was appointed to the working group. In that context he stated in the channel a month ago on February 7, his upset at the appointments, expressed his concerns, and gave his apprehensions about the impact of appointing a specific user in an uncivil (short outburst) manner. (OTHERUSER) and a couple of others countered this without drama, the matter was over in a few lines as best that log shows. More importantly, not one other person on the channel endorsed or supported that negative statement -- the channel in general on inspection, functioned exactly as was best. It did not analyze (and thereby perpetuate or fuel) the drama, it did not support it. It decided it was unworthy of discussion. It let one or two users do the talking why it was wrong, and the rest either ignored it as a brief outburst quickly dropped, or commented that drama wasn't wanted and to let it go. (NAME) himself dropped it there minutes later, and is not in the habit of making such outbursts there. It was not raised again that way, nor has (NAME) commented on it in any way or spoken uncivilly there on any other matter since. Given that 100% is not attainable in any medium, it is fair to say that this was in fact handled well, that every single channel users with one exception acted appropriately in the channel when it happened, and that one user got the hint and quickly dropped it. You may have concerns in future on a matter to do with that channel (which is not outside the bounds of possibility). I accept that there are differences whether it should exist or not, be public or not, is appropriately representative or not. But in terms of actual conduct there, a fair number of independent users can usually review what went on and see if the action was seriously out of line. I will add - although not asked - I have also checked out other statements at other times of recent incidents, and in most of them, the representation on-wiki does not conform to the actual channel dialog as it took place. I accept that this information is not public and therefore perhaps frustratingly, cannot be verified in the way that on-wiki discussion can. Then again, off-wiki chat such as email, irc, and other forums, has never been scrutinizable that way, and technically, often cannot be. The wiki-norm is more that all adverse matters and problematic behaviors, are to be "left at the door", and repeating breachers of norms may be warned or sanctioned. Whether that's right or not is a matter of user philosophy. I have stated my reasons why it works in the recent RFC, and note that people will talk - it's better to have a place where 50 or so admins observe and keep a good standard (which it has had in general at least equal to the wiki for quite some time) and scrutiny, than fragmented "behind the scenes" chat between smaller cliques. At present, any admin at all of any viewpoint can join that channel, which since the action taken in 2006, has consistently proven quite successful as a technique. [2] - FloNight's talk page |
Tutorials
edit| Range blocking |
|---|
|
Since others might also wonder, here's some info to help. You may wish to block the IP range, or semi-protect the pages. Since I assume you know how to do the latter, here's some quick tips on the former: If you visit http://arin.net and enter the first IP, you'll find that's part of an ISP range covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. In fact this covers both IPs in question. [if the ISP wasn't in that part of the world, it would mention RIPE or APNIC or such - links are on the bottom, again you paste the IP into their website to see what they say]. You can then check quickly what CIDR range this would be, at this calculator for example. Enter the lower IP and choose a number of bits in the drop-down box. See what range that covers. By trial and error, you'll find that 22 bits covers it, and the CIDR box on the right will then show 64.228.128.0/22 as covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. This would be the range you block. You'd remember not to block IPs too long, since every user on that range would be affected. Rules of thumb: try an odd number of days, like 8 days or something (in case they come back). Also if its a wide range, ask a checkuser how much it's used -- you'd tell them you're proposing to block <X range> and can they let you know if there'd be much collateral damage. In this case, what you might do is semi-protect the 2 or 3 pages in question for 2 weeks, and also block the underlying IP range for say 9 days... if that doesnt deter him a fair bit, ask again. |
Process and approach
edit| Purpose of dispute resolution |
|---|
| Ultimately though this isn't actually the real answer. This question in a way, is largely a misunderstanding. The real answer is, we aim for dispute resolution, we aren't a court. The fact A said this, or B said that, or A alleges whatever, is in a way, almost secondary. What matters is the general behaviors shown, and identifying what might help resolve the issue going forward. That is often a focus that gives a very clear direction, and all the evidence received on or off wiki, is merely a kind of indication what approach might help the community to do that. When you look at it that way, you aren't taking evidence as "OMG LOOK WHAT HE SAY! MUST ACT!". You're looking to the evidence as a guide, to help make a ruling in a divisive issue, how the dispute is best to be resolved for all parties and the community, going forward... which can be a different question entirely. |
| Communal approach |
|---|
| For the few who asked where I am on this, some thoughts:
First of all, note that if you shout and accuse, you can claim anyone is partisan. Some users have tried to be expert at that. So it's worth sdaying, the reality is I don't have a thing against [any given users], nor any other user, nor can words posted cause me to have a view on them. I've got no past affiliations nor "wiki-politics". I'm a user appointed to a 3 year stint on Arbcom, on the grounds the community felt I would work diligently on our most serious conduct issues. I've begged Giano to cease misconduct and promised him if he does so he can criticize who and what he likes, and no admin will mind the rest. I've sought mediation with Damian... These are not the actions of partisanship. But ultimately, this isn't a social experiment, nor therapy, nor endless patience. It's finally, a community of encyclopedists. That's different. "I help write good content" isn't the only criterion for being "a good Wikipedian". You have to also understand its a complex society of human beings, and be a calmer and a collaborator, not a disrupter, at times of division... and no-one more than administrators and experienced users who "set the trend". There are also some users (again both/all sides) who, by inclination, habitually seek a battleground beyond consensus and dispute resolution, and seem to relish their fighting, or are unable to quit their disruptive habits in favor of a collaborative approach to resolution going forward. Generally such conduct is not beneficial to the project. In a fair world any admin could call them on standards and expect them to respond and do so. In the present Wikipedia, Arbitrators may be the only users in practical terms who can and will do so. In the same sense, "I pay my taxes" isn't the sole measure of a good human being in society. You can do everything right, be renowned, a philanthropist - but note that if you just once smash someones door who you don't like, or punch someone in an argument, none of these things will change the view of society, its norms, its expectations, and their enforcement. When I was an admin, in 2007, I saw a minority of horrific breaches of norms, which were by administrators. These are exactly the things that some here would like to see an end to. I was told, even as a seasoned and experienced admin, that "they are generally considered untouchable". These were done now and then by a small number of people, and no "side" was immune or exempt. That is not the ideal this project was founded upon, and should not be the case. If standards are raised, and good examples set across the board by the most experienced users and admins, who in turn expect them of others, you'd be amazed how quickly others will get the idea. If experienced users and administrators act to a high standard, then almost all conduct disputes would not need Arbcom. In that sense, Arbcom cases are where the community has failed, and Arbcom remedies are our attempt (or should be) to recognize and fix that. |
Questions for users seeking higher level access
edit| Arbcom election questions |
|---|
These are some questions about WP:CLUE and insight, focussing on a role as a member of Arbcom. Research is allowed and encouraged.
I expect to add a couple more to these, and will be interested to see the results. They are intended to be searching. Feedback will be provided. Thank you.
Thank you for your first answers, broadly on yourself and Arbcom. These are some questions about your skill at Wikipedia dispute resolution:
Like the previous questions, they are intended to be searching. Feedback will also be provided. Thank you. |
Tools and link lists
edit| Tools and link lists |
|---|
|
Block user | Unblock user | *Autoblockfinder tool | Page history statistics | Wikipedia index | Mailing list archives | Block log | Protection log | Template messages | Edit count | Background colors | WP:AN | WP:AN/I | WP:AN/3RR | Protected page | Admins' how-to | List of admins | Admins' reading list | Fixing cut and paste moves | RfC | New pages | Newbie contribs | Range blocks | Dealing with vandalism | Vandalism in progress | Controversial blocks | Banning policy | Blocking policy |