Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions
→Votes on Request to lift topic ban (Robertinventor): weak support |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 1,057: | Line 1,057: | ||
*'''Oppose''' per IvanVector. He's quite right - a siteban is a massive overreach here, considering the behaviour of other actors in this mess of an editing area. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' per IvanVector. He's quite right - a siteban is a massive overreach here, considering the behaviour of other actors in this mess of an editing area. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' I believe he has been an extremely concerned constructive editor who has been working to build a [[WP:NPOV]] encyclopedia. His contributions to the platform are such that the encyclopedia would see a great loss in his absence. I see nothing that warrants a site ban. I don't want to see it not do I think it is proportionate.[[User :KA$HMIR|KA$HMIR]] ([[User talk :KA$HMIR|talk]]) 00:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' I believe he has been an extremely concerned constructive editor who has been working to build a [[WP:NPOV]] encyclopedia. His contributions to the platform are such that the encyclopedia would see a great loss in his absence. I see nothing that warrants a site ban. I don't want to see it not do I think it is proportionate.[[User :KA$HMIR|KA$HMIR]] ([[User talk :KA$HMIR|talk]]) 00:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Oppose''' I agree with Ivanvector and other editors opposing this unnecessary site ban. Sanctions are supposed to be preventive and not punitive. NadirAli has served time for his past violations and currently under a ban and according to Ivanvector, no current sockpuppetry allegations were proven. We should not be extending a ban without a solid recent violation. It will be definitely a massive overreach as Ivanvector has rightly put it. [[User:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: blue;">Sh</b><b style="color: red;">eri</b><b style="color: blue;">ff</b>]] | [[User talk:SheriffIsInTown|<b style="color: black;">☎ 911</b>]] | 01:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== Wheel of Fortune vandalism == |
== Wheel of Fortune vandalism == |
||
Revision as of 01:12, 14 August 2018
| Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. |
|---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) |
 | This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared. |
You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this is not normally in itself a problem at reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would need tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.
Technical instructions for closers
|
|---|
|
Please append |
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
Other areas tracking old discussions
- Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
- Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
- Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
- Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
- Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
- Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
- Wikipedia:Proposed article splits
Administrative discussions
(Initiated 41 days ago on 18 October 2024) This shouldn't have been archived by a bot without closure. Heartfox (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Heartfox: The page is archived by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs), which gets its configuration frum the
{{User:MiszaBot/config}}at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Crucially, this has the parameter|algo=old(7d)which means that any thread with no comments for seven days is eligible for archiving. At the time that the IBAN appeal thread was archived, the time was 00:00, 2 November 2024 - seven days back from that is 00:00, 26 October 2024, and the most recent comment to the thread concerned was made at 22:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC). This was more than seven days earlier: the archiving was carried out correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC) - There was no need for this because archived threads can be closed too. It is not necessary for them to remain on noticeboard. Capitals00 (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. It is back in the archive, and hopefully someone can close it there. Heartfox (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 7 days ago on 21 November 2024) This needs formal closure by someone uninvolved. If successful, I can take care of sending it to the stewards. EggRoll97 (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
(Initiated 42 days ago on 17 October 2024)
The last comment in this RfC was on October 22. Chetsford (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 106 days ago on 14 August 2024)
Coming up on two months since the last comment. Consensus seems pretty clear, but would like an uninvolved party to look it over. Seasider53 (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 61 days ago on 28 September 2024) Discussion has died down and last vote was over a week ago. CNC (talk) 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
- Archived. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 20:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 7 October 2024) Tough one, died down, will expire tomorrow. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 51 days ago on 8 October 2024) Expired tag, no new comments in more than a week. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This is a contentious topic and subject to general sanctions. Also see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 27 days ago on 1 November 2024) Needs an uninvolved editor or more to close this discussion ASAP, especially to determine whether or not this RfC discussion is premature. George Ho (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 25 days ago on 3 November 2024) The amount of no !votes relative to yes !votes coupled with the several comments arguing it's premature suggests this should probably be SNOW closed. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 11 days ago on 17 November 2024) It probably wasn't even alive since the start , given its much admonished poor phrasing and the article's topic having minor importance. It doesn't seem any more waiting would have any more meaningful input , and so the most likely conclusion is that there's no consensus on the dispute.TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading
Deletion discussions
| V | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 12 |
| TfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| MfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| FfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| RfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 41 | 41 |
| AfD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
(Initiated 39 days ago on 20 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 26 days ago on 2 November 2024) JJPMaster (she/they) 15:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading
Other types of closing requests
(Initiated 316 days ago on 16 January 2024) It would be helpful for an uninvolved editor to close this discussion on a merge from Feminist art to Feminist art movement; there have been no new comments in more than 2 months. Klbrain (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Doing... may take a crack at this close, if no one objects. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 58 days ago on 1 October 2024) RM that has been open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 48 days ago on 11 October 2024) RM that has been open for 1.5 months. Natg 19 (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 43 days ago on 16 October 2024) Experienced closer requested. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:57, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
(Initiated 28 days ago on 31 October 2024) Discussion only occurred on the day of proposal, and since then no further argument has been made. I don't think this discussion is going anywhere, so a close may be in order here. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 07:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm reluctant to close this so soon. Merge proposals often drag on for months, and sometimes will receive comments from new participants only everything couple weeks. I think it's too early to say whether a consensus will emerge. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: It's now been 7 days...I know this isn't a priority to you but can you at least take a look at it this week, even if it's not today? Thanks for your time, Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't a priority, given all the much older discussions here. I'll get to this eventually, or maybe someone else before me. In the meantime, please be patient. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 13:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: You still interested in closing this? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 04:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: It's now 7 days... Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 14:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye:, Yes. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 17:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Cowboygilbert: So what should I do now? Wait until the discussion is a week old? Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 11:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Wolverine X-eye, I don't think thats what they are saying. Like RfC's, any proposals should be opened for more than 7 days. This one has only been open for 4 days. This doesn't give enough time to get enough WP:CONSENSUS on the merge, even if everyone agreed to it. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 21:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Compassionate727: OK, so what are you suggesting? Will the discussion remain open if no further comments are received in, say, two weeks? I also doubt that merge discussions take months to conclude. I think that such discussions should take no more than 20 days, unless it's of course, a very contentious topic, which is not the case here. Taken that you've shown interest in this request, you should be able to tell that no form of consensus has taken place, so I think you can let it sit for a while to see if additional comments come in before inevitably closing it. I mean, there is no use in continuing a discussion that hasn't progressed in weeks. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 15:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- Oh good, I was also going to make this request. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
Pages recently put under extended-confirmed protection
Report
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TBAN for paid editor
I am requesting a topic ban of User:Danilo Two from Bank of New York Mellon. This person works for the firm, Buetler Ink.
Why?
While this person has disclosed and is putting things through the peer review, the proposals are not grounded in the mission of WP and the policies and guidelines, but rather are raw PR for the client. We have TBANed people in this situation before, for example this thread from April 2017.
The final straw for me is this RfC posted today, which is absolutely un-neutral.
Earlier, they had made a proposal here which as I noted here, was trying to turn the WP page into a proxy for BNY's website, reflecting its current business and status only, and not an encyclopedia article with information of enduring interest. I noted that problem at their talk page in this diff.
Subsequently here they wrote These graphs were not provided by BNY Mellon, but a third party.
. They offered no explanation as to why graphs that are independent are somehow "worse", here in Wikipedia. I pointed out that problem to them, on their talk page, here. I also noted at the article talk page that no policy based reason was given.
And now the RfC linked above. I called their attention to how un-neutral the RfC was at their talk page here. They responded by tweaking the RfC here. The RfC statement still makes their argument, instead of posing the question neutrally.
There is no sign that Danilo 2 intends to do anything other than represent what the bank wants. That is not what editing privileges are for, and is an endless time sink for the editing community. Paid editors need to be Wikipedians first, and if they won't be, then we should politely close the door. Jytdog (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Disagreeing with you is not grounds for a topic ban. Have you tried Wikipedia:Third opinion? Gamaliel (talk) 20:01, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Never request a Third Opinion with Beutler. If they don't get it, they will then go to DRN, and if necessary to WP:ANI (although with no real issue at ANI). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Never attempt to service an edit request for Beutler. If you try to help them, they treat you like an employee and think that they have the right to censure you for failure to do their job. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, I complained because another editor had shown a pattern of highly idiosyncratic interpretations of content guidelines in responding to requests. I quickly found there was not a receptive audience here, and so I went back to working through these challenges. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Gamaliel You have missed the point. Being here to represent the bank, without regard for WP's mission, policies, and guidelines, is not an acceptable use of editing privileges. This is not about the content dispute but rather Danilo 2's behavior. Jytdog (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- He's on the talk page starting an RFC, it looks like he has a lot of regard for WP's policies and guidelines to me. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- He sort of knows how to work Wikipedia. I have not denied that. But the RfC itself is far from neutral, which is not valid DR. But thisis again not the point. Using the talk page and certain DR processes in order to advocate for what the bank wants, regardless of the content policies and guidelines, is not being here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to do PR. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2018 (UTC) (tweaked w/o redaction, since this has not been replied to Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC))
- He's on the talk page starting an RFC, it looks like he has a lot of regard for WP's policies and guidelines to me. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- As long as he's trying to build consensus on the talk page, not editing the page itself, and is fully disclosing his interest, I see no reason for a topic ban. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Following the paid policy and COI guideline is a minimum - necessary but not sufficient. As noted -- we have TBANed people in this situation before, for example this thread from April 2017. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose the editor appears to be diligently following the paid-editing/COI rules. The RFC seems to be worded neutrally-enough; while the argument about different corporate entities isn't terribly convincing, I don't think it's biased. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:power~enwiki on what planet is giving an argument to do X in an RfC about what to do, considered "neutral" in Wikipedia? Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Earth, apparently. I haven't figured out how to get to any other planets yet. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, I don't follow. The wording
Should the three graphs covering data for 2000-2008 in the Historical data section of the BNY Mellon article be removed or kept?
seems fine to me; the original wording seems acceptable as well. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)- User:power~enwiki everything above the signature is part of the RfC question. You correctly identify the actual question in the fist line as simple and neutral. But in both versions there is an additional paragraph giving the bank's/Danilo 2's argument. Everything above the signature is part of the "request". Neither version is even close to neutral.Jytdog (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to respond here to defend myself a little. I think a lot of the issues that Jytdog raises are misunderstandings and some come down to preferences on information to present.
First, the request that Jytdog says was aiming to turn the Wikipedia page into a proxy for the company website was aimed at updating the Operations section which typically represents and is framed as the current operations of a company. I am not trying to remove historical data entirely from the article, nor turn the whole page into a company profile, but offer some suggestions to streamline the information and bring it up-to-date. After Jytdog offered his feedback, I didn't push this request further and I've in fact collapsed it (earlier today) and noted that I'd refocus my suggestions based on that feedback.
Second, with regards to the graphs, I believe the way I worded my note has caused some confusion and I'm sorry for that. It was not my intention to say that third-party materials are not appropriate or that information from BNY is better; I was trying to respond to Jytdog's prior note that suggested it would be ideal to add new graphs showing a greater range of information, rather than delete the existing ones. The situation is that the existing graphs were provided by a third-party that owns the copyright; that third-party has produced more up-to-date graphs but they're copyrighted, so can't simply be added to the article due to that. I wanted to clarify that the graphs were produced by someone other than BNY Mellon, to explain that I didn't have access or ability to provide ones that were up-to-date and that keeping the graphs updated would be complicated.
Third, for the RfC, as Jytdog notes, I adjusted it to make it neutral and I'm open to editors' suggestions.
Finally, as Jytdog and others have noted, I'm keeping to the guidelines here and am not editing directly, and I'm responding constructively to feedback. Thanks, Danilo Two (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- Giving your client's reason for removing the graphs in the statement is not neutral. That you are here arguing it is, is pretty much exactly what I am talking about. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- So Talk:Ogilvy_&_Mather#Edit_request:_Updates_Round_1 is another example of the kind of thing I am trying to articulate. The page has been almost entirely rewritten with reviewed content from Buetler folks - first Heatherer and now Danilo 2 is stepping in. People generally review proposals, and everybody being busy, what usually happens is that the foundation is kept and really just the copy is checked to remove puffery and to ensure the content is supported by the sources. But the aim and overall messaging remains. You will see this if you review the talk page.
- Now... Ogilvy & Mather, like most PR agencies today, has been struggling to adapt as more and more companies bring "creative" in-house and as the industry changed from emphasis on "creative" to buying ads in digital media (per this for example; likewise this)
- Our article doesn't provide that context (it should, briefly) but different companies have responded in different ways at different times.
- Ogilvy responded by profilerating divisions or subsidiaries to handle different aspects in different regions.
- Two years ago new management came in, and they have completely done over the company, consolidating most everything into one entity and creating new divisions within it to handle different things. There is an interesting business story there. something people could learn from.
- The proposal Talk:Ogilvy_&_Mather#Edit_request:_Updates_Round_1 would just erase the old structure and write in the new one. No context, no sense of history. Just turning the page into Ogilvy's website with a bunch of woo about "rebranding".
- There is nothing about building an encyclopedia there. I am sure the proposal will be duly reviewed and implemented and the page made over into Ogilvy's image.
- Like the intention at Bank of New York Mellon. Erase history, try to drive the page to express the Bank's messaging today. About today.
- Is that we want? I say no. I say that just disclosing and putting up (absolutely formulaic WP-content-looking edits that are actually just PR dreck) for review is not what we want. It is a time suck on the community, and even the best intentioned volunteers generally just polish the turd and don't ask paid editors to write encyclopedic copy (and if they won't, just saying "no thanks" or ignoring it) Leading to pages in WP becoming polished PR turds. Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support but I don't see why we should bother with a TBAN. Indef and be done with it. All this account has been used for is PR; they are clearly not interested in helping us write an encyclopaedia. The paid editing guidelines are a minimum requirement to comply with the WMF's terms of use. They're not a license to ignore our core content policies and behavioural guidelines (WP:NOTPROMO, WP:COI, WP:DIS & WP:GAME, for example). – Joe (talk) 06:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- support indef-My primary impressions align with Joe.∯WBGconverse 06:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support - what Joe said. If you can get paid to write a good encyclopedia article, I've got no problem with that, as long as you are being open and honest about it. We have some paid editors that do just that. But if you are here to spin a Wikipedia article for your client, go away and don't come back. Y'all haven't forgotten Tony Ahn yet, have you. Stop the time sink now with an Indeff. He gets paid to promote his client. Working our system to do so will always end up in the paid efiedi getting what they want. They are earning their bread and butter by working the system. At some point, every legit editor will have to back away so he or she can go support their family. That's a glitch in our system that we absolutely cannot let paid editors exploit. John from Idegon (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support indef No one needs to query my stance on paid editing. Be gone Danilo Two and refund your customers. I don't like users profiting from my 1000s of hours and other volunteer hours protecting Wikipedia from monetary exploitation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Nothing this editor has done is out of line with what other paid and COI editors have been allowed to do. We allow [Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-10-08/In_the_media political operatives] to edit articles about political opponents, so it's ridiculous to block a paid editor who is completely following policy. Gamaliel (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I also oppose any sort of restriction at this time. The editor has worked to resolve issues from what I have read of the interactions on the talk page. Describing the RFC as non-neutral can be fixed simply by adding a signature to the first paragraph, which looks like a sufficiently neutral question to me. (I do not know if Jytdog is simply unaware that this is the fix to this issue.) The RFC starter is allowed to give his opinion first in an RFC. I am definitely not seeing any failures to meet our core content policies by the paid editor, nor any of the behavioral ones--and we don't topic ban users unless they do fail to meet the intent of those. --Izno (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Izno to be clear, what I am saying is that they are violating WP:PROMO and WP:NPOV by working consistently to make pages simply reflect their client's current business and current messaging, with no regard for our mission to write encyclopedia articles. Wikipedia is not meant to be a proxy for organization websites. However much the content proposed by Danilo Two looks like normal Wikipedia content, it isn't. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support Topic-Ban - Beutler is in the business of systematically trying to game the system and is a threat to the integrity of the encyclopedia. (If there is a proposal for a block or ban, I haven't seen it.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- TBAN (preferred) or block if that can't be worked out. Robert McClenon is spot on here: a threat to the integrity of the project. Guy (Help!) 13:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was not going to weigh in here, except my name has been invoked a couple of times, and Danilo Two is on vacation this coming week. It goes without saying that I oppose placing any editing restrictions on this user, who is a colleague of mine. Let's back up a moment and recognize that WP:TBAN or WP:INDEF are reserved for editors who are disruptive, which Danilo most certainly is not, and WP:BLOCKNO advises against blocks based on content disputes, which is what this really is (Jytdog opened this thread after Danilo started an RfC). Except Jytdog is trying to make a more abstract case, that simply being a COI contributor is a violation of WP:HERE. This is a novel and dangerous theory to advance: whether you like "paid editing" or not, it is regulated by the WP:COI guideline, and Danilo has followed the advice of pages like WP:PSCOI to the letter. To propose any block or ban would not only be wrong on policy, but it would not serve Wikipedia in the long run. If COI contributors who disclose their relationships and avoid editing mainspace articles are blocked, only undisclosed paid editors will remain, and that would be a threat to the integrity of the project indeed. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @WWB Too: A few points. One, I raised WP:NOTHERE and proposed an indef block, not Jytdog, who as always has displayed an admirable dedication to giving paid editors a fair chance, despite the evident lack of appreciation. Two, it is not remotely "novel" to block editors who are here solely to promote the interests of external organisations. WP:NOTPROMO is a much older policy than WP:COI, and is policy not a guideline. In any case, COI contains the text:
If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts
; continuously wasting the time of our volunteer encyclopaedia editors with POV attempts to further your clients' PR agenda is disruptive. Paid editors like yourself seem to find it convenient to ignore everything in WP:COI except for the bare-minimum requirements that let you carry on your trade within the terms of use. But in fact, if you actually read it, the overriding message of the guideline is don't edit where you have a conflict of interest, full stop. Discussions like this are the consequence of ignoring that very good advice. - Finally, the tired excuse that you are the lesser of two evils holds no weight: yes, undisclosed paid editing is harder to deal with, but we don't solve that by giving disclosed paid editors a free pass to flout Wikipedia's core principles because they have a template on their talk page. Veiled threats aside, what does this project lose if we revoke Danilo Two's editing privileges? What has he contributed to our shared goal, when he's not being the errand boy for a bank? – Joe (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- If I thought that Danilo Two's actions did in fact "flout Wikipedia's core principles" I would agree with you. But the case for this is non-existent; please look below to my new subsection explaining the underlying disagreement and let me know if you still think it sounds like Danilo was trying to subvert Wikipedia to the company's PR gain. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @WWB Too: A few points. One, I raised WP:NOTHERE and proposed an indef block, not Jytdog, who as always has displayed an admirable dedication to giving paid editors a fair chance, despite the evident lack of appreciation. Two, it is not remotely "novel" to block editors who are here solely to promote the interests of external organisations. WP:NOTPROMO is a much older policy than WP:COI, and is policy not a guideline. In any case, COI contains the text:
- Comment See "Corporate Representatives for Ethical Wikipedia Engagement" on Bookfarce. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 19:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support - I came here from a note on the CREWE Facebook page. Looking over the material, Jytdog's case is solid. Topic ban or block - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support a TBAN at the least, and likely that is the best for all accounts that have a COI with this subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose the support votes are largely in favor of a back-door attempt to ban paid editing at an inappropriate forum; such a proposal should be an RFC advertised on WP:CENT. I don't see any other argument for action. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: how is TBANning one specific group of editors who are continuously polishing articles that they have a disclosed COI with a '
back-door attempt to ban [all] paid editing at an inappropriate forum
'? We are not discussing a change to policy or anything here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC) - No, we are being TOU bludgeoned by a spammer who doesn’t want to follow WP:NOTSPAM, a core policy. Our disclosure and COI review process does not exist to facilitate promotion, and those who use it as such should be sanctioned. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: how is TBANning one specific group of editors who are continuously polishing articles that they have a disclosed COI with a '
- Comment: I haven't reviewed much of what User:Danilo Two has posted, but I'm disturbed by many of the comments above. In particular, Wikipedia policy and guidelines do not require paid editors to contribute non-paid hours in order to be in good standing. This discussion should not be about (a) why such a (new) policy/guideline is desirable, or (b) getting in yet another swing at the goal of banning all paid editing. I will note that the cited thread from April 2017, is not at all similar - in that example, the editor had edited only one article; used sockpuppets (blocked); had an article ban put in place against her; and was caught placing articles in the press in order to use them as sources. All of that, plus her non-cooperative postings to the article talk page, would be sufficient to get her banned from Wikipedia even if there was no obvious COI. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:05, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:John Broughton I don't believe anyone has said that paid editors are obligated to volunteer. They are however obligated to follow the content policies and guidelines, and trying to turn WP pages into proxies for company websites and into PR violates WP:PROMO as well as WP:NPOV; articles about companies should be encyclopedic, covering their whole timeline with no particular WEIGHT on the company's current business. But this Danilo Two's proposals consistently do just that, which you would see if you did review their contribs. I had suggested removing them from just that one page, to try to bring their attention to this problem with their approach to WP. Others have taken it further. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog - it's those users who have taken the matter further that concern me. Comments like "don't edit where you have a conflict of interest, full stop", and "I don't like users profiting from my 1000s of hours and other volunteer hours protecting Wikipedia from monetary exploitation" aren't relevant, or helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:John Broughton I see. Thanks for clarifying. Discussions like this bring out people with strong feelings on the topic. I disagree that those expressions are irrelevant. Paid editors should be mindful that paid editing is tolerated, not loved, by the community, and that this tolerance is pretty easily exhausted. I write about this some on my userpage at User:Jytdog#Paid_editing_in_particular...but !votes paying attention to the particular issues are of course most heeded by closers. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog - it's those users who have taken the matter further that concern me. Comments like "don't edit where you have a conflict of interest, full stop", and "I don't like users profiting from my 1000s of hours and other volunteer hours protecting Wikipedia from monetary exploitation" aren't relevant, or helpful. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:John Broughton I don't believe anyone has said that paid editors are obligated to volunteer. They are however obligated to follow the content policies and guidelines, and trying to turn WP pages into proxies for company websites and into PR violates WP:PROMO as well as WP:NPOV; articles about companies should be encyclopedic, covering their whole timeline with no particular WEIGHT on the company's current business. But this Danilo Two's proposals consistently do just that, which you would see if you did review their contribs. I had suggested removing them from just that one page, to try to bring their attention to this problem with their approach to WP. Others have taken it further. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support indef as ArbCom has already ruled, and WP:PAID makes clear, disclosure is a minimum. Individuals who are paid must also follow the policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia, one of which being an absolute prohibition on promotionalism (WP:NOTSPAM). If someone doesn’t get that, they have no businsss editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support indef. Working under the WP:PAID rules is fine for editors who are helping improve an encyclopedia article in line with NPOV guidelines", but that's not what I see here. What I see is a persistent bludgeoning approach to try to get this article to reflect what the company's PR wants it to say. And that is an abuse of volunteers' time. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- And if indef does not gain a consensus, I support a topic ban as my second choice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- At the risk of repeating myself: a fair reading of the discussion at Talk:Bank of New York Mellon will show that Danilo's proposed changes were based on policies and guideline concerns. No one has explained how WP:NOTSPAM was actually violated; any such argument would be extraordinarily weak. Likewise, I've seen the word "bludgeoned" used to describe Danilo's participation twice, but this is uncharitable in the extreme. Danilo and Jytdog previously had a perfectly cordial relationship on this page going back to September 2017, and it's quite baffling to me why this latest round of requests has produced this result. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose as per as per power~enwiki, Gamaliel and Izno. Nobody dislikes paid editing more than I do. However, that is just my personal feeling, but my personal feelings don't come into it. This editor is not doing anything contrary to Wiki policy in regards to paid editing. We cannot change policy willi nilly based on our own personal feelings. This thread comes off as a direct attack on the character of a fellow editor, and I'm not comfortable with that at all especially when they are following the rules. If we make a precedent here based on our own personal feelings without following due process, I fear the knock on effect that will have on this project - that most of us are trying to build. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Examining the original disagreement
Editors commenting here should read the original discussion that led to the RfC that Jytdog identifies as his reason to make the TBAN proposal. Danilo Two had suggested the removal of this paragraph in the BNY Mellon article because it was outdated, lacked context, and wasn't helpful to readers. Jytdog stated that it would be better to update the charts, so Danilo explained the challenges to doing this, which included a desire to avoid COPYVIO. It was a civil conversation, which could have used more voices—this is why Danilo opened the RfC. And when Jytdog found fault with the way he presented the RfC question, he agreed to adjust the wording. I must ask, is this behavior worthy of a TBAN? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- You are trying to cast this as a mere content dispute. The TBAN request is due to behavior issue. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- What is the behavior issue? Yes, Danilo Two did include his perspective in the first version of the RfC, and that was a mistake. When you objected, he changed the wording. He is clearly willing to take constructive feedback, and is unfailingly polite. So which part of WP:WHYBLOCK did he violate? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Persistently trying to turn WP articles into proxies for company websites, focused on their current status and messaging, and erasing history while doing that. That is not what we do here. The minimal requirement for paid editors to be members of the community is to follow the PAID policy and COI guideline. But like everybody else paid editors need to aim for the mission and follow the rest of the content policies and guidelines. I have now almost verbatim repeated myself. That is tedious to me and I am sure everyone else, and I have no more to say to you here. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Jytdog, but that is simply false. Danilo suggested removing an iffy section, but that is not "erasing history". Furthermore, in several instances he suggested moving outdated information to the History section. It's just wrong to say he was only serving a PR purpose, and not trying to make it a more accurate and informative page. If this is your last comment, that's too bad, as we've been having a more constructive version of this conversation on your talk page. I am certain there is a solution here well short of topic-banning an editor whose edit requests you think are wrong. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that you disagree. I am uninterested in entertaining further debate with you about your employee and I will not further tolerate your misrepresentation and misframing what I have been saying as a content dispute. I suggest you stop doing that. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Jytdog, but that is simply false. Danilo suggested removing an iffy section, but that is not "erasing history". Furthermore, in several instances he suggested moving outdated information to the History section. It's just wrong to say he was only serving a PR purpose, and not trying to make it a more accurate and informative page. If this is your last comment, that's too bad, as we've been having a more constructive version of this conversation on your talk page. I am certain there is a solution here well short of topic-banning an editor whose edit requests you think are wrong. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 01:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Persistently trying to turn WP articles into proxies for company websites, focused on their current status and messaging, and erasing history while doing that. That is not what we do here. The minimal requirement for paid editors to be members of the community is to follow the PAID policy and COI guideline. But like everybody else paid editors need to aim for the mission and follow the rest of the content policies and guidelines. I have now almost verbatim repeated myself. That is tedious to me and I am sure everyone else, and I have no more to say to you here. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- What is the behavior issue? Yes, Danilo Two did include his perspective in the first version of the RfC, and that was a mistake. When you objected, he changed the wording. He is clearly willing to take constructive feedback, and is unfailingly polite. So which part of WP:WHYBLOCK did he violate? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Block review for Clockback
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts or canvassed users may be tagged using:{{subst:spa|username}} or {{subst:canvassed|username}} |
Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Clockback is in real life, British journalist Peter Hitchens. He was recently indef-blocked by JzG. I will argue here that the block, while warranted, was too harsh and has outlived its purpose. The circumstances are as follows. The matter is a bit delicate, so please bear with me.
Clockback's block log is clean. The current dispute concerns George Bell (bishop), in particular, the section Child abuse allegations. Hitchens has written a lot about this matter in the British press. Clockback has sporadically edited the article in the past two-and-a-half years, largely without incident. They have also used the talk page thoroughly (I count 22 comments by them). This is by way of preamble, to stress that Blockback has been largely restrained and largely proper in their edits and discussion.
In late 2017, the Carlile report on the matter was published. Please see this BBC or this NYT article for an overview. Around the same time, there was a long discussion on how to re-organize the section in light of the report. Clockback participated in that discussion, again, largely properly. For various reasons, the editor who started the discussion didn't find the time for a rewrite (or perhaps it was a failure of WP:BOLD). So the matter rested there.
On 21 July Clockback made two edits to the article edit1, edit2. Both have edit summaries and seem like good-faith edits to me (I take no position on their correctness). They were also explained on the talkpage. Another editor Charlesdrakew reverted Clockback's edits with no explanation; Clockback reinstated the edits. On 28 July, Charlesdrakew reverted the edits again, simply saying that Clockback has a COI and should get consensus first, but no direct explanation of the revert. Clockback argued more on the talkpage, but no further discussion happened.
At this point I should mention that the two editors had butted heads in the past. Charledrakew had complained (about an earlier version) that the section gives too much space to "professional loudmouths" and that the section thus "looks like a whitewash". I take no position on whether these concerns were correct, and whether or not Charlesdrakew intended to address Mr. Hitchens. The important point is that Clockback took these comments as a personal affront (Hitchens is quoted in the section).
Things spiraled quickly after the events of 28 July. Clockback made this edit as a humourous (he says) rejoinder, which tried to express his frustration with a reductio ad absurdum. After he was reverted, he edit-warred to keep the text in. It was at this point that JzG blocked Clockback to stop the edit-warring.
I tried to mediate between the positions, and reorganized the section thoroughly. You can read my explanation here. Both Clockback and Charlesdrakew, while not entirely happy, seem to be satisfied with my rewrite.
Clockback's repeated unblock requests have been denied because the admins say that he has refused to acknowledge his improper editing. This charge is undoubtedly true, but I would ask people to read the excellent essay WP:Editors have pride. On the important matter -- namely the text of the article -- Clockback has already acceded to a reasonable consensus. One should not expect people to grovel. The block is now only punitive.
The punchline to the story is given in my !vote below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Survey
- Endorse initial block but support unblocking now: The edit-warring obviously needed to be stopped, and a (short) block was entirely proper. I would, however, argue that matter has been resolved satisfactorily, so the block no longer serves a purpose. Clockback's edits were driven by a sense of frustration, and were not typical of his other edits to the page, which were largely restrained and largely made in good faith.
Also, please keep in mind that Wikipedia bureaucracy can be forbidding to a casual editor. Clockback tried to discuss his edits thoroughly, but he was not well-versed in the dispute resolution process on Wikipedia, which led to this downward spiral. For instance, he was not comfortable with starting an RfC. I promise to help Clockback on this point. (Incidentally, many other people have told me the same thing: RfCs are very confusing. I routinely see people screw up RfCs.) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblocking, an immediate indefinite block for the first offense? No. Fish+Karate 08:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note I'm not saying a block is wrong, just that an indefinite one is excessive. Fish+Karate 10:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block. The tone of Clockback's response to notification of this discussion, as well as that of previous unblock requests, suggests to me that this block is still necessary. I've yet to see any indication that Clockback understands the problems with his editing; the edits for which he was blocked are symptomatic of a longer-running issue, and until there's some suggestion that these editorial and COI edits won't recur, I'm in favour of retaining the block. Yunshui 雲水 08:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblocking, an indefinite block for the first offense is too harsh.Keith Johnston (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse my own block obviously. I mean, seriously? An editor with a COI, adding "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco", that fails WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:CIR, frankly.
- His other edits are to Christopher Hitchens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (COI), Peter Hitchens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (WP:AUTO, COI), Education Policy Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (COI, long-standing off-wiki agenda there), A Brief History of Crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (WP:PROMO, COI), The Broken Compass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (PROMO, COI) - you have to go back ten years for a single mainspace edit that's even arguably non-conflicted, and even then it's a likely conflict given his off-wiki comments on the subject matter added at Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Overall: WP:NOTHERE. Very definitely.
- This is also as clear an example of m:MPOV as you could wish for.
- If unblocked he needs to be TBANned from COI edits, which is, to a good first approximation, 100% of his editing to date. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block. Hitchens only edits in areas where he has a massive WP:COI. From his talk page it is clear he isn't going to change. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 09:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block. As I stated on his talk page, I would need to see some evidence his behavior would change, and I haven't yet. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block. Clockback's edits...were not typical of his other edits to the page, which were largely restrained and largely made in good faith. - Kingsindian
- Really? "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco" was his addition to the ARTICLE. That prose wouldn't be acceptable in news reporting, let alone an encyclopedia. If he wants to promote himself and grind his axe, he's got The Mail on Sunday for that. --Calton | Talk 10:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect people to read properly. My comment was explicitly NOT about this edit, but the edits PRIOR to this whole unfortunate mess. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- And I expected you to note that was single example of how wrong you were -- and maybe note the others who've commented about his track record, but I guess it's hard to read properly when you're up on your high horse. --Calton | Talk 10:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I do not expect everyone to agree with me, but I do expect people to read properly. My comment was explicitly NOT about this edit, but the edits PRIOR to this whole unfortunate mess. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Really? "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco" was his addition to the ARTICLE. That prose wouldn't be acceptable in news reporting, let alone an encyclopedia. If he wants to promote himself and grind his axe, he's got The Mail on Sunday for that. --Calton | Talk 10:05, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblocking The continuation of this block appears to be purely vindictive.Themunimentroom 13:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — Themunimentroom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
- Endorse per Yunshui, Roxy, and Calton. Gamaliel (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblocking - surely blocking is a last-resort measure for vandals and those who cannot be reasoned with, not people an editor has a conflict of opinion with. It can be argued the editorial reverting of changes was unwarranted, and needs explanation. Otherwise, the whole edifice of wikipedia (of people setting down facts) becomes under threat. PS, I read he has a COI with the page dedicated to his brother - if this is the measure of COI then practically nobody shoudl be allowed to edit anything, as they all have a COI with the topics they care to write about! User:gbjbaanb 14:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — gbjbaanb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
- Support unblocking - really believe that a temporary block is enough, this is in keeping with the spirit of openness that Wikipedia should be known for User:theheatwick 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC) — theheatwick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
- Endorse continued block, as unblock requests to date have pretty much consisted of i-didn't-do-that and you're-a-bunch-of-totalitarians. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Procedural close we don’t accept 3rd party unblock appeals. A sanctioned editor must appeal themselves and address the issue. Every admin who has reviewed the block until now has declined to unblock, and none of them felt the need to bring it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also, notifications to @Yamla, 331dot, and MaxSem: as the admins who previously reviewed this block as they don’t appear to have been notified that it is now at AN for review. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- So, in a complaint about the heartless Wikipedia bureaucracy, your solution is ... more bureaucracy? No wonder Wikipedia is dying. Also relevant, in light of all the brouhaha about COI and so forth. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- 3rd party appeals aren’t usually allowed because they miss the point of the entire unblock process: discussion with the blocked editor. They also tend to waste a lot of energy for no reason and are dramafests that quickly become disruptive. There is nothing special about this case meriting AN review outside of the normal process at the request of someone other than the blocked editor. Their appeals will be considered on their talk page, and the advantage there for them is that they aren’t considered banned and don’t require future AN review if the unblock is declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- One of the purposes of WP:AN is to review blocks. Nothing substantial would change if I copy pasted Clockback's last unblock request above my own statement. It's pointless WP:BURO. And if you hadn't noticed, I have been copy-pasting Clockback's comments from the talkpage here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, bringing it here on your own without the active appeal is the exercise in bureaucracy: we just don’t do that except in cases of unambiguous abuse, which this isn’t. There is now an appeal on their talk. This should be handled there by discussion with them instead of being made a spectacle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- What the hell? There's a block review of an AE case just below this section. Blocks are reviewed here all the time. I am going to ignore this trolling now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- AE blocks have to be brought either here or to AE. Unblocking without consensus leads to desysop in those cases. There is nothing special about this block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- So, if I give you an instance of the scores of block reviews which had nothing to do with AE, and were not brought by the blocked party, you'll go away, right? How about this one? Or this one? Or this one? I can do this all day. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Here's one from just a couple days ago where the block was overturned. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mr Ernie:@Mr Ernie: So what is your opinion on the block? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC) Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Here's one from just a couple days ago where the block was overturned. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- So, if I give you an instance of the scores of block reviews which had nothing to do with AE, and were not brought by the blocked party, you'll go away, right? How about this one? Or this one? Or this one? I can do this all day. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- AE blocks have to be brought either here or to AE. Unblocking without consensus leads to desysop in those cases. There is nothing special about this block. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- What the hell? There's a block review of an AE case just below this section. Blocks are reviewed here all the time. I am going to ignore this trolling now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, bringing it here on your own without the active appeal is the exercise in bureaucracy: we just don’t do that except in cases of unambiguous abuse, which this isn’t. There is now an appeal on their talk. This should be handled there by discussion with them instead of being made a spectacle. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- One of the purposes of WP:AN is to review blocks. Nothing substantial would change if I copy pasted Clockback's last unblock request above my own statement. It's pointless WP:BURO. And if you hadn't noticed, I have been copy-pasting Clockback's comments from the talkpage here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:06, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- 3rd party appeals aren’t usually allowed because they miss the point of the entire unblock process: discussion with the blocked editor. They also tend to waste a lot of energy for no reason and are dramafests that quickly become disruptive. There is nothing special about this case meriting AN review outside of the normal process at the request of someone other than the blocked editor. Their appeals will be considered on their talk page, and the advantage there for them is that they aren’t considered banned and don’t require future AN review if the unblock is declined. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- So, in a complaint about the heartless Wikipedia bureaucracy, your solution is ... more bureaucracy? No wonder Wikipedia is dying. Also relevant, in light of all the brouhaha about COI and so forth. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:57, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Non-admin comment The user is currently WP:CANVASSING support for his unblocking on Twitter here and here (feel free to move/remove this if I have commented in the wrong place). Endymion.12 (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block, this editor doesn't seem to be prepared to participate constructively. Max Semenik (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Unblock Clockback please - having read the material, he is entitled to express those views, however controversial and unpalatable they may be for some. And he has made some grave points and should not have to beg for forgiveness for expressing his, founded, views. Ours is a plural society, please reflect the same on this platform for Mr Hitchens.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.192.69.53 (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Actually no he's not. He is entitled to express his views, founded or not, in accordance with the bounds of the law while writing for the paper, or on his own website or blog or anywhere else that welcomes it. However wikipedia is an encylopaedia written based on sources. Discussions here are intended to be about how we improve wikipedia. The views of random editors of stuff unrelated to that purpose aren't really welcome. Given our goals of building a community, there's some limited acceptance of editors express offtopic stuff like their views of subjectw within reason but this needs to be limited. Notably if several other editors feel that someone's specific expression of their views unrelated to how to improve wikipedia is harmful, it probably is since it's seemingly not improving community relations here but harming them. Note that I have not looked into the details of the case other than to know it doesn't appear to involve a living person since it's beside my point. Nil Einne (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblocking, an indefinite block for a first offence is way too much, Huldra (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block - Guy's reasoning stands up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I will note that Hitchens has now made 4 unblock requests on his talk page, and all have been turned down (by 4 different admins) because they did not address the reason for their block. Filing multiple frivolous unblock requests generally leads to shutting off talk page access. In this case, Hitchens being a public figure may be working in his favor, as admins may be shying away from that course of action so as not to be named in the inevitable follow-up off-wiki commentary from Hitchens about Wikipedia's "autocracy" and "liberal bias" - but since that's going to happen anyway, no matter what happens now (even an unblock won't stop it), someone should just bite the bullet and shut him down. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block - Canvassing one's twitter followers in order to get oneself unblocked certainly means that a user should never be allowed to return. Icarosaurvus (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block. I am sympathetic to KingsIndian's position here, as I often am. But in this case I don't agree. We have just been through the Arbcom case of Philip Cross, where we had people involved in RW disputes editing about those disputes here in WP. This is not good for anybody. If you look at their edit count you will see that Clockback has pretty much only edited about himself, his family, his books, and things he pundits about in the real world.
- Back in 2015 I tried to explain COI management in WP] to him, and he replied:
I've tried it and it doesn't work. You'll just have to trust me. If I restrict myself, as I have for more than a decade, to correcting errors of fact, I can't see any problem. the temptation to rewrite the whole thing in better English is immensely strong, but I have resisted it all this time and will continue to do so. I really don't see why doing this, openly, is a difficulty.
That was after he had just been edit-warring completely inappropriate content into mainspace about some picture of himself. (diff, diff, diff). An unrestrained temper tantrum. His claim is also somewhat contradicted by his actual edits to the page about him, which includes things like this - At the Bell page, folks have cited the edits at Bell - the first part about
A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco.
. Has anybody looked at the rest of that diff? It also includedThis was a ridiculous statement, as under English law any accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty
. - Away back in 2007 he was all up into contesting the reality of ADD in his Mail column (e.g here. And sure enough he made around 30 edits to the ADD page including beauties like this.
- Clockback obviously feels quite entitled to use WP like he would a column or blog to express his opinion and have temper tantrums. Wikipedia is however not his column, and he has not given us reason to trust his self-restraint. His temper tantrum over the block, is quite in line with what I have seen of him here.
- KingsIndian I do get it that WP can be difficult to understand and navigate, but for as long as Clockback has been around, he hasn't really engaged with what we do here, how we do it, and why. There are many people drawn here to edit about themselves or some other external interest. Some of them take the time to "get it"; Clockback has shown little to no interest in WP's mission but a great deal of interest in using WP as yet another platform to express his opinions. It's just not what we do here. It is fundamentally a SOAP thing. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block Indef block is suitable for such disruptive editors. So what if he's Christopher Hitchens' brother? Wikipedia is not his soapbox, and the editor hasn't recognized what they did wrong. I think, as a whole, we were way too lenient on them - seeing that they still have their TPA intact. byteflush Talk 03:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Administrator note I tried to close this as "no consensus to unblock" before sufficient time had elapsed for this to be considered a "community block" (which is a block that ends up endorsed after "due consideration" by the community, thus becoming a de facto CBAN). I did this in an attempt to avert unnecessary drama, prevent the escalation of an unintended CBAN, and to let this user retain the normal options for unblocking. Both the OP here and the blocked user have objected to the closure as too quick, and while I thoroughly explained to them the much more serious consequences of a formal community-endorsed block that has been given "due consideration", the OP has strenuously insisted that they want a fair trial. So, if the consensus to endorse the block continues to hold for a reasonable amount of time, that is a risk that the blocked user was made aware of and decided to take. Swarm ♠ 10:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblock A week would be sufficient, some people seem keen to support the block because of who he is. User:Charlesdrakew seems to be one of them and that his attacks are ignored indicates we aren't treating this case fairly and neutrally, which is another reason to unblock. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 10:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblock as time served. If nothing else, they are clearly keen to discuss the matter, and they are equally clearly WP:HERE. I consider the block harsh for a first offence, and although Clockback does have a transparent COI, they apper to have been up front about it from the start, and with the exception of a couple of instances, adhered to our guidelines. Although of course WP:VOL says we do not, of course, have to do anything we don't want to do, I can't help but suspect that if they had received a litle more traction on the talk page, we might not be having this discussion. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- On edit: I see Govindaharihari made an eminently sensible suggestion in the archived ANI thread which, personally, I think should certainly be revisted: A topic ban from George Bell and from editing his own biography, he can request edits to his biography on the talkpage. This would appear to address the issues at hand as well as inhibiting future reoccurance. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would respectfully disagree with the assessment that Clockback is WP:HERE. To date, the overwhelming impression I have gotten from his edits to both articles and talkpages is that he is interested in making Wikipedia read and operate the way he would like it to read and operate, without regard for Wikipedia's community, policies or processes. I've seen no indication that he has any interest in working on the encylopedia outside of areas in which he has a conflict of interest, and there is a definite hint of righting great wrongs to many of his contributions. Yunshui 雲水 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- More to the point, a ban from conflicted edits is a de facto site ban, Clockback only edits where he has a COI and this has been the case for at least ten years. Guy (Help!) 21:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would respectfully disagree with the assessment that Clockback is WP:HERE. To date, the overwhelming impression I have gotten from his edits to both articles and talkpages is that he is interested in making Wikipedia read and operate the way he would like it to read and operate, without regard for Wikipedia's community, policies or processes. I've seen no indication that he has any interest in working on the encylopedia outside of areas in which he has a conflict of interest, and there is a definite hint of righting great wrongs to many of his contributions. Yunshui 雲水 13:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblocking - having a valid opinion on an issue is not a "conflict of interest". Zacwill (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block per Jzg and Jytdog. Really now, editor has continuously edited either with a direct COI or to support their own viewpoints contrary to npov etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block At first I was hopeful that this might be resolved relatively quickly but it has become clear from Clockback’s umpteen unblock appeals that he has not taken any of the advice in WP:GAB and is incapable of admitting that he has done anything wrong, and is continuing to attack his “opponent.” He has given no indication that he would not do the same thing again. I cannot see how we can unblock here. Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block I agree with TonyBallioni that a third-party block appeal misses the point. Discussion needs to take place with the blocked editor. Given the amount of discussion that already has taken place with them, I'm not convinced that the behavior leading to the block will not continue. The goal of a block is not punitive, but to protect the encyclopedia, which this block is doing. In addition, the behavior following the block (and relating to the block) is quite concerning to me, including the canvassing on Twitter and continued attempts at finding appeal proxies rather than handling the matter themselves per WP:APPEAL. The COI issues, editorializing, etc., don't have a place on Wikipedia and they don't seem to realize that we're here to build an encyclopedia, not a news outlet or blog. I think they should be given the standard offer and see where it leads in time once cooler heads prevail. Waggie (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse unblocking. I have for several years donated money to this organization with the understanding that it would be of good use for a non-profit organization such at this is in order to uphold this great informational website, available for all interested, had I known that this organization with its self proclaimed high values in the shadow uses censorship I would have never donated and will from now on never do it again until this unwrong is fixed. Quite amazing to see such a big ”trial” for what should be a small matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhellstrom (talk • contribs) — Mhellstrom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
- So you've given lots of money, but never edited before today? 331dot (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I am a frequent reader, not an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhellstrom (talk • contribs)
- Your donations to WMF are irrelevant, and do not give your comment any more weight. If anything, what gives a comment additional weight is if it comes from a Wikipedian who has contributed significantly to the encyclopedia, of which they are examples on both sides of this issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block. No remorse and the posts at User talk:Clockback fail to persuade me that the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. Indeed, they seem to confirm that disruption is going to continue[1]. DrKay (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Endorse indefinite block until Clockback’s attitude changes. I initially assumed this was going to be a partisan dispute of right wing versus left wing editors voting and was open to idea of supporting an unblock, but examining the facts and carefully reviewing his unblock requests, it is clear that this editor is disruptive and is draining of people’s time (he is behaving like the world and Wikipedia should revolve around him and he has the right to drain people of their time so he can WP:SOAPBOX his opinions (so much so he had to have his talk page access removed), instead of just editing productively and being willing to admit to mistakes. Should his attitude change only then can I support an unblock request.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)- Endorse unblock with ‘mentoring’ by myself I have changed my vote having read kingsindian’s posts in clockback’s defence which triggered me to look even more deeply into this issue and I’ve found substantial evidence of Clockback seeking consensus and working collaboratively with other editors on COI talk pages, e.g. Talk:Peter_Hitchens/Archive_4. I would agree to mentor him (in the form of helping him with disputes and pointing him to relevant policies and guidelines or instructions as a major issue he had was how to deal with image approval and dispute resolution processes, etc). I do not think Clockback is a bad lad, he cares passionately about social issues which can create biased editing but the evidence of him working collaboratively with other editors most of the time to achieve neutrality makes this less of a concern. The block has served it’s purpose to prevent edit warring and to warn him that editorialising with original ideas not supported by sources is not acceptable. Give the guy a second chance. If I am wrong, well, it is easy to just block him again. Why deny a guy a second chance, are we that unforgiving as a community?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Clockback has appealed, albeit disruptively in article body text, for help and guidance from editors in areas of policy and guidelines where he is still a newbie, so I think he would likely accept a mentor (someone he could come to for advice or assistance navigating complex Wikipedia rules or to help resolve a dispute).--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:56, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblock I think an indefinite block is excessive in this case. I have looked through some of Clockback's contributions. He appears to always state that he is Peter Hitchens when giving his view on talk pages, and the recent edits at George Bell seem to be uncharacteristic of his editing. Edits such as this, the canvassing on Twitter, and other similar behavior display an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policy, but I believe his edits are fundamentally in good faith. Hrodvarsson (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse indef somewhat reluctantly, after reading the user talk page. I do not endorse a community-ban; perhaps once the situation has cooled down (and they've stopped trying to get randoms from Twitter to get them unblocked), they'll realize just how ridiculous contributions like [2] are, and that none of their excuses for it were believable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block he writes: "I was blocked indefinitely, an absurd over-reaction to a legitimate bit of mild mischief entirely explained and justified by the appalling behaviour of the unpunished 'Charles'". Until he recognizes he has to follow community guidelines. -- 73.170.168.69 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC) — User:73.170.168.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion.
- Endorse block (Non-administrator comment) I've looked over the George Bell article edits and Talk page discussion, as well as the discussion on Clockback's Talk page. Clockback added inappropriate content to the article, edit-warred to keep it in, and declared that he would continue edit-warring. He calls the content "mild mischief" but to my mind, mild mischief is equivalent to mild vandalism. It is appropriate to indefinitely block someone who is edit-warring to preserve their mild vandalism no matter who they are or how long they've been here. Indefinite does not mean infinite and editors are blocked indefinitely all the time for first offenses (examples include vandalism, username issues, and legal threats). It would have been rather simple for Clockback to get unblocked but instead of doing that, he's said he can't guarantee he won't do this again and is blaming the other editor. Therefore, the block is preventing further disruption. I hope that we won't see any new appeals for at least six months; if that means that this block is converted into a community ban, I support that because he has shown himself through his editing (as detailed by JzG and Jytdog) to be NOTHERE. If Clockback is unblocked I support a topic ban on COI edits. Ca2james (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse Unblock Ought one be indefinitely blocked for causing certain people annoyance regardless of the importance of their contributions - and, potential contributions? It seems those in charge have forced Mr Hitchens to drink hemlock and, when he refused, into exile. Apologies if I have inserted my comment incorrectly. I have a feeling of trepidation while writing this and expect to be reprimanded or 'tagged' as I have just opened an account and this is my first edit. Is this the sort of atmosphere an interactive 'encyclopedia' should instil in its more sensitive users? Crosslaa01 (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Antony (user: crosslaa01)
- Endorse block for the original reasons plus the reprehensible canvassing. Nihlus 13:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Unblock I've examined all of the details and I believe the Indef block should be removed. Clockback seems to have been overwhelmed by the bureaucratic and sometimes kafka-esque system of blocks and sanctions. Nobody should have to beg, and the initial unblock responses by Yamla and Max seem to emphasize process over content. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I tried explaining to Clockback that there is a guide to appealing blocks, and that they are virtually guaranteed to be unblocked if they simply follow the instructions there. Reading the guide and submitting a compliant unblock request would have probably taken them less time and energy than the rambling diatribe they replied with. Swarm ♠ 20:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse block based primarily on off-wiki canvassing. I do not agree with the way Clockback handled the original dispute. However, I think that under all of the poor rhetoric, there might be (by stretching WP:AGF) an argument that he was trying to improve the project. (NB: I have fully reviewed the arguments here, and skimmed talk page and edits.) But there is no argument for the off-wiki canvassing if he truly wants to be part of the project. Again, assuming he was unaware of the policy on canvassing, after bringing that policy to his attention, he could've deleted his tweets. He has not. He asks the community to have faith in him, but he demonstrates no faith in the community or willingness to productively engage. Endorse block, though I would welcome revisiting this in a few months under the normal standard offer criteria if there is demonstrated remorse. If Clockback demonstrated remorse, I think that would be such a drastic shift from his current positions that it would warrant serious consideration by the community. Thanks to all the editors that have taken their time. --Policy Reformer(c) 00:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse Block per Ca2james. I've read through their talk page and don't find anything WP could gain by retaining him as an editor. Blackmane (talk) 04:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
- Please see the discussion on Clockback's talk page. Further comments can be added below. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
| As above, please see the discussion on Clockback's talk page. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This is the final statement from Clockback. Copy-pasted from their talkpage, in response to this diff from Jytdog. Any admin can assess consensus and close this block review, if they wish. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:50, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
|
I suppose nobody cares that Calton (who has participated in this discussion, so is not uninvolved) has now hatted the above section, which includes my comment here. What gives Calton the right to go around hatting sections? Nothing is going to surprise me now. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 15:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Report
This appears to be the investigative report mentioned above by Clockback that they seem to want to write about in Wikipedia. I have not read it all but it seems relevant here that it discusses "jounalist Peter Hitchens" on page 25, para. 110; and page 52, para. 204. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:COISELF says "If you have a personal connection to a topic . . . you are advised to refrain from editing . . ." Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- He did refrain from editing. For more than half a year, in fact. The COI guideline does not absolutely disallow editing, but expects that you discuss things on the talkpage. Which he did. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- The COI guideline does not give editors with COI any authorization to go ahead and make policy violating edits under any circumstances, to the contrary, it prohibits it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Let me ask you something. You make a point about COI guideline saying that editors being advised to refrain from editing directly. I reply to this point. You don't even acknowledge what I said, and go on to make another point, one which I never disputed. Are we talking to the void or having a conversation? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I thought I had replied to your point, but if it is unclear, your attempt to render null the community consensus in the guideline's various provisions advising/telling/asking/imploring/prohibiting the COI editor not to edit, is irrelevant wikilawyering. It is what should be done, it being a guideline, and that means a COI editor should do it, and 'I am not getting what I want' is not a valid reason for not doing what should be done by the COI editor.Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Let me ask you something. You make a point about COI guideline saying that editors being advised to refrain from editing directly. I reply to this point. You don't even acknowledge what I said, and go on to make another point, one which I never disputed. Are we talking to the void or having a conversation? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- The COI guideline does not give editors with COI any authorization to go ahead and make policy violating edits under any circumstances, to the contrary, it prohibits it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:59, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
COI stuff
Let me address the point about COI raised by several people, including the initial blocking admin JzG and Jytdog above:
- According to the WP:ANI thread which resulted in Clockback's indef block, JzG wasn't even aware of their identity when they blocked them -- within 15 minutes of their post at ANI -- indefinitely. This means that JzG never even looked at Clockback's userpage (where Clockback self-identifies). Does anyone feel that a summary "sentence" -- in which such basic material facts as the user's self-declared identity weren't considered -- might be a tiny bit problematic? We report, you decide.
| An obvious example of how identity is relevant |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In particular, if JzG was aware of Clockback's identity, they would not have fingered this edit (cited in their ANI response), as some kind of WP:NOTHERE or "unsourced" and "editorializing" edit. The source includes the quote by Hitchens |
- COI was not mentioned in the block rationale. Clockback made 5 unblock requests. None of the admins -- none -- mentioned COI while declining the block.
- Now, this new charge of COI has been added to the chargesheet. Why? Supposedly the conduct is so bad that it merits an indef block without any prior warning or discussion? Where is the disruption or imminent disruption?
I submit that this is a severe case of "bad block". If the COI issue is really important, the proper way to proceed would be to first dispose of this unrelated matter. Hopefully unblock Clockback, and then talk to them or discuss their actions at a noticeboard. See this discussion by Jytdog, for instance. I will only say here that the COI guideline does not directly disallow people from editing the articles. I said above that I can provide tens of examples of editors (including WMF board members, and sitting and past arbitrators) who have violated the COI guideline in this sense. Test me if you want. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:09, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. The general issue, and then the specific one.
- The general point on COI: COI guideline says that -- with a few exceptions -- conflicted editors are strongly discouraged from editing directly. I believe that this notion has fairly broad and deep consensus (there are very vocal dissenters, of course). There is good reason for this guidance and the consensus behind it. When conflicted editors edit directly, they tend to add bad content and tend to behave badly trying to retain it -- edit warring and making tendentious arguments to keep it. Accepting the restraints of the COI management system spares everybody that drama, grounded on an acknowledgement by everybody involved, that a conflict of interest is present, and needs management.
- As a last general matter: I acknowledge that there are cases of glaring COI editing. WP is shot through with garbage content along with good and like any human institution has flaws and hypocrisy in its administration along with good. But I am somewhat dismayed to see you, whom I respect, making an othershitexists argument.
- Now to the specifics: What I tried to emphasize in my vote, is that with Clockback we have someone who is a pundit in the real world who is a) treating WP pretty much like treat their real world platforms and not engaging with the mission of WP and the ways the community has developed to realize it and b) editing about themselves and the issues they punditize about in their RW platforms. The latter is where the formal COI is, but the former is the deeper problem, which the COI only exacerbates.
- The block log says
Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures
.
- In my view that aptly summarizes Clockback's entire career here in WP. It summarizes a) above, and b) above helps explain why Clockback behaves this way. Many people have a hard time seeing the mission clearly and engaging with it and the ways we realize it; conflict of interest makes it yet harder yet for people to clearly see what we do here (and hard to not see WP as a soapbox/platform for promotion). Someone whose real world occupation is writing their opinions will have a very hard time. We should not unblock Clockback until he shows some glimmer of self-awareness about how incorrect his approach to WP has been. (and btw, expressing self-awareness is not "grovelling"; that is, sadly, how many tendentious, indefinitely blocked editors frame this essential part of the community reconciliation process.)
- I'll add that I trust Guy's instincts a great deal. Not perfectly, and I have been on the wrong end of him shooting from the hip. But he has a great sense of whether somebody is fundamentally here to build an encyclopedia or not, and understands that good faith is not a suicide pact. He indefs perhaps quicker than most admins. I have breathed a sigh of relief after many, many of his indefs.
- A question I will turn back to you:
- What evidence do you have that Clockback understands or even cares about a) our mission to create an encyclopedia with articles summarizing accepted knowledge, working in a community of pseudonymous editors, and b) the way the community realizes the mission -- namely by placing authority in reliable sources, not on the opinions or claimed expertise of any editor, and striving to summmarize those sources neutrally? Jytdog (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I can't help but notice that you didn't address a single point I raised. You say you sympathize with my points. I don't want your sympathy. And you can keep your faith in JzG. I have no interest in such things. Unless you address my points -- all directly relevant to the block -- I'm afraid, there's no use talking.
Here's a direct question: Does indef blocking a Wikipedia editor, who has been here since 2006, within 15 minutes, without taking into account their self-declared identity, without even checking their userpage, and making at least one demonstrably wrong assertion about their edits, indicate "due diligence" to you?
And what does COI have to do with anything? That's not what the block was for.
I promise that if you address my points, I'll address yours, even though I consider COI to be essentially a red herring. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Red herring? You named this section 'COI stuff' --- the account was blocked for non-policy compliant editing over years --- but that there is WP:COI, would be a probable explanation for such an editing pattern. Others think that enough talking with the editor about their problematic editing did occur before the block over those years. Indef does not mean infinite, it means address understanding (and/or formal restraints) for/of issues/pattern/policy, so that the disruption will not re-occur.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I can't help but notice that you didn't address a single point I raised. You say you sympathize with my points. I don't want your sympathy. And you can keep your faith in JzG. I have no interest in such things. Unless you address my points -- all directly relevant to the block -- I'm afraid, there's no use talking.
- COI was not the primary reason for blocking, but the edit that triggered the block absolutely was COI (along with many other tihngs) and more than a decade of nothing but COI edits in mainspace is a great reason for not unblocking IMO. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Kingsindian I am sorry that you feel I didn't address your points. I feel I did. Let me walk it through:
- Your first sentence:
I submit that this is a severe case of "bad block".
- I addressed why I thought it was a good block per the block rationale, which in my view accurately summarized what Clockback has been doing in WP. I also discussed the particulars of Guy's blocking style and how this fits with that.
- Your second sentence:
If the COI issue is really important, the proper way to proceed would be to first dispose of this unrelated matter.
- I tried to explain that in this matter, COI helps explain Clockback's pattern of behavior, but I very explicitly said in (a) that the fundamental problem is Clockback's lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it. I even used the little "a" and "b" to try to make the difference clear between the problem "a" and one cause of it "b". I also tried to explain (and I will elaborate here) that COI matters come to the community's attention because of the kind of content conflicted editors tend to generate, and because of how they tend to behave. There are content and behavior problems. These problems can be described without any reference to COI - violating NPOV, adding unsourced content, edit warring, tendentious arguments on talk, etc. These issues can also be addressed at ANI or by admins without any reference to COI. We bring COI into it, because if there is a COI and the person acknowledges it and how it creates problems in this particular environment, they will generally start to behave better and edit better -- the understanding by the conflicted person is essential. COI is a definable, well-understood thing. This can lead to better outcomes for everybody. I try to do the same thing when somebody edits as an advocate and creates bad content and behaves badly -- I try to help them become self-aware of their own passion, so they can self-manage it better. Advocacy is less well-defined in the real world, and much harder for everybody to think about and manage. But again, what calls attention, is the bad content and bad behavior -- the observable, diff-able things they do in WP. These are what were addressed in the block notice for Clockback.
- I directly addressed this and said that the block rationale was solid, and Clockback should not be unblocked until he shows self-awareness that he has been using his editing privileges incorrectly - namely as an extension of how he writes in his columns and blogs without regard for WP's mission and the methods by which we realize it. He seems to be unaware (and unconcerned) with what we do here and how we do it.
- Your fifth sentence:
I will only say here that the COI guideline does not directly disallow people from editing the articles.
- Your fifth sentence:
- I directly addressed this.
- Your sixth sentence:
I said above that I can provide tens of examples of editors (including WMF board members, and sitting and past arbitrators) who have violated the COI guideline in this sense. Test me if you want.
- Your sixth sentence:
- I directly addressed this.
- So... ? I do not agree with you, but I did try to speak to everything that you raised. I did try. Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog
It should be pointed out that [5] would be inappropriate whoever added it. To say that someone "sabotaged" their education would require robust sourcing even knowing that it was added by the subject. This had no source. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm sorry let me directly address them as well.
- 1) you wrote:
According to the WP:ANI thread which resulted in Clockback's indef block, JzG wasn't even aware of their identity when they blocked them -- within 15 minutes of their post at ANI -- indefinitely. This means that JzG never even looked at Clockback's userpage (where Clockback self-identifies). Does anyone feel that a summary "sentence" -- in which such basic material facts as the user's self-declared identity weren't considered -- might be a tiny bit problematic? We report, you decide.
- As I noted, the problem was Clockback's pattern of observable behavior. Those who are in the "content not contributor" camp and oppose addressing COI matters much if ever, should be delighted that this was based solely on diff-able observable behavior without regard for who this person is. Unmanaged COI has been (as I have now said twice) a cause of the behavior, but the problem is a deeper lack of engagement with what we do and how we do it. See discussion above about what calls our attention to APPARENTCOI in the first place -- observable, diff-able behavior.
- 1a) You wrote "In particular, if JzG was aware of Clockback's identity, they would not have fingered this edit (cited in their ANI response), as some kind of WP:NOTHERE or "unsourced" and "editorializing" edit. The source includes the quote by Hitchens
"[I] made sure I would never get into Oxbridge. It was my own fault"
. To render this source as "sabotaging his own education" is a perfectly acceptable WP:summary style edit. And why would JzG tell Hitchens what he does or doesn't know about his own actions?"
- I really didn't want to respond to this (which is why I haven't so far) but now that that I am, I will say "Jesus fucking christ." Think about that last sentence. So you would give people who verify their identities more authority here in WP than other editors? Shall we also give company reps more authority? Shall we just hang up our hats and call this "PRopedia"? What the hell? (first question is real; last three are rhetorical)
- Calming down, and dealing with the ref and the edit -- did you look at what else he did in that diff? Look at the block of text that includes "as part of the group of reporters accompanying Margaret Thatcher After witnessing the collapse of the Communist regimes in Czechoslovakia and Romania". There is unsourced autobiographical writing. Not OK here.
- With regard to the bit that you pull about "sabotage", yes that does have some support in the source and Guy was incorrect about it being unsourced; that is a valid "gotcha". However, that phrase is something that should catch anybody's eye as "color" in a BLP article and does call for examination. Looking at the source -- there is an intentionality to "sabotage" that is not necessarily present in the quote. Fucking up in a way that turns out to have longterm consequences (as passionate young people often do), and owning the fuckup and its consequences, is not the same as intentional destruction i.e. "sabotage". A lot depends on what "Made sure I would never get into Oxbridge" actually meant in that conversation. To resolve which it is, would require discussion and looking at what other sources say about it.
- 2) you wrote:
COI was not mentioned in the block rationale. Clockback made 5 unblock requests. None of the admins -- none -- mentioned COI while declining the block.
- As I noted, the problem was Clockback's pattern of observable behavior. It is appropriate that COI was not discussed.
- 3) you wrote:
Now, this new charge of COI has been added to the chargesheet. Why? Supposedly the conduct is so bad that it merits an indef block without any prior warning or discussion? Where is the disruption or imminent disruption?
- As I already have written, it is not so much a "charge" as everybody going "yep that explains some of the behavior" and "yep unmanaged COI is a problem". I have consistently been trying to separate out the long term behavior and the underlying lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it, from this cause of the behavior. I am starting to feel like I am repeating that too much. gah.
- I have written too much but I just want to end the same way I ended my !vote. Clockback has not shown they understand what we do here nor how we do it. It is a WP:NOT problem --
It is fundamentally a SOAP thing.
Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have written too much but I just want to end the same way I ended my !vote. Clockback has not shown they understand what we do here nor how we do it. It is a WP:NOT problem --
Let me make a general point first. Perhaps I am unfair, but it seems to me that you're trying to find reasons as to why your position is the right one. That is not the correct way of evaluating hypotheses. So, if one is in a Bayesian model, one can have a prior (say, "JzG is usually right about COI or indef blocks, so this block is good with probability 90%."), but must be willing to update it. I don't see any updating at all here: you may concede a point here or there, but ultimately, you change no positions. None. That's not really an argument; that's just providing justifications -- what theologians call "apologetics". Sophisticated theologians can construct quite elaborate apologias.
Let's be specific now. When you say Those who are in the "content not contributor" camp and oppose addressing COI matters much if ever
who do you mean? Do you mean me? I never said or implied anything even remotely like this. So why construct this elaborate strawman? Could it be that you're trying to find reasons for justifying the block, and and not updating the probability of the hypothesis "the block was made improperly"? Again, I'm telling you how it looks to me. It looks like apologetics.
Let me make a simple assertion: The identity of Clockback was indeed relevant to his editing. Everyone in this discussion agrees with this assertion. Indeed, people are now insisting that his identity is hugely relevant to the matter, because "COI! COI! COI!". So how could it not have been relevant when he was blocked? It follows directly that a basic, material fact was disregarded before passing this summary "sentence" of indef block. As far as I can determine, you never challenge this simple point. This is evidence for the hypothesis "the block was made improperly". You seem to disregard this. Apologetics.
Let's look at the "diff-able" behavior. It is not me that "pulled the bit" about "sabotage"; it was JzG. You concede that I am largely correct about the matter. Ok: more evidence for the hypothesis "the block was made improperly". But you quickly move over this concession and try to find other evidence -- which JzG doesn't cite -- for the hypothesis "the block was made properly". Apologetics.
Lastly, you read my sentence: "none of the admins ever mention anything about COI while declining unblock". You read it, acknowledge it, and skip right over it. No updating anywhere. Apologetics.
Ok, you decide if I'm being fair. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. I think smaller bites might be helpful.
- Is ~think~ you are perhaps asking "was the original indef valid?" and the answer you are hearing is "based on my evaluation of this person's behavior, the indef is fine".... and that is not answering your question. Is that correct? Jytdog (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I made several points. My first point was about irregularities in the original block. And I was pointing out that because of the irregularities, COI was not and could not be a factor in the block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes you made many points. Hence "smaller bites". This was the first small bite. Which you did not make clear and instead smooshed over and brought up other unclear points. The broad conversation isn't working and a step by step one isn't working, so I don't know how to proceed with you. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Yes, I was directly responding to a request for a "smaller bite". You asked me to clarify what you ~think~ I'm asking. I told you what I'm asking. I actually did it once above. Here, I'll restate it for you (in the form of a direct question): "Do you think that it was proper to indef block an editor, who has been here since 2006, within 15 minutes, without even looking at their userpage, without even knowing their self-declared identity? And that one of the two diffs cited while blocking was a misreading (at best) of the source."
Every word of what I said above is true. What I have an issue is that you acknowledge these facts -- plainly relevant -- and skip over them to try to find other reasons for the block. But you are still taking the validity of the block as a given, and never seriously consider the possibility that the original indef, when riddled with this many irregularities, could be wrong.
Again, to take the Bayesian analogy, you never update the hypothesis in the face of the given evidence -- cited by the blocker, not me -- and instead try to search for more evidence in favour of the hypothesis. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: Yes, I was directly responding to a request for a "smaller bite". You asked me to clarify what you ~think~ I'm asking. I told you what I'm asking. I actually did it once above. Here, I'll restate it for you (in the form of a direct question): "Do you think that it was proper to indef block an editor, who has been here since 2006, within 15 minutes, without even looking at their userpage, without even knowing their self-declared identity? And that one of the two diffs cited while blocking was a misreading (at best) of the source."
- Yes you made many points. Hence "smaller bites". This was the first small bite. Which you did not make clear and instead smooshed over and brought up other unclear points. The broad conversation isn't working and a step by step one isn't working, so I don't know how to proceed with you. Jytdog (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I made several points. My first point was about irregularities in the original block. And I was pointing out that because of the irregularities, COI was not and could not be a factor in the block. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I submit that the latter is simply rationalization after the fact (I have given proof of it above, and won't repeat it here). The former is wrong because Clockback has already accepted my rewrite; all he wanted from the start was impartial eyes on the article, because he was making no headway in the talkpage discussion. Instead, he got a kick in the face from JzG. I do not support his edit-warring -- but the conduct deserves pity, not contempt. Also, see this comment by Clockback. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- How many times do I have to explain this? The original block was for WP:TE/WP:DE/WP:EW (and WP:POINT, frankly, and possibly WP:CIR, certainly WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS), the block review that you instigated has shown that in addition to being tendentious and disruptive, all this user's edits for the past decade are also WP:COI, despite numerous past warnings, and many are WP:PROMO. This is a user who simply does not accept our COI policy and who views his opinion as ineffable truth (m:MPOV). Add WP:NPA and (of course!) WP:NCR, leading to TPA removal, and I am left thinking that the only reason for unblocking at this point would be for comedy value, to see if he can collect the full set of policy violations before the next inevitable block. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nice series of blue-links you have thrown there. Considering that you were demonstrably wrong on one of the two diffs you cited in your block, I wouldn't crow too much about WP:CIR. As for the claim that it's only a matter of time before the next "inevitable block", clearly, Wikipedia administration is completely useless, since Clockback has never been blocked before. Indeed, an undeclared probably paid/COI editor merrily edited Education Policy Institute and never bothered to even post on the talkpage, while Clockback did discuss the matter extensively on the talkpage. Now Clockback is indef blocked while nobody gives a fuck about COI. Out of sight, out of mind. Nice work. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Kingsindian, ok, the small bite. The block. So Guy's statement at ANI, in its entirety, was "I have blocked Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on a review of contributions, which skew heavily towards highly biased editorialising e.g. "sabotaging his own education" and "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco". This looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW and m:MPOV. Undoubtedly WP:TE, and the opinions are unsourced." at 08:24. That was a response to Clockback's OP made at 08:09. I've already quoted the block notice made at 08:21 (this is where you got the "15 minute review" thing) but will do it again here:
Tendentious and POV editing, including edit warring, inserting opinion as fact and heavily editorialising in articles related to controversial figures.
- So. you have accurately pointed out that the last sentence of the ANI statement is only half-correct (one of the two, was unsourced). Guy cited two examples. I do not believe that these were meant to be exhaustive, but rather examples. Anybody can click through large edits in Clockback's contribs and find those and the others and reach the same conclusion that Guy did, as expressed (with an error) in his ANI note or his block note, each of which focus on Clockback's lack of engagement with the mission and how we realize it. Without considering who he is.
- So I find the initial indef very valid. I figured since 2015 that this is where he would end up. That is my actual a priori here... based on my own past interactions with him and having considered his contribs before. If it ever would come to a drama board, he would not survive. Too many bad edits, too ignorant, too arrogant. (I always find it so weird and kind of sad when intellectuals make a bunch of drama about losing editing privileges when they have obviously not spent any time trying to understand what has made WP possible and write things that are just ...silly, yet said with such gravity.)
- Now, in addition you seem to be saying that Guy's analysis of Clockback's contributions would have reached a different conclusion, if Guy had taken Clockback's identity into account.
- I have a sense that you (and some others who have !voted to unblock as well) want to cut much more slack to people who come here who want to edit about themselves, especially if they do it under their real name. Be somehow more simple and gentle about things; smoothing over rough spots where they get caught and then kind of scooting them on their way. Like one would do with a child. If that is where you are coming from, part of me finds that lovely. And (if that is correct) there is something good there about not taking this whole thing too seriously. Is that at all accurate? Jytdog (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Kingsindian, ok, the small bite. The block. So Guy's statement at ANI, in its entirety, was "I have blocked Clockback (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on a review of contributions, which skew heavily towards highly biased editorialising e.g. "sabotaging his own education" and "Nor was there any reason for a complaint to be passed to the police since, as Bishop Bell was dead, he could not be prosecuted and they had no statutory role in the affair. A complaint might as well have been passed to the Fire Brigade or to Tesco". This looks like a case of WP:NOTHERE, WP:RGW and m:MPOV. Undoubtedly WP:TE, and the opinions are unsourced." at 08:24. That was a response to Clockback's OP made at 08:09. I've already quoted the block notice made at 08:21 (this is where you got the "15 minute review" thing) but will do it again here:
- We're done here. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nice series of blue-links you have thrown there. Considering that you were demonstrably wrong on one of the two diffs you cited in your block, I wouldn't crow too much about WP:CIR. As for the claim that it's only a matter of time before the next "inevitable block", clearly, Wikipedia administration is completely useless, since Clockback has never been blocked before. Indeed, an undeclared probably paid/COI editor merrily edited Education Policy Institute and never bothered to even post on the talkpage, while Clockback did discuss the matter extensively on the talkpage. Now Clockback is indef blocked while nobody gives a fuck about COI. Out of sight, out of mind. Nice work. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
arbitrary break
For just a moment, consider the following hypothesis seriously: "Clockback is in the 95th percentile of COI editors. His edits are restrained, largely justified, largely beneficial to the encyclopedia, and any harm they did is minimal." You may respond with disbelief: "WTF Kingsindian? Are you mad?". Well, I am indeed mad, but am I right? Let's apply Cromwell's rule.
For evaluating such a hypothesis, one needs to look at all the evidence, not scattered diffs. And then we update the probability of the hypothesis accordingly. Space does not permit me to offer a full accounting, but here's what I'll do: I'll take three articles which Clockback edited, and look at all the edits they made to the article, as well the edits they made to the talkpage. Note that these are the articles which JzG and Jytdog themselves cited, so I am taking the hardest possible sample.Article 1: Education Policy Institute: This was the state of the article before Clockback edited it. It was largely written by, as I mentioned above, a likely paid/COI editor. JzG seems to have indef blocked the editor after I pointed it out, but that was never my point. Clockback pointed out on the talkpage that the article nowhere mentions the link between this organization and the Liberal Democrats. They discussed this matter on the talkpage. This information is present in the lead of the article now. I count this a clear case of WP:HERE.
Article 2: Peter Hitchens The edits to this article go back a long way. I will only look at the edits post-2009 -- namely those discussed in Talk:Peter Hitchens/Archive 4 and Talk:Peter_Hitchens. I count at least > 90% support for my hypothesis. Let's take a look.
| Examination of talkpage edits |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Now to article space:
| Article space edits |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
First, a general comment. I count 21 edits by Hitchens in the past 500 edits. This means that to an overwhelming extent the article does not have any kind of spin that Hitchens themselves put on it. It is largely written by other, independent editors. Now specific edits. I can't look at all 21 edits (this reply is already too long), so here's what I'll do. I'll look at the 1st, 6th, 11th, 16th and 21st edit.
|
Article 3: George Bell (bishop): I'll carry out the same procedure. First look at talk space edits, then article page edits. Again, I submit that there's > 90% support for my hypothesis.
| Talk page edits |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Now to article space:
| Article space edits |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I will only consider the edits PRIOR to this unfortunate affair. As I have already said, a (short) block for edit-warring is entirely proper in the circumstances. No dispute there. Therefore, I will look at the edits prior to 26 Nov 2016. Clockback made 27 edits in total (most of them are copyedits). I'll consolidate the copyedits and discuss them all.
|
Punchline: I have tried to make a case for a hypothesis: "Clockback is in the 95th percentile of COI editors. His edits are restrained, largely justified, largely beneficial to the encyclopedia, and any harm they did is minimal." On its face, it looks absolutely absurd and is rejected vehemently by the "endorse block" people here. Consider, please, that you might be mistaken. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:17, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- If I can interject here, Kingsindian: I am convinced clockback’s editing is good faithed, but he has adopted a battleground mentality such as recruiting people via his twitter account to come here and vote against his being blocked and other issues (this could well be due to a lack of familiarity with our policies). Many of his contributions were indeed helpful and he has the potential to be a productive editor, without the drama. I am not convinced there were major COI issues, outside of him being emotional about social causes and issues - especially as he was open about his identity and was willing to use talk pages. If he could familiarise himself with our policies and guidelines, and agree not to repeat certain problematic behaviour, I would likely, after the standard six month period, support a later appeal to lift the block. I would like to be pinged if a future appeal is submitted. You are making me think Kingsindian, and making me look closer at what motivates clockback’s editing, and I think behind the emotion and drama is a decent guy who means well and cares about injustices and people, it is just the community doesn’t want the associated drama is the issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your good faith does you credit, but all the available evidence is that Hitchens edits only where ha has a COI, and many of his edits (e.g. to the articles on his work) have very strong overtones of self-promotion. His interest in Wikipedia appears entirely restricted to advancing his off-wiki agenda. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- On this COI page, Talk:Peter_Hitchens/Archive_4, taken as a random example, he is interacting diplomatically and seeking consensus with other editors. He is definitely opinionated which could be seen as biased in several subject areas he edits, but this is not necessarily the same as having a COI. I am not in denial that he has behaved poorly and warranted being blocked. However, I would have liked him to have talk page access so that I could discuss some concerns I have and offer advice, but that right was taken away from me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your good faith does you credit, but all the available evidence is that Hitchens edits only where ha has a COI, and many of his edits (e.g. to the articles on his work) have very strong overtones of self-promotion. His interest in Wikipedia appears entirely restricted to advancing his off-wiki agenda. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- If I can interject here, Kingsindian: I am convinced clockback’s editing is good faithed, but he has adopted a battleground mentality such as recruiting people via his twitter account to come here and vote against his being blocked and other issues (this could well be due to a lack of familiarity with our policies). Many of his contributions were indeed helpful and he has the potential to be a productive editor, without the drama. I am not convinced there were major COI issues, outside of him being emotional about social causes and issues - especially as he was open about his identity and was willing to use talk pages. If he could familiarise himself with our policies and guidelines, and agree not to repeat certain problematic behaviour, I would likely, after the standard six month period, support a later appeal to lift the block. I would like to be pinged if a future appeal is submitted. You are making me think Kingsindian, and making me look closer at what motivates clockback’s editing, and I think behind the emotion and drama is a decent guy who means well and cares about injustices and people, it is just the community doesn’t want the associated drama is the issue.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Kingsindian. Your description of my perception of the initial block is not correct, but I don't want to quibble about that. The bulk of the post seems to be what you have been wanting to say for a while now, and I am glad you have had the chance to say it.
- Before I respond, would you please clarify if this "95th percentile of COI editors" language is based on some data or if we have data to evaluate it with, or if that is just use of the anchoring tactic/rhetoric (and by that please read "bullshit")? If it is the latter I would be happy to have a conversation about a hypothesis like "Clockback's behavior as a conflicted editor has not been unreasonable" or the like.Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: "95th percentile" just means "better than the vast majority". I don't have any hard data on this, no. But as you know, I have been a regular at the site-that-should-not-be-named, and have seen tons of COI editing on Wikipedia. So I believe my general impression is not entirely inaccurate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK. :) I am happy to have a conversation about how his behavior fits in the range of conflicted editor behavior, based on our experiences/observations of conflicted editor behavior. I have real world stuff today; will respond tonight. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, how about supporting an unblock with mentoring? I just changed my vote to this, and I offered to mentor and I imagine Kingsindian might help as well. Clockback actually asked for Wikipedians to help him so should accept mentorship, albeit in a disruptive fashion of inserting this appeal into the article text! I assume Kingsindian feels a likely injustice is occurring here and would like people to reevaluate the situation and how they voted, so.....--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think Clockback has any interest -- not a whit -- in understanding what we do here and most importantly, how and why. I tried back in 2015. You can bring a horse to water... Jytdog (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jytdog, how about supporting an unblock with mentoring? I just changed my vote to this, and I offered to mentor and I imagine Kingsindian might help as well. Clockback actually asked for Wikipedians to help him so should accept mentorship, albeit in a disruptive fashion of inserting this appeal into the article text! I assume Kingsindian feels a likely injustice is occurring here and would like people to reevaluate the situation and how they voted, so.....--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK. :) I am happy to have a conversation about how his behavior fits in the range of conflicted editor behavior, based on our experiences/observations of conflicted editor behavior. I have real world stuff today; will respond tonight. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Jytdog: "95th percentile" just means "better than the vast majority". I don't have any hard data on this, no. But as you know, I have been a regular at the site-that-should-not-be-named, and have seen tons of COI editing on Wikipedia. So I believe my general impression is not entirely inaccurate. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 16:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
OK, so let's look at their edits to the EPI article and its talk page.
- 1st diff 4 Nov. 2016. Unsourced addition of "closely associated with the Liberal Democrats. No edit note
- 2nd diff. 16 Nov. 2016 Inappropriate unsourced editorializing in mainspace. No edit note.
- 1st and only talk page contrib 26 Nov. 2016. A bunch of unsourced opinion and speculation including
What is more the EPI received corporate donations of almost £300,000 in its last recorded year. Given its governance, it seems more than possible that these donations came from supporters of Academy trusts.
. - 3rd diff to article 5 December 2017. Terrible edit. Strips tags without addressing the issues including the "COI" and "primary source" tags. Adds unsourced opinion from 1st diff again. Adds a bunch of primary sources -- in fact only primary sources (!) and content based on them. Adds content about their "current" leadership. The next day the edit was very rightly reverted.
- 4th diff. 7 December 2017. Again restores the Liberal Democrat thing, now sourced... wait for it.. to his own blog post entitled.. wait for it.. "How Many Journalists Realise what the Education Policy Institute Is?"
I do not consider anything there as good faith, aiming for the mission, or even remotely concerned with how we generate content here in WP. It is a perfect example of him abusing WP like it is his own soapbox/blog.... Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Channel 4 News Incidentally, the source they quote, Mark Pack, describes "CentreForum" as "the closest thing the Liberal Democrats have had to a think tank".
- Schools Week Please read the entire article -- it's all about the matter.
- The Economist
...Centre Forum, favourite think tank of the "small state" wing of the Liberal Democratic party...
Ok, having established the truth, we now look at ALL of Clockback's edits.
We first note that at the time Clockback edited the article, there was no mention of this extremely relevant and extremely true fact. Indeed, Clockback's initial attempt to add this information was reverted by ... wait for it ... the likely undeclared paid/COI editor who I mentioned before (and who is now indeffed), and who never bothered to discuss on the talkpage -- and who also didn't use an edit summary for a single edit.
After being reverted, Clockback opened a talk page discussion about the matter. What you call "unsourced speculation" is actually the truth -- editor Seaweed confirmed its truth in the discussion itself. Clockback says in effect, please update the article to acknowledge this extremely relevant and extremely true fact, and says that he will wait till December 15 (twenty days after his post), so that someone gets around to it.
Editor Seaweed makes some edits to the article, but as you can see from the version here, there is STILL no mention of the extremely relevant and extremely true Lib Dem connection.
One year later, nothing had been done. Clockback tries to add the completely relevant and completely true information again. I don't understand much of the edit, because Clockback actually says that In June 2016 CentreForum became the Education Policy Institute – focusing its research on education and young people’s mental health, and making clear it is an entirely independent, politically impartial organisation
. This is the opposite of the point which Clockback has been trying to "push" into the article. So I interpret this as trying to provide some amount of WP:NPOV -- perhaps this is simply too much WP:AGF from my side. The edit was, overall, clumsy (as you note) and was reverted.
As of this moment, the article is still in a terrible state. It could easily qualify to be in the "Crap articles" and "Obvious paid editors are obvious" threads on the un-nameable site. However, one thing is for sure: the person who was trying to add extremely true and extremely relevant information to the article has been indeffed. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:COI does not contain an exemption for situations where you don't get what you want, and Clockback's talk page commentary makes it absolutely clear that he will follow COI rules only as long as he does get what he wants - pretty much as you outline above, in fact. Soon we will have namespace-based blocking, at which point we can change the block to mainspace only and that will be fine. He only edits where he has a COI, he does not respect COI policy if he doesn't get his way, so we can control that with a mainspace block when it becomes available, thus we get the "benefit" of his talk page commentary (I am not convinced, but you seem to be and I take that on trust) without the problems caused by his COI edits to the encyclopaedia itself. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- He has heavily edited George Bell (bishop) and was reasonably blocked for policy violations on this article. What is the alleged COI on this article? To me he has formed an independent opinion (without a COI) which might be POV and possibly biased and has been vocal publicly in his opinions but I don’t think having a strong opinion constitutes COI.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:COI says: "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns", it further covers actual, potential, and apparent COI: Here, "journalist Peter Hitchens" -- the person -- is in the apparent Bishop George Bell Report, "journalist Peter Hitchens" is mentioned material in the report's investigation of the topic of George Bell (bishop). One may be forgiven for not knowing that "Peter Hitchens" is discussed in the apparent report, if you just read Clockback's representations of wanting to write about that report on the George Bell (bishop) Wikipedia topic, and that this User read the entire report, because Clockback apparently fails to disclose on Wikipedia that "journalist Peter Hitchens" is actually in the report - a seemingly telling omission by Clockback of relationship and connection to the George Bell (bishop) Wikipedia topic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is not a COI, he is mentioned in the report because he has a POV and pushed it in public, but doing so is not a COI - if it is then somewhere between 99% and 100% of WP editors on Donald Trump articles need topic banned as a matter of urgency, but who then will edit the article.... Anyway, Peter Hitchens is just mentioned briefly in the report and he did not have any involvement, to my knowledge, in writing that report. He doesn’t have to disclose he is mentioned in the report since it is irrelevant. In fact, even if he had wrote the whole report by himself he could still cautiously cite it, per WP:SELFCITE. Still not seen any evidence he has a COI in George Bell article, in other articles he edited, sure.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it is WP:COI. Come on, now. You obviously have no proof that many Trump editors are also writing about Trump reports in which the User is discussed, nor any basis to claim that. You may somehow think and contend "Peter Hitchens" is irrelevant to the Bishop George Bell report and topic but that is just your baseless unsourced contention, because the investigator included "Peter Hicthens" in the report making, "Peter Hitchens" relevant -- your "lack of involvement" claim is also misleading, again because "Peter Hitchens" is there in the report, which is involvement. I was coming back to expand that I did find Clockback disclosed on the talk page that he is a "partisan" (and therefore he was reluctant to write in the article) on George Bell, which is a type of disclosure, even though he did not disclose "Peter Hitchens" is in the report. His reluctance to edit was correct (he should have stuck with that and not edited) because that is a type of WP:COI editing, you can't be a party, and be discussed in reports about the topic, and also write about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being clearer: My reference to Trump editors was about people having a significant POV and then editing the Trump article, i.e. having a POV and pushing it is not a COI, I did say being mentioned in a report you had no control over is irrelevant to COI. I read the COI page and quoted SELFCITE to you, it is your opinion that is unsourced to policy and guidelines. Yes, partisan, as in biased (like 99% of our Trump editors) which is not necessarily the same as COI - and your example of him preferring to use the talk page rather than edit the article because he is partisan shows evidence that he was trying to work with people, not against them, but things obviously went south and he was justifiably blocked. The question is whether this block should be indefinite or if he deserves a second chance. I have been persuaded that he deserves a second chance. Can you link to policy or guidelines that prevent him from using that source he is mentioned in? I linked you to WP:SELFCITE on WP:COI page; he could have edited the article even if he wrote the report himself. It appears there are other editors who have the opposite POV to Clockback who helped to maintain NPOV, so I am not overly worried about that article being turned into a POV monster. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your odd-diversion to WP:SELFCITE is nonsensical because it has no basis in fact, here. (Similar to your made-up Trump claims). Yes, the WP:COI guideline says use common sense, the common sense that arises when an editor says they should not be writing on the topic, and the facts here are, the report makes "Peter Hitchens" relevant to, connected to, and in relationship to the George Bell topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Literaturegeek and User:Alanscottwalker... i kind of struggle with "COI" being applied to Hitchens with respect to the George Bell article. What is very true, is that Hitchens was very embroiled in the real world dispute over the church's handling of the allegations. I noted here at the Bell talk page that the noted Carlile report (the definitive "postmortem" on the church's handling of the matter) had a paragraph that said:
There was a perceived problem that people such as the journalist Peter Hitchens, who recently had described Bishop Bell as a personal hero, would regard the Church as ‘caving in’ and would cause a media storm if the Church was insufficiently robust in its position. In this context, it was recommended that it was important that the Church openly should say that it had ‘settled a claim’, so that it was clear ‘there has been a legal test and an investigative threshold has been set’."
The report overall found that the church "oversteered" its process toward a position sympathetic to the woman, for several reasons. This was apparently one of them. - Somebody that involved in a public dispute has no business getting involved in directly editing the topic. It is really an WP:ADVOCACY issue more than COI per se. If you check his edits to that page they are a continuation of his real world raw advocacy. In other words, exactly like his edits to the EPI page, but this time on steroids.
- I will say that edits like this (which is also full of unsourced opinion) encroached on BLPCOI by changing "female victim" to "female alleged victim" which is moving very much toward dehumanizing her - a living person. (the "alleged" was restored by him again here... it remained until I did this, changing it to simply "the woman"). In fairness to Hitchens I think he generally tried to be respectful of that person. But that kind of advocacy edit pretty much trampled on her.
- It is really abuse of WP as a soapbox. Which is what I have been saying all along. Kingsindian has been framing this as some kind of strict COI claim, but this is not what I (at least) have been emphasizing.
- I also call your attention to the recent Arbcom case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP_issues_on_British_politics_articles, which is a bit different as it involved WP:BLPCOI (which is only marginally at play here with Clockback, if at all) but yet relevant, as it was about somebody abusing Wikipedia as a soapbox with respect to recent British politics. I have had that case very much in mind through all of this, as I reckon (I am only reckoning; I do not know) Guy did; Guy brought that Arbcom case after having been involved in administrative matters relating to it prior to that. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's the old common sense adage 'don't become part of the story'. When you are part of the story because the independent report discusses you, there is a conflict when you seek to write encyclopedically on the story that you are now part of. (All the more so, because we can't dislcose in our encyclopedia article, 'Dear Reader, I'm 'so and so', I was involved here and here is my take, and opinions of what went on . . .', to give the reader a tip-off) As for a more general case of opinion-writers coming here to cite themselves and/or write up their own opinions in Wikipedia, it seems doubtful anyone could think that's a really good idea under any of our alphabet policies. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for not being clearer: My reference to Trump editors was about people having a significant POV and then editing the Trump article, i.e. having a POV and pushing it is not a COI, I did say being mentioned in a report you had no control over is irrelevant to COI. I read the COI page and quoted SELFCITE to you, it is your opinion that is unsourced to policy and guidelines. Yes, partisan, as in biased (like 99% of our Trump editors) which is not necessarily the same as COI - and your example of him preferring to use the talk page rather than edit the article because he is partisan shows evidence that he was trying to work with people, not against them, but things obviously went south and he was justifiably blocked. The question is whether this block should be indefinite or if he deserves a second chance. I have been persuaded that he deserves a second chance. Can you link to policy or guidelines that prevent him from using that source he is mentioned in? I linked you to WP:SELFCITE on WP:COI page; he could have edited the article even if he wrote the report himself. It appears there are other editors who have the opposite POV to Clockback who helped to maintain NPOV, so I am not overly worried about that article being turned into a POV monster. --Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, it is WP:COI. Come on, now. You obviously have no proof that many Trump editors are also writing about Trump reports in which the User is discussed, nor any basis to claim that. You may somehow think and contend "Peter Hitchens" is irrelevant to the Bishop George Bell report and topic but that is just your baseless unsourced contention, because the investigator included "Peter Hicthens" in the report making, "Peter Hitchens" relevant -- your "lack of involvement" claim is also misleading, again because "Peter Hitchens" is there in the report, which is involvement. I was coming back to expand that I did find Clockback disclosed on the talk page that he is a "partisan" (and therefore he was reluctant to write in the article) on George Bell, which is a type of disclosure, even though he did not disclose "Peter Hitchens" is in the report. His reluctance to edit was correct (he should have stuck with that and not edited) because that is a type of WP:COI editing, you can't be a party, and be discussed in reports about the topic, and also write about it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- That is not a COI, he is mentioned in the report because he has a POV and pushed it in public, but doing so is not a COI - if it is then somewhere between 99% and 100% of WP editors on Donald Trump articles need topic banned as a matter of urgency, but who then will edit the article.... Anyway, Peter Hitchens is just mentioned briefly in the report and he did not have any involvement, to my knowledge, in writing that report. He doesn’t have to disclose he is mentioned in the report since it is irrelevant. In fact, even if he had wrote the whole report by himself he could still cautiously cite it, per WP:SELFCITE. Still not seen any evidence he has a COI in George Bell article, in other articles he edited, sure.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:COI says: "Wikipedians must place the interests of the encyclopedia and its readers above personal concerns", it further covers actual, potential, and apparent COI: Here, "journalist Peter Hitchens" -- the person -- is in the apparent Bishop George Bell Report, "journalist Peter Hitchens" is mentioned material in the report's investigation of the topic of George Bell (bishop). One may be forgiven for not knowing that "Peter Hitchens" is discussed in the apparent report, if you just read Clockback's representations of wanting to write about that report on the George Bell (bishop) Wikipedia topic, and that this User read the entire report, because Clockback apparently fails to disclose on Wikipedia that "journalist Peter Hitchens" is actually in the report - a seemingly telling omission by Clockback of relationship and connection to the George Bell (bishop) Wikipedia topic. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- He has heavily edited George Bell (bishop) and was reasonably blocked for policy violations on this article. What is the alleged COI on this article? To me he has formed an independent opinion (without a COI) which might be POV and possibly biased and has been vocal publicly in his opinions but I don’t think having a strong opinion constitutes COI.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, he does not say that he will follow COI rules only as long as he gets what he wants. You keep repeating this unfair claim without any proof. In fact, Clockback was not very happy with my rewrite of the George Bell article (I was almost entirely ignorant of the matter, so my rewrite wasn't very good). But he accepted my rewrite as a reasonable compromise position. On the matter of the EPI, he happened to be right on the facts of the matter, so he tried to insert the extremely true and extremely relevant information very infrequently, after nobody had done it for a year after he had posted on the talkpage. This is a massive failure of the supposed ideal COI process: "oh just make your points on the talk page and we'll deal with it. If you actually dare to edit the article, we will screw you.". Doesn't being right actually count for anything? Or are we all just wikilawyers here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- You appear to be the only one who disputes this interpretation of his talk page statements. Have you ever read his column? I need to check the article to see if "opinionated" is actually his baptismal middle name. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, he does not say that he will follow COI rules only as long as he gets what he wants. You keep repeating this unfair claim without any proof. In fact, Clockback was not very happy with my rewrite of the George Bell article (I was almost entirely ignorant of the matter, so my rewrite wasn't very good). But he accepted my rewrite as a reasonable compromise position. On the matter of the EPI, he happened to be right on the facts of the matter, so he tried to insert the extremely true and extremely relevant information very infrequently, after nobody had done it for a year after he had posted on the talkpage. This is a massive failure of the supposed ideal COI process: "oh just make your points on the talk page and we'll deal with it. If you actually dare to edit the article, we will screw you.". Doesn't being right actually count for anything? Or are we all just wikilawyers here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Kingsindian, in the EPI edits, you seem to have missed that at the time they inserted the LibDem claims, this was already outdated. You give sources supporting their addition, but all these sources are from before the change of affiliation. When they made this change in Nov 2016[6], they reverted the article to the situation before June 2016[7]. When a think tank has officially severed its ties with a political party and has become independent, it is not a "factual" or "neutral" edit to remove "independent" and replace it with "is [...]closely linked to LibDem". It was wrong in 2016, and the way they readded it in late 2017[8] was a lot worse, both the contents, the extreme COI source, and the edit summary. Defending these edits as "the person who was trying to add extremely true and extremely relevant information to the article" is a very charitable view of what was clearly one element in his pattern of COI editing, ignoring the changes made to the structure of EPI earlier and casting it again as the political thinktank it used to be, with his own unreliable POV blog as source. Trying to argue for unblocking based on the edits to EPI seems very misguided. Fram (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Fram: Clockback's point was that "independent" is a self-described label, nothing more. When an organization which was started by Lib Dem politicians, was very closely associated with Lib Dems, and even now is headed by a former Lib Dem politician (David Laws) some people might feel that calling it "independent" is a bit much. I see the same sort of fights over whether to call B'Tselem as "leftist" or "started by leftists". Go to the talk page and see these arguments. Nobody claims that people who wish to insert this kind of stuff should be banned from the B'Tselem page. The EPI article contains a big section on the history of EPI, where there is a throwaway sentence about it being a liberal think tank. Isn't a sentence or two summarizing this section appropriate in the lead?
These are all essentially content disputes. A blunt instrument like an indef block is not the way to deal with them. Again: Clockback waited for over a year before someone did something about the points he was raising. Correct or not, it was certainly not a wild claim, and certainly not made in bad-faith. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 11:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- This is not about the removal of "independent", but about the insertion of the political affiliation as a currect fact, after this was no longer the case, and sourced to his own blog which makes it quite clear that his point was not simply the removal of "independent". "it was certainly not a wild claim, and certainly not made in bad-faith." YMMV. Fram (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The edit did both things. The second part, to be clear, was calling it "closely linked to the Lib Dems and the Academies movement". I have already given the connection with the Lib Dems. As Hitchens points out in his blog, the latter includes
notably Sir Paul Marshall, Chairman of ARK Schools and also Chairman of EPI, and Sir Theodore Agnew, a Trustee of EPI and also chairman and sponsor of a multi-academy trust based in Norfolk
. Again, the claim is neither wrong, nor wild, nor made in bad faith.One can debate if and how to present these things in the lead. There's a section on EPI's history, maybe it should have been presented there first, and then summarized in the lead. But these kind of disputes all the time on think tank/NGO articles (I already gave the B'Tselem example, and can give many more). These are essentially content disputes. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- That would be Paul Marshall (investor), who left LibDem in 2015 (i.e. before the edits under discussion), and Theodore Agnew, Baron Agnew of Oulton, who never was a LibDem (as far as I can tell) but a Conservative? In what way is Agnew, past trustee of the rather more conservative Policy Exchange think tank as well (founded by Michael Gove and Francis Maude), evidence that EPI is a LibDem affiliated think tank? Oh right, because Hitchens says so on his own blog... he is cherry-picking evidence (taking the LibDems as evidence that it is a LibDem thinktank, but ignoring the non-LibDems, who are not important enough to counter the political affiliation but suddenly are important enough to establish the "academies movement" connection), to support his POV. Since that is all he has done here this year (and, as discussed here, in 2017 as well), and he gives no indication of changing this approach in the future (in the many declined unblock requests), I see no reason to unblock him. Fram (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have argued enough here, and I am rather tired of the whole thing. Do what you wish. This will be my last comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Did Kingsindian meatpuppet edit the disputed claim into the EPI article? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Education_Policy_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=853843921 -- 2603:3024:200:300:280C:B160:52AA:3448 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have argued enough here, and I am rather tired of the whole thing. Do what you wish. This will be my last comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- That would be Paul Marshall (investor), who left LibDem in 2015 (i.e. before the edits under discussion), and Theodore Agnew, Baron Agnew of Oulton, who never was a LibDem (as far as I can tell) but a Conservative? In what way is Agnew, past trustee of the rather more conservative Policy Exchange think tank as well (founded by Michael Gove and Francis Maude), evidence that EPI is a LibDem affiliated think tank? Oh right, because Hitchens says so on his own blog... he is cherry-picking evidence (taking the LibDems as evidence that it is a LibDem thinktank, but ignoring the non-LibDems, who are not important enough to counter the political affiliation but suddenly are important enough to establish the "academies movement" connection), to support his POV. Since that is all he has done here this year (and, as discussed here, in 2017 as well), and he gives no indication of changing this approach in the future (in the many declined unblock requests), I see no reason to unblock him. Fram (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The edit did both things. The second part, to be clear, was calling it "closely linked to the Lib Dems and the Academies movement". I have already given the connection with the Lib Dems. As Hitchens points out in his blog, the latter includes
- This is not about the removal of "independent", but about the insertion of the political affiliation as a currect fact, after this was no longer the case, and sourced to his own blog which makes it quite clear that his point was not simply the removal of "independent". "it was certainly not a wild claim, and certainly not made in bad-faith." YMMV. Fram (talk) 11:34, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Can somebody restore Clockback's user talkpage access?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I told Clockback that he can respond to the points raised here on his talkpage, and I'll transfer them here. It's somewhat tedious, but working. I have done this process before with other blocked users. For some reason admin Jpgordon has swooped in and removed talkpage access. They are not responding to messages, so I suspect they're offline. Can some admin restore Clockback's talkpage access? It hurts nobody and makes this process fairer. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TPA removal. If jpgordon hadn't removed TPA, I would have. The discussion there was not productive and Clockback had taken to canvassing for support on the above discussion. They may use UTRS. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- You want to remove talk page access in the middle of a block review? Why? What possible justification could it have? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say that the discussion above seems pretty clear in terms of a result and the reason for it. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Who are you to prematurely close the discussion? Nobody died and made you king. Ridiculous. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:27, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'd say that the discussion above seems pretty clear in terms of a result and the reason for it. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- You want to remove talk page access in the middle of a block review? Why? What possible justification could it have? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I am flabbergasted, frankly at the amount of correspondence this issue has generated. The individual who has been blocked (from his own talkpage) has revealed his identity as Peter Hitchens. Mr Hitchens is, and has been for many years a well known and respected journalist in the British media.
The arrogance of anonymous admins such as "331dot" and "jpgordon" is frankly staggering. Have you people nothing better to do than bully other users? Mr Hitchens is perfectly entitled to talk to others about issues affecting his life and you have no right of any kind to prevent him from doing so. What are you people? Some sort of Orwellian thought police brigade?! What moral right do you have to dictate to other users of this platform? I disagree with you 331dot. Are you able to handle that? Can you bear to have others disagree with your position? (That is a rhetorical question).
This episode, to my mind highlights a very big flaw in the functioning of wikipedia. Namely, that certain users who have an elevated status: "admins" are able to act without impunity. I believe that in order for wikipedia to work effectively, these individuals must be subject to some sort of public accountability. Perhaps the elevation to admin status should be accompanied by a requirement for them to reveal their true identities (as Mr Hitchens has done) in order for others to hold them truly accountable. They should not be able to simply hide in a cowardly fashion behind their aliases and bully other users. John2o2o2o (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jpgordon isn't anonymous. He's J P Gordon. DrKay (talk) 20:20, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- John2o2o2o You are certainly entitled to your views. I am perfectly capable of handling disagreement, that isn't the issue here. 331dot (talk) 20:26, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Who are you "331dot"? And thank you, but I don't need your permission to express a viewpoint.
- Mr Hitchens is also entitled to his views. You should immediately restore his access to his page and leave him alone. In my humble opinion. And the issue at hand here is the high handed actions of "admins".
- Furthermore, I have never heard of J P Gordon. Perhaps you would like to explain to me (and again this is a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer) in what area of public life J P Gordon (whoever he or she is) has any power or authority over Mr Hitchens? John2o2o2o (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Odd that you (213 edits in 6 years), of all people, should question the bon fides of 331dot (admin, 73,070 edits in 6 years) and jpgordon (admin, checkuser, 62,984 edits in 14 years). What the hell have you ever done in the service of Wikipedia? The most you've ever edited an article was 4 edits to Ancestry of Elizabeth II. It appears that all you really do is chat on talk pages (78.4% of your total), where you like to present your own opinions as an "professional genealogist" as being more reliable than reliable published sources, claiming you discovered facts before the first published mention of them, and failing to give your sources when asked to (i.e. [9], [10], [11], [12]) Other editors can make their own assessment of what that makes you, except, at the very least, it makes you someone who is not at all conversant with Wikipedia policy, and really has no place at the table for this discussion, because, frankly, you don't know what you're talking about. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't granting permission; my permission is irrelevant. 331dot (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- @John2o2o2o: See my reply to 185.192.69.53. People are allowed to think whatever they want. Outside of wikipedia, they are allowed to say whatever they want within the bounds of law and if wherever they are saying it allows it. On wikipedia, the primary purpose of discussion is to improve wikipedia. There is some limited tolerance of other discussion but it's inherently limited and any discussion which harms wikipedia is not welcome. Notably we consider that it's harmful to use your talkpage when blocked for anything other than requesting an unblock which includes responded to any unblock discussion but does not include canvassing others to help you get unblocked. In fact canvassing is a more harmful use of you talk page than a lot of other nonsense that goes on on blocked editor's talk pages. (Canvassing is harmful regardless of whether you're blocked.) Note that as I said below, I have no specific opinion on anything that went on here. Actually what I said to 185 still applies. I have not looked at the specifics and frankly probably won't be doing so. I am simply dealing with your apparent belief that wikipedia is a free for all where people can talk about whatever they want. It isn't. In the modern age, there are so many forums and social media, plus the easy ability to start a blog or website where people can do that stuff. And as I understand it, the subject is a journalist anyway likely giving them even more avenues. Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Jpgordon removed talkpage access and immediately went offline, leaving no response to messages. What kind of WP:ADMINACCT is this? On these grounds alone, the action should be reversed. This whole matter is bringing out the absolute worst in Wikipedia. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Admins or any user are not required to be on Wikipedia 24/7. People have lives and are all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody asked them to be on 24/7. However, if they have to leave, they should at least have the decency to not take admin actions at the last moment, actions which directly impede an ongoing discussion. It's rather sad that I have to explain this to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- If we required admins to be online for several hours or more after their actions, we would surely have a lot of problems because things simply aren't being done. It's entirely reasonable for an admin to take non contentious actions just before they expect to go offline, and it surely happens many times every single day. I agree it can be problematic when an admin takes some contentious action and then is offline for a prolonged period although speaking generally, it's easy to see it's not always going to be obvious when an action is contentious. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- They left less than 15 minutes after, not "several hours" after. And are you saying that removing talkpage access in the middle of a block review is an example of a "non-contentious action"? Meanwhile, here's what WP:ADMINACCT says:
Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.
They could have posted in this thread to say that they're leaving, and maybe someone else could have handled it. A hundred things could have been done. I'm rather stunned that people are defending this behaviour. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 21:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)- 15 minutes or a few hours is largely besides the point. Ultimately if someone is not online for a few hours, there's no guarantee they are going to be online to deal with any fall out. Even a few hours doesn't guarantee it although if it takes a few hours for anyone to notice there's a reasonable chance it's not that important that timely action results. Do you not understand what 'speaking generally' means? In case it's still unclear I have no specific comments on the specific actions here. They are completely besides my point. I was simply replying to obvious nonsense suggesting something which would be extremely harmful to wikipedia namely that admins should not take action unless they expect to be online to deal with any fallout. This is clearly utter nonsense and I can't believe anyone would actually say that. And let me repeat for the last time, I have no specific comments on what happened here. They are entirely besides my point. I only wished to deal with utter nonsense express on AN suggesting something which would be incredibly harmful to wikipedia. If a page clearly needs to be protecting because of persistent proxy vandalism, or a non proxy vandal is going on a vandalism spree or whatever other nonsense that clearly requires quick admin action, I should not have to waste my time finding an admin who is going to be online in 15 minutes or whatever the fuck time period someone thinks is necessary. And yes this is a big deal to me because I live in NZ and at certain times of editing, somewhat less in than in the past but it still happens, there are a lot fewer admins around. And I don't like wasting my time dicking around with IRC or whatever the fuck you think I should waste my time dicking around to find an admin to take action who is going to be around for however the fuck you think they should be to take action which anyone who has spent any time on wikipedia knows is needed and does not need someone to hang around for. Nil Einne (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- They left less than 15 minutes after, not "several hours" after. And are you saying that removing talkpage access in the middle of a block review is an example of a "non-contentious action"? Meanwhile, here's what WP:ADMINACCT says:
- If we required admins to be online for several hours or more after their actions, we would surely have a lot of problems because things simply aren't being done. It's entirely reasonable for an admin to take non contentious actions just before they expect to go offline, and it surely happens many times every single day. I agree it can be problematic when an admin takes some contentious action and then is offline for a prolonged period although speaking generally, it's easy to see it's not always going to be obvious when an action is contentious. Nil Einne (talk) 21:10, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Nobody asked them to be on 24/7. However, if they have to leave, they should at least have the decency to not take admin actions at the last moment, actions which directly impede an ongoing discussion. It's rather sad that I have to explain this to you. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Admins or any user are not required to be on Wikipedia 24/7. People have lives and are all volunteers here. 331dot (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Related: UTRS appeal #22275. SQLQuery me! 21:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- - Jpgordon removed talkpage access and immediately went offline - disgusting action - see Gordon s recent activity is total minimal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jpgordon - to jump on this is awful authority. This admin action and the block itself is embarrasing, see and read Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability- Govindaharihari (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Disgusting" I do not think that word means what you think it means. Perhaps you meant "disgraceful", which would not be true either, but would at least be apt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Any admin who wants to is welcome to restore the user page access. I know nothing whatsoever of this conflict other than what I was drawn to as a result of the request for unblock. Just like his unblock requests, the verbiage on his talk page did not seem to be addressing the reasons for his block, and did not seem to me to be going in a useful direction. As far as "who is jpgordon", well, I'm probably one of the least anonymous editors on Wikipedia; I've been entirely public in my networked life since the early days of usenet and BBSing. But that's meaningless here. The question is asked, "in what area of public life J P Gordon (whoever he or she is) has any power or authority over Mr Hitchens?" That's easy. I'm one of 1,211 administrators on Wikipedia, and, like each of us could, I exerted blocking authority regarding the Wikipedia user account identified as User:Clockback, with the intent of reducing disruption to Wikipedia. Obviously it has failed in this instance; the disruption instead increased. Oh well. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:29, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well you shouldn't have jumped in should you. No one cares if your anonomous or not or who you are you are a wikipedia admin and should adhere to standards for that. Your comments are exactly similar to the blocking admins claim , ow, I didnt know anything I just blocked , I just removed talkpage access - laughable that our admins are aware of so little what is going on and that they use tools we provide them and trust them with without checking what the full picture is. Sadly, I am fully aware that Gordon and Guy are both really smart fully aware experianced editors and know exactly what is going on and it would do them and us a service if they both admitted that. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- There is no "standard" or policy which requires admins to be available around the clock, regardless of what action they have taken. Please take a look at WP:ADMINACCT to see in what ways admins are accountable for their actions. Jpgordon removed Clockback's TPA at 14:15, 4 August 2018, posted about it on Clockback's talk page, and then went offline. Their very first edit once they returned online is the one you see a few comments above this one, explaining their action. That is the very definition of administrator accountability. Your complaints are totally without merit, as are Kingsindian's, and you both need to calm down and stop bloviating. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- For the benefit of those of us with less hyperactive imaginations, could you detail what, precisely, you think Guy and Gordon have 'going on'. Nick (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support restoring talk page access: I think his talk page access should be restored. I understand his behaviour was disruptive but the community needs to be able to consider any further comments for evidence of remorse/regret and willingness to change.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- He had ample opportunity to do that, and chose not to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Literaturegeek: Clockback appealed his talk page revocation via UTRS and I can confirm for you that there was absolutely zero hint of "remorse/regret and willingness to change". He flatly claimed that he was blocked out of spite. Swarm ♠ 00:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don’t think allowing him temporary talk page access for one or two days while this unblock request is in process is a big drain on the community. My line of thinking is that talk page access is necessary, or at least helpful, in the hope he could reflect on himself and realise that needs to and will stop being a WP:DICK and be able to voice this to the community who are voting on whether to unblock him. I realise that it is bit of a long shot but he deserves that chance to prove himself to be a long-term benefit or negative editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- He'll almost certainly get temporary talk-page access back at some point. If the community endorses the indef block -- as it certainly seems it will -- the block then become a community ban. If and when Clockback appeals that ban, some admin will likely restore TPA so his appeal can be copied over. Under normal circumstances, they might even unblock him to participate in the appeal directly -- but in this case, that's quite unlikely to happen, given Clockback's behavior after the indef block; I don;t think even the AGF-ingest admin would trust him with that license. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TPA removal - Clockback was using the talk page to file frivolous unblock requests which blamed other for his block, and did not address the reasons he was blocked. Further, he was also using it for WP:POLEMIC purposes. The primary -- if not only --- purpose of a talk page to a blocked editor is to deal with getting unblocked, but Clockback showed by his actions that he did not take that seriously. Hence the removal of TPA is appropriate and should be continued. Clockback can pursue an unblock via UTRS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TPA removal - finally; I already mentioned above that I'm surprised that this hasn't happened sooner. If this editor was not related to the famous Christopher Hitchens, this would have been done a long time ago. They had enough time to violate WP:NOTTHEM multiple times, hadn't read a single policy, guideline or essay linked to them (WP:GAB, WP:COI, WP:FREESPEECH, WP:MEAT - those first came to mind, surely there are others), made several frivolous unblock requests and yet they were still pushing their PoV on the talk page, saying that the block was unfair. And - as the icing on the cake - some editors even supported their unblock request. It would be funny, if it weren't so sad. byteflush Talk 00:49, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- People are missing the entire point of why this talk page removal is bad. I told Clockback that he could respond to stuff written here on his talkpage, and I will transfer it over. I have been doing this, as I have done so for other block reviews for other blocked users I have carried out in the past. When Jpgordon says that he saw lots of "verbiage", this is what he saw. What possible disruption is so huge that it couldn't wait till this review is over? As for people claiming that he was disrupting by opening unblock requests, that is also false. The last request was when Jpgordon declined it, and Clockback opened no more unblock requests before this wholly unjustified action by Jpgordon. What is wrong with you people? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- You realize that you telling an editor something does not in any way constrain an uninvolved admin's actions? --NeilN talk to me 05:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Did I say anything like this? I was giving explanation of why Jpgordon was seeing "verbiage" on the talkpage -- this is because I told Clockback that he could respond to claims here (this is completely standard practice). Jpgordon himself has taken the position of "I have very little familiarity with the whole matter, so please excuse me if I stepped on some toes". And I'm not allowed to give him context so that they may change their mind? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- But much of that "verbiage" was not relevant to his being unblocked, and was, in fact, attacks on other editors - like all the stuff about "Charles". You really should not have copied it over, since by doing so you gave heightened visibility to those attacks. It was also a mistake on your part, since that stuff just made him look worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- He was responding to an AN thread. So of course there would be comments on editors. That is the whole purpose of an AN thread. To discuss user conduct. If I had a dime for every personal attack made at ANI, I would never need to work a day in my life. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- If you are, as you state in the edit summary, tearing your hair out, you are too invested in this matter. 331dot (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- He was responding to an AN thread. So of course there would be comments on editors. That is the whole purpose of an AN thread. To discuss user conduct. If I had a dime for every personal attack made at ANI, I would never need to work a day in my life. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 07:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- But much of that "verbiage" was not relevant to his being unblocked, and was, in fact, attacks on other editors - like all the stuff about "Charles". You really should not have copied it over, since by doing so you gave heightened visibility to those attacks. It was also a mistake on your part, since that stuff just made him look worse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Did I say anything like this? I was giving explanation of why Jpgordon was seeing "verbiage" on the talkpage -- this is because I told Clockback that he could respond to claims here (this is completely standard practice). Jpgordon himself has taken the position of "I have very little familiarity with the whole matter, so please excuse me if I stepped on some toes". And I'm not allowed to give him context so that they may change their mind? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TPA removal. When consensus is against you, and you have to say "What is wrong with you people?", it might be time to also ask "Am I really in the right on this?" - and perhaps "Am I helping X, or hurting them?". I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for someone canvassing off-wiki, nor can I see much reason to re-instate access to someone whom causes plenty of disruption here without access. SQLQuery me! 05:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TPA removal. Entirely within policy and justified under the circumstances. DrKay (talk) 07:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TPA removal, unless I somehow missed that WP:NPA is now optional. Max Semenik (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Endorse TPA removal He was wasting everyone's time, and frankly, providing even MORE justification for the indefinite block. Why Kingsindian is choosing this particular hill to die on is beyond me. --Calton | Talk 09:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Why these comments about "dying on this hill" or "I'm too invested"? I'm still alive, and I am not aware of having broken any policy. I am quite calm in real life, rest assured. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 09:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
"Pending review"
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could someone enlighten me as to why my recent change to Chuckle Brothers ([13]) is deemed by the software to be subject to "pending review"? I'm assuming it's some technical glitch, though I don't know which technical board to go to to ask about it. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- It was caused by a "pileup": an IP's edit needed confirmation, and this affected all succeeding edits. Should be fixed now. Favonian (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Does this usually happen after one edit that needs review? I'm sure I've edited after such edits before, without this occurring. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- AFAIK, yes. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, it must happen. The idea is that someone must approve the IP edit or take action such as revert, and this is why all subsequent edits are marked as not reviewed until the action has been taken.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Does this usually happen after one edit that needs review? I'm sure I've edited after such edits before, without this occurring. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- That pending changes feature is a peach. EEng 06:22, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Review of NAC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please would an uninvolved administrator review the close of the RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Chains RFC by user:Steelpillow. There has been significant discussion of this closure in the following section (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways#Units and conversion) in which the closer has participated. There are objections to the closer from multiple people (most notably Redrose64, Johnuniq and Andy Dingley), with the primary reason being that the closure does not relate to the actual discussion - note that it hinges on "defining" (which was not mentioned by anyone in the lengthy discussion) and is at best tangential to what the question actually was and seems to be largely based on the closer's interpretation of the outcome of a different discussion at WT:MOSNUM. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I would note the following, for your information:
- I made the close following this discussion on this noticeboard.
- MOSUNIT (aka MOSNUM) was mentioned by the OP as a relevant guideline. "Definition" is just its way of expressing a particular nuance to the central discussion in the RfC: when to use and when not to use an oddball unit such as chains. I chose to follow the wording of MOSNUM, but I need not have.
- The RfC ran through, to my count, eight distinct proposals, none of which led to any clear consensus that I could see. None of the several related discussions, linked to by the OP, fared any better. I confess that I am now equally unclear as to how anybody can define "what the question actually was" sufficiently narrowly to claim that I ignored it.
- — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:12, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- It seems odd to me. Chains were a primary unit for permanent way infrastructure for most of the period up to the diesel era, and the position of items along the way is still referred to as "chainage" - the specific point Steelpillow made re "the nearest watering point is 43 chains further on" appears to be incorrect, since the watering point would be referred to in miles and chains and thus the distance in chains would be defining. I need to go back to my photo references but I am pretty sure that the minimum curve radius for rolling stock was specified in chains on the plates until at least the 1950s. Yes, it's archaic, but equally, so are many of the subjects of our articles. There are still lever arm signals in use, after all. We shouldn't be using MOS to override actual real-world practice. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- The discussion is, in essence, a reconsideration of the MOS guideline, so the appeal to it is essentially a demand to have the same discussion all over again, which is a sin against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY in my opinion. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mangoe: Not really. The discussion is basically "how should we interpret and apply the various bits of guidance in the MoS and elsewhere in relation to this specific topic area where the underlying facts are significantly different to the general case." The discussion about it at WT:MOSNUM began as a fork of this one. This is a similar sort of misunderstanding of the discussion that the closer made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- That would not be my interpretation of the discussion, since anything other than the status quo would be to not do what the MOS directs. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- The MOS does not direct anything, it guides and like all guidelines it explicitly notes that it should be applied with common sense and that exceptions may apply. MOS:UNIT explicitly notes: "UK engineering-related articles, including those on bridges and tunnels, generally use the system of units that the topic was drawn up in." (as noted in at least one of the various discussions). Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- That would not be my interpretation of the discussion, since anything other than the status quo would be to not do what the MOS directs. Mangoe (talk) 19:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Mangoe: Not really. The discussion is basically "how should we interpret and apply the various bits of guidance in the MoS and elsewhere in relation to this specific topic area where the underlying facts are significantly different to the general case." The discussion about it at WT:MOSNUM began as a fork of this one. This is a similar sort of misunderstanding of the discussion that the closer made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- That looks like an awful close to me; by basing it on things not discussed in the RFC but on their own personal opinion, it's a blatant supervote (and IMO a clearly perverse result as well, as anyone with the vaguest knowledge of the UK railway system knows that for reasons of cost and tradition the metrication process has bypassed it, and distances are still officially measured in miles and chains). Reopen it. ‑ Iridescent 14:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed, I looked over the close and post-close discussion yesterday and it seemed to be a supervote as well. The close didn't even attempt to discern the consensus of the discussion. ansh666 18:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- Closure was requested at WP:AN/RFC by SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) with this request at 11:07, 23 July 2018 (UTC). Some days later, Steelpillow (talk · contribs) offered to close it with this post at 11:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC). This offer was accepted by Mjroots (talk · contribs) at 12:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC), and closure occurred at 12:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC).
I do not think that twenty-four minutes is enough to read and fully digest the discussion that was closed. It certainly does not give enough time to also read the prior discussions at Talk:Darlington railway station#Distance from London and Talk:East Croydon station#Chains nor the ancillary discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Distances measured in chains and Talk:Chain (unit) (at least three relevant threads). In this post, Steelpillow admits to have not looked at the earlier discussions, although in this post they claim to have "taken note" of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Distances measured in chains. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)- Twenty-four minutes is indeed not enough. I had been looking at it for some time before I made the offer. I have also been criticised for drawing from the MOS discussion, so it is not consistent to also criticise me for not drawing from some of the others. There is a strong aroma of "I don't like it" about a lot of this. Nevertheless, I take some of the criticisms as valid. I have a suggestion for a way forward but it is my bed time now, I will post again later. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
If the closure is to be reviewed, there is no need to reopen the discussion in the meantime. Editors had plenty enough time to give their input whilst the RFC was running. For now, let's wait for Steelpillow to post his suggestion. Mjroots (talk) 06:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- That closure is a mess, and I would hope Steelpillow's way forward is to revert himself and let an admin close it as per the guidance at BADNAC. To say "Beyond this, the arguments presented on both sides have shown no clear conclusion" is a nonsense, there's clearly a consensus for option 3. The closure is, as others have said better than me, a SUPERVOTE, there is indeed a strong aroma of "I don't like it", but it's coming from the closer. If Steelpillow doesn't recant that close then I would imagine we shall be back here asking for the close to be undone, which it could and should be under BADNAC. Fish+Karate 09:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- It is a bit hard. Six (VI) proposals. I think that each proposal should have been addressed in the close separately. Then, each result compared, and probably put to a refreshed discussion. Multi-choice discussions tend to be very hard. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am a bit confused as to why whether the user is not an admin is relevant. You are not required to be an administrator to close any RFC. The close might be bad (I have not judged whether it is so), but BADNAC applies only to deletion discussion. --Izno (talk) 12:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The fact it's in the deletion section doesn't mean it's not good advice. Fish+Karate 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Not really. RFC closes can and should be contested when they are bad closes, but this one cannot be overturned under the rationale of BADNAC, nor can the user be sanctioned for such an act. --Izno (talk) 12:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The fact it's in the deletion section doesn't mean it's not good advice. Fish+Karate 12:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Suggested revision
'Morning all. As I said, I acknowledge some criticisms of my closure. I gave no status headline, leading some editors to wonder what I was saying at all. The second half tried to offer a suggestion, which unintentionally strayed into supervote territory. All in all, I wrote too much, and too incoherently.
But I stand by my view that no real consensus emerged: of the many proposals, most had split votes. The last one was not only not voted on, but only around half-a-dozen editors engaged in discussion and they did not discuss a key suggestion in it, that the primary units in the lead should differ from those given in the body. That appears to go against MOS:UNITS, though it is not clearly stated whether the participants were aware of that. I did not, and do not, judge that final discussion to have established a clear overall consensus to differ from MOS:UNITS. The situation had not fundamentally changed from when SMcCandlish wrote this.
I would be willing to substitute a much shorter closing summary, say: "No consensus to differ from MOS:UNITS. No consensus on the implementation of that guideline." That seemed to me at the time to be overly short and unhelpful, so I went and erred the other way. I would be happy to modify my closure as just quoted, perhaps with some short commentary to be agreed here first.
But if you all conclude here that a consensus was actually reached, then my closure should be rolled back and another editor make it. May I suggest that to save time you address this point first.
— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I feel it would be best if you were to roll the closure back yourself and allow an admin to close it, per WP:BADNAC point 2 - "The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator". And of the proposals, proposal 3 at least had a comfortable majority in favour (22-7), so I'm not sure you could quantify things as no consensus. Whether you consider the proposal to differ from MOS:UNITS is your opinion, as that's definitely a matter of fine distinctions, and your opinion should not be imposed on the closure. All of this combined tells me you should undo your closure, before it's undone for you (as that's where this will go, I suspect). Fish+Karate 10:40, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to close this; I'm uninvolved, and as someone who once worked for British Rail in the dim and distant past, I'm familiar with the subject. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- NACs were supposed to be able to replaced unilaterally by any admin. Not sure if that remains in the documentation? I note that the best NACers are very quick to revert when approached. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think that the guidance to which you refer is that added over ten years ago in this edit. It reached substantially its present form with this edit last year. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- NACs were supposed to be able to replaced unilaterally by any admin. Not sure if that remains in the documentation? I note that the best NACers are very quick to revert when approached. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agree with F&C. @Steelpillow:, I think perhaps the message hasn't been clear enough: the general motif is not that you tweak / alter / shorten / lengthen your original close, but that, since this RfC was always—from day one—going to be controversial, you should not have closed it in the first place. WP:BADNAC has already been quoted above, but to reiterate:
he outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator
. All of that sentence applies. Most of the questions were a close call and there were (therefore) several (or no, which would be equally controversial) valid outcomes arising from them. And as such, yes, the close would have been left to an admin.NACs, after all, are intended to draw the weight from admins and act as a time saver. The fact that your close has led to this AN thread and is now taking up the time of multiple editors clearly suggests that, as an exercise in time-saving, it has failed spectacularly. I also agree with SmokeyJoe thatthe best NACers are very quick to revert when approached
, and draw it to your attention. @Black Kite:, I think that's an excellent suggestion, and I thank you for it. Hope this helps! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm quite happy to close this; I'm uninvolved, and as someone who once worked for British Rail in the dim and distant past, I'm familiar with the subject. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am going to repeat something I said just above, just for emphasis: I am a bit confused as to why whether the user is not an admin is relevant. You are not required to be an administrator to close any RFC. The close might be bad (I have not judged whether it is so), but BADNAC applies only to deletion discussion. (You should respond above, because this comment is not relevant to this subsection.) --Izno (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's supplementary to WP:CLOSE, which is not specific to deletion debates. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have to be an administrator. As I said, the close may be bad, but that doesn't mean BADNAC should be cited. --Izno (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Who's mentioning sanctions? The point is that it was a bad close (unlinked, if you prefer), and should be reclosed by someone with more experience and / or appreciation of the nuance; which is all this discussion has been about.—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Until you, F+K, and Smokey all brought up/referenced BADNAC explicitly, it was just about a "bad" close (scare-quoted because again, I haven't reviewed it). I did not think the user would be sanctioned, but I did wish to make it clear that wasn't okay either. If you are challenging the close, that should not be one of the bullet points even remotely related to why you are challenging the close. --Izno (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Who's mentioning sanctions? The point is that it was a bad close (unlinked, if you prefer), and should be reclosed by someone with more experience and / or appreciation of the nuance; which is all this discussion has been about.—SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- In fact, CLOSE makes the same point I am making at
Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review: if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.[3]
under section "Challenging other closures" --Izno (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)- There are two reasons admins do this. First, we have specific experience in weighing policy versus voting. Second, we have thick skins. This needs an admin to lose it because otherwise (as we see here) there will be drama. In addition, the close does not reflect consensus. A "no consensus, case by cse" close would be OK, bit this close is a supervote and unacceptable on its face. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are experienced users outside the set of administrators who have demonstrated weight of policy versus voting (they close RFCs too--this RFC is not different), and I can think of at least one with a thick skin :) (he participated in that discussion). (Insert offtopic discussion about pathological standards at RFA.)
As I said, I haven't judged the close itself.
"needs an admin to lose it" --> well, there are lots of things on Wikipedia that might need an admin to lose it--good thing they don't ;). --Izno (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)- I still chuckle at BHG labelling Xdamr a "loser". [14]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- There are experienced users outside the set of administrators who have demonstrated weight of policy versus voting (they close RFCs too--this RFC is not different), and I can think of at least one with a thick skin :) (he participated in that discussion). (Insert offtopic discussion about pathological standards at RFA.)
- There are two reasons admins do this. First, we have specific experience in weighing policy versus voting. Second, we have thick skins. This needs an admin to lose it because otherwise (as we see here) there will be drama. In addition, the close does not reflect consensus. A "no consensus, case by cse" close would be OK, bit this close is a supervote and unacceptable on its face. Guy (Help!) 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- You don't have to be an administrator. As I said, the close may be bad, but that doesn't mean BADNAC should be cited. --Izno (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's supplementary to WP:CLOSE, which is not specific to deletion debates. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Reclosed
I have re-closed the RfC with what I believe is a closer analysis of general consensus on the topic. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Good re-close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Review of UpsandDowns1234 block
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:UpsandDowns1234 is requesting a community review of their block. The previous review was closed as "no consensus". The text of their appeal follows:
At this point, I truly understand what I absolutely did wrong that merited my block about a year ago. First, I completely obsessed about policy pages without taking into consideration whether it improves the encyclopedia, which is disruptive. Second, I abused talk pages (including my own talk page) and Twinkle for no apparent or good reason at all. Third, I see many places where I can improve on articles, particularly accuracy, vandalism, and images, such as the articles for musical.ly and Tik Tok (app). Fourth, I have abused my own userspace as a webhost, which violates the user page policy, and wastes time of RC patrollers who have to patrol each and every userpage edit (this is the reason why I requested to be blocked about a year ago in the first place). Fifth, I created pointless redirects that was the same problem on wikiHow and got me blocked there. Sixth, I created project and policy pages that did not line up with community guidelines, and was too vague in my edit summaries for any admin to interpret them as a good or bad edit (or set of edits). Seventh, I obsessed too much about the MediaWiki software, such as that extremely long discussion about changing the title of the main page and explaining why it would be technically impossible (also got me blocked from wikiHow). Finally, I see that whatever business I am doing on wikiHow does not affect my block over here, which at this point, for the next 6 months-1 year, I have to either shape up or shape out. I absolutely am sorry for this, understand the reasons for the block, and promise that this will never ever happen again. My incompetence was because I was attempting maintenance of Wikipedia without actually gaining experience on Wikipedia. My (not deleted) mainspace edits are <500, and if I were to narrow them down to not include the pointless template-adding games, they would probably be less that 100. And as Iridescent said, I have promised way too many times to not play games. This time, I actually mean it. Once again, I absolutely am sorry for whatever disruption I caused on Wikipedia, and hope to get my edit access restored soon. Ups and Downs (↕) 04:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Checkuser shows there is no evidence of sockpuppetry or block evasion on their current IP. Please indicate below whether you would support or oppose an unblock at this time. Yunshui 雲水 07:53, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Weak support but suggest the user is monitored for a while to ensure they truly have taken on board the issues raised. Happy to do this. Aiken D 08:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support unblock and a second chance. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support, in that the user does seem to recognise the wide-ranging issues exhibited, let's assume good faith and give them a chance to demonstrate improvement. Fish+Karate 08:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sure TonyBallioni (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Leaning support, having effectively tanked U&D1234's previous SO appeal here. I would be interested to hear User:Iridescent's feelings, as they were very much involved with this editor—and the myriad issues that that involved—from the start. Leaning support in spite of hearing from them, though, as if IIRC, Iridescent did support that last appeal, which tbh was not half as convincing as this one. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 11:57, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Clarify: My slanty support would change to a regular, perpendicular one if so editing restrictions as discussed below were agreed to and implemented. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 15:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- support, seems to have taken criticism on board and wants to learn to do better. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:32, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support The appeal clearly shows they now know better and needs a second chance to demonstrate that. –Ammarpad (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support per WP:ROPE. Nihlus 18:12, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Reaffirm support with the below conditions by Iridescent. Nihlus 16:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support if and only if U&D is willing to abide by some kind of explicit "no more fucking around" restriction; as U&D himself says in the above request, we've heard "this time, I won't goof around any more" from U&D far too often for it to have any credibility. I'd be inclined to formalize the conditions I proposed last time (
You make no edits to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (if
), but if that's too bureaucratic, "If anyone tells you to stop doing something, stop doing it immediately without argument, and if any admin feels you're trolling, timewasting or misusing Wikipedia as a webhost they can indefinitely block you without prior notice or discussion" would serve just as well. Also notifying Primefac and NeilN as the other two admins who had their time wasted trying to assume good faith of UpsandDowns1234 in the past. ‑ Iridescent 14:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)a policy prevents improvement of an article
you can discuss your proposed changes somewhere else); No disruption of Wikipedia processes such as your drive-by nominations at WP:RFPP, and we decide what's disruptive not you; No experimentation on any page other than sandboxes; No creation of redirects, if you genuinely feel a redirect is necessary, you can suggest to somebody else that they create it; No screwing around with html to make your userpage or talkpage intentionally difficult to read; If anyone complains about anything you do, regardless of whether you feel the complaint is merited, you immediately stop whatever it is that caused the complaint.- I think your proposal could be simplied to
[U&D] is restricted from editing any non-"talk" namespace other than the Article, User, and Draft spaces. Any complaints about user conduct or editing practices should be immediately stopped and self-reverted.
Primefac (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I think your proposal could be simplied to
- @Primefac: "Any complaints about user conduct or editing practices should be immediately stopped and self-reverted" means the complaints should be stopped and self-reverted. Presumably, you meant something more along the lines of "Any complaints about user conduct or editing practices should be responded to by immediately stopping and self-reverting"? AddWittyNameHere 02:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sure! Primefac (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Primefac: "Any complaints about user conduct or editing practices should be immediately stopped and self-reverted" means the complaints should be stopped and self-reverted. Presumably, you meant something more along the lines of "Any complaints about user conduct or editing practices should be responded to by immediately stopping and self-reverting"? AddWittyNameHere 02:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support as second chance.The user clearly understands and recognize his past mistakes and is willing to work towards rectifying the issue. Razer(talk) 09:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support once editing restriction is codified, as suggested by Iridescent and simplified by Primefac. Alex Shih (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support: Seems pretty sincere, let's give them another chance. Waggie (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Administrator note There's a clear consensus to unban here, as well as a clear consensus for the condition of a formal and final warning against continued disruptive conduct of any kind, to be determined by the discretion of any administrator. For the sake of simplicity, the precise wording will be as follows: "UpsandDowns1234 is unbanned, but remains on a final warning status for disruption, broadly construed. Should any admin feel that they have caused or are causing any sort of "disruption" whatsoever, they may reblock for any period of time, or indefinitely, without further warning." The aforementioned details proposed above have all been made explicitly clear to fall within this warning, and it will be logged at WP:EDR under "final warnings". Swarm ♠ 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Advice needed - COI, outing, Wikipedia email confidentiality, etc.
I need some advice please. I have received an email via Wikipedia from a user asking me to edit an article on behalf of the subject of the article. The name of the user making the request is the same as the name of the CEO of a company of which the subject (who has also been a politician in one of the more disputed parts of the western world) is Chair, and in the email the user says that the subject is Chair of "our company". The user has previously edited the article, but without making any declaration of COI. I do not appear ever to have edited the article. The information the user provided to me is that submitted by the subject to a well-known directory of people in public life. Now obviously I am not going to carry out edits on someone's behalf like this, but what is the etiquette about revealing that such a request has been made, another user's COI, etc? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @DuncanHill: I think the best course of action is to forward the email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org, per the information at Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. WaggersTALK 11:59, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I have now done this, and emailed the user to tell them of this and to point them to our guidance on COI. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- OTRS is not the correct location for this. The functionaries mailing list would be. You can send it to them at: functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. Please remember to include email headers. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the content matter, OTRS can handle. So DuncanHill did the right thing there. Outing etc? Not so much. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- OTRS told me it wasn't their chicken, and to email functionaries, so I have. DuncanHill (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well, the content matter, OTRS can handle. So DuncanHill did the right thing there. Outing etc? Not so much. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- OTRS is not the correct location for this. The functionaries mailing list would be. You can send it to them at: functionaries-en
- I have now done this, and emailed the user to tell them of this and to point them to our guidance on COI. DuncanHill (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I emailed functionaries 14 hours ago, and apart from an automated response at the time saying it was being held for approval I've heard nothing. Is there anywhere one can find out if anybody's noticed it? DuncanHill (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Login help needed for Textorus, continued
This is a continuation of a request for help I made a month ago, now archived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive300#Login_help_needed,_please
I have been away but now am back, and am really hoping some kind soul will take pity on this old geezer and restore my access to my original account, user:Textorus. I have made a new account, but of course it lacks my 12 years of history and contribs, etc.
Many admins responded to my first request, and I appreciate that, but the consensus was that there was nothing they could do. Someone suggested I go ask for help at phabricator, but that was misguided: I did that yesterday and here is the response they gave me: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Uibpipy0i2ug8k2u&topic_showPostId=uid9wiuuvlzwowt8&fromnotif=1#flow-post-uid9wiuuvlzwowt8
So once again, I ask for my password on user:Textorus to be reset so I can get back to work making the Internet not suck, in my small way. I understand from the first discussion that I have no email address on file (I must have deleted the original when I got a new email years ago and somehow forgot to enter the new one); and that therefore, all the rules say I am screwed. I also do not know any other Wikipedians who can vouch for me personally.
However, from having worked 40 years before retirement in business and government with computer workstations, and frequently interacted with IT administrators, I do know that resetting a user password is a very simple thing, and in the world outside of WP is done all the time. I realize many delinquents and malefactors are also causing wikitrouble night and day, and I have no way of proving that I am not one of them - but guys, why would some hacker hoodlum want to impersonate a boring old guy like me and take over my boring old user account? When he could much more easily create a dozen clever, crafty new accounts on WP in the time I have taken to type this request? I ask you.
I am not a high-profile Wikipedian, but as a now-retired professional editor and educator I have for many years enjoyed clarifying, correcting, and sourcing wikiarticles, which is a nerdy but inexpensive hobby, and which does, I hope, contribute in small, unnoticed ways to the greater good.
So can someone please take a chance, WP:BRAR, and give an old man his wikidentity back? Thanks in advance for any help. Textorus Textorus2 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Textorus2: there are no English Wikipedia positions that have the technical capability to reset your password. The only people that can do this are developers, and you need to file a phabricator ticket to request their assistance. The link that you were provided at mw:Topic:Uibpipy0i2ug8k2u is the link to phabricator. You can see what an example password rest request look like here: phab:T198536. If you convince the developers you are the person that should be in control of your account they may be able to reset your email address so you can generate a new password. — xaosflux Talk 13:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, Xaosflux, but the link I was given is "to report a bug" - I have no bug to report, just a password reset request, which is the simplest thing in the world - my bank does it over the telephone, no photo ID or fingerprints needed. The second link you gave shows someone asking for a password reset, but I do not see how to get into that discussion board. I am old and retired from a long career, and my brain is too tired to decipher and burrow into all the technical complexity there. If no one has the time or patience to help me out, maybe it's just time I retired from Wikipedia too. Textorus Textorus2 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Textorus2: WMF does not have telephone support, the intake system calls everything a "bug". Unlike a your bank, we don't know may private things to authenticate you (like "what is the amount of your last deposit, who did you write check number 3212 to, etc", which is why this is hard. The basic steps to open this "request" are below:
- Go to this link
- Fill our the form with what you want, include some links to discussions, etc.
- Ensure there is someway to contact you privately (You can tell them to use the wikipedia email you registered with this account for example) ( You do not need to write this private information directly in to the ticket)
- In the "Tags" section type in "Wikimedia-Site-requests" and "Trust-and-Safety"
- Click "create new task".
- Hope that helps. — xaosflux Talk 14:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- phab:T201612 was filled --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Textorus2: WMF does not have telephone support, the intake system calls everything a "bug". Unlike a your bank, we don't know may private things to authenticate you (like "what is the amount of your last deposit, who did you write check number 3212 to, etc", which is why this is hard. The basic steps to open this "request" are below:
- Thank you, Xaosflux, but the link I was given is "to report a bug" - I have no bug to report, just a password reset request, which is the simplest thing in the world - my bank does it over the telephone, no photo ID or fingerprints needed. The second link you gave shows someone asking for a password reset, but I do not see how to get into that discussion board. I am old and retired from a long career, and my brain is too tired to decipher and burrow into all the technical complexity there. If no one has the time or patience to help me out, maybe it's just time I retired from Wikipedia too. Textorus Textorus2 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
User:Jonnycraig888
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Jonnycraig888 is a new account, just created two days ago, that's making a surprisingly large number of edits to random AfDs. I'm assuming this is just vandalism and I've blocked them for 24 hours to prevent further damage. Looking for additional admin eyes to take a look and validate my assumption before I indef them. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I'm seeing what you're seeing. I'm seeing someone who created an article, the article was passed by AFC, then in main space immediately sent to AFD. They've made several edits to that AFD. They seem to have an interest in music generally and Australian music specifically as most of the other articles and AFDs they've touched have been in that topic area. I didn't do an in-depth look at all their contributions or even all the AFD contributions, but the ones I've looked at look like good faith edits. There are no warnings on their talkpage at all. What specifically are you seeing that causes you concern? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:33, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- To me the contributions look like good faith attempts from a new user to participate in AfD. Given the contents of the comments I don't think this is a sockpuppet or other user with prior experience of AfD. Hut 8.5 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Jonnycraig888 created Draft:Cxloe which was declined then Nana222222 created Cxloe which was declined and moved over the draft - is the deleted content similar? Both users have participated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kinder (band), for an article created by Nana222222, and at a few articles including deletion of a notability tag[15]. Whether it's sock puppetry or two people collaborating, it looks like an attempt to circumvent the review processes. Peter James (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- The sockpuppet investigation is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nana222222. Peter James (talk) 21:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- To me the contributions look like good faith attempts from a new user to participate in AfD. Given the contents of the comments I don't think this is a sockpuppet or other user with prior experience of AfD. Hut 8.5 17:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Confirmed request
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Could a sysop consider confirming Y000mtah's account ahead of time; their anti-vandalism work is repeatedly triggering filters 1 and 249, and there's no need for that. Thanks. Home Lander (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Abecedare (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
DanielPenfield and archiving
Graham87 10:37, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
AIV backlog
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a note that there are currently 32 open reports on AIV. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:29, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
WP:DUCK check requested for a SPI
Could an uninvolved admin please look in on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi. The situation is a little complex: it appears that Romanian-and-proud (talk · contribs) may have been mistakenly identified as an Iaaasi sock a few years ago. It is my view (and the view of several other editors) that R&P has returned as Torpilorul (talk · contribs) given the editing patterns and views they've expressed. A checkuser run hasn't turned up a link between Torpilorul and Iaaasi, but the checkuser noted that "I accept that Torpilorul could be R&P". I'd be grateful if someone could investigate the behavioural evidence. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I am involved, but agree with Nick-D that there is a fair amount of behavioural evidence for a link between the two. We had what could be described as a pro-WWII Romanian (and Holocaust-apologist) series of posts on WT:MILHIST recently by Torpilorul, and I have the same suspicions as Nick-D. It would be good to clear it up for the future. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Nick-D: when you open a thread challenging an admin action it's customary to ping the admin whose action you're challenging (courtesy ping DeltaQuad). Other admins are welcome to have a look of course, but it's already several admins' opinion that the two accounts are probably operated by the same person and thus violating the multiple accounts policy, and so the new account would be blocked regardless of their connection to the SPI case. It's also my opinion that they're all the same person as the sockmaster. I don't really understand the forumshopping going on here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the protocol mess up. I'm not challenging DeltaQuad's admin action whatsoever: checkusers aren't expected to do WP:DUCK tests, and in her comments she alluded to this being helpful. I'm not intending to forumshop: I was concerned about the SPI being closed early due to what seems to be a procedural foul up in earlier SPIs. I'd be more than happy for the SPI to be re-closed if I've misunderstood the status here, and the check is unnecessary. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- FWIW, I’m not sure it matters much now. R&P hasn’t edited since 2016 and there is no active appeal. Torpilorul is blocked for reasons other than socking. I’m not a clerk, but as an admin who is fairly active at SPI, I can say that closing in this case is pretty normal: a behavioral determination wouldn’t change much and any future appeal by either account would bring with it new CU data and the behavioral evidence could be reviewed then. Simply from a practical standpoint right now we don’t need to make that judgement call. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the protocol mess up. I'm not challenging DeltaQuad's admin action whatsoever: checkusers aren't expected to do WP:DUCK tests, and in her comments she alluded to this being helpful. I'm not intending to forumshop: I was concerned about the SPI being closed early due to what seems to be a procedural foul up in earlier SPIs. I'd be more than happy for the SPI to be re-closed if I've misunderstood the status here, and the check is unnecessary. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
User interaction investigations & Interaction Timeline
Hello all,
Want to give an update about a new feature for the interaction timeline tool and talk about my observations when I’ve tested the tool on active cases on AN/I
The interaction timeline tool will soon generate text output that can be shared in on wiki. This allows people who are preparing a report about user conflict or doing an user interaction investigation of a noticeboard report to add a link to the results with a brief summary of results. This new feature aims to enhance one of main purposes for the tool–to provide a neutral and complete chronological record of the interaction between two users. I'm interesting in learning about how this improves or harms discussions.
My experimentation will some live active AN/I cases shows that there will still be heavy lifting to do a thorough investigation on complex cases, but it improves the investigation by:
- eliminating only seeing one sided cherry picked diffs from one or both parties to the dispute
- giving a complete chronological record of the pages where interactions happen with a diff that can be expanded for further review of the interaction. In addition to showing the frequency of negative interactions, this could aid with understanding the scope of topic or interaction bans.
- calculating and displaying the amount of time between interactions in small red text,
- allowing you to change date ranges to see a longer view of interactions or narrower view restricted to a shorter timespan when a conflict heats up.
Lastly, I started a page on wiki that highlights the tools that can be used to investigate user interaction conflicts. Wikipedia:Tools/User interaction investigations. Time permitting, sometime later this week, I plan to add more details about approaches to investigating complex cases. I welcome review, improvement, and sharing with others if you think it is useful.
As always, I’m interested in learning other people's experiences using the tool. You can share either here in this discussion, by email, or on my talk page.
Cheers, SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not prepared to get into the weeds on this, but some experimentation suggests the new tool is useful only if (a) the set of pages in common is small AND (b) that set does not include a page such as ANI. Otherwise you get massively unwieldy output. An advantage of the old interaction tool is that you get a list of pages and minimum interaction times and can "zoom in" on those that looked interesting. Here we get one gigantic pile. Maybe if there was a way, once the initial output begins, to click-to-exclude a page, or click-to-temporarily-show-only this page, or things like that. The more I think about it the more I think starting with some kind of summary-by-page, followed by a selection to expand a subset of pages, might be best. EEng 18:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:EEng I appreciate you expanding your feedback to include a suggestion for improvement. :-) I see where you coming from. I've brought your idea to User:TBolliger (WMF) and the rest of the Anti-Harassment Tools team and we'll add it to our phabricator board to consider for the next phase of improvements to the tool. We are also considering a filter for namespace or pages. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't really mean to get into it, but you're drawing me in. Here's how I imagine this might be used. First you get a list of pages where both/all editors have edited, with some basic info like # of edits by each, min time between interacting edits, # of edits by each during the time they were both active on the page, stuff like that. You can select individual pages one at time to investigate -- you're looking for conflict, presumably -- and then after looking at a given page you either "keep" or don't keep it. After looking at various pages, you can then go to a presentation much like you have now, except only showing the keeps. Another idea might be to use coloring, or other visual cues, to show quickly which pages are which as you glance down the combined interaction display. There... that should keep you busy a while. Oh yes, one other thing... there needs to be a way to get a permalink for what you're seeing, so when you post to ANI or whathaveyou everyone can see exactly what you're seeing. EEng 19:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- @EEng: I love it, it's similar to what we're thinking for phab:T189850. I won't drag you into this further, thank you for your comments and for your time! — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager (t) 22:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I checked out the phab thread, so just to say that if you can figure out interactions down to the thread level, that would clear out a lot of chaff. Similarly, I guess, you could ask whether 2 editors did or did not edit the same section of a given article. Those better be options the user can turn off, though. EEng 00:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @EEng: I love it, it's similar to what we're thinking for phab:T189850. I won't drag you into this further, thank you for your comments and for your time! — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager (t) 22:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't really mean to get into it, but you're drawing me in. Here's how I imagine this might be used. First you get a list of pages where both/all editors have edited, with some basic info like # of edits by each, min time between interacting edits, # of edits by each during the time they were both active on the page, stuff like that. You can select individual pages one at time to investigate -- you're looking for conflict, presumably -- and then after looking at a given page you either "keep" or don't keep it. After looking at various pages, you can then go to a presentation much like you have now, except only showing the keeps. Another idea might be to use coloring, or other visual cues, to show quickly which pages are which as you glance down the combined interaction display. There... that should keep you busy a while. Oh yes, one other thing... there needs to be a way to get a permalink for what you're seeing, so when you post to ANI or whathaveyou everyone can see exactly what you're seeing. EEng 19:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you, User:EEng I appreciate you expanding your feedback to include a suggestion for improvement. :-) I see where you coming from. I've brought your idea to User:TBolliger (WMF) and the rest of the Anti-Harassment Tools team and we'll add it to our phabricator board to consider for the next phase of improvements to the tool. We are also considering a filter for namespace or pages. SPoore (WMF), Trust & Safety, Community health initiative (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the names are case sensitive. I typed in "sir joseph" and it worked, in that it selected a "sir joseph" but no results. I had to type "Sir Joseph" and that showed results. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph: This is a larger problem with good-ol' case-sensitive MediaWiki. The tool pulls from the Wikimedia user table, on which there is both User:Sir_Joseph (you) and User:Sir_joseph (an account with 0 edits.) We did make the input box on the Timeline ignore the case of the first character, as it is always capitalized. — Trevor Bolliger, WMF Product Manager (t) 17:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Acceptable username?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere- I have come across a user named User:대한민국 헌법 . Google Translate translates this from Korean as "Korean Constitution". Is this within the rules as a username? Special:Contributions/대한민국_헌법. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- No worse than this one. Who is an admin. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- the proper place for such a discussion is at WP:RFC/N, only after you’ve discussed it with the user in question. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
My user page history,
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was wondering if an admin can strike "Revision as of 17:35, 18 April 2017 by User:TalhaMusaddeq" on my Userpage, I really hate seeing that pornstar bit in my history. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Done. You're welcome. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:07, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- And I simultaneously did it a more old fashioned way so you wouldn’t ever be reminded of it again. Courcelles (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Cheers, thank you guys. Govvy (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- And I simultaneously did it a more old fashioned way so you wouldn’t ever be reminded of it again. Courcelles (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Arbitration motion regarding BLP issues on British politics articles
The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The "Philip Cross topic banned" remedy in the BLP issues on British politics articles case is modified to read as follows:
- Philip Cross (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from
edits relating topost-1978 British politics, broadly construed. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter. This sanction supersedes the community sanction applied in May 2018.
For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:02, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding BLP issues on British politics articles
At the dispute resolution noticeboard we sometimes have filers who submit disputes that are not suitable for DRN because they were advised at WP:ANI that their dispute is really a content dispute and should be taken to WP:DRN. It is then sometimes necessary for the DRN volunteers to close these case requests, which results in disillusioned new users, but we can only accept the sort of cases that we can accept. The proper advice should in general be instead to read the dispute resolution policy and use whatever content dispute resolution policy is appropriate, which may be further discussion at an article talk page, WP:DRN, a Request for Comments, or a specialized noticeboard.
To clarify, DRN is a lightweight mediation forum, taking disputes that can be typically resolved by compromise or mediation within one to three weeks. We only accept cases that have been the subject of talk page discussion, but the talk page discussion has been inconclusive. (Try to discuss on a talk page before coming to DRN.)
There are a few possible ways to deal with this disconnect. First, we could change the charter of DRN to make it a point of entry for all content disputes, or all disputes. I do not recommend that. It would be a drastic change in how Wikipedia does dispute resolution, with limited benefit, and would not be consistent with the current volunteers that we have at DRN. Second, DRN volunteers can be asked to provide more detailed guidance to editors who file cases that are not appropriate for DRN as to where to take them instead. Asking the volunteers to give appropriate follow-up advice does seem to be a reasonable step. I would suggest a third step. Sometimes the advice to go to DRN is given at ANI by admins, and sometimes by non-admins. I would ask that admins take the lead in advising editors at ANI to read the dispute resolution policy and follow a dispute resolution procedure, rather than in advising them to go to the dispute resolution noticeboard (which may or may not be the right place).
I will also comment that, too often, the comment that a dispute is a content dispute is half true and useless. Most disputes start as content disputes, but, if one user is disruptive or combative, it may not be feasible to refer the dispute to a content forum, because content dispute resolution only works if all the participants are civil. A conduct aspect to a dispute must be addressed before the underlying content dispute can be resolved. (Telling the parties in such a dispute to resolve the matter as a content dispute is unfair to the civil party and favors the uncivil party because, by ignoring the disruption, it permits the disruptive editor to engage in bullying, insults, innuendo, filibuster, or whatever.)
Can administrators try to remember to send content disputes to WP:DR rather than WP:DRN? Comments?
Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
mass deleting edits of a banned editor
I have yesterday nuked a large number of pages created by a banned editor, basically per our banning policy, and because I feel that here WP:DENY applies (their contributed material is their trophy). Special:Nuke applies there (standard) deletion criterion 'G5', which I did not bother to change, nor do I know if I can. I can see that strictly spoken here 'G5' does not always apply.
I have undeleted pages where I felt that there were significant edits by others (excluding categorisations, tagging, etc.).
I am asking here for a second opinion: am I correct in deleting all page creations by a banned editor, regardless of the quality. Does G5 apply there, or do I have to delete them per WP:BMB/WP:DENY. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- As far as I know (not privy to the confidential behavioral evidence) the editor in this instance was banned for uploading copyvio images. G5 says to only delete content when it relates to the reason for the ban, so in a strict reading only images (and not articles) should have been nuked. Also, who cares about whether socks collect new-article trophies? Regular editors do that all the time; it's not problematic nor (except in extreme cases of automated bad stub creation) ban-worthy behavior. But I have no reason to doubt the identification of this editor as a sock, and while it's annoying that apparently-good new stubs got nuked I'm not going to argue for the re-creation of the ones that had no subsequently added content from other editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
G5 says to only delete content when it relates to the reason for the ban
- this is not true. G5 saysthe edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban
. If a user is blocked or banned, any and all content they create under a new account is a violation of their specific block or ban, and is subject to G5. The reason for the original block is irrelevant, they are violating it simply by editing. The specific-violation cause kicks in if the user is topic-banned or subject to editing restrictions, but otherwise still welcome on the site. In those cases, G5 would apply to new pages created on topics that fall under the ban (or violate their restrictions) but not to any of their other new content. Beetstra's deletions of both articles and images are correct here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)- (edit conflict)@David Eppstein: As I see now, strictly reading of G5 would here not apply, though I will argue that all of WP:BMB does apply (and I recall ArbCom having statements about that, where a restricted editor was adding and self-reverting in mainspace, then arguing on the talkpage to re-revert to have the material included 'if it was good' - blocks were applied for that behaviour). Regarding 'who cares about whether socks collect .. trophies' .. so there you have the exact paradox of WP:BMB that WP:DENY/WP:RBI are basically talking about, rooted in policy. Just to note, this editor has earlier asked for a non-en.wikipedia contest on article creation where all his articles were nuked as still counting for the contest.
- I have absolutely NO problem with independent re-creation of any of the articles I deleted.
- The behavioural evidence (99.9%) is all on-wiki (though some now deleted). I have asked a CU off-wiki to fill in the last 0.1%. Their edits are basically a dead give away per WP:DUCK. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think quality is the issue here, carelessness is. You deleted several pages that had unambiguously been "significantly" edited by others, e.g. Leanne Redman, which David had declined a previous CSD on and substantially rewritten. You also restored blatant vandalism just because Slowking5 happened to be the one who reverted it. I understand the importance of enforcing blocks on sockpuppets, but doing so shouldn't be at the cost of (re)introducing bad edits, deleting the contributions of good faith editors, or overruling the decisions of other admins. Maybe in future do these manually, rather than using the 'Nuke' tool (in fact I'm surprised to learn that such an indiscriminate tool exists). – Joe (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) @Joe Roe: I was under the false impression that Special:Nuke only deleted pages that were only edited by said editor, my apologies for that misunderstanding (more work for me next time to evaluate all pages ..). I also agree on the one mistaken rollback ..
- I disagree on the point that I overruled the decision of the other admin, I deleted for completely different reasons, per policy. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BANREVERT is the relevant policy. They don't necessarily have to be reverted—use best judgement.—Bagumba (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert" - and this is not ambigious. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was only stating the relevant policy. Without having looked at the reverts/deletes, I have no opinion on your specific actions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I understand, I did not want to give the impression that I understood differently. Note that you would need to know the history of the edits of this sock, not the just the reverts/deletes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was only stating the relevant policy. Without having looked at the reverts/deletes, I have no opinion on your specific actions. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Bagumba: "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert" - and this is not ambigious. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- this is a frequent dilemma--the oractical way of enforcing a ban is to deny the contributions, but if the subjects are important enough, this harms the encyclopedia. I would not have asked about Larssen, nor (presumably) David Epstein about Redman and Wang , had we not judged the individual awere so important in their fields that coverage was essential--and had we not been specialists in that particular subject area. And even so, I would probably not have asked about, Larssen has I not previous to the deletion worked significantly on the article, to the extent of an almost complete rewriting. When an article by a banned individual has been worked on by a responsible editor here, that editor is normally considered to have adopted the article adnd taken responsibility for it. Whatever we do about the sock's work, you can not remove the work of editors in good standing'work under G5. That's the problems with mass removal--they are indiscriminate and do not take account of circumstances. .It is normally considered that mass removals require specific prior authorization at ANI -- and, even so, in recent cases most of the articles subject to such mass removals have in practice not been deleted because established editors spoke up for them.
- (but since the question was raised, I do want to say in all fairness that Beetstra's decision to delete an article I worked on was not overruling an admin decision. My working on it was an editorial action, not an admin one. Similarly for my declining the speedy: any editor, not just an admin , can decline a speedy). DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- What's "oractical"? EEng 19:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with DGG's reading of the situation. Furthermore, since Slowking4 / Warren5th (is there a specific reason we're not mentioning him by name here?) was not actually sanctioned because of problematic edits in mainspace per se, deleting notable content from the encyclopedia seems counter-productive. One possible compromise would be to undelete the remainder of the articles, send them to AfD, and see what the community thinks on a case by case basis. My understanding of G5 is that it was used to sanction somebody who used sockpuppets to repeatedly create blatantly unsuitable pages, and was introduced as a device to save time - Iridescent can remember the specifics, I think. See here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: Do you understand that this is an editor who has argued that they should be eligible for prizes in a contest for the work that they contributed after all that work was deleted (a step up from the general 'I win prizes for collaboration')? And again, WP:BMB "A number of banned editors have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force editors into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content." - are we arguing here that we should just leave good editing by banned editors, just block? Maybe we should then update that in the banning policy. I feel the cause is here more important than the 'crime'.
- I did not mention the names, the discussion is more about the general conflict / paradox in my use of administrative tools, not about the block / socking / block evasion itself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is this prizes for an on-wiki contest (in which case tell him a) he's not having them and b) grow up) or somewhere else (in which case contact the organisers and explain why he shouldn't get anything)? In any case, that's a separate issue to the content that gets left behind. In ten years' time, everyone will have forgotten about the editor, but the article will still be around for people to read, if they want to. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, on-wiki contests. And that is exactly my point.
- Note that, going through their socks, I see copyright issues from September 2017 .. going through the contributions of the last sock, I see article duplication, and cases bordering on plagiarism. I am sorry people, there are all types of problems noted in the history of this editor which are ongoing. I have undeleted a couple of articles now, but I would not be surprised that some of that material is blatant copyvio. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I have opened up a more specific question at WP:VPP#WP:BMB to suggest a different solution to wholesale deletion in specific cases. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- My 2p - I'm very firm with DENY and nuke on sight, but if another editor asks me to restore an article/category etc. then I happily do so. GiantSnowman 09:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Same here, with the caveat that I would need a good reason, not just a blanket request, and certainly not a blanket request to restore all of them. "Banned" = we don't want you here, not "we don't want you here, but if you edit anyway, we'll keep the edits", which basically gives banned editors a good reason to continue socking. Fram (talk) 15:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- SPI clerk here. I normally reserve G5 deletions for pages very recently created by banned users where mass-creation is their MO, or where the pages are recreations of pages they've previously created, especially when they're obviously gaming create protection or regex salting. I also don't think I've ever used mass delete. Speedy deletion is for unambiguous cases only - if there's any doubt as to whether content is acceptable, deletion should be up to discussion. At least in edge cases, a deletion discussion sets up a rationale for WP:G4 deletion in the future. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
I forgot my password
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I think I just forgot my password, need restoration. If needed ill create new account just in case I lose password Glorium (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Which account? Orientls (talk) 09:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Glorium: ^^^^ --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- If your account has email enabled then you can use that to reset your password. Hut 8.5 17:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Glorium: ^^^^ --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
No need anymore I found my password — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorium (talk • contribs) 2018-08-10T23:16:58 (UTC)
Persistent sockpuppetry
We have had three sockpuppet investigations (re five accounts) at Talk:Israel over the last few days (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/יורם שורק). The sock keeps coming back, and has done so again today. The SPI process takes some time, so the sock seems happy to continue to open new accounts. Is there anything that can be done to block them completely, or do we need to resign ourselves to a long term game of Whac-A-Mole? Onceinawhile (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think an RfC that has experienced this much verified disruption can have the weight of a consensus. Is it possible to protect the talk page so only extended-confirmed accounts can participate for a time? It might be best to scrap this one and start over. (This is also just a good idea to deter bad behavior in the future.) Seraphim System (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- (non-admin cmt) I think that both those moves would be very wise. Irondome (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Request to lift topic ban
I was topic banned on May 1,2018 for violating several wikipedia policies while editing a caste article. I was relatively new to wikipedia and was not familiar with the policies. I know that ignorance is not an excuse. I apologize for my rude behavior. Since then, I have been making good contributions in other areas without any complaints so far. I promise I will continue to abide by wiki rules and remain a good editor. I request to consider my appeal to lift the topic ban. I have appealed for a lift in the past but was turned down. I am requesting again. I am ready to address any concerns you have about me. Sharkslayer87 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Isn't the standard to wait 6 months? that's November 1 by my calendar. MPJ-DK 21:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sharkslayer87, MPJ-DK is correct, the standard is to wait six months. And especially in your case, you should wait. Did you read these comments on your original ban appeal, which you posted a mere hour after the topic ban had been placed? Several admins + experienced users there stated specifically that a new appeal from you should not be entertained until a minimum of six months had passed. I agree with them. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC).
- I, too, would recommend waiting, and using the six month period to demonstrate that you can build content responsibly in other areas. A lot of your activity at present is anti-vandalism, which is good, but does not provide us a basis with which to judge whether the topic ban is still necessary. 05:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- For engaging in harassment of other users, LargelyRecyclable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
- Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
- Auntieruth55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
- Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
- While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
For the Arbitration Committee, --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed
Antifa page and the Department of Homeland Security
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The web is an intricate trail of IP addresses and I feel that the Department of Homeland Security should investigate the antifa page with Wikipedia authorities!
America has experienced election meddling with foreign actors (most recently in 2016) and it's not just Russia -- China is involved as well as the U.K. The simple matter is that anyone capable of editing a page on Wikipedia has the ability to shape the narrative about a subject by creating original criticism. This is of particular concern with pages, like antifa where some editors take a hardline response and attempt to silence others. They aim through attrition to intimidate others.
With regards to antifa, he United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) declared the activities of antifa as “domestic terrorist violence” in 2017. https://www.newsweek.com/are-antifa-terrorists-658396
Members of antifa “wear black pants and sweatshirts, with either helmets or hoods over their heads, bandanas across their faces — and dark sunglasses, goggles or gas masks over their eyes. Many carry makeshift shields and flags, whose staffs can quickly become weapons. They call themselves “antifa,” short for anti-fascist, and they’re part of a loosely organized national network of anonymous anarchists.” Select editors would like to hide this fact.
I have met with resistance at every well documented citation: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/03/antifa-berkeley-protest-trump-coulter/ https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unmasking-antifa-anti-fascists-hard-left/index.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/style/black-bloc-fashion.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/06/05/in-portland-images-of-knives-brass-knuckles-bricks-show-viciousness-of-protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ff42b5d7d84a
I am happy to speak with anyone regarding the concerns of our nation! SDSU-Prepper (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Also being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antifa (United States)--Cameron11598 (Talk) 06:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Request to lift topic ban (Robertinventor)
I wish to get my indef topic ban in the Buddhism topic area lifted. The main reason given for the original topic ban was that my talk page posts were too long, and I did too many of them. A secondary reason was that I did too many minor edits after posting them. Several other points were mentioned, but those were given most weight in the discussion. All of these are easily addressed.
First note that I'm an editor in good standing, with no other sanctions against me. Also I am frequently involved in extensive conversations in other topic areas. My posts are sometimes technical and detailed, however, they are always to the point, intended to help improve wikipedia, and usually are appreciated by the other editors in the conversation. In the topic areas that interest me, often other participants in the discussion do long posts too, and I appreciate their long posts as much as they appreciate mine; this discussion is an example. I have never been taken to ANI over the length of my posts on any other topic.
However, I agree that my talk page habits did cause a major issue in the Buddhism debates. Occasionally they causes minor issues in other debates. I sometimes have found it hard to adjust to Wikipedia from other platforms because
- If you edit your post after posting it, this sends alerts to editors watching the talk page. and fills talk page histories with diffs for all your edits
- Other editors will see the whole of your long post when browsing a thread (on other platforms they see only the first few lines until they click more).
But I have a solution!
Sandbox solution
The main change since the t-ban is that I have got into the habit of composing replies in my sandbox if they seem likely to need to be edited after posting. I never thought of this way of using my sandbox until @Softlavender: suggested it during the t-ban appeal discussion (apparently someone mentioned it to me before, but I didn't notice).
- This completely solves the issue of minor edits filling talk page histories and sending multiple alerts to other editors. Sometimes I forget to use the sandbox, or don't think it is going to be necessary. When that happened recently, an editor posted: User:Robertinventor#Too many edits for a talk page post. In response, I immediately started using the sandbox for this discussion, which solved the issue raised in that comment.
- I have also been using the sandbox for long talk page posts. This gives me an opportunity to review them and shorten them using my User:Robertinventor/Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments. I can even leave a draft there and take a break and then come back and find a way of making it shorter.
- As for doing too many posts in a short period of time, if this ever arises again, I can deal with that by either taking wikibreaks, or slowing down the pace of conversation, and giving other editors lots of time to respond before returning to the conversation myself.
I have also added messages to my user space to encourage other editors to please draw my attention to the matter if I do any of these things.
- User:Robertinventor#Over lengthy talk page posts or too many posts
- User:Robertinventor#Too many posts
- User:Robertinventor#Too many edits for a talk page post? Just remind me to use the sandbox - thanks!
I have also just now added a reminder text message to my user page and talk page: REMINDER TO SELF - YOU ARE NOW ON WIKIPEDIA - USE SANDBOX TO COMPOSE YOUR COMMENTS IF THEY ARE LIKELY TO NEED EDITING AFTER POSTING
This should help prevent similar issues arising in the future.
Wikignoming and new editing interests
Although I only did wikignoming in this topic area in the past, I have developed new editing interests since the dispute. As a result I wish to edit some of the Buddhist biographies.
I also have a special interest in the modern movement for reintroduction of the full Bhikkhuni ordination for women to Buddhist traditions that have lost this, and may be able to help improve articles in this topic area.
I would also help fix broken links, and add extra cites and so on.
Most of these edits are likely to require little by way of conversation. At most, I expect a few comments back and forth.
This is one of the biographies I'd like to work on:
- Milarepa has multiple issues of sourcing and neutrality.
- Milarepa draft is my new draft of it uploaded to miraheze (a free community wiki). It fixes these issues, see diff.
- It is based mainly on the translator's note by Andrew Quintman, a good WP:RS on this topic that is cited in the original article. It won the American Academy of Religion’s 2014 Award for Excellence in the Study of Religion in Textual Studies and the 2015 Heyman Prize for outstanding scholarship from Yale University.
Robert Walker (talk) 13:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) Looking through your contributions, it appears that you're still posting long comments on article Talk pages over at Talk:Clathrate_gun_hypothesis#Update_needed_on_shallow_Arctic_methane_clathrates so it's not at all clear to me that you'd work with other editors in a concise way in the Buddhism topic area. Moreover, in the ANI where you were topic banned, you'd previously promised to reduce the amount you post and edit your posts and didn't carry out that promise. Unless you have diffs showing that you have actually been taking the steps you outline above, and have done so for at least six months, this reads to me as an empty set of promises.
- Also, reading original ANI, it's clear to me that although your posting style was a major part of the reason you were topic banned, it wasn't the only reason: the topic ban came about because you had strong feelings about Buddhism and the way the articles had recently been changed. Your suggestions to fix this posting style do not address the other issues with sourcing, tagging, and accepting consensus that were raised there. Ca2james (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Previous editing restrictions and timeline, for context. While Robert is not under any other editing restrictions at this time, it should be noted that he had a previous topic ban in this area.
- From May 2016 to November 2016, Robert was under a six-month topic ban on pages related to the Four Noble Truths (a Buddhism-related subtopic). As far as I can see, once Robert understood how topic bans worked on Wikipedia he respected the ban without problems. This ban was of a set duration rather than indefinite, and lapsed when the time expired on 27 November 2016.
- A very cursory glance at Robert's contribution history suggests that he made a dozen or so edits on Talk:Four Noble Truths in December 2016, then stayed away from Four Noble Truths and other Buddhism-related edits entirely until early April 2017. (Please correct me if I've missed something.)
- Less than a month after resuming edits in the topic area, he was subjected to the current, indefinite, broader-than-the-original topic ban now under appeal, imposed in May 2017. That ban came with the stipulation that no appeal would be considered for at least six months. As far as I am aware, this is the first appeal; fifteen months have elapsed since the ban was imposed.
I don't offer a judgement either way on the appropriate outcome of the appeal. I do think that a previous topic ban in the area is relevant information for people evaluating the current appeal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
===Response to Ca2james===
'Response to Ca2james @Ca2james:, I'm not sure of protocol here. I don't want to break the thread by an indented long comment, but you made many points for me to respond to. It seems best to do them as a new section.
First, on sourcing, the concluding statement just says
"A fair part of this thread relates to content and sourcing issues. While interesting, these aren't a matter for ANI."
So, I was not sanctioned on sourcing issues. But - in case it is needed, I expand on sourcing issues below:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
In any case, I never attempted to add new content of my own to the Buddhism topic area in any of those debates. The remarks about improper sourcing in the appeal debate refer to the methods of sourcing used by the main space editors up to 2014 on the articles I was trying to restore. They had used them for several years at the time of the rewrite to remove material sourced in that way. I was a wikignome (in this topic area) trying to restore material that I thought had been improperly deleted. To be as clear as possible:
Unless someone else re-opens the question and requests comments, I don't intend to return to this topic. And if I ever do - it will be with restraint and making sure my comments do not overwhelm the conversation, one per day or per week or some such. But it is unlikely that this topic comes up again in the near future. @Dorje108:, who was the main editor of several of those articles, is no longer active in the project and I think most of those who supported the old sourcing approach have either left or are inactive. The areas I plan to edit, of biographies like the biography of Milarepa, and of bhikkuni ordination, are far removed from any of the topics discussed in the articles that I tried to get restored. The edits are also minor ones. In the example I give of the Milarepa article my edits are to solve issues of neutrality and unsourced content, and I expect my edits to be non controversial. Most of my edits of wikipedia are. |
(self collapsed - as optional section - as not what I as sanctioned for)
On long posts: The Clathrates debate you brought up is the only occasion since the topic ban itself when anyone has complained of walls of text. They only did that because one of the editors in the debate read through my talk page and found the topic ban. They assumed I was a problem editor because of this. They soon came to realize that they were not walls of text, as the conversation continued. See the last section Talk:Clathrate gun hypothesis#Some of the main points for attention. I have given a list of 11 points that need attention in the article. I asked the other editor who made the recent changes to discuss them. They did not. I asked them to supply a quote for a cite behind a paywall. They did not. I asked if they were okay with me making the proposed changes. They did not reply.
A third editor who was involved in the debate then said diff "I'll review and edit as there is time and interest, about all I can say. Follow Wiki rules and do as you will." So that is what I plan to do, but haven't had time to get back to the article since then. I think if you review the conversation you will find I behaved in a proper fashion there and complied with the Wikipedia guidelines on talk page activity.
The reason I do a fair bit of talk page activity is because if I encounter a conflict situation like this, I never edit war. It is rare for me to revert an edit apart from vandalism. Where possible I avoid the R of BRD and just do BD. In the clathrate debate after that editor's bold rewrite of the article, most editors would have done a R first then a D. I just went straight to D. It is slower, maybe, but I prefer that approach.
Use of the sandbox The concluding admin @Euryalus: only said this about the sandbox:
"There was discussion of WP:REDACT and the refactoring of talkpage posts, but on balance there was insufficient comment to establish consensus for a sanction. Robertinventor's offer to use the sandbox sounds like a good idea and will hopefully address the issue"
Sometimes long talk page posts are acceptable in wikipedia, as in the example I gave of a detailed discussion of an extremely complex article on microtonal music. It would severely limit our ability to work on such complex articles if comments were always required to be short. Robert Walker (talk) 03:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Votes on Request to lift topic ban (Robertinventor)
- Oppose lifting of topic ban The length of this "wall of text" request itself, and its failure to address the full range of issues that led to the topic ban, convince me that lifting the topic ban would not be beneficial to the encyclopedia and would be highly likely to result in additional problems for this editor. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose (Non-administrator comment). This wall of text request and the walls of text at Talk:Clathrate gun hypothesis show that this editor has not yet learned how to write succinctly, let alone to write succinctly in Buddhist topics. Moreover, this editor has also broken his topic ban several times although he self-reverted each time. The most recent topic ban violation was on August 6, [16] only about 30 mins after violating the ban on another article.[17] With such recent topic ban violations, I don't see how the topic ban could be lifted. Ca2james (talk) 21:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose Robert is well-intentioned but unfortunately their style of discussion makes collaborative editing virtually impossible. I had observed this at the talk-pages of Karma four-years back (do take a glance at archives 3, 4, 5, 6) and had offered this advice as a non-participant in that discussion. It is obvious from this AN discussion itself that passage of time + that advice + similar advice from numerous other editors + topic ban, have not made much difference. Given that, I am opposed to easing of any editing restriction, and would sincerely ask Robertinventor to consider if wikipedia with its requirements to collaborate is a suitable venue for them to contribute their time and knowledge. Abecedare (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Weak Support there certainly isn't a convincing case that Robert has learned to express his views clearly and concisely. On the other hand, I'm not sure how a topic-ban regarding Buddhism solves that problem or helps the encyclopedia. The 2013 version of the Four Noble Truths article is very different from the current one; it's not unreasonable that an editor might prefer the earlier version but struggle to explain why. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion and request for advice if you vote Oppose, Thanks!
{{ping|Cullen}}@Cullen328: I wish to be a better editor. Please tell me, what have I failed to address? Also, 'what was unnecessary or verbose? Incidentally in case it is unclear - the section on the sourcing is one I collapsed myself - as an optional section because Ca2james raised it - though it was specifically excluded by @Euryalus: as not what I was sanctioned for.
I have done everything within my ability to satisfy those two somewhat conflicting requirements, to give a short reply, yet to answer everything in enough detail for admins to assess it accurately. I spent several days working on the orignal appeal off-wiki (because of the t-ban). From the time stamps in my sandbox I spent 47 minutes working on my reply to @Ca2james:, mainly to shorten it, and copy editing for clarity. I have spent several hours on this response working on it from time to time to try to shorten it. There is no lack of good will and intent to benefit Wikipedia here. What is missing is mainly knowing what it is you require of me. I would appreciate it if any of you who vote Oppose would give a little time to advise me in this section about how to move forward in my talk page editing practices, or anything else, for the next appeal, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 05:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Robertinventor, you need to learn how to be succinct, and you need to abandon your POV pushing on topics related to Buddhism. You have done neither. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- By the way, I am Cullen328, not Cullen. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- As a stylistic note, it is unnecessary, distracting, and disruptive to create a new section header for each of your own comments. Trust other Wikipedia editors to be able to follow a threaded discussion. More generally, one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia is to accept that sometimes someone disagrees with your assessment of a situation. The impulse to think If I just explain it to them longer and harder, they'll come around! is hard to resist, and we all fall prey to it from time to time—but you're not doing a good job of demonstrating you can pick and choose your hills to die on, and you're continuing to hurt your case in the process. You've now broken this appeal up across a sufficient number of subheadings that it's not even entirely obvious where an editor endorsing your appeal should post their comments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TenOfAllTrades: Oh sorry to hear that. So the issue is that in my response to @Ca2james: I expanded on things I already said in the original t-ban appeal and I should have just let the original statements stand "as is"? That is useful feedback, thanks. Moving forwards I can't fix it now per WP:REDACT. However, I think it is okay to remove the "response to Ca2james" heading to convert it back to a threaded discussion, if I do it with strikeout rather than just edit it away, and add a new "Appeal votes" heading with underline, to make the organization clearer. That may help. As for this new new section, it is because I didn't want to comment directly on a support or oppose vote, and I think a discussion section is normal enough here? Robert Walker (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Cullen328: - sorry for getting the ping wrong. I have edited it to fix it. It seems I have to answer this to get the t-ban lifted. So, please note that the topics I suggested are as far removed as could be from the topics that lead to the original discussions in the vast topic area of Buddhism. Also, I am an editor in good standing in Wikipedia, for instance I am the main editor of the Planetary protection article, and wrote about half of its content, also the main editor of Interplanetary contamination and this is a controversial area with many WP:POVs. I was not pushing some eccentric view of Buddhism of my own, but trying to restore material based on the previous consensus on how to present articles on Buddhism in the topic area up to 2014. I recognize that this consensus has changed and have moved on. I am involved in editing in a WP:NPOV and WP:RS way in many topic areas in wikipedia and it shouldn't be a problem to do the same in the suggested topic areas too. I can prove this by my actions if you lift the topic ban. Details collapsed again as it is not what I was sanctioned for:
Extended content
|
|---|
|
The issue of whether or not the current articles on central topics in Buddhism are WP:POV was based on a change in view on what counts as a WP:RS in 2014 in the topic area that came to ahead in this RfC. I got involved as someone who had only done wikignoming in this area who had Karma in Buddhism on my watchlist. I noticed this major rewrite in November 2014. The editor who did the rewrite had never edited the article or its related talk page and this was the status of the talk page when the rewrite began. It was one of the earliest articles on Buddhism, written in 2006 and as you can see from the talk page discussions at the time, it was regarded as stable, NPOV and well sourced by all the editors who commented there up to 2014, and this, and similar material in three other articles is what the discussion was about; never about work of my own that I wished to add. This seems to be the main point you wish to make so I thought I should answer it in full, but do bear in mind that I was not sanctioned for this. I can answer on short comments separately. |
Robert Walker (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Site ban proposal for User:NadirAli
Last month,[18] NadirAli's mass sockpuppetry was discovered. Consequently, Ivanvector blocked NadirAli but only for 3 months contrary to the actual standards for such violations.
After I objected the duration,[19] Ivanvector started an ARCA clarification request.[20] The outcome of the request was that NadirAli should be "treated like we'd treat anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry".[21] I proposed siteban by motion, to which Worm That Turned responded, "you make a strong argument for a site ban... If you still strongly feel that the site ban should be put in place, why not suggest it at AN with your explanation. There's no reason that the community cannot pass a ban based on past behaviour."[22] No arbitrators disagreed with that.
ARCA request has been archived but the outcome is still pending. Some significant points regarding the misconduct are as follow:
- NadirAli was evading his siteban before he was unbanned.[23]
- After getting unblocked he abused IPs and created Boxman88 (talk · contribs)[24] to evade the Arbcom topic ban. The topic ban was later overturned.
- He was blocked indefinitely for copyright violation.[25]
- He was topic banned from uploading any images.[26]
- He was blocked indefinitely for violating that topic ban.[27]
- Violated his ban on image uploading by creating a new sock, Posuydon (talk · contribs).[28]
- Indefinitely topic banned from India-Pakistan conflict.[29]
- Violated topic ban on India-Pakistan conflict last month,[30] however, he denied any topic ban violation,[31] just like he used to deny copyright violations.[32]
It can be safely said that NadirAli is the most disruptive editor in the South Asia topic area. Had the sockpuppetry been discovered early, the damage that his actions have done to the project could have been avoided. In these twelve years, NadirAli has engaged in a very large degree of disruption and displayed clear inability to act collegially, and this was on display even in his last edit. A siteban is probably overdue for someone who is currently topic banned from several areas for an indefinite period and has been socking this rigorously for such a long period. --RaviC (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support. When you're engaged in long-term sockpuppetry for the purposes of disruption and ban-evasion, and when you're willing to deny something that can be proven against you, you simply can't be trusted one bit. Apparently I don't understand the new rule, because I would have imagined that he qualified for automatic siteban. Nyttend (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- PS, note that NadirAli has three indefinite blocks in his main account's history. Some of us have gotten multiple non-problematic indefs, due to mistakes or testing or rogue admins (I have one mistake and two testing; Jimbo Wales has one mistake, two rogue admin, and two I-don't-know-what), but all of NadirAli's appear to be deserved. It's rare for an active editor to have more than one, and truly exceptional for an active editor with three indefs to get a deserved definite block for violating an Arbcom injunction. I'm thankful that Ivanvector is willing to be gracious, but I don't think it's the wisest choice. Nyttend (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Overall net negative. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support Community ban. His trolling (I have no better word) [33] has been just out of hands. Orientls (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose and reject, the user is already sanctioned and serving out a block as methodically prescribed in this and previous such cases. Sanctions are designed to be preventative, not punitive. The filer has presented no tangible argument why the already-existing sanction needs to be replaced. I have known NadirAli for a few years, and his contributions to Pakistan articles have generally been thoughtful, constructive, and overall positive. Right up until his block (which was both sad, unnecessary, and a serious lack of acumen on his part), his behaviour was cooperative, normal, and not something that would qualify as sabotaging or disrupting the project en masse. The two (the filer and NadirAli) and others here undoubtedly have had past beef, hence the reason why I would read between the lines and take things with a pinch of salt IMO. Also waiting for comments from Ivanvector, who obviously would've had good reasons of his own to extend the block for 3 months rather than the usual line of action; he would be in a better position to explain why that was decided. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 10:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Have you even read what has been already said above? Arbcom has already clarified to Ivanvector that NadirAli's sock puppetry should be dealt like "anyone else with a repeated history of sockpuppetry", i.e. indef block or a indef ban. Orientls (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Like I said, the line of action for such cases is to enforce a block, which I'm already seeing. The user is blocked. The enforcing admin would've had reasons to determine why this length was appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ivanvector certainly had his explanation in ARCA and Arbcom has clarified the misunderstanding. I can just hope that he would agree with what we went over at ARCA. Furthermore Mar4d, you may not know, but NadirAli has edit-warred with you as well [34][35] by evading his ban with IPs. Interestingly, this is the same article where he was caught socking last month.[36] --RaviC (talk) 11:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Like I said, the line of action for such cases is to enforce a block, which I'm already seeing. The user is blocked. The enforcing admin would've had reasons to determine why this length was appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support WP:CBAN. Should have been done a while back. Agree with Nyttend that NadirAli got away with a number of violations for which he deserved an indefinite block. When it comes to disruptive editing, NadirAli has done it all - Sock puppetry , Edit warring , factional editing, misrepresentation of sources, and the list goes on. His presence in the ARBIPA area is what can be defined as long term disruptive editing with having the dubious distinction of being banned in first and only Arbcom case concerning this area. Looking at the most recent edit of NadirAli, we get the idea that his motive is further disruption. I think as a community we have wasted enough time on him and he has been given enough rope, hundreds of chances over a decade. It is time to take a binding decision on this matter. Razer(talk) 11:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support - As per Nyttend. NadirAli's editing is mostly shady and the non-shady part is mostly worthless. I don't see why the community needs to keep wasting its time on this editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Will you elaborate what you mean by "worthless". I saw his contributions over the years, and before the block occurred, and they were mostly positive in terms of content creation and expansion. No one is free from mistakes, including you. I disagree with your unnecessary aspersion. Mar4d (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support - The limited blocks and bans had been tried enough number of times. The Arb case should have been the final whistle for Nadir to stop such activity. The Kind admins like Ivan have already given the user enough WP:Rope to improve but by multiple violations as pointed above the user himself has decided to hang himself. The assumption that this editor will improve his behavior to avoid the ban would have been valid for earlier cases, Nadir by choosing to edit in conflict with the bans has already made the good faith assumption void. Proxy editors and the handlers need to be sent a strong message that indulging in such activity will not get any benefits and will only lead to strong administrative actions. --DBigXray 14:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support--The length of the rope, provided thus far, was not meant to approach infinity.....Thanks for your services, Good bye.∯WBGconverse 15:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support - Long overdue. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support this editor has a history of getting indefinitely blocked for many different kinds of disruptive editing, only to be unblocked with a topic ban, editing restriction or "last" chance. People like that should be shown the door. A three month block is very generous for socking by an experienced editor, especially one who has been ordered not to use multiple accounts by ArbCom. Hut 8.5 17:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support. It's an unfortunate fact that nationalist disputes in South Asia bring out the worst in many of our otherwise capable editors. Nadir Ali has at various points demonstrated that he has the ability to edit constructively, but has chosen not to make use of it. I recommended a t-ban for him a few months ago, but that was before evidence of further sockpuppetry was brought forward. His edits have been a net negative, and this ban is necessary. Vanamonde (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Support: Nadir Ali definitely was a disruptive editor in both South Asia and science fiction subjects. There was an ANI against him last year,[37] and thus, we can't say that he didn't have enough chances since he actually received far too many. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose - I have reason to believe that this request is not in good faith, but yet another example of the factionalized editing identified in the AE topic ban thread from a few months ago in which many of the previous commenters here were named and (temporarily) topic-banned. I should have noted more clearly at the time, but I have doubts that the accounts named in the most recent of the SPI filings against NadirAli were actually NadirAli's accounts, versus a sophisticated attempt at joejobbing - the checkuser result was inconclusive, and the two accounts are blocked for being sockpuppets of each other, not for being sockpuppets of NadirAli. Of course, NadirAli is hardly an innocent party in this ongoing dispute as evidenced by his long block log, including several indefinite blocks as Nyttend noted, but note also that indef != permanent, and all of those blocks served their purpose and were eventually replaced with appropriate limiting sanctions, which NadirAli has largely abided by since appealing to BASC in 2014. He's slipped up a couple times, but who hasn't in this group? It's a literal disaster, none of these editors don't have notations in their block log and/or their names repeatedly mentioned at AE or the various admin boards. The recent SPI hinged on IP edits from a huge (/11) subnet in Brampton, Ontario, a large Canadian city with a very significant Pakistani population, most of which were more than a year old at the time of the report. NadirAli is only currently blocked because of what appears to have been an oversight that his Arbcom topic ban was rescinded but his parallel no-logged-out-editing restriction was not rescinded at the same time (why I asked about it at ARCA), and had that restriction not been in place, I would not have blocked him but treated the situation as time served with a warning. It's only because that restriction remained in place, and admins do not have latitude to admin in conflict with Arbcom, that he is blocked at all. Sitebanning him for that is an incredible overreach. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:13, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you but that was unnecessary. NadirAli is the only serial sock puppeteer here. In place of righting great wrongs why don't you just try following what Arbcom told you after you specifically asked them. You are acting like an apologist. You are degrading your own credibility by encouraging his disruption. Orientls (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Orientls It's one thing to argue that IvanVector is wrong; it's quite another to suggest that by exercising due diligence, he is an apologist for sockpuppetry. This is precisely the sort of us-vs-them nonsense that earned nine others topic-bans along with Nadir Ali, and I suggest you refrain from attacking anyone else's motives. Vanamonde (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you but that was unnecessary. NadirAli is the only serial sock puppeteer here. In place of righting great wrongs why don't you just try following what Arbcom told you after you specifically asked them. You are acting like an apologist. You are degrading your own credibility by encouraging his disruption. Orientls (talk) 14:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per the reasons given by Ivanvector. Nadir's past policy violations resulted in sanctions being placed and time served. Those violations can't be held up against him. We should be viewing Nadir's current conduct, which in my opinion is productive and a net positive. Son of Kolachi (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per IvanVector. He's quite right - a siteban is a massive overreach here, considering the behaviour of other actors in this mess of an editing area. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I believe he has been an extremely concerned constructive editor who has been working to build a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. His contributions to the platform are such that the encyclopedia would see a great loss in his absence. I see nothing that warrants a site ban. I don't want to see it not do I think it is proportionate.KA$HMIR (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose I agree with Ivanvector and other editors opposing this unnecessary site ban. Sanctions are supposed to be preventive and not punitive. NadirAli has served time for his past violations and currently under a ban and according to Ivanvector, no current sockpuppetry allegations were proven. We should not be extending a ban without a solid recent violation. It will be definitely a massive overreach as Ivanvector has rightly put it. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Wheel of Fortune vandalism
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following IPs have been vandalizing Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show): this one and this one.
I have seen IPs in a similar range, leaving similarly malicious edit on a fan wiki for Wheel that I founded, such as this one. Given that they use the "newer" style IP ranges that are a huge mishmash of numbers, I don't know if a rangeblock is possible or not. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:01, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: The range would be 2601:81:8500:f6e0:81e2:404a:5521:8cae/5, which is too large for a rangeblock. Home Lander (talk) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Home Lander: what would be the best way to curtail this vandalism then? I almost suspect it may be a bot, given how it vomits randomly related words onto everything. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TenPoundHammer: If it gets super bad, request WoF to be semi-protected, I'd say. Home Lander (talk) 02:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Home Lander: what would be the best way to curtail this vandalism then? I almost suspect it may be a bot, given how it vomits randomly related words onto everything. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Range blocked for a week. Let me know if it starts up again. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Not sure if it matters, but it doesn't look like 2001:1970:521F:2900:C9C0:36D1:EDC8:E736 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is included in the range; that is one that I included to calculate the (too large) range above. Home Lander (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's a different ISP and in different country, and it only made one edit which was several days ago. Maximum block for IPv6 allowed is /19. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 03:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @PlyrStar93: That's what I get for not running whois on more than one of the IPs. Home Lander (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's a different ISP and in different country, and it only made one edit which was several days ago. Maximum block for IPv6 allowed is /19. -★- PlyrStar93 →Message me. ← 03:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @NinjaRobotPirate: Not sure if it matters, but it doesn't look like 2001:1970:521F:2900:C9C0:36D1:EDC8:E736 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is included in the range; that is one that I included to calculate the (too large) range above. Home Lander (talk) 02:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Jeremy Corben
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jeremy Corbyn Article is under discretionary sanctions clearly on the edit screen as one revert - User:Exzachary is breaking those conditions. Govindaharihari (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
the addition is well-sourced and neutral.Exzachary (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've blocked for 24 hours as a regular admin action (not AE) as they don't seem to be formally aware of the sanctions and were continuing to edit war after getting a warning, which is disruptive regardless of XRR. Any admin is free to unblock if I'm not around and they agree to stop. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Dispute
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I would like to ask for opening a dispute here [38] concerning this entry [[39]] After many discussions it is difficult to arrive to a consensus and at the moment the entry is blocked and with a version that in my oppinion is not based on facts but on oppinions of third people (videos and articles). The accusations of having links to far right organisation is very serious. Thanks!--Manlorsen (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)