User talk:Awilley/Archive 9
 | This is an archive of past discussions with Awilley. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| < Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
Your opinion on my AE action
I completely disagree. The page was protected while the editor was online, they refused to discuss their edits on the talk page during the protection and then jumped to casting aspersions in their edit summary of a strict 1RR violation. I'm not sure if you're aware of how 1RR is applied, as I can see you aren't the most active administrator we have here, but it specifically does not require "talk page warnings" for one very big reason: you can pull off way more than 2 reverts in the time such a message is being typed out, and such a requirement has always been looked at as "wikilawyering" and an opening for gaming of the system. That aside, they had already been warned just last month on their talk page regarding the WP:AC/DS system, as is required if the editnotice hadn't been there (of course that was too). On top of all of that, I even pinged the user at the talk page of the article with a very clear message. If you find that to not be enough warning before taking action, then I'm not quite sure you have ever once in your time here enforced an arbitration ruling the way it is written in their policy to do so. If you wish to discuss this further I'm all ears, but as of yet you've made a very poor argument that seems to be based in your lack of experience yet you were fine with verbally chopping my head off without ever doing research first. I don't take kindly to that type of behavior, especially from someone who is an administrator. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- @Coffee: I apologize again for my tone in that post. It was written in haste and annoyance, and I definitely should have done that thing where I sit on it for a few hours before submitting. My problem with your actions was not that the block was unjustified, but that it was avoidable. I don't actually expect to be able to convince you to change your AE approach, but since I've got your ear let me see if I can't make a few points. Specific to the current case:
- 1. It isn't clear to me that User:Anthony22 saw that the page had been protected. There was a gap in their editing from 3:10 to 13:39 (presumably for sleep and stuff). The protection lasted from 8:00 to 14:00, so while it technically expired while the user was active they would have had to either try to edit the page itself during the 21 minutes of overlap or examine the page's history.
- 2. I don't consider a "ping" sufficient notification for "Hey if you do this I will block you" for the same reasons that pings are not sufficient to notify someone that they are being discussed at WP:ANI.
- And a couple more general points:
- A. Blocks are blunt tools, and you can often get better results with less collateral damage using other methods. (*insert scalpel sledgehammer analogy*) AC/DS in particular puts a lot of handy tools in your box.
- B. I believe that you will get the better results from users when you give them a clear choice and then allow them to choose to modify their behavior. There is something powerful about having somebody make a commitment of their own rather than having one imposed on them by force. One way I've done this in the past is to approach the user on their talk page with something similar to the following:
They will often come up with something a little less harsh than #3, and it's more effective at modifying their behavior than if I had simply blocked them.Hey <username>, <behavior x> (<supply diffs>) is a problem, and it's happened repeatedly despite warnings. At this point you have the following options: 1: I block you for <x number of days>. 2: I impose a topic ban from <problem area> for <x number of months>. 3: You take a "voluntary" break from <problem area> for <x number of months> and limit yourself to 1RR elsewhere. 4: You come up with your own solution sufficient to convince me that <behavior x> won't happen again.
- Note that all of the above only applies to long-term productive editors... if you're dealing with vandals, trolls, people being disruptive to make a point, POV warriors, etc., block away by all means.
- Anyway, I realize this isn't your style, and I don't expect you to change your style based on my inexperience, but I do hope you'll think about it. And I do think the page protection was a step in the right direction, even if it didn't work quite as intended in this particular instance. ~Awilley (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I highly appreciate the change of tone. It severely helps me to be able to understand where you were coming from, but to that end I actually think we both agree: this block didn't need to happen. I just think where we disagree is that I place the onus for why it happened on the user who is now blocked, whereas you appear to be stating that administrators are at fault for users not following Arbitration rulings they are well aware of. I am given quite a bit of room on what to do with these things, but this user had a history of not responding to warnings (look at their talk page) and poor communication. So my intuition says that a short 24 hour block is the best way. Perhaps that's because I handle things a bit more firmly than some of my colleagues (such as yourself) but that's likely because of my military background. I have been pulling away from the old "letter of the law" enforcement however, and that is what I tried to do today with Anthony. It didn't necessarily work as I had hoped, but I feel they still had an ample chance to not screw up again, but chose to anyway. You seem to see that differently based soely on the fact that I used a ping, but you may be forgetting that pings and talk-page messages function exactly the same now in MediaWiki, except that they're on different pages (and you can allow yourself to customize notification settings for both). I literally cannot tell the difference between them when I receive one or the other, besides the page link/specific notification message itself. As such, I figured trying to start the discussion on the article talk page rather than the user talk page would be best. Why? Because it would hopefully begin a thread between the two users who I both pinged, regarding the article content itself rather than comments on editor behavior (which are allowed at user talkpages but not article talkpages). I do wish to try to find new and better ways to get people to want to follow the policies on the site intrinsically, but I currently also still feel there are times for strict consequences for refusal to obey policy: specifically when dealing with Arbitration Enforcement (a place with little gray area). I have in the past attempted 24 hour topic bans instead of blocks... but I literally have had more complaints about those actions than anything else, so at a point you stop sticking your head out when you think an axe is waiting right outside. I am still pondering on ways to lessen the weight of the hammers I choose however, so don't think all of your thoughts here are going to be discarded by me or whatnot. I still respect you as a colleague even if I originally wanted to make it clear that I didn't appreciate being told off out of the blue.
— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, I appreciate the consideration and your response. Your experience with pings may be different than mine. I get the little red bell for pings, reverts, and talk page messages, and I don't always check them right away. For talk page messages I also get a prominent orange notification in the toolbar, and I do check that when I see it. (Apparently that can be turned off as well. I learned something today.)
- I'm certainly not saying that you, not Anthony22, were solely responsible for the block. But I wouldn't say the opposite either. Both of you had choices along the way.
- Re "gray area" I think AE actually has more of it than other areas on the wiki. It includes the messiest topics where most of the editors are entrenched and admins are deputized to enforce whatever the heck they want, including weird/confusing rules like "if you make a change to the article that has been reversed before without getting consensus then you get blocked" (paraphrasing). How far back do you look in the history to see whether something has been reversed before? How old does something need to be before it becomes status quo? If you looked closely enough at the edits and interpreted the rule narrowly enough you could almost block anybody who edits. And that can be helpful if you're blocking experienced POV warriors skilled in "borderline" behavior, but at the same time I believe a conscientious admin should try to help WP:WikiGnomes avoid getting trampled in the process. I'm not exactly saying that I hold gnomes to a different standard of behavior than POV warriors, but I do go out of my way more to make sure they understand those standards, and that includes going beyond the standard AE templates.
- Re the 24 hour topic bans, I actually like the idea in principle as sort of a softblock against specific pages, but I think part of the reason you were getting complaints was that they were perceived as an excuse to rack up negative marks against users on the DS logging page, perhaps as ammunition/rationale for longer blocks and topic bans later on. I think that's part of the reason we are discouraged from recording warnings in the block log via very short blocks. Slightly related to that, somewhere I got the impression that you also log your warnings in the DS log. I suppose that could be helpful if you really want to impress upon a user that something is a very serious warning, but it seems overkill to me in most circumstances. A sternly worded and specific warning from an admin is not something most editors take lightly, logged or not. Back to the 24-hour topic ban, a creative workaround might be a "warning" similar to my example above that carefully says "either you take a break from this topic or I will issue a topic ban that forces you to take a break." Here's an example where I did something similar to a user, who if I remember correctly recently took you to AN/I over one of the 24-hour topic bans. This was back in November 2016, and while the exercise was apparently lacking in long-term effects, this normally revert-happy user voluntarily followed 1RR in American Politics for 3 months during a politically heated season. And there was zero blowback. Anyway, thanks again for listening to my ramblings. ~Awilley (talk) 07:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- I highly appreciate the change of tone. It severely helps me to be able to understand where you were coming from, but to that end I actually think we both agree: this block didn't need to happen. I just think where we disagree is that I place the onus for why it happened on the user who is now blocked, whereas you appear to be stating that administrators are at fault for users not following Arbitration rulings they are well aware of. I am given quite a bit of room on what to do with these things, but this user had a history of not responding to warnings (look at their talk page) and poor communication. So my intuition says that a short 24 hour block is the best way. Perhaps that's because I handle things a bit more firmly than some of my colleagues (such as yourself) but that's likely because of my military background. I have been pulling away from the old "letter of the law" enforcement however, and that is what I tried to do today with Anthony. It didn't necessarily work as I had hoped, but I feel they still had an ample chance to not screw up again, but chose to anyway. You seem to see that differently based soely on the fact that I used a ping, but you may be forgetting that pings and talk-page messages function exactly the same now in MediaWiki, except that they're on different pages (and you can allow yourself to customize notification settings for both). I literally cannot tell the difference between them when I receive one or the other, besides the page link/specific notification message itself. As such, I figured trying to start the discussion on the article talk page rather than the user talk page would be best. Why? Because it would hopefully begin a thread between the two users who I both pinged, regarding the article content itself rather than comments on editor behavior (which are allowed at user talkpages but not article talkpages). I do wish to try to find new and better ways to get people to want to follow the policies on the site intrinsically, but I currently also still feel there are times for strict consequences for refusal to obey policy: specifically when dealing with Arbitration Enforcement (a place with little gray area). I have in the past attempted 24 hour topic bans instead of blocks... but I literally have had more complaints about those actions than anything else, so at a point you stop sticking your head out when you think an axe is waiting right outside. I am still pondering on ways to lessen the weight of the hammers I choose however, so don't think all of your thoughts here are going to be discarded by me or whatnot. I still respect you as a colleague even if I originally wanted to make it clear that I didn't appreciate being told off out of the blue.
Administrators' newsletter – February 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).
Administrator changes
None
Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
- Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
- A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
Notification
Kindly check out discussion at User talk:Dlohcierekim#Ayurveda. Anmolbhat (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
11 years of editing, today.
|
Hey, Awilley. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC) |
|
Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).
Administrator changes
- Lourdes†
- AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
- † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.
Guideline and policy news
- The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
- Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
- A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
- A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
- CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
- The edit filter has a new feature
contains_allthat edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.
Obituaries
- Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
Administrators' newsletter – April 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).
Administrator changes
- 331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG
- Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando
Guideline and policy news
- Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
- Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
- The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
- The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.
Technical news
- There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
- A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Entre nous
I know you were trying to help here [1], and you did, but perhaps the phrase "... allow him to rest in peace"
was not the best choice of words? - MrX 🖋 17:05, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- I meant it literally (lay off and let him take his wikibreak) and figuratively (stop WP:GRAVEDANCING). I hope there wasn't an alternate connotation related to life circumstances I'm not aware of. In any case thank you for closing the thread. ~Awilley (talk) 19:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).
Administrator changes
- None
- Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060
Guideline and policy news
- The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
- AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new
equals_to_anyfunction can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash. - When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
- The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
- There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
- AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.
Obituaries
- Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
A drive-by thank you
My apologies for being overly descriptive with the hatting reasons, and thank you for making it better. I have since created a little list of appropriate reasons to use in the future. Also thank you for contributing with properly weighed and measured reasoning...I found it both refreshing and a bit of a relief. Happy editing! Atsme📞📧 18:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I have to ask...
From my perspective, your comment appears to sympathize/excuse bad behavior but quite frankly, this edit did not lift me to higher ground, much less equal ground. Last time I checked, I didn't have any balls...and that includes the kind one juggles, hits with a baseball bat, throws through a hoop, or putts...and I have no "busybody crew"...I only see injustices and imbalance...so what about my feelings, or don't they count? Atsme📞📧 22:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- If I correctly understand what you're asking, no I do not condone MrX's outburst. ~Awilley (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've just noticed your block of Factchecker while the AE concerning their behavior was open. I wish you would have commented there. This gives me the impression that the standards are not equally enforced
, given your lenience regarding the issue just above and your words to SPECIFICO after their AE was recently closed. I do, however, appreciate your attempts to help administrate the topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, I can comment there. The big difference in my mind between the Specifico and Factchecker cases was that Specifico showed a recognition of what the problem was and made a commitment to fix it. Factchecker seems to have no awareness that their behavior is problematic and is externalizing all the blame. ~Awilley (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Ernie, I'm hoping you will revise your reference to me which first of all is irrelevant Whataboutism since you could have documented your concerns about Awilley's block here without referring to a different time place and set of facts AND which secondly just puts on the record some sort of insinuation that AE made the wrong move in not blocking me or that some real real bad stuff happened with SPECIFICO. Somebody someday will stumble on this page and that diff and it can prejudice them against me or for that matter against Awilley in a way that our WP:ASPERSIONS policy is intended to prevent. So, since you and I have always gotten along fine I hope you'll consider revising or striking the reference to yours truly. Thanks SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
More bile during block
It continues, even after the block has started. He hasn't even read, and fully absorbed, my statement at AE, or, worse yet, believed it and changed his mind about me. Now even a topic ban isn't enough. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your best move here is to try to disengage from the user as much as possible. They already have a 1-way topic ban. Trust the community to enforce that and keep in mind that personal attacks are more harmful to the attacker than the attacked and that stridently defending yourself is unnecessary and may actually hurt your own credibility. That's been my observation at least. ~Awilley (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
- Good advice. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 20:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Re: comment
Hi, Awilley. I'm one of those old-fashioned Wikipedia editors who generally respond to people on their pages, not my own, but feel free to respond to this in either page. Also, I wanted to clarify that my topic ban is "Donald Trump, broadly construed," and not all American politics since 1932 or anything like that. I didn't respond directly to all of the admins who commented on my page, either, in this case, but I did read and heed the advice. Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument with you, but I think the admin oversight of these articles has been disgraceful, and frankly, my intervention (in this case, as an editor opining on the talk page) was sorely needed. Obviously, I didn't go about it in the right way. That being said, I stand by the point that Wikipedia policy is being disregarded and made a mockery of on these articles. Furthermore, individuals assisting in the whitewashing campaign of Trump articles are endangering our collaborative editing process and our neutral point of view. I am not the first admin who has raised these warnings. Also, please note that my topic ban does not preclude my own future case filings to address POV pushing, admin failure, COI, etc., so not being able to edit the Trump article will give me time to do that. Finally, I agree with SPECIFICO regarding some of your own comments, behavior, and demeanor. I am an old school WP:ROUGE admin but I am not acting as an involved unbiased admin. I question the current admin oversight of these articles as ignoring violation of policy, and it's not "both sides are good people." Andrevan@ 18:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- 👆 That is the problem you are unable to see. You just mentioned "individuals assisting in the whitewashing campaign of Trump articles". That was the problem before. Now it's a violation of your topic ban and will lead to blocks on your account. I'm trying to help you with your blind spot. I'm rushing out the door right now so I can't reply in full, but I'm interested in having a conversation with you. I'm the type who likes to have conversations in one place instead of spreading them across multiple pages, so let's do it here. Here's a ping: @Andrevan: ~Awilley (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Talking about the reason for the ban is treading very close to the line. Your post above and your post on Jimbo's talk page cross the line. If you knew how dangerously close you were to a block you world definitely stop discussing it. The fact that it is your first topic ban is probably the main reason you aren't blocked yet, as admins are cutting you some slack. But seriously, just take the day off and stop editing if you aren't sure what is a topic ban violation or not. ~Awilley (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- Discussing it with you here and on Jimbo's talk page are defensible in the immediate aftermath of the imposition of the topic ban. Obviously, if I am still here arguing and stuff in a few days then it's an issue. But, as I said, I'd rather drop it and not interact with you on it. I don't think we agree on this, and that's fine. I will not be editing Donald Trump or related pages or talk pages, or pursuing disputes with users Trumpian. Blocking me for having a conversation with Jimbo, who I haven't talked to in years, would be over the line on your end, in my opinion. Andrevan@ 21:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I'm home for the evening and can afford a longer reply to the above. If I thought that blocking you were in the best interest of the encyclopedia I would have done it already, and if I had wanted to see you blocked by someone else I could have led you on by chatting about the pro-Trump cabal, waiting for Winkelvi to report you to WP:AE. I had two goals: in the short term I wanted to prevent that trip to AE and block, and in the long term I wanted to help you understand exactly what went wrong. As I said earlier, it wasn't the outing. On the subject of the former, yes there is traditionally some discretionary leeway for "appeals to Jimbo" and such, and users often get a first strike, but that's very much up to the admin that happens to be watching. For the purposes of you not getting blocked it would be best for you to simply stop saying the word "Trump" altogether. (Impeachment jokes are definitely out of bounds.) For the second issue, I'm not going to force it on you and if you don't want to talk that's fine. If it's an issue of not being able to discuss it without mentioning Trump or Trumpian editors feel free to shoot me an email. As a side note, I get it that Wikipedia used to be more of a wild west than it is now, and there are aspects of that I wish we had more of (humor, IAR, less bureaucracy). At a certain point, though, you have to accept that things are different and adapt yourself. ~Awilley (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not here to violate my topic ban, so if you perceive that this comment does, I ask you to please remove it instead of reporting or blocking me. Consider my description that follows to be abstract and not specific. This isn't my first rodeo, for example someone posted some 2014 diffs of mine recently. I'm responding to your above comment because it is thoughtful and well-considered, and you deserve some sort of explanation - in fact, you offered to help me find my own blind spots. You and NeilN managed to become an admin here, and a well-regarded and well-respected admin, by being such. In the old days we relied a lot more on blunt talk, intuition, and embracing contradictions with dispensing judgments and justice, remembering that some principles, like NPOV, verifiability, consensus, reasoned argument, logic, etc. are more important than the letter of policy, and so we can act as judge and executor of the constitutionality. Because my embrace of the core principles is strong (usually), I may sometimes violate the specifics in the ultimate service of the goal. Because administrator was always conceived as a "janitor," but in fact is more of a "policeman"/"lawman"/"sheriff", it's kind of a real life Stanford prison experiment. To lighten the load we would use humor and surrealism, to blunt the violence of enforcement. Also, Wikipedia has always been something of an anarchistic, populist-oriented project which "punches up." And of course the free culture, self-organizing decentralization is an anarcho-syndicalist idea on some level. So what I'm saying is that there were always cabals on Wikipedia, contrary to the truism, lots of little self-organizing cabals on IRC and elsewhere. There's nothing inherently wrong with cabals -- except when there is. Admins need to get involved and be a little aggressive, especially on major targets. Trusts need to be busted, rackets need to be broken up. You're like the FBI after mob bosses. We also used to have a Mediation Committee that was functional, the Association of Member's Advocates, etc. That's enough on the subject of cabals, and again please redact if you determine that to have been a topic ban vio.
- Some will say that my actions were a violation of WP:POINT. I will contend that I didn't show up to the articles I've been banned from with an intent to prove a point. All I did, was show up to the articles and honestly post what I thought at the time or that day, just as most casual editors, and not admins, are doing on these article talk pages. "Straight talk express," I "told it like it is." Until I found myself on the precipice of undisclosed CLI-land and I stepped over the edge. For example, I noticed some people reading up about "advocacy duck" vs "coot". I am a pure coot, you can call it temporary insanity or self-destruction. My girlfriend was concerned, as I had complained of not sleeping well and back pain, and seemed to be overly concerned about Wikipedia. So it's completely justified that I am now topic-banned, as Jimbo says, I couldn't write unemotionally on that topic anyhow, and I didn't. The system worked in my case. There were many ways my entire editing career, of a week or so, on those articles could have gone. Things escalated pretty quickly. I contend that my actions served a purpose in illustrating a significant problem with the articles, the enforcement of reliable source policy on the article talk pages, etc. You can review the discussion yourself and see if I was off my rocker and ranting for most of the time, or if I was talking hard content talk most of the time. I won't get into the specifics here. I also believe that the admins need to get into the trenches and be a neutral 3rd party checking the sources and what they say, confirming that NYT is reliable and not biased, academic sources are different from op-eds, etc. Andrevan@ 19:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I'm home for the evening and can afford a longer reply to the above. If I thought that blocking you were in the best interest of the encyclopedia I would have done it already, and if I had wanted to see you blocked by someone else I could have led you on by chatting about the pro-Trump cabal, waiting for Winkelvi to report you to WP:AE. I had two goals: in the short term I wanted to prevent that trip to AE and block, and in the long term I wanted to help you understand exactly what went wrong. As I said earlier, it wasn't the outing. On the subject of the former, yes there is traditionally some discretionary leeway for "appeals to Jimbo" and such, and users often get a first strike, but that's very much up to the admin that happens to be watching. For the purposes of you not getting blocked it would be best for you to simply stop saying the word "Trump" altogether. (Impeachment jokes are definitely out of bounds.) For the second issue, I'm not going to force it on you and if you don't want to talk that's fine. If it's an issue of not being able to discuss it without mentioning Trump or Trumpian editors feel free to shoot me an email. As a side note, I get it that Wikipedia used to be more of a wild west than it is now, and there are aspects of that I wish we had more of (humor, IAR, less bureaucracy). At a certain point, though, you have to accept that things are different and adapt yourself. ~Awilley (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Discussing it with you here and on Jimbo's talk page are defensible in the immediate aftermath of the imposition of the topic ban. Obviously, if I am still here arguing and stuff in a few days then it's an issue. But, as I said, I'd rather drop it and not interact with you on it. I don't think we agree on this, and that's fine. I will not be editing Donald Trump or related pages or talk pages, or pursuing disputes with users Trumpian. Blocking me for having a conversation with Jimbo, who I haven't talked to in years, would be over the line on your end, in my opinion. Andrevan@ 21:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – June 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).
Administrator changes
- None
- Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington
Guideline and policy news
- Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
- Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.
Technical news
- IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
- There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
- It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.
Arbitration
- A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.
Miscellaneous
- In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.
Hello!
Are you still interested in helping coordinate WP:WER's efforts? Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Comment
I'm going to ask you to rescind your comment about me. I got a warning, but I am not going to treat it like a TBAN/IBAN. If you think I was any more disruptive than anyone else there by posting a statement, then open a separate AE about me and make your case. If not, then there is no need to comment like that. -- Netoholic @ 04:58, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
Trump
There was no edit war. MrX edited during discussion for the second time in a few days, different discussions. Since there was no challenged edit preceding the discussion, MrX did not violate the letter of the restrictions. At least two of us felt he violated the spirit of the remedies, and that's what most of that thread is about. I would like a clarification from ARCA but it doesn't look like anybody is inclined to ask for one, so far. I hope this helps. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – July 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).
Administrator changes
- Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor
Gogo Dodo- Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.
Technical news
- Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
- Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon (
) in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates. - IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
Miscellaneous
- Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Your AE close
I intended to also log a formal warning to Drmies (as was clear in the discussion), but it could be construed as changing an AE close (which is forbidden) so wanted to check with you first - are you okay with me going ahead with this? GoldenRing (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- In the AE thread there was only one admin (you) calling for a formal warning for Drmies and four admins (responding to you) saying with varying degrees of conviction that they didn't see it as necessary. Most of the admins didn't express an opinion at all since the proposal to warn Drmies came fairly late and the thread wasn't about Drmies in the first place. If you think that Drmies needs a formal warning then nobody can stop you from warning him. Just be aware that you'll be doing it on your own authority, divorced from the AE thread and the admins there who didn't support it. ~Awilley (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Need eyes, please
No, I'm not asking you to sign an organ donor card :-) But I would appreciate an administrator's attention to a thread a started several hours ago at the Donald Trump talk page. (see here [2]) I'm trying to better understand what constitutes a revert and what doesn't. There seems to be some confusion, and with new attention being brought at AE to the active arb remedies in place at the politically-related articles, I know I don't want to screw up but would also like to have an awareness of when other editors do, too. Admins can't be everywhere. If something arises, I don't want to bring an issue to AE that shouldn't be. Your opinion on the diffs I provided at the article talk page would be appreciated. Thanks. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- I see what looks like 2 regular edits and 1 revert on July 4, and then 1 revert on July 6. Discussing the content on the talk page is probably going to be more productive than a trip to AE. ~Awilley (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. AE would never be my first stop. Probably not even my second or third. My confusion is in how removal of content added and the previous state of the article maintained is any different than using the revert button. My frustration is in the fact that the edits seemed to be focused primarily on content I added, and that included the reversion last night. It's not the first time I've seen this happen at that article (and with at least one other editor doing the same thing) as well as other related articles with active arbitration remedies in place. Wholesale reverts/removals of quality added content and sources, and done within policy guidelines (e.g., no undue weight, encyclopedic in nature, no BLP vios, etc.). The claim is always that the content is "challenged", but no talk page discussions are ever started by the individual saying they are challenging the addition. Just removals or reversions are performed. To me, it looks like a way to WP:GAME the system. And it's always the same editors who are doing it. Believe me, I'm not the only one who's noticed this. It's frustrating to add good, quality content with good sourcing only to have it removed not because it's poorly written or an actual policy vio, but because it's "challenged" - and nothing more is offered. Just a non-specific or very vague claim of a challenge that, in all frankness, looks more like WP:IDLI than an actual challenge to content inclusion based on policy. Seems to me that if they were really challenging it because they care about the integrity of the article and its content they would also then start a discussion on the talk page of the article so that actual improving of the article could be accomplished. What ends up happening is disruption and hard-feelings created. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the edit summary of the most recent revert here that looks to me like more than a vague claim of a challenge. And I can kind of see his point about "minor gossipy details". A concise statement
is more encyclopedic than rambling multi-sentence verbatim quotes of Trump"Trump says he receives Holy Communion, but that he does not ask God for forgiveness"
Stepping back a bit from this specific example, I get your frustration and I know you're not the only one feeling it. But I also am not going to make a rule saying that the person challenging additions is required to start a talk page thread every time they perform a revert. Sometimes an edit summary is enough. And as the person trying to change the status quo, it is your responsibility to build consensus for an edit when you are challenged. ~Awilley (talk) 17:58, 6 July 2018 (UTC)"During a July 2015 campaign stop at the Family Leadership Summit in Ames, Iowa, Trump was asked by event moderator Frank Luntz if he has ever asked God for forgiveness. Trump responded, "I am not sure I have. I just go on and try to do a better job from there. I don't think so. I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don't bring God into that picture. I don't." When he further noted in his response that he does take Holy Communion, Trump explained, "When I drink my little wine -- which is about the only wine I drink -- and have my little cracker, I guess that is a form of asking for forgiveness, and I do that as often as possible because I feel cleansed. I think in terms of 'let's go on and let's make it right.'" During a follow-up interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper, Trump was asked again about his beliefs on forgiveness from God. Trump replied, "I go to communion and that's asking forgiveness, you know, it's a form of asking forgiveness."
- The current version is encyclopedic, but only half-so. It doesn't include any follow-up and leaves the impression to the reader that was Trump's final word on his religious beliefs re: communion and forgiveness. Which is what I was attempting to add, with sources and direct quotes rather than going only by what the press reported. If we're going to have a section in the article on Trump's religious beliefs (this is his bio, by the way, not the presidential article), then it should reflect that, not a sound byte taken from online media reporting. It's unfair to the reader and incomplete for an biographical encyclopedia article.
- As far as responsibility for building consensus -- I thought Wikipedia is supposed to be a community working together to build an encyclopedia. Doing a hit and run reversion/removal of content by saying "Challenge!" and doing nothing else to build the encyclopedia via the talk page of that article is not a community-like response. It's what happens in a debate or a game of Scrabble. Shouldn't we be working toward fostering the community/collegial editing environment rather than turning editing in a competition that feels at times to be as brutal as rugby? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- Looking at the edit summary of the most recent revert here that looks to me like more than a vague claim of a challenge. And I can kind of see his point about "minor gossipy details". A concise statement
- Thanks for taking a look. AE would never be my first stop. Probably not even my second or third. My confusion is in how removal of content added and the previous state of the article maintained is any different than using the revert button. My frustration is in the fact that the edits seemed to be focused primarily on content I added, and that included the reversion last night. It's not the first time I've seen this happen at that article (and with at least one other editor doing the same thing) as well as other related articles with active arbitration remedies in place. Wholesale reverts/removals of quality added content and sources, and done within policy guidelines (e.g., no undue weight, encyclopedic in nature, no BLP vios, etc.). The claim is always that the content is "challenged", but no talk page discussions are ever started by the individual saying they are challenging the addition. Just removals or reversions are performed. To me, it looks like a way to WP:GAME the system. And it's always the same editors who are doing it. Believe me, I'm not the only one who's noticed this. It's frustrating to add good, quality content with good sourcing only to have it removed not because it's poorly written or an actual policy vio, but because it's "challenged" - and nothing more is offered. Just a non-specific or very vague claim of a challenge that, in all frankness, looks more like WP:IDLI than an actual challenge to content inclusion based on policy. Seems to me that if they were really challenging it because they care about the integrity of the article and its content they would also then start a discussion on the talk page of the article so that actual improving of the article could be accomplished. What ends up happening is disruption and hard-feelings created. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
RfC Close
Hi Awilley
Your close of this RfC seems to have generated some confusion and wikilawyering. A specific question was posed in the RfC, with specific wording, and by my count that proposal has consensus. 3 of the 41 respondents indicate that the material should be "included in some form". You seem to have taken that minority viewpoint and stated it as consensus. I don't believe that it's a proper closing statement, and it has already caused some editors to object to including the proposed text in the article and listing it as a consensus on the talk page. I would request that you revise your closing statement to make it clear that the proposed wording does has consensus, but that that does not preclude the possibility of revising the wording. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 15:28, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2018).
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
- Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.
Technical news
- The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.
Comment
Noticed you hatted my comment properly but not going to address Cullen's incivility and lack of AGF or Drmies pinging another who has not participated in the discussion?--MONGO (talk) 07:22, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like Cullen commented just after I hatted your comment. I logged off after my edit and didn't see it until today. It's not ideal but isn't worth trying to hat. The first sentence is obviously responding to your off-topic remark (which probably wasn't hatted yet when he began writing) and basically says pot-kettle. The rest of the comment seems on-topic enough to me, responding to substantive arguments. I don't see anything wrong with pinging a long-term active editor of an article to ask a question about the history of that article. ~Awilley (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Your close at Trump immigration
This is entirely out of process. First, although you may not have commented on that discussion, you are hardly uninvolved with the page, the topic and many of the editors there. Second after a bit of back and forth, two editors suggested a close request, which @JFG: reported he posted at AN. Third, you seem to be "counting votes" among comments early in this ongoing event, when it was easy to argue mention would have been UNDUE, and comparing these "votes" with ones base on a longer history of RS coverage and of the ongoing development of the events themselves. Please undo your close and stand back and let us have the benefit of fresh eyes there. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- JFG wanted an uninvolved admin to close the discussion, and seemed to want it done in a timely manner. I obliged. Hanging around an article long enough to get to know the different personalities doesn't make me involved. Like anyone I have my own opinions about the article's subject but I try very hard not to let those influence any closes or administrative actions that I make. I'm happy to discuss with you my process of counting and evaluating the votes. Here's part of the Excel sheet I made (please excuse typos)
| Yes | Include something | No | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| MrX | Months of international coverage, 4 articles, more notable than other things in the lead | ||
| Mr Ernie | Undue | ||
| Icewiz | More noteworthy | ||
| O3000 | Coverage | ||
| PacMecEng | POV, Undue | ||
| ScJessey | Alternate wording | ||
| MyVeryBestWishes | Supports Scjessey | ||
| JFG | Regrettable policy blunder, no lasting significance. Not opposed to Scjessey | ||
| Emir of Wikipedia | |||
| MONGO | Major policy blunder | ||
| Snooganssnoogans | Supports Scjessey | ||
| K.e.coffman | |||
| Snow | Not crazy about half sentence, but got behind Scjessey | ||
| Kerberous | Overwhelming cverage | ||
| Gandydancer | "The news media is saturated with stories of immigrant families being separated at the border. People are protesting. Elected officials are weighing in. Congress is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a complaint against the Federal Government challenging the family separation practice." | ||
| Henry | Suppports rework; DUE | ||
| Markbassett | problems with wording "enacted" "revrsed" "forcibly" | ||
| A Quest for Knowledge | Too much detail for lead | ||
| Volunteer Marek | Relevant and notable | ||
| Casprings | Due | ||
| Wumbolo | Because it was reversed | ||
| NickCT | Recentism | ||
| Mr Guye | Recentism, also "policy" | ||
| power~enwiki | problems with wording, not enough space in Lead to discuss with enough nuance | ||
| Meatsgains | Undue | ||
| Govindaharihari | Undue | ||
| Dr. Fleishman | Recentism | ||
| Aquillion | Coverage | ||
| Ikjbagl | Overly dramatic and political | ||
| Bus stop | |||
| Pincrete | with rewording. Coverage | ||
| Newbipedian | most notable | ||
| L3X1 | Scjessey's | ||
| Marie Paradox | Would support revision that avoided using "enacted" | ||
| Fyunck | NPOV. "forcibly" | ||
| LM2000 | UNDUE | ||
| Space4Time3Continuum2x | as important as other stuff in the lead | ||
| Winkelvi | |||
As you can see, there were actually more No votes later in the process, bringing into question your argument that giving a higher weight to later votes would have changed the result. ~Awilley (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
although you may not have commented on that discussion, you are hardly uninvolved with the page, the topic and many of the editors there
- By that reasoning, I should never close a discussion on that page. I stopped reading there. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)- (pinged) Awilley's close seems fair, and s/he explained the reading of the discussion quite extensively above per WP:ADMINACCT. If SPECIFICO or anybody else disagrees, they can of course open a close review. — JFG talk 12:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Awilley, I'm disappointed you discussed "votes" at your close and are still discussing votes. Quite surprising. JFG - nobody is talking about whether you or other folks like the outcome. My argument was about process. Did you read what I said -- "out --- of --- process." So your evaluation of the outcome is pointless. SPECIFICO talk 12:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- I did read your comment very carefully, and I disagree that the close was out of process. If you maintain that it was out of process despite Awilley's explanations, you have a clear avenue for review. — JFG talk 13:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @JFG, A close review shouldn't be necessary. If SPECIFICO can articulate a good reason that I should revert my close I'm happy to do that.
- @SPECIFICO, if you are arguing that I should undo my close so we can observe some "process" of waiting an extra week or two for another admin to come by and redo my work, I'd point you to our fifth pillar. If you're saying my close was invalid because I counted the number of people taking various positions in addition to analyzing their arguments, go fish. That's not an uncommon procedure in closing RfCs, and I definitely didn't make the decision based on numbers alone (even though my close did go in the direction of the majority). ~Awilley (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- " I'd point you to our fifth pillar" - yeah, that should be changed to WP:IARBOIYAA ("but only if you're an admin").Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I did read your comment very carefully, and I disagree that the close was out of process. If you maintain that it was out of process despite Awilley's explanations, you have a clear avenue for review. — JFG talk 13:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Sanctions
I tend to sympathize with edits by many of the folks you just sanctioned. But, I see the problem, respect your effort, can’t argue with the sanctions, and appreciate the fact that you didn’t TBan them. I hope that they will come to understand this. I also realize the crap you will need to put up with for a time. But, duty calls. See: [3]. O3000 (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've never had that conversation with my wife... :-S ~Awilley (talk) 02:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The cartoon was meant for those that get into long arguments. (I must admit I've done so.) O3000 (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Imagine if all Admins made up their own rules. Wikipedia would stop. Not a good development, and the wording is an unintelligible mass of hedging. A backward step, AJ, if I may say so. In fact it is almost as bad as the 'made up by an admin' sanctions at Ayurveda that effectively stopped progress on the article for some years. It is a good job I don't edit in that area. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Discretionary sanctions are not arbitrarily made-up rules. Arbcom has authorized admins to apply their discretion to rein in disruption. Indeed, Arbcom and the community have pleaded that admins do what they can to rein in disruption and Awilley is to be commended for taking the trouble to spell out what house-trained editors already know. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Guess what? I'm house trained and I got served with three Special Sanctions for reasons Awilley has declined to document. The thing about house training is there has to be a connection between the message and the mess. On my talk page, Awilley has been unable to provide the basis for even the first of the several Special Sanctions he put on me and appears now to have disengaged from his attempt to explain them. His impulse may have been good, his intention may have been noble, but these sanctions were not well conceived and would have benefitted from a lot more community input or an application in a different form, such as improvements in the DS page restrictions on AP articles. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- A sanctioned editor is the least objective judge of whether the sanction makes any sense or has any merit. That is axiomatic in my view. I've yet to see a sanctioned editor who didn't feel the sanction was a bad call, and that includes me. That you think you could be objective about that, to the point of writing walls of instructional prose about it, explaining to an admin how to be a good admin, just makes me shake my head in wonder. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Guess what? I'm house trained and I got served with three Special Sanctions for reasons Awilley has declined to document. The thing about house training is there has to be a connection between the message and the mess. On my talk page, Awilley has been unable to provide the basis for even the first of the several Special Sanctions he put on me and appears now to have disengaged from his attempt to explain them. His impulse may have been good, his intention may have been noble, but these sanctions were not well conceived and would have benefitted from a lot more community input or an application in a different form, such as improvements in the DS page restrictions on AP articles. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Discretionary sanctions are not arbitrarily made-up rules. Arbcom has authorized admins to apply their discretion to rein in disruption. Indeed, Arbcom and the community have pleaded that admins do what they can to rein in disruption and Awilley is to be commended for taking the trouble to spell out what house-trained editors already know. Johnuniq (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Imagine if all Admins made up their own rules. Wikipedia would stop. Not a good development, and the wording is an unintelligible mass of hedging. A backward step, AJ, if I may say so. In fact it is almost as bad as the 'made up by an admin' sanctions at Ayurveda that effectively stopped progress on the article for some years. It is a good job I don't edit in that area. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 12:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- The cartoon was meant for those that get into long arguments. (I must admit I've done so.) O3000 (talk) 10:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Cops
In my opinion things would work far better if editors were not responsible for policing each other's behavior. What would the real world be like if we were all expected to act as cops? Wikipedia needs cops who don't edit, and they need to do all of the policing of behavior. I'm not saying it would be simple or easy, only that it's necessary. Interested in your thoughts, if any. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think the world would be a scarier place if everybody were expected to act as cops. And I think I agree with you that Wikipedia would work better if editors didn't need to police each others' behavior. What if there were an artificially intelligent admin bot that could make good judgment calls about policy violations, but with the capacity to watch over the entire encyclopedia? We'd certainly waste less time arguing about meta stuff. (Although by that point we probably wouldn't have to write at all because the bots would be writing our articles.) On the other hand, I think an even better solution is if editors work in a culture where the norm is for editors to resolve disputes between themselves without any administrative intervention at all. Right now the culture in certain areas seems to be:
- A: "Stop edit warring [hits revert button]"
- B: "You stop edit warring I have consensus [hits revert button]"
- A: "You just violated 3RR"
- B: "Oh yeah, report me."
- A: [Rolls the dice at AN3 hoping for a block]
- What if those same editors stopped reverting for a minute and took the time to understand what the other person was saying to try and make a compromise? ~Awilley (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think any approach that depends on large numbers of people changing their basic nature is not a realistic or workable approach. For the most part and with a very few exceptions, the collaborative, cooperative, mature nature is not made at Wikipedia by reasoning with people, but rather in the home by about age 12. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would argue that normal developed people, put into different structured environments, will behave differently. The Stanford Prison Experiment comes to mind. I know people, intelligent and good people of the sort who will let relatives of friends live rent free in their basement when they're between jobs, troll on Twitter. ~Awilley (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- What different structured environment would you suggest? So far all I hear you saying is that we should do more to evangelize the virtues of cooperation, hoping that gradually more and more editors will see the light we wish them to see, finally reaching a reasonably functional environment some time around the year 2050. I'll be dead by then. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I wish I had those answers, but even if I did I'm certain I'd never have the clout to make any significant changes to structure. One of my goals with the so-called "special" sanctions is to effect small changes to the cultural norms surrounding a subset of troubled articles. Take the "Courtesy in reporting" sanction for instance. That forces a structured, polite dialogue between two users before one reports the other to an administrative noticeboard. That could, I hope, shift the focus from trying to get others blocked or banned, to trying to resolve things at a lower level. Legitimate errors could be remedied before ending up on administrative noticeboards, and then the cases that do filter up to the noticeboards are the ones involving editors so entrenched that they refuse to correct their own mistakes. The "special" sanction would not need to be applied to everyone for it to become a norm, just like you don't need to place 1RR restrictions on all AP articles for editors to habitually reduce the number of reverts everywhere out of caution, and to occasionally report each other for 1RR violations on articles without 1RR restrictions.
Another thing I'm trying to do is to increase the predictability of blocks and bans. This is probably one of the more controversial changes as it runs against the grain of our current system of escalating and unpredictable block lengths. Right now if you personally attack someone you can get anything between a warning and an indefinite block depending on the admin and the length of your block log, and the block could come at any time without warning. However if sanctions I outlined were in effect the user would be given a chance to retract the personal attack (best outcome) and even in the worst outcome the "punishment" would be predictable and proportionate (a one-week non-escalating ban from the topic area, converted to a block if the ban is violated). That's the idea anyway. I may be completely wrong, and if that's the case I'll work on whatever reparations need to be made. ~Awilley (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Awilley,
Take the "Courtesy in reporting" sanction for instance. That forces a structured, polite dialogue between two users before one reports the other to an administrative noticeboard.
It does no such thing. A polite notice is often greeted with "get off my talk page" "stop harassing me" "lying troll" etc. Anyway, the report before a noticeboard posting is already required. What do you mean by "reparations?" I doubt that applies on WP, and it's another reason why it really would be better -- now that there are more eyes on your effort -- to vacate the Special Sacntions applciations and seek comment on the page we now see you have been working on. Big changes work best after thorough community discussion. I believe this is true without exception on WP and several users have raised questions and concerns that should be addressed before, not after sanctions are handed out. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Awilley,
- I wish I had those answers, but even if I did I'm certain I'd never have the clout to make any significant changes to structure. One of my goals with the so-called "special" sanctions is to effect small changes to the cultural norms surrounding a subset of troubled articles. Take the "Courtesy in reporting" sanction for instance. That forces a structured, polite dialogue between two users before one reports the other to an administrative noticeboard. That could, I hope, shift the focus from trying to get others blocked or banned, to trying to resolve things at a lower level. Legitimate errors could be remedied before ending up on administrative noticeboards, and then the cases that do filter up to the noticeboards are the ones involving editors so entrenched that they refuse to correct their own mistakes. The "special" sanction would not need to be applied to everyone for it to become a norm, just like you don't need to place 1RR restrictions on all AP articles for editors to habitually reduce the number of reverts everywhere out of caution, and to occasionally report each other for 1RR violations on articles without 1RR restrictions.
- What different structured environment would you suggest? So far all I hear you saying is that we should do more to evangelize the virtues of cooperation, hoping that gradually more and more editors will see the light we wish them to see, finally reaching a reasonably functional environment some time around the year 2050. I'll be dead by then. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would argue that normal developed people, put into different structured environments, will behave differently. The Stanford Prison Experiment comes to mind. I know people, intelligent and good people of the sort who will let relatives of friends live rent free in their basement when they're between jobs, troll on Twitter. ~Awilley (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Nearly a half century back, Frank Herbert wrote the sci-fi novel Whipping Star. There was a planet with an interesting legal system. If a prosecutor took a suspect to trial for murder, and the prosecutor won the case, the prosecutor was put to death. The logic is simple. That a murder occurred meant that the state failed to protect its citizens. Thus, as a representative of the state, it was the prosecutor that was taken to task. (So, we can blame Jimbo for everything.) My point is that we do need to look at the rules and the prophylactic actions. Thusly. I appreciate your efforts; although these rules may be even more difficult to deal with than IBans. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Segue to off-topic in two comments, the theoretical minimum. So much for a thorough examination of the proposition. Ah well, worth a try. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Everyone knows there is a problem. Your well-meaning suggestion brings to mind abuses like the Blue wall of silence. (Or, abuses far worse, as I’m currently watching the History Channel.) IMO, folks with the intelligence and wherewithal to understand the nuances of editing complex articles, that don’t get to enjoy editing articles themselves, are likely to devolve. O3000 (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- You have astutely pointed out that the cop system has a dark side. Nevertheless there are far more good cops than bad cops, I hope you wouldn't dispute that. And the cop system is what many centuries of social "natural selection" have decided fails less badly than any alternative; otherwise it wouldn't exist. This round of civilization may be approaching collapse, but not because it uses cops. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: I'm a bit unclear what you were saying above in the theoretical minimum comment...not sure who it was addressed to because of the threading. I hope I didn't nudge the conversation off track with my previous comment above. I'm a bit curious where you were going with the idea about policing-only cops. ~Awilley (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's an idea that's been bouncing around in my head for some time, and I felt you were a good choice as sounding board. It had no connection to your Special Sanctions, and my timing was poor coming right after them, as evidenced by the fact that the topic changed so early in the thread. I'm prepared to let the idea continue bouncing around in there; you have enough on your plate at the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: Yeah, sorry about that. I assumed that this, like literally everything else that day, was about the sanctions. I don't know how the community would accept such a thing. "Not enough content work" is a common oppose reason at RfA. Do you know of any other online communities or forums that outsource the moderators (rather than assigning trusted community members to mod)?
- It's an idea that's been bouncing around in my head for some time, and I felt you were a good choice as sounding board. It had no connection to your Special Sanctions, and my timing was poor coming right after them, as evidenced by the fact that the topic changed so early in the thread. I'm prepared to let the idea continue bouncing around in there; you have enough on your plate at the moment. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mandruss: I'm a bit unclear what you were saying above in the theoretical minimum comment...not sure who it was addressed to because of the threading. I hope I didn't nudge the conversation off track with my previous comment above. I'm a bit curious where you were going with the idea about policing-only cops. ~Awilley (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- You have astutely pointed out that the cop system has a dark side. Nevertheless there are far more good cops than bad cops, I hope you wouldn't dispute that. And the cop system is what many centuries of social "natural selection" have decided fails less badly than any alternative; otherwise it wouldn't exist. This round of civilization may be approaching collapse, but not because it uses cops. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Predictability
Awilley wrote: Another thing I'm trying to do is to increase the predictability of blocks and bans.
This sounds to me like a much-needed improvement in Wikipedia's policing culture, that has historically been governed by "far-west" rules: easy to formulate, easy to twist, the sheriff is always right, especially when you ask another sheriff for redress. Some more clearly-spelled-out jus strictum may be the key to simplify disputes and actually enforce the collaborative spirit we should all be striving for. Kudos for trying! — JFG talk 13:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- What about kudos for the result? Any thoughts? It's clear to me this was not ready to be rolled out. That, even though it's not a policy or guideline, it suffers from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS in a discussion that most editors didn't know about and that could benefit from much more input. The idea of predictable short sanctions is fine, but why not make these page restrictions so that they apply on all AP articles and to all editors? It seems to me that's clearly a more effective, less burdensome, fairer, and more predictable approach. The Special Sanctions as they have now been rolled out are not fully developed. SPECIFICO talk 14:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Re:
it suffers from WP:LOCALCONSENSUS
,maybe you should look upthat's why it's called a discretionary admin action. As for results, we'll wait and see until the mechanism gets some mileage. — JFG talk 17:11, 15 August 2018 (UTC)- JFG, I'm surprised to see you respond with a straw man and snarky comment here. I was not raising any issue as to discretion. And as I presume you're aware, the Arbcom DS authority includes other criteria which are beyond the scope of this thread but which would nullify your suggestion I do not understand the meaning of that English word. Awilley obviously believed that community input would be helpful or he would not have created the discussion page before rolling out the Specials, so if you care to respond in substance, I'd be interested to hear your view on the issue I raised. SPECIFICO talk 18:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- All due respect, JFG, but if you had been on the receiving end of the sanctions and were confused as to why (1) they are being imposed based on something that occurred two months ago and was already dealt with at AE; (2) one of the four editors with the sanctions imposed has just been pardoned from them for no apparent reason - I dare say you wouldn't be so ready to wait and see what happens. This seems to be an experiment with the lab rats used in the experiment still unclear why they've been singled out above and beyond all other possible (and possibly better subjects to be the chosen) lab rats. None of this lends to the "predictability" being touted as premise. It also defies logic (which is the basis for predictability). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, nobody likes getting a sanction, happens to the best of us. Sorry you became one of the initial recipients of this particular batch, but it should not be difficult to abide by Awilley's terms. I agree with you that receiving this sanction was unpredictable, but you will probably agree with me that the consequences of tripping up are very clearly spelled out and thus predictable. Much better than getting bogged down at WP:AE in my opinion. — JFG talk 18:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to have completely missed my point. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- My comments aimed to clarify what I meant by "predictability". I was deliberately not responding to your questions (1) and (2) as to why this sanction was imposed on you, because I can't read Awilley's mind. — JFG talk 13:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Editors trying to figure out what the hell admins and their discretionary sanctions actually want from them - I actually agree with Awilley. Don't particularly being an unwilling subject of some "experiment" to see if something works or not. "Let me sanction these people just to see if my new idea works" is not only an extremely ill thought out approach to admin'ing, it's also very unfair to the 'lab rats' involved. And yes, at the very least it would need some kind of consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volunteer Marek (talk • contribs)
- There's also the problem of what happens when the Specials conflict with other conventional community-accepted modes of enforcement, e.g. Admin-applied DS for verifiable preventive cause, and AE-applied outcomes based on evidence and discussion. That's a big issue that does not appear to be addressed. I really think its fine that this alternative approach has been brought to wider attention, but I think it's important that Awilley vacate all these actions pending wider and deeper discussion of the many issues they've brought to the fore. SPECIFICO talk 15:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- My comments aimed to clarify what I meant by "predictability". I was deliberately not responding to your questions (1) and (2) as to why this sanction was imposed on you, because I can't read Awilley's mind. — JFG talk 13:01, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- You seem to have completely missed my point. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, nobody likes getting a sanction, happens to the best of us. Sorry you became one of the initial recipients of this particular batch, but it should not be difficult to abide by Awilley's terms. I agree with you that receiving this sanction was unpredictable, but you will probably agree with me that the consequences of tripping up are very clearly spelled out and thus predictable. Much better than getting bogged down at WP:AE in my opinion. — JFG talk 18:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Re:
Please don't call us Mormons
Just read this in the news. Does this mean revising a number of articles? Doug Weller talk 09:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Doug Weller: I would say no. According to the CNN article they tried similar pushes in 2001 and 2011 and it never really took. I don't see any reason why it's more likely to work this time, especially with this coming on the tail of the I'm a Mormon campaign (2011—?). I think MOS:LDS will be just fine for the foreseeable future. Besides the terms Mormon and Mormonism as we use them are often broader than just members of the modern LDS Church. (I was going to type the full name out there but it was too much effort.) ~Awilley (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- The irony is that this was announced at www.mormonnewsroom.org. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's an easier url than membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaintsnewsroom.org ~Awilley (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- ...and so it begins... ~Awilley (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's an easier url than membersofthechurchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaintsnewsroom.org ~Awilley (talk) 17:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- The irony is that this was announced at www.mormonnewsroom.org. O3000 (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- It would be quite a mouthful, one reason why I can't see it sticking. I wonder why this change of attitude after the campaign. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting link and raises some interesting problems. Latter Day Saints Tabernacle Choir? Rebranding is not easy. And I doubt Romney will want to say he's a Latter Day Saint or a member of the "restored Church of Jesus Christ,” , the optics of either aren't good for a politician, at least not unless these become the standard terms. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Another problem: domain http://churchofjesuschristoflatterdaysaints.org/ is owned by the very small Strangite schism. O3000 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Interesting link and raises some interesting problems. Latter Day Saints Tabernacle Choir? Rebranding is not easy. And I doubt Romney will want to say he's a Latter Day Saint or a member of the "restored Church of Jesus Christ,” , the optics of either aren't good for a politician, at least not unless these become the standard terms. Doug Weller talk 15:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not sure I like either version. Doug Weller talk 20:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
81.149.45.82 (talk · contribs) just made major changes at Mormon folklore which I've reverted. They also made some changes at another article, also reverted. The edits broke links and the Mormon folklore changes would need a page move. Could you maybe talk to the IP? Doug Weller talk 16:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- It looks like more of a drive-by type situation (only 4 edits from the IP total). One link you might use in the reverting edit summaries is MOS:LDS which spells out the current consensus on Mormon naming conventions. ~Awilley (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- A belated thanks. Doug Weller talk 09:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Logging of Special Sanctions
Hey, shouldn't the special discretionary sanctions that you've been imposing be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2018? Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
User violating sanctions
A user named Volunteer Marek accused me of being a vandal and a troll on the talk page for Murder of Mollie Tibbetts. I noticed that this user is under Special discretionary sanctions and is supposed to refrain from making personal negative comments to other users. Just wanted to let you know it appears this user violated those sanctions. I'm not sure if this is the right place to report them but I am new to Wikipedia. If I need to report them someplace else please let me know, thank you. Orspac (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to add I did make a post on the talk page about family members because I read on website that these were potentially not true cousins of Tibbetts. However you can go through all of my edits and check to see they were all made in good faith and there was no trolling or vandalism, thanks. Orspac (talk) 06:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with your actions
I don't agree with what you did. Other people have similar things on their Wikipedia's why the heck can't President Monson nor other LDS presidents have a tributes thing?!?! JZimm09 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Because Honestly if US presidents and celebrities can have them why not others. Because for one it would be interesting to have such reactions. I don't think your excuse is a good one unless you can give explain to me why the heck it is. JZimm09 (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think Tribute sections like that are standard practice anywhere on Wikipedia. You mentioned US presidents so I looked up Ronald Reagan and he doesn't have a Tributes section. There's about a short paragraph of material in the section titled Death. In the Monson article I could see a case for a couple sentences about the most notable tributes, but we definitely can't include quotes from every notable person who tipped their hat. ~Awilley (talk) 13:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
My Apologies. I totally forgot I could've sworn there was some thing. Maybe you're right. But I would like to include some of them if that's not too much trouble. Because on the other Prophets you don't get the reactions and personally, I would love to read the reactions/tributes paid to them but they're not on Wikipedia. Doesn't have to be every single thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZimm09 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- @JZimm09: I don't doubt that there are many Wikipedia articles that have that kind of material, but it's something we generally try to avoid, and it's stuff that generally tends to get trimmed out over time. Like there will be an article about a school shooting or something and in the first few days there is a "Reactions" section with lengthy quotes from every politician who expressed thoughts and prayers on social media. But the actual substance of those quotes doesn't actually add anything to the article, other than to inform the reader that important people made tributes. So one could achieve the same outcome by writing two sentences saying something along the lines of "Many religious and government leaders and foreign dignitaries expressed condolences and admiration, including [name the most notable]. Here's a recent example: John_McCain#Tributes. That was added yesterday or today, and I predict that it will first get longer, and then shorter, with the extra subsection about Donald Trump's lack of a tribute being cropped down to a sentence or two. The other problem with the long quotes is that they can contain material that is "non-neutral" for Wikiipedia purposes like in the case of Monson, "...He was a true prophet of God..." or the like. Even though the material is attributed to someone (we're not saying it in Wikipedia's voice) it still isn't great. So back to Monson, do you think you could condense the section you added into a couple of sentences summarizing the key people offering tributes? (Also if you can provide links to the sources that would be good too.) ~Awilley (talk) 01:49, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Again I apologize for my initial reaction. But I can shorten it down to only a few reactions. I now can kinda understand where you're coming from but, wikipedia is a place for information (kinda) and, as I said i'm personally curious about how people and figures reacted to events like Monson's death..and there's literally almost no other place to get said reactions so getting them here I think would help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:8100:6E9B:3D40:BA89:3880:A390 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- @JZimm09: No problem, and thanks. Wikipedia is a place for information (kinda) as you said, but obviously not all information has a place on Wikipedia. (See WP:INDISCRIMINATE for instance.) For a more comprehensive summary of tributes I think a blog might be your best option. For the summary, I can help you with formatting your references when it comes to that. Also don't forget to log into your account. ~Awilley (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, so can I add some tributes? like from President Trump and the quorum? or no..and I would love to do a blog but there's no where I can find tributes for past prophets...there's always so hidden. Which if they were on Wikipedia would make things easier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JZimm09 (talk • contribs)
- Why don't you write up a sentence and propose it on the article talk page at Talk:Russell M. Nelson and see what other editors have to say? If you don't get any objections there you can go ahead and try adding it to the article. ~Awilley (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).
Administrator changes
- None
- Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Interface administrator changes
- Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux
Guideline and policy news
- Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.
Technical news
- Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
- Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says
Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example isarticle_textwhich is nowpage_title. - Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is
page_age.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Topic ban
Can you please provide me a rationale for topic banning me from all politics BLPs forever? I have never been assessed with a BLP violation. I don't see why run of the mill edit warring (which I wasn't engaged in prior to my ban, and haven't been for some time) justifies a ban.
Also, what is false or misleading aout my edits to Kavanaugh's page? All the content I added is still in there. Steeletrap (talk)
- I"m willing to work with you in terms of mediating my tendency to edit war . But I think a permanent ban is very extreme with no evidence of BLP violations. I have contributed a lot to the project, even if I'm too hot-headed sometimes. Would you be willing to reconsider sanctioning me, or impose some more moderate sanction? Steeletrap (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
- The ban isn't "forever" or "permanent". It's indefinite, meaning in place until it is successfully appealed. The rationale was that you added unsourced and poorly sourced negative information to the Lead section of an extremely high profile BLP, reverted it back in when it was challenged (blatantly violating the discretionary sanctions on the article) and then after being warned on your talk page by two editors and two admins you refused to self-revert and seek consensus on the talk page. I placed the ban because I don't trust you to be editing BLPs. ~Awilley (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- You're mistaken. I'm not being a jerk, I'm being honest. REad my talk page. There wasn't an edit war issue with me on this page. The admin who blocked me for EW admitted he was mistaken.
- As to poorly sourced/unsourced, please be specific. All of the "negative" information I added is still in the article (about Ford's allegations and Kavanaugh's role in the Vince Foster investigation), so whether it was negative or not, it appears to have met our guidelines. Maybe it's unfair that these allegations were so widely publicized (as Kavanaugh argued the other night), but Ford's allegations are notable and belong in the article and (for now at least, maybe not if he's confirmed) the lede. Steeletrap (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- I'm asking two things. 1) Provide specific evidence (diffs) of violations of policy, and 2) consider a less extreme sanction (I'd be willing to listen to you and fix any problematic editing). You're in charge, but I hope you take me up on the offer. Steeletrap (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, here are a couple of diffs. (A bit tricky to find given you rarely use edit summaries.)
- [5] Addition of unsourced negative information to the Lead section
- [6] Restoring that sentence to the Lead after it was challenged, in violation of the "Consensus required" sanction. The sources you added are not adequate to support the statement that
Kavanaugh has been criticized for investing federal money and other resources into investigating partisan conspiracy theories
in Wikipedia's voice, as both are primary sources (opinion/op-ed pieces). It looks like you're correct that the sentence is still in the article, but it's certainly not in the Lead anymore.
- Here are the four user talk page warnings that you ignored:
- [7] Galobbter saying you violated the consensus required restriction and asking you to self-revert
- [8] MONGO saying that they're still challenging the edit
- [9] Myself saying you violated the consensus required restriction
- [10] User:KnightLago with a stern "final warning" saying you must seek consensus before making edits.
- You completely ignored all this, and the next day you again violated the consensus required sanction by reverting this into the Lead.
- Also to be clear, this is the less extreme sanction. The alternative was an indefinite block. ~Awilley (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK so you're claiming that my violation is adding accurate content (that Kavanaugh has been criticized for investigating conspiracy theories related to Foster) but with inadequate sourcing? That justifies an indefinite block from all BLPs? There's no more moderate sanction that you're open to? Steeletrap (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, no, and no. The ban was for discretionary sanction violations and disruptive editing, like I said here, and for behavior like what I just described above. ~Awilley (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so it's the usual Wikipedia "administration" of justice:ague (and therefore unfalsfiable) charges ("disruptive editing") rather than credible, specific evidence; a total lack of self-awareness or willingness to justify or rethink one's decisions; hypersensitivity; and ejaculations of ego. Have fun on the internet, mister admin. Steeletrap (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Incidentally: Can you clarify the scope of the ban? Does it include talk pages? And does it include pages that relate to political BLPs (if so, how close to the connection have to be?) Steeletrap (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Topic bans normally include the talk pages. Sub-articles about BLPs are covered (like Presidency of Donald Trump or Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination). Articles like United States presidential election, 2016 aren't covered provided the material you're editing isn't about BLPs. For example the first sentence of the second paragraph beginning "Clinton secured..." is off limits, but the first sentence of the 5rd paragraph beginning "On January 6, 2017..." is fair game. This is all in accordance with WP:TBAN. ~Awilley (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Incidentally: Can you clarify the scope of the ban? Does it include talk pages? And does it include pages that relate to political BLPs (if so, how close to the connection have to be?) Steeletrap (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, so it's the usual Wikipedia "administration" of justice:ague (and therefore unfalsfiable) charges ("disruptive editing") rather than credible, specific evidence; a total lack of self-awareness or willingness to justify or rethink one's decisions; hypersensitivity; and ejaculations of ego. Have fun on the internet, mister admin. Steeletrap (talk) 13:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- No, no, and no. The ban was for discretionary sanction violations and disruptive editing, like I said here, and for behavior like what I just described above. ~Awilley (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK so you're claiming that my violation is adding accurate content (that Kavanaugh has been criticized for investigating conspiracy theories related to Foster) but with inadequate sourcing? That justifies an indefinite block from all BLPs? There's no more moderate sanction that you're open to? Steeletrap (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, here are a couple of diffs. (A bit tricky to find given you rarely use edit summaries.)
- The ban isn't "forever" or "permanent". It's indefinite, meaning in place until it is successfully appealed. The rationale was that you added unsourced and poorly sourced negative information to the Lead section of an extremely high profile BLP, reverted it back in when it was challenged (blatantly violating the discretionary sanctions on the article) and then after being warned on your talk page by two editors and two admins you refused to self-revert and seek consensus on the talk page. I placed the ban because I don't trust you to be editing BLPs. ~Awilley (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Is this user[11] topic-banned from American politics BLPs? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Yes.[12] Awilley doesn't seem to be around, so I've given the user a warning. (I don't usually block on a first violation.) Bishonen | talk 14:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC).
- And I've removed my warning, as upon looking more deeply I realized they had remembered the t-ban and practically immediately self-reverted.
Didn't you notice that, Snooganssnoogans?Bishonen | talk 14:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC).
- And I've removed my warning, as upon looking more deeply I realized they had remembered the t-ban and practically immediately self-reverted.
Administrators' newsletter – October 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).
Administrator changes
- Justlettersandnumbers • L235
- Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter
Interface administrator changes
- Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333
Oversight changes
- Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
- There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.
Technical news
- Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
- The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
- Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
- The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
- Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
- Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Four years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I read your comments to me concerning the Warren article. I have gone to the Warren talk page and made my case. However, the only rationale I have been given by the other editor is that he/she wants to use the article to put the emphasis on only one part of Bustamonte's conclusionary statement. So far the response has not been strong. I also reviewed your editing and noticed that you went to my talk page and made some comments about reviewing a policy and slowing down my edits, which I appreciate. But of course you did not seem to make to the other editors talk page and give him the same comments, which of course he needs also. I would encourage you to do that. It needs to be done. Please note that edit wars ALWAYS require two parties and I was not the only one. Following this suggested practice of warning both sides will make you a better adminstrator. Have a good day!--CharlesShirley (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- @CharlesShirley, I don't recall making any comments to you other than the one note on your talk page. I didn't ask "both sides" to read BRD for two reasons. First, NorthBySouthBaranof is an experienced editor who already knows about WP:BRD. The other reason is that they were following BRD while you weren't. We tend to give a slight preference to the status quo in articles, and if there's a disagreement about making a change it is the responsibility of the person trying to make that change to provide a good rationale for that change and to build consensus on the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Question
You put a "No personal comments sanction" on Volunteer Marek.[1] Does this
run afoul of that? For context it's a continuation of the many, many times he's accused me of being a sockpuppet or not genuine in article space, mostly here link, link, link, and at List_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials to the point that other editors had to step in. So how can I stop it? D.Creish (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I read the terms of that sanction and I see requesting an apology (which I've done) is the first step. Different, but if it works, great. D.Creish (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- The wording of the sanction specifically limits it to article talk pages, as a means of preventing the derailing of talk page discussions with personal comments. The edit summary you linked is problematic but I don't think it would result in admin action if taken to AN/I. ~Awilley (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Close. It prohibits personal comments on talkpages because those are more disruptive than personal comments in edit summaries and can be easily removed or refactored. This is in no way a free pass to attack others in edit summaries. All of the other policies still apply to those. ~Awilley (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Fair enough. There's a whole maze of rules and I definitely don't understand them all but I've had the same "attack" from the same editor for more than a year, even though ostensibly it's not allowed. I'd think there has to be some way to make it stop but unless I'm misreading, you're saying no or at least nothing you can do. That's a shame. D.Creish (talk) 17:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Your note on Winkelvi's page
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
No, of course I didn't mean WV should have posted that at article talk. I hope it didn't read like that. I was encouraging him to "discuss edits" at article talk.[13] Now removed, naturally, as is your note, naturally. Bishonen | talk 15:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC).
- Biased snark noted, naturally. Lack of mentioning deletion of talk page notifications once they are read is perfectly acceptable and not deserving of biased snark, also noted. Naturally. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Just wanted to send a quick thanks for the thorough close at Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology#RfC on list format. Hopefully everything is settled now! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
- A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.
Technical news
- Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
- A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
- The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
- The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
DS/AE request
Dear Awilley, the disruption continues at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020. Please set up some tougher restrictions than "pending changes", which is ineffective. I suggest DS/AE/1RR/consensus required. Thanks! — JFG talk 10:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK, it's done. I didn't realize how tricky it was to create an edit notice. Simple I guess if you know how to do it already, but I couldn't find great instructions so I basically copied-pasted bits from the Donald Trump page. ~Awilley (talk) 14:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
ARBCOM
Hi Awilley. Would you be interested in running for ArbCom this year? We need some good candidates for the six slots that are to be filled. You would be an excellent choice because of your neutral nature and your ability to resolve problems. Please consider serving if you can. The deadline is in a few days. Sincerely, Softlavender (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- That's kind of you to say. However I know that I don't have time for the extra responsibility and I'm fairly certain it would be a horrible thing for my personal life if I did. ~Awilley (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are a wise
manwomanpersonman. And congratulations on having a personal life. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)- Aw crap, I was just here to post the arbcom recruitment kittens. Oh well, here they are anyway, illustrating what being on arbcom is definitely nothing like ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No catfights, we promise!
- Aw crap, I was just here to post the arbcom recruitment kittens. Oh well, here they are anyway, illustrating what being on arbcom is definitely nothing like ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nice work at ARCA. I think the core problem there is too many cooks in that kitchen. I'd much prefer five cooks with an abundance of intelligence, experience/knowledge, ability to work with others, and integrity, with everybody else mostly leaving them alone so they can think and agreeing to (required to) eat what they come up with. Real-world companies and communities have managements and governments for a very good reason, something the world figured out literally millennia ago (why on earth Wikipedia thinks we can successfully ignore that lesson of history has baffled me for years). You'd have my vote, if it were a community vote rather than a WMF selection. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:47, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- You are a wise
.jpg)
Protection
I tried to make an edit to Mike Braun but found that I couldn't--looks like you protected the page. Is there a reason a protection icon isn't showing up on the page to alert editors to the protection status? Marquardtika (talk) 22:49, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Marquardtika: Yes, because I forgot to add the protection icon. Sorry about that. The temporary protection has expired now. ~Awilley (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Thank you for your leadership in updating {{American politics AE}} and doing the behind-the-scenes technical cleanup to ensure that the consensus is implemented. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
- Hi Awilley. Echoing L235's thanks – we have a few templates that are inflexible and quite difficult to use. It is good to see someone working on that. I genuinely think that a tidier suite of templates can make the experience for editors (and any readers who glance at the talk page) less confusing. I received your message on my talk page – right now is not great timing for me, but I would be happy to tackle a bit of a tidy-up (addressing your points and any other improvements) at some point soon. AGK ■ 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
- Just popped over to drop a barnstar for this and saw that as usual I am a day late and a dollar short. All the same I will add a well done. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Awilley. Echoing L235's thanks – we have a few templates that are inflexible and quite difficult to use. It is good to see someone working on that. I genuinely think that a tidier suite of templates can make the experience for editors (and any readers who glance at the talk page) less confusing. I received your message on my talk page – right now is not great timing for me, but I would be happy to tackle a bit of a tidy-up (addressing your points and any other improvements) at some point soon. AGK ■ 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Template at DeVos article
I don’t mind changing the template ... but the one you are using doesn’t exist. Either create the desired template or use another. Blueboar (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I saw you removed the template here, saying it was not added by an admin. It was added by Coffee here. PackMecEng (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, I've restored that template. I'm not quite sure how to proceed, since the sanctions listed in that template aren't valid because Coffee didn't create an edit notice for the article and log the sanctions as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Page restrictions ~Awilley (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah those were created before an edit notice template was required. That was changed just last January. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks again. I've created the required edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Trump_Tower_meeting, and I'll review my other edits to check for other errors I might have made. ~Awilley (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so I did some research and I had missed the log entry for that article because it was under a different name when Coffee applied the sanctions, and the compare tool I was using doesn't follow redirects. I just spent the last hour manually comparing redirects of the articles that I removed templates from against a list of links in the last 3 years of logs, skipping only obviously new articles (like CNN vs Trump) that would have been required to have edit notices. I couldn't find anything aside from the Trump Tower meeting, which was the only redirect that threw up a flag in my search. Fingers crossed. ~Awilley (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks again. I've created the required edit notice at Template:Editnotices/Page/Trump_Tower_meeting, and I'll review my other edits to check for other errors I might have made. ~Awilley (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah those were created before an edit notice template was required. That was changed just last January. PackMecEng (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Awilley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Awilley. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
About this edit that you made: [14], wouldn't it make sense to have, instead, an edit notice? After all, as a present-day US politician, she is definitely within the scope of American Politics 2. As a non-admin, I can't add edit notices, but perhaps you could. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- This was added by a now banned user 2!! years ago. Page level restrictions should only be imposed if there's actual disruption (and can only be done so by an admin). Galobtter (pingó mió) 03:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think they are refering to Template:Ds/talk notice with no special restrictions to inform people that is a Ds area.Something like Ds/talk notice|ap|long PackMecEng (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, I'm a bit unclear on what you're asking. If you're wanting the AE template put back along with an edit notice to make it valid, that is something I could do, but I wouldn't do it without further investigation. I'm not familiar with the article or its history but after a glance at the history and talk page I'm not sure that the article needs the 1RR and consensus-required sanctions imposed by that template. If instead you want just a general "this article is covered by discretionary sanctions" informational template and edit notice that is something I would be more willing to do, though I'm not keen on slapping scary templates on pages that aren't experiencing disruption. ~Awilley (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, I guess that it boils down to the fact that the page is subject to the DS enacted by ArbCom in the AP2 case, and that applies to the topic area, regardless of the previous edit history of the page. Admins have the discretion to apply or not apply sanctions under DS, but they do not get to decide that DS imposed by ArbCom do not apply to a page that is legitimately within the case scope. In other words, admins aren't required to enforce DS, but they don't get to decide for anyone else that DS cannot be applied within the case scope. And I'm under the impression that AE requires that there have been an edit notice, which makes a regular template on the talk page pretty much redundant. Now I could be wrong about any of that, and if so, please set me straight.
- It seems to me that an edit notice per AP2 is required, although I guess a general DS edit notice would be better than nothing. If you don't feel comfortable doing this, that's OK, and I'll simply ask another admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I want to add that, per Galobtter, I'm not asking you to impose any additional page-level sanctions specifically to that page. That would indeed be inappropriate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Got it. The template {{American politics AE}} that I removed was one that imposed page-level sanctions (1RR and consensus-required) but wouldn't have been valid without the edit notice. That's the only thing that actually requires the edit notice. You're right about us not being able to do anything about the wider ArbCom sanctions that authorize DS, but all that is required for admins to enforce those is the annoying individual notifications you see everywhere on user talk pages. The general "informational" talk page templates are not required, and if you want one I can find one and put it on the talk page. I'd rather save the edit notices for pages that have extra sanctions on them. ~Awilley (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for being so understanding about this. Given that we won't go with an edit notice, I'm capable of putting the general template there myself. I've done so: [15]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Got it. The template {{American politics AE}} that I removed was one that imposed page-level sanctions (1RR and consensus-required) but wouldn't have been valid without the edit notice. That's the only thing that actually requires the edit notice. You're right about us not being able to do anything about the wider ArbCom sanctions that authorize DS, but all that is required for admins to enforce those is the annoying individual notifications you see everywhere on user talk pages. The general "informational" talk page templates are not required, and if you want one I can find one and put it on the talk page. I'd rather save the edit notices for pages that have extra sanctions on them. ~Awilley (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Tryptofish, I'm a bit unclear on what you're asking. If you're wanting the AE template put back along with an edit notice to make it valid, that is something I could do, but I wouldn't do it without further investigation. I'm not familiar with the article or its history but after a glance at the history and talk page I'm not sure that the article needs the 1RR and consensus-required sanctions imposed by that template. If instead you want just a general "this article is covered by discretionary sanctions" informational template and edit notice that is something I would be more willing to do, though I'm not keen on slapping scary templates on pages that aren't experiencing disruption. ~Awilley (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think they are refering to Template:Ds/talk notice with no special restrictions to inform people that is a Ds area.Something like Ds/talk notice|ap|long PackMecEng (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Administrators' newsletter – December 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).
Administrator changes
- Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
- Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
- A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
- A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
- A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.
Technical news
- Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
- To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
- Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Miscellaneous
- In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
- Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.
Obituaries
- Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
...has actually existed for a year and one day. 
Home Lander (talk) 02:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
MOS issues table
I have a couple of issues with the table you started at Talk:Donald Trump#MOS issues, but I'm reluctant to make the changes myself. First, it falsely states that option 3 is MOS-complaint—it violates MOS:OVERLINK (United States). Non-linking of United States, U.S., etc, per OVERLINK is about as widely accepted as it gets in my experience.
And what "looks right" is a matter of disagreement—I disagree that option 1 looks right, and JFG disagrees that option 2 looks wrong—so if the "looks right/wrong" are retained it should be clear that they're your opinions. I would prefer that they were removed to avoid confusion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Please slow down
Your removing the consensus required provision almost as quickly as Coffee placed them. Removing 50 sanctions in 10 minutes. I object to the removal of it on: Robert Mueller, Ivanka Trump, Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, and probably most of the BLPs you removed it from. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- 54, I think. I may have removed the sanctions quickly, but the decision to do so was not quick. It's something I've been thinking about, writing about, gathering input for, and planning to do for a couple of months. ~Awilley (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- And you received no consensus for your suggestions at AN when you floated it, and then spammed a significantly worse sanction on 54 pages, including Hillary Clinton (that one should be immediately reverted.) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- And apparently Donald Trump when we edit conflicted, even though there were specific objections for that page at AN and people familiar with the area said this needed to be done selectively. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I actually haven't finished the Hillary Clinton page yet, so 53 total. I have been doing it selectively. I removed the sanctions entirely from 26 pages the other day, and 8 more before that. ~Awilley (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please restore to Trump and Clinton. I also request that you consider undoing all the BLPs and go through them selectively. If I had known you'd be doing this over the objections of people, I'd have taken up Coffee's sanctions on the BLPs myself. I don't mind them being modified if thought through, but this is the exact same problem we had with the original sanction: one admin takes it upon themselves to write policy for an entire content area despite the fact that others have reasonable objections. I don't think that all of the articles he placed should be under active page level sanctions, but I also think the way you are going about this isn't the way to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm running out the door to pick up my kid, but let me just say that there is no emergency here. The new sanction actually isn't that much different from the old one, and it is certainly not putting any of our articles or their BLP subjects in any immediate danger. Bad edits can still be reverted on sight. Consensus is still required. Edits that go against explicit talkpage consensus are still exempt from 1RR and can still be reverted on sight. I'm still perfectly willing to talk it through and revert myself if I'm wrong. ~Awilley (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is significantly easier to game and to restore issues to very high profile BLPs. It should be difficult to make a controversial change on the article of the President of the United States (and HRC, and the Special Counsel, etc.) We are the first stop for many people to learn about these people and we have an obligation to our readers to accurately reflect what reliable secondary sources say. Consensus required forces this (or at least makes it easier). It also prevents slow burning long-term edit wars. Being more conservative on highly visible articles with millions of page views is a good thing."Forced BRD" has been a mess in the Arab-Israeli conflict (which is to one degree or another what they moved to after something like consensus required) and it doesn't work. Pure 1RR is preferable to this in my view, with consensus required being the standard on articles where it is actually needed.Like I said, I don't every article needs active sanctions in that topic area, nor do I even think consensus required should be the rule on every one. I do absolutely think that it should be the rule on Clinton and Trump and many BLPs (though you can probably remove sanctions entirely from Van Jones and Neil Gorsuch, no need even for 1RR.)That's my issue here: this appears to have been done with the same one-size fits all approach, the same way the original banner was put in place, which leads to a CNN commentator who doesn't really need sanctions at all having the same exact sanctions as the probably the single most visible and controversial article on the entire project, when nothing should have changed on that one.Anyway, sorry for the long response, but I really think you should revert yourself on a lot of these and go through it assessing whether or not lowering sanctions would actually be beneficial. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Don't worry about the length. I'm happy to talk about it, and I want to understand your concerns. Just so we're on the same page and not covering the same ground multiple times, have you read the FAQ page I linked in my edit summaries? One of the most common concerns mentioned by others and one that you expressed above is that that this sanction allows a team of editors to force a controversial change into an article, each editor using their one revert in a "tag-team" edit war. I responded to this in my original post a WP:AN and in Q4 of the FAQ, but I haven't seen a reaction to that from you.
- I can't find where "Forced BRD" was ever applied in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I see that "consensus required" was a thing back in 2017, and that was changed [16] to the ambiguous "original author may not restore it within 24 hours" rule that led to the "ridiculous scenarios" that eventually led to this ARCA that rolled it back to just regular 1RR. Perhaps you could point me to when "Forced BRD" was a thing?
- Assuming you have now read the FAQ page, let me see if I can put "Enforced BRD" and "Consensus Required" in terms of the regular BRD that we all know and love.
- Regular BRD is meant to be a cycle. That's why it's called the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If you're not 100% convinced on this point, read the last paragraph of the "lede" there. Put in letters, it's BRD...BRD...BRD...until consensus is formed.
- Enforced BRD (this sanction) is basically a slowed down version of the regular BRD cycle with a mandatory pause between each Bold edit. In letters, it's BRD-wait-BRD-wait-BRD...until consensus is formed.
- Consensus Required permanently interrupts the BRD cycle after the first iteration, mandating only discussion after the first revert. In letters, it's BRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD...until consensus is formed.
- Are we somewhat on the same page with this? ~Awilley (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that it requires a FAQ is part of the problem. Re: Arab-Israeli, to me this is reads as functionally being the exact same thing as what was recently amended. You’ve just given it a different name.I’ve read it, and to me it reads as the best thing I’ve read that describes why consensus required should be kept on articles where something more then 1RR is needed. I think your description of consensus required is fair, and you accurately describe why consensus required is preferable in these articles while trying to argue against it (not trying to be snarky here: I’d write something almost identical arguing against this.) I impose consensus required specifically for the reasons you seem to oppose it: it stops editing on a contentious topic until there is a clear consensus, which in many of these articles is the best possible solution. I’d appreciate it if you restored the original sanctions to the articles I’d previously mentioned on this page and consider restoring it selectively to BLPs. If you prefer, I can add the consensus required sanction back myself and take ownership of it on those articles.The flip-side being, I also think there are a lot more articles that can have active sanctions done away with completely, which this has also complicated. This is why I suggested at AN the other day that you workshop the pages you wanted to change and get other interested editors and admins to comment on specific articles. It’s not an emergency, but this is kinda a mess right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni:, you say this is "functionally the exact same thing" as what was amended on Arab-Israeli. That suggests to me that you haven't looked at this closely enough to recognize that there are very significant differences.
- You say that Consensus Required is better than BRD. I say that it is better than BRD for some things and worse for other things. It is obviously good for forcing a BRDDDDDDDDDDD, but have you ever asked yourself what kind of effects DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD has on Wikipedia culture, or what good behaviors Consensus Required might be quashing?
- You say that Consensus Required is a good way to stop people from reinserting contentious material into high profile articles. I agree with you. I further suggest that applying a Consensus Required sanction to the individual editors who habitually reinsert contentious material into high profile articles is a better way of dealing with the problem, as it prevents those problem editors from reinserting contentious material into any article regardless of whether that article is under sanctions. And it has the benefit of not punishing the good actors in the topic area. Maybe an analogy will help. You might say,
"Full protection is a good way to stop disruptive editing."
I would respond,"You are correct, but Blocking disruptive editors is a better way to stop disruptive editing, because it doesn't punish non-disruptive editors."
~Awilley (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)- Individual editors will never be sanctioned this way and it would be unenforcable as an individual sanction. I reject the false comparison to full protection: all CR is is forcing people to obey WP:ONUS, which is already policy. It works, works better than the recently removed Arab-Israeli thing (which this is), and has the most important feature of making some of the most high profile articles on the project stable for the reader, which is the single most important thing here.I again request that you restore CR on all the articles I have mentioned here (as well as Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), which I just discovered had it removed), and that you look at the BLPs again. Or at the very least agree to let me place CR as a discretionary sanction on articles where you removed it en masse where I think it is warranted. I actually think it'd be best to undo it completely and workshop it like I said on G's talk page, but at the very least a contested mass admin action that had no consensus when previously discussed at a noticeboard should not be allowed to become the status quo on contentious articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is definitely not the same as the Arab-Israeli thing, which in letters would be B-R-wait-R-wait-R-wait-R... There was no "D" in the Arab-Israeli, and the first 24-hour timer started from the time of the first Revert which led to the ridiculous scenarios of people getting sanctioned for reverting to a bold edit that they had made a month prior but that had only just been reverted for the first time. That problem is corrected in my sanction.
- Full protection is not a bad analogy. In fact CR is functionally equivalent to fully protecting an article against reinstated changes until a talkpage consensus is reached.
- Enforcing individual CR sanctions wouldn't be any more difficult than enforcing regular CR. We've got individual 1RR and 0RR sanctions against individual editors that work just fine and aren't unenforceable. What would prevent an admin from enforcing CR?
- I most strongly disagree with your assertion that article stability is the single most important thing here. If that is the case why don't we just indefinitely gold-lock all our high-profile articles?
- Individual editors will never be sanctioned this way and it would be unenforcable as an individual sanction. I reject the false comparison to full protection: all CR is is forcing people to obey WP:ONUS, which is already policy. It works, works better than the recently removed Arab-Israeli thing (which this is), and has the most important feature of making some of the most high profile articles on the project stable for the reader, which is the single most important thing here.I again request that you restore CR on all the articles I have mentioned here (as well as Special Counsel investigation (2017–present), which I just discovered had it removed), and that you look at the BLPs again. Or at the very least agree to let me place CR as a discretionary sanction on articles where you removed it en masse where I think it is warranted. I actually think it'd be best to undo it completely and workshop it like I said on G's talk page, but at the very least a contested mass admin action that had no consensus when previously discussed at a noticeboard should not be allowed to become the status quo on contentious articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the fact that it requires a FAQ is part of the problem. Re: Arab-Israeli, to me this is reads as functionally being the exact same thing as what was recently amended. You’ve just given it a different name.I’ve read it, and to me it reads as the best thing I’ve read that describes why consensus required should be kept on articles where something more then 1RR is needed. I think your description of consensus required is fair, and you accurately describe why consensus required is preferable in these articles while trying to argue against it (not trying to be snarky here: I’d write something almost identical arguing against this.) I impose consensus required specifically for the reasons you seem to oppose it: it stops editing on a contentious topic until there is a clear consensus, which in many of these articles is the best possible solution. I’d appreciate it if you restored the original sanctions to the articles I’d previously mentioned on this page and consider restoring it selectively to BLPs. If you prefer, I can add the consensus required sanction back myself and take ownership of it on those articles.The flip-side being, I also think there are a lot more articles that can have active sanctions done away with completely, which this has also complicated. This is why I suggested at AN the other day that you workshop the pages you wanted to change and get other interested editors and admins to comment on specific articles. It’s not an emergency, but this is kinda a mess right now. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is significantly easier to game and to restore issues to very high profile BLPs. It should be difficult to make a controversial change on the article of the President of the United States (and HRC, and the Special Counsel, etc.) We are the first stop for many people to learn about these people and we have an obligation to our readers to accurately reflect what reliable secondary sources say. Consensus required forces this (or at least makes it easier). It also prevents slow burning long-term edit wars. Being more conservative on highly visible articles with millions of page views is a good thing."Forced BRD" has been a mess in the Arab-Israeli conflict (which is to one degree or another what they moved to after something like consensus required) and it doesn't work. Pure 1RR is preferable to this in my view, with consensus required being the standard on articles where it is actually needed.Like I said, I don't every article needs active sanctions in that topic area, nor do I even think consensus required should be the rule on every one. I do absolutely think that it should be the rule on Clinton and Trump and many BLPs (though you can probably remove sanctions entirely from Van Jones and Neil Gorsuch, no need even for 1RR.)That's my issue here: this appears to have been done with the same one-size fits all approach, the same way the original banner was put in place, which leads to a CNN commentator who doesn't really need sanctions at all having the same exact sanctions as the probably the single most visible and controversial article on the entire project, when nothing should have changed on that one.Anyway, sorry for the long response, but I really think you should revert yourself on a lot of these and go through it assessing whether or not lowering sanctions would actually be beneficial. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm running out the door to pick up my kid, but let me just say that there is no emergency here. The new sanction actually isn't that much different from the old one, and it is certainly not putting any of our articles or their BLP subjects in any immediate danger. Bad edits can still be reverted on sight. Consensus is still required. Edits that go against explicit talkpage consensus are still exempt from 1RR and can still be reverted on sight. I'm still perfectly willing to talk it through and revert myself if I'm wrong. ~Awilley (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Please restore to Trump and Clinton. I also request that you consider undoing all the BLPs and go through them selectively. If I had known you'd be doing this over the objections of people, I'd have taken up Coffee's sanctions on the BLPs myself. I don't mind them being modified if thought through, but this is the exact same problem we had with the original sanction: one admin takes it upon themselves to write policy for an entire content area despite the fact that others have reasonable objections. I don't think that all of the articles he placed should be under active page level sanctions, but I also think the way you are going about this isn't the way to do it. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- I actually haven't finished the Hillary Clinton page yet, so 53 total. I have been doing it selectively. I removed the sanctions entirely from 26 pages the other day, and 8 more before that. ~Awilley (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
- Taking a step back from arguing individual points, you've stated multiple times that the new BRD sanction is bad, but so far you haven't convinced me that you have fully thought it through. Instead of trying to duke it out with words, would you be willing to give it a little time and see if it actually does make things better or worse? I assure you I am monitoring things very closely. I've put every one of those articles on my watchlist and I'll be investigating every edit war that I see. I'm also ready at the drop of a hat to completely revert myself on all the pages. I can do it in 10 minutes with AWB (which I didn't use for the initial placement of sanctions).
- Also I want you to know that this isn't something I did willy nilly. I literally spent hours going through each article that Coffee had sanctioned, looking at the talk pages for places where CR had been invoked and used, and looking through the article histories for edit wars and content disputes. You want me to open up some workshop and seek input, but the fact is that I've been trying to get input on this for months now and when it comes down to it the best way to get something done on this site is to do it yourself.
- So what do you say, can you give it a little time to see if this thing—which to my knowledge has never been tried before—might work? JFG and Galobtter (the strongest opposition to placing the new sanction on the Trump article) have already spent a few hours this morning testing the thing to its limits with bold edits to the lede of the Trump article. ~Awilley (talk) 19:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand everything you are saying, I just think you are wrong, and object to these removals still to the point where I’m not willing to let this become another unchangable status quo when we know the previous version worked and we know that something identical to what you you are imposing hasn’t in the past. Please restore these.
- OK, you've repeated this claim about there being an identical Arab-Israeli sanction 4 times now without evidence. Please provide a link to this identical sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You’ve already linked to it. There is no actual difference between it and
If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.
They are the same thing, and adding the word “discuss” doesn’t change anything at all. I’ve read your explanations, I just disagree with them. There isn’t any difference here. If I were to go with your explanation, I would actually consider it worse than the removed Arab-Israeli conflict sanction because under that reading could lead to inadvertent blocks for non-controversial changes because it’s so ambiguous.TonyBallioni (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)- OK, I'll do the legwork. Here's the sanction that was repealed in the recent ARCA. I'll reproduce it below for direct comparison to my sanction (underlining in original).
- You’ve already linked to it. There is no actual difference between it and
If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the first revert made to their edit. If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit.
- Your position is that these are exactly the same thing? I suppose we can agree to disagree, but I'm not sure how I feel about trying to negotiate with someone who can't see a difference between BRD and BRR. ~Awilley (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is no functional difference between the two. I would not block anyone for violating the “D” part and would be strongly inclined to grant any appeal on it because of how ambiguous it is. I understand how you view it. I’m saying how you view it isn’t how I would read it if I were an editor in the topic area, and I’m pretty versed in wiki-speak. I don’t see any difference between the two sanctions at all, and I’m concerned that you don’t see how this could be a reading that an equally intelligent person could have. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not going to get into the details of your discussion, but just comment on BRD. Above is written "...original edit) before reinstating your edit". I often instruct warring editors to interpret that as "...original edit) before reinstating your edit, after a consensus has been achieved. Whether it's a new consensus version, or the original content, get a consensus."...or something like that, depending on the situation. What some editors fail to realize is that slow edit warring over several days or weeks is still edit warring. Over 24 hours doesn't make it less than edit warring. If content is disputed, get a consensus or, failing to do that, seek effective dispute resolution. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is no functional difference between the two. I would not block anyone for violating the “D” part and would be strongly inclined to grant any appeal on it because of how ambiguous it is. I understand how you view it. I’m saying how you view it isn’t how I would read it if I were an editor in the topic area, and I’m pretty versed in wiki-speak. I don’t see any difference between the two sanctions at all, and I’m concerned that you don’t see how this could be a reading that an equally intelligent person could have. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Your position is that these are exactly the same thing? I suppose we can agree to disagree, but I'm not sure how I feel about trying to negotiate with someone who can't see a difference between BRD and BRR. ~Awilley (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Re: what I have in mind: take all the Coffee articles and put them on a subpage. Let people note if they think the current sanctions are needed. Any articles without comments should have all sanctions removed. Any that note just 1RR should have CR removed, and any that have prefer CR would have it kept. I think this actually would result in a significant decrease in the number of pages under active sanctions, including removing them entirely from many of the 54 pages you put under the new BRD sanction yesterday. I think this is equally a part of why I’m frustrated here: you’ve added a sanction that I think is bad to many pages that could have had sanction removed entirely, while removing a sanction that works from pages that need it. This is the exact same thing Coffee did, and I was hoping that we would be able to find a way to deal with the problem on an article-by-article basis, rather than one admin deciding how an entire topic area works until they retire again. I have no problem trying to contribute to this and working a way forward, but I prefer to work towards a solution under the status quo rather than being forced to see if a sanction I strongly oppose both philosophically and practically works poorly over a few months and then being stuck with it. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- The subpage I think you're looking for already exists at User:Awilley/CRDraft. ~Awilley (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Good. Let’s restore the 54 articles that you changed yesterday to the status quo and work from this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)- Actually, scratch that. Too much work and the list is well done and easy to work through (thanks, I really mean it.) I made a diff here noting which of the ones changed I think likely should have CR. Unless any of the others are prone to edit wars, I think sanctions can likely be removed from them, and some I think are even out of the AP2 scope (Trump’s ex). Hope this is helpful so you see what I’m talking about. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so you are saying restore CR to approximately 19 pages and remove all sanctions from the rest. I don't want to lead you on here; I'm not convinced that the plug needs to be pulled on BRD yet. And don't worry, there's no way I'm going to leave a legacy like Coffee's. When I decide to retire I'll make sure my things are in order first. You don't want to do an experiment over a few months and then end up stuck with it? OK. How about we start with a few weeks and then re-assess? Like I said, there's no danger, if things go south I can revert everything in 20 minutes, and worst case we go back to Consensus Required with editors being mildly annoyed at the rule changes but also a bit more conscious about trying to use partial reverts to find compromise. ~Awilley (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I’m saying remove all sanctions from articles other than the ones I noted would be the way I’d go forward, but I’m willing to be convinced that some should have sanctions and others that I have noted shouldn’t. It’s not a hard and fast list, but a starting point.No, I don’t think we should give this a try, and I’m not willing to discuss this anymore from the stance of it being in place and basically only you get to decide when to remove it. Oddly enough, if we go off the BRD model, you are asking for BDR: bold discuss revert, which is not in keeping with the spirit of this project for changes this big. DS were meant to be applied with discretion and on a per-article basis, not to an entire subject area in a 10 minute time. I know you must be frustrated with me (and I’ve been frustrated as well), but it really is not even possible to have a discussion on 54 articles placed under the exact same DS, as I’m sure you learned when you were working basically alone on the thankless task of trying to find a way forward. Please either remove BRD or restore back to the old sanction. If there’s one where disruption occurs after, it’s very easy for you to reimpose it once sanctions have been removed. I just can’t really discuss this from the position of “You’ve changed something that can’t ordinarily be changed to something I think is a horrible idea and if I change back I’m probably wheel warring in spirit if not exact wording.” That’s no place to have a discussion from, which I’m sure you can appreciate. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- OK, so you are saying restore CR to approximately 19 pages and remove all sanctions from the rest. I don't want to lead you on here; I'm not convinced that the plug needs to be pulled on BRD yet. And don't worry, there's no way I'm going to leave a legacy like Coffee's. When I decide to retire I'll make sure my things are in order first. You don't want to do an experiment over a few months and then end up stuck with it? OK. How about we start with a few weeks and then re-assess? Like I said, there's no danger, if things go south I can revert everything in 20 minutes, and worst case we go back to Consensus Required with editors being mildly annoyed at the rule changes but also a bit more conscious about trying to use partial reverts to find compromise. ~Awilley (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. I stepped away from this yesterday to allow myself to think about it some more, and my thoughts are still the same as above. I really feel like you abused your discretion here and that what you are doing in this discussion is unhealthy for the project: one administrator should not be allowed to force a massive change on a topic area under DS because of first mover advantage, which is what happened here. I’m asking for the courtesy of you allowing me to place the pages that under ordinary circumstances I’d be allowed to increase sanctions on under CR or yo revert yourself so that people can think of a way forward under the status quo rather than under your forced changes. As I hinted at above, I think there is a bit of irony here that you aren’t willing to follow BRD on this yourself: that is inherent in DS, but normally it’s over 1 article not 54. I’m asking you with all sincerity and intent of trying to find a way forward to please revert or allow me to do what I would have done if I had known you were going to place this sanction everywhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, and I appreciate the thought you've put into this. You are right on a number of counts, and I do owe you a sincere apology. I took full advantage of the "first mover advantage", and did so in a way that was unusually rapid. You probably feel doubly betrayed because you in good faith had pointed out to me the mechanism I exploited to do what I did. If it's any consolation I was fully aware of ArbCom motion since December 9 [17] several days before you pointed it out. Weeks before that I had deliberately rejected the opportunity to be appointed as Coffee's "successor". [18] I started the AE thread on December 12 and pinged you there despite knowing that the ArbCom motion would soon pass that would give me power to change the sanctions myself. What I'm trying to say is that I don't like the way I ended up taking over, and it wasn't my first choice, or my second, or my third. I only did it this way because it seemed like the best remaining option to break up the gridlock and effect needed changes. Though I didn't technically break any rules, I did it in the spirit of WP:IAR.
- That said, the discretionary sanction system was intentionally written so that individual administrators could exercise discretion in identifying a problem and trying to fix it. That is at the heart of what I'm doing. It's an imperfect system and I don't particularly like it myself. But I will still use an imperfect tool to try to change things the AP topic area for the better. My new BRD rule has some obvious shortcomings that are becoming apparent in the crucible that is the Donald Trump article. I will probably need to modify the sanction in the next week or so anyway. If the experiment fails I'll be going back to the old Consensus Required and most likely releasing "ownership" of all the 56 article sanctions I'm now "in charge" of. (Prior to taking over Coffee's sanctions I had only ever placed page-level sanctions on one article in this topic area, and that was only after being asked multiple times to do it.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I get that we’re both acting in good faith, but here’s the issue here: if you simply put BRD on a brand new article, I would be free to add CR as a stricter sanction. Any admin can always add more sanctions. Admins cannot normally remove sanctions without consensus, though. The issue here is that you’ve unilaterlly removed a sanction and replaced it with a new one. That brings us to probably the only time in the history of Wikipedia where this will happen: one admin cannot add a stricter discretionary sanction that they feel necessary on a subset of a mass change. That is not how discretionary sanctions were intended to work, they were supposed to give admins freedom in dealing with articles, and what you’ve done is tied every other admin’s hands in a way that literally has never happened before. It gives you more power over AP2 than any other admin has ever had, and you basically get to dictate the outcome and ignore everything you don’t agree with, because we both know that there will never be consensus to overturn mass page level sanctions. I don’t think you’re doing this to be power hungry or anything, but you’re going through a live experiment on probably the most visible page on the project for no good reason when we had a sanction that had been working and working well for years.While I get that you don’t have to because of the really unique confluence of ArbCom rules and policies that will likely never repeat, I really do need to ask you again to restore or let me restore and take ownership here: given everything I think it’s the right thing to do and in line with both the spirit of this being a collaborative project and the intent of the DS system: both of which I think you have unintentionally acted against here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I respectfully decline your request for the moment. This may very well change in the coming days.
- I disagree that CR could be placed on top of BRD, even if it were a new article, because the two sanctions are mutually exclusive, in direct contradiction with each other. It's not like adding a civility restriction on top of a 1RR restriction, it's like adding a 0RR restriction on top of a 1RR restriction. It fundamentally changes/invalidates the old sanction.
- I had to chuckle a bit at
"it gives you more power over AP2 than any other admin has ever had"
First, I'd point you to User:Coffee. Second, that type of "power" is an illusion. Real power on Wikipedia, I think, comes from a combination of having the smarts to form rational ideas and opinions, the ability to clearly and concisely communicate those ideas to others, and the time in which to do this. (I'm obviously lacking in all these categories, some more than others.) I'd wager that there are editors and admins who have more power than some members of ArbCom. Sure, as admins we've got some extra tools, but the illusion of power quickly evaporates as soon as we do something stupid. Jimbo has more permissions and tools than anyone else on the project. He could at any moment desysop and ban both of us. His actual power is much more limited. - Re:
a live experiment on probably the most visible page on the project"
. #23 last week, will probably go up this week. And I have my finger on the kill switch. As for the experimental results, compare these two diffs: Changes from 19 December to 21 December 19 November to 19 December There have been more significant changes (largely improvements I think many would agree) to the article in the past 2 days than in the preceding month. I didn't expect that, and I obviously don't expect things to continue at that rate...editors are experimenting with the new rules and two in particular have put in a tremendous amount of time and effort...but I think that article development is an improvement over "stability". On the negative side there has been one slow revert-war...the repeated addition and removal of 4 words...fairly innocuous compared to some of the disputes I've seen. Overall though, based on my observations over the past couple of years, I'd say that things are working closer to the way Wikipedia is supposed to work than in the past. - Anyway I apologize for yet another long post. I will try to be more concise if this discussion continues; I want to be respectful of your time, especially with the holidays coming on when I assume you will want to be spending more time with friends and family. ~Awilley (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I get that we’re both acting in good faith, but here’s the issue here: if you simply put BRD on a brand new article, I would be free to add CR as a stricter sanction. Any admin can always add more sanctions. Admins cannot normally remove sanctions without consensus, though. The issue here is that you’ve unilaterlly removed a sanction and replaced it with a new one. That brings us to probably the only time in the history of Wikipedia where this will happen: one admin cannot add a stricter discretionary sanction that they feel necessary on a subset of a mass change. That is not how discretionary sanctions were intended to work, they were supposed to give admins freedom in dealing with articles, and what you’ve done is tied every other admin’s hands in a way that literally has never happened before. It gives you more power over AP2 than any other admin has ever had, and you basically get to dictate the outcome and ignore everything you don’t agree with, because we both know that there will never be consensus to overturn mass page level sanctions. I don’t think you’re doing this to be power hungry or anything, but you’re going through a live experiment on probably the most visible page on the project for no good reason when we had a sanction that had been working and working well for years.While I get that you don’t have to because of the really unique confluence of ArbCom rules and policies that will likely never repeat, I really do need to ask you again to restore or let me restore and take ownership here: given everything I think it’s the right thing to do and in line with both the spirit of this being a collaborative project and the intent of the DS system: both of which I think you have unintentionally acted against here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
CR can be placed on any article with BRD as any admin is free to add tougher sanctions
No, this is worse than what Coffee did, as now no one can increase when they think more sanctions are needed, which wasn't the case with his sanctions. We're stuck with these.
I'm sorry, but you ignored consensus, gamed policy (both DS and wheel warring), fully aware that you were taking advantage of the first mover rule, and now are refusing to back down in one of the most bizarre set of circumstances the DS system has seen. There is no way that this is appropriate even if it is within the rules, and all I am asking for is a partial restoration of the status quo. The courteous thing to do would be to allow the person who has good faith objections and could have taken over the existing sanctions to do so. It's what I would have done if I changed them, and I expect most administrators would too. It's the right thing to do, and I hope you change your mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Closure of RfC: Nikola Tesla's birthplace
Hi. It seems that you were the only uninvolved user to leave a comment. This is the first time that I have opened such request. I was expecting that it will get closed like other requests, but it got archived. Now I'm unsure what to do. Should I reopen it? You said that another RfC is a possibility. I would like to open it in a month or so. Does the thread that got archived give me enough grounds to do it?Bilseric (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Threads get archived all the time without a formal close. It often just means that nobody cared enough about it to bother with a close. Not having the archived thread in front of me I can't advise you on what the consensus might have been there, but based on my memory at the time I commented, it didn't seem like a good idea to open a second RfC right off the bat. It's an issue of WP:BLUDGEON and WP:Tendentious editing. ~Awilley (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, I believe it was formally closed with Bilseric as the only support for their own RfC only eight days ago.[19]. Opening a new RfC would be disruptive, IMO. O3000 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think he's talking about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive305#Closure_of_RfC:_Nikola_Tesla's_birthplace getting archived without a close. But yes. ~Awilley (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Unless I'm missing something, I believe it was formally closed with Bilseric as the only support for their own RfC only eight days ago.[19]. Opening a new RfC would be disruptive, IMO. O3000 (talk) 13:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Bilseric: No, you should not open a new RfC. The issue has been extensively discussed for years and the consensus has held for the material to remain as it is. Geopolitical debates about disputed regions and subregions within the mid-19th century Austrian Empire do not belong on a Nikola Tesla talk page. In case it's not clear, editors who continue to disrupt Wikipedia while pursuing a tendentious agenda are routinely blocked, even if it turns out that they are not sock puppets of blocked editors who exhibited identical behavior in the past. Your best path forward is to consider the matter closed and move on to improving the encyclopedia in other ways, assuming that's what you are here to do. - MrX 🖋 14:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- You had bad intentions towards me from the beginning, which I can't understand why. I'm just following the sources. You have intentionally ignored my 2nd source for some reason. Then you said that I was cherry picking, but you didn't want to put forward any source when I asked for them. Then you asked for a snow closure with a clear case of canvassing. Then , you as an involved editor went to ANRFC to close my request. How would you feel if I was to disagree with you and went to close your request on ANRFC? When I told you that I don't feel comfortable with you as involved editor doing this , you went to revert me twice , thus trying to bate me to go to edit warring, so you could use that against me. Then you indeed tried to use that against me by reporting me that I'm a sock. Now when my request didn't get closed you follow me here to leave a post like this one. I feel that you are trying to toggle me into an emotional response so you could further portrait me as being NOTHERE. Why are you doing all this? What did I do to you? I posted some sources on Tesla page and wanted some previously uninvolved esitors to participate. Have I with that action really deserved all this that you have been doing to me? If the source has 2 sentences , why are you so strongly trying to push only one sentence to the article and trying to prevent me putting the source with both sentences as a reference. I wouldn't even change anything in the article. You can't cherry pick what you like from the source and hide the following sentence which explains the previous one, then go to talk page and give your interpretations about the first sentence which totally go against the sentence you are hiding from readers. I can not understand this. And I can't understand that noone from admin side cared to answer my concerns. Bilseric (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
The 2nd source wasn't discussed on purpose by some users. I don't think it's fair from them to neglect a source and "forbid" other users to participate by pushing a snow closure and come here to argue the same thing. I truly have expected that this concern of mine will get answered at ANI. I have put in my time into this and I don't feel well with the fact that noone cared enough to look at it. You were the only one Awilley. I value your opinion on this matter and I'll follow on that, thanks. I'll wait a month or so. Bilseric (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- Bilseric, my advice isn't to wait a month or so. My advice is to drop it for at least a year, maybe forever. The Wikipedia process is imperfect, but that's what we have to work with. Like they say, "Life isn't fair". If you take this up again in a month or so it will backfire on you. ~Awilley (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's why we have AN on Wikipedia. Bilseric (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Some friendly advice: Before going to AN, read WP:PETARD. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- I went to AN already. I only asked to allow other users to have time to join in the discussion. Not an unreasonable request, but it was neither declined nor accepted. I thought it wouldn't hurt anyone to see what other uninvolved editors thought about the sources that I posted. I feel that this is in the spirit of Wikipedia. I will listen to User:Awilley's advice, because I feel he was honest. I still feel terrible with how some other editors were treating me. One of them got banned because of the same behavior on other article since then. Other one openly admitted that he was not honest in his opinion when he said that I should provide a specific source. Others that have asked for that source have ignored it (I suspect intentionally, because I have pinged them) MrX did several actions in effort to present me as disruptive. I invested a lot of my time into this and I got so much opposition, hatred and threats over a simple request to put a reference next to one sentence, which shows what the following sentence of the one that is already included in the article says. I wanted to act in good faith so I asked everyone to participate, but I didn't feel good faith from anyone, especially from MrX and the user that got blocked soon after. Wikipedia points out that we should assume good faith. I felt it only from User:Awilley Bilseric (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- Some friendly advice: Before going to AN, read WP:PETARD. O3000 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- That's why we have AN on Wikipedia. Bilseric (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
.jpeg)
|
Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år! |
Administrators' newsletter – January 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:
- G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
- R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
- G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
- The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
- Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
- Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
- At least 8 characters in length
- Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
- Different from their username
- User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
- Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
- {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Arbitration
- Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.
Miscellaneous
- Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
- Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
My talk page: CharlesShirley
Material copy-pasted from User talk:CharlesShirley
|
|---|
|
"This material is positive and we should be adding negative material about how this person said racist things" [my paraphrase] is not a good rationale for removing reliably sourced material from the biography of a living person. ~Awilley (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
|
- Awilley: Based upon the back and forth above from my talk page I would like to hear the opinion of another administrator. Basically you have told me that I have expressed an opinion on the EW talk page and I have provided a reliable source which has the exact same opinion and you have threatened have me ban from the EW topic. I find your comments to be attempt by an administrator to intimidate and censor a fellow editor. My opinion that EW's initial justification for her claims was based upon a racial stereotype is the same opinion of many members of my tribe and it seems you are attempting to stop me from even bringing up this fact and attempt to work it into the article. It seems to me that you are letting your own personal opinion get in the way of being a fair and objective administrator. - CharlesShirley (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley: That is a good sign that you are encouraging a second opinion. It is one good step toward backing off your attempts to intimidate and threaten me into keeping my opinion about EW's use of a racist stereotype to myself. You have expressed your opinion that I have done something wrong, but yet you have not indicated what that something exactly is. The only thing that you have focused on is that you do not like me saying that EW's use of a false belief about all "Indians" is racist. I have pointed out over and over again that it is an opinion held by other reliable sources AND that it is based upon the words that have come directly out of EW's mouth. She quoted her Aunt that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". It is false that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". It is as false as saying that "all Indians" are "drink too much". These are called racist stereotypes. You have flat out told me that if I continue to talk to other editors on the talk page about this comment (a comment that was in the article for literally over a year) then I will topic banned from the EW article. This is a blatant misuse of your administrative powers. You have a different opinion about what I and other reliable sources have stated about EW's use of racist stereotypes and that is your right. However, you have gone far beyond that and told me that you will, as an administrator, have me topic banned if I continue to talk on the EW talk page about EW's use of a racist stereotype. I will not be intimidated or threaten in my attempts to have a quote re-inserted into the article that was in the article for over a year. A quote that is important and substantive and has been reported in a significant number of reliable sources. You have a right to your opinion, just like I do. But you don't have a right to purse a topic ban on me just because you don't like my opinion and the opinion of hundreds of thousands of reliable sources. Don't use your administrative status to intimidate other editors into keeping their mouth shut. You were wrong to threaten me with a topic ban of EW's article, regardless of your unwillingness to admit it. - CharlesShirley (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley, you would be wise to listen to other editors, and Awilley who is one of our most even-keeled administrators. The advice that he gave you is on point. If you continue along the road you're on, you will probably end up sanctioned and prevented from editing the article at all. That's not a threat—it's a pretty reliable prediction. By the way, your membership in the Cherokee tribe (assuming that's factual) has absolutely no bearing on how we write articles. If anything, it may be a WP:COI issue if you are not able find distance between your personal feelings from the content in dispute. - MrX 🖋 12:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- MrX: I agree that my membership in the Cherokee Nation does not have any bearing on how we write articles for Wikipedia. But then again I have never claimed that it did. (BTW, I can flat out prove it if I had to.) But more importantly I have not said that EW is a out and out racist and everyone should see that as Awilley outlines below. I have pointed out in a pretty even keel manner over and over again that EW did use a racist stereotype when she said that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones". That's is. It is a fairly limited statement and it does not support or justify a topic ban. There are many editors who do not agree with my comment and they are very, very aggressive in their disagreement but that does not mean that I have said or done anything to support a topic ban. They just don't like me saying what I said about EW. - CharlesShirley (talk) 02:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have left a polite note on CharlesShirley's talk page. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:50, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- @CharlesShirley, Actually I never expressed an opinion on whether Warren's allusion to high cheekbones was racist, and as much as you seem to want to discuss that with me (and it seems everyone else you come in contact with) I'm not interested in discussing it with you.
- Let me clarify what I warned you about, since that seems to be a source of confusion.
- The first warning was about using something's "positivity" or "negativity" as a criteria for inclusion in a BLP article. That's not how Wikipedia works. The argument "We should include this in the article because it's about racism" doesn't work, nor does the argument "we should exclude this from the article because it's not about racism and the article needs to talk more about racism". That's warning number 1.
- The second warning is about what we call MPOV which is basically you assuming that your point of view is the correct and neutral point of view. An example of something that would violate this warning would be if you went around saying something along the lines of "Elizabeth Warren is a racist and everybody should be able to see that" without providing multiple high quality secondary sources that explicitly support your assertion. I'm not saying you have done this (if you had you'd probably already be topic banned), but I have noticed that the only source you seem to have provided is an opinion piece, which is not sufficient for the types of negative claims you're trying to make. You can learn more at WP:NEWSORG.~Awilley (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Warning #1 is unnecessary because I did not say that was a criteria that I use to include or exclude information from an article. You flat out either misquoted me intentionally or did not understand my point of view. I was making the exact same argument that you are: that using "positive" or "negative" aspects about a subject is NOT a valid standard. That's why I did not understand your warning in the first place, simply because I never said what you are claiming that I said. That's why it was unnecessary, but at least now I understand what you were attempting to get at. You yourself admitted that you thought from my response that I thought you came to my talk page to talk about EW's use of a racial stereotype. I am sorry that you did not make yourself clear or that your misunderstood my point about "positive" and "negative". Once again, I agree that it is not an accurate standard for inclusion. - CharlesShirley (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley, you would be wise to listen to other editors, and Awilley who is one of our most even-keeled administrators. The advice that he gave you is on point. If you continue along the road you're on, you will probably end up sanctioned and prevented from editing the article at all. That's not a threat—it's a pretty reliable prediction. By the way, your membership in the Cherokee tribe (assuming that's factual) has absolutely no bearing on how we write articles. If anything, it may be a WP:COI issue if you are not able find distance between your personal feelings from the content in dispute. - MrX 🖋 12:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's review what you are so-called "warning" me about. I did not say what you just claimed that I said. I never said anything like it. What I have said is very limited: I have pointed out correctly that saying "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" is a racist stereotype. Also, I have provided a source for the comment outside of myself. Also, your second warning misses the point. I have not assumed that my POV is neutral. You do not have a crystal ball into my intentions or assumptions. You also created a strawman and attacked it. I have not stated that EW is racist and everyone should see that. You put words in my mouth and then you attacked that and earlier you threatened a topic ban for merely pointing that a huge number of members of my tribe find EW's claim that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" to be a racist stereotype. I never made the type of claim that you are stating above. This is a classic red herring attempt to deflect from what I have been saying all along. There is no prove that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" and therefore saying such a thing is a mildly racist stereotype. I said nothing that supports a topic ban. You just don't like the point that I have been making about EW's original defense of her claims of being "Indian" and "Cherokee". You have not given any real reasoning except for: Warning #1 twisting what I said to be the opposite of what I said (I agree that + and - is no standard to define what should be in an article) and Warning #2 attacking a statement that I never made and would never make instead of focusing on what I actually said, which is quite narrow in its focus (EW used a racist stereotype when he claimed that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones"). I have said absolutely nothing to justify a topic ban. The claim that I have is ludicrous. - CharlesShirley (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- FYI there is nothing "so-called" about the warning you were given. Lot's of people are unhappy about suggestions their actions are inappropriate and that particularly applies when an administrator is involved. Accordingly, people are given lots of room to rant. However, sooner or later someone will assess whether continuation helps the encyclopedia—a conclusion of no would lead to sanctions. It would be best to focus on policy-compliant and actionable proposals to improve an article, and that should happen on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- CharlesShirley, you clearly have a conflict of interest. There exist a rather huge number of editors without such that can weigh in on your stated objections. Leave it to them as repetition rarely works. Friendly advice: You are now running into the Law of Holes. As several editors have informed you, this will not end well for you. Admins here can be remarkably patient. But, patience has its limits. There is only so much WP:ROPE. O3000 (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- FYI there is nothing "so-called" about the warning you were given. Lot's of people are unhappy about suggestions their actions are inappropriate and that particularly applies when an administrator is involved. Accordingly, people are given lots of room to rant. However, sooner or later someone will assess whether continuation helps the encyclopedia—a conclusion of no would lead to sanctions. It would be best to focus on policy-compliant and actionable proposals to improve an article, and that should happen on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
- Let's review what you are so-called "warning" me about. I did not say what you just claimed that I said. I never said anything like it. What I have said is very limited: I have pointed out correctly that saying "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" is a racist stereotype. Also, I have provided a source for the comment outside of myself. Also, your second warning misses the point. I have not assumed that my POV is neutral. You do not have a crystal ball into my intentions or assumptions. You also created a strawman and attacked it. I have not stated that EW is racist and everyone should see that. You put words in my mouth and then you attacked that and earlier you threatened a topic ban for merely pointing that a huge number of members of my tribe find EW's claim that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" to be a racist stereotype. I never made the type of claim that you are stating above. This is a classic red herring attempt to deflect from what I have been saying all along. There is no prove that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones" and therefore saying such a thing is a mildly racist stereotype. I said nothing that supports a topic ban. You just don't like the point that I have been making about EW's original defense of her claims of being "Indian" and "Cherokee". You have not given any real reasoning except for: Warning #1 twisting what I said to be the opposite of what I said (I agree that + and - is no standard to define what should be in an article) and Warning #2 attacking a statement that I never made and would never make instead of focusing on what I actually said, which is quite narrow in its focus (EW used a racist stereotype when he claimed that "all Indians" have "high cheekbones"). I have said absolutely nothing to justify a topic ban. The claim that I have is ludicrous. - CharlesShirley (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Clarification sought about your AP editing restrictions
Greetings Awilley. Could you please clarify your intent with regard to the BRD aspect of this? {{American politics AE/Edit notice}}
The way I interpret it is that, if my edit is reverted, both of the following conditions must be met before the edit can be reinstated
- Wait 24 hours
- Discuss on the talk page
I want to clarify that your intent is not that the editor must wait 24 hours after discussing on the talk page. I hope I'm correct, otherwise I may have to frogmarch myself AE for a proper thrashing.
Thank you. - MrX 🖋 22:04, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Your interpretation is correct. The 24 hours is from the time of your revert. That bit is spelled out more clearly in the talkpage version of the sanction template. The edit notice is very much abbreviated, which I think is common practice though I could be wrong. ~Awilley (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
ANI help
See: WP:ANI#Persistent NOTBROKEN vios, no communication
Apparently no admin will do anything about that situation unless some number of ANI regulars (a) understand WP:NOTBROKEN and (b) care about it—the community consensus behind the guideline means little in the end. Apparently even three (3) experienced editors complaining independently on the user's talk page are not enough—or perhaps the issue lacks sufficient drama to get any attention.
The project sorely needs "cops" who don't need support from ANI regulars to enforce long-standing PAGs.
This IP's history starts on 5 December and includes dozens, maybe hundreds of NOTBROKEN vios. Who knows how many occurred on former IP addresses (this is just one of the many AmAzInGlY Excellent Reasons to require registration, but that's a separate issue). In the long term the failure to communicate is even more serious than the NOTBROKEN vios; Wikipedia simply cannot function without two-way editor communication.
The IP has now been quiet for 3 days, leaving us to guess what that means. Has the address changed? In any case I'm required to continue monitoring the contribs for that address. I really have better things to do.
I use ANI very rarely anymore, and this is why—it's usually a waste of my limited Wikipedia time. I guess my time expenditure has already exceeded two solid hours. Are you perchance willing to expend ~15 minutes to take action on this? ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
New DS
I restored two edits in this article with your new BRD rule [21]. I read "If an edit you make is challenged" as not applying because I didn't make the initial edits. Is that right? D.Creish (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
- Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
- A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
- A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
ONUS : CR
I removed some content based on the last sentence at WP:ONUS, which is part of WP:V. It then occurred to me that that sounds a lot like "consensus required", and it applies to all articles, not just a subset under restrictions. How do you resolve this? ―Mandruss ☎ 03:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- It's true. The onus should be on the party trying to change the status quo, and that should apply everywhere. I'm not sure how to resolve the current dispute at the Elizabeth Warren article. Looking at things on the talk page and the way the content has evolved as it pops in and out of the article I suspect things will settle with a brief mention of the registration card as part of another sentence. Unfortunately for the next while I suspect it will be a battle against bloat about the Native American stuff in that article. I wonder if any of the folks trying to keep breaking news bloat out of the Trump article with 48 hour waiting periods and such will weigh in. ~Awilley (talk) 07:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- What is the difference between ONUS, which you say is good, and consensus required, which was removed apparently because it was bad? Simply the relative likelihood of a sanction, which was more theoretical than real anyway? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think CR was necessarily bad. Consensus is a core value here, and it is always required. But there are multiple ways of reaching consensus, and the rule "Consensus Required" was limiting editors to just one way: discussion on the talk page. Relaxing that rule allows people to, for example, explore compromise solutions through partial reverts/reinstatements, that often allow consensus to be reached more quickly than voting on talk pages. The ONUS is still on the people trying to add new material...they are still expected to start the talk page discussion, support their edits, and try to take into account the objections of the people opposing the change. ~Awilley (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- What is the difference between ONUS, which you say is good, and consensus required, which was removed apparently because it was bad? Simply the relative likelihood of a sanction, which was more theoretical than real anyway? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Devin Nunes
Devin Nunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello. Since you took responsibility of page restrictions at Devin Nunes and replaced "consensus required" provision with "entrenched BRD", I have a question for you.
This discussion has been stalled since July. Nobody can explain why the article says "Nonetheless, deputy FBI director Andrew McCabe resigned due in part to the Nunes memo"
. There is perhaps consensus for removing that specific part, but leaving only the latter fragment without mentioning Nunes memo would make zero sense.
I'm unable to come up with any compromise edit because I don't even understand what the dispute is about. Would it be okay to just reinstate my July edit or should I seek further input from a specialised noticeboard/RFC/another venue? Thanks. Politrukki (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see anything preventing you from reinstating that. ~Awilley (talk) 01:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you again. I have been away this whole time, but I have now finally corrected the error. What have your talk page stalkers been doing meanwhile?
It is beyond my comprehension how it can take more than a year to remove trivial nonsense like this. What is even weirder that the relevant part was edited on 20 February 2019, yet the error remained. - Separately, I am concerned about edits like this that use self-published and other poor sources:
- There was a talk page discussion about this on March, but nobody bothered to remove the offending material until I did it today. Would you kindly educate the editors on the importance of using only reliable sources in BLPs? Politrukki (talk) 18:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you again. I have been away this whole time, but I have now finally corrected the error. What have your talk page stalkers been doing meanwhile?
Administrators' newsletter – March 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
- Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
- A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
- checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
- paid-en-wp
- The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
Miscellaneous
- Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.
V violation at Presidency article
I believe the Presidency of Donald Trump lead has inserted a line which has not followed V and LEAD. Where would it be best to ask for a policy clarification about “the cites and content are elsewhere” question ? RSVP
This was proposed by Starship.paint in the TALK, to dupe a lead line from another Donald Trump article re false and misleading statements, add a wikilink, and insert in the other article lead without the body or cites that other article had. Well stated by Starship with pings, opposed by me, supported by Volunteer Marek, then by Dimadick, then implicitly by MrX who put it into article. (Did not observe a 48 hour waiting period.). After implementation a 4th supporter Neutrality showed up. No further editors in the last week or so.
This direct-to-lead edit was not supported by the body or cites of the article it was placed. The question is whether V and LEAD are met when such supports are in another article.
Again, please suggest a venue to resolve the stance of V and Lead regarding support is in a different article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- The best noticeboard for resolving issues of WP:V would probably be WP:RS/N. (WP:LEAD would probably be more relevant at WP:NPOV/N.) But I can't recommend that you run off and start some new noticeboard thread, as that goes against the whole WP:BLUDGEON thing I'm talking about. And I really have to question whether you understand WP:V. WP:V says that,
Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
I seem to remember Starship.paint providing you with something along the lines of 15 reliable sources to support the material, including peer-reviewed academic sources. So I'm confused as to why you would think that WP:V isn't satisfied. Are you saying that those sources don't support the material, or that they are not reliable sources? Or is your concern that the sentence didn't have citations when it was copied over? (If that's the case a {{citation needed}} template is a good first step to resolving the dispute.) I don't think I understand what your concern is. ~Awilley (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)- User:Awilley The V question is whether support for a line must be in the article of the line. With just dubbing lead from a different article, the cites the line is based on will not be present in the article the text is, because they are not part of a lead, so the reader is not given the basis of the line. Similarly the LEAD question is that the inserted line is not summarising material of the article, it is copying from elsewhere. Starship offering potential cites in TALK (not for article) or adding a hyperlink (in article) to a third article seem not to answer the issue V of showing the reader the basis in the article. (Also because the line simply was not built based on those.) ‘Copying from another article lead’ seems about explicitly *skipping* V or LEAD. However, that brings up a technicality that needs a venue ... V says it must be verifiable, but does not literally say the verifiability shall be presented in the article. So I’m looking for a venue that discusses what V means. RSN ? Well lack of RS might not be the typical topic there, but it’s a candidate. Got any other thoughts for venue ? Hoping for something small focused to policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- So the problem is a lack of inline citations? ~Awilley (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Awilley - usually cites are not in the lead because it’s summarizing content of the article per MOS:LEAD and summarizing article content that has cites. Adding in-line citations at the duped lines would be an approach to address having V for the insert in the article, though still not a match to LEAD of summarizing the article it’s at. Starship.paint offered about 10 cites I think, though it looked rather a herd of unprominent items so cites would be another debate - and usually I regard the goal being to have text reflect the body of pubs, and hunting pubs to support predetermined prose as inappropriate. I am still dubious about just editing straight in lead generally, here by copy-pasting from another lead is a twist on it and I’d like a venue to ask V and LEAD question about ‘just copy from one lead to another’. Still think RSN best ? Markbassett (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- So the problem is a lack of inline citations? ~Awilley (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- User:Awilley The V question is whether support for a line must be in the article of the line. With just dubbing lead from a different article, the cites the line is based on will not be present in the article the text is, because they are not part of a lead, so the reader is not given the basis of the line. Similarly the LEAD question is that the inserted line is not summarising material of the article, it is copying from elsewhere. Starship offering potential cites in TALK (not for article) or adding a hyperlink (in article) to a third article seem not to answer the issue V of showing the reader the basis in the article. (Also because the line simply was not built based on those.) ‘Copying from another article lead’ seems about explicitly *skipping* V or LEAD. However, that brings up a technicality that needs a venue ... V says it must be verifiable, but does not literally say the verifiability shall be presented in the article. So I’m looking for a venue that discusses what V means. RSN ? Well lack of RS might not be the typical topic there, but it’s a candidate. Got any other thoughts for venue ? Hoping for something small focused to policy. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
- So the problem is that the new Lead sentences aren't representative of what's in the body of the article?
- RS/N is the most appropriate venue I can think of for verifiability questions. WT:LEAD is another possible option for Lead questions. I can't recommend starting a new thread though unless you are able to clearly articulate the problem. It would be helpful if you would write in simple English, using complete sentences, and avoid shorthand/slang like "dubbing" and "pubs". And you definitely want to avoid wasting other editors' time with "bludgeoning" since that is what led to the sanction in the first place. ~Awilley (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry to bother
This might be a bit odd but i have seen that you were the one who closed a recent AE appeal by Atsme, I lurk around many areas so did actually see that discussion at the time. But did not care because i never actually interacted with anyone involved. That changed the other day and so i come here to ask if could you perhaps have a word with them in regards to their edits to the fascism talk page and related dicussions(i am the IP so certainly disagree with them on content but... i feel there are serious issues)? I am not asking for saction but to perhaps give a warning that the battleground behaviour they show, the bogus and time wasting arguments(for example saying that calling fascim right wing equates to calling everyone a fascist and using it as a serious argument), twisting, misreading and misrepresenting sources and so on. In the end i don't care about them having differing views, but i do care about the way they waste time with nonsensical points to win some ideological battle or whatever the reason is someone stoops to such lows in discussion. I, quite honestly, actually expect this request to totally backfire on me but whatever, the atmosphere they create by their behaviour is toxic and time wasting so i rather speak up and try to remedy it. And if no one cares about it, i will just stop editing because there is no point dealing with that kind of nonsense. I understand it is contentious, obviously people disagree, argue, etc. ... But they are just wasting everyones time with the way they behave. They probably are a brilliant person away from anything politics... but close to politics? Sheesh... So again, sorry to bother. Feel free to do nothing, feel free to SPI or CU me, nothing to hide. I am not new in the end but just never made an account. Anyway, have a good day. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley - these false allegations are retaliation over User_talk:Berean_Hunter#SPA_IPs and obvious harassment by this non-static IP user. The fact they know about my appeal and have conducted such research in a show of ill-will toward me speaks volumes to their being a "new" user. Atsme 📣 📧 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am not sure how many more times i have to say this but i NEVER claimed to be a new user. I just never made an account. I have been mostly lurking (and it is not like AN/I or arbitation/AE are hidden secrets, all of them are 3 clicks away from the main page at most)but also editing things rarely (random example of a talk page comment from about a year ago i could remember of off the top of my head), for years now. I said that numerous times now. I have no ill will to you personaly, i just disagree with the points you made and the way you made them. And you do realise that people can edit for years and years without ever making an account, right? And there is nothing nefarious about it. And i really do not want to claim i actually edited for years, i have very few contributions in total, i do read a lot on AN, ANI and the arb pages. I guess it is like my kind of soap opera or something, i don't know lol. But whatever, make of this what you will. If you care enough just read the couple of comments by Atsme and me in the RfC and Berean Hunters talk and make your own picture. Have a good day anyway and sorry for having brought this on you. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 17:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- WP:IPs are people too and I understand there are legitimate reasons for not creating an account, but as a matter of principle in a topic area where socking is rampant I can't give the same weight to someone whose IP changes daily as I do to editors who have taken on a layer of extra accountability by creating an account. Atsme's argument that "to incorrectly state as fact that nearly half the US population are fascists in WikiVoice is not good for the project." is called a "attacking a straw man". I don't know the best way of responding to strawman arguments, and my approach is typically to call it out as such. ~Awilley (talk) 19:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough and i can respect that. But calling what i did harassment is a little over the top, no? I mean, that is a serious aspersion. In the end i don't care if people take my comments serious, some do and many don't. One learns to live with that as an IP editor. I try my best to bring my point across but this time i failed in the way i did it, it seems. I can even understand suspicion, especially in a topic like that, which is the reason why i still bear no ill will against Atsme. Raising what they felt was an issue on Berean Hunters talk, where there actually was some comminucation, even if minimal and... it's done? I would still like any mention of harassment struck but... i will just let it go, not much anyone can do about it anyway. And in regards to the content of the RfC, other comments by Atsme further below where they cherry pick parts of a source that just did not say what they claimed it did . Those two things combined with the overwhelming consensus among sources were the reason why i even brought it here. But whatever in the end, nothing will be done. I can accept that for the reason you layed out and i can only say i will try to make my points better next time. And i really have to say again, i am sorry to have dragged you into this. Have a good day anyway 91.96.118.79 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- You made your point just fine, and I didn't see it as being harassment. I think letting it go is often the best approach to personal attacks or perceived personal attacks. (See WP:IPAT and the Meatball essay linked in the last paragraph.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, one last thing. While i can completely see myself how it may look like retaliation, i have not actually seen their comment until after i finished writing you here. Now again, i can completely see how that looks for myself so i will not even complain about it further. But i brought this here completely independent of Atsmes complaint about me. I realise that is asking for trust i have not earned but that is all i can say about it. But yeah, it does not look flattering for me lol. Anyway, i will give that a read. And thank you for being a stand up person here and actually treating me... human lol. 91.96.118.79 (talk) 20:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- You made your point just fine, and I didn't see it as being harassment. I think letting it go is often the best approach to personal attacks or perceived personal attacks. (See WP:IPAT and the Meatball essay linked in the last paragraph.) ~Awilley (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Fair enough and i can respect that. But calling what i did harassment is a little over the top, no? I mean, that is a serious aspersion. In the end i don't care if people take my comments serious, some do and many don't. One learns to live with that as an IP editor. I try my best to bring my point across but this time i failed in the way i did it, it seems. I can even understand suspicion, especially in a topic like that, which is the reason why i still bear no ill will against Atsme. Raising what they felt was an issue on Berean Hunters talk, where there actually was some comminucation, even if minimal and... it's done? I would still like any mention of harassment struck but... i will just let it go, not much anyone can do about it anyway. And in regards to the content of the RfC, other comments by Atsme further below where they cherry pick parts of a source that just did not say what they claimed it did . Those two things combined with the overwhelming consensus among sources were the reason why i even brought it here. But whatever in the end, nothing will be done. I can accept that for the reason you layed out and i can only say i will try to make my points better next time. And i really have to say again, i am sorry to have dragged you into this. Have a good day anyway 91.96.118.79 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Meprhee
Why should it be the NEXT personal attack that gets him into trouble. He has been attacking me for nine months now. He routinely insults others who disagree with him. This editor is of no use to Wikipedia that I can see, and is doing an awful lot of damage. What he did on my Talk page should be enough on its own. He has no manners, or common sense, and is purely pushing a right wing POV. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- For the same reason I didn't block you for continuing to comment on his talk page after he asked you multiple times to stop. I try to use sanctions to get people to change their behavior in the future, not punish them for behavior in the past. If I didn't adhere to this you would both now be blocked. ~Awilley (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Awilley, what HiLo48 just said is absolute and utter rubbish. This is just a further personal attack. HiLo48 dishes out abuse and intimidation to any editor who disagree with his extreme points of view and has a long history of doing so and was almost banned from Wikipedia indefinitely for this reason. He is currently angry that he didn't get his way at The Australian. There also is growing hostility over at the article talk page where there is a deadlock and no consensus has been developed, however a circular debate continues causing disruption. HiLo48 has not wanted to use dispute resolution or drop the stick. i think the article needs protection please. Merphee (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee continued to comment on MY talk page after he stuffed it up with an irrelevant notice in the wrong place, AND I asked him multiple times to stop. I doubt you have had the time to see the full picture here. (It would be hard to do so.) Please don't jump to conclusions based on a quick look. I won't comment on his diatribe above, apart from noting that it contains more personal attacks on me. Going to stick to your word and block him? Or will you be like all those Admins here who just make hollow threats? HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've seen enough, including the discussion on Talk:The Australian, and the history on your talk page. And I think I'm familiar enough with the history to have a pretty good idea what's going on. Merphee pushes your buttons, you completely lose it and lash back at him, things escalate until somebody takes it to AN/I, the bickering continues there, you're both warned, and things cool down for a while. According to you he's pushing a fringe POV. What are your thoughts on WP:IBANs? ~Awilley (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yep. Typical Admin. I DON'T completely lose it, and surely that type of allegation should never come from a responsible Admin. I stick to facts. Sometimes I frame them quite firmly, but only with POV pushers and bigots. HiLo48 (talk) 02:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- You don't need to continue abusing asdmins either HiLo48. Awilley has summed it up pretty well. I totally support and would welcome an interaction ban between myself and HiLo48. It seems the only way to stop him attacking me and focusing on me personally on article talk pages instead of on content. Merphee (talk) 06:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I've seen enough, including the discussion on Talk:The Australian, and the history on your talk page. And I think I'm familiar enough with the history to have a pretty good idea what's going on. Merphee pushes your buttons, you completely lose it and lash back at him, things escalate until somebody takes it to AN/I, the bickering continues there, you're both warned, and things cool down for a while. According to you he's pushing a fringe POV. What are your thoughts on WP:IBANs? ~Awilley (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Merphee continued to comment on MY talk page after he stuffed it up with an irrelevant notice in the wrong place, AND I asked him multiple times to stop. I doubt you have had the time to see the full picture here. (It would be hard to do so.) Please don't jump to conclusions based on a quick look. I won't comment on his diatribe above, apart from noting that it contains more personal attacks on me. Going to stick to your word and block him? Or will you be like all those Admins here who just make hollow threats? HiLo48 (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Awilley, what HiLo48 just said is absolute and utter rubbish. This is just a further personal attack. HiLo48 dishes out abuse and intimidation to any editor who disagree with his extreme points of view and has a long history of doing so and was almost banned from Wikipedia indefinitely for this reason. He is currently angry that he didn't get his way at The Australian. There also is growing hostility over at the article talk page where there is a deadlock and no consensus has been developed, however a circular debate continues causing disruption. HiLo48 has not wanted to use dispute resolution or drop the stick. i think the article needs protection please. Merphee (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Awilley - Prove that your threat to Merphee was more than just bluff. Since you requested better behaviour, I have done so, and then we get this from him - "And for the last frigging time HiLo48 would you please stop the bickering and personal attacks on this talk page and stick purely to content!" That is surely in defiance of your demand. (PS: He is still pushing his POV on the page in question, and misrepresenting others' comments and the situation. Hasn't changed a bit. I am standing back waiting for some real control on his behaviour. Can you do it?) HiLo48 (talk) 02:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- That's more of a personal comment than a personal attack, and it's certainly no worse than what you said in your first comment above. See #10. ~Awilley (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- My comment above was here on your Talk page. Merphee's was on the Talk page of an article, where I had said nothing to lead him to make that comment. In fact, I'm staying away from that article for now. But Merphee isn't. It's pretty clear you have no idea of the full history here, and you aren't watching what's going on. As I already said, it would be hard to do so. But you have chosen to get involved. If you don't study the full history, I'd suggest you're not doing your Admin job properly. But that's no surprise. My experience of Admins here has been mostly negative. There's only a handful I respect. Now, you're probably upset by my comments, but that should NOT affect how you do your Admin job. Watch Merphee closely please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like while I was sleeping last night Merphee was blocked for edit warring on that article by an admin less weak than me. I'm not upset. ~Awilley (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- (
Buttinsky) Less weak? Awilley, I am uninvolved and had hoped to stay that way but I had to speak up over the criticism launched against you - it was not deserved. I've seen this kind of attack against admins before, and have wondered if some form of preventative measure is warranted, perhaps by the community. Before I decided to comment here, I looked at the subject article's history, and there is clear evidence of some disruptive behavior - apparently for the same reasons we see it in AP2 - but the Merphee block came about following this unsourced edit and the edits that followed, which do appear to be a case of tag-teaming, albeit hard to prove. Perhaps it's coincidence that the editor who was blocked is the one who appears to lean right while little to no attention was paid to the instigating behavior that led to the reverts. I say the latter with few reservations based on the interactions that took place here on your TP, on Merphee's TP by some of the same editors, and at the January ANI attempt to get Merphee t-banned. I have seen how quickly an editor can find themselves with a one-way ticket on the WP:POV railroad for what appears to be the result of their personal views. It's a fine line we must walk to maintain NPOV. I have no intention of taking my concerns any further than our discussion here - I just want to better understand your position. Atsme Talk 📧 18:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Less weak" was in response to this edit summary and it was partly in jest, trying to convey that I don't think that an admin's threshold for pressing the "block" button is a good indicator of "strength" or "weakness". And I'm certainly not going to be goaded into blocking someone. As for sanctioning people based on personal views, I consciously try not to make "right" vs. "left" a consideration, and instead try to focus on whether editors are using sound logic, trying to collaborate, and following reliable sources. ~Awilley (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I had to speak up over the criticism launched against you - it was not deserved.
I had similar thoughts reading that, Atsme, but I decided (1) Awilley is capable of taking care of Awilley, and (2) Awilley asked for that when they took the mop. En-wiki leaves admins too exposed in the name of ADMINACCT, which is a large part of why I would never consider being one. I'd have a far lower tolerance for manipulative crap directed at my competence in an effort to coerce me into doing one's bidding. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- (
- It looks like while I was sleeping last night Merphee was blocked for edit warring on that article by an admin less weak than me. I'm not upset. ~Awilley (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- My comment above was here on your Talk page. Merphee's was on the Talk page of an article, where I had said nothing to lead him to make that comment. In fact, I'm staying away from that article for now. But Merphee isn't. It's pretty clear you have no idea of the full history here, and you aren't watching what's going on. As I already said, it would be hard to do so. But you have chosen to get involved. If you don't study the full history, I'd suggest you're not doing your Admin job properly. But that's no surprise. My experience of Admins here has been mostly negative. There's only a handful I respect. Now, you're probably upset by my comments, but that should NOT affect how you do your Admin job. Watch Merphee closely please. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).
|
|
|
Technical news
- In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.
Miscellaneous
- Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
- As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Had any impact on Trumps life
I have a policy question, but since you also have some close dealings with Markbassett including AE warnings, I'd like to discuss this with both of you. He often (at least when dealing with Trump) asserts that some content is not usable because it hasn't "had any impact on Trump's life." (That's an extremely subjective editorial call.) I don't know of any policy which uses this as an inclusion criterion for articles, and I don't recall anyone but Mark saying this. AFAIK, RS and Due weight are more determinative, even if something had zero "impact" on the subject's life. What's at stake here? Is this a legitimate argument to use when seeking to block/delay the inclusion of properly-sourced negative information about Trump? (That happens to always be the context.) -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 21:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- User:BullRangifer This seems about a general description multiple editors have voiced in many instances for a biographical page, to highlight when something non-biographical is up for insertion, to better communicate that a biography topic is the major events and life choices of a person. I think the policy WP:OFFTOPIC would be relevant, and in some cases for the Donald Trump page WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:SOAPBOX, and essay WP:Coatrack seem relevant, though I have also seen lack of impact in the life written as “undue for a biography”. Of many breakout or related articles in the case of Donald Trump, there often is a better venue it should be covered at rather than in the BLP or duplicated in both locations.
- Alternatively, this “hasn’t had any impact” may be expressing that the item in question is trivial, at least in comparison to all the topics in the Donald Trump article, and just not worth having. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that not everything should be in the main article, but a "biography" at Wikipedia is not like a biography elsewhere. We are far more inclusive, with basically everything that is written in RS being potential fair game. To resolve the space problems created by this practice, we have WP:SPINOFF. We still mention the subject, but spin most of the content off into a sub-article. We do not block mention of the subject.
- In the future, to avoid creating suspicions that you are a POV warrior who is intent on protecting Trump from criticism (your track record, with occasional exceptions, really does raise such suspicions), instead of writing "has no impact on Trump's life", try suggesting a sub-article where the content would be more suited. "Has no impact on Trump's life" is not a legitimate argument in any sense, because our biographies are based on whatever RS write that is "related" (not "impacts") to Trump's life. If it mentions Trump, it is likely on-topic, with due weight determining how much mention we give it.
- Obvious trivia (such as only found in tabloids like the National Enquirer) gets ignored, but if several major RS mention a subject, it ceases to be trivia, even though we might normally consider it so. RS take that judgment call out of our hands. Trump is such a huge self-promoter that you can bet that he would be offended if anything he does is seen as trivia. He makes sure that many of his actions and thoughts are seen and publicized, and he wants them to be considered the most notable, greatest, and biggest. His own self-aggrandizing personality and habits are geared toward making sure nothing about him is trivial, and this works to such a degree that he will indeed end up getting mentioned in every article here, IF he gets his will.
When the most notable man on earth does something, it has consequences. It automatically becomes notable and gets mentioned here. It's a curse. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 01:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Worth the time to read User:Atsme/sandbox. Atsme Talk 📧 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- 1. Whether something has impact on someone's life is fairly WP:OR, and by itself is probably not a great criteria for judging whether something gets included in a biography.
- 2. Yes, the positions Markbassett takes on subjects related to American Politics are very predictable (something that could be said about a majority of editors in the topic area). My biggest annoyance is they way they carelessly throw around wikilinks to WP policies and essays that don't actually support their position. It's clumsy wiki-lawyering.
- 3. No, Wikipedia biographies are not some special type of biographies that have no limits on the amount of material we can include. We're still an encyclopedia, and our biographical articles need to read like encyclopedia articles, not books. And with regards to Trump, no, not everything he does is notable, and the existence of reliable sources mentioning something is not the only criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia.
- 4. @Atsme, I read the sandbox. You say, "It is unacceptable to include value laden labels in the lede of a WP:BLP without in-text attribution" but you don't define what a "value laden label" is. To use an extreme example, would the Lead sentence "[So and so] was an American serial killer, kidnapper, rapist, burglar, and necrophile who assaulted and murdered numerous young women and girls during the 1970s" run afoul of the guideline you are proposing? I'm not familiar with the BLP/N discussions you are referencing, but I gather you are arguing that "conspiracy theorist" is a value-laden label. Would you argue the same about "serial killer"? ~Awilley (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley, the bulk of what's in my sandbox is information I've collected (and paraphrased and/or quoted Masem) either at NPOV/N or BLP/N (or possibly both) with intentions of creating an informative essay, so it is not authored entirely by me. All of the information is supported by WP:PAGs and what I've gleaned from various noticeboard discussions. Regarding WP:LABEL, the guideline is quite clear: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You might also take a look at the leads for Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Michael Jace, Ted Bundy and William S. Burroughs which may help put some of the things in that draft in perspective. Also see the top of my user page: To say it in WikiVoice, or not??, To include it in a BLP, or not?? and Politics, presidents and NPOV which includes quotes by Jimbo in discussions from either NPOVN, BLPN, or his TP. I will add that if being a serial killer is the only thing a person is known for, then that is the information that drives the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 21:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're asking me to examine the Lead of Ted Bundy. ;-) What I was hoping you would see is that the quote from WP:LABEL doesn't apply to "labels" like calling Ted Bundy a "serial killer". I was hoping you'd be able to see the difference between "serial killer" and "freedom fighter". If you can see it, great. If not, I'm afraid I don't have time right now to discuss it further. (Super busy IRL at the moment) ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- RL should always be your first priority, Awilley. I simply provided comparisons from a pragmatist's POV - a dispassionate tone, supported facts without embellishment - all in an effort to clearly demonstrate how the leads of BLP's who are notable only for their inhumane acts should be presented in the lead vs the leads of people who are notable for a lifetime of other things. In fact, the draft in my sandbox explains it quite well as do all the other quotes I alluded to above. Few people know who Ted Bundy was before he gained notoriety as a serial killer - his lead presents the facts as they should be presented. It is unfortunate that you failed to understand the reasons for the comparisons. WP:BLP policy and our PAGs were written to reflect NPOV which is paramount to the future of this project. That said, I was not placing any demands on you or anyone else to discuss this issue any further - and of course, your RL issues are far more important - but you need to be unmistakably aware that I do know the difference between a serial killer, a freedom fighter and a terrorist, and I found your snarky comment offensive and unbecoming an admin. I will not comment here any further. Atsme Talk 📧 01:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Huh? No snark intended. A serial killer is obviously a different thing than a freedom fighter. I was talking about the difference in terms of them being "value-laden labels" that need attribution. "So and so is a serial killer" vs. "So and so was regarded by his followers as a freedom fighter." ~Awilley (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- RL should always be your first priority, Awilley. I simply provided comparisons from a pragmatist's POV - a dispassionate tone, supported facts without embellishment - all in an effort to clearly demonstrate how the leads of BLP's who are notable only for their inhumane acts should be presented in the lead vs the leads of people who are notable for a lifetime of other things. In fact, the draft in my sandbox explains it quite well as do all the other quotes I alluded to above. Few people know who Ted Bundy was before he gained notoriety as a serial killer - his lead presents the facts as they should be presented. It is unfortunate that you failed to understand the reasons for the comparisons. WP:BLP policy and our PAGs were written to reflect NPOV which is paramount to the future of this project. That said, I was not placing any demands on you or anyone else to discuss this issue any further - and of course, your RL issues are far more important - but you need to be unmistakably aware that I do know the difference between a serial killer, a freedom fighter and a terrorist, and I found your snarky comment offensive and unbecoming an admin. I will not comment here any further. Atsme Talk 📧 01:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure why you're asking me to examine the Lead of Ted Bundy. ;-) What I was hoping you would see is that the quote from WP:LABEL doesn't apply to "labels" like calling Ted Bundy a "serial killer". I was hoping you'd be able to see the difference between "serial killer" and "freedom fighter". If you can see it, great. If not, I'm afraid I don't have time right now to discuss it further. (Super busy IRL at the moment) ~Awilley (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley, the bulk of what's in my sandbox is information I've collected (and paraphrased and/or quoted Masem) either at NPOV/N or BLP/N (or possibly both) with intentions of creating an informative essay, so it is not authored entirely by me. All of the information is supported by WP:PAGs and what I've gleaned from various noticeboard discussions. Regarding WP:LABEL, the guideline is quite clear: "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. You might also take a look at the leads for Charles Manson, Adolf Hitler, Michael Jace, Ted Bundy and William S. Burroughs which may help put some of the things in that draft in perspective. Also see the top of my user page: To say it in WikiVoice, or not??, To include it in a BLP, or not?? and Politics, presidents and NPOV which includes quotes by Jimbo in discussions from either NPOVN, BLPN, or his TP. I will add that if being a serial killer is the only thing a person is known for, then that is the information that drives the lead. Atsme Talk 📧 21:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
- User:Awilley re ‘1’ Um speaking of carelessly throwing inappropriate wiki links to Wikipedia policy... ‘had no impact to their life’ cannot be OR, that is about article edits. The ‘had no impact on his life’ is a fairly common point in TALK discussions for what belongs in an article about a person, whether something is OFFTOPIC for an article about the person. OFFTOPIC discussions are of course presenting reasons or evidence for a position, and voicing that in TALK is kind of eliciting such concerns. We all voice positions and hopefully reasons, and see what is convincing. If you’ve got other good ways to identify proper content for an article about a person, please add to the mix — all measures needed, the question recurs frequently. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
- You are the first person I've ever seen use that "no impact" argument, and I've been here since 2003. If you see that argument in use, dowse it with bleach. It shouldn't be a consideration. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- User:BullRangifer I suggest you try search on a few archives and you can see a goodly number of instances of people using it and agreeing with it or countering to it, so it has been valued in discussions and exists beyond what you remember. You might try search on “effect” or “significant” or “life” to get various ways it was discussed. If this continues to bother you, I suggest taking the topic of ways to determine what belongs to the Donald Trump TALK, with notice at the Biography project, and see what involved editors feel are good ways. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- p.s. On second thought, it seems something worth doing myself if no one else wants to. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- User:BullRangifer I suggest you try search on a few archives and you can see a goodly number of instances of people using it and agreeing with it or countering to it, so it has been valued in discussions and exists beyond what you remember. You might try search on “effect” or “significant” or “life” to get various ways it was discussed. If this continues to bother you, I suggest taking the topic of ways to determine what belongs to the Donald Trump TALK, with notice at the Biography project, and see what involved editors feel are good ways. Cheers. Markbassett (talk) 04:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- You are the first person I've ever seen use that "no impact" argument, and I've been here since 2003. If you see that argument in use, dowse it with bleach. It shouldn't be a consideration. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
- Worth the time to read User:Atsme/sandbox. Atsme Talk 📧 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Involvement
Hi Awilley. Could you please explain to me how it is possible that you "don't see that as evidence of Masem's involvement" in spite of my posting seven diffs of his involvement. Also, where does it say go ahead and violate WP:INVOLVED and WP:AC/P if Awilley thinks your position is reasonable.
I would also like to know why admins have so thoroughly failed to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia from marauders who place a single character on their user talk pages to avoid scrutiny, and who descend on an article with the sole objective of promoting fringe viewpoints and discrediting the mainstream media. - MrX 🖋 19:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- You posted one link showing that Masem had made seven edits to the talk page. That's not proof of involvement, and one could post similar links about any number of admins editing any number of talk pages. I looked at the diffs, and they were all related to Masem saying that the page needed to be moved to avoid unnecessary disambiguation and other issues. I presume Bullrangifer and Rusf10 also participated in the move discussion, but I didn't notice any evidence that Masem was involved in a dispute with one of them. (Not saying it didn't happen, just that I didn't see you provide any evidence that it did.) So at this point it kind of boils down to trust. The community, for whatever reason, has decided that it trusts Masem enough to give them the admin tools. For that reason I will trust in Masem's integrity and ability to keep their personal feelings or bias in check until I see credible evidence that that ability has been compromised. I didn't see evidence of that in the link you provided.
- As a side note, I personally find it somewhat disheartening when you call for more administrative intervention and in the same breath criticize an admin who did intervene but not in the way you wanted. ~Awilley (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
- I posted a link to all seven links, each of which is evidence of involvement. Then I posted this:
"This page must be moved back to "Spygate (conspiracy theory)" to avoid the immediate BLP problem, as well as to meet the conciseness needed for disambiguation terms, and in case anyone that gets here thinking this is the NFL one, a hatnote is sufficient to point them to the right direction."
[22]. Your response was more than three hours later. Masem unambiguously initiated a dispute over the title. It's clear from their responses in that discussion that Phmoreno, BullRangifer, Kgrr, Muboshgu, Wookian, Artoodeetoo, Starship.paint, Markbassett, and Miserlou believed they were debating content. In none of his seven comments did Masem correct anyone by telling them that he was only there for admin purposes. Two weeks later, Rusf10 started a move request which addresses the very issue raised by Masem.[23]
- I posted a link to all seven links, each of which is evidence of involvement. Then I posted this:
- I think we both know that if an editor had posted in the uninvolved admin section on AE it would have been swept away in minutes by another admin. That should have happened in this case, but instead I find myself pointing out the obvious and asking that the policy be followed. The trust instilled on in RfA is not special permission for admins to ignore rules even when they don't improve Wikipedia, and I believe you believe that as well. I can assure you, instances like this diminish trust in admins.
- My comment about admins failing to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia was directed at the institution, not at any individual, and certainly not at you who have unquestionably done more than their share of the dirty mopping. I apologize if it appeared to be a swipe at you.- MrX 🖋 12:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I didn't feel the swipe was at me, but at Masem. And to be fair most of the other admins do more heavy lifting than I do. Most of my time is spent lurking around and occasionally poking at people. Pretty sure Gallobtter has done more mopping in their first 6 months than I've done in my whole career.
- Let me see if I can come at this from a different angle. Does taking a content position like this disqualify me from arbitrating disputes between any of the other editors who voted in that RM? (Disclaimer: I wasn't aware that Spygate was a thing until two days ago when I discovered it through the thread at WP:AE.) ~Awilley (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Commenting in a move requests means that you are involved with the subject, and should not take admin action that could be perceived as biased with respect to that subject. According to Arbcom, that includes commenting in the results section of a AE complaint about disputants in that subject. It doesn't mean that you can't arbitrate disputes between the same two people involved on an unrelated subject. Do you interpret policy differently? - MrX 🖋 14:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- My comment about admins failing to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia was directed at the institution, not at any individual, and certainly not at you who have unquestionably done more than their share of the dirty mopping. I apologize if it appeared to be a swipe at you.- MrX 🖋 12:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Could you help me out with a link to the relevant Arbcom page and a quote from the relevant paragraph? ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- WP:AC/P#Expectations of administrators:
- MrX 🖋 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement
- Could you help me out with a link to the relevant Arbcom page and a quote from the relevant paragraph? ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Of course enforcing admins should not be involved. That was never in dispute. I was looking for the part of policy that says that editing a talk page or taking a position on content automatically makes an admin involved with the other editors in that talk page or content discussion. As far as I can tell no such policy exists and "involvement" is not the bright line you're making it out to be. Look closely at WP:INVOLVED. It's full of caveats. There are other factors. Did I have strong feelings about the topic or the editors involved? Was I arguing with other editors or part of a prolonged dispute? Was my comment made in an administrative role (eg. citing an applicable policy or suggesting a wording)? Did I display bias? Was my participation calm and reasonable? Did I take part in an edit war? These are all important factors for determining involvement, I think, and there's more nuance than simply displaying diffs showing somebody edited a page. ~Awilley (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Results section is for enforcement, which is probably why there is text in the template that says "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." I find it convenient that admins often like to carve out these vast gray areas when it seems to suit them. "Involved" seems to be a pretty straightforward concept that doesn't need a whole lot of wiggle room since we have plenty of admins, and plenty of areas in need of admining. How would it be if I adopted your stance and closed the RfC and RM on the article talk page? I've only made a couple of comments on the talk page, neither of which relate to content. Do you think anyone might complain about my being being involved if I closed those discussions? - MrX 🖋 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The way I see it you are taking a nuanced issue and trying to make it black and white when it suits you. My vote in that RM made me involved in that RM, and now it would be inappropriate for me to close the RM or move the page. It did not disqualify me from addressing behavioral issues of users who happened to also participate in that RM. Not by itself anyway. If I were regularly weighing in on AP subjects that would be different. Involvement isn't a binary switch that gets permanently flipped the first time somebody comments on a particular talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely not trying to make it black and white; I realize that these things are nuanced, but I'm trying to point out that the gray area is limited, which I believe mirrors the intent of policy and Arbcom's procedures. You didn't answer my question about whether it would appropriate for me to close the discussions on the article talk page? I can earnestly make the same argument as you that my participation was calm and reasonable and that I have not displayed an opinion, let alone bias, with respect to the proposals.- MrX 🖋 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be inappropriate for you to close an RfC or RM that you participated in, the same as it would be for me. No, it would would not be inappropriate for you to close other discussions on the same talk page if you met conditions for being uninvolved in those (you did not participate in those discussions, you had not previously taken strong positions on matters similar to the issues under discussion, you weren't in conflict with the participants, etc.) and if you made a reasonable uncontroversial close that reflected consensus. ~Awilley (talk) 19:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely not trying to make it black and white; I realize that these things are nuanced, but I'm trying to point out that the gray area is limited, which I believe mirrors the intent of policy and Arbcom's procedures. You didn't answer my question about whether it would appropriate for me to close the discussions on the article talk page? I can earnestly make the same argument as you that my participation was calm and reasonable and that I have not displayed an opinion, let alone bias, with respect to the proposals.- MrX 🖋 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)The way I see it you are taking a nuanced issue and trying to make it black and white when it suits you. My vote in that RM made me involved in that RM, and now it would be inappropriate for me to close the RM or move the page. It did not disqualify me from addressing behavioral issues of users who happened to also participate in that RM. Not by itself anyway. If I were regularly weighing in on AP subjects that would be different. Involvement isn't a binary switch that gets permanently flipped the first time somebody comments on a particular talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The Results section is for enforcement, which is probably why there is text in the template that says "This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators." I find it convenient that admins often like to carve out these vast gray areas when it seems to suit them. "Involved" seems to be a pretty straightforward concept that doesn't need a whole lot of wiggle room since we have plenty of admins, and plenty of areas in need of admining. How would it be if I adopted your stance and closed the RfC and RM on the article talk page? I've only made a couple of comments on the talk page, neither of which relate to content. Do you think anyone might complain about my being being involved if I closed those discussions? - MrX 🖋 18:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Of course enforcing admins should not be involved. That was never in dispute. I was looking for the part of policy that says that editing a talk page or taking a position on content automatically makes an admin involved with the other editors in that talk page or content discussion. As far as I can tell no such policy exists and "involvement" is not the bright line you're making it out to be. Look closely at WP:INVOLVED. It's full of caveats. There are other factors. Did I have strong feelings about the topic or the editors involved? Was I arguing with other editors or part of a prolonged dispute? Was my comment made in an administrative role (eg. citing an applicable policy or suggesting a wording)? Did I display bias? Was my participation calm and reasonable? Did I take part in an edit war? These are all important factors for determining involvement, I think, and there's more nuance than simply displaying diffs showing somebody edited a page. ~Awilley (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Point of clarification: I never commented in the RfC or the RM.- MrX 🖋 19:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- My mistake. I hadn't read the rationales or really even looked at the names of the other participants. If you were to make a reasonable uncontroversial close that reflected consensus after the discussion dies down I wouldn't see any problem. I'm assuming that your participation elsewhere was indeed calm and reasonable etc. ~Awilley (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The problem that I really see with the case that MrX is presenting is that it is same that whether an admin is broad or not should be read similarly to the "broadly construed" that topic bans come in play for. That is, for the Spygate article, MrX is argued that because I've commented on Trump-related elements elsehwere on other pages before this event, I'm involved, for example. That is effectively BS, because it would likely prevent any admin (and in particularl an AE regular like Sandstein) from participating in an "uninvolved" manner. I strongly believe that "uninvolved" should be a factor of specific direct confrontations with persons involved in the AE disputer (including filer as well as those that actions are sought against), and that they have not significantly participated in the specific content under dispute that the provided diffs are pointing to, though if they have been participating in a previous version of that content dispute, even if years ago, they should still be considered involved. That is, the admin should not have interacted in the dispute outside or have a history with specific content at play to be involved. Which I will say, no I wasn't nor would Awilley's contribution (post participation) would either (the proper disambiguation of the page is nowhere close to the content disputes of the page that were at AE). "Uninvolved" does not mean "unattached", just that the admin is not trying to put themselves above their own actions in the specific dispute. This also points to the fact that a "Content dispute" does not necessarily "taint" the entire article in question so that any other discussion related to the topic but outside the part that is dispute becomes an involved discussion. Some content disputes do affect the entire article, but even then, we also have to consider talk page versus mainspace, titles/mos versus content, etc. --Masem (t) 18:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- My goodness, your meandering interpretation is kind of self-serving, is it not? Basically, you seem to be saying that if an admin doesn't think they are involved, they're not. Why even have such a policy if it can be ignored out of hand? - MrX 🖋 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Basically, you seem to be saying that if an admin doesn't think they are involved, they're not Yes, actually. The problem is what is the definition of "involved"? WP:INVOLVED only defines the specific case of admin actions being uninvolved, but does not spell out any other aspects. You are suggesting a much more inclusive definition, which seems to be that even if one has touched anything in the topic area of the current conflict, one should consider themselves involved; whereas I am suggesting one that is more practical and restrictive, in that if one actually is a clear participant in the specific conflict. I'm not saying either is right or wrong, but there's clearly a vast gap between those points, and policy is absent of anything more specific. If this means we need a more specific definition for "involved" then we need to do that. --Masem (t) 20:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- My goodness, your meandering interpretation is kind of self-serving, is it not? Basically, you seem to be saying that if an admin doesn't think they are involved, they're not. Why even have such a policy if it can be ignored out of hand? - MrX 🖋 18:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- The problem that I really see with the case that MrX is presenting is that it is same that whether an admin is broad or not should be read similarly to the "broadly construed" that topic bans come in play for. That is, for the Spygate article, MrX is argued that because I've commented on Trump-related elements elsehwere on other pages before this event, I'm involved, for example. That is effectively BS, because it would likely prevent any admin (and in particularl an AE regular like Sandstein) from participating in an "uninvolved" manner. I strongly believe that "uninvolved" should be a factor of specific direct confrontations with persons involved in the AE disputer (including filer as well as those that actions are sought against), and that they have not significantly participated in the specific content under dispute that the provided diffs are pointing to, though if they have been participating in a previous version of that content dispute, even if years ago, they should still be considered involved. That is, the admin should not have interacted in the dispute outside or have a history with specific content at play to be involved. Which I will say, no I wasn't nor would Awilley's contribution (post participation) would either (the proper disambiguation of the page is nowhere close to the content disputes of the page that were at AE). "Uninvolved" does not mean "unattached", just that the admin is not trying to put themselves above their own actions in the specific dispute. This also points to the fact that a "Content dispute" does not necessarily "taint" the entire article in question so that any other discussion related to the topic but outside the part that is dispute becomes an involved discussion. Some content disputes do affect the entire article, but even then, we also have to consider talk page versus mainspace, titles/mos versus content, etc. --Masem (t) 18:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- When I saw that edit pop up on my watchlist, I immediately (as in "Wow!") saw it as a very "involved" content decision. I don't think that excludes the possibility or necessity of you taking certain actions unrelated to content. Behavioral and curatorial issues might still be legitimate areas. It just means you need to be more careful than before you took sides on that issue. It does exclude anything to do with moving the article that might be controversial. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Awilley - Masem was discussing an admin action, re:BLP vio & dab issue. Perhaps he should have performed the actions to avoid potential disruption/criticism instead of commenting, but the latter should not change anything. Atsme Talk 📧 14:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- @MrX: is correct. Masem is involoved and now you yourself have become involved as per[24]. Please, remove your comments from the admin section and rescind the sanctions you gave to both me and BullRangifer. By taking an opinion in the content dispute, you can no longer be considered neutral. The Key to WP:INVOLVED is it is "generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute."--Rusf10 (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) While we're on the subject of ethical propriety, I would submit that the last person who should be claiming a sanction was improper is the person on the receiving end of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:39, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley's sanctions were made BEFORE this "involvment", so it has no bearing on their decision to enforce any sanctions. Their decision was also on a behavioral matter, not a content matter, so unrelated. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
CR quagmire, redux
There is an ongoing content dispute and slow-moving edit war at Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. I noticed that the article is still under the old "consensus required" restriction, so I have a dual request for you:
- Could you take a look at the discussion and editor behaviour thus far?
- Would you consider switching to the new "Enforced BRD" restriction?
A lot of the usual contributors are arguing over how to portray recent developments, and it sounds reminiscent of many similar quagmires on Trumpian subjects. I'd rather see some constructive intervention now than a couple of AE cases down the road. Thanks for your consideration. — JFG talk 13:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I can do that later today after I get to a desktop. It looks like I missed that one in the original BRD sweep because it wasn't clear to me that it was UserCoffee who had originally placed the BRD sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I dropped the ball and had some stuff come up over the weekend that kept me too busy to follow up on this. I've removed the sanction but haven't had time to review discussion and behavior yet. ~Awilley (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much indeed. — JFG talk 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)FYI the disputed fragment was first inserted on 18 April,[25], and then several editors expanded and reduced it back and forth. There is now an open RfC. — JFG talk 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I've looked at the discussion (not the reverts yet) and I can't say I'm surprised. It looks to me like a tug-of-war between two poorly-written versions with a SYNTH issue that could probably be sidestepped with some creative rewriting. Like is it really necessary to write, "In a subsequent sentence Trump also said to Sessions" instead of "Trump later added" and to use long quotations instead of paraphrasing? I looked at the Reuters article so I can see what Thucydides411 means about the two statements being in the course of the same conversation (therefore not SYNTH) but in the RfC it's written in an argumentative SYNTH-y way. Also I did a little "OR" of my own and looked at the primary source (page 78 or page 290 in the full PDF). Turns out there's a summary on the previous page (under the heading "Overview") that leaves out both the expletive and the "years and years" bit. I haven't even looked at the article yet, but if you're looking at ways to boil things down to a level of detail appropriate for an encyclopedia, that might be a good place to start. ~Awilley (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Take your time. The RfC at least frames the issue and gives a formal cadre to editors' discussions, even if the snapshot proposed would certainly not be the best text. Meanwhile I have removed the whole trivial sensationalist quote pending RfC outcome. — JFG talk 18:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much indeed. — JFG talk 18:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I dropped the ball and had some stuff come up over the weekend that kept me too busy to follow up on this. I've removed the sanction but haven't had time to review discussion and behavior yet. ~Awilley (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I can do that later today after I get to a desktop. It looks like I missed that one in the original BRD sweep because it wasn't clear to me that it was UserCoffee who had originally placed the BRD sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Rusf10 fallout
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There is admitted, disruptive block evasion going on at User talk:Rusf10. R2 (bleep) 20:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why Rusf10 is putting up with that on their talk page I don't know. I suppose the IP is telling them what they want to hear. ~Awilley (talk) 20:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, MONGO. It's not always easy to WP:DENY recognition without creating additional drama, and Rusf10 hatting it would be a good solution. At some point I hope they'll realize that defending and enabling sock puppets or meat puppets when it's convenient politically isn't going to score any points with the majority of Wikipedia editors. ~Awilley (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Can I just point out one thing to all of you? It may be my talk page, but I haven't been engaging the IP, all of you have. And accusing me of "defending and enabling sock puppets or meat puppets when it's convenient politically", really is a WP:Casting aspersions AWilley, not that someone who is "as ethical as any human administrator could be" would ever engage in that type of thing.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- If the editor there is indeed a ban evader then it's best to not host their comments at all. There are a lot of pretty damming incriminations in those discussions so no reason to allow them to vent endlessly.--MONGO (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- They admit to having lost their editing privileges, IOW they are a blocked user. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- If the editor there is indeed a ban evader then it's best to not host their comments at all. There are a lot of pretty damming incriminations in those discussions so no reason to allow them to vent endlessly.--MONGO (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- additional drama R2 (bleep) 22:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahrtoodeetoo: I think you're playing into the IP's hands (how do we know the IP is Hidden Tempo?) giving them the attention and drama they seem to be wanting.
- @Rusf10: When you restore edits by banned editors you yourself are taking ownership and responsibility for the contents of those edits. Are you sure that's what you want to be doing right now? ~Awilley (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's quite some WP:WIKILAWYERING and sounds like a threat. Haven't you harassed me enough? From the start of this, you've wanted to hold me responsible for the IP's comments. Accusing me of "defending and enabling sock puppets or meat puppets when it's convenient politically". I have done no such thing. The thread got hatted and I though that would be the end of this, but no you and R2 want to continue to drag this out. It seems like you on a mission to place sanctions on me.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, since you asked. We know because he posted this on my UTP yesterday. I've done what he described only once in my career, for Hidden Tempo, and the writing style is the same. The noticeboard discussion he refers to is here. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm totally on board with denial of recognition through quiet reversion. That's why I filed the ANI. It would be a simple matter to delete the offending comments, warn Rusf10, and close the ANI. That's WP:DENY. Allowing comments like that to remain and embolden Rusf10, that's not WP:DENY. R2 (bleep) 01:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Mandruss, Thank you for indulging my curiosity.
- @Objective3000, I can see if there's a place at SPI for logging, though I doubt HT will choose to return as an editor.
- @Rusf10, No, I'm not on a "mission" to sanction you. If I wanted to sanction you you'd be topic-banned already. What I want is for you to pause for a moment, evaluate your position, realize you're on the wrong track, make a course correction, and then begin working more collaboratively with your fellow editors to improve the encyclopedia. I think you are capable of doing that, but if you prove me wrong then yes, you can expect another sanction. If you don't trust advice from me that's fine. At least listen to MONGO. ~Awilley (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Another CR page
Please consider changing the restriction on Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Editors including me are in the middle of slow-motion edit-warring with some stonewalling, wikilawyering, and talking past each other. — JFG talk 06:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
66.141.235.58
Hi Awilley, would you mind looking at 66.141.235.58 or referring to another admin? Thanks in advance. R2 (bleep) 15:48, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Your draft article, User:Awilley/Ayurveda
Hello, Awilley. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ayurveda".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Laosilika (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 special circular
 |
Administrators must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Violation of BRD on a DS article after warnings
We (My very best wishes and I) are having trouble with an editor who insists that only additions, not deletions, can count as the B in BRD. (We're talking about multiple huge deletions as large as 100,000 bytes in one fell swoop.) His arguments morph over time, sometimes into the absurd.
At first, we couldn't figure out what he meant because of the absurd largeness of his deletions. Then we thought he was implying that each one of his large deletions was of content that had been contributed as one large addition each time, so we asked him to produce the diff for that single large addition of the content he was deleting in one deletion.
Then we discovered he is claiming that all the individual edits over the years which have been added to the article and become part of the consensus/status quo version, are the Bold edits (true enough at the time), and that his deletions of them all at once in huge chunks as large as 100,000 bytes in a single deletion are the Revert in BRD. Then, while discussion is occurring, he goes back to deleting huge chunks.
The discussion is going in circles, with one of the worst cases of IDHT behavior I've seen in a long time, and he is declaring he won't stop, which is edit warring behavior regardless of number of edits involved. While it's tempting to start getting personal and ending up with incivility, I have tried to argue calmly, but that's not working, so I'm going to back off.
We need the article to be calm so that a discussion can result in a decision as to whether the content should be deleted or modified. With the repeated deletions without consensus, it's just a case of protecting the article. He won't stop making disputed edits during the discussion phase of BRD.
Maybe protecting the status quo version of the article would be a good idea to force the discussion to proceed unimpeded by edit warring. Please take a look at Onetwothreeip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (See also 123.2.85.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) He has received DS warnings and deleted them, and been warned about edit warring numerous times on the talk page and then on his own talk page, all to no avail. His talk page history shows he has a history of edit warring, but oddly no blocks. (Maybe they weren't as serious as this.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Onetwothreeip edit war on the page against consensus for a week [26],[27],[28],[29],[30],[31] and does not understand any policy-based arguments, for example [32]. Their contributions on other pages appear to be mostly constructive, although I noticed a couple of DS alerts on their talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Onetwothreeip: When you delete something that has been in the article for months and that has been edited by multiple people that's a bold edit, not a revert. But the distinction is less important now because now every revert is just that, a revert, that is governed by 1RR and the BRD rule (requiring discussion). But this is way off base.
- @MVBW, This doesn't seem to be so much a misunderstanding of policy as it is a misunderstanding of the argument you were making. If it hadn't missed the caveat about Reliable Sources saying something is relevant it would have been a valid reductio ad absurdum argument. ~Awilley (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually those additions were indeed bold edits that were never approved by a consensus. The talk page and the edit summaries show several people objecting but have been disregarded by the two main contributors who insist on including the content they want to include. Much of what they are saying about me and my conduct, to little surprise, are basically lies.
...an editor who insists that only additions, not deletions, can count as the B in BRD.
Completely untrue, I have said that removing content counts as bold if the content has been approved by a consensus....arguments morph over time, sometimes into the absurd.
Apart from being very uncivil, this is very baffling. They allude to the removal I made which was indeed 100,000 bytes, but this is an article that would otherwise have been 500,000 bytes. It's very disappointing to see BullRangifer pretend that they have tried to discuss the content, since I have repeatedly prompted them and My very best wishes on certain elements and suggestions that can be discussed, and so have others. All that I'm left with is the same back-and-forth where they insist I'm the one being bold. is declaring he won't stop, which is edit warring behavior
I've never declared such a thing, that is ridiculous. They go on to sayHe has received DS warnings and deleted them
but most editors should know that these warnings are given broadly to participants, and deleting them as a form of archiving is a way to acknowledge the warning.and been warned about edit warring numerous times on the talk page and then on his own talk page, all to no avail. His talk page history shows he has a history of edit warring, but oddly no blocks. (Maybe they weren't as serious as this.)
I've been frivolously warned for edit warring before, and I've warned others of edit warring with the same template as well. The dispute here is clearly that they think my actions are bold, not that my edits constitute warring. The idea that I'm just some malcontent that doesn't understand what they're saying is simply untrue and it's very disappointing to see that kind of talk page conduct.- More important than all this self-interested drama is the article itself, which is in a dire state and terribly overpopulated with content that does not pertain to the topic, but is only related to the topic. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- There is a problem with Onetwothreeip's behavior of canvassing in an attempt to form a GANG at Wikipedia; sometimes with Slatersteven [33], and sometimes with The Four Deuces [34][35]; but always with JFG. This may be of particular interest to you, as JFG called you (and MelanieN) by name[36] to the Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections topic. My very best wishes has specifically pointed-out this problem to 123IP [37], BullRangifer has specifically warned 123IP of how this violates the spirit of BRD, Websurfer2 has shown great patience in discussing the violations of process, while Volunteer Marek as pointed to related problems in 123IP's behavior.[38] (additional info here, here, and here) X1\ (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed. They try to delete large amounts of long-standing content and have ideas about article scope which are not in harmony with the historic scope of the list. The "deep state conspiracy against Trump" seems to affect their thinking, so they see Trump as vindicated, and therefore he and his campaign should no longer be mentioned, or something like that. It's a bit hard to figure out all the intricacies of this, but the main problem is mass deletion of long-standing content in spite of the objections of other editors.
- They seem to think that if the content does not mention Russians, it doesn't belong, when the scope has always been anything related to the Russia investigation, Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Mueller probe, and any related history. This obviously involves Trump and his campaign even more than the Russians, but 123IP seems to want to delete any Trump-related content without a consensus to do so. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Actually those additions were indeed bold edits that were never approved by a consensus. The talk page and the edit summaries show several people objecting but have been disregarded by the two main contributors who insist on including the content they want to include. Much of what they are saying about me and my conduct, to little surprise, are basically lies.
- Okay well this is really scraping the barrel now. In this talk page message I hardly see how it can be considered canvassing to notify two editors who had already contributed to that same talk page section. I responded to X1\ primarily, and then directed further remarks to Slatersteven and JFG. Then there's this which is incredible since it's my own user talk page, so I'm canvassing users onto my own talk page? That makes no difference to the article talk page or the article itself. MVBW was referring to them, and I thought it would be appropriate to notify them that they were being talked about. Not sure what linking to the history pages are about. There is an affirmative consensus at Talk:Timeline_of_Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Butina_and_Torshin for example to remove certain entries from the article. This is getting beyond absurd now. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- First of all BullRangifer, who has said anything about a "deep state conspiracy against Trump"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- No one directly, but some of the things you've said seem to come from that mindset. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- It certainly seems that some people here are seeking to include extreme amounts of unnecessary content into the article in order to obscure the actual Russian government involvement in the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Anything actually important is completely minimised by all this nonsense like when Ivanka Trump "sat in Putin's chair" and when someone was introduced to their future wife or an entry about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- "in order to obscure the actual Russian government involvement..."??? That's a rather strange assumption. Including the full gamut of things which were involved, or suspected to be involved, in that interference does not "obscure" anything. It just means we document the full scope of the article, which is anything related to the Russia investigation, Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Mueller probe, and any related history. That very much involves the Trump campaign, as much of the interference was designed to help Trump win, and his associates were crawling all over the Russians in secret meetings to get all the help they could. Oh, BTW, they also lied about it. That's called "consciousness of guilt." -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I can't claim to know the motivations of people, but the strong inclination of editors to make this article the second-largest article in the entire encyclopaedia and include all kinds of things which have been challenged as irrelevant on the talk page is in line with obscuring the relevant events of the interference. My initial impression indeed was that editors sympathetic to Donald Trump had included extraneous details, particularly suspected activities that haven't been further confirmed, since obviously nobody is reading the entire article or anything close to that. It's also very unfortunate that editors have indicated on talk pages that they want the article to indicate things like guilt and possible motives, and to show that statements by certain people are unlikely or untrue. This makes it easier for readers to dismiss the article as having an agenda to "right great wrongs" and "uncover the truth", rather than present neutral and objective facts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Please AGF. The history of this article shows a clear tendency of Trump supporters trying to delete content that reflects poorly on Trump, which is the opposite of what you're implying.
- Another thing is that this is not an "article" but a "list". They serve different functions here. It can be seen as a source dump which is used for content and sources for other articles, and it is indeed used in that manner. Only real students and researchers are likely to read the whole list, but it's an interesting experience to do it. One gains a much better understanding of how seemingly unrelated events in time and space are connected.
- Currently we don't even have one mother article for the Russia investigation. That's pretty astounding. The information is spread out over a couple articles and several long lists, including this one. Therefore all information in it must be guarded. We don't want to lose content or sources.
- As to the length, it's a simple statistical fact that one article has to be the longest and another the shortest. It can't be any other way. It's not an intention, it just happens, and attacking the list for being long makes no sense in this case, especially since it's a list, where length is far less important than with prose articles. Lists aren't normally read in the same way as regular articles. They are used for research. Instead of looking at this as one article, look at it as the file cabinet in the library with all those little drawers. Losing a drawer or any of the file cards in it would be disastrous. That's one reason we have the WP:PRESERVE policy. The hard work of myriad editors should be respected. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
The history of this article shows a clear tendency of Trump supporters trying to delete content that reflects poorly on Trump
. This is very counter-intuitive. As we have seen, it's the massive amount of tendentious information that is actually obscuring the main criticisms of Donald Trump's campaign. Whatever you may think of the article (and list articles are indeed articles, whether or not this should be a list article), please do not obstruct attempts at clearing out the entries in the article that are unnecessary and outside the scope of the article. Redefining the scope of an article to whatever you want it to be does not actually change the inherent scope of the article, and I do not need to be condescended about it. I encourage you to read WP:DON'T PRESERVE, since you are very eager to quote WP:PRESERVE. Also WP:SCOPE, WP:RELEVANCE, WP:TOOMUCH. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)- And this is why I only partially agreed with you, your point about the article is too big and full of unnecessary crap is valid, but there has been a large number of efforts to sanitize the page to be less critical of Donnie. This is why concrete examples of what users want removed, rather then vague declarations that stuff should be removed are better. We then know you are not just one of those editors.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I can't claim to know the motivations of people, but the strong inclination of editors to make this article the second-largest article in the entire encyclopaedia and include all kinds of things which have been challenged as irrelevant on the talk page is in line with obscuring the relevant events of the interference. My initial impression indeed was that editors sympathetic to Donald Trump had included extraneous details, particularly suspected activities that haven't been further confirmed, since obviously nobody is reading the entire article or anything close to that. It's also very unfortunate that editors have indicated on talk pages that they want the article to indicate things like guilt and possible motives, and to show that statements by certain people are unlikely or untrue. This makes it easier for readers to dismiss the article as having an agenda to "right great wrongs" and "uncover the truth", rather than present neutral and objective facts. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- "in order to obscure the actual Russian government involvement..."??? That's a rather strange assumption. Including the full gamut of things which were involved, or suspected to be involved, in that interference does not "obscure" anything. It just means we document the full scope of the article, which is anything related to the Russia investigation, Crossfire Hurricane investigation, Mueller probe, and any related history. That very much involves the Trump campaign, as much of the interference was designed to help Trump win, and his associates were crawling all over the Russians in secret meetings to get all the help they could. Oh, BTW, they also lied about it. That's called "consciousness of guilt." -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- It certainly seems that some people here are seeking to include extreme amounts of unnecessary content into the article in order to obscure the actual Russian government involvement in the presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Anything actually important is completely minimised by all this nonsense like when Ivanka Trump "sat in Putin's chair" and when someone was introduced to their future wife or an entry about the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- No one directly, but some of the things you've said seem to come from that mindset. That's all. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- First of all BullRangifer, who has said anything about a "deep state conspiracy against Trump"? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven I don't agree with editors expressing or acknowledging their political views on talk pages, but I can assure you that is not my motivation. I am not from the United States or Russia and I don't have a record of biased editing elsewhere. Anything that I have removed from the article or that I support being removed could be things that are described, including in further detail, elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's impossible to detail every single entry that should be removed however. Please check my editing statistics if you have any further concerns. Again I think what the article is suffering are people who are sympathetic to Trump who wish to obscure the events of the Russian government's involvement with irrelevant trivia and fancruft, in order to render the article unreadable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- I have said it to others, if you want to remove stuff you have to get the OK for it, and I will never give (and I would hope no one would) blanket permission to remove stuff. If I give it to you I have to give it to everyone, and there are those who would exploit it. So I give it to no one. Yes you can (and should) tell us what you want removed, there is no time limit that says this article will self destruct in five posts if we do not remove excess material. Nor is there some page limit to the number of posts you can make.Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea about the central complaint, but would point out that being invited is not the same as being part of a gang (for a start I would have to accept). I do not recall the incident in which I was mentioned, but I would point out it was a page on my watch list that I am active on. Thus I am not sure it is canvassing. Indeed I had already agreed with part of what they had said without promoting.Slatersteven (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley - it appears you have developed the patience of Job...👏👏👏
- I commend the editors participating in this discussion for their civility and informative exchanges, and I commend you for allowing them to discuss these very trying issues on your TP. As you know, brevity is not one of my strong points, but neither is it for BullRangifer, who I consider a WikiFriend - as for our brevity issues I'll just quote Blaise Pascal: I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short.
- I was a tad disappointed in Slatersteven's use of "Donnie" because it made me think of the Osmonds rather than POTUS, and it does come across as bias (intentional or otherwise) which does tend to act as a trigger. Political divides are an issue worldwide (or it could be/should be viewed as a benefit) but it is pretty obvious that our Trump-related articles are weighted heavily in a negative direction due for the most part to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NEWSORG. It doesn't appear to me that the articles are being properly updated as more factual information is published in RS, and it's that omission that draws attention to what appears to be ongoing resistance and articles being overweighted with opinions and trivia rather than sticking primarily to fact-based material. The latter will surely cause some shrinkage of article size, but that's a good thing. It is also an area I agree with the work of Onetwothreeip and JFG, both of whom have attempted to correct the issues. I have previously expressed my concern over the attempts to maintain the status quo which can be viewed as WP:SQS or WP:OWN or both - based on some of the lengthy discussions that lead nowhere fast, and weak arguments to exclude updated material which is actually what causes some editors to apply BRD.
- Many of the Trump articles suffer WP:RECENTISM and were originally created based on newsy speculation and 2 years of misinformation, some of which has been retracted but not all RS have been following their own retraction guidelines as we have recently come to learn. Investigations are still ongoing with AG Barr and IG Horowitz per published RS, not to mention any of the ongoing congressional oversight, and as I've consistently advised editors in the past, we should exercise caution with regards to how we use news sources (either with or without intext attribution). It's not our place to dismiss FOXNews as unreliable, or a NYTimes published statement as patently false, unless of course a claim of falsity can be cited to another RS. Editors make decisions of whether or not to include material but it should not be based on their own analysis of the actual material - that's what RS do. We certainly should verify the information and corroborate it for factual accuracy but it pretty much ends there. We publish what RS say and decide the type of attribution that will accompany the claim/allegation. That's where I see problems arise at AP2 and they almost always create conflicts/disruption. At the same time, we cannot ignore that we have a handy measure of bias involved as we've seen on some of the participating users' TPs, etc. It is a natural tendency for editors to use only those RS that agree with their own POV rather than edit as suggested by the essay WP:OPPONENT. Just wanted to share my take on some of the common sense dictates of the issues at hand. Atsme Talk 📧 16:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there is indeed an inherent conflict between our duty to document the narrative found in RS and the dismay that WP:CRYSTALBALL, WP:ADVOCACY, and WP:FRINGE prevent the use of unreliable sources which push fringe and counterfactual narratives aligned with certain biases, rather than using those RS which don't. Patience is called for. When the narrative found in RS changes, we will update our articles accordingly, and editors who think skeptically will also change their minds. In the meantime, complaints about the proper use of RS are counterproductive. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just as a very general comment, no, we do not have "2 years of misinformation" [by media]. Yes, if something has been retracted (I am not sure what is that, exactly), that needs to be corrected. However, if something published was not retracted, this remains a valid publication/an RS, subject to comparison with other RS per WP:NPOV. And I think BullRangifer does very good and careful work with sources on this subject. Thank you, BullRangifer, for doing this! My very best wishes (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I can only afford a short reply here at the moment (super busy IRL). I do want to push back against the idea of using an article as a "filing cabinet" of information. That's not what Wikipedia is about, and the information in any article needs to be digestible for readers. That's the whole point of encyclopedia articles. I also want to push back on 123's approach (based off my memory of old diffs) of blanking entire sections of information. Also it seems a bit odd to criticize someone for using triggering & biased language like "Donnie" and then in the same post throw around terms like "2 years of misinformation". ~Awilley (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley, I'll have to admit that my analogies describing the list as a "source dump" in a library "file cabinet" was a bit sloppy, but, unlike a prose article, the list article in question contains items listed by date, where there is usually no discernible connection between adjacent items but the general topic, just like cards in a cardfile. The only thing those cards have in common is that the Dewey Decimal System has declared them to be on the same general topic, and that they thus belong in the same drawer (our list). That's all I meant. When we find RS information on the topic, we "file" that information in the list by date, and only by date.
- I haven't had much to do with this list, but that's generally how it works. (I use it a lot for research. It's a valuable treasure trove.) In lists, we don't attempt to create a logically flowing narrative so that as one reads down the page each item builds on the previous one, and it gradually makes total sense. No, it's lots of disconnected bits of information. It takes a prose article to put it together into a logical flow of information.
- That's where this list, and several others, serve a very valuable purpose. We have NO MOTHER ARTICLE FOR THE TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION. That's a pretty terrible state of affairs, but the needed information is in these lists. They should not be pillaged. Condensed by better and more concise wording? Sure, but not mass deletion, especially when it's targeted at removing mention of Trump and Co. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Just looking at the list it looks like you could do a lot of things to condense it without actually removing information. For example the list currently has this entry:
That could easily be condensed into a parenthetical clauseDecember 14 2012: President Barack Obama signs the Magnitsky Act into law to punish Russian officials responsible for the death of Russian tax accountant Sergei Magnitsky in a Moscow prison in 2009.
"(signed by Obama in 2012)"
and inserted into the next mention of the Magnitsky act in 2016. ~Awilley (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I can only afford a short reply here at the moment (super busy IRL). I do want to push back against the idea of using an article as a "filing cabinet" of information. That's not what Wikipedia is about, and the information in any article needs to be digestible for readers. That's the whole point of encyclopedia articles. I also want to push back on 123's approach (based off my memory of old diffs) of blanking entire sections of information. Also it seems a bit odd to criticize someone for using triggering & biased language like "Donnie" and then in the same post throw around terms like "2 years of misinformation". ~Awilley (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not odd that I perceived the nickname as bias, Awilley, and I certainly wasn't "throwing around" a very significant occurance like "2 years of misinformation". My comment is supported by RS so it's neither OR nor my personal opinion - it's documented fact as evidenced by academic sources which you can find quite readily via a Google search, and the few RS I've included below - not to mention the Mueller report which resulted in a finding of NO COLLUSION. I will include the comment made by Jimbo on his TP back in January 2019 - I totally agree with his take on it per the 3rd paragraph: I'd like to add that I don't mind a little bit of personal chit-chat here about politics, I'd like to always seek to tie it back to Wikipedia. We have chosen a very tough job: NPOV. Dislike for the President, fear about things that are happening in the world, may make it emotionally harder to remain neutral, but remain neutral we must. I happen to personally think that given the decline in quality of the media across the board (there are still fantastic journalists out there, but overall the landscape isn't great) the best way for us to help the world heal is neutrality.
The RS dilemma
Criticisms that were recently launched against me unjustly here and on my TP regarding my concerns over news sources and the steadfast position I've held when it comes to exercising caution when citing them (some of which was actually used as evidence against me), particularly my advice to closely adhere to WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:NEWSORG remains unchanged. In fact, I have been vindicated as the following evidence will demonstrate:
- Ohio State University
https://origins.osu.edu/article/media-and-politics-age-trump
- The Intercept
- Salon
https://www.salon.com/2019/05/09/bad-week-for-truth-in-the-media-bannons-delusions-venezuelas-coup-and-bidens-electability/ “Tom Friedman's laughable prescription for Democrats, NYT and CNN spin Venezuela fables, Bannon goes full Orwell”
- Poynter
- PBS
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/study-election-coverage-skewed-by-journalistic-bias/
- Investor’s Business Daily
https://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/social-media-bias-john-stossel/ - talks about Wikipedia article being very one-sided
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/media-trump-hatred-coverage/
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/social-media-trump-conservative-bias/
- Real Clear Politics
- Washington Times
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/6/trump-coverage-still-90-negative-says-new-study/ - hostile coverage
- AP Report
https://www.apnews.com/55900fb31de842288ee7f75f2ae75bf4
- Sharyl Attkisson
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
I certainly hope that lays your concerns to rest and that it won't be brought up again in that manner. Atsme Talk 📧 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- I read through the links you provided from the more reasonable sources, and don’t agree at all with your statement that we have seen “2 years of misinformation” from RS. We have most certainly seen it from the crazy sites, and continue to see it. What studies have shown is that the press tends to concentrate on unusual characters, and that the networks are generally negative, toward politicians of all stripes. Basically, very little has changed. The Russians engaged in massive interference in our election (still denied by our Executive branch), and there is detailed evidence of obstruction of justice. And, there are still nonsensical claims. For example, today Trump accused the FBI of treason. O3000 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- And what are you calling "crazy sites"? I didn't expect you to agree with my perspective of "2 years of misinformation" - you don't have to agree - your only obligation on WP is to say what RS say, and we don't do that by picking only those sources that agree with our POV. I'm not denying there was Russian interference but to what degree it influenced the election is another story all together. It's quite obvious that after 2 years of MSM steadily building a case of Trump collusion, they fell flat on their faces. Anything beyond Mueller's Report of NO COLLUSION is speculation or flat-out fake news at this time. What we have now are news reports that point to the ongoing investigations by AG Barr and IG Horowitz, but to see how it actually applies requires going beyond the sources that simply support your POV, especially if those sources have lost the public's confidence after repeatedly publishing misinformation, and I believe the sources I listed above explain that well.
Just curious...have you factored in the many firings of DOJ officials or why they were fired? Some of them are now under investigation, so that alone should wave a tiny red flag, but if that doesn't do it, I doubt anything will, so there's no sense in us discussing this topic any further. There's a lot I may not know, but what I do know is that I don't like the taste of crow, hats or having egg on my face, so I'm quite happy to wait patiently and let the chips fall where they may. Scholars like Victor Davis Hanson will eventually get all the facts sorted out, and history will be written as it should be. Atsme Talk 📧 23:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Anything beyond Mueller's Report of NO COLLUSION is speculation or flat-out fake news at this time." What? The report by Mueller is just one of many published RS on the subject, although an important RS. It does not prove or disprove anything, scientifically speaking. This is just a primary RS, from the WP standpoint, nothing else. Speaking about its content and claims, there are many secondary sources which interpret it in various, frequently opposite ways, and we can use them per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- My very best wishes, in your comment above you mentioned: ...many "secondary" sources which interpret it in various, frequently opposite ways, - true, opposite is good. We just need to make sure the individual sources aren't simply mirroring info from a news wire or their parent news org, and presenting the same information in their own words. When that happens, we look to WP:NEWSORG: Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source. Atsme Talk 📧 18:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- "Anything beyond Mueller's Report of NO COLLUSION is speculation or flat-out fake news at this time." What? The report by Mueller is just one of many published RS on the subject, although an important RS. It does not prove or disprove anything, scientifically speaking. This is just a primary RS, from the WP standpoint, nothing else. Speaking about its content and claims, there are many secondary sources which interpret it in various, frequently opposite ways, and we can use them per WP:RS. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- And what are you calling "crazy sites"? I didn't expect you to agree with my perspective of "2 years of misinformation" - you don't have to agree - your only obligation on WP is to say what RS say, and we don't do that by picking only those sources that agree with our POV. I'm not denying there was Russian interference but to what degree it influenced the election is another story all together. It's quite obvious that after 2 years of MSM steadily building a case of Trump collusion, they fell flat on their faces. Anything beyond Mueller's Report of NO COLLUSION is speculation or flat-out fake news at this time. What we have now are news reports that point to the ongoing investigations by AG Barr and IG Horowitz, but to see how it actually applies requires going beyond the sources that simply support your POV, especially if those sources have lost the public's confidence after repeatedly publishing misinformation, and I believe the sources I listed above explain that well.
Awilley I also want to push back on 123's approach (based off my memory of old diffs) of blanking entire sections of information.
This was something I did a while ago for events before 2015. What I have done most recently is apply what a consensus decided on the talk page per this discussion and removed entries about Maria Butina and Aleksandr Torshin. This was removed by the only person who dissented in the discussion, saying there was "no agreement". I hadn't removed any sections here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here is section of discussion in question, and it is typical for this discussion. I cited sources that support inclusion, including that one. Does that source (and others on talk and on the page) support that Butina should be included to this list, and this must be obvious for any reasonable participant? ( It tells: "And July’s indictment of Mariia Butina, a Russian national who sought to infiltrate both the Trump campaign and the NRA before the election, also raised questions about the group’s status as a potential intermediary between Trump and the Russians. Butina was charged with acting as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the Justice Department. Butina was the first person to ask Trump in public about his position on Russian sanctions — during a 2015 event in Las Vegas — and tried to broker a meeting between Trump and her Russian handler, Alexander Torshin, at an NRA convention in May 2016.) The fact that "123" still insists he was right shows that he should not edit this page, in my opinion. I can't say anything about other pages they edited. My very best wishes (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody has said it can't be on Wikipedia at all, it just doesn't belong on that page due to its tenuous connection to the 2016 election. Nobody is suggesting the content is incorrect either. The sources don't support inclusion in this article, they just support that these things did happen. It's not as if the reliable source is going to say what Wikipedia article that information belongs on. That's something for us to decide and you were the only person on the talk page to disagree that it should be excluded, and on other issues as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- So, you still think that quotation above does not support inclusion of Butina to the page about the Russian "interference" to the elections? My very best wishes (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nobody has said it can't be on Wikipedia at all, it just doesn't belong on that page due to its tenuous connection to the 2016 election. Nobody is suggesting the content is incorrect either. The sources don't support inclusion in this article, they just support that these things did happen. It's not as if the reliable source is going to say what Wikipedia article that information belongs on. That's something for us to decide and you were the only person on the talk page to disagree that it should be excluded, and on other issues as well. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Here is section of discussion in question, and it is typical for this discussion. I cited sources that support inclusion, including that one. Does that source (and others on talk and on the page) support that Butina should be included to this list, and this must be obvious for any reasonable participant? ( It tells: "And July’s indictment of Mariia Butina, a Russian national who sought to infiltrate both the Trump campaign and the NRA before the election, also raised questions about the group’s status as a potential intermediary between Trump and the Russians. Butina was charged with acting as an agent of a foreign government without notifying the Justice Department. Butina was the first person to ask Trump in public about his position on Russian sanctions — during a 2015 event in Las Vegas — and tried to broker a meeting between Trump and her Russian handler, Alexander Torshin, at an NRA convention in May 2016.) The fact that "123" still insists he was right shows that he should not edit this page, in my opinion. I can't say anything about other pages they edited. My very best wishes (talk) 05:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
That is content which obviously belongs. She was even convicted and will serve time in jail for her role as a Russian agent in the election interference. How much more "on-topic" can it get? That's hardly a "tenuous connection". It's about as direct as one can get, and a federal judge said so. But you seem to think you're qualified to be contrary and just delete that huge amount of material. I call BS.
So with this example, you're deleting 23,722 bytes of a clear example of Russian interference from the "Timeline of Russian interference....", and not only just mentions of Trump. You have some strange ideas about what should be deleted and I'm suspecting you're not qualified to make such decisions. The fact that you're getting push back should cause you to stop doing it and stay off that page and the whole subject, completely.
Awilley, maybe an AP2 topic ban for 123IP would be best for everyone's sake, because 123IP has made no positive contributions, done nothing but create a lot of controversy, spark extremely long and hot talk page discussions, and displayed a serious case of IDHT. If I said this on an article talk page I'd get sanctioned, but it needs to be said and here is the place to say it. The time for discussion is over and action needs to be taken to stop them from pillaging the article and creating disruption on the whole topic. This has been a huge time sink for everyone and we shouldn't have to watch 123IP's every move.
I've been here since 2003 and I've never encountered an editor who constantly pushes for deleting so much material, especially against the objections of other editors. Vandals try it, but that's different. We just revert and block them. Maybe they should be placed in that category because the effect of their actions is the same, but I think a topic ban would be better. Maybe they can do some good in a less controversial area (their IP liked cartoon characters), but a ban on deletions would also be good. They'd get to add, edit, and improve content, but not delete any content, and no discussions about deleting as such discussions would quickly get long. They'd just have to stay away from the topic of deletions, as that seems to be the kernel in this. I'd like to see them actually build, rather than destroy. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- @BullRangifer: Aren't you supposed to refrain from commenting on your fellow editors' motives? Suggesting topic bans when you just happen to disagree on an editorial dispute? That's beneath you. Disappointing. — JFG talk 17:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- The sanction applies to article talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm certainly sorry if I strayed into motives. Not sure where. The discussion was about editor behavior, and I tried to focus on what was the obvious behavior and the effects of their editing and comments. I didn't say anything that would even warrant a civility warning for anyone else in a discussion of editor behavior. If it had been a content discussion, that would be a very different matter.
- We need to have peace in this area, and as long as 123IP is allowed to disrupt, this will continue to be a time sink. You share some of their concerns, but you understand how to discuss, avoid controversial edits, seek consensus, and not delete huge swaths of content in one single edit without any consensus. You can discuss and explain why a single edit, or single piece of information, should be modified, moved, or deleted. 123IP doesn't seem to get that. There is no collaboration at all. They just suddenly swooped in from left field and blew up land mines all over the list, with one being 100,000 bytes. That's just crazy. It must stop. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- I will say this. Trump has proved that boldness works. He can violate all the rules, break laws openly and with impunity, obstruct justice openly, and get away with it. Anyone else would get jailed or booted from office. That's what we're seeing here. Any other editor who does what 123IP has been doing on a DS article would have been blocked and then banned a long time ago. Instead, they are allowed to get away with all this disruption, even after warnings. Whatever happened to the DS sanctions? No one is enforcing them here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Stop. Comparing. Everybody. To. Trump. This is not a battle between good and evil. Chill, dude! — JFG talk 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes stop, JFG. Again JFG, not WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. X1\ (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's not my job to pick winners and losers in a content dispute by topic banning somebody. ~Awilley (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- This isn't a content dispute. In principle it matters not what "side" of the issues is getting deleted. This is about a behavioral issue. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
- It's not my job to pick winners and losers in a content dispute by topic banning somebody. ~Awilley (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes stop, JFG. Again JFG, not WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. X1\ (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- Stop. Comparing. Everybody. To. Trump. This is not a battle between good and evil. Chill, dude! — JFG talk 19:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
- I will say this. Trump has proved that boldness works. He can violate all the rules, break laws openly and with impunity, obstruct justice openly, and get away with it. Anyone else would get jailed or booted from office. That's what we're seeing here. Any other editor who does what 123IP has been doing on a DS article would have been blocked and then banned a long time ago. Instead, they are allowed to get away with all this disruption, even after warnings. Whatever happened to the DS sanctions? No one is enforcing them here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Wrong venue
This seemed to start as a discussion of potential DS violations, but it has morphed into a massive discussion of article content. I won't comment here because it is definitely the wrong venue. Please @all move back to the relevant talk page. — JFG talk 17:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – May 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
- Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.
Technical news
- XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions
; administrators found failing to have adequately done sowill not be resysopped automatically
. All current administrators have been notified of this change. - Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
- In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases,
Miscellaneous
- A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
- A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.
Recent article that may need Enforced BRD
Would you consider placing Crossfire Hurricane (FBI investigation) under Enforced BRD restrictions? An Inspector General report about the origins of this investigation is due soon, and I fear that press coverage may go into overdrive, which often begets battleground editing. Thanks! — JFG talk 00:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- I think that would double the number of articles I've independently placed new sanctions on from 1 to 2 :-) In this case I'd rather not be blindly pre-emptive on sanctions and I've got a big project in my plate right now and don't have the time to sort through the edit and talk history as much as I would normally do before placing a sanction. (I'd also hesitate since it's still a relatively new article and is lower profile...I think.) Perhaps one of the other admins watching the article or my talk page would be willing to do this? I'd also be willing to shoot blind if one of our resident "involved" admins (User:MelanieN or User:Galobtter) thought the article needed sanctions. ~Awilley (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'll watchlist it. It does not look like it needs restrictions at this time. If the IG report makes it become a target we can look at it then. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't think pre-emptive sanctions are a good idea (in general and here); often times there's less disruption/edit warring than you'd think there would be.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Hidden Tempo
They're back and edit warring and disrupting Talk:Spygate (conspiracy theory). R2 (bleep) 19:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Wcmcdade
Would you mind taking a look at recent edits by Wcmcdade (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 173.54.120.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? R2 (bleep) 18:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Pretty clearly the same person. Albeit, may have been mistakenly editing signed off. Either way, disruptive, and this edit[39] is pure vandalism. O3000 (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- same person. Wcmcdade (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC) and not vandalism. I was undoing what someone else had done through direct edit. As you can see, I was a “yes” previously. But please...go ahead and ban me for my hugely disruptive behavior of requesting comments about an Are ticker title that is clearly out of sync with current events. Wcmcdade (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- We don't erase historical events when we update articles. What happened happened. Anything really relevant to the article then gets added, but it doesn't change the history of what originally happened.
- Trump made comments and tweets in which he reframed Halper's interactions with three campaign members in a false light. Those false statements created a conspiracy theory, and RS described his statements as false and a conspiracy theory. Nothing that has happened since then changes that this happened. There was indeed surveillance. That's the one true element in the conspiracy theory, but Trump's false statements about that surveillance are still false to this day. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- same person. Wcmcdade (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC) and not vandalism. I was undoing what someone else had done through direct edit. As you can see, I was a “yes” previously. But please...go ahead and ban me for my hugely disruptive behavior of requesting comments about an Are ticker title that is clearly out of sync with current events. Wcmcdade (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Awilley, to help you out, there are two issues here. The first is that Wcmcdade re-opened an RfC twice ([40], [41]). This came after similar behavior in December, after which he was warned ([42]) and directed by multiple experienced editors not to re-open RfCs. ([43]). The second issue is some isolated but pretty bad incivility. ([44], [45]). All of this is in the AP2 space, and Wcmcdade was given a DS warning in March. ([46]) R2 (bleep) 21:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
You haircut my edits at race and Iq
At the Race and Intelligence talk page you haircut my comments saying I was sitebanned. Yes I made both the edits on the talk page in question, but I have never been sitebanned, nor have I made many edits at all. In fact in the last year I believe the only articles I have touched are Linda Gottfredson, Diablo Cody, Mark DeCarlo and Race and IQ. That’s literally it. I know you are one of the foremen here (and I respect that), but before sanctioning me, please do some investigation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B029:62D0:E472:BAA2:A26F:3842 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Enforced BRD requested
Please consider applying the Enforced BRD ruleset at China–United States trade war. Latest incident is documented at Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 1#United States or Trump administration? — JFG talk 00:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'll look at it. ~Awilley (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, this is going to take me some time to get to... a lot on my plate right now. ~Awilley (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
At Talk:Julian Assange, there is a filibuster on the RFC jouralist thread. Needs help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:5:803:0:0:0:18 (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Snoox, again
Awilley, I understood that you were going to instruct SashiRolls to stop referring to Snooganssnoogans and me as "Snoox". This is a clear violation of WP:CIV.
Also, I see my AE request was closed with the weakest possible sanction that puts the burden on other users to "first politely notify the offending editor on their talk page". Is there a reason why SashiRoll's is allowed to attack from non-article talk pages? I'm also not encouraged that the two 1RR violations were ignored, but I guess that restriction is meaningless. - MrX 🖋 11:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I'll warn about Snoox. I didn't mean for the thread to get closed immediately after I placed the restriction...I placed that on my own, the same as I did with BullRangifer (whose thread stayed open for further discussion after I sanctioned him). The reason the sanction is limited to article talk pages is that talk pages are the wrong forum to talk about the motivations of other editors, but there are other forums (administrative noticeboards, sometimes user talk pages) where addressing personal issues is appropriate. Personal attacks are inappropriate everywhere, and are covered by our policy on personal attacks, not my sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 13:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- MrX, you have now been referred to as snoo+X. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- The suggestion is of course that I and MrX are the one and the same or somehow working together illicitly. Here SR recognizes in July 2019 that he was banned for using the term[47], but proceeded to use it later that same day[48]. And of course now again on Wiki as KB points out. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- MrX, you have now been referred to as snoo+X. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Rounding back around
So as not to disturb El C anymore, but I pretty strongly disagree with your comment here. By creating new sanctions you are taking the path of most drama for minor things that do not require administrator intervention. You're adding extra layers that basically make dealing with low level disruption impossible, while also giving people the "mark" of being sanctioned for things that really don't need sanctions. Anyway, I think your page of custom sanctions is pretty far outside the norm of administrator discretion and I think anyone who is under one of them would have a very strong case on appeal regardless of their behaviour: the DS regime was not created to have us make up policy and confine the ways other administrators can act. It was created to be used in serious situations to quickly resolve behavioural disputes, and I think it runs counter to that goal. Those are my 2¢. Take it for what it's worth. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Enforcement request
Hi Awilley. Since you imposed this editing restriction, would you please enforce it? SashiRolls has again violated 1RR, which makes it three time in recent days (two of which you already know about). Revert 1 and Revert 2 are unambiguous reverts.
For background, Here is the relevant talk page discussion: talk:Tulsi Gabbard#Fact check: smear campaign which documents why the material violates WP:V. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 12:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- I have self-reverted as I didn't realize that MrX was playing childish games again. Feel free to do the project a favor and indefinitely block him for being dishonest. (Even Kolya agrees with me on this one (!!))🌿 SashiRolls t · c 17:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- You have not shown me where you think I have made an attack on MrX on an article talk page. You made clear that I have the right to call a spade a spade in User space. I will wait for you to make a direct link to a claim that I have made (following the rules you yourself wrote: by notifying me on my talk page of the exact location on an article talk page where you believe that I have made a personal attack. Was it when I said that he was wrong? Is it a personal attack to say someone is wrong when they are?) Please be sure to ping me if you write to me here (despite my request for transparency), I do not have your TP watchlisted.
You may also want to block google. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC) - SashiRolls is continuing to make personal attacks. They called me a "nut".[49] Should I take this to AN/I, or do you think this is actionable now considering their history? Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- You have not shown me where you think I have made an attack on MrX on an article talk page. You made clear that I have the right to call a spade a spade in User space. I will wait for you to make a direct link to a claim that I have made (following the rules you yourself wrote: by notifying me on my talk page of the exact location on an article talk page where you believe that I have made a personal attack. Was it when I said that he was wrong? Is it a personal attack to say someone is wrong when they are?) Please be sure to ping me if you write to me here (despite my request for transparency), I do not have your TP watchlisted.
Administrators' newsletter – June 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).
Administrator changes
- Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický
CheckUser changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
- An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
- An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.
Technical news
- The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
- Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
- The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
- The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.
Administrators' newsletter – July 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).
Administrator changes
- 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
- 1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
- 2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
|
|
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.
- In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
- The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
- The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
- A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.
Technical news
- The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
- In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Enforced BRD with multiple editors
- CONTEXT: Talk:Deep state in the United States#Conspiracy theory. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Awilley. A question for you about how Enforced BRD is intended to work. Consider the following (very common) scenario:
- Editor A makes a bold edit.
- Editor B reverts.
- Editor C re-reverts (restores Editor A's edit).
- Editor B re-reverts again.
Who violated Enforced BRD? Multiple choice:
- (a) Editor B
- (b) Editor C
- (c) both Editor B and Editor C
- (d) no one
Please, please assume that everyone was acting in good fath no one was coordinating or intending to tag-team edit war. Also, please do not sanction anyone over this. I'm merely trying to understand how Enforced BRD is supposed to work. (Pinging Beyond My Ken.) R2 (bleep) 20:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Ahrtoodeetoo: {a) Editor B would have violated BRD if they hadn't first waited 24 hours (1RR) and participated in talk page discussion. ~Awilley (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- "B" for the re-revert? Why is it not '"C"?--MONGO (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @MONGO: Right. Editor B would have violated 1RR and BRD while Editor C wouldn't have violated either. Editor C can't violate 1RR with their first revert, and B-R-D doesn't require editor C to discuss before their first revert. (It's not B-D-R.) You may be conflating "Enforced BRD" with the "Consensus Required" rule, which Editor C would have violated if that rule were in place. ~Awilley (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- R2 is correct that my second restoration (#1,#2) of the removal of the category "Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump" from the article Deep state in the United States (removed first by Wumbolo, and re-removed by R2 after my restoration) was a violation of DS, in that I made the edit within 24 hours of my first. (In all other respects the edit was correct, Wumbolo's and R2's claim that it is not a conspiracy theory is counter-factual.)I have self-reverted once this was brought to my attention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, I didn't claim that anything was not a conspiracy theory. Thanks Awilley and BMK both. R2 (bleep) 23:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, but if you are not claiming that it's not a conspiracy theory, why did you restore Wumbolo's removal of not only Category:Conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump, but also Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States? Wumbolo's removal of the former was on the (wrong) basis of BLP, but what possible reason can there have been to remove the latter In any case, if I misinterpreted your comments, I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, I didn't claim that anything was not a conspiracy theory. Thanks Awilley and BMK both. R2 (bleep) 23:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- "B" for the re-revert? Why is it not '"C"?--MONGO (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
BRD works between two editors, not more. When more get involved it can end up as an all out edit war. Editor C will have their own issues and reckoning with Editor B, but Editor B still has a responsibility and reckoning with Editor A and must follow BRD. It would be best for them to quickly start a discussion, even though that is the responsibility of Editor A. (If you're confused now, don't feel bad. Those of us who have developed BRD over the years are too! That was just the original and least confusing formula.) How all this works with "enforced" BRD is beyond me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
You've got mail
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 07:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you ...
Hi, AWilley:
Thank you so much for your email. :) The info you provided me was great. I'll be sure to mark reasons for changes, especially on major edits. I wasn't sure how critical it was to mark reasons for changes, so thank you. I'll make sure I do that going forward.
I'm big on sources also and strive to select the very best that I can find, try always to be very accurate -- even meticulous -- in all information provided, and to ensure that I select the most reputable out there. And so if there's any question at all, I'm happy to re-verify and relook at any statement made, to recheck sources, whatever.
Please call my attention to anything that smacks of analysis, certainly, as I try to avoid broaching speculation at all costs -- to make factual statements always, or to clarify, if it's an entity's peculiar belief system, that I transparently so state. All of the content that I've given thus far, I believe, is verifiable from reputable sources, so please let me know if there is any question at all, and I can respond in a timely manner to it.
Neutrality is important to me also, and I do strive with my edits to weed out bias (except in those cases where it is simply an institution's belief structure or dogma, yet nevertheless well documented). Also, especially in areas of religion, I double-check reputable source-references about what this or that sectarian entity "believes," making sure that the ideas are valid, accurate, clearly stated, and sourced reputably, understanding also that any sect's particular dogmas or beliefs cannot be denied them.
When dealing with any non-biblical area, for example, or with areas which are not necessarily tied to any religion or sect, but where the focus is on, for example, ancient world culture and/or myth, in order to allow for concepts that are, frankly, 'textually' based, and not tied necessarily to any specific religion -- but which have not as yet been given explanation in that non-religious 'context', I endeavor always, in all venues to which I contribute, to ensure that they are well- and reputably documented. This is clearly for articles where, though the subject exists in other categories -- but which, because of context, nomenclature, etc., or because of a subject's labeling, categorization, or consignment, makes it inextricably bound to a specific religion, belief system, or religious movement -- that it becomes, by that world-view, a wholly different idea which deserves a non-sectarian treatment and context, and where others who have similar research interests can add to it their knowledge and research-findings, while avoiding also what are perhaps non-intentional biases, religious or otherwise, that may 'come with' certain articles.
Please let me know if there's any question at all, as I certainly am eager and want to provide any additional sourcing or verification, if such is needed.
Thank you again so much for reaching out to me and for the resources you gave me. I had not been clear, either, on how to respond to messages sent to me. :) But I believe this will get to you. Still, let me know if I need to respond by a different link or something that I'm not seeing.
Thanks again,
Chauvelin2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chauvelin2000 (talk • contribs)
Hi again
I'd like to ask you to stop pushing other admins to undo sanctions that they think work. You're presenting a one-sided view and failing to note that other admins who are active at AE disagree with you. It's making AE much more difficult to figure out, and I'll come out an say that you are the reason I do my best to avoid AP2 whenever I can now. It is okay to have an opinion, but letting other's use their discretion, even when it is different than yours, is the whole point of the DS system. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- I actually just started a straw poll on it at AN (see here). I think you and I are in good faith disagreement on this, and it's unlikely to be resolved by us talking I'm happy to go with whatever the community consensus is, but I also don't think one admin should be able to write the sanctions for the entire area, and AN seems to be the way to figure it out. The proposal is actually not about you at all, and I don't want you trouted or anything. I just want to figure out what our "best practice" should be. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. A RfC or something was probably going to be needed at some point. I'm 100% ok with people having different views/opinions than mine, but I do want to make sure those are informed opinions and that we're not just doing what we've always done because that's how we've always done things. When I see that somebody has understood my position and then rejected it I drop it. (It takes me longer to drop it when people reject it without understanding it.) I also suspect I'm in a minority among admins because I'm (intentionally) approaching the problem from the perspective of how does this affect the editing environment for the people trying to write articles instead of the law and order approach I suspect some admins unconsciously adopt. ~Awilley (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- No problem. I think my concern is that when most people have someone come and point out that all the other sanctions have been removed, they're likely to do it if they weren't familiar with the process of how that was done, especially if they don't know there are others who disagree. The end result is that you effectively have the same thing that Coffee was doing: one person determining sanctions for an entire area mainly because they were the person who was active. I agree with the CR sanction, but I don't think Coffee making it the de facto policy all on his own was ideal, and that's basically my concern with your approach here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. A RfC or something was probably going to be needed at some point. I'm 100% ok with people having different views/opinions than mine, but I do want to make sure those are informed opinions and that we're not just doing what we've always done because that's how we've always done things. When I see that somebody has understood my position and then rejected it I drop it. (It takes me longer to drop it when people reject it without understanding it.) I also suspect I'm in a minority among admins because I'm (intentionally) approaching the problem from the perspective of how does this affect the editing environment for the people trying to write articles instead of the law and order approach I suspect some admins unconsciously adopt. ~Awilley (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't like the one-person approach either, and I don't like being that person. But I will say this, and I apologize because it is going to sound elitist: I would rather have policy written by one person who has spent a month thinking about it, than one hundred people who have each spent 5-10 minutes thinking about it. I have spent months thinking about this, gathering ideas, brainstorming scenarios, soliciting feedback, and trying to understand and account for the objections of others. This is one of the things that keeps me awake at 4AM. I'll bet that, without looking, I could list 2/3 of the objections you voiced to BRD in December 2018. Again, apologies for sounding arrogant, but look at some of the feedback in the current AN thread. While it's obvious that some people (eg. you, me, Sandstein, Mandruss, El_C) have thought about and understand the problem, it's also clear that others haven't given it much thought as all. I suspect some people didn't even bother to read the wording of the rules that were being discussed, just going with the cop-out answer of "discretion is good". Some of the rationales don't even make sense, like "Option 1 could create stagnant articles...[because one time] another editor reverted me and cited BRD"; or "I prefer Option 3 [because consensus required] presents the rules the most clearly to the users who may be involved in the edit war." (WTF, did they mean option 2?) So I guess put me down as a supporter of representative democracy over direct democracy. Also, standing offer, at any point I would be happy to sit down with you and a few other interested editors and brainstorm for a better rule/solution that will work better for everybody. ~Awilley (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Ping me if you ever schedule such a sit-down. — JFG talk 21:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I guess put me down as a supporter of representative democracy over direct democracy.
With me, that makes two. It's a start. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't like the one-person approach either, and I don't like being that person. But I will say this, and I apologize because it is going to sound elitist: I would rather have policy written by one person who has spent a month thinking about it, than one hundred people who have each spent 5-10 minutes thinking about it. I have spent months thinking about this, gathering ideas, brainstorming scenarios, soliciting feedback, and trying to understand and account for the objections of others. This is one of the things that keeps me awake at 4AM. I'll bet that, without looking, I could list 2/3 of the objections you voiced to BRD in December 2018. Again, apologies for sounding arrogant, but look at some of the feedback in the current AN thread. While it's obvious that some people (eg. you, me, Sandstein, Mandruss, El_C) have thought about and understand the problem, it's also clear that others haven't given it much thought as all. I suspect some people didn't even bother to read the wording of the rules that were being discussed, just going with the cop-out answer of "discretion is good". Some of the rationales don't even make sense, like "Option 1 could create stagnant articles...[because one time] another editor reverted me and cited BRD"; or "I prefer Option 3 [because consensus required] presents the rules the most clearly to the users who may be involved in the edit war." (WTF, did they mean option 2?) So I guess put me down as a supporter of representative democracy over direct democracy. Also, standing offer, at any point I would be happy to sit down with you and a few other interested editors and brainstorm for a better rule/solution that will work better for everybody. ~Awilley (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: there are a couple things I intend to do based on the AN thread and side-discussions. First, I think people are getting confused by the name "enforced BRD". I'll be thinking of and seeking input on alternate names that better represent what the sanction does. "Slow BRD cycle" or "24hr BRD cycle" are examples. Second, I'll be doing another review of the articles currently under the BRD, looking for more candidates to remove all sanctions from. I can't guarantee a timeline on that...I've got some stuff going on through Mid-August. ~Awilley (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
DS Alert Notice at ARCA
|
Notice of Your Notice |
| Awilley, thank you for participating in my DS Alert proposal at ARCA, and for volunteering your help. It did not go unnoticed. The resulting motion has been carried and enacted. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 14:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC) |
- @Atsme: Thanks, and sorry for dropping out there at the end. Are you going to put the notice on your TP so I can test it out by trying to template you? :-) ~Awilley (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have a customized DS NOTICE at the top of my UTP - you are welcome to experiment with it. I'm hoping all that needs to be added is the (invisible?) code that triggers an "opt-out" or "already permanently notified of all DS topic areas" notice. Fae's description: flag themselves as being aware of DS on given topics, and then be considered opted out of alerts. However that is then technically implemented is downstream, whether by self-added templates, self alerting, a request page/list or something else. AW, I'm not tech-savvy enough to go much further than that but I'm thinking it may require a few more lines to the filter or maybe a single "per the notice at the top of this UTP, this user is aware of [insert t-area acknowledgment] and has opted out of DS Alerts". In my case it's all alerts per my link to the DS log page in my custom user DS Notice. Perhaps you can make it a user customizable template notice so it triggers whatever the user wishes to acknowledge? JFG may be able to explain it better than I. I just want to be able to opt out of all DS alerts per my link to the DS log, and I'd like to be able to keep my custom alert notice. Atsme Talk 📧 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Atsme: I think this is a solution, if I correctly understood your question. I basically just added the awareness template inside a hidden comment which still triggered the extra note in the edit notice because it's simply looking for the text {{Ds/aware...}} on your talk page. You can add as many topic codes to the commented template as you like. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Question - Can this template be modified to blanket ALL topic areas under DS instead of having to list them individually? For example "DS/aware|all topics under DS" or something along that line? Atsme Talk 📧 17:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Atsme: I think this is a solution, if I correctly understood your question. I basically just added the awareness template inside a hidden comment which still triggered the extra note in the edit notice because it's simply looking for the text {{Ds/aware...}} on your talk page. You can add as many topic codes to the commented template as you like. ~Awilley (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Probably, but I don't know if you'll find anybody willing to modify a widely-used template to account for the special case for the one user on all of Wikipedia who wants to be counted aware of all sanctions everywhere, when a little extra code on your talk page already gives the same functionality. Besides I think people will get a kick out of scrolling down through the huge list of sanctions that are currently showing up on your edit notice/warning. ~Awilley (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Where ?....?
You’ve left a message on my talk page saying I am being bludgeons “again”.
Did not specify the nature or location further.... Where do you think this is verging into bludgeon ?
If you’re referring to Talk:Donald Trump, in particular a current RFC, then I respectfully submit any questioning to or of my input as a concern be discounted. RFC asks for concerns, and if Mandruss pings me and wants confirmation/clarification of my voiced concern, then that repetition seems entirely appropriate.
I’m not looking to debate the concept, but seriously not seeing where it’s appropriate for the situation. I don’t think Mandruss is offensive, he seems just not understanding my concern. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
p.s. if notification tells me what’s up, it might be helpful — possibly I could see it and self revert whatever crossed a line or at least what part to not revisit again. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Restructured my RfC
Please look at this. He had no business changing the way I set-up that RfC. I'm not going to change it back the way I had it - I prefer an admin do it. Thank you. Atsme Talk 📧 05:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- It looks like somebody else changed it back. Nobody owns an RfC. ~Awilley (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, nobody owns an RfC, and that applies both ways. WP:RFC does say - The normal talk page guidelines apply to these discussions. There was no valid reason to change the formatting - there were no errors - it was WP:OWN behavior but irrelevant now. Keeping the layout clear is important, but you already know that. I anticipated a rather involved (potentially messy) discussion so I formatted the RfC to, as you put it, "bring a little structure" in an effort to "keep the layout clear". Thx for looking into it - it is much appreciated. Atsme Talk 📧 15:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
DS
I am preparing my appeal and ask that you please show me the link to the DS that covers the topic of your recent action. I reviewed the DS log and can't find it. Atsme Talk 📧 11:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Are you talking about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics_2#Final_decision? ~Awilley (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Me just now: "Hey Google, define gaslighting." My phone: "Gaslight: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity." I don't think "gaslighting" is an appropriate word to describe most garden variety disputes that pop up on Wikipedia's talk pages, if that's what you're trying to get at. ~Awilley (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, actually I believe you should have referred to WP:GASLIGHTING instead - then you would have recognized what the others were doing to me. Atsme Talk 📧 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- I just sent you an email because it appears you've forgotten what you told me originally. Atsme Talk 📧 15:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. For context, here's the full quote.
I've added italics to clarify the meaning. ~Awilley (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)"Before you use the word gaslight again could you please look up its definition? Do you really believe that BMK, Objective, Simon, and Aquillion are gaslighting you? From my perspective you're using a word that means intentional psychological manipulation/brainwashing to describe simple disagreement."
- Ah, I think I see where the confusion is coming from. For context, here's the full quote.
- I just sent you an email because it appears you've forgotten what you told me originally. Atsme Talk 📧 15:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, actually I believe you should have referred to WP:GASLIGHTING instead - then you would have recognized what the others were doing to me. Atsme Talk 📧 15:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- Me just now: "Hey Google, define gaslighting." My phone: "Gaslight: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity." I don't think "gaslighting" is an appropriate word to describe most garden variety disputes that pop up on Wikipedia's talk pages, if that's what you're trying to get at. ~Awilley (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
BTW, we have an article on gaslighting, which provides the etymology and is the def I've always gone by. But then, I've always liked Ingrid Bergman. O3000 (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- We also have WP:GASLIGHTING which is under Gaming the consensus-building process & and that is what I believed it to mean. Atsme Talk 📧 15:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you can help this editor before they get blocked
See [50] - frankly I think they are NOTHERE. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- They ignored my warnings, so... If you want to offer to mentor them and they accept, go ahead and unblock. I doubt that they will. Doug Weller talk 11:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- Definitely NOTHERE, and even the username implies SPA. If they appeal I could try to help them understand NPOV but if it were me I probably wouldn't unblock without significant concessions like a voluntary topic ban. I won't be the one doing the unblock though, since during my RfA I recused myself from using the admin tools in this area. ~Awilley (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks
I have no idea if my email got through, so I hope you don't mind if I (also?) thank you here for your AE comments. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Sanction request
I think you're aware I rarely go to individual admins with behavior complaints. I don't like to put admins on the spot, and it feels a little out of process.
User:MONGO's repeated flaunting of fundamental talk page behavior principles has become more than I can continue to tolerate. I don't think I need to assemble a bunch of diffs to show the history, you've been around AP2 enough to know what I'm talking about: frequent hostility, AGF failure, and making things personal, the latest example here. Is there any doubt that an editor with MONGO's experience is aware of these expectations?
If this is not a case for unilateral admin action under DS, I'm not sure what is. The "Remedy instructions and exemptions" at Talk:Donald Trump include the following sentence (my emphasis):
Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.
―Mandruss ☎ 18:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Someone needs to also address Mandruss's "flaunting of talk page behavior" "MONGO, you're certainly entitled to your lonely opinion". "That has zero basis in Wikipedia content policy, and you're just wrong..."...and just insulted a "newbie" calling them not an "experienced regular", etc. [51] and states that "regular editors" input carry more weight, which is dead wrong.[52]. Mandruss has also been asked to be collaborative [53]. After he asks an editor to revert rthe editor asks him to explain why and his response is characteristically flippant "I don't need to. This is process, not content. I've had my fill for the time being and I'm done here. Last week he accused an editor of "strawmanning" [54]--MONGO (talk) 19:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think my history warrants a sanction, but I would accept one from Awilley or any admin who disagrees with me. But that wouldn't absolve you, MONGO, and you're engaging in the tired old diversionary tactic of pointing fingers at others. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you think your bullying tactics such as telling other editors they are not "experienced regulars" or that their voices should have less weight than those that have been around longer, should go unaddressed, then that is shame. You have argued and tried to bully everyone that opposes your opinions, even Melanie at times who has opposed your ideals of what should go in that article. You could make it easier for everyone if you could be less undermining of others good faith efforts, then it highly unlikely you'd ever get a terse reply from me.--MONGO (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- See my previous. I'm not here to argue with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Same here my friend. I DO respect the fact that you have put a lot of time into the Trump BLP and I can appreciate the idea that time=effort and should carry some weight to a degree, but sadly, it really doesn't. I have to constantly check myself when someone comes along and wants to make a large alteration to an FA article I labored on...inside my guts say no, but sometimes they are right and I have to not blow folks off just because they have a different vision than I do.--MONGO (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I pinged you so you could defend your behavior, not so you could launch a diversionary counter-complaint about mine. The two issues are not connected, so I suggest you start a new section about me if you want to pursue that. If you don't want to pursue that, then don't, but please let this section remain on topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- My terse response was due to your repeated use of the terms "regular editor" and/or "regular experienced editor" which struck me as a form of bullying and undercutting others good faith efforts...had you not gone down that path, you'd not have gotten my terse response. I also did not appreciate your comment that that I was entitled to my "lonely opinion". Its seems rather uncharitable of you to poke at folks that have not made as many contributions to that page yet be offended when I point out these issues. Its also ridiculous to assume I'm going to sit by and just take what you dish out. The two are definitely connected as my exchange was entirely in regards to your bullying tactics about others contributions levels. For future reference, just say "other editors"...there is no reason to undercut newer contributors to that page by reminding them they are not "regular" or "regular experienced". If you do that, as I already said, you'll never get a terse response from me.--MONGO (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- The relevant behavior PAGs have no exemption for "justified" violations, even if yours were "justified". I shudder to imagine what this project would be like if everybody thought like you about behavior PAGs. We certainly wouldn't get much done as to developing content, with everybody violating the PAGs whenever they felt they had an excuse to do so. I guarantee you I wouldn't be here in that case. I can assure you, the reason that people on that talk page don't regularly let loose on you with both barrels blazing is not because you haven't earned it; it's because we don't allow ourselves that exemption. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I shutter to think what you would say if you did, considering that your comments about others not being "regular" or "regular experienced" or saying they are "strawmanning" (is that a word) are deemed okay talkpage banter. But the standard is different for you I suppose cause you're an experienced regular. Look...why the hell would you not welcome people who step into that sordid mess and try to clean it up? Outside intervention is badly needed there...why try and run them off? The editor may be a bit overbold...perhaps I can give you that, but seriously? You wonder why I think you have ownership issues?--MONGO (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- The relevant behavior PAGs have no exemption for "justified" violations, even if yours were "justified". I shudder to imagine what this project would be like if everybody thought like you about behavior PAGs. We certainly wouldn't get much done as to developing content, with everybody violating the PAGs whenever they felt they had an excuse to do so. I guarantee you I wouldn't be here in that case. I can assure you, the reason that people on that talk page don't regularly let loose on you with both barrels blazing is not because you haven't earned it; it's because we don't allow ourselves that exemption. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- My terse response was due to your repeated use of the terms "regular editor" and/or "regular experienced editor" which struck me as a form of bullying and undercutting others good faith efforts...had you not gone down that path, you'd not have gotten my terse response. I also did not appreciate your comment that that I was entitled to my "lonely opinion". Its seems rather uncharitable of you to poke at folks that have not made as many contributions to that page yet be offended when I point out these issues. Its also ridiculous to assume I'm going to sit by and just take what you dish out. The two are definitely connected as my exchange was entirely in regards to your bullying tactics about others contributions levels. For future reference, just say "other editors"...there is no reason to undercut newer contributors to that page by reminding them they are not "regular" or "regular experienced". If you do that, as I already said, you'll never get a terse response from me.--MONGO (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I pinged you so you could defend your behavior, not so you could launch a diversionary counter-complaint about mine. The two issues are not connected, so I suggest you start a new section about me if you want to pursue that. If you don't want to pursue that, then don't, but please let this section remain on topic. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Same here my friend. I DO respect the fact that you have put a lot of time into the Trump BLP and I can appreciate the idea that time=effort and should carry some weight to a degree, but sadly, it really doesn't. I have to constantly check myself when someone comes along and wants to make a large alteration to an FA article I labored on...inside my guts say no, but sometimes they are right and I have to not blow folks off just because they have a different vision than I do.--MONGO (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- See my previous. I'm not here to argue with you. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you think your bullying tactics such as telling other editors they are not "experienced regulars" or that their voices should have less weight than those that have been around longer, should go unaddressed, then that is shame. You have argued and tried to bully everyone that opposes your opinions, even Melanie at times who has opposed your ideals of what should go in that article. You could make it easier for everyone if you could be less undermining of others good faith efforts, then it highly unlikely you'd ever get a terse reply from me.--MONGO (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think my history warrants a sanction, but I would accept one from Awilley or any admin who disagrees with me. But that wouldn't absolve you, MONGO, and you're engaging in the tired old diversionary tactic of pointing fingers at others. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that MONGO deserves and will eventually be sanctioned per WP:BATTLEFIELD. But, probably should be an AE/ANI action. Patience will out. Of course MONGO could take this as a sign that eventuality can be deterred by behavioral change. O3000 (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have and I will. People often confuse me with Satan or worse. I keep forgetting my place as a mere peon, armed only with lonely opinions, unworthy and not of the ruling class here and its important that I avoid being yelled at by folks with both barrels loaded. That would hurt.--MONGO (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry everybody for the slow response, both here, and to emails. I'm in the middle of a 2000 mile move and have been traveling this week. (Actually spent a couple of nights camping.) I don't have the time right now to give this the attention it deserves, but I tend to agree that something needs to change. ~Awilley (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – August 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
- A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.
Arbitration
- Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.
Miscellaneous
- Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
- The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Forthcoming article
The elements on this page (in particular this diff) will be part of forthcoming publication about the uneven civility measures taken in the American Politics area. I thought I should give you a chance to react first, though you are free to do nothing as usual (cf. your page on meta and your previous inaction in other cases). I will give you a few days after your next edit before making a more general request at AN. Best wishes, 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- SashiRolls regularly vaguely alludes to some kind of reckoning being imposed on all the people he's brushed up against in the form of a website article (?), presumably to give people a chance to ask for mercy. If I recall correctly, the editor has made this veiled threat for as long as I've been aware of him (since 2016 when the editor was ultimately blocked from editing the Jill Stein page). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- IIRC, such off-wiki actions can result in an indefinite ban here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- SashiRolls regularly vaguely alludes to some kind of reckoning being imposed on all the people he's brushed up against in the form of a website article (?), presumably to give people a chance to ask for mercy. If I recall correctly, the editor has made this veiled threat for as long as I've been aware of him (since 2016 when the editor was ultimately blocked from editing the Jill Stein page). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
- 1) Do you realize your pseudonym appears 76 times on this page? 2) If you have diffs of journalists being banned for writing about en.wp matters, please do feel free to send them my way either by email or below. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- 1) I have no idea what that has to do with anything. 2) If you, as an editor (I have no idea whether you're a journalist or not, but you're still an editor here.), take the type of actions intimated above by Snoogs, then editors who have previously taken such actions have been banned before. We keep our Wikipedia work and our outside-of-Wikipedia work separate, otherwise such threats create a chilling atmosphere that causes editors to modify their behavior because of external threats, possible doxing, outing, etc. Do you see what I'm talking about? (And I am not threatening anything. I'm not an admin. Just reporting what I've seen go down here since 2003.) Now I don't know if that intimation is correct. I'm only speaking to the hypothetical possibility it is. If not, then no problemo. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- 1) Do you realize your pseudonym appears 76 times on this page? 2) If you have diffs of journalists being banned for writing about en.wp matters, please do feel free to send them my way either by email or below. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 02:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Enforced BRD case
Please look at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Minority outreach section and the article history since this diff. Several people are edit-warring without participating on the talk page. — JFG talk 07:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Your special sanctions on SPECIFICO
Courtesy ping @SPECIFICO:
The special discretionary sanctions imposed by you on 13 August 2018 for 1 year are still in force. They include an anti-filibuster sanction, which was flagrantly violated at Talk:Donald Trump on July 20: 01:00[55], 02:17[56], 02:49[57], 18:47[58], 20:43[59], 21:33[60], 21:37[61], and the next day 17:09[62], 17:42[63], 17:52[64].
Me and JFG pointed this out on SPECIFICO's talkpage, but there was no response. I pinged you as well.
It is again being violated at Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump#Removal of "racist": August 5 16:12[65] August 6 20:10[66], August 7 13:42[67], 22:20[68], August 8 00:45[69] (violation of 24hr rule), 00:54 [70]
Additionally, there was WP:Thicker skin sanction violation with this edit [71]: Unfortunately the edit summary also included a rather preposterous personal attack on yours truly.
So are the sanctions still going to be enforced is that going to be let slip by because the 1 year period has almost ended? I'm sorry, but these special sanctions seem complex and arbitrary. -Pudeo (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Markbassett
Hi,
After I added this edit to your edit, Markbassett opted to "clean up" the whole thing, immediately after I reminded him about the consequences of his Talk behavior here. Please would you reconsider your decision to "to get rid of the sanction entirely?" soibangla (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Your ANI close
Hi, Awilley. I notice that in your close of the proposal to ban Bus stop from the admin noticeboards for three months, you make an exception for not only threads that are specifically about Bus stop (of course; if somebody takes them to AN/ANI, they must be entitled to respond), but also for threads started by Bus stop. Really? I don't see anybody mention such an exception in the discussion, and I rather doubt the people who supported a ban foresaw that Bus stop would still be allowed to start AN/ANI discussions, seemingly ad libitum, and then take part in them in his characteristic manner. I was one supporter, and I certainly didn't foresee it. Well, hopefully it's not a big deal; I'm sure Bus stop realizes that if they take advantage of the exception to start a lot of threads, or to bludgeon those threads, they'll be in hot water again. Bishonen | talk 15:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC).
- Right. That bit wasn't per a support vote, but per the strong oppose vote on the basis that a topic ban shouldn't prevent people from engaging in our administrative processes for dispute resolution. (Paraphrasing by memory...comment by Mendelsomebody...replying here from phone) ~Awilley (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Formal proposal 3 modification
Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:
- Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.'
You might want to see the latest in the discussion to see what led to this (or not) (it's not a big deal or contentious or anything like that). :>)
Regards,
- ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Steve Quinn: I can't support that. That's too heavy handed for me. If it's to the point where we don't want him editing at all, we just site-ban him. I haven't seen that we're to that point. ~Awilley (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK. Thanks for your input. Just to let you know, regarding the other proposal, Mandruss pointed out: "Since this is one edit per day per article, he could still feed his compulsion by simply hitting many more articles. It wouldn't address the issue to change the shape of his activity from deep to broad. Remove the 'per article' and we might have something worth considering." Well, I see I didn't comprehend your explanation well enough. That's on me. That was an effective way to control the editing of the "subject" of that thread. Well, I don't know what to do now. I probably should have stayed out of proposing anything, in the first place. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Steve Quinn: I can't support that. That's too heavy handed for me. If it's to the point where we don't want him editing at all, we just site-ban him. I haven't seen that we're to that point. ~Awilley (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly I think the cleanest solution is to change it back to the original proposal 3, since 7 people have already weighted in on it. The new proposal could be added as a proposal 4, or you could add a note at the top with Option B so people can specify their preference. Maybe I'll do that. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley - thanks for taking care of that - thanks for your help. It is a load off for me. I didn't see clearly what I was doing when I modified that proposal. I'm chalking it up to experience and a lesson learned. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly I think the cleanest solution is to change it back to the original proposal 3, since 7 people have already weighted in on it. The new proposal could be added as a proposal 4, or you could add a note at the top with Option B so people can specify their preference. Maybe I'll do that. ~Awilley (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – September 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).
Administrator changes
- Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
- Floquenbeam • Lectonar
- DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana
CheckUser changes
Oversight changes
- Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime
Technical news
- Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
- The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
Arbitration
- A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Miscellaneous
- A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Thanks
Thank you for evaluating my candidacy during my RfA. Let me also further thank you for your time in writing a support which addressed concerns raised by other edits. It is all very much appreciated. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – October 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories
.
- Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which
Technical news
- As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
Arbitration
- The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
- The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC
focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future
, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.
Miscellaneous
- The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Donald Trump bio
As you have been the foremost admin as of late enforcing editor issues especially in regards to the Donald Trump bio, I want to caution you about getting very much involved in the editorial discussions and editing. Of course this doesn't mean anything that you are doing could be construed as partisan but I do think you should either step back or admin it. We wouldn't want anyone coming along and accusing you of admin abuse if you take action against an editor that may have some odd way of connecting you to being opposed to their efforts and using blocks or bans to silence them.--MONGO (talk) 00:50, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're probably right. I started stepping in a bit because things seemed particularly chaotic and it's annoying to sit on the sidelines and watch problems go unresolved. And in the instances where I've suggested actual wordings, it's not been that I personally supported the position, but because it seemed to me like something that the opposing "sides" could maybe agree to as a compromise. But I think you're right unfortunately. ~Awilley (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm hardly there myself. Until passions become more muted about the subject, I see little chance for improvements. I think your input would be beneficial actually but my previous adminship is a cautionary tale for anyone who wades into the fracus AND admins that same fracus.--MONGO (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @MONGO: You must tell me how you lost adminship. I thought you were part of the "I don't want the bit" crowd. — JFG talk 18:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- It should come as no surprise to some that I lost it due to being a stubborn fool. I was an admin for a year from 2005-2006...long before most here started editing. A prior arbcom case named me and resulted in a borderline admonishment for "excessive zeal". The filer of that case was sitebanned after it was demonstrated they had posted some pretty awful offsite attacks against me. The issues of not linking to offsite attacks, or WP:BADSITES originated at that case, though it has never been passed as policy. About a month later I filed an arbcom case resulting in myself and the person I filed against both losing our bits. [72]...there was a pretty loud outcry against my desysopping....most outside arbcom were strongly opposed and myself and the other admin were among the earliest admins desysopped for fault. The vast majority of the issues surrounded my "excessive zeal" keeping 9/11 conspiracy theorists at bay. And now you know...the rest of the story (or at least my rendition of it).--MONGO (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Its funny looking over the evidence page at that case. While the charges against me were valid, some of the evidence providers were absolute trolls and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. One here was so bad he was site banned later by Jimbo Wales himself. Apologies to Awilley for reliving a not so splendid history here. I'll shut up now!--MONGO (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- From the case findings:
MONGO was seriously harassed in the past, and has been harassed to some extent recently, both with respect to the off-wiki drama site, ED, and with respect to his efforts to fight against inclusion of unsourced and poorly sourced information regarding 9/11.
Perhaps you should have complained to T&S![FBDB] Fascinating stuff, thanks for sharing. — JFG talk 20:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)- Some things never change...I'm still overzealous at times. That's why adminship and I are incompatible in all likelihood. Also, in 2005 they handed out admin tools willy nilly...and the Rfa process was generally pretty straight forward and lacking much scrutiny or drama. I did want to mention also to show what a huge saga all that was for the time, the proposed decision talkpage was 250K bites and the various pages were well north of a million bites...really big back in that era. One commentator there was soon banned after it was shown they were the socking as a banned editor, the same banned editor that was banned in the earlier case I mentioned [73] and [74]. Anyway, I deserved the desysopping.--MONGO (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Re:
Anyway, I deserved the desysopping.
You've earned a barnstar of self-awareness. Keep up the good work. — JFG talk 21:13, 4 October 2019 (UTC)- Agree, and I get a more favorable view here than I did from this on MONGO's user page: "I was once an administrator...but was desysopped by the Arbitration Committee in 2006 cause they felt I was naughty." MONGO might consider the effect of that on editors who know nothing else of the issue, and haven't the time or inclination to learn more. It signals the opposite of self-awareness. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Re:
- Some things never change...I'm still overzealous at times. That's why adminship and I are incompatible in all likelihood. Also, in 2005 they handed out admin tools willy nilly...and the Rfa process was generally pretty straight forward and lacking much scrutiny or drama. I did want to mention also to show what a huge saga all that was for the time, the proposed decision talkpage was 250K bites and the various pages were well north of a million bites...really big back in that era. One commentator there was soon banned after it was shown they were the socking as a banned editor, the same banned editor that was banned in the earlier case I mentioned [73] and [74]. Anyway, I deserved the desysopping.--MONGO (talk) 20:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- From the case findings:
- (talk page stalker) @MONGO: You must tell me how you lost adminship. I thought you were part of the "I don't want the bit" crowd. — JFG talk 18:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm hardly there myself. Until passions become more muted about the subject, I see little chance for improvements. I think your input would be beneficial actually but my previous adminship is a cautionary tale for anyone who wades into the fracus AND admins that same fracus.--MONGO (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Back when I was a young impressionable newbie there were two admins who frequently edited in the same same area as me. They were what I suspect was an older generation of "content editor admins" who edited prolifically and occasionally used the tools, when needed, on the same articles they edited. At one point I had gotten myself stuck in the middle of a big content dispute. I was really stressed out and it was bleeding into my personal life, keeping me up at night and stuff. I decided I was going to retire, and I emailed one of the admins apologizing for the conflict I had stirred up and letting him know of my intention to quit. He responded with kind words, a lot of empathy, and some really good advice. (Go ahead and take some time off...on Wikipedia nothing is permanent so there's no urgency...be patient, it will get easier when things settle down.) Back then I didn't understand WP:INVOLVED, though in hindsight I do remember frustration when they declined to block a disruptive and obvious POV pusher who, when finally taken to Arbcom, was basically indeffed on sight by a clerk. Anyway the point is, I've always looked up to them as good examples, and I think they were a big influence on how I approach adminning. I've never been a huge "content creator", especially now with limited time, but I don't want to lose touch with things like how it feels to be an editor in a prolonged content dispute. Anyway, I'll stop rambling. ~Awilley (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Hey
As i know you do some work in the realm of politics i would like to ask if you could give this discussion a quick read (really not long, because the other editor will not answer my questions), or rather a glance at the edit leading up to me objecting on this article and at least one other (note the edit summary and their complete lack of justification policy wise). They claim that sources like the Guardian or WaPo should not be used to describe political parties, on the right at least, due to the sources being too biased. They remove sourced statements basically by OR by saying for example "...don’t think they constitute enough of the AfD for it to be mentioned in the ideology section." even though it was sourced to WaPo and the Sunday Times. Two very different outlets, one left leaning, one right leaning. Edit summary for that edit was also a bit deceptive as they just talked about the bias of the Washingtong Post and completely glancing over the fact that it was also sourced to a second outlet, the Times, when removing the statement.
I am not even sure what i am asking of you here, certainly no sanction or whatever. If you could just make a comment on the page and say what you think about the situation, or even keep an eye on the article longer term (it always gets trolls but on a low level, and i certainly don't want to equate the content dispute here with the trolls)... And please note, if i am in any way wrong with how i went about this, my comments, the substance of anything i said or if i was simply not patient enough to wait for more input(the last point i can see myself pretty well lol) please don't hesitate to tell me. Right now it is me talking and getting ignored, totally fine of course. But more voices are never bad. Anyway, sorry for bothering you and no worries if you are in no mood to look into it, i would not blame you haha. Have a good one anyway 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:5D0A:674C:2DC7:60DE (talk) 21:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what "ultranationalism" is, but if I were going to ascribe an ideology to an organization I would want more than a passing mention in two news sources. I would prefer something like a secondary source about ultranationalism that lists AfD as an example, a tertiary source about AfD that describes it as ultranaionalist, or a secondary source explaining why/how AfD is ultranationalist. The arguments that Washington Post is unreliable for AfD or that paywall sources should not be used on Wikipedia don't hold water.
By the way, I wasn't able to read the Washington Post story because the link didn't work. ~Awilley (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)- Cheers for the opinion. I will look into it more tomorrow. It is just always the same on articles like that. Statements are sourced, even if it could be improved a lot, and one argues against opinion,evasion etc. Devoid of any sources. I do not even care if they are called "ultranationalist" to be honest. What i do care about is using misleading edit summaries or plain out inventing things to keep out sources. Had they just said what you said and none of the other stuff, no issue for me then. Anyway, thank you. 2003:D6:2729:FF5A:381F:DA85:BB95:46D1 (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
| | |
| Five years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
SashiRolls latest AE
Hi. Are you still operating under the principle that battleground and no personal comments restrictions on SashiRolls are to be enforced? El_C 16:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: The "No Personal Comments" sanction is in effect until it expires in May 2020. But that sanction is fairly limited in scope...it only applies to article Talk pages related to American Politics. If this is in reference to the current GMO thread at AE, I wasn't planning to comment there, as I'm trying to avoid interactions with SR at the moment. ~Awilley (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Understood. El_C 17:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – November 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.
- The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).
- A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.
Arbitration
- Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.
Talk: Andrew McCabe
FYI: Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:Andrew McCabe. Politrukki (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Your advice
Awilley, considering all that's going on at your DS page, what should I do re: t-ban appeal? Atsme Talk 📧 15:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Atsme, the appeal is the same for any AE/DS. It can be to me directly, or to the community of administrators, probably at WP:AE. I think there are more specific instructions in the sanctions template. My criteria for lifting sanctions are that people understand what they did wrong and convincingly commit to fixing the problem. The best appeals are specific. For example if the problem were for an edit warring block, you might say, "I will keep myself to a voluntary 1RR for X months, and after that if I find myself needing to revert something more than once I'll make sure to use the talk page in conjunction with that." That is more convincing than "I won't edit war anymore." I'm also considering, per a proposal that DGG made, allowing all my sanctions to be appealed to any admin, like a regular block. But I'm not sure if that's kosher under the current DS rules, and I haven't yet figured out the details of how that might work. ~Awilley (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Atsme: I'm not quite sure where to put this...the ARCA page is a bit too public/formal, and I didn't want you to feel "hounded" on your own talk page, so just putting it here. You keep accusing me of engaging in some sort of deceitful cover-up, trying to redirect WP:GASLIGHTING to the article Gaslighting. I think there's been a misunderstanding. I don't want to invalidate your feelings on the matter, but I also want to be clear that that was not my intention. I can kind of see where you're coming from...everybody sees the world through different glasses, and in our world of diffs and timestamps it's easy for different people to look at things and see different pictures. I can accept that looking at it from a certain angle it can look like I tried to retroactively change the definition of a word to support a sanction that I placed. In any case, let me present the following arguments for your consideration:
- When you posted the redirect on my talk page it was pointing to the wrong section. It should have been pointing a section lower. This is pretty obvious in hindsight, but I didn't see the lower section when you gave me the link.
- I did a search to see if I could find the correct target, if one existed. Something that actually mentioned gaslighting. I thought somebody might have written an essay or something. I didn't find a better target. Not able to resolve it on my own, I put it up for discussion.
- I never said that the redirect should be deleted or redirected to gaslighting. Period.
- I never would have said that it should be redirected to gaslighting on the principle of avoiding WP:Cross-namespace redirects
- If I were trying to cover something up, why would I do that by starting an open discussion?
- You still haven't addressed the point that you had never linked to WP:GASLIGHTING until 3 days after the sanction had been placed. Why would it even matter where the redirect linked when you had never used it?
- RfD means Redirects for Discussion (not Deletion). I think the two are easily conflated because of AfD.
- I have stated multiple times what my intention was when I started the RfD. You can call me a liar if you want, but keep in mind that assuming bad faith tends to turn back on you eventually.
- I guess I'm a bit confused why this is all such a big deal. Anti-Fascism is an extremely small and relatively ugly part of the encyclopedia. Why is it so important that you want to spend time there? You said yourself that you'd only made 30 or so edits there. I also don't understand why you wouldn't want to just appeal the topic ban normally. The same "backroom deals" you criticized me for making with Snoogans are available to you. I was surprised by the the full broadside at ARCA because you usually seem to be such a nice person. I clearly remember being on your good side at one point, and I'm wondering when that changed. (I'll forward you an email you sent me in August of last year to illustrate my confusion if you don't mind.)
- Anyway I'm sorry that my actions at the WP:GASLIGHTING redirect have bugged you so much, and I'm bringing it up again not to be argumentative, but to try to resolve at least this part of the dispute. I remember you saying somewhere that WP:Writing for the enemy was important to you. Doing that requires an open mind and critical thinking. I'm hoping you will employ those skills here and try to see this from a perspective other than your own. ~Awilley (talk) 23:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Notice of ANI discussion
A thread regarding your sanction of User:Snooganssnoogans has been opened at ANI. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment about snoogansnooogan
Awilley, I largely don't want to get involved in your discussions with snoog and they have asked that I not post on their talk page. I would like to add a request to the list of requirements discussed here.[[75]] I would ask that snoog strictly follow WP:FOC and wp:CIVIL. The edit warring was part of the issue I and others had with snoog but so was the dismissive tone. Consider that an editor makes what they feel is a reasonable edit. Then an editor reverts that with a claim of POV-push or "nonsense" etc. From the very start that sours discussions because it implies the other editor is unreasonable before material is even discussed. I think this is especially true for newer editors. A new editor might add what appears to be a relevant fact from say The Daily Caller. They did this in good faith and without realizing the RS concerns that would come up. This is especially true if the fact isn't overly controversial. If that edit gets dismissed with a edit comment like "we don't use that sort of trash here" (hypothetical example, edit: here are actual examples, the comment may be "correct" but the tone is still not helpful [[76]],[[77]], [[78]],[[79]],[[80]],[[81]],[[82]]) how is a new editor likely to react? They might leave. They also might react indignantly and edit war because they are offended by the dismissive attitude. Conversely, if the same reversion was done with a soft touch, "Daily Caller doesn't meet WP:RS standards, content may be acceptable if a better source can be found", then the situation is diffused before it starts. A new editor could then use the talk page to ask snoog for help rather than be treated as yet another SPA POV-pusher. Springee (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to add that true or not, comments like this [[83]] ("That you feel the need to be dishonest about this...") are also not helpful. These are exactly the sort of things that push editors who would be willing to compromise toward battleground and edit warring behavior. Springee (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
ARCA Notice
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics_2 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.
ArbCom 2019 election voter message
| | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
For your tireless holding of the guard
|
The Admin's Barnstar | |
| For your tireless holding of the guard and helpful enforcement of the ArbCom DS system in the AP2 topic area (a task and area that very few admins are willing to put up with the stress for, yet a task that is highly necessary for our readers), I award you this Illustrious Admin's Barnstar. Thank you so much for your effort and clear professionalism in an area I was quite worried about falling apart in my absence. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC) |
Thank you, that's very kind, although I'm not sure deserve that kind of praise. I'm lucky if I can get in 3 edits per day these days. Also, sorry about the hundred-or-so notifications I must have sent you while modifying sanctions or edit notices. You'll probably notice that I've killed off a lot of the "Consensus Required" sanctions you created, replacing many of them with a lighter sanction that forces talkpage discussion but doesn't completely stop reverts. (Sorry not sorry?) If you decide to edit in the area you'll probably encounter the new sanction on some higher profile BLPs, and in a month or two, after you've been in a few content disputes, I'll want to pick your brain if you don't mind. In any case, welcome back. ~Awilley (talk) 16:01, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- I wanted my administrative work to be built on, and you did that just fine. I was just happy to see the child of my DS system still being utilized in new AP2 articles, so I didn't draw issue with the fact that you reworked the consensus required. (albeit in some cases I do think there's room for some type of a more firm article building system, I am willing to let that fly for now while I focus on some other important topics that need non-administrative attention) So, no worries! (and feel free to share my thanks with any admins that were assisting you in the DS area... I gave this barnstar to you specifically because I saw the recent clarifications thread and then realized you likely could use a destressing barnstar for your efforts in the area, so it's not undeserved ) — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
Thank you!
--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – December 2019
News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).
Administrator changes
- EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
- Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂
CheckUser changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
- An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
- Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.
Technical news
- Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)
Arbitration
- Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.
Miscellaneous
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive
.
- The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF
Illustrative example of what I put up with
This guy,[84] who sought to get me banned in the Admin noticeboard thread and whom I've had to waste countless hours debating on the Gatestone Institute talk page, turns out to be anti-Muslim sockpuppet.[85] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
- I just uncovered another sock[86], also an anti-Muslim sock who happened to call for me to be banned in the admin noticeboard thread. Another sock whom I've had to waste time trying to convince 1+1=2 on talk pages. Toa Nidhiki05 Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Amendment request archived
Hi Awilley, the American Politics amendment request which you were a party to has been closed and archived to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Amendment request: American politics 2 (December 2019).
For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 07:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
More From Snooganssnoogans
I was warned to stop hounding Snooganssnoogans. For full transparency, below is a series of postings Snooganssnoogans has made to my Talk page, along with my responses. He continues to accuse me of stalking him, as shown below.
This editor followed me to another page and reverted me.[1] Awilley Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - Seriously? How on earth could anyone edit anything having to do with news and politics since 1932 without running into you on occasion? You edit for hours each day, nearly every day, and your reach touches countless articles as you insert your biased point of view into everything you touch. I couldn't begin to revert everything you edit, nor am I interested in trying. I haven't touched anything you have edited for weeks. But I am bound to periodically edit an article you have previously edited, as happened with the OANN article. And for that you run to Awilley? This is nothing but attempted intimidation, battling and bullying on your part, and should not be tolerated. If anyone is hounding anyone, it is you hounding me. You think you own Wikipedia and the articles you choose to edit. As is clear from your interactions in Wikipedia, you simply cannot deal civilly with anyone who challenges any of your edits. But I also realize I have crossed the great and powerful Snoogy, and I risk being thrown into a WP:POV Railroad car and sent away. GlassBones (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
- This editor has just now resumed edit-warring on a page that the editor stalked me to.[2] 20:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - I returned to a page I edited a month ago, and made a new edit, and it happens to be a page you have also previously edited. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that I can never visit any of the thousands of sites that you have ever edited, because if I do that means I am stalking / Wikihounding you? GlassBones (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- The sole reason why you went to that page in the first place was to hound me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - Then please, by all means, run to Awilley or another Admin and complain about me again. GlassBones (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- The third page in four days that you went to only to restore content that I had recently reverted. On Nov 19, I reverted this[3], and on 9 Dec, you restored virtually the same content.[4] Neither you nor your past account had ever edited the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - You are correct - I never previously edited the John Kasich article prior to Dec. 9, and I inserted language about many people viewing him as a RINO, and cited a Washington Post article. That doesn't mean I am stalking you. I am from Ohio and interested in Ohio politics and politicians, as well as other Ohio topics. I did not revert your undo of my edit. I suggested dealing with this on the article Talk page, which you have not done. This is not a war, and you don't need to maintain a battleground mentality. GlassBones (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - I suggest that you please make a list of every Wikipedia article over which you claim ownership and for which you feel no one other than you should have the privilege of editing, and post it on your User page. Then myself and others would know where we can and can't go without stepping on your toes and incurring your wrath. If you could do that, it would be very helpful. Thanks! GlassBones (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - You are correct - I never previously edited the John Kasich article prior to Dec. 9, and I inserted language about many people viewing him as a RINO, and cited a Washington Post article. That doesn't mean I am stalking you. I am from Ohio and interested in Ohio politics and politicians, as well as other Ohio topics. I did not revert your undo of my edit. I suggested dealing with this on the article Talk page, which you have not done. This is not a war, and you don't need to maintain a battleground mentality. GlassBones (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- The third page in four days that you went to only to restore content that I had recently reverted. On Nov 19, I reverted this[3], and on 9 Dec, you restored virtually the same content.[4] Neither you nor your past account had ever edited the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - Then please, by all means, run to Awilley or another Admin and complain about me again. GlassBones (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- The sole reason why you went to that page in the first place was to hound me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- Snooganssnoogans - I returned to a page I edited a month ago, and made a new edit, and it happens to be a page you have also previously edited. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that I can never visit any of the thousands of sites that you have ever edited, because if I do that means I am stalking / Wikihounding you? GlassBones (talk) 15:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- This editor has just now resumed edit-warring on a page that the editor stalked me to.[2] 20:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to be able to edit Wikipedia without intimidation or sanctions. But it is difficult to edit without running into Snooganssnoogans. If I try to change anything he has ever edited (and he edits A LOT), I am accused of stalking and wikihounding. But he seems to constantly monitor many articles and routinely reverts other editors' edits, often with a less than civil comment, which is apparently OK. I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 15:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
- User:GlassBones looking through your edits you are clearly here with an axe to grind. In the past few days you've inserted "left wing" into the MSNBC article's first sentence 4 times and you've been reverted by 4 different people. You've labeled John Kasich a RINO [87] twice using a source that doesn't support the claim. From the looks of this you're naming living people as being involved in extramarital affairs without a source and based on "rumor". My advice to you is to find something to edit that you are less invested in. ~Awilley (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
- Awilley - Thanks for your response. I understand that you believe I have an axe to grind. I have inserted "left wing" into the MSNBC article 4 times, because it is accurate and supported by the cite. Please see for yourself. The reversions were based on folks who disagree or don't want the information in the article. However, both the FoxNews and OANN articles describe these news sources as "right wing", and edits to change that language are swiftly undone. This certainly seems like a double standard. The same is true to an extent with the John Kasich article. The cite does state that many believe he is a RINO. However, again folks don't want that in the article for some reason. But if a politician is conservative, the article can include all kinds of inflammatory language and there is no issue whatsoever - for the most part because the vast majority of editors have a liberal bias and tend to "gang up" on anyone with a different point of view. [By the way - The statement in the Marc Dann article was not a rumor about his affair - Mr. Dann admitted to the affair. The rumor was regarding who the affair was with.] If trying to achieve even a modicum of balance here means you characterize me as having an axe to grind then so be it. But my issue rests with the the fact that Wikipedia should be unbiased, but editors who edit furiously with a blatantly liberal bias are given free reign on Wikipedia, and those who disagree are swiftly shut down and told to move on. GlassBones (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)