Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 110
 | This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page. |
| Archive 105 | ← | Archive 108 | Archive 109 | Archive 110 | Archive 111 | Archive 112 | → | Archive 115 |
Amendment request: Eastern Europe (May 2019)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Icewhiz at 10:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Amendments
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Icewhiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- sourcing restriction for non-English sources for Jew-Polish relations.
- 500/30 protection for Jew-Polish relations.
- 1RR for Jew-Polish relations.
Statement by Icewhiz
In the past year, editing in the topic of Jewish history in Poland has been difficult. While WP:NOENG is policy - stating a preference for English sources of the same quality when available (generally the case for Holocaust history), and quotation requirements when challenged - NOENG has not been followed in this topic area. Non-English sources of a dubious nature have been inserted into articles, even BLPs, and in some cases, the content has failed verification: not present in the cited sources, contradicted by others. Requests for quotations and a rationale for use have gone unanswered, or dismissed with "the source is reliable" or "WP:AGF and Offline sources".
Admins at AE are reluctant to dive into such issues. This recent case was closed by @Sandstein: with: "Personally, the matter is too complicated and too much tied to content disputes for me to feel comfortable taking action; AE is better suited to relatively straightforward cases of misconduct."
[1]. I understand the sentiment here; dealing with users introducing content that fails WP:V when the cited sources aren't online, aren't in English, and/or are very long is difficult. The challenge of tackling source misrepresentations is evident in past AE threads:
List of prior AE actions
|
|---|
|
Most of the complaints were on sourcing quality and misrepresentations of sources, while editors were sanctioned for a variety of conduct issues, such as personal attacks and battleground behavior. Admins discussed the possibility of sourcing restrictions (academic and/or English only), or enforcing misrepresentation of sources. A sourcing restriction was applied to Collaboration in German-occupied Poland where the situation did improve following the restriction, but no sourcing restriction was applied elsewhere. Disputes in the topic area have involved numerous other articles (WWII history, geographic locations, BLPs in the field).
I will note that use of sources is further complicated by the legislation which criminalized publication in Polish media of claims of Polish complicity in crimes committed during the Holocaust.[1][2][3]
There are excellent mainstream Polish-language academic sources, referenced by academia outside of Poland. In fact, the Polish Wikipedia often has a balanced representation of the subject matter (see this 2015 oped on a long-running WP:HOAX in Stawiski: "Surprisingly, the Polish Wikipedia articles evidence greater willingness to admit Polish participation in massacres of Jews."
corrected in 2018) Unfortunately, sources in Polish introduced to English Wikipedia are often not high-quality mainstream academic writing, but rather right-wing newspaper op-eds, interviews, blog posts, and pulp journals/books.
Please see general examples of misrepresenting sources: (more are available on request)
Diffs of source use failing verification + subsequent reverts / lack of quotations and discussion
|
|---|
|
Possibly disruptive edits by non-EC users:
Edit Warring & non-EC edits
|
|---|
|
References
- ^ Poland Holocaust law: France criticises 'ill advised' text, BBC, 7 Feb 2018
- ^ Gebert, Konstanty. "Projecting Poland and its past: Poland wants you to talk about the “Polocaust”." Index on Censorship 47.1 (2018): 35-37.
- ^ Hackmann, Jörg. "Defending the “Good Name” of the Polish Nation: Politics of History as a Battlefield in Poland, 2015–18." Journal of Genocide Research 20.4 (2018): 587-606.
- ^ Ambrosewicz-Jacobs, Jolanta. "The uses and the abuses of education about the Holocaust in Poland after 1989." Holocaust Studies (2019): 1-22.
- ^ La Pologne minimise les incidents lors d’un colloque sur la Shoah à Paris, Le Monde, 4 March 2019
- ^ Polish magazine's 'Islamic rape of Europe' cover sparks outrage, Guardian, 18 Feb 2018
I request that ARCA consider the following:
- 500/30 protection for the topic of Polish-Jewish relations.
- 1RR for the topic of Polish-Jewish relations.
- A sourcing restriction. Some possibilities:
- Revert restriction - editors performing reverts of challenged material are responsible for verifying the contents. Failure to verify, and provide supporting quotes, is sanctionable.
- consensus for non-English sources: In disputes over foreign-language sources in the subject area of Polish-Jewish relations, disputed sources are removed unless and until there is a consensus to include them. (similar to WP:NOCONSENSUS EL policy).
- Only English-language academic sources for historical subjects.
- Excluding low-quality non-English sources - Blogs, websites, and media sources that are subject to censorship (e.g. see the WP:HISTRS proposal). High-quality English-language sources can be found in most topics.
Such sourcing restrictions will turn "content disputes" on foreign-language sources that are difficult for enforcing admins to verify themselves into actionable violations of a sourcing restriction. As copious and numerous English language sources are available in Holocaust studies, a restriction won't limit our source pool much; reputable non-English writers get translated to English or analyzed in English language secondary works. Consistent introduction of material that fails WP:V should be taken seriously, however expecting admins at AE to read 50 pages in a foreign language is not reasonable. Our goal should be that Wikipedia conforms to mainstream academic scholarship on the Holocaust, and I believe such measures would be a step forward. A limited measure in ARCA regarding sourcing (in line with AE admin comments over several cases) & non-EC edits might lead to fewer disruptions, an easier time at AE (fewer cases), and can be achieved without a full-fledged case.
- RSN comment - while RSN can be quite lively if, say, Fox News is discussed - discussion of more serious sourcing issues - particularly if not in English - ends up as a discussion between the same INVOLVED editors with very little outside input. I will note I have also seen this on ARBPIA or say in this discussion on sourcing on an Indian language/script. Outside editors rarely get involved if it involves more than "knee jerk" response. The end result is that RSN, as it doesn't actually widen the discussion, ends with the same lack of consensus, between the same editors, on the article. At present - my feeling is that RSN isn't really functional for most non-English sources (as well as niche ares). WP:NOENG (preferring English sources, translations and quotations upon challenge for non-English sources) is policy. In practice my feeling is that it is not enforceable, and nor is the introduction of information failing WP:V - as long as it isn't clear black/white Holocaust denial - one can throw 50 pages of non-English citation at something (even when good English sources are available), even stonewall at providing quotations - and it would still be a non-actionable "content dispute".Icewhiz (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Piotrus
Since 1) I've been quoted by Icewhiz (through not notified, I refer specifically to this diff), and 2) this does concern one of my primary content areas, as I've created dozens articles on Polish-Jewish topics, such as Maria Roszak just few days ago and 3) this contains the most absurd request I've seen in my ~15 years here ("sourcing restriction for non-English sources for Jew-Polish relations."), I feel I should make a statement.
First. Regarding the 1RR restriction request, the "500/30 protection" (what is this, btw? I've never heard such term used on Wikipedia before... it is a form of semi-protection) and others (request to verify sources before reverting, etc.), as someone who has seen various edit conflicts in related topic areas in dozen+ years, including some that ended up at ArbCom, it is my view that there's no significant amount of vandalism, or long term edit warring, or any other malpractices that would raise to the level requiring any special treatment for this topic area or even for any particular articles (one can check history of major articles like Polish Jews or The Holocaust in Poland or such to see they are generally stable). While it would be nice to force editors to use higher quality sources, there's no reason to treat Polish-Jewish topic area any different from the rest of Wikipedia. While there are occasional disagreements, they are not raising above the usual noise level in this area.
Second, it would be absurd to ban or restrict non-English sources. AFAIK this hasn't been done for any topic area, and rightly so, as for each language there are plenty of reliable sources. To say that Foo-language sources (or anything that's not in English) cannot be used for XYZ-topic is a very serious accusation for any scholarship. While there are some particular cases we limit sources, they are very rare - I think there's a general consensus to be careful with Nazi-era sources, for example, but even then, there's no blanket rule saying that no Nazi-era sources are allowed (through perhaps there should be, I can similarly think of issues with ISIS sources, etc. - but those are extreme cases and we are hardly anywhere near this level of seriousness here). Over the years I've cautioned some people to be careful with Soviet-era sources for some topics, or modern Putin-era Russian historiography, and I concur there are some indications some (but certainly not all!) modern Polish historiography works exhibits a worrisome political agenda not unlike that found in Putin's Russia, and it is good for editors to realize this, but overall, WP:RS covers such situations pretty well, and if needed WP:RSN can be brought to bear on specific cases (ex. see this RSN discussion Icehwiz started, which IIRC led to the decision to stop using Paul (an English-language source, btw) as a source in this topic area. It's a proof that current tools and structures work, no special treatment is needed. To ban (and remove?) Polish and other non-English sources from Polish-Jewish topics would do immense damage to the project. Many articles in categories such as Category:Polish Righteous Among the Nations or Category:Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Poland are based on Polish-language sources that simply do not exist in English. To ban sources ranging from Polish Biographical Dictionary to works by scholars from the Jewish Historical Institute or works published by many other Polish-Jewish organizations in Poland would be, IMHO, ridiculous. (As for 'remove low quality sources' plea, of course I support it - but to repeat myself, that's just like saying 'please enforce existing policies like RS'. Doh. Sure. Let's. We all agree. In all content areas. Nothing for ArbCom do look at here).
Nonetheless, the fact that such ridiculous request has been made bears considering in light that Icewhiz has often criticized Polish-language sources (ex. just yesterday here, or few months ago numerous times here - just search for NOENG; it's pretty much all Icewhiz criticizing NOENG/Polish sources; same here). While his criticism has not always been without merit (as sometimes he correctly identified low-quality sources), I don't see any relation between low quality sources he (or others, including myself) identify, and language. Sometimes we find and remove low quality Polish sources, sometimes they are English, occasionally they are in another language altogether. Language is not an issue. The fact that one can seriously make such request (April Fools has come and gone...) makes me wonder about their judgement, since to effectively try to argue that all non-English sources should be treated as if they were Nazi-German era works (i.e. automatically disqualified on the subject matter of Jewish history/culture/etc.) is not a sign of a sound editorial judgement.
Bottom line, if an editor feels that he has lost too many arguments, he should not turn to WP:FORUMSHOPPING. And trying to do so here may result in rather heavy WP:BOOMERANG. Because while there is nothing particularly wrong with Polish-Jewish topics on English Wikipedia (they are reasonably stable and neutral), there is some evidence that some editors are developing WP:BATTLEGROUND-like mentality, evidenced for example by spurious AE and even ArbCom-level requests (see my related wiki-essay). And that may be something that ArbCom may want to investigate, because a number of meritless requests at AE/ArbCom boards is an indicator of a potential problem (one that could warrant for example a ban from submitting spurious requests of such kind in the future). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Ealdgyth
Sourcing is bad on all sides in this area... these are just a few small examples I've run across ... I'm sure if I dug deeply, I'd be able to find plenty of others. Note that I've very carefully not pointed out who did these various problems - because that just feeds the battleground mentality.
- replacing Steiner's Treblinka which is not remotely a reliable source. See Jean-François Steiner for the controversy about his work. This sourcing stayed in this article for entirely too long (something like 8 or 9 years)
- See Talk:Koniuchy massacre#Sourcing..., Talk:Koniuchy massacre#Garbled ref, and heck, the whole rest of the talk page. But the two referenced sections detail issues with sourcing without going into who was evil for adding/removing them.
- See also Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 13#Holocaust section-important parts missing, where I dug into some of the sourcing and discovered some severe issues of misrepresentation. Then there's Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland/Archive 12#Paulinów incident and Hotel Polski affair where more problems were detailed.
- Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)#Troubling sourcing.... and Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)/Archive 6#Sourcing policy, and Talk:Jan Grabowski (historian)/Archive 5#Problem with source... also detail issues with sourcing occuring in this topic area.
- These two edits show how a picture was miscaptioned for ... years? ... in one of our more important Jewish ghetto articles - here the caption is changed from "Jewish welcoming banner for the Soviet forces invading Poland. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)" to "Banner in Yiddish welcoming the Soviet forces in 1939. In the background the Catholic Church of St. Roch in Białystok (Soviet photo)". More digging resulted in this change, where the actual circumstances are "Election notice to the People's council of Western Belarus, Białystok, taken during first days of German occupation in July 1941" note the original caption was based on this source where the google translate of the text says nothing close to what is claimed in the caption. A fuller discussion of this issue takes place at User talk:K.e.coffman/Archive/2018/December#For your wall of distortionist shame.
It's not just the troubling/sloppy sourcing that's occurring (and these are likely the tip of the iceberg), it's the constant battleground mentality that affects most editors in this area. One person adds something that's sloppily sourced, the other side reverts and screams bloody murder on the talk page, but then that second side adds something else that's also sloppily sourced and then the first side starts screaming bloody murder. And everything is accompanied by endless reverts ... there is not any way for third party editors who aren't invested in the conflict to actually contribute for any length of time because it's just so dreadfully draining. 1RR doesn't seem to help, because there are multiple editors on each "side" so ... the reverts just roll in and people who aren't on a side just give up and walk away - I've done it often enough.
I don't know if there are any answers. On days when I'm terribly discouraged, I think banning everyone on both sides might help but...I'm afraid that won't solve the problems, which unfortunately are tied to academic and political debates that have become so contentious that they are spilling over into wikipedia.
Pinging SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs), both of whom I've obliquely mentioned here. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Nihil novi
The initiator of the present discussion writes that non-Polonophones may have difficulty verifying sources that are not in English. For this reason, where the original Polish texts have been provided, e.g. in the references, I have often translated them into English. I have also suggested that the original Polish texts routinely be so provided, and that I will be happy to render them into English. I stand by my suggestion and offer. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Kurtis
@Piotrus: 500/30 (also known as extended-confirmed protection, or 30/500) is a special type of semi-protection that restricts accounts with less than 500 edits or have been registered for less than 30 days from editing certain pages. That is to say, an account that was registered 10 years ago but has only made 404 edits would be unable to edit a page under 500/30 protection, as would an account that has made thousands upon thousands of edits within 24 days of signing up. Both conditions must be met for an account to be granted extended-confirmed status, permitting them to edit a 500/30 protected article. Kurtis (talk) 21:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by François Robere
If the committee accepts this proposal now, it won't be a moment too soon. Throughout the discussions in this topic area we've seen (in no particular order) book summaries, liturgical press, Geocities-SPS, press releases, Ph.D students on popular websites, censorship based on supposed Communist background, independent authors, potentially antisemitic and pseudonymic authors, and more (other examples here: [25][26]). Piotrus is right in asserting that current policy was enough to resolve all of these problems, but WP:RS alone wasn't enough: we had RfCs on writers you never heard of, and days-long discussions on sources with less than 5 citations globally (which were introduced to the discussion as "notable", "important", or even "preeminent" historians). In several cases editors introduced what would later be deemed a non-RS to dozens of articles at the same time; in another, a plagiarizing source was removed 8.5 years after it was discovered. Piotrus is wrong, however, in suggesting this is "forum shopping" trying to rehash past disagreements - those we mostly managed, with much time and angst; rather, this is an attempt to prevent future ones by raising the bar on sourcing, so that we're left with actual content disputes rather than biography hunts and repeated translation requests.
Nihil novi has indeed made an effort translating and making sources accessible. This removed some of the language barriers, but did not solve several other problems: out of context quoting (where you'd need the whole page rather than 2-3 sentences); low-quality sources; inaccessible materials (low circulation, out of print etc. - often the result of low quality); and editors refusing to supply quotations or exact citations of their materials - all problems that would be resolved by this proposal.
Which leads me to a fact central to all of this: WWII is a major area of scholarship, and virtually all reputable sources end up being published in English. Sources that don't are either undiscovered or disreputable; if they're undiscovered (old and forgotten, or new and yet to be translated), then it's not our job to introduce them into the mainstream (in some cases it could even constitute WP:OR); and if they're disreputable, then we shouldn't use them anyway. And so our choice here is essentially between stability and novelty: do we use the freshest materials, even those that are yet to be translated; or the stablest materials - those that have garnered the broadest attention and acceptance? In topic areas that are this prone to edit warring and disagreement, I'd argue for the stablest.
And one final note on admins: Among the host of... ineffective admins, Ealdgyth has been the only one willing to take this topic seriously and try to make sense of who's who and what's what; the only one to actually go through the sources and try to mediate compromise - or just enforce the rules - instead of waiting for things to repeatedly explode at ANI/AE. Otherwise the boards have been nearly useless, which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.[27][28] Whatever other decision you reach, you should pass this stern message to admins: an effective admin is one who gets involved and dives deep into the disagreements, not one who sits on the sidelines and only occasionally and selectively applies policy. An effective admin is not a policy-application machine, but a person who reasons with depth[29] and is willing to make sure things get done. If you're willing to invest yourself in being an effective admin, then by all means do so - you have the backing of the community. But if you don't, then stay away. François Robere (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Tatzref
This request is, in my view, misplaced. There is no valid justification for restricting discussion on historical subjects only to English-language academic sources or imposing a requirement of consensus with regard to non-English, specifically Polish language sources. This would simply erase or block important research by Polish historians that is not available in English or is not mentioned in English texts. A typical case in point is the following. Icewhiz erased the following text in its entirety from the article on History of the Jews in Poland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Poland), and replaced it with their own:
12:23, 12 March 2019 Icewhiz talk contribs 219,143 bytes +1,651 →Situation of Holocaust survivors and their property: Remove content as it failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source, and was contradicted by available English RSes. Replace with content cited to academic English-language sources available online.)
A restitution law "On Abandoned Real Estates" of May 6, 1945 allowed property owners who had been dispossessed, or their relatives and heirs, whether residing in Poland or outside the country, to reclaim privately owned property under a simplified inheritance procedure. The law remained in effect until the end of 1948. An expedited court process, entailing minimal costs, was put in place to handle claims. Applications had to be examined within 21 days, and many claims were processed the day they were filed. Poles often served as witnesses to corroborate claims of Jewish neighbors and acquaintances. Jewish law firms and agencies outside Poland specialized in submitting applications on behalf of non-residents. Many properties were also transferred and sold by Jewish owners outside this process.[1] The American Jewish Year Book reported, at the time, “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.”[2] Thousands of properties were successfully reclaimed, for example, more than 520 properties were reclaimed in two county towns of Lublin province alone (281 applications in Zamość, and 240 in Włodawa - some applications involved multiple properties).[3]
All of this information is based on reliable sources produced by reputable, professional Polish historians (Alina Skibinska, Lukasz Krzyzanowski, Krzysztof Urbanski, Adam Kopciowski). Moreover, the information about postwar property restoration is based on primary research into hundreds of Polish court records for each town that is mentioned. Alina Skibinska states, in relation to Szczebrzeszyn, that at least one third of the 210 private properties belonging to Jews before the war were returned to their owners or their heirs by 1950, and that almost all of these properties were very quickly sold to Poles (Klucze o kasa, p. 562). She goes on to assess the workings of the local municipal court: the vast majority of claims were favorably dealt with; the pace at which this was done was very speedy, as many of the claims were allowed the day they were received or very soon after; the judges very often overlooked deficiencies in the applications (Klucze i kasa, p. 568-569).
The text that Icewhiz substituted uses publications of poor quality with no sources cited for the relevant claims (Laurence Weinbaum, The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust), publications that do not look into actual court records and outcomes of property claims (Michael Meng, Shattered Spaces), or publications that refer to selected court records but do not undertake a systematic investigation of the records of any one town (Cichopek-Gajraj, Beyond Violence), and then make sweeping generalizations that the in-depth investigations of court records do not support. Moreover, the research into Polish court records fully accords with the monitoring that Jewish organizations were conducting at the time. The American Jewish Year Book, a highly reliable source authored by academics, reported in 1947-1948, that “The return of Jewish property, if claimed by the owner or his descendant, and if not subject to state control, proceeded more or less smoothly.” The postwar decrees in question were introduced for the benefit of the Jews, with a much simplified and cheaper process than the regular court inheritance procedures, which one could always resort to. Icewhiz simply wiped all this out as allegedly “failed verification vs. the cited sources, misused a primary source” because it doesn’t accord with what he thinks the historical record should be. This smacks of censorship and is a disastrous forecast for the state of such articles. Tatzref (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Further clarifications.Tatzref (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)Tatzref (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- ^ Jan Grabowski and Dariusz Libionka, eds. Klucze i kasa: O mieniu żydowskim w Polsce pod okupacją niemiecką i we wczesnych latach powojennych 1939–1950 (Warsaw: Stowarzyszenie Centrum Badań nad Zagładą 2014), 522–523, 529, 568–569, 575–607. Also Krzysztof Urbański. Kieleccy Żydzi (Kraków: Pracownia Konserwacji Zabytków w Kielcach and Małopolska Oficyna Wydawnicza, n.d. [1993]), 180–190; Marta Pawlina-Meducka, ed. Z kroniki utraconego sąsiedztwa: Kielce, wrzesień 2000/From the Chronicle of the Lost Neighborhood: Kielce, September 2000 (Kielce: Kieleckie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 2001), 202.
- ^ American Jewish Year Book, 5708 (1947–1948), vol. 49 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1947), 390.
- ^ Adam Kopciowski. Zagłada Żydów w Zamościu (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, 2005), 203; Adam Kopciowski, "Anti-Jewish Incidents in the Lublin Region in the Early Years after World War II," ≈Holocaust: Studies and Materials vol. 1 (2008), 188.
Statement by Zero0000
I believe that all editors who use sources which a typical English-speaking editor will have great difficulty verifying should be willing to provide quotations and/or translations. Not just foreign language sources, but rare sources too. But that's a project-wide fundamental issue which shouldn't be addressed on a per-area basis.
Concerning the specific requests:
- Items 1 and 2: no problem
- Items 3.1: X inserts text+source, Y deletes it, Z reverts Y. Is Z now personally responsible for text+source? Surely it depends on other details, such as whether Y gave a good reason for the deletion. Also, this would encourage bulk deletions, since nobody could revert them without checking every single source they include.
- Items 3.2–3.4: The committee should consider the editing record of the filer in the Jewish-Polish domain and compare it to the likely effect on article neutrality if extra restrictions are placed on Polish sources which don't apply to English sources.
Zerotalk 01:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {other editors}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Eastern Europe: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion
- On the face of it, this seems more like a case request than something for ARCA. If it's too complex for AE, we would need the extended framework of a case to examine the totality of the evidence. I would likely vote to accept this as a case request, but I decline to consider extending 500/30 to an entire topic area in the absence of a case. ~ Rob13Talk 06:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- I will echo Joe that I would not consider any broad restriction on non-English sources. That is firmly a content question. If the community wishes to impose such a restriction at WP:AN or WP:RSN in this topic area, they can do so. I do see some potential for a case request based on the allegations here, but such a case request would need to focus on the behavioral problems here: intentionally introducing foreign language sources which do not support the text, POV pushing, etc. by either any established editor or new/IP editors as a group. That's something that would be ripe for arbitration. ~ Rob13Talk 16:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm absolutely against placing restrictions on sourcing. That's well into content territory, out of both ArbCom and AE's remit. The other sanctions are possible, but I agree with Rob: we would need a full case to examine this issue properly. – Joe (talk) 09:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely agree with the above. (Well, with one small point - I don't think rejecting all foreign-language sources in a topic area would fly as a community restriction either.) To the extent that this is a POV-pushing or source misrepresentation problem, those are behavior issues that can go through normal dispute resolution channels, and if those are exhausted then it'd be time for a case request. I don't see anything workable in the ARCA format, though - this would need an evidence-gathering process. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed with my colleagues that we would hear this matter as a fresh case request; I would be unsurprised to find this topic needs a "sequel case".The record of inconclusive enforcement requests throws up a couple of issues. First, administrators should probably stop saying that a remedy is too confusing to be enforced. At AE, if you wish to not enforce a remedy or assess a request, best is that you just keep quiet. Speaking up in this way has a chilling effect. Second, I think these 1-Revert Restrictions (1RRs) are doing more harm than good. The received wisdom goes that limiting the quantity of reverts compels a disputant to "choose wisely". Yet 1RR simply encourages the spreading out of reverts over time. The received wisdom also goes that limiting the frequency of reverts stabilises the article for our readers. However, protection may do well enough.I am less concerned by the submissions that non-EC users are a destabilising force. The evidence supplied just seems to show a bunch of anonymous users adding content that gets reverted in short order. AGK ■ 20:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: Absent objection, it would seem we have provided all the guidance that we can. I move to close this request. AGK ■ 10:12, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Amendment request: Reopening Closed AE Actions (June 2019)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Sir Joseph at 18:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Tban from ARBPIA Area [30]
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- {{{clause1}}}
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Sir Joseph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- GoldenRing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- {{{clause1}}}
- {{{clause1-request}}}
Statement by Sir Joseph
The purpose of this ARCA is basically two simple queries. 1. Can an AE action be reopened once closed, and if so, 2. does a re "certified" TBAN then become effective as of the newer date.
- I was TBANNED by GoldenRing on May 10, 2019 for three months.
- On May 14th, he vacated the TBAN on my talk page and then rescinded the TBAN and reopened the AE action.
- El_C then re-issued the TBAN and reset the clock for another three months.
The problem I have with this is that it sets a bad precedent for several reasons. We can have 1, never ending TBANS if we allow AE actions to be reopened and then TBANS to be reset, but also not have some sort of policy that once an AE action is closed, it is closed. I understand it's not a court-room so there is no double jeopardy, but it doesn't seem fair to have a system where an admin can just days, weeks months or even a year go by and then undo an AE close. If we do allow it, we do need then to set up strict guidelines as to why, when and how a closed AE action can be reopened and how it can then be re-litigated.
- Note I am not specifically appealing my TBAN, I am filing an ARCA about policy and guidelines about reopening a closed AE, (and then extending a TBAN but that's minor.)
- Apparently people aren't reading this request. As, they see the signature and that is all. That is a shame. As I wrote not a few lines above, I am not "specifically appealing my TBAN, I am filing an ARCA about policy and guidelines about reopening a closed AE." And ARBCOM is the place to request policy and guidelines. As to @El C:, I posted that link to AGF because BU_Rob13 is not AGF at all with this request. As I specifically mentioned in this request, I am not appealing my TBAN, I wish to see some sort of policy or guideline setup and I think it's something we need to discuss and this is the place to do it. It's not called wikilawyering to see a situation and want to setup policies. And for what it's worth, I was told specifically by ARBCOM to file this request. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13:Again, you can think that, but that is not true. One thought I keep having because you were the one who started the process of the TBAN on my AE action is that my AE action had many admins and yet just a few days later, you were nowhere to be found on a similar AE action. I am sure I'm not the only one to notice. In any event, ARBCOM is the place to ask for guidelines and policies and yes, once an AE is closed, we should have some sort of policies or procedures in place as to how an AE can be reopened or if it can be reopened. I am not sure why that is such a huge ask. Sir Joseph (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @BU Rob13:Whatever, this is why this place is so toxic. And you and GoldenRing brought up Wikilawyering, in one prior case, I was actually emailing Sandstein about a block appeal and he responded "go to AE." I then did, and he then blocked me (which I found a bit odd). You would assume a nice person would respond, "don't do that because that won't work" or "don't do that because I will block you" but this place here has gone down hill over the past few years. So how is that called wikilawyering when I'm directed to do something by an admin? How is this called wikilawyering when I was directed to do this by ARBCOM? This place just reeks of entrapment. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @KrakatoaKatie:As I said before, this is not an appeal. If I wanted to appeal, I would. You said that this is a remote occurrence and four days is not that big of a deal and if it happened months later that would be something to talk about. But that is the point, it did happen, and we should plan on the off chance that it does happen in the future. We should maybe say if you think four days is not a big deal, then maybe five or six reaches the redline and set that as a policy. That is all I'm asking for. Policies are setup usually because something happens for the first time and then they write it up as a policy for the next time. Whether you agree with GR and EC's actions, after a certain time period, an AE action should be marked as closed/stale, whether it's 7 days 10 days, that time period should be discussed. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mkdw:I would point you to the above as well. I'm not sure why everyone keeps missing this. I am not appealing, this is purely for policy and guidance for the future. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mkdw:Thanks for the clarification, you mentioned appeal in your first sentence so I assumed you were talking about my ARCA as an appeal. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Mkdw:I would point you to the above as well. I'm not sure why everyone keeps missing this. I am not appealing, this is purely for policy and guidance for the future. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Statement by El_C
As already mentioned, GoldenRing said "pending another admin closing" — I therefore closed it accordingly, having already evaluated consensus among uninvolved admins to do so. I note that both users involved in the dispute were subjected to 3-month TBAN, in the end. Which, ultimately, reflects well on how AE is able to operate in dealing with protracted ARBPIA disputes, despite its various imperfections. So, I don't think we need any additional guidelines at this time. El_C 21:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- What are you trying to say to Rob, Sir Jospeh? Use your words. El_C 15:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Katie, I specifically told Sir Jospeh that he may count the TBAN as having began on May 10. So this 4-day resetting (trivial anyway) mentioned by him is a non-issue. El_C 16:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Statement by GoldenRing
I reversed the sanction I had imposed because I had qualms about the outcome but considered that my judgement was so impaired by the concomitant kerfuffle at AN that another admin should deal with it instead of me. The committee should direct Sir Joseph to WP:NOTBURO, perhaps warn about a distinct tendency to wikilawyer, and otherwise dismiss this request. If the committee want to spend some time on light entertainment, Special:Permalink/897199190#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction is a pretty good specimen of wikilawyering. GoldenRing (talk) 15:16, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- My sincere apologies to Bishonen and wishes for a speedy recovery. For everyone else, you've now been warned. GoldenRing (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (re AE)
I think the only thing that might be needed here is to say that in situations like this that the clock start time doesn't change unless there is explicit agreement otherwise among the uninvolved admins. I think the likelihood of an AE being reopened after a significant length of time and are pretty slim as all the reported behaviour would be stale. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Statement by BU Rob13
This "appeal-without-appealing" should be considered an appeal by the Committee, whether Sir Joseph wants it to be one or not. The attempt to claim this is merely a request for clarification about whether a topic ban is valid without that being equivalent to an appeal, presumably to retain the ability to appeal at other venues at a later time, continues the long pattern of wikilawyering that has repeatedly gotten Sir Joseph sanctioned. By making clear that this is an appeal, whatever the result of that may be, the Committee can send a strong message about whether it is susceptible to wikilawyering. ~ Rob13Talk 14:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- And the fact that this question strikes at the heart of the validity of your ban is completely ancillary? This request is questioning the validity of your ban, full stop. You cite your own topic ban as the only example of this potential issue. In fact, you list it as the decision affected by this request. And yet you're not appealing it? That's pure semantics. I am not saying anything positive or negative on whether this appeal should be accepted, but it absolutely should count as an appeal for procedural purposes. ~ Rob13Talk 15:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- The vague allegation of wrongdoing is nice, and the implied threat is noted. I did not comment on many AE requests during my tenure on the Committee, because I did not want to get into positions where I had to recuse on a large number of appeals. That is a common practice for arbitrators. I did regularly watch AE, though, probably reading a majority of requests there during my term. In your specific case, I felt the administrators commenting before me at AE were going down a very incorrect path by focusing on procedural hurdles to sanctioning for a 1RR violation while failing to consider taking action under normal discretionary sanctions. I felt the likely result if the discussion continued as it was going was incorrect enough to warrant me jumping in to comment, even if it meant later recusing at an appeal at ARCA. ~ Rob13Talk 15:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Bishonen
OMG, @GoldenRing: Don't link to something like that "discussion" on Sir Joseph's page and call it "light entertainment", please. It has melted my brain. I would actually warn the arbs against reading it. Bishonen | talk 19:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC).
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Reopening Closed AE Actions: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Reopening Closed AE Actions: Arbitrator views and discussion
- First, I consider this an appeal, because if we don't consider it one, we'll be back here next week with his "actual appeal" and we're not doing that. Second, let me get this straight. You didn't like GoldenRing's close. You raised a fuss (because, among other nitpicky things, somehow you were unaware that you'd been warned a whoooole bunch of times about DS under ARBPIA3, which defies belief), GR undid his close for another admin to handle and El C gave you the same result. (Don't go talking about the problems with DS and your warnings, because that's not what you're here for.) What exactly did you expect GR to do? He's there to gauge consensus when he's closing, and that was the consensus of the discussion. He's supposed to reopen the discussion and let another admin handle it if he feels it's necessary. I have no problem with GoldenRing's actions here, and I have no problem with El C's re-close except that the clock doesn't reset, so the TBAN is from May 10. If this had happened four months later instead of four days, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on, but trying to skirt around to get a second bite at the apple if/when this appeal/action/request/whatever doesn't go your way tries my patience. Katietalk 16:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @El C: Thanks, I missed that. Sorry. Katietalk 16:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I find the likelihood of this being a sizeable recurring problem to be so remote that ARCA could more than handle any appeal involving similar or greater circumstances. For this to occur again, you would need an AE closed, re-opened within days, and then basically the original decision endorsed. This occurs so infrequently that ARCA and a reasonable community could assess any claims about impropriety to tell the difference between an AE endorsement or an obvious and excessive extension. We are not tied by legal precedent and every situation is able to be assessed on a case by case basis. If three days makes such an impactful difference to the editor, then the only question it really raises for me was whether the duration was long enough. Mkdw talk 16:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- @Sir Joseph: Nothing about my comment is about an appeal [by you right now]. I gave you my direct answer; I see no outstanding problems worth addressing and any claims of impropriety in similar situations in the future can be brought to ARCA on a case by case basis. Mkdw talk 16:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is why I expressly stated "any" and not "your" when talking about whether future issues could simply be addressed by an appeal. Mkdw talk 16:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is most certainly an appeal, not a clarification. I agree with the thoughts of Katie and MKDW above, and do not feel any adjustments need to be made. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- I'm treating this as a clarification because the issue is interesting - GR appears to want to strength test all aspects of AE bureaucracy, and continues to offer us new and challenging situations to debate! :-) In all aspects of Wikipedia I tend to follow the intention rather than the rule. If the intention was to TB Sir Joseph, and Sir Joseph is TBanned, then there is really nothing more to discuss. I do like process, and if process appears to have not been followed to the detriment of the project, then that's worth looking into. But if a box didn't get ticked on the way to the appropriate result, well, then, let's go back and tick it and get on with our lives. Nobody is going to agree to reverse an appropriate decision because the box didn't get ticked. We are not lawyers who take money to endlessly argue points of law rather than doing the right thing. We are unpaid volunteers trying to do our best to keep this project going with the least amount of disruption. So, moving forward - if any unpaid volunteer feels they are unsure about any decision they made and wish to pass that decision on to another unpaid volunteer, then I am 100% fine with that. So on the questions raised here: 1) "Can an AE action be reopened once closed" - yes, under IAR, if the closing admin is uncertain about their close, they can vacate it and leave it to another to decide the matter; 2) "does a re "certified" TBAN then become effective as of the newer date" - that would be down to the admin closing the reopened discussion. In any event, the reclose, and/or the length of the TB can be brought here for appeal. In this particular case, to save everyone time and effort, if this came back as an appeal I would decline. SilkTork (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- The rules are clear and simple: only impartial admins may impose sanctions, and unfair sanctions can be overturned on appeal. These rules and principles are not eroded in the situation described: if a sanction is wrongly imposed (or changed, or replaced, or whatever) then there are clear paths towards appealing. We have nothing to clarify or amend. AGK ■ 13:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- Suggesting that we archive this request: AGK ■ 21:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
- Concur with my colleagues above that no changes need to be made. Also agree that this can be archived. WormTT(talk) 08:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Clarification request: BLP issues on British politics articles (June 2019)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Guantolaka at 09:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- BLP issues on British politics articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Guantolaka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Guantolaka
I'm posting here to request clarification on the Philip Cross topic ban.
It currently reads: "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."
On 13 August 2018, Philip Cross was blocked from Wikipedia for one week for violating the topic ban.
There have been edits since then which I believe also violate the topic ban. I'm listing some of these below:
"Joan M Rodker (1 May 1915, Kensington, London – 27 December 2010) was an English political activist and television producer."
Journalist "with regular work for BBC World, BBC News 24, and BBC Breakfast, and by 2005 presenting the news on BBC Radio 4."
Links showing discussion in the House of Commons, comments from the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Foreign Secretary, Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary, and how a change of government in the UK could affect Assange's fate: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]
"Christopher Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was a British-American author, polemicist, debater and journalist who in his youth took part in demonstrations against the Vietnam War, joined organisations such as the International Socialists while at university and began to identify as a socialist."
Some of these have been posted on the Arbitration Enforcement Request page recently:
No action has been taken.
I would like to ask the arbitration committee for clarity here. Are the instances highlighted above outside the scope of "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed"?
Conflict of interest
Additionally, the arbitration decision also contained the following warning:
"Philip Cross is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest."
On 23 November 2018, Philip Cross posted a link to an Oliver Kamm article
The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson. They are not only involved in British politics, but Cross's hostile editing of their pages and derogatory comments about them on Twitter was what led to media interest and the ensuing arbitration case.
@Icewhiz, Doug Weller, Johnuniq: I'm not a Wikipedia editor, and the Philip Cross case was opened because of off-wiki concern about the editing he was doing. That off-wiki concern and attention led to an arbitration case and resulted in a unanimous decision by the arbitratration committe to impose a topic ban and a warning. I don't think that ban has been adhered to, so I'd like to understand why. Either the ban is not what I understand it to be, or it's not being enforced. I hope posting here will clear that up. Guantolaka (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Icewhiz, I have deliberately not focused on the edits themselves because my understanding of the topic ban is those edits should not have occurred in the first place. Getting into a debate about the edits is what happened during the arbitration case, and resulted in the topic ban. What is the point of a topic ban if to make a successful enforcement request you have to prove that the edit in itself was problematic. Surely that goes for any editor on here whether sanctioned or not. So I have deliberately avoided doing that not because I think all the edits are fine (I don't), but because I want to see the topic ban adhered to. I have also not looked to find more examples of Philip Cross's editing that falls in this topic area, again, not because they don't exist, but because I don't think that should be necessary. I'm happy to post more examples if that would help convince you that these instances are not isolated breaches.
- Regarding your point about Galloway. The problem was never solely about Galloway. The narrow focus on Galloway was how it was framed by an administrator at the very beginning. After the community-imposed ban on Galloway, the arbitration case was opened and a review of Philip Cross's editing led to an expansion of the ban to the wider topic area by the arbitration committee. (In my view, that was not wide enough, but I don't want to get a discussion about that now.) Guantolaka (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@SilkTork, perhaps I should have been clearer. I don't believe the matter has been handled appropriately at AE. As someone who followed the arbitration case closely, it appears to me that the administrators are applying a much narrower reading of the topic ban than what was intended by the arbitration committee. So much so that I think the topic ban becomes nonsensical if the pages I linked above are considered acceptable topics to edit. Of course, it's also possible that this much narrower reading is in fact what was intended. But without comment from the committee, it's hard to know. I'd find it very strange if that is what was intended, considering the conduct and editing brought up during the arbitration case. But if the committee do not see the instances I highlighted as constituting a breach of the ban, it would be good to have that confirmed here. Guantolaka (talk) 16:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@Rob, Assange's situation is very much related to British politics. This was debated in the last filing I linked above. Editor NSH001 quoted a BBC article:
The BBC's diplomatic correspondent James Landale said backing Assange is not without political risk and will not find universal favour among Labour MPs - but Mr Corbyn's intervention "means the battle over Assange's future will now be as much political as it is legal".
Editor Pawnkingthree linked to a Guardian article pointing out the Home Secretary's involvement in Assange's fate.
Asked for comment on Twitter by a journalist, Wikipedia editor and co-founder Jimmy Wales agreed: "I agree with you that this is related to UK politics." Shown an edit where Cross had left incorrect information up for two days, he went on to advise Cross to "steer clear of this topic indefinitely".
So I have to say, the staunch refusal to see a connection between Assange and British politics here is pretty odd.
@Opabinia regalis: please save the moralising. I think I've submitted enough here to show a connection to UK politics, and you've also seen long-standing editors agree that it is too. I did want to see how the arbitration committee would reconcile all that with its "broadly construed" topic ban, and I think we've seen that now. If anyone is unsure whether Philip Cross should be held to his topic ban, I suggest they carry out a search and look at the editing that led to the arbitration case. Guantolaka (talk) 08:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Philip Cross
Statement by Icewhiz
Cross has been under quite a bit of scrutiny by people who do not normally edit Wikipedia - including AE by a sockpuppet and another by the filer here that were closed as not actionable. Cross has been productive as an editor over the past 8 months. To avoid further wasting of community time, ARCA should consider lifting the TBAN entirely or limit it to Galloway, as time served.Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- In terms of an off-wiki campaign - it is quite evident from a simple search on twitter and to a lesser extent google. There are also a few pieces on RT (TV network) and other sites of a similar bent. (to avoid possibly running foul of WP:OUTING - I won't link here, however the extent of commenting on this is evident from a simple search). Cross's edits are under intense off-wiki scrutiny - if there were something more actionable than what was brought forward (and dismissed an non-actionable in Jan 2019 AE and April 2019 AE) - it would have been presented. Cross shouldn't have been editing (while being involved in a twitter exchange) Galloway's article (and possibly a few related articles). The current very wide sanction - has off-wiki observers scrutinizing Cross's every edit (13,553 edits (well over 90% of them to mainspace) since September 2018 through 29 April 2019) and coming forth with the very few examples that are possibly extremely broadly construed at the edges of the current fairly wide (for a UK editor) TBAN. Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Doug Weller
Something's pretty fishy here. It's hard not to wonder if there is some off-wiki campaign against Cross. I haven't been following his editing but I do see it from time to time and have never seen anything problematic when we've crossed paths. Perhaps the Committee should at least consider Icewhiz's suggestion. Doug Weller talk 09:34, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Johnuniq
Regardless of the merits of the case, would a passing admin please indef the filer as WP:NOTHERE. Wikipedia has enough drama—we don't need off-wiki campaigners. Johnuniq (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Statement by kashmiri
I do share the doubt whether the filer is here to build an encyclopaedia. While I do not support banning new editors who haven't engaged in clear-cut vandalism or severe disruption, I do think that Guantolaka should be permanently banned from discussing anything Philip Cross related. They are welcome to contribute in other areas.
That said, I recall the Philip Cross issue very clearly and am well aware of the amount of work it took the community to undo their blatant disruptive editing carried on over years in quite a significant number of articles. It required hours and hours of community time. Judging from the examples of their recent editing listed here, it is highly likely that Philip Cross will resume the sort of disruptive editing that brought about their TBAN. My advice is thus to leave the ban as is. — kashmīrī TALK 18:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
BLP issues on British politics articles: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
BLP issues on British politics articles: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Inactive on this request: AGK ■ 10:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing there is anything here for the Committee to do with the clarification request, other than to confirm that AE have handled the matter appropriately, and so have already answered the question regarding "Are the instances highlighted above outside the scope of "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed"?". If there is more support for reviewing Philip Cross's topic ban, we could look into that. SilkTork (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- SilkTork is correct, there is nothing for the Committee to do here. I agree with Doug that there certainly seems to be an outside interest in having Philip Cross sanctioned, and I don't particularly appreciate it. If Philip Cross wants to appeal his topic ban (either to reduce the scope or have it lifted) he is well within his rights to do so himself, as the original six-month period has passed, but we should not be making that decision for him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- As a matter of procedure, "no action" at AE can absolutely be appealed to ArbCom at ARCA, and we theoretically could disagree with AE and take action. Having said that, nothing linked here appears to be a topic ban violation. Rodker wasn't politically active post-1978. A journalist is not automatically involved with politics just because they occasionally cover it neutrally as part of the news. Assange isn't involved much at all in British politics. Hitchens is mostly a political figure in American politics, not British politics, though he probably comes closest to being placed in the topic area. It is within administrative discretion to consider none of these topic ban violations, and so I see no reason to overturn the result at AE. ~ Rob13Talk 03:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
- As above, it doesn't seem like there's anything for us to do here. Also as above, people are welcome to join the community and participate as editors no matter how they first encountered us - even if it was a bad experience - but hanging around for the specific and sole purpose of trying to get another editor sanctioned is not OK. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing to add that hasn't already been said. This ARCA could most likely be closed at this point. Mkdw talk 16:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with other statements, and that this can be closed. WormTT(talk) 08:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Clarification request: Gun control (July 2019)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Locke Cole at 16:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Locke Cole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Statement by Locke Cole
Remedy 1 and 2 of the Gun Control arbitration case (1. For the purposes of remedies in this case, the scope of "gun control" includes governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 2. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any edit about, and for all pages relating to, gun control.) provide guidance on what is considered "gun control". However, El C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has placed discretionary sanctions on the Virginia Beach shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. This article has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control regulation, nor is it about people or organizations associated with those issues. Can the arbitration committee please clarify whether it was the intention of this remedy to apply to articles about mass shootings? Thank you.
Statement by El C
Pretty much, any recent mass shooting seems to invoke a gun control debate to a certain extent (Virginia_Beach_shooting#Reactions as an example here), so applying discretionary sanctions to any of them, when disputes becomes protracted, seems like a sensible application of GC/DS. El_C 17:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Seraphimblade, the dispute involves victims' lists — it does not involve gun control. In that sense, the discretionary sanctions were applied to the article broadly. If that overstepped its intended purpose, then perhaps removing them would be the right call. But it would be to the article's own detriment. Again, I think because mass shootings always invoke a gun control debate (unlike in peripheral ARBPIA cases, inextricably), a broader interpretation is more useful. El_C 17:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- Template:Editnotices/Page/Virginia Beach shooting has to do with me deciding to keep the status quo ante (no victims' lists) until the RfC about it is concluded. In a sense, it's just easier to say that I'm doing so with the authority of Arbitration enforcement than anything else. Gun control DS, intuitively, felt a bit more pertinent than the BLP DS (which Abecedare suggested), but they are both pretty equally applicable, in my view. But regardless had I used GC, BLP, or no AE at all (just as an uninvolved admin, by fiat), the result would still be the same. Still, I'm relieved that AGK finds in favour of upholding my application of GC DS, and I hope that other members of the Committee are also similarly pragmatic. In a few weeks, the RfC will settle the victims' list question for this article, though not for others — because as mentioned elsewhere, WP:NOTMEMORIAL isn't detailed enough and WP:VL is just an essay. Anyway, after the RfC is done, I am likely to remove the DS altogether (certainly the editnotice will no longer be relevant), just to put all of this in context of what's happening on the groundfloor of the article. El_C 23:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Seraphimblade
I was involved in the drafting of this case when I was on ArbCom, and we were well aware that trying to find the exact scope for such a broad topic was going to be difficult, hence the clarification in the original decision. For mass shootings, I would say that they would fall under the normal formulation for discretionary sanctions in a peripherally involved subject; that is, those parts of the article which pertain to the subject under discretionary sanctions are subject to the DS. Since many mass shootings do bear on discussions in regards to gun control, I think there's at least reasonable cause for a notice that they could be subject to the restrictions so that editors are on notice. Portions of those articles which do not bear on gun control (for example, a controversy over the shooter's motivations or the response by the police to the incident) would be outside their scope. On the other hand, if there is a discussion over whether restrictions were too lax or badly enforced and that contributed to the shooting, or whether they should be changed in response to the incident, that portion of the article and edits pertaining to it certainly would be within the scope of the Gun Control case's DS. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Abecedare
I was briefly and peripherally involved in this via my suggestion to El C at RFPP to consider discretionary sanctions for the article. While I had proposed using WP:NEWBLPBAN, El's use of WP:ARBGC instead was at least equally good and valid. Three quick points:
- The Virginia Beach shooting, as almost all contemporary mass shootings in US, is squarely in the scope defined by the ARBGC case. Just read the lede para of this WaPo article, for example.
- And no, the identity of mass-shooting victims is not independent of the 'gun control' issue. Read this, for example (I am intentionally not linking to conspiracy theories linked directly to this particular shooting).
- More broadly: the use of page restrictions at Virginia Beach shooting is an example of the discretionary sanction regime working well. ACDS allowed El C to craft a temporary and minimal set of restrictions based on what was actually going on at the article. And their actions demonstrably halted the ongoing edit-warring while allowing other improvements and expansion to continue.
I hope the arbitrators will endorse El C's use of the tools, and resist the entreaties and urge to add further complications on when and how such discretion should be used. The additional rule-making rarely works well and only increases the time and effort devoted to meta-discussions and wiki-lawering compared to actual content development (see, ahem, the above two sections on this ARCA page; do you really want to deal with more of that? :) ). Abecedare (talk) 02:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Gun control: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Gun control: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Where the topic of gun control is concerned, article disruption and problematic user conduct has affected a diverse range of articles. The most divergent articles have related to the historic and political context of gun control. New mass shootings are part of this "context" and it seems appropriate to me that related articles are subject to the remedies authorised by this committee. I would uphold El_C's reading of the scope. AGK ■ 18:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
- If there is no coverage of discussion of gun control in a contemporary USA mass shooting article, then I would think that either the article was in the early stages of development, or some form of inappropriate editorial suppression has taken place. To ensure appropriate and proportionate coverage (neither too little nor too much) of this very contentious topic it seems fitting that the scope of the Gun Control DS should be covered under the "social...context" aspect of the ruling. I don't have the slightest doubt that contemporary USA mass shooting articles come under the scope, even when they don't yet have coverage of discussion of gun control. It would be a anti-gun control wikilawyers dream to find a new article on a contemporary USA mass shooting and then fight to keep out coverage of discussion on gun control, and at the same time say that DS cannot be applied because the article doesn't have coverage of gun control. So, yes, from day one, even before there is mention of gun control, articles on contemporary USA mass shootings should come under Gun Control DS. SilkTork (talk) 10:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think this has been answered, but before asking the Clerks to close, do any other Arbs wish to comment? SilkTork (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (July 2019)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Original Ban Appeal (31 December 2017)
- First Modification (16 July 2018)
- Second Modification (18 January 2019)
- Clarification (10 February 2019)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Information about amendment request
- Replace the 1 article a week through AFC with the ability to move pages and create DAB pages and redirects.
Statement by Crouch, Swale
Can I replace the existing restrictions with the ability to move pages, create DAB page and redirects. It was suggested by SilkTork (talk · contribs) that I would be expected to have a 5% (or less) failure at RM. I pointed out that RM is for controversial moves, not uncontroversial moves to aren't relevant to that. It was then suggested that I use RMT and I now have 108 edits at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests but only 4 of these have been contested (I think) and out of those only 1 failed so I think I have passed that, see User talk:SilkTork/Archive2/Archive 49#New articles. Also at the last ARCA it was agreed to allow me to create pages outside the mainspace, given that DAB pages and redirects don't fall under article even if in the mainspace, see Wikipedia:What is an article? I think if I'm allowed to create pages outside the mainspace, its not that different to allow DAB pages and redirects in the mainspace. I am requesting to allow the page moves and DAB pages/redirects so that I can use them for housekeeping at for the bot created articles, see Wikipedia:Bot requests#Civil parish bot and User talk:SilkTork#Bot created articles. Obviously if we're fine with removing the restrictions all together then that's great but this would be fine for the next 6 months while we do the bot created civil parishes since as pointed out we're taking it 1 step at a time.
The suggested changed are:
- Allow page moves (with a 1RR or 0RR restriction) and that as with the geographical NC restriction can be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator in the next 6 months.
- Allow the creation of DAB pages.
- Allow the creation of redirects.
- Remove the ability to submit articles at AFC (which is replaced by the bot articles). Note that I haven't had 1 article at AFC declined.
- Thanks @Cameron11598: I previewed and modified several times but I couldn't work out how to format it properly. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: fully aware of the fact that lifting the creation doesn't remove the need for a bot request. However I wasn't asking to be able to create articles (manually) because for the next 6 months the bot would do that for me (but we would clarify that I am OK to have the articles created by the bot). And yes as well as the fact you pointed out that community consensus independently of the requester is required I both discussed this with one of the users who participated in my last appeal and I disclosed it in my bot request therefore I indeed don't think there's a problem here with proxying. The idea behind starting the bot request prior to my appeal was so that I could get consensus and have the code/bot ready for when I appeal, then at my appeal (here) I could then point to the consensus and say that "I have consensus to have the bot created articles, can I have my page move restrictions removed and also be allowed to create DAB pages/redirects in mainspace so that I can do the housekeeping with the bot created articles as long as we're happy with allowing the bot created articles". However we seem to be somewhat in a situation where we can't get consensus for the bot request due to the current ban and we can't get consensus on what to do with my restrictions because we don't have consensus for the bot request. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: that's fine as long as it doesn't take months (which I'm sure it won't) otherwise there's no big rush. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: WP:MASSCREATION says "It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that community input be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects." It doesn't say that it is necessarily required to notify WikiProjects, it says that it is strongly encouraged and may be required by BAG. I notified 3 relatively active projects and its not my fault that I got a lack response. The only thing MASSCREATION says is required is "approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval". Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: the example is at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current) which gives notes on how the bot would do things (as noted not all of those will necessarily be used) as well as sources and this example is also linked for how the "Geography" and "Demographics" sections would be. I don't have the technical understanding of how to create the source code for this (if I did I would have presented it at the BR) but the plan should at least give some understanding for how the bot would be programmed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: the "Other ideas" contains things that could be included but aren't especially likely and if they are though of as a good idea could be added to the plan. The "Problems" section already contains possible solutions. The plan is based on what I could do at the time but others at BOTR and BAG would get clarity on how to do so however I'll link some of the ideas to the sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: the "tunnel vision" should make it easier for other editors to see what I'm trying to do and try to find ways to avoid or mitigate problems. I have tried to solve the problems that have been raised at the bot request (as can be seen by my edits at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)). I would also note that the request to create the missing articles (which is about 727 but probably less) over 6 months would actually amount to less than 4 a day (I put 6 as an allowance for stops etc). Its quite easy for me to add the equivalent content to those new articles that I added to the articles that I have submitted through AFC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: what are you're views on the direct restriction changed that I'm proposing here namely (1) the ability to create DAB pages and redirects in mainspace, (2) the ability to move pages (with a 1RR or 0RR restriction) and (3) removing the ability to submit at AFC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Its indeed not the job of other editors to mitigate problems, I was meaning that if editors want to stop me from doing certain things then suggestions can be made on how instead to do something with less/no problems. And if the bot request succeeds then it might be better to focus on that rather than AFC (which as noted is backlogged). Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want to be too critical etc since I seem to have got what I was asking (that I can make the bot request without it being seen as violating my restrictions). However as I noted at the bot request "I currently have a page move/page creation ban and that would make creating DAB pages and name fixes more difficult but even if my appeal fails I still intend to go ahead with this." the move ability and DAB pages/redirect creation would still be needed for housekeeping with the request even if not essential. Considering my point about the number of successful RMTs that I have made are we comfortable with the proposed removal of the move ban with the suggested 1RR or 0RR restriction? If not are we comfortable with a greater restriction such as only 10 moves per week or an even greater one of only being able to move the bot created articles? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: I have started a (slightly simpler) version at User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current)/Simple which also includes many more detailed instructions, its nearly finished and I hope that it resolves Headbomb's concerns. However as noted although the bot request could still go ahead even with the current restrictions, cleanup such as moves and the creation of redirects and DAB pages would be helpful for ensuring that all the other maintenance issues are sorted. What concerns do you have about (1) lifting the move restriction and (2) the DAB pages and redirect creation? Would the (even tighter) restrictions I proposed work for you? Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: it was said in the previous request that "If the page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area" for RMT which I believe I have satisfied and "If we can see a period of you having a series of articles successfully transferred into mainspace that would be encouragement to lift your article creation restriction" 100% of my submissions have been successful, how can that not be good enough? especially since I'm not even requesting the ability to create articles myself. And as was pointed out above the creation restrictions removal wouldn't be necessary for bot request its self but moves and DAB/redirects will be needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: the general concern that can be seem from the previous request was that I might create numerous short articles and make controversial moves etc. It was also clear from multiple people that I would need to demonstrate good conduct in both areas for a while, having had a 100% success rate at AFC surely satisfies that one and the fact that only 1 of my numerous uncontroversial technical requests resulted in a "no consensus" result surely satisfies the move concern. If I have had 23 articles created over nearly 6 months then what's to say that I can't create half a dozen or so articles of the same quality a day (or improve half a dozen bot created articles a day). And the general consensus is that its frowned upon to create large numbers of short, poor quality articles, not that creating large numbers of high quality articles is a bad idea, in fact there is an essay at Wikipedia:Make stubs. But I don't see any basis in policy or general consensus that creating large numbers of good articles is not allowed. WP:NNH gives in the "Focusing on particular processes" part the example of creating stubs (and my interest in titling etc also falls within the spirit of that). The User:Crouch, Swale/Civil parishes list won't be used by the bot, the articles will come from City Population, that list is simply for tracting purposes and as noted has some that probably shouldn't exist anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- @AGK: the "got somewhere" was to do with the 100% success rate at AFC. And yes I won't be operating a bot myself since (1) I am restricted to 1 account (leaving aside that fact that I'm not allowed to create articles myself) (2) I don't have the skills (but I like to learn them). Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Spike 'em
In the BOTREQ mentioned by Crouch, Swale he has asked for 700+ articles to be created by a bot rather than by himself, which seems to me to be an attempt to outsource the creation and avoid his current ban. They have been asked to gain consensus for the BOTREQ, which he has tried to do, but not had any significant response. I note that previous discussions here have concern[s] that Crouch, Swale is mainly interested in rapidly creating hundreds of civil parish stubs
which is exactly what the BOTREQ is to do. He has suggested an initial run of 6 articles per day, which is a lot more that the current 1 AfC per week restriction. All of the suggestions to his restrictions above make the assumption that the mass article creation goes ahead, so that needs to be considered here. Spike 'em (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Headbomb
To be clear, when I wrote in "Wikipedia:Bot requests#Civil parish bot"
"Smaller batches" is a way of having a better chance at getting support when things could potentially be contentious. It does not negate the need for prior consensus before creation, but it might make consensus easier to get. Going "I want to create 1000 articles tomorrow!" vs going "Hey, about about we have a bot create 10 articles as drafts as a subpage of WP:PLANTS, see what the feedback is on them, if they need more work, etc... so the next 10 are easier to handle, ... and then we'll see if we get to a point where we're comfortable having the remaining articles get created directly in article space" or similar.
Note the it might. People may decide this is too close to violating a page creation ban for comfort. Or maybe they'd be open to such a bot creating articles in the project space if someone other than you reviews the article before moving into mainspace. Or maybe people would be comfortable with the task as proposed.
I did not mean that lifting the page creation ban would negate the need for consensus for mass WP:MASSCREATION, either through a bot or a meatbot, the distinction between the two being pointless for WP:MEATBOT purposes. I say this part for the benefits of User:Crouch, Swale, in case they thought a lift on restriction was sufficient to ensure WP:BOTREQUIRE #4.
Generally speaking, the BAG is of the opinion that making a WP:BOTREQ is not a violation of a page creation ban/restriction, since a) the request would be reviewed to ensure community consensus independently of the requester b) pages would be created by someone other than the requester c) if concerns related to using a bot to circumvent the ban existed, those would be addressed during the BRFA. I say this bit for the benefit of ARBCOM, in case they think that making a BOTREQ to have a bot create articles is (by itself) somehow nefarious behaviour. It is also the first time User:Crouch, Swale makes such a request, which may or may not matter.
I say both the above bits as a BAG member, purely for context and without prejudice against lifting, or maintaining, or expanding the ban, on which I have no opinion as I have not reviewed the current ban nor the relevant facts that led to it. Should a WP:BRFA be filed, BAG will review that the task complies with all aspects of WP:BOTPOL, including WP:BOTREQUIRE (#4) and WP:MASSCREATION, as applicable at the time of review. A lift of the ban would imply fewer restrictions on the task, maintaining the ban would imply more restrictions on it, but in all cases the bot's task and mode of operation (if approved) would be subject to community consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale:
However we seem to be somewhat in a situation where we can't get consensus for the bot request due to the current ban and we can't get consensus on what to do with my restrictions because we don't have consensus for the bot request.
Maybe. But what I was getting at in that discussion was that consensus was unclear for the task because only you expressed support for it. This was meant to be an invitation to go to a Wikiproject and start a discussion there to flesh out the idea, and if there was buy in, BAG would then be in a position to evaluate if there was consensus for something. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)- @Crouch, Swale: there is some buy-in on the general idea. What hasn't been done is fleshing out the idea and produce a mockup of the result, explaining exactly how the bot would generate things, along side what sources it would use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: User:Crouch, Swale/Bot tasks/Civil parishes (current) is not a fully fleshed out example. There are several placeholders, and lists general concerns which have not been hammered out, potential ideas, a possible process, etc... This is still at the idea stage and even if a bot coder wanted to take the request, they would be at lost on exactly what it was you were asking them to implement. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: there is some buy-in on the general idea. What hasn't been done is fleshing out the idea and produce a mockup of the result, explaining exactly how the bot would generate things, along side what sources it would use. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: the bot request is entertained to the extent that there is a theoretical path forward. However, as of now the bot logic is so premature that no bot coder would take the task because no one knows what they are being asked to code exactly, and a village pump discussion is likely bound to fail because of the page creation restrictions combined with the ill-defined logic of the bot. These are theoretically surmountable hurdles. For instance, if there's a clear bot logic proposed, which results in articles that the community would deem appropriate. Or that a bot coder shows interest in the task and is willing to work with Crouch, Swale and with other WikiProjects to figure out how exactly to build such articles out of existing resources. But we aren't there yet. Right now, there's not even a "The bot would go to this <database>, and use <this data> in this <exact manner>." Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Begoon
"crapflood[ing] the wiki with stubs". As I also said there:
"At a minimum this would need BAG approval and that of the projects concerned (bold added), yes. I'd also like to see an explicit statement from Crouch, Swale that they would STOP the second ANYONE asked them to - for the protection of the wiki, and the protection of Crouch, Swale from reimposition of blocks."
I also share the concern expressed by Spike 'em : "seems ... to be an attempt to outsource the creation and avoid his current ban"
. I'm still uneasy about Crouch, Swale exercising sufficient judgement in this area, given the history. I don't think amending restrictions to facilitate mass creation is a good idea here - I'm basically uneasy about CS being involved in mass creation processes in any way at this point. -- Begoon 20:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.
Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I've fixed some major formatting issues with this case request. Crouch, Swale please be more careful filing amendment requests in the future. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Just to give User:Crouch, Swale the head's up that the Committee are rather preoccupied at the moment, and a little short staffed. It is unlikely that this will get a response for a while. SilkTork (talk) 16:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
- With respect to Crouch, Swale and his willingness to contribute under heavy restrictions, I'm afraid I don't see the wisdom in lifting or altering the existing restrictions. My comment at the July 2018 motion adjusting his conditions is still relevant - it's behavioral change that's important, and I'm not sure the underlying tunnel vision that led to the behavioral issues has actually changed. At the bot request, Crouch, Swale never acknowledges of any of the BAG members' concerns, he just argues past every comment. And despite the pushback, this amendment request is written with the assumption that the civil parish bot will be approved:
so that I can use them for housekeeping at for the bot created articles
andthis would be fine for the next 6 months while we do the bot created civil parishes
. It's just pure tunnel vision.I had hoped that the slow adjustment of restrictions, including the article creation through AfC, might help Crouch, Swale, understand why his previous behavior was problematic. I hoped that working one by one on drafts of reasonable length might help him understand the level of work he was asking other editors to undertake in dealing with his large amount of micro-stubs. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have been the case. There still seems to be no awareness of why others might be concerned about the creation of approximately a thousand such stubs (either manually or by a bot) and the accompanying retitles, redirects, and disambiguation pages. On that basis, I can't do anything other than decline this request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale, your tunnel vision is not an asset. It is not the job of other editors to try to mitigate problems with your grand vision, it's yours. And I think GorillaWarfare makes a good point about using restrictions for bargaining - that is not the point of them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- I share PMC's concerns about the "tunnel vision" that Crouch, Swale is exhibiting here and in the bot request. Headbomb has explained that this restriction does not need to be lifted for the bot request to succeed, so I would rather see Crouch, Swale try to work within the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: I'm not of the mind to swap out your restrictions—we allowed you the limited ability to create articles at AfC, and it's quite odd to see you use it as a bargaining chip you're trying to trade for a different adjustment. I would either 1) allow you the two adjustments you've requested in addition to maintaining your ability to create one article through AfC a week, or 2) not allow the two adjustments. Swapping them is not an option for me. At this point I would prefer option 2. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- No. Courcelles (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
- Per PMC. Work within these restrictions for now. And no, I don't have a sense of how long 'for now' is going to be. Katietalk 16:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- With some reluctance, I supported the last request – to propose moves or new pages (via RM and AfC). This request is a significant further step, and not one that seems beneficial. Deny request. AGK ■ 16:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Crouch, Swale, I am alarmed that you keep saying you have gotten some of a result here. Wikipedia:Bot requests § Civil parish bot may not be operated by you. You would obviously breach your restriction by operating that bot. Were you believing otherwise? AGK ■ 20:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- Firmly no. I'll repeat what I said at the last request - "@Crouch, Swale: to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby." I shouldn't have to explain that this includes DABS, Bot requests, redirects or whatever. No. You may expand articles by adding relevant content - and may add up to 50 new article each year. I do not see any further relaxations of your restrictions any time soon and repeated requests on the bi-anniversary (or whatever the term should be) are only going to strengthen my resolve against them. WormTT(talk) 11:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
- You are picking and choosing what you want to hear, Crouch, Swale. Asking for a bot to create articles, on a list that you curate and that you will then edit as you see fit - is quite clearly an attempt to end run around your topic ban. I'm a little disappointed that the bot request is being entertained by the BAG (@Headbomb:) but that is their choice. I see no reason to enable it further. There's enough for you to do on this encyclopedia without coming back so regularly to ask for more. WormTT(talk) 19:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Amendment request: The Rambling Man (August 2019)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Initiated by Ritchie333 at 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- Propose changing the ban text to the following (deleted words struck, new words in bold):
The Rambling Man is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process), or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited.
Statement by Ritchie333
I have recently made peace with The Rambling Man (TRM) following an earlier dispute. As he has been very helpful in the past with good article reviews, I suggested one he might be interested, and also mentioned an earlier thread where Gerda Arendt had wanted a DYK hook reviewed that TRM would probably also be interested in. TRM simply said that he was unable to help due to the ban listed above.
The bold addition to the ban text above would allow TRM to make more positive contributions to the project in a good spirit of collaboration with willing editors, while continuing to address the concerns raised by the proponents of the original ban. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by The Rambling Man
I've been asked many many times to contribute to, review or otherwise provide wisdom on DYKs. I'd be delighted to do so, thus enriching our main page for our readers, and reducing the shocking error rate we currently see. As long as it's only when someone asks me nicely, I can't see a problem in me generously offering my time to enhance the experience of our audience. After all, this project is all about our readers. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, hang on, let's correct, it's only when the nominator of a DYK asks me nicely then I'll allow my expertise to be sought. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gatoclass There's no such thing as "DYK privileges", just an aspiration to stop the usual errors getting to the main page. And for what it's worth, I'm not happy with the sudden relaxation in quality going to the main page, the ERRORS page has been full of issues with DYK lately. Let's try to work together to reduce the garbage our readers see, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And yes, I'm only going to comment on DYKs whose nominators have asked me nicely to comment on. Nothing else. That's what this amendment is all about. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gatoclass thanks, once again. Indeed, before I was topic banned, I had participated many times at DYK during the review process. I can't think of a single instance where my reviews weren't considered (as a minimum) perfectly suitable for the process. It's clear to me that there's some very unclear thinking on this proposal from a few, where various issues are being incorrectly conflated, not for the betterment of the encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gatoclass There's no such thing as "DYK privileges", just an aspiration to stop the usual errors getting to the main page. And for what it's worth, I'm not happy with the sudden relaxation in quality going to the main page, the ERRORS page has been full of issues with DYK lately. Let's try to work together to reduce the garbage our readers see, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And yes, I'm only going to comment on DYKs whose nominators have asked me nicely to comment on. Nothing else. That's what this amendment is all about. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 23:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 seriously, the quality of the DYK section is so poor, every day, that it really needs help. I think the ban on me helping is simply cutting off one's nose to spite one's face really. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you get sarcasm really, right? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Banedon great input, I'm not sure it makes any sense though. This is simply to allow me to review articles for suitability. Nothing more. The hysteria surrounding some mythical "slippery slope" is pure fiction, there are plenty of people, yourself at the head of the queue, who are there to ensure I will remain persona non grata. Problem is that I'm a brilliant reviewer. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh my god, it's just how these cases work, people ping each other to let them know that they've responded to their comments. But I suppose it's yet another chance to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, not hostile at all, just conventional. Deary me. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- ERRORS2, as the name suggests, is for ERRORS, not for DYK reviews. That's pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've already said once My input would be purely at the review stage, i.e. checking the article complied with every single DYK rule, that the article in general was up to scratch, and that the hook was verifiable and adequately interesting. If it was twiddled and tweaked thereafter, I'd have nothing to say about that, I'd have done my bit. I don't expect to request anyone's opinion on anything during a review as I'm more than capable of these matter myself. Does any of that need clarification? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- ERRORS2, as the name suggests, is for ERRORS, not for DYK reviews. That's pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, not hostile at all, just conventional. Deary me. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
PBP89, that's false, I don't expect anything to adhere to one particular "style", that's a very odd (and fake) accusation. I expect general compliance with MOS, but that's just what you'd hope from a professional encyclopedia, isn't it? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!)
- And please stop following me around Wikipedia. This is basic harassment. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's only you who is harassing me PBP89, casting aspersions about my "requirements", telling me to "shut up", calling me a "bully". Disgusting. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think you should leave it now, many other editors have asked you to dial it down a couple of notches. As this is about the DYK process, something you don't participate in, I'm not even clear how you found your way here to start harassing me again. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I suggested above, you've been asked to dial it down a notch or two and avoid personal attacks and other such problematic behaviour. I'm not displaying arrogance, just honesty. My skills are in demand, as noted by many many editors here. That you arrive here to attack me again and again is highly problematic. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- And you would be advised to strike your personal attacks and stop harassing me. This isn't a case against me, by the way. Your hyperbolic "increase sanctions" is a very good example of why you really need to dial it down a few notches. Or I suppose you could just tell me to "shut up" and call me a "bully" instead? As for examples, I'll leave that to the hundreds of editors I've reviewed GANs, FLCs, FACs for. Several of them have commented right here. You might like to read what many of them have said. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- And that logic is flawed twice over. Firstly, this is about reviews asked for by specific editors. So they can choose whether to interact with me or not. Secondly, DYK is the only section of Wikipedia where I don't interact with other users. I have given literally thousands of reviews at GAN, FLC, FAC etc with no problem at all. I know there's a desperation to keep "punishing" me, but when attempting to do so, people should use logical arguments and really resist the temptation to just reiterate their grudges. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- And you would be advised to strike your personal attacks and stop harassing me. This isn't a case against me, by the way. Your hyperbolic "increase sanctions" is a very good example of why you really need to dial it down a few notches. Or I suppose you could just tell me to "shut up" and call me a "bully" instead? As for examples, I'll leave that to the hundreds of editors I've reviewed GANs, FLCs, FACs for. Several of them have commented right here. You might like to read what many of them have said. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- As I suggested above, you've been asked to dial it down a notch or two and avoid personal attacks and other such problematic behaviour. I'm not displaying arrogance, just honesty. My skills are in demand, as noted by many many editors here. That you arrive here to attack me again and again is highly problematic. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think you should leave it now, many other editors have asked you to dial it down a couple of notches. As this is about the DYK process, something you don't participate in, I'm not even clear how you found your way here to start harassing me again. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's only you who is harassing me PBP89, casting aspersions about my "requirements", telling me to "shut up", calling me a "bully". Disgusting. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis what do you mean "user subpage"? That's just for reporting errors on the main page (or about to go to the main page, around six per day), not for requesting review of items at DYK. I think the point being made here is that people are looking for me to actually review the DYK nomination. Which of course I'd be glad to do, and as described, I'm very good at doing, but the current ban precludes that. Hence one of the reasons for WP:TRM funnily enough. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Opabinia regalis My input would be purely at the review stage, i.e. checking the article complied with every single DYK rule, that the article in general was up to scratch, and that the hook was verifiable and adequately interesting. If it was twiddled and tweaked thereafter, I'd have nothing to say about that, I'd have done my bit. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Valereee One step at a time. There's so much protection around the DYK project from regulars, there's little chance of opening up the topic ban to that extent, we'll still have to wait until the last moment before queues are promoted packed with errors, but the initial proposal might just help those who need a critical pair of eyes before that last moment. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass boom, there it is. Exactly. Appreciate the level-headedness. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:56, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Sandstein since you're wikilawyering, please take this as me requesting that this amendment be heard. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, personal attack noted. This really isn't the appropriate venue for such insults. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
GorillaWarfare, no that's an errors page. This is about reviewing DYKs. The two are completely different. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:10, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, you've missed the point again. To perform a review of a DYK at the request of a nominator, the review must be conducted on the relevant DYK template. It makes literally no sense at all to place the review in a user ERRORS space. I don't think you realise how DYK reviews work. Nor do you appear to be paying attention to the vast majority of the contributors here. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I said you weren’t paying attention to the community consensus here which is clearly in favour of allowing me to perform formal reviews of DYKs when explicitly requested to do so by nominators. Indeed, even those intimately involved in the process are encouraging my input. And as you are familiar with DYk, you will know that explicit formal reviews can’t be performed in user space. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it, but you haven't offered a single reason in logic to oppose me from providing high quality DYK reviews, but then I suppose that's how you arbitrate. Who said anything about counting votes? I was considering the array of logical arguments from many who are actively involved in the DYK process, and from those who have received quality reviews from me in the past. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Even more now. Those that are espousing logical argument are in favour of me helping out. Those who are espousing hate and grudge are not in favour of me helping out. I see which side you have selected. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oh, I get it, but you haven't offered a single reason in logic to oppose me from providing high quality DYK reviews, but then I suppose that's how you arbitrate. Who said anything about counting votes? I was considering the array of logical arguments from many who are actively involved in the DYK process, and from those who have received quality reviews from me in the past. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- I said you weren’t paying attention to the community consensus here which is clearly in favour of allowing me to perform formal reviews of DYKs when explicitly requested to do so by nominators. Indeed, even those intimately involved in the process are encouraging my input. And as you are familiar with DYk, you will know that explicit formal reviews can’t be performed in user space. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Mendaliv that's bang on the money. I challenge those here to actually look at the quality of the reviews I have provided in the past, and even quite recently, at DYK, FAC and more frequently at GAN and FLC (where I suspect I've made in excess of 1000 reviews over the years). I challenge those claiming that allowing me to provide such quality reviews to those who ask for it and those only would be of any issue to the community to provide evidence as to why that would ever be the case. As I think several editors have noted here, this is simply about improving the quality of the main page, yet unfortunately it appears that this is being used by certain users and Arbs as a chance to berate me once again or to simply state the status quo as if that is, in any way, helpful to this process. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- Mendaliv Of course, calling me "toxic" is a direct personal attack (I know you didn't) and of course I'm more than happy to help the project with my expertise, but we have Arbs here who are just making personal decisions and ignoring the community. It's a lost cause really, as they'll all gather round the Arb for self-protection. C'est la vie. PUNISHMENT is alive and kicking at Wikipedia, and some Arbs are promoting it. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I just took a quick sojourn around my "template" edits (which is where you'll find DYK nominations, preps etc, for those of you unaware of the arcane DYK process), and didn't quite realise how many incredibly helpful edits I'd made in a bid to keep the main page free from so many errors. I went back over a thousand or more, practically none of them saw any kickback. So given none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable, I would venture to suggest that the only real objection was to me time and again berating the project for its general lack of quality at the project talk page (which, for those not in the know, can be found at WT:DYK). So, perhaps to simplify things, we could actually just make the topic ban applicable to the project talkpage itself, as that seems to be where all the problems manifested. There really was never an issue with my reviewing, that's fake news I'm afraid. Opposing allowing me to do the encyclopedia a favour by performing reviews upon request really is punitive. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
valereee I'm not sure I follow. What I mean is that the DYKs etc I've reviewed have gone through the main page etc without any complaints. In other words they're of a quality sufficient for our main page. Plenty of people complain about other DYKs, etc. It's not just me. Or else why do we have the quaint WP:ERRORS? It's not circular at all, it's just evidence that what I do in my reviews is of benefit to Wikipedia. If you can prove otherwise, I'd like to see it. Because right now, all those in opposition have offered not a single shred of evidence in that regard. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 16:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee you know what, I'm not sure I've ever used the word "perfect" in relation to my reviews, so you might like to revisit all your comments and adjust accordingly. All I know is that I see errors (like "I see ghosts") just before the hit the main page. On average, around five to six per day. So all I'm saying is that I could probably help reduce that. You need to choose your paraphrasing more carefully friend! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee No, I'm not sure I've ever said my reviews couldn't be criticised. You need to work on that again. Please stop putting words in my metaphorical mouth. If you want "the answer" (TM), then it's "all my reviews are designed to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way". Feel free to use that verbatim, or how you see fit. But stop making stuff up about me. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee thanks, but now your comments make no sense. There's nothing circular about an open review system where I do my utmost to fix things and leave it to others to finish the job. Unless, of course, you're acknowledging that I'm the ultimate perfect reviewer. I doubt that too. Once again, please think about what you're saying and how you're saying it. This is a very serious Arbcom case, and we already have several contributors simply not reading evidence, please don't exacerbate the situation with further obfuscation and confusion. It seems like some people contributing here can't quite grasp what's happening, and your misguided assertions really aren't helping. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee Yes, and I appreciate your comments. Just the problem is we already have one Arb who has literally shown no interest at all in the evidence being provided, and hyperbole like making claims I think my reviews are "perfect" just feed that problematic behaviour. There's no "logical fallacy" at all. It's empirical evidence. Please, before you continue to make such bold claims, re-assess what you're doing. I'm here to reduce problems on the main page. Arbs, users etc don't like it. Individuals who have experienced what I do believe it's a good thing. Let's leave it at that. Stop trying to re-position it. You're not quite making it, and every time you try, it's still not quite right. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee Once again I appreciate your support, but I've never made any claims that I am infallible or perfect or close. I'm not clear on why you're making such claims using various different terms. I'm here to improve the main page. Let's at least agree on that. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:20, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee Yes, and I appreciate your comments. Just the problem is we already have one Arb who has literally shown no interest at all in the evidence being provided, and hyperbole like making claims I think my reviews are "perfect" just feed that problematic behaviour. There's no "logical fallacy" at all. It's empirical evidence. Please, before you continue to make such bold claims, re-assess what you're doing. I'm here to reduce problems on the main page. Arbs, users etc don't like it. Individuals who have experienced what I do believe it's a good thing. Let's leave it at that. Stop trying to re-position it. You're not quite making it, and every time you try, it's still not quite right. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 20:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee thanks, but now your comments make no sense. There's nothing circular about an open review system where I do my utmost to fix things and leave it to others to finish the job. Unless, of course, you're acknowledging that I'm the ultimate perfect reviewer. I doubt that too. Once again, please think about what you're saying and how you're saying it. This is a very serious Arbcom case, and we already have several contributors simply not reading evidence, please don't exacerbate the situation with further obfuscation and confusion. It seems like some people contributing here can't quite grasp what's happening, and your misguided assertions really aren't helping. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Valereee No, I'm not sure I've ever said my reviews couldn't be criticised. You need to work on that again. Please stop putting words in my metaphorical mouth. If you want "the answer" (TM), then it's "all my reviews are designed to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way". Feel free to use that verbatim, or how you see fit. But stop making stuff up about me. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid if we can't see this kind of thing for what it really is, we're beyond repair. I think humour plays a large part of a community, if EEng's block and subsequent friendly discourse with the blocking admin is now being positioned as something "disappointing", all hope is lost. Forget it all, block everyone, the game is over, Pacman is dead. Wow, just wow. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 you don't get it, I get that. It was humour, and every single person but you got it. Never mind. By the way, what does any of this have to do with my ability to provide top notch reviews at DYK if someone requests it? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm afraid there are some basic communication problems then. Not one single soul at ANI had a problem, including the admin, yet you personally found it problematic without being involved at all. How curious. I'd suggest a break from trying to continually identify problematic behaviour in my posts when you don't appear to understand or appreciate the context in which the posts are made. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Ironically there are several errors about to go the main page tomorrow, i.e. in less than three hours. No-one cares here, because it's all about process, bureaucracy, grudges, etc. Bravo. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
BlueMoonset bravo. I posted a few hours ago that the main issue was with the interaction with the overall DYK community, not with individual reviews. I continue to maintain that the DYK community have to work harder to make their contributions more inline with the main page quality expectations, but this request is not about allowing me to post there, it's just about posting and reviewing specific nominations. So there should be absolutely no problem at all. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset could you describe why you think the proposal is too broad? After all, it's all about me being constrained to review a DYK if and only if a nominator requests me to make such a review. I have then stated that I would make such a review and if subsequent comments were made, I would ignore them. Can you explain what is "too broad" about this proposal? Can you explain the negative aspects of this suggestion? (PS No-one has suggested I would post to "that page", which I believe you mean WT:DYK, so can you clarify your statement?) The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:12, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Thryduulf spot on. It's abundantly clear from the two or three users here staunchly against any kind of relief of the topic ban that it would only take the slightest lapse before it's all rushed back here again. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis I'm not disappointed, it's the quality of the encyclopedia that you've let down. I guess I am disappointed by Arbcom's inability to read community consensus, with overwhelming support for me to be allowed to conduct these reviews under highly constrained conditions, even by those at the coal face of DYK right now, but that seems part and parcel of how the system operates these days. Punitive sanctions are very much in favour for certain users. We should certainly amend WP:PUNITIVE to reflect the outcome of this proposal. Cheers to Ritchie333 however for trying, I think we knew where this was headed from the get-go. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
AGK, you need describe where my behaviour has been "appalling". And as for your threat, I don't appreciate that either. Is that really what you should be doing here, bullying and threatening me? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 06:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 you couldn't be more wrong, as most of your colleagues at DYK have testified here. Spectacular would be a great way of describing my reviews. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 21:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just because I said you were wrong, that isn’t condescending or rude, just the truth. The barnstar is a perfectly apt example that when I am asked to contribute a review that I can do so very well and work incredibly well with nominators to help them improve Wikipedia. Disallowing nominators from seeking my input in a formal review is harming Wikipedia, we can see that from the ongoing error rate at DYK. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- You keep missing the point. This is about offering reviews to people who specifically ask me to. Nothing more. You’ve blown it up into something it never was, and coupled with your attacks, I’m no longer interested in what you have to say. I’m not shooting myself in the foot, you are continually shooting the encyclopaedia in the head. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
MJL, I think fundamentally if people want me to review their nominations, and as I said, I will provide the review and not interact with any one else during the review other than the nominator, there is no conceivable issue. I was pleased to receive a reviewers barnstar this morning, isn’t that a pip?! The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
General comment, such a time sink, imagine if all the time spent here trying to continue the punitive measures had been spent reviewing DYKs? Sometimes I think all perspective is lost here. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis The evidence is all over Wikipedia. I've conducted dozens of DYK reviews in the past without a single problem (as I have had dozens of DYKs of my own). I've done a couple of hundred GAN reviews and made possibly in excess of a thousand FLC reviews without problems. I've also engaged in scores of FAC reviews without issue. That's the problem here. The focus hasn't been on what I can bring to those individuals who seek my help, it's all about a bunch of other grudges. If people could focus on the facts and that is that I have provided and continue to provide (even during this timesink) top notch reviews to those who want to work with me. Everything else, including the threats, baiting, attacks and harassment I'm receiving here, is irrelevant to the purpose of the request. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 19:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
MJL, if people continually attack and bait me, they will receive what they dish out. That has absolutely nothing to do with this proposal which, once again, relies on my proven track record of hundreds if not thousands of problem-free reviews. You can all make up as many doomsday scenarios as you like, but simply put, that's a waste of time. I will work with only those who request my help, and then only in the capacity of reviewer and then only to make my review, respond only to the nominator, and no-one else. Now then, I'm really exasperated by this giant timesink, and I have far better things to do than continue to battle against all odds here, so I'm getting back to reviewing articles in every other part of Wikipedia. If it's decided that the only part I can't do it (DYK) remains thus, well that's punitive to both me and the DYK project (and patently absurd as there's not a single shred of evidence that my reviews have ever been problematic). If the evidence is overlooked in favour of long-standing grudges and the attacks, harassment continue, well there's nothing I can do about that, I'm a fair target these days. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 05:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- No, it's a huge timesink for the community. Just look at how many people have edited here over the last couple of weeks, how much support there is from those who are deeply invested in the DYK project, how frequently the evidence of my reviewing has been completely ignored, how often I've reiterated that I won't engage with anyone outside those who have asked for my assistance. The problem is, as always, that these are always an opportunity to bring out the grudges, personal attacks and harassment. Many thanks to the many many level-headed individuals who have analysed the facts and are encouragingly non-punitive who wish to see the encyclopedia and other good faith editors benefit from my reviews. That, after all, is all this clarification is about. Now, back to me reviewing OTDs, GANs, FACs and FLCs. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Worm That Turned, I've already told you how this can work. I've already told you all that I support the ARCA. I've already given a plethora of evidence as to why it would work. I'm not going to beg for these punitive measures to be removed, that you have testimony from a dozen or so people that support the modification should be more than sufficient. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- And please demonstrate evidence that in any of my reviews in any format that there is a risk that this might not work out very well indeed for everyone concerned? I.e. could you please make an evidence-based decision constrained to the request in hand? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- So you have precisely no evidence that any single review of mine has been problematic? I didn't think so. And forgive me for asking, but what makes you think you know more about how I will behave in the DYK review process than all of those involved in the DYK process? Gatoclass, Vanamonde etc all do sterling work there, were party to the project talk page topics for which I was topic banned, yet they still believe I can be of benefit. But you don't. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, you're still not getting in. There exists precisely zero evidence that I will be nothing but helpful in reviews. You keep arguing about what could happen but nothing of that sort ever has happened in the review process. Moreover, I will only be commenting on DYK reviews that I am asked to review. Honestly, exasperating doesn't really cover it. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 12:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- So you have precisely no evidence that any single review of mine has been problematic? I didn't think so. And forgive me for asking, but what makes you think you know more about how I will behave in the DYK review process than all of those involved in the DYK process? Gatoclass, Vanamonde etc all do sterling work there, were party to the project talk page topics for which I was topic banned, yet they still believe I can be of benefit. But you don't. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 09:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- And please demonstrate evidence that in any of my reviews in any format that there is a risk that this might not work out very well indeed for everyone concerned? I.e. could you please make an evidence-based decision constrained to the request in hand? The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 08:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I'm sorry but you're just saying the same thing again and again. And none of it is based in any way in relation to the reviews I have made or the caveats I and others have already stated would be in place. There is not one shred of evidence that I have been or would be "rude" (or disruptive or whatever) during a review of a DYK nomination. There never has been, nor ever will there be. Claiming otherwise goes directly against all available evidence of my reviews over the past 14 years. Your DYK colleagues are in disagreement with you. Clearly I would not be invited to review anything you ever produced, but that's the whole point, because you find me unpalatable we still wouldn't need to interact. I am simply offering my services to those who actually want to work on improving their articles and DYKs, no-one else, and nothing more. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 10:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- I've been very clear about what this proposal would mean. And it's not bragging, it's simply pointing at evidence, rather than just making hand-waving arguments up about scenarios which may well never exist. It's all about assisting those who ask for it, nothing more. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, thank you, your comment barely makes sense and literally has no relevance at all to this proceeding. Having said that, it's a great example of why TRM is a simple target as users and arbs alike pay no attention to actual evidence. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
For those continuing to advocate punitive measures: "When a toxic person can no longer control you, they will try to control how others see you. The misinformation will seem unfair but stay above it, trusting that other people will eventually see the truth just like you did." The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Actual evidence update turns out I've had 72 DYKs which means I've done at least 67 DYK reviews. And I know I've done more than that because I gave up on nominating my own DYKs and just reviewed other DYKs for fun. Can anyone find a single instance a DYK review that I've made which resulted in disruption or dismay? I'm sure those commenting here have done the research. I've got time, so please, take your time and let me know. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Gatoclass with respect, I think it's pretty obvious that this has been entirely about the formal review process as if I want to review any DYK informally and engage in any kind of conversation, I can already do that. But that's not what's been requested of me from others. However, no harm I suppose in using the term "formal" review, or even your suggestion. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 11:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- You are aware that the wording is: The Rambling Man is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process). In other words there's nothing stopping me talking about the DYK process at ERRORS2, so I'm not sure what I could say about the process there which could be "actionable" (as you put it). The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 17:11, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- The wording as I've described to you is clear. And the restriction on commenting on the process is not restricted to ERRORS, but ERRORS2. And no, I don't comment on editors, I comment on the process failures. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 18:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
It now feels like it's getting to filibustering time. Continually raising the same concerns again and again which are covered by other existing sanctions which aren't being modified here is outside the scope of this amendment. We all understand you don't like me, but many many others appreciate the work I do and I've given all I can here in terms of my assurances that I will review only those DYKs I am asked to, commenting only on the content, and not responding to anyone but the nominator. I fail, therefore, to see the purpose of continually hammering the same points to death. Please take a moment to re-read the statistics. I've conducted literally thousands of reviews across all aspects of Wikipedia. I have been waiting for any evidence that all the purported hypothetical horror stories could come true during such reviews. I haven't seen anything. Now could we put this trivial amendment to bed one way or the other? And then we can spend all the valuable time wasted here arguing about things which aren't going to happen on other things like improving the encyclopedic content of Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
MJL perhaps you're not aware, I already can discuss anything related to DYK at WP:ERRORS2, including nominations. This amendment doesn't modify that at all. Yikes indeed. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 07:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- MJL ok, well ERRORS2 is to point out the many problems with the DYKs (and other main page content) that I'm not permitted to comment on directly (per existing sanctions). This modification would allow me to simply review DYKs which nominators have asked me to help with (usually to prevent last minute issues and to improve the content of the encyclopedia). It's unfortunate that you are commenting as you are with the limited understanding of the overall picture. To summarise: I am disallowed from discussing DYK processes or nominations anywhere other than at WP:TRM. This proposed amendment seeks only to enable me to assist editors who wish to ensure that DYKs on the main page are promoted while minimising the usual (3 per set) error rate. I have made it clear, many many times what this minor adjustment to the terms of my topic ban would mean. I have also noted, perhaps five times (?) that I would only respond to the nominator, and if the nomination became entrenched, I would walk away. Sadly, some users are intent on continuing the punitive measures and are apparently not interested in the community's well-argued and considerable consensus. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- EdChem 👏👏👏 well said. The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 13:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
- EdChem I don't see how I could ever "game" any sanctions. As you noted, and as is evident here in this very case, I'm being carefully watched by a number of users who are waiting for any kind of indiscretion to haul me back to Arbcom. After 14 years and 230,000+ edits, it befuddles me why anyone would think this amendment is doing nothing other than to enable me to improve Wikipedia solely at the direct request of others. Sanctions are not supposed to be punitive, and I have yet to see anyone provide any evidence anywhere throughout this entire process which could demonstrate that any reviews I have conducted of any material anywhere on Wikipedia has caused any disruption, and that includes the four score or so DYK reviews I have conducted previously. In actuality, the topic ban (which was actually constructed by Arbcom, so complaints about micromanagement should start there) really only prevents me from doing two things: (1) commenting at WT:DYK and (2) registering errors at WP:ERRORS. The former I've never missed, the latter is a real shame, but WP:TRM continues to provide a reasonable place to highlight such issues. This amendment really just aims to provide some insight to the people and only those people who are interested in my capabilities as a reviewer, and there's overwhelming evidence both in this ARCA and across my contributions to Wikipedia that demonstrate the move would be almost risk-free. If someone wants to add some "trial period" to this (although that would probably be construed as even more micromanagement, but meh) then I have no problem with that at all, of course. But fundamentally that would appear (to me) to be a waste of time since as I noted at the start, if I put one toenail out of line, there are at least four users here who would notify the authorities post-haste. But if it counted for anything, I'd be happy to work under "probation". The Rambling Man (REJOICE!) 22:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Gatoclass
I haven't had much time to consider this proposal, and will be going offline shortly so will be unable to comment further for some time. I'm a little concerned about some of the comments TRM has been making with regard to some DYK hooks lately, so I'm somewhat ambivalent about the notion of his DYK restrictions being eased at this point. However, I have said from the outset that he should be permitted to copyedit DYK hooks himself as his work in that regard has always been both useful and uncontroversial, and as he would no longer have to prompt other editors to do it for him and those editors in turn could employ their talents elsewhere. With regard to Ritchie333's proposal above, I have considered making the same proposal myself occasionally, but I worry about the potential for abuse, as his supporters could constantly canvas him for his views at DYK and we'd be back to square one. But at the same time, I don't want to be unreasonable. I'll need some more time to think about this, and see what others have to say. Gatoclass (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
I see TRM has amended his previous statement to propose restricting his commentary to requests from nominators only. On the face of it, I can't see much objection to that. Gatoclass (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@TRM: I have refactored my original statement as I think it could have been better expressed. And of course, I'm always happy to work together constructively to improve the encyclopedia. Gatoclass (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Having had some more time to think about this, I'm struggling to see a downside. TRM's problematic behaviour has arisen almost entirely around his dissatisfaction with the quality of reviewing at DYK. It's hard to imagine any such problems arising if it's TRM himself doing the reviewing - is he going to be castigating himself for not doing a good enough job? Moreover, DYK is always in need of more reviewers - particularly quality reviewers - and TRM is about as rigorous a reviewer as they come. So I see this as potentially a win both for those who are seeking TRM's assistance in creating better nominations, and for the DYK project at large. In short, providing he intends to confine his reviewing to the nomination pages of those who request his assistance, I'm in favour of it. And it's not as though, after all, we can't return to the scope of the original ban if new problems arise. Gatoclass (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Opabinia, I probably should have responded to your question earlier asking why TRM can't just conduct a review on his dedicated "ERRORS2" page. The reason (if you are unfamiliar with the process) is that DYK reviews are conducted on dedicated pages which look like this. They can also at times get quite complex, like this recent example.
TRM's errors page is not designed for extended reviews, it's there to identify hook and article errors. You can't approve a DYK nomination anywhere but on the dedicated nomination page, and if TRM were to conduct reviews on his errors page, you would have to save the resulting discussion to the nomination page anyway for future reference. So why not simply have the discussion at the dedicated page from the outset?
I reiterate my previous statement that I think easing TRM's restrictions in this manner would not only be highly unlikely to have a negative impact at DYK, it should have an outright positive impact as we are always in need of more reviewers at DYK and TRM is the kind of rigorous reviewer that the project needs more of. Moreover, he will only be reviewing the articles of users who have specifically invited him and with whom he therefore has a positive working relationship.
Perhaps I should also remind the Arbs that I can hardly be described as a fanboy of TRM, having strongly advocated for his DYK restrictions in the original request. In that regard, I am still strongly of the opinion that his ban from DYK talk, WP:ERRORS and any other highly visible page, where he has shown a persistent tendency to soapbox about the DYK project, should remain in place. But for dedicated (and intrinsically low-profile) DYK nominations pages - where he has been specifically invited by the nominator - it's very hard to imagine how that could become disruptive - on the contrary as I've suggested it should be of net benefit to the DYK project. Gatoclass (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Opabinia - yes it's true that individual nominations pages are transcluded to the global nominations page, but relatively few nominations get input from more than one user as people are generally looking for a new nomination that has yet to be reviewed. And as TRM is a rigorous reviewer, it would probably only be on rare occasions that somebody would want to challenge his conclusions, so the likelihood of exchanges with DYK regulars would probably be slim. As I've said previously, the main issue with TRM's participation at DYK in the past has been his disparagement of users, and of the DYK project in general, for defective reviewing. Since the proposed modification to his sanction would only allow him to do his own reviews, by invitation, there would be little reason or opportunity for him to be commenting on the reviews of others. But again, in the event that this modification did result in significantly more problematic behaviour, which seems unlikely, one could always go back to the previous regime. Gatoclass (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Banedon - that was an exceptionally long nomination discussion that is a rarity at DYK - I included it only as an example of how long the occasional review gets, and how impractical it would therefore be for TRM's ERRORS2 page to be doubling as a review page. Most DYK discussions are brief and have only one reviewer. In TRM's case, he doesn't miss much and consequently as I said his reviews are only likely to be challenged infrequently. Also, if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in. Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Banedon - apologies for the delay in responding - I've had a very busy last couple of days. In response to your comment:
I don't agree with the argument that "if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in" - if we accept it, then it could literally apply anywhere, e.g. "let's lift the topic ban from DYK and if people don't want to interact with him, they could simply avoid DYK"
- With respect, there is a world of difference between allowing a user to comment in an obscure nomination page, where he has been specifically invited and is welcome, and allowing him to comment at will on any topic he chooses on a high-traffic page like WT:DYK, potentially causing chronic disruption. Having said that, I have acknowledged that there would be some risk of disruption, however small - I just thought the proposal would be worth a try. Regardless, it looks as if it's on the verge of failure now (TRM has hardly helped his cause with some of his comments), I'm just putting my response on the record. Gatoclass (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The motion to amend as currently worded does not I believe accurately reflect the discussion here. The amendment states: As an exception, he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator, but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination, but that would allow him to review a nomination by request of the nominator anywhere, when there were clear objections to him being permitted to participate in DYK discussions at high-traffic pages such as DYK talk or WP:ERRORS. The motion should read he may review any DYK nomination on its nomination page only, at the direct request of the nominator, or something similar. Gatoclass (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
On reflection, I think the proposed amendment could be better expressed anyway, as the wording is somewhat confusing as it stands. I would suggest striking the second sentence altogether and simply modifying the last sentence, which is currently This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process) to: This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page, to DYK nomination pages where TRM has been invited to conduct the review by the nominator, or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process) or something similar. That way, all the exceptions are covered together in the one sentence. Gatoclass (talk) 13:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, he could do the same thing at his own errors page, WP:ERRORS2, if he wanted - and in fact he has sniped at DYK on occasion there, but not to a degree that I've felt was actionable. Given that that page has been extant for a considerable period now, I'm finding it hard to imagine how he could be more disruptive at individual nomination pages. Gatoclass (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@TRM: I would have to refamiliarize myself with the context of the debate that led to your sanction in order to respond fully to that, but while it may be true that the wording of your sanction does not expressly bar you from commenting on the DYK process at WP:ERRORS WP:ERRORS2 there is the restriction against commenting on the competence of editors, and there sometimes can be a fine line between the two - though as I've said I don't think you've overstepped the line. Given that, my point is simply that I don't see much reason why you couldn't be trusted to also conduct reviews when invited at nomination pages, where the incentive to soapbox would be further diminished. Gatoclass (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Cas Liber
I think the modification provides clarity. Wikipedia is also desperately short of reviewers. I see this as a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Narutolovehinata5
Considering the issues with TRM's behavior at DYK before, I still feel that it would be better to stick to the status quo, unless TRM would promise to abide by the rest of his topic ban (i.e. refrain from making judgments about editors' competence) and he would promise to tone down his rhetoric. The main issue why he was banned from DYK in the first place was due to his attitude, which led to conflicts and frustrations with the rest of the DYK community. I'm not comfortable with him coming back unless there is effort that these issues would not happen again.
If consensus determines that this proposal be implemented, may I suggest some kind of probational period where in he could be allowed to contribute to DYK again (in what manner, let consensus determine), but if returns to his old ways or the prior problems return, then the stricter ban would be reinforced. I'm not sure how long would this period be, but probably no more than six months: if after the period there are no problems then he can be allowed back for good. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Upon seeing TRM's new comments in his section, I am putting it for the record that I am opposed to this proposal at this time. Even here he is showing the same kind of attitude and arrogance that got him into a lot of trouble before, with statements such as "Problem is that I'm a brilliant reviewer" and "I think the ban on me helping is simply cutting off one's nose to spite one's face really" showing that he either is unable to or refuses to stop belittling other editors (whether implicitly or explicitly). Considering it appears that his attitude remains unchanged from before, I fear that letting him back even in a limited capacity will result in the resumption of toxicity that greatly hurt the project in the past. Thus, I strongly advise that the status quo remain for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry Gerda if the word "toxic" was harsh, but it was a frank assessment of the situation at DYK in the past. Too much drama, too much fighting, and sagging morale took place because of TRM's comments (whether directly or indirectly). Sometimes you need to be direct to the point to get your feelings across, even if the words sound harsh. I would only be open for TRM to return to DYK if he can promise and prove that his prior attitude problems will no longer arise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Even here in this very discussion, TRM is still showing that snarky attitude. I suggest to the arbitrators to keep this in mind when discussing the matter and making a final decision. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not mean to stalk or anything (in fact, the discussion I'm about to link, I had stumbled upon for reasons not related to this ARCA discussion), but I am very disappointed at the behavior TRM showed at WP:ANI#Block of User:EEng and am starting to feel that he is being given special treatment on-Wiki. I'd imagine if a different editor with the exact same attitude did the same thing, they would have been gone long ago, or been given stricter sanctions. As a response to the other comments below, while I'm very much a believer in second chances and I'm not closing the door on supporting this proposal, I will only do so if and only if TRM promises to be more civil, refrain from making insults or other similar comments, and only follow the rules of the proposed motion. Right now, with absolutely no sign that TRM is even willing to change his ways, it greatly disappoints me that people here are even willing to consider this proposal, and I fear that, in spite of this proposal having limited scope, it would still be enough to make the old issues resume. (I personally have my opinions about WP:ERRORS2 and think it should go away, but that's a story for another time, and right now I think it's a necessary evil if only to prevent more drama). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- What I find unbelievable is how an editor can get away with a comment that simply says "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" in a discussion. That's not humor, that's incivility. TRM, I was not even referring to EEng's block or EEng in general, but rather your behavior on that discussion. Did you really need to gravedance on the block being lifted or doing that "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" comment? If any other editor did that, I'm sure they would have been given at least a warning. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's a difference between humor and insults. Humor is supposed to make you laugh, make you feel good. Like for example a comedy show or a light-hearted moment. Laughing at people's misery is not exactly what you'd call humor in that sense. At best, it's a lame attempt at humor, and at worst it outright does the exact opposite (i.e. it makes people mad instead). And again, I was not referring to EEng's block. I don't have any opinions on said block or its circumstances. I am only referring to your "HAHAHAHA" comment. replyNarutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thryduulf, I know this is basically a slippery slope fallacy, but there is a fear that, even under the limited set of circumstances that he would be allowed, it might not be enough to prevent the issues with civility that were commonplace in the past (and indeed can even be seen to some extent in this discussion). Sure it could be argued that those with issues with him could simply avoid interacting with him, but what if such an avoidance is impossible? There also seems to be the fear that, in practice, such an exception could be abused to the point that it would make the original restrictions useless in the first place (i.e. people would just keep asking him to participate, rendering the original topic ban moot). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- There's a difference between humor and insults. Humor is supposed to make you laugh, make you feel good. Like for example a comedy show or a light-hearted moment. Laughing at people's misery is not exactly what you'd call humor in that sense. At best, it's a lame attempt at humor, and at worst it outright does the exact opposite (i.e. it makes people mad instead). And again, I was not referring to EEng's block. I don't have any opinions on said block or its circumstances. I am only referring to your "HAHAHAHA" comment. replyNarutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- What I find unbelievable is how an editor can get away with a comment that simply says "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" in a discussion. That's not humor, that's incivility. TRM, I was not even referring to EEng's block or EEng in general, but rather your behavior on that discussion. Did you really need to gravedance on the block being lifted or doing that "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" comment? If any other editor did that, I'm sure they would have been given at least a warning. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- After reading Vanamonde's proposed guidelines, I would say that I would be willing to support such a proposal, if TRM would be limited to strictly only talking about the hook wording and the articles themselves, and that he can still be sanctioned in case he goes beyond such restrictions without approval. However, I still have concerns that, due to his alleged reputation for "nitpicking" (note that I am quoting other editors here, this is not necessarily my thoughts), that even such a limited proposal may not be enough to mitigate concerns about civility. For example, I fear that, even if he is only asked to discuss about article and hook issues, he may raise "issues" that the nominator or other reviewers think aren't issues at all, which could lead to problems. I also agree, that if consensus is to add another exception to TRM's case, that such an exception should initially be short-term and should only be made permanent if the previous issues no longer arise. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well AGK, if, as you say, TRM's attitude in this discussion has been "appalling", then I honestly and frankly have little hope that things will improve if this exception is implemented. It's kind of worrying that TRM is still showing a really condescending attitude in this very discussion (about granting him an exception), when him keeping civil and working on improving his attitude would have been the proper action, to increase the chances of the proposal passing. With the way things are going, it seems very likely that, considering TRM's continuing attitude, that the proposal will fail spectacularly if it was implemented. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're being unnecessarily rude in this discussion TRM and that is not giving confidence on your ability to keep civil. So what if you were given a barnstar? That is besides the point for the purposes of this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: This is a late reply to your last comment, but considering TRM is already showing signs of incivility on this discussion, as well as apparently showing a superiority complex, it leavea me with little faith that he would suddenly turn civil and the issues would not reappear if the proposal is accepted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- You're pretty much proving my point here TRM, about the superiority complex. Sure it's nice to get a barnstar at all, but you don't have to brag about it. And in any case, the fact that you received a barnstar here has little-to-nothing to do with the actual topic of this discussion, which in the end, boils down to civility. Few people here are doubting your reviewing skills and in fact even some of the opposers here acknowledge your ability to detect errors. The question of this whole discussion is basically if that is enough to excuse your previous and current issues with civility, or if the proposal has enough safeguards to ensure that the previous problems won't resurface. And from the way you've been replying all this time, I can already tell that this proposal, of accepted, is doomed to failure. You were already asked nicely by some of the comments here to cease your tirades against DYK or its participants, and it was even proposed by another editor as a condition for you to return even in a limited capacity. And yet you have continued to berate DYK, as can be seen in your last message. It does not matter if it's "the truth" or not, that is for consensus to decide. But what is clear is that, with your current attitude, you are basically shooting yourself in the foot. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:13, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Gerda: If we really need to pass this proposal, then at least to me Vanamonde's proposal seems to be the most reasonable: TRM would be allowed to comment, but only upon the request of the nominator, and can only bring up article and hook issues, but cannot say anything about editors or the DYK process; failure to adhere to the latter could result in sanctions. If further safeguards are necessary, then perhaps there could be additional restrictions. Like perhaps TRM could be limited to a maximum of one or two comments per nomination, and/or he can only comment on a certain number of nominations per day or week, and/or he can only participate upon consensus agreeing to do so (either on WT:DYK or the nomination page). The proposal to allow him to comment "if no one else has commented" honestly seems too broad for me: there could be various reasons as to why no one else has commented, including the fact that the nomination was just newly-started and no one else has gotten around to reviewing yet. It could actually mean that, under the proposed criterion, it's possible that the nominator simply requests TRM to do the review immediately (i.e. before anyone else could do the review), when as far as I have interpreted the proposal, it's intended mainly for cases where the nominator and reviewer(s) can't come into an agreement and TRM is intended to break the ice. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew
- Well, the fact that you have been very rude in this discussion (which is a fact that even some of the supporters such as AGK have acknowledged), as well as showing an apparent superiority complex (in which you imply that everything you do is correct and the encyclopedia will "collapse" if you do not get your way) is enough to give pause as to your possible behavior if you come into DYK-related conflicts. If even here in this very discussion you have been unable to keep civil and been unable to refrain from attacking editors who do not agree with your work or sentiments, it makes it seem unlikely that your behavior will suddenly change if this proposal is accepted. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Your DYK colleagues are in disagreement with you
. While I acknowledge that some (and indeed arguable the majority) of DYK participants who have commented so far are supportive of the proposal, there are others who are opposed as well (such as BlueMoonset), and even among the supports (including from both DYK and non-DYK participants), other editors have also have reservations about your behavior, such as AGK, SL93, Vanamonde93, among others. Meanwhile, as for your statementThere is not one shred of evidence that I have been or would be "rude" (or disruptive or whatever) during a review of a DYK nomination
. Well the fact is, you have been unnecessarily rude in this very discussion. If you claim that "I am going around in circles", then sure, but that's also because it appears you have also been unable to do something that has been requested from you multiple times: to keep civil. Let's put it this way. If, for the sake of argument, that this proposal does end up passing, would you promise to keep civil, refrain from making the kind of comments that you have give in this discussion, refrain from belittling editors and the DYK process (whether implicitly or explicitly), cease bragging about your on-Wiki contributions, and only comment on article and/or hook issues but not on editors? Because if you can answer yes, then maybe I would consider changing my mind and giving my support. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- The motion wording strikes me as too broad. "But may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination" seems a bit too unspecific and still leaves open the possibility of making comments about editors or the DYK process even in an initial comment, which has been a major reason for conflict in the past. Would highly suggest that wording be added along the likes of Vanamonde's proposal, wherein TRM would only be allowed to comment on content but not editors or DYK. Also, would also suggest that the new motion, if passed, initially be only done as a limited-time trial, which could be extended or made permanent if no issues arise during such a trial. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass - The issue with your proposed rewording is that, if it only includes the words "or to DYK nominations where the nominator invited them to review", that would still leave open to TRM commenting on editors or the DYK process as a whole, which is something that other commenters here are worried about. I understand that the current wording about TRM's topic bans include the statement that he "cannot make reflections about the competence of editors", but it does not seem enough. If perhaps some kind of wording was added which would say something like "in cases where TRM is invited to review the nomination, he may only comment on the articles or hooks but can make no comments about the editors or the DYK process" then I might be more open to the idea. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- What worries me about this whole discussion is that most of the comments have either ignored or declined to talk about the civility issues that TRM has faced in the past and arguably continues to have problems with. It's like the elephant in the room that people don't seem to want to talk about. And in fact, some of the supports even more-or-less say that they don't care about TRM's attitude, as long as he does what he does. What kind of editor would you prefer: an editor who is civil and good at what they do, or one who is an expert on such things but has a very questionable attitude? The way things stand, the proposed motion is too broad and in my opinion does not have enough strong safeguards to ensure that civility issues won't happen, and it shocks me that most of the comments here are supporting such a lenient motion. I mean, if the exception would be to allow TRM to comment when requested by the nominator, what would happen if, for example, TRM wholeheartedly disagrees with the nominator's work and begins to question their competence? Personally I would not be opposed to the motion if there was a restriction against commenting on the competence of editors or soapboxing, and I find it very strange that such a restriction doesn't have more support. I fear that if the motion is approved, TRM will end up back here at ARCA or even at AE or ANI sooner than later. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Banedon
Not a fan of this change. The current text means one can read DYK without encountering TRM. This change means one can again encounter TRM as long as someone has invited him there (and someone is undoubtedly going to do so). Adding this kind of loophole makes me uncomfortable - it makes it harder for anyone trying not to interact with TRM to also read DYK, plus it's a long slippery slope all the way to just not having any restrictions at all. Banedon (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- By the way arbs, you can see above that TRM has pinged me again even though I told him not to do so in the past. In other words, the objectionable behavior is still there, it's just at a lower and less visible level. This is also but one example of TRM trying to attract my attention even though he undoubtedly knows I am manually ignoring him and don't care about anything he has to say. I consider this incident another reason not to make this amendment: it makes it easier for TRM to aggravate people. You don't even need to interact in any explicit way, simply reading the same pages is enough. Banedon (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv: I don't mind TRM participating, I don't mind him rebutting what I wrote, I just do not want him to ping me. That's easy to do: just don't include the tags that ping the person, so in my case I would simply type Mendaliv or @Mendaliv without using the replyto command. It's something that's easy to do, so since he did not do it I interpret his action as hostile. Banedon (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Question: why can't anyone who wants TRM's input ask him on WP:ERRORS2, where the restriction already does not apply? Banedon (talk) 23:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- @valeree if you don't like the atmosphere at WP:ERRORS2, there's a good chance you'll regret this amendment if it passes. ERRORS2 is hosted by TRM, after all. @Mendaliv, this is a long and complex case. If you're looking for evidence that the restrictions are beneficial, I'd suggest the amendments & enforcements section of the main case page (and discussions within), as well as searching AE for results. I was in favor of simple restrictions as well, but Arbcom in general have given signals that they'd rather impose minimally restrictive remedies (see e.g. [36], such as the ones in this case. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Do DYK nominations involve only the nominator and the reviewer? If not, then I don't see why adding this loophole makes sense: any other reviewer or reader is going to be affected as well. Even if the nominator doesn't care, others might. Banedon (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: that sounds good on paper but is risky nonetheless, because if someone is annoyed they might not complain but simply not participate. See statements by e.g. Kevin McE and Sunshineisles2 in original case request. Further, fighting these cases & going through dispute resolution takes a mental toll. As you can see from the case request, the alleged problem behavior went on for years before it wound up at Arbcom. Would you fight a case if half the people are going to say TRM has done nothing wrong and you should grow a thicker skin, when the alternative of simply not participating is painless and instant?
@Gatoclass: Looking at the complex discussion you linked, lots of people participated: Ted52, DannyS712, SkyGazer 512, Peacemaker67, Flibirigit, EdChem ... further, it looks like that nomination was for an article created by someone other than the nominator. How would this amendment not lead to people who don't want to interact with TRM having to interact with him? Banedon (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Gatoclass: I don't agree with the argument that "if people don't want to interact with him, they can simply ignore any nomination he is a participant in" - if we accept it, then it could literally apply anywhere, e.g. "let's lift the topic ban from DYK and if people don't want to interact with him, they could simply avoid DYK". Banedon (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: I still don't understand - if this amendment is implemented, what if someone who doesn't want to interact with TRM wants to participate in a DYK nomination for which the nominator has invited TRM to review? Even worse, what if the author of an article (who doesn't want to interact with TRM) is not the nominator, and the nominator invites TRM to review? If the answer to these two questions is "just avoid that nomination", then this amendment is not harmless; it has collateral damage. On the other hand if it were possible to make an amendment that is harmless - such that only those who want to interact with TRM actually interact with him - then I still don't see the purpose of that amendment, because anyone who wants to interact with TRM can already see his input on ERRORS2 or his talk page. The only thing that changes would be the venue. Banedon (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Gerda
Since I have been called in the proposal. I have found The Rambling Man (TRM) most helpful regarding the quality of the Main page, and had frequent positive interactions, before and after WP:ERRORS2 was established. Yes, it's sometimes time-consuming to have to supply more references, and I sometimes think that it would be more urgent to write about a person who recently died and has a poor article than supplying references for stage productions which nobody would question anyway, and sometimes I decide to not take the time to search for the refs missing in translated articles, and feel a bit sorry for the readers who then have to go without those facts.
How would it hurt others if TRM did a DYK review for me, or improved "my" hook, when asked? Fondly remembered: Template:Did you know nominations/Johannes Martin Kränzle. I would like the committtee to find a creative way to make that possible. My way would be to let go of all restrictions with probation.
@Narutolovehinata5: I believe that DYK would profit if all participants would refrain from comments about the shortcomings and the attitude of others, which make "judgments about editors' competence" as you said. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: "Civil and respectful people should not apply the word "toxic" to fellow editors." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Still same: you paint a rough picture of the DYK scene without any diff. I invite you to read the review I linked above from start to finish. That is what I call a model of constructive reviewing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@PBP: I ihave interacted with TRM for many years, and found him always civil (to me), and never insisting on a style, just on facts and references. I don't see you much at DYK, so what do you observe? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@PBP: I am often at ITN, for the sad reason that people die and have insufficient articles (see above, now on the Main page). TRM helped fixing a link to a dab page. At ITN, he also has never been incivil to me. Do you see any incivility in the model review? Do we perhaps have different ideas about civility?
@Sandstein: ARCA for someone else whom you see in trouble is not frequent but has been done, and even successfully so in a seemingly hopeless case, remember? (admittedly a pointed edit on Bach's birthday) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- (forget the following for now, please, baby steps, only within DYK nomination)
- I made a corner on my talk, User talk:Gerda Arendt#welcome TRM where people who think as I do can sign that TRM is welcome to review their articles, provided this little step to more article quality will be taken. We can make it a template like this one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alanscottwalker: I am not sure I understand what you mean. I wanted to give TRM permission to review all my nominations (implying: within those nominations), but heard advice to take baby steps, so: I am ready to invite TRM within each nomination (even if 20 times per month, sigh), and his input only within that nomination. What I read from your comment is to ask the question on TRM's talk, and then somehow copy his answer to the nomination, - that awkward construction is what should be avoided by this amendment if I get it right. Ritchie, perhaps clarify the request, because it can be interpreted differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Same: What I would like to be able to request is not just some comment, but a review, - otherwise someone else would need to work on that part, which I think is needless double work, and a waste of time. It's kafkaesque that TRM can handle GA and FA reviews, without complaints afaik, but not simple DYK reviews. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: you say "it doesn't matter if his input on an article takes the form of a formal review or not", which is true but besides the point. DYK is not about an article, but about the proposed hooks, and to make comments about them anywhere else than in the nomination seems needlessly complicated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I am grateful that TRM took up the GA review for my last Christmas gift. My suggestion for a modified request would be (instead of "or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited"): "or to DYK nominations where his review has been solicited and no other reviewer has commented". Better wording welcome, - the idea is to make sure interactions happen only where they are wanted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@WTT, @Edchem: about when does a review end. Perhaps we can define: when the ultimate icon of approval or failure was given? Don't think a review always ends then. Example: Template:Did you know nominations/Antigone oder die Stadt. Approved 14 May. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mkdw: Would you rather support letting go all restrictions on a parole? Do you find any fault in what I mentioned above as a model review? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Mendaliv
As an outside observer, I find TRM's behavior here to be perfectly normal, if a bit jocular. We aren't monks, and this isn't a court.
As to TRM's pinging of Banedon, I believe this complaint is both frivolous and vexatious. Banedon came here voluntarily to oppose TRM. Banedon's statement invites interaction from TRM. I believe that this is yet another case of unilateral WP:KEEPOFF-style declarations that the Committee should rightly hold as unenforceable in this case. Yes, if someone is bothering you, it is reasonable to ask him to leave you be, and it would be rude for that person to not leave you be for a reasonable period of time... but it's not an interaction ban, nor is it a restraining order.
What else is not reasonable is to keep a reasonable request like that in your back pocket for three years only to throw it down as a "gotcha" in a situation like this. It's dirty pool, and moreover, it's a form of incivility to bring oneself into this discussion and then complain when a participant talks to you. It's frivolous and vexatious and should expose the person making such a complaint to sanction if repeated. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 07:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with Sandstein’s latter point, that the sanction regime that exists is needlessly complex. Just lift the whole thing and if there’s a problem, hand out IBANs and sitebans. I see no evidence that it’s still necessary to prevent disruption even being presented. Rather concerns about having to see his posts. That doesn’t merit continuing this ban. Sandstein’s former point, on the other hand, is moot: TRM is here and is participating as though he wants this specific outcome. So there is standing to proceed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think what's being missed here is that as part of a preventive (i.e., nonpunitive) regime, there should always be a default position of determining whether the sanctions are still necessary. I posit that this hasn't been done. Most of the argument against loosening these sanctions seems to come from a position of "why should we?" I would counter by asking, "Why shouldn't we?" I've yet to see anybody credibly answer that question here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- As an alternative suggestion, let's even take this as a chance to try something different: Give TRM six months of this and then revisit it. If there are no credible complaints about his conduct at DYK, then it becomes permanent. If there are credible complaints, rescind it. And of course, if there are serious misconduct issues, rescind it early. This way there's no knock-down drag-out fight over whether and when to reinstitute the previous regime. The Committee has crafted relief from sanctions in this manner before and, if memory serves, it has been successful. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I think Banedon and PBP raise some legitimate concerns that we shouldn’t dismiss (though I won’t call all concerns legitimate), but at the same time, these should be balanced against the guiding principles for sanctions (i.e., “preventive” means they must be preventing something). Taken with a genuine interest expressed here by multiple editors (including those with past dust-ups with TRM) in seeing him able to help DYK noms with their noms outside of TRM’s walled garden. When coupled with reasonable safeguards against this reduction becoming permanent without Committee approval (as I suggested in an earlier post), this is both eminently reasonable and quite compelling. I urge the Committee to give TRM a chance here. We do this sort of thing all the time for people who were previously sockpuppeteers. I understand that some may view TRM as toxic or an unblockable, and thereby see granting any request as making that greater problem worse. But it is not the place of the Committee to legislate or to be a roadblock or to supervise quasi-permanent sanction regimes. The Committee’s job is to arbitrate. If TRM is given this chance and bottles it, reimpose the sanction as-is, and possibly sanction him more. If TRM takes this chance and does nothing with it, then the Committee can have it default to being reimposed. And if TRM takes this chance and succeeds, then the Committee has succeeded. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps we might conclude the discussion between TRM and valereee by recalling that we're all giving our own opinions and arguments here, and that valereee is here more as an amicus than a direct participant or party. Thus it's entirely reasonable and normal for their framings of the situation not to line up perfectly despite generally supporting each other's views. And I think that's what's important. Spirited discussion is a positive thing, and even difficulty can be positive. There is a recent research article on Wikipedia that comes to mind that concluded polarization in a topic area was correlated with more neutrality on average, despite the views of the participants that the discussion was difficult. See Shi, Feng; Teplitskiy, Misha; Duede, Eamon; Evans, James A. (4 March 2019). "The wisdom of polarized crowds". Nature Human Behaviour. 3 (4): 329–336. doi:10.1038/s41562-019-0541-6. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- @AGK: as my first post in this request somewhat addressed, TRM has been getting baited and bullied throughout this request, so I think some understanding would be in order. While he's had support, an unfortunate fact of life is that TRM is not too hard to bait. And so, rather than enjoying the broad support he's received throughout this request—and as you can see, that support has come from virtually every sort of editor—he has a tendency to react when people try to cause him to react. But is it fair to blame him for the wrongdoing of others? I don't think so. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 03:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Worm That Turned: I'm struggling to understand your rationale that TRM is "not invested" in light of all (or any) of the discussion that's taken place here. Sandstein's point is a patent non sequitur, as well as completely inappropriate given (as far as I know) we do not have a legal standing requirement here. Yes, it's poor policy to allow third parties to start proceedings, but that is dramatically different from the jurisdictional bar Sandstein appears to be raising. And again, TRM has mooted that objection by participating. If the Committee is going to enact rigid procedural requirements, it should do so through its rulemaking processes and not piecemeal through adjudicative processes (unless, of course, we are starting to follow a stare decisis system here). —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 08:41, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- In line with what Nartuolovehinata5 suggests, the wording could be tightened a bit, though I don't think it's necessary to expressly prohibit such commentary. Rather, I would prefer to see the motion make clear that when TRM is invited to comment on a DYK by the nominator, he will be held to the same minimum standards of behavior of other editors. Let AE figure out what that means in practice. I think we should be clear here, the goal of this change of sanction is not to prevent every possible disruption or hurt feeling, but to loosen the restrictions with the intention of letting TRM prove himself useful. It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to be the permanent babysitter of a few well-known editors. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by StudiesWorld
While I have at times found TRM to be unnecessarily rude, I have also found that he seems to be the person who cares the most about the quality of the main page. Therefore, I would be very pleased to be able to have him review my hooks at DYK. I believe that the committee should adopt this, so long as the request must come from the article's nominator, updater, or improver. I would also appreciate if the committee would permit general kind requests on all of a user's DYKs, to avoid the need to ask each time. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by valereee
I have no objection to TRM commenting when requested to. I often find his comments useful, though I also find his definition of “error” loose in the extreme, as it includes non-crucial stylistic preferences different from his own. And I sure wish he could exercise some self-discipline so we wouldn't need this silly rule. TRM, why only the nom? Oh, I see the comment from WTT. Frankly, I'd probably ask you him every time I moved a prep to queue if you he'd be willing to take a quick look at the set before it hit the main page. --valereee (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, I'm not reading this as only doing DYK reviews of nominations awaiting approval when requested. I'm reading it also as doing rechecks when requested. I agree with WTT that it should be someone involved with the nom who makes the request, not just some random drive-by potstirrer, but there are multiple editors involved with every nom. Creator/nominator, reviewer, promoter, and whoever moves prep to queue, at minimum. I would think any of those people at any point would be able to ask you what you think. --valereee (talk) 08:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- TRM, not arguing that your reviews aren't good, but to be fair, it's a little circular to argue that none of your reviewed noms receive pushback, hence
they're perfect/there's nothing an editor with your skills and inclinations would complain about you've already done what you can to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way, when you're probably the person most likely to be pushing back. --valereee (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2019 (UTC)Again, not arguing that your reviews aren't good, and I'll add that I'm also not arguing that they aren't beneficial. They are both good and beneficial, and I wish I could take advantage of them. But the fact they don't get complaints can't be taken as evidence that another person whose eye was similarly sharp, whose willingness to go over the main page with a fine-toothed comb was similarly obsessive, but whose opinions about various issues were different from your own -- say TRM's doppelganger showed up -- that they wouldn't receive complaints. You aren't going to complain about the quality of your own reviews; you've already perfect/good enough to need no criticism done what you can to minimise errors on the main page as to reduce the embarrassment for the project every day and in every way from your point of view. That's all I'm saying. --valereee (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- TRM, not arguing that your reviews aren't good, but to be fair, it's a little circular to argue that none of your reviewed noms receive pushback, hence
- Gosh you’re difficult. You realize I’m supporting you here, right? 1. You complain about DYK more than anyone else. 2. You aren’t likely to complain about your own reviews. 3. Your reviews get few complaints. You’re using that to, and I quote, argue that “none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable.” It’s a logical fallacy. If there were someone scrutinizing your noms as closely as you scrutinize everyone else’s -- but there's not -- then perhaps you’d have a different set of data. --valereee (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was trying to work with you when you said "none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable" was not a claim to perfection. A lot of folks might take exception to that, but I backed off, twice, with still no joy. It absolutely is a logical fallacy to claim that no objections = nothing objectionable when the source of the lion's share of objections has been taken out of the equation. --valereee (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely no question on your motivation; it's clearly to protect the project by ensuring errors don't hit the main page. --valereee (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- I was trying to work with you when you said "none of the reviews I have ever done for DYK were objectionable, nor any of my corrections to prep sets were objectionable" was not a claim to perfection. A lot of folks might take exception to that, but I backed off, twice, with still no joy. It absolutely is a logical fallacy to claim that no objections = nothing objectionable when the source of the lion's share of objections has been taken out of the equation. --valereee (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@Banedon, I don't mind reading there, but I don't want to post there. I don't like the general atmosphere; it feels the opposite of collegial. I probably wouldn't ask for help there. I'd post to TRM's user talk, I guess, but I'd really rather just have all discussion in one spot. So, yeah, being able to ask TRM at T:DYK to do another recheck on a prep set I'd finished rechecking and was ready to move to queue would be useful to me. I'd rather have potential issues pointed out before the thing's just hours from or already on the main page. But as TRM said, baby steps. If all Ritchie is suggesting is that TRM be allowed to do the original review when asked, that's also fine with me. --valereee (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Banedon, yes, I'm aware of that. I read there regularly when it was being updated and often made article fixes or suggested main page fixes at ERRORS when I agreed an issue was an error. --valereee (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Purplebackpack89
Oppose proposed amendment, and support additional sanctions. The Rambling Man is perennially uncivil to many, many editors and no evidence that his continually uncivil behavior has abated has been provided. If anything, the present topic ban doesn't go far enough. I'd also like to echo the above point that, both in DYK and in other areas, TRM is too interested in making everything conform to one particular style, when conformity to said style isn't necessary. pbp 23:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- TRM's attitude in dealing with this arbcom, casting inaccurate aspersions (such as accusing people who oppose the amendment as "harassing") and making snide remarks, steels my opinion that this topic ban is justified, probably even an under-reaction. Furthermore, if you were to peek onto ITNC at almost any time, you'd find TRM badgering other editors, essentially mimicking the behavior that got him the DYK topic ban. pbp 17:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: He is incivil and badgering at ITNC, among other places. Heck, he's incivil in his post here. @Jehochman:@Davey2010: I feel like you're ignoring the reasons this was originally implemented, and the reasons his other sanctions exist. pbp 23:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
+1 to Naruto's comment's above where it's said Even here he is showing the same kind of attitude and arrogance that got him into a lot of trouble before
and Even here in this very discussion, TRM is still showing that snarky attitude.
That's exactly why I feel he cannot be trusted to be civil at DYK, or, frankly, anywhere else. Instead of quelling concerns about his behavior (which should be the main focus of this discussion), TRM has assailed those who criticize him. He seems to be ignoring the guidelines at the top of editing this page, Be professional. Comments that are uncivil or intended to provoke a negative reaction are unhelpful
. pbp 11:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- Also, small point of order: a quick perusal of my user page reveals that I do have DYK credits, so TRM's statement above is inaccurate. pbp 12:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: You'd be helping your case a lot more if you provided examples of how you can interact civilly and positively. Because, right now, you're doing the exact opposite. . pbp 16:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mendaliv: Why shouldn't we allow TRM to review DYKs? To succinctly answer your question: reviewing DYKs inherently involves interacting with other editors. These sanctions were put in place because TRM demonstrated serious problems interacting with editors when reviewing DYKs. Since those sanctions were put in place, TRM continues to demonstrate problems interacting with editors in the spaces he is still permitted to use. Because of past problems interacting with editors on DYK, and current problems interacting with editors elsewhere, we shouldn't allow him to review DYKs in order to prevent him from interacting poorly there. pbp 22:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @AGK: I wasn't expecting prostration, I was expecting civility. If TRM had said nothing in this ARCA, this might have not been controversial. If TRM had said nothing but, "I'm good at reviewing articles", this might have not been controversial. Instead, TRM attempted to bludgeon everybody who disagreed with him, something he's done on almost every part of Wikipedia he frequents. You yourself said that his behavior here was disturbing, yet you've chosen to ignore that in your vote. pbp 15:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Sandstein
I don't have an opinion on this particular situation or editor(s), but I'd like to put it to the Committee that (a) that this is an appeal by somebody other than the sanctioned editor, which is normally not allowed; and (b) based on my AE experience, the Committee should refrain from micro-managing editors' behavior through complicated and individualized sanctions with exceptions and qualifiers. Such sanctions are invariably difficult to apply and enforce. Sanctions should be as simple as possible - ideally, a plain site ban, interaction ban or topic ban. Sandstein 08:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Masem
semi-involved only due to frequent interactions at ITN, another main page section. What TRM is good at is accuracy and language precision. TRM isn't great in the "process" part of things (that is where past issues have come up), but if you are just asking TRM to review and comment (and asking without contempt for his past actions), it will going swimmingly well and for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Yes, there will be some disagreements on TRM's suggestions but as long as that does not create the same behavior that TRM's concerns on the process had created, we should be okay to add this additional allowance. --Masem (t) 17:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Jip Orlando
The committee should endorse this request. Some agree with TRM, and some disagree. TRM is an exceptional reviewer (GA, FAC) and cares deeply about the integrity and accuracy of the main page. I don't see there being any trouble with allowing his solicited opinion on DYK items. If he reviews something, and the nominator disagrees with his assessment, the onus is on the nominator. Simple, really. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Jehochman
I’ve had many disagreements with TRM at WP:ITN. I support this request. He should be allowed to comment whenever invited by the nominator. Jehochman Talk 21:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Dave
I too support the request - If TRM's been invited to DYK then he should be allowed to comment there. –Davey2010Talk 21:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Vanamonde93
If a nominator has solicited TRM's input, I see no reason he shouldn't give it, assuming his other restrictions continue to be adhered to.
Also, since we're here, this is probably a good time for someone besides myself to remind TRM that the exemption to his tban is specifically User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS, and not (for instance) his much more visible talk page. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- @ all the folks who are concerned over conflict arising from TRM reviewing DYK nominations; there's an easy way around this. Word the exception to the TBAN to allow TRM, in the course of performing a DYK review, to comment on a) the hook(s) on offer, and b) the bolded article, narrowly construed. He can then do what he's good at, but he would remain restricted from, for instance, making comments about the nominator, the promoter, the DYK process, and anything else that bugs him. Not only would this reduce the reviewer burden at DYK, I believe this is more in keeping with ARBCOM philosophy in general; we should work toward a situation where remedies are no longer necessary. This provides a good test case; if TRM returns to making unnecessarily personal comments, the old restriction can be imposed again; if not, we're all the better for it. If we want to add further safety valves; word this exception so that it expires in six months, at which point TRM would have to demonstrate constructive contributions at DYK for the exception to be restored. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by SchroCat
Why not? If a DYK editor has specifically requested TRM's input into a singular nomination, it would make sense for the good of the encyclopaedia if he is allowed to assist that editor. To those complaining above about TRM in general, just don't ask him to comment on your nom and ignore him - you don't have to get riled just because he has an opinion and you don't like his personal style.
It seems as if many would like a pound of flesh here, rather than anything aimed at improving the standard of the front page. God knows DYK is quality sink normally and the MP would be better off without it, but while it is there, let's try and ensure standards are adhered to, and if TRM's offer takes the pressure off some of the other reviewers, that can only be a 'Good Thing'. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by BlueMoonset
The proposed additional wording strikes me as far too broad. In particular, the DYK talk page had become a highly unpleasant place to work on for a very long time, and the atmosphere there improved immediately and significantly once the Arbitration committee's decision was handed down. TRM should continue to be restricted from posting to that page: if people have questions or requests and the committee thinks it's important that he be allowed to answer, they can easily be made elsewhere. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, the proposal as written at the top of this section still reads to add the following to the remedy:
or to discussions anywhere on the project where his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited
, and that seems to be what the arbs are responding to. I don't see that Ritchie333 has rethought the wording; indeed, valereee's most recent response indicates a desire to ping you from WT:DYK and have you answer there. Under those circumstances, I thought it was important to register my opinion. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Bilorv
I doubt TRM has any recollection of many of our interactions but there have been a fair few, some positive and some negative (currently we're having a positive one). I actually take issue with TRM's behaviour at ERRORS2 and also support this modification (understanding it to mean: if a DYK nominator wants TRM to review a nomination then TRM is permitted to). On ERRORS2, the issue I have is with the often factually incorrect nitpicking of all of the DYK hooks, which some admins who've watchlisted ERRORS2 blindly rush to pull out of the queue and complain about. I often watchlist ERRORS2 when my hook is in the queue in case someone starts trying to tear apart the nomination because I have a period out of place. But if a hook nominator wishes for TRM to participate then I see no issue with this, as TRM's thorough reviews mean there'll be no problem with the hooks he accepts. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf
I'm honestly struggling to understand why the suggestion to allow nominators to seek input from TRM if (and only if) they desire is at all controversial? If anyone does not want to interact with TRM they don't have to - they can just choose not to comment on those reviews where TRM's involvement has been solicited. All those in opposition seem to be arguing against things that are not proposed or are even less relevant than that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5 and Banedon: TRM would only be allowed to participate if the nominator asks, so unless there is some grand conspiracy among DYK nominators the chance of the restriction being moot or TRM being unavoidable is not realistic. If it does turn out that this very small limited exception does lead to TRM being uncivil then it can simply be withdrawn. Given the number of people who are desperate for TRM to make any transgression so they can pounce on him any problems will be reported PDQ and sanction will be swift. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Alanscottwalker
To Thyrduff's point, the reason that point does not seem persuasive is because someone like Gerda can go to TRM's DyK page and seek their practically unbridled input without any fuss. Take what, eg. Gerda, learns there and make the DyK nom anything they think worthwhile with the input. All of us, when we choose to, from time to time go to someone's user pages and ask advice on things, and we don't normally say, I will only take your advice elsewhere. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Gerda: Not sure why you would have to copy anything: 1) Go talk to the person whose opinion you want; 2) ask them for their opinion/critique etc on your DyK 3) incorporate their ideas/critique in the DyK yourself. If I go to someone's talk and ask them if this is a good way to phrase something, or to source something, they don't have to go phrase it or source it, I will do that, taking their advice into account. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
- Well Gerda, to comment on something capably, reveiw is usually involved. You can ask him anything you want and get his answer. Assuming you both do great, you make the nom process a cake walk for everyone else (win-win). It's doubtful even Kafka thought consulting an editor on his work was kafkaesque (even if many editors and authors 'hate' each-other, just a little). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by MJL
I didn't think I was going to post here, but I guess I am. The original proposal fails flat on its face as making the entire sanction toothless and pointless. If literally anyone can just ping TRM and suddenly the sanction stops applying, then it really isn't much of a sanction.
As for the talk of limiting it to only when the nominator asks for TRM's input, well it's certainly more agreeable than the original proposal (which isn't saying much). However, and this is why I decided to post here, let me break down as to why I specifically still see this as causing more issues than it helps and provide an alternative.
- Background: In 2016, arbcom had found TRM was consistently being uncivil. If that is no longer the case, then fine. Let's just not forget that the remedy we are talking about was designed to resolve that issue.
- @AGK: I'm really confused by your statement. If you think TRM is still acting poorly in this request, then why... support granting it?
- @AGK: I'm really confused by your statement. If you think TRM is still acting poorly in this request, then why... support granting it?
- Scenario: Okay, so here's a likely situation that I can guarantee will happen at some point were this to pass:
- A DYK reviewer (let's say Narutolovehinata5) starts a review for a new DYK made by someone who knows TRM well.
- NLH is doing his reviewing thing, maybe even suggests an alternative hook, but the nominator takes issue with it.
- They ping TRM for advice who, while not exactly siding with them, completely disagrees with most everything NLH said.
- TRM comes in and disparages NLH for giving such a poor review (by implication or otherwise) because he missed some mistake found in the hook's reference
- There is no recourse for this, and NLH is just either supposed to drop the review altogether or just sit there and take it.
- Suggestion: If the issue there are nominators who want TRM to do their review for them, then I do have an odd suggestion.
- Iff the DYK nomination is a self-nomination, they can forgo transcluding the nomination subpage to Template talk:Did you know and instead use WT:ERRORS2.
- WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not allowed (pick one; no take backs).
- There TRM can proceed as the reviewer just like the regular process. Other people reviewing WT:TRM noms should be discouraged when avoidable.
- If a hook is approved, then someone should transclude the nom subpage to WP:DYKNA.
- It goes through the normal channels from there like any other nomination (except TRM can participate if civil)
- This process would require ratification from a majority of editors in an RFC at WT:DYK to take effect (closed by a super uninvolved admin- no major interactions with TRM even if just admin actions).
- Conclusion: This is certainly... an idea. I don't know. It's probably a bad proposal, and it at least nominally addresses everyone's concerns here.
I'll leave off by just saying that I sort of hate that long established editors get this special treatment even if they're uncivil. If you can't get through a disagreement with someone without insulting them or being unnecessarily hostile, then I genuinely question why you are here. However, Sanctions always seem more designed to accommodate them rather than the project. Even my proposed sanction modification is way too lenient imo, but at least the DYK folks get a direct say in it this way. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- Note. If I had read the latest comment from GorillaWarfare, I wouldn't have posted this. It doesn't address those concerns. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Re: this. Well, truth be told; this discussion inspired me to learn more about the DYK process, so I promoted some DYKs on Prep 6. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:25, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Re: this. See... this is what I'm concerned with. NHL claims you are uncivil, you disagree, he says you display incivility right now, you disagree again, you claim your reviews are crucial to the functioning of Wikipedia, NLH politely argues that there still exists civility concerns here, you spout off your accomplishments, NLH says you are shooting yourself in the foot, you say NHL is
continually shooting the encyclopaedia in the head
.
It was at that moment in time of which I read that response where I completely gave up any hope I had left here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)- I'm really confused why everyone else gets a ping but me. I'm not like Banedon here; I really like pings lol A few things: (1) If you are aware enough of your situation to think/know you are being baited, then don't take the bait. (2) It's really not a battle against the odds here. A good amount of well established users have commented here to support this request. (3) If this is really such a time sink for you, then ask for it to be withdrawn. People with past issues with you are going to comment here, it's unavoidable and necessary to gain their perspective. (4) You also never commented on my suggestion (which was skind of the important bit?). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man: Re: this. See... this is what I'm concerned with. NHL claims you are uncivil, you disagree, he says you display incivility right now, you disagree again, you claim your reviews are crucial to the functioning of Wikipedia, NLH politely argues that there still exists civility concerns here, you spout off your accomplishments, NLH says you are shooting yourself in the foot, you say NHL is
- @SL93: Facts: I'm better at this stuff than DYK prepping lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Yikes That motion below is decisively not what I want to see. It completely avoids the self-nomination issue. It also effectively kills the sanctions imo. It's poor wording means that can continue to discuss the nomination on User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS. If you think that won't happen, then I'd like to point you to the discussion on this very ARCA there. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
- @TRM: [Thank you for the ping] You are correct in that I do not know many of the circumstances that surround this sanction. My concern is that if you are prohibited generally from further commenting on your DYK reviewed hooks, then I don't see why you need ERRORS2 to be an exception. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
- @The Rambling Man and AGK: I'm in over my depth here. I fully admit have no decent response. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Statement by SL93
The scenario presented by @MJL: is what I have been afraid of happening. The Rambling Man's reviews are great, minus being uncivil. If editors think that he can remain civil in his great reviews then fine, but there should really be a trial run at first. SL93 (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- @AGK: It seems like the immediate issue to me. SL93 (talk) 04:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment by Leaky caldron
Seems straightforward to me as someone completely uninvolved and totally disinterested in the topic in hand. TRM is clearly the subject matter expert. There seems reliance - far too much - on him. This is not good for a Main Page feature and needs to be addressed. However, as far as this request goes it seems obvious that if he sticks to his self-imposed constraints it will be for the betterment of the feature. If he fails to do so he will no doubt end up back here fairly quickly. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Sir Joseph
Firstly, I want to echo Sandstein, this is a clarification request not started by TRM so it should be TRM. Secondly, I think it should be denied. As others have pointed out (or I believe I saw it) TRM is at ITN and it's not a friendly place. If he's banned at DYK we don't need a loophole. If he has a place at TRM/ERRORS, let him stay at TRM/ERRORS. If someone wants to talk to him about a DYK, they can talk to him at TRM/ERRORS. Letting him in to DYK is inviting trouble by letting him talk to unsuspecting people who may not want to interact with him. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Jonathunder
As someone who has occasionally worked on DYK and other main page queues, I find User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS quite helpful. Why wouldn't we be free to ask this editor's opinion if it benefits the project? Jonathunder (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Statement by EdChem
- TRM has a long history of expressing his views in problematic ways, reflecting on other editors in a way that has caused issues and led to sanctions being imposed, and struggling to recognise and respond colleagially to views with which he disagrees – and particularly about the DYK project. TRM is also strongly motivated by and committed to quality encyclopaedic content for WP, has a well-established and entirely-justified reputation for identifying and addressing problematic content and providing high quality and persuasive reviews. I believe that neither of these observations can reasonably be disputed.
- I applaud the comment from AGK that ArbCom acting to modify a sanction does not require grovelling. The question here – is a modification appropriate for pursuing the goals of Wikipedia and will any modification lead to disruption – does not require TRM to act in a certain way. To me, the two most significant facts in this ARCA are, firstly, that the views of other editors offer a consensus that allowing TRM to review DYK nominations on request is a net positive, and secondly, that that consensus recognises his prior behaviour (which justifies maintaining a ban on WT:DYK and meta-discussion of the DYK project) and so demonstrates nuance. Support is not "TRM is perfect, remove all sanctions," it is "TRM is capable of contributing positively to nominations without causing additional problems and this is a reasonable step forward... if it turns out to be problematic, the step can be reversed."
- I have one suggestion regarding the proposal from AGK, which is that the restriction
"but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination"
is too strict, in my view. If I, as a nominator, ask TRM for a review, and he complies but I don't understand his concern, I can ask for clarification but he can't respond. I would change the added sentence to something like:
As an exception, at the request of the nominator he may review any DYK nomination including subsequent discussion of that review at its nomination page only, but may not engage in discussion of the DYK project or its editors
- I think TRM would be a valuable reviewer and demonstrating this is in everyone's interests.
- Opabinia regalis, it is true that some of the material at TRM's ERRORS is nit-picking and trivial, and he does clearly still have strong views on DYK. However, speaking as a DYK editor, I find it irritating to have problems raised so late in the process and I would much rather have TRM point out an issue on a nomination than when it is on the main page. I agree with TRM that some reviews are very inadequate and if TRM can help to establish a new standard of what is and is not a sufficient review (by example), that is a positive thing IMO. If he uses the opportunity to review to just post criticism, his ability to offer reviews will quickly be rescinded. If the motion were worded as I have suggested, you could add that any uninvolved administrator can instruct that he cease contributing to a particular nomination – though that would add complexity and I don't expect it would be needed. His contributions on this page have been less than ideal, but that is TRM... had he been all politeness and grovelling, I would have thought he was playing games or mocking the process. EdChem (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- Worm That Turned, the principal difference lies in the interpretation of the word "review." I was taking the term as referring to the first post, that might raise problems for the nominator to address, rather than to the whole process. I'm fine with your interpretation, which addresses much of my concern, so long as it is clear to all that that's what ArbCom is intending. TRM deserves clarity on what is being allowed. Regarding your point about a nomination being re-opened, it does happen, and more often than might be obvious. The most common reason is a concern raised once a hook is in a queue (or has just appeared on the main page), and not infrequently because TRM has raised an issue that is recognised as needing further consideration. Sometimes these are discussed (or even resolved) at WT:DYK – where TRM cannot post – but if a nomination is re-opened and he was the reviewer, should he be allowed to participate in that further discussion of the nomination? Should his involvement be requestable at any stage in a nomination, or only the start? I don't have any answers on this, but do think the questions are worth considering. EdChem (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Worm That Turned, that seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable perspective / position. Taking the term "review" as covering the process up to giving the tick addresses my concerns, so long as it is clear that that is the ArbCom-mandated intent of the motion. I just don't want TRM to be dragged to AE or otherwise threatened because someone makes the same mistake that I did in interpreting what was meant here. EdChem (talk) 20:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Gerda Arendt, not sure why I am not getting pings at the moment. In any case, I think your suggestion is also sensible and is another approach that WTT / ArbCom might take. EdChem (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Mkdw, I can see the point that you are making, but unfortunately inexact wording has been weaponised against TRM in the past and I want to prevent that happening again. The situation has similarities to Fram's circumstances, sadly – an editor with good intentions who speaks inappropriately at times, and who has both supporters who seem to believe that he can do no wrong and detractors who think any pretext for sanctions should be exploited to the fullest... and in the middle are the editors who see a flawed but net positive contributor and the content of the encyclopaedia. TRM is a difficult case for ArbCom to manage, I recognise, and the usual approach that simpler sanctions are preferable runs into problems because the two entrenched camps are looking for reasons to attack / defend. I hope that I am seen as one of the editors in the middle and not part of either of those camps (certainly that's how I see my contribution here) and I can respect the view that GorillaWarfare takes that a modification is not presently justified. I am in favour of this modification, obviously, and am just hoping that it be constructed in such a way as to avoid it being gamed by either entrenched camp. TRM is an excellent reviewer – thorough, respectful of content policy, dedicated to quality encyclopaedic content, and supportive so long as an editor shares those goals – and I want to see those characteristics used for the benefit of Wikipedia and the DYK project if possible. You may have the view that now is not the time to try a modification or that if he can't contribute fully to DYK then he shouldn't at all, and I can understand that. I ask, however, as a DYK contributor and one who sees the problems with TRM picking up errors through his ERRORS page so late in the process, please consider the situation from the DYK project's perspective. DYK has a problem with inadequate reviews and TRM can help in establishing what is the norm for an adequate review. TRM is picking up issues that should be caught earlier and I believe it is to our benefit to seek a way for his skills to be used earlier. I agree that micromanaging from ArbCom should not be necessary and is not desirable from the Committee's perspective, but I suggest that it is sometimes desirable for the sake of encyclopaedic content. I won't defend everything TRM says or has done, some of it is indefensible and warranted sanctions, but he does have skills that we need and can do a lot of good. Can ArbCom find a way to harness his willingness to contribute reviews – reviews that are near-universally recognised as being of high quality and accuracy – to the benefit of the DYK project, main page content, and the encyclopaedia, while also addressing his problematic (at times) behaviours? Strong restrictions have been effective in reducing the problems on the behavioural side, at least in my opinion, so I ask that some modification be trialled to see if we can increase the benefits afforded by his skills and given his willingness to participate. EdChem (talk) 21:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Rambling Man, when I mentioned either camp gaming the system, I was thinking both of the way some editors choose to push boundaries in an attempt to reduce the area in which the sanctions apply and to those who try to weaponise sanctions by expanding their area of application. I do not think that you would try the former, though such things have happened with other editors, so I recognise that it may be a concern for some members of ArbCom. In your case, I fear the latter is more likely to occur and want to prevent it to the greatest extent possible. I am glad that WTT has described a more expansive view of what constitutes a review than the one I thought was being suggested, because WTT's view is much more aligned with what I see as reasonable. I did not mean to cast aspersions in your direction (or in anyone's direction, for that matter) but I'm sure that you would agree that there are a vast array of shades of grey between white and black. I view you as at the whiter end of that spectrum but also feel confident that our Arbitrators each probably see you as a different shade, and some of those will be significantly darker than my view. Consequently, I consider tailoring to avoid gaming from your end as more about ArbCom feeling comfortable about the modification than it is necessity, though there can be benefit to you in codified boundaries, both as a reminder of what is not allowed and as a clear line to protect you when doing what is permitted. You note that you are being carefully watched, which I don't doubt is true, so you have incentive to be cautious, and I believe that frivolous complaints about you should also be sanctionable as inconsistent with a respectful and civil editing environment. Given that such is unlikely to happen, the best protection that ArbCom is likely to be willing to afford is clear boundaries so that you can be undisturbed inside them. EdChem (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
The Rambling Man: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Comment I don't like the idea of a loophole where someone can ask for comment on the DYKs that they are not invested in, so the only people who should be eligible for such a request should be the DYK nominator... but other than that, I don't object. I'd like to hear other opinions before I support though. WormTT(talk) 22:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
- I'm amazed the way this has degraded and I'm very sympathetic to Sandstein's first point here. The request was not made by The Rambling Man, meaning he is not invested in it - and that's led to a whole lot of disagreement that doesn't help any matters. I was optimistic about the request initially, I am no longer. Allowing The Rambling Man to "help people who ask nicely" is only going to create problems going forward. If The Rambling Man wants to work towards removal of his sanctions, let him come up with a plan that achieves that - one that he is actually invested in. This one, however, I would
declineto change anything. WormTT(talk) 07:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)- I understand that you support this, and that it could work. If you had brought it here yourself, I believe (or perhaps just hope) that you may have taken a different tone in responding to comments. That different tone would have meant that there would have been less of a pile on, and this snowball effect would not have created a mess of an ARCA. That's not what happened though. I see no reason to believe that any reviews that you make will be "incorrect", but what happens if there is disagreement over your decision? From your tone in this ARCA, I see no reason to believe that you would be able to manage the interactions without falling into past behaviours.
You argue "community consensus", but the editors here are self selected, and we have to take the past case into account - this isn't a simple "see who turns up and what views they have" situation. But of course, you already know that. You argue "my reviews are good", no argument from me, but it's also beside the point - because however good your reviews are, disputes will come up - and that's where the issue lies. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 29 July 2019 (UTC)- The Rambling Man, I find it interesting that you feel the need to suggest that people do not know about the DYK process. A few years ago, I was a regular there. Now, I am not - largely due to atmosphere that has been brought about there. I have written 2 articles this month that would be eligible, and would make fine additions to the front page, but made a conscious decision that I didn't want to get involved in that process. I don't know how you would behave if you were added to the process, but given that a) I see the DYK process as an area where disputes are common, b) I do not see a commitment from you to improve how you handle yourself in disputes and c) your tone throughout this ARCA, I do not see the benefits of allowing you to review specific DYKs outweigh the risks of doing so.
- Mendaliv I hope the above answers your questions regarding my thinking too. I often wouldn't be concerned by the process issues that Sandstein raised, however, my point was that this wasn't part of a plan to return to full "good standing" by TRM, this was an editor who thought they could see a good faith way forward to help. Generally, I have personally found that when an individual requests something themselves, they are more likely to be aware of what they could stick to. WormTT(talk) 12:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
- Having slept on it and subsequently had a chat with TRM at my talk page, I'm again on board with this. I'll propose a motion when I get a few minutes. WormTT(talk) 09:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- EdChem, I'm not sure I see the issue. Once a review is marked done, it's very rare that it needs more discussion. If it's not marked done, it's still part of the review. WormTT(talk) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- EdChem, I would argue that the definition of review has to be a whole process - I would not expect TRM to complete a review in one edit, that would lead to a poor review. In addition, many of the reviews I have done at DYK have required further edits to the article, or questions to be answered or better sourced, I would expect TRM to finish the review after those have been answered. At the same time, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, so at the end of his review seems a good place. If someone wants to re-open the review, then they would need to take responsibility as I do not see the benefit of TRM being dragged back when he has already done his part. If it is wrong after re-opening, he's got his ERRORS page to point that out. I would not expect him to discuss the hook at WT:DYK in the situation you describe, that is for the nominator to manage, I would also not expect him commenting further at the review. Basically, once he's signed off on a hook, he's done with it. As for when he can be requested, I would suggest that he should be requested at the start - i.e. before anyone else has begun reviewing. If someone has already started a review, then I see no need for TRM to be requested. WormTT(talk) 15:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- EdChem, I'm not sure I see the issue. Once a review is marked done, it's very rare that it needs more discussion. If it's not marked done, it's still part of the review. WormTT(talk) 11:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Having slept on it and subsequently had a chat with TRM at my talk page, I'm again on board with this. I'll propose a motion when I get a few minutes. WormTT(talk) 09:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- I understand that you support this, and that it could work. If you had brought it here yourself, I believe (or perhaps just hope) that you may have taken a different tone in responding to comments. That different tone would have meant that there would have been less of a pile on, and this snowball effect would not have created a mess of an ARCA. That's not what happened though. I see no reason to believe that any reviews that you make will be "incorrect", but what happens if there is disagreement over your decision? From your tone in this ARCA, I see no reason to believe that you would be able to manage the interactions without falling into past behaviours.
- I'm amazed the way this has degraded and I'm very sympathetic to Sandstein's first point here. The request was not made by The Rambling Man, meaning he is not invested in it - and that's led to a whole lot of disagreement that doesn't help any matters. I was optimistic about the request initially, I am no longer. Allowing The Rambling Man to "help people who ask nicely" is only going to create problems going forward. If The Rambling Man wants to work towards removal of his sanctions, let him come up with a plan that achieves that - one that he is actually invested in. This one, however, I would
- I'd be comfortable with "or to discussions on his own talkpage when his input into a DYK nomination has been solicited." SilkTork (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
- Why can't people who specifically want TRM's input on an article ask either on his user subpage or on the article talk page? Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:38, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, I see, thanks Gatoclass - I originally took the OP's wording about "input" to be more general than that. It would be hard to track 'official' DYK reviews and approvals anywhere but the usual subpages. The subpages for DYK reviews are transcluded onto the nomination page, though - so on the one hand this would allow TRM to participate only by invitation, but on the other hand it would result in others who had not invited him having to work in the same vicinity. Would there be a problem with downstream processes (whoever is picking the hooks, etc)? I haven't done anything with DYK in a long time, but IIRC it often happened that the person doing the choosing would end up making small edits to the hook text, which would then end up getting re-discussed by the nominator or reviewed. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm going to disappoint some people here. Tl;dr: I thought it over and I don't think this is a good idea. I'm usually in favor of proposals that prioritize reader-facing content over back-office interactions, and I understand the argument that these review subpages are isolated enough places that TRM could participate in the DYK process there without causing much wider disruption. TRM, I'd be more persuaded by that argument if your comments and behavior on this page during this process had given a little more evidence to support that view. It's never a good sign when you start thinking that anyone who disagrees with you must be
espousing hate and grudge
. (For the record, the answer to why TRM can review GAs or FLs or whatever but not DYKs is simple: DYK is where he's been disruptive.) Since it's really all about giving readers accurate information - as TRM is fond of (correctly!) reminding us - then it doesn't matter if his input on an article takes the form of a formal review or not. If editors nominating articles for DYK want his opinion on their articles, they're welcome to ask for it. If he's as thorough and reliable a reviewer as he says - and there's no reason to think he isn't - then the articles should be fully prepared and the extra work of a "formal" DYK approval by someone else should be minimal. (Though I have to say,I don't expect to request anyone's opinion on anything during a review as I'm more than capable of these matter myself
sets my overconfidence detector abuzz.) If we see some successful examples of that process in action - and by that I mean constructive feedback without the sideswipes at DYK or its participants that we've been seeing on this page - then I'd be open to reconsidering this suggestion in a couple of months. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC) - @Gerda: Yes, I know, and yes, it's complicated. But we need some evidence that TRM's input in this specific context will be constructive, and since we don't have it on this page, it'll have to be gathered the complicated way.
- @AGK: Not to put too fine a point on it: while I won't stand in the way if others want to support this, I think granting this request would increase rather than decrease the probability of the future you predict. (Note: that is not a warning, a threat, or encouragement to third parties. It's a prediction that I hope doesn't come to pass.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
- I definitely see no reason to loosen TRM's restrictions, especially when he can already provide this input at his ERRORS page. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't want to use the page for DYK feedback that's your prerogative, TRM, I'm certainly not going to force you to. But I don't see adding a caveat that you may be summoned to DYK pages by anyone for any reason as productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, I do not support TRM performing the formal "review" step in DYK; he is banned from that, and as I already stated in my first comment, I see "no reason to loosen TRM's restrictions". As I also explicitly said, if he wants to provide input, which does not have to happen within a DYK template, he can do so within the bounds of the restrictions. TRM: I am familiar with DYK, having participated in the process some myself, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I am not paying attention to the comments here, which I have read in their entirety. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
And as you are familiar with DYk, you will know that explicit formal reviews can’t be performed in user space.
I am not sure how I can be clearer that I do not support you being allowed to perform the formal review step anywhere, and I have not suggested you try to do so in userspace. As for "community consensus", decisions at ARCA are not made by just tallying up the !votes of the people who show up to comment, and you know this. I'm confident that I have been clear enough for my colleagues to comprehend my stance here; hopefully you do as well now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- To be clear, I do not support TRM performing the formal "review" step in DYK; he is banned from that, and as I already stated in my first comment, I see "no reason to loosen TRM's restrictions". As I also explicitly said, if he wants to provide input, which does not have to happen within a DYK template, he can do so within the bounds of the restrictions. TRM: I am familiar with DYK, having participated in the process some myself, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I am not paying attention to the comments here, which I have read in their entirety. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
- If you don't want to use the page for DYK feedback that's your prerogative, TRM, I'm certainly not going to force you to. But I don't see adding a caveat that you may be summoned to DYK pages by anyone for any reason as productive. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I do not really get why we have a problem with this request, and accordingly I would grant it. I think that TRM's attitude during this request has been appalling, but that is not immediately the issue, and I suspect we will be dealing properly and separately with that matter in due course. AGK ■ 21:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL and Narutolovehinata5: Why should I not? The behaviour of The Rambling Man in this request does not affect whether it is appropriate to amend the sanction. Prostration is not a prerequisite of being granted an amendment by this committee. AGK ■ 11:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Motion to amend
- For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Proposed:
In remedy 9, "The Rambling Man prohibited", the first paragraph is amended to read:
9) The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) is topic banned from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, the Did You Know? process. As an exception, he may review any DYK nomination at the direct request of the nominator, but may not engage in subsequent discussion of the nomination. This topic ban does not apply to User:The Rambling Man/ERRORS and its talk page or to articles linked from DYK hooks or captions (these may be at any stage of the DYK process).
Enacted - GoldenRing (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support
-
- I accept that I have flip-flopped on this topic, but when it comes down to it, I believe there is more here to be gained than damage that could be done. I have mitigated my concerns, that arguments might break out over at DYK or that individuals may bait him there, and per discussion at my talk page, I'm satisfied that TRM will attempt to not do allow that to happen. Also, by only allowing the nominator to request, we should stop any loophole that might encourage bringing TRM into disputes. With those concerns mitigated, we get an editor who is able to review DYK nominations, and therefore improve the encyclopedia. It also allows TRM to prove he is able to work in the DYK area without upset. If he can't, well, that will prove something else. WormTT(talk) 13:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Just in case it comes up - I consider a review to be all parts of work up to a tick or a cross. When requesting more information or changes, TRM can carry on the review up until a tick or a cross - after those changes are done. WormTT(talk) 07:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Strikes me as harmless enough. Courcelles (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- As in my earlier comments: AGK ■ 11:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
- WTT puts forward a rationale argument for the limited amendment. SilkTork (talk) 11:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Somewhat reluctant support, per WTT. I agree with much of Mkdw's point about micro-management and personal responsibility. But on balance, I think this modification is a reasonable way to explore whether or not TRM can in fact return to DYK editing in full. If he can contain himself, great. If he causes problems even with people who have intentionally sought his input, then I think that's telling in itself. But I'll opt to hope for the first scenario. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hesitant support. I just caught up with the conversation on WTT's talk. I'm not really convinced, but I'm willing to give it a trial and see how it goes. I take Mkdw's point about micromanagement - and honestly, I've backed off on the view I held when I first joined the committee, in favor of very narrow sanctions where possible to remove people from precisely the area of trouble, because the evidence has been that there is boundary-pushing when that kind of sanction is implemented. But I think it's worth a try. (I guess I should note that if there is a problem with this very limited change, I'm very unlikely to support any further reductions in restrictions, regardless of anyone's views on anyone's utility or content value or personal endorsement or anything else.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
- I accept that I have flip-flopped on this topic, but when it comes down to it, I believe there is more here to be gained than damage that could be done. I have mitigated my concerns, that arguments might break out over at DYK or that individuals may bait him there, and per discussion at my talk page, I'm satisfied that TRM will attempt to not do allow that to happen. Also, by only allowing the nominator to request, we should stop any loophole that might encourage bringing TRM into disputes. With those concerns mitigated, we get an editor who is able to review DYK nominations, and therefore improve the encyclopedia. It also allows TRM to prove he is able to work in the DYK area without upset. If he can't, well, that will prove something else. WormTT(talk) 13:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
-
- Per my comments above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
- ArbCom should not have to intervene in such a detailed way in how someone edits a particular topic area. It indicates a much more problematic issue if someone must be so carefully restricted and micro-managed in such a way. Editors for the most part should be treated as adults. If TRM wants to return to DYK editing and will conduct themselves appropriately, then it could be explored evaluating whether TRM is capable of doing so or not. Mkdw talk 18:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Per Mkdw. Either TRM can be trusted to engage in DYK without causing disruption, or they can't. These highly personalised sanctions shift the burden of preventing disruption from the user to the community (especially AE admins), and no single user is so indispensable to the project that that is justified. – Joe (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Recuse
-
- Discussion