Jump to content

User talk:Awilley/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 < Archive 9    Archive 10   
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)


Editor seeking to exploit editing restrictions

When you were considering placing 1RR on me, you expressed the view that other editors would not seek to exploit this. However, check out the editor SunCrow who reverts long-standing content, repeatedly restores it and rarely if every starts talk page discussions about it. When I alerted him about his edit-warring, and the fact that he was edit-warring against multiple editors and with support from no one, the editor explicitly spoke of joy regarding the voluntary editing restrictions I had committed to[1], which would in effect make it easier for this user to bully bad changes into articles without consensus. The editor has after making the remark subsequently edit-warred out content on the Elaine Chao page in brazen violation of WP:BRD, and clearly with the expectation that I will be unable to revert him. In other words, this editor is brazenly violating Wikipedia policy in practice and in spirit, and is intentionally exploiting the fact that other editors have committed not to edit-war (even when WP:BRD is on their side and there is no consensus for the other editor's changes).[2][3] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:34, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into it. Sorry, been busy with some things IRL. My participation here will be spotty through the holidays probably. ~Awilley (talk) 04:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans, my first problem with what you did here is that you went to an administrator with accusations against me without having the basic decency to ping me so that I'd be aware of your complaint. Instead, you went behind my back.
My second problem is with the way you characterized my words. I did not "explicitly [speak] of joy about your editing restrictions". I said that the restrictions about "making 'an honest effort to understand the concerns of other editors' and 'ask[ing] how those concerns can be reflected in the text without undermining the content of the sources and NPOV'" were my favorite parts of your restrictions. (My point, of course, was that I'm still waiting to see you actually take this new, collaborative approach; instead, I see much of the same attitude and behavior that got you placed on restriction in the first place.) So you distorted, exaggerated, and misrepresented my words. Unfortunately, in my experience, it is routine for you to respond to conflict by distorting, exaggerating, and misrepresenting the words of others. You've done it to me many times. It's dishonest, you do it over and over again, I have challenged you about it over and over again, and you continue to do it. This makes it impossible to WP:AGF in dealing with you.
You asserted that I have been taking advantage of your editing restrictions. To show that my heart is in the right place, I have self-reverted my recent edit on the Elaine Chao page (see https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Elaine_Chao&diff=932000076&oldid=931861659) to restore the disputed content. (I honestly cannot remember if I had your restrictions in mind when I made this edit.) In the future, I will not take advantage of your editing restrictions to gain the upper hand in content disputes. SunCrow (talk) 19:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The same editor is immediately back to exploiting my editing restrictions in order to edit-war longstanding content out of an article[4]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, Snooganssnoogans, I did not take advantage of your editing restrictions. I reverted your edit because it didn't make any sense to me and because your edit summary--like many other things you say--was false. I would have responded the same way regardless of your editing restrictions. On a different note, this is now the second time that you have gone behind my back to Awilley without having the decency to ping me. That is an underhanded and cowardly thing to do. Awilley, I regret the fact that your talk page is playing host to this ridiculous back-and-forth. SunCrow (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Snooganssnoogans:, On this diff, "removing minutiae" is a better reason for removing content than "long-standing" is for restoring content. If you have sources stating that the RNC chairwoman pressured candidates to falsely suggest wrong-doing and election fraud, maybe you could just state that explicitly instead of the mealy-mouthed "Politico reported that McDaniel called on the Republican candidate Martha McSally to be more aggressive during the ballot counting process". (Alternatively, if the sources don't say that explicitly, then you shouldn't either.)
@SunCrow: Please try harder to respect WP:Status quo. Also, your comments on the talk page should be focusing on content, not other editors. If you continue to make statements like "The problem here is that Snooganssnoogans is full of bologna" on talk pages I'm likely to slap you with User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions#No personal comments ~Awilley (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.


Clean-up

There may be need to rein in the Snoog, particularly this, which pretty unambiguously violates WP:BADSITES and for good measure, rules about wp:outing. What do you think @TonyBallioni:?

Pinging @Snooganssnoogans: for transparency. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a joke? Today, you insinuated that I and/or other editors were working for David Brock.[5] You have previously made the same David Brock accusations on off-wiki sites (under your own username) against the editors Calton and Neutrality, saying "there are no shortage of paying customers. David Brock, for one (whose pages Calton & Neutrality watch over with hawkish eye)...". You have on multiple other occasions suggested that other editors are working for hire and/or conspiring together. I asked you to stop casting these aspersions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, not a joke at all. I did however make a light-hearted comment: I said "things have a tendency to heat up when you talk about Brock" (§). Which is true. They do. at dinner. On Wikipedia. etc. Your link to Eric Barbour's comment on "Wikipedia Sucks," I notice, dates from 2017. I was not a member of en.wp in 2017. This is shortly after I had been blocked for calling out a former admin sockpuppeting to astro-turf anti-Trump pages, who later astro-turfed anti-Kavanaugh pages.
In short, you need to stop violating policy (WP:LINKLOVE) WP:OUTING, and bury the hatchet. I know you're upset that I dug up your scandalously deceptive Dec 25, 2017 edit to CounterPunch because this page got me thinking about previous articles about media bias, but lashing out is not appropriate. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not ignoring you, but I'm not sure what, if anything, to do here. Try to get along? ~Awilley (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's rich. Hmmm...correct me if I'm wrong, but based on what I've seen, it appears tbans are reserved for...oh, nevermind. I have better things to do. Atsme Talk 📧 18:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Awilley. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 12:14, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thanks ~Awilley (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
  • Following the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, KrakatoaKatie, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, Xeno.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie / Media

Hi Awilley. You know what I notice about the list of diffs Snoog has provided on his talk page in response to your request? Each and every time he says "it was reverted", it's actually Snoog who is doing the reverting. Check the diffs of reverts; each of those reverts is by Snoog. Why the heck is Snoog reverting so many of Sashi's edits in the first place?

Secondly, the edit summaries Snoog uses for reverts are basically all the same ("has nothing to do with media bias" or something similar). Basically, the objection is that the added content is irrelevant. Why is Snoog singlehandedly "gatekeeping" content in the article? Like, is it the "rule" that anytime anyone wants to add something to this article, it has to meet Snoog's approval, or else Snoog gets to revert it, forcing the editor to go to talk page discussion and get consensus for, effectively, every single edit?

Thirdly, when Snoog says "reverted by a second editor", guess who the second editor is? MrX! You may recall that Sashi complained about Snoog and X tag-teaming articles and referring to them as "SnooX", which, IIRC, they took great exception to, considered a personal attack, and for which, IIRC, Sashi was sanctioned (I think by you Awilley but I'm too lazy to look it up). Yet, here they are, still working together to revert Sashi. I pointed this out at the ANEW report with these diffs: Snoog, X, Snoog, X, all from the Bernie media article.

Notice that when Sashi makes and edit and Snoog reverts it, Snoog expects Sashi to go to the talk page and discuss. But when Snoog makes an edit and Sashi reverts it, Snoog doesn't have to go to the talk page – instead, Mr. X will revert the revert.

Is the solution for me to join Sashi's tag team? Maybe Mr Ernie, Sashi, and I should team up, and then it'll be 3-against-2 vs. Snoog and X? That's the solution, right? No, of course not. We can't have this type of coordinated OWNership editing.

From where I'm sitting, what's happening to Sashi in AP2 is exactly what happened to Sashi in GMO. In both areas, there are small groups of editors–a cabal–who are coordinating to WP:OWN the topic area. Sashi has a habit of rather forcefully challenging these cabals. The cabals work together to get Sashi sanctioned and thereby removed from the topic area. They succeeded in GMOs. They are close in AP2.

Awilley, BRD is not a policy, and it can be abused, and it is being abused here, where one editor or a group of editors are routinely reverting all of another editor's edits. This has been going on for months if not years (and Sashi is not the only "victim"). It troubles me to focus on "Sashi is not following BRD" or "Sashi is calling them 'SnooX'" while ignoring the obvious–what I will characterize as–WP:OWNership, tag-teaming, obstruction, and harassment. I know you've been involved in this for some time, trying to mediate the dispute on all sides, and I just hope that you'll also look at this other aspect. Sashi's complaints may at time be uncivil, but they may also be well-founded. Levivich 16:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich I have not been "tag teaming". My edits are made entirely of my own volition irrespective of whether other editors make similar edits or make edits that are contrary to my edits. I stopped editing the article more than two weeks ago because of the hardcore advocacy and unpleasantness of a couple of editors. If you want to make accusations against me, you need to produce diffs that clearly depict the behavior you're claiming rather than casting WP:ASPERSIONS. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MrX, like Snoog, you know that you can get away with fundamentally misrepresenting sources as you did here without any consequences. You and Snoog are both very good at it and are protected by a certain number of identified administrators. I could give a lot of examples, I hope you won't be sad that I've only provided one for each of you (for now). Of course, the game is to say that's all about "content" and that misrepresenting sources is not a behavioural issue. If this goes to ArbCom or Le Monde, SDZ, NYT, Intercept, Media Matters, ^^ etc. I would not be averse to coordinating the collection of the ample evidence of tag-teaming for those who those who want it reported on (you can find me off-wiki if need be). Incidentally, when Snoogans is a subject of conversation on my talk page, they have every right to respond, as I made clear here. But I'd just as soon that all of these multipliers of negative energy (MrX, Snoog, O3000, WMSR) stay off my TP and I have told them so. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're casting aspersions too and plotting some sort of off-wiki coordination? Do you really think this is a good trajectory for you, SashiRolls? If you think you have evidence that my conduct is sanction-worthy, please take it to a notice board. Otherwise, it would be great if you could just leave me alone and keep your opinions about "negative energy" to yourself. Thanks. - MrX 🖋 19:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This response is most adequately characterized as Gish gallop (anyone who reads SR's comments and wonders "what does this have to do with anything?", know that you're not alone). And it's replete with yet another ludicrous and cringeworthy insinuation that SR is sitting on bombshell revelations about other Wikipedia editors that he might, just might, take to the NY Times (this is something that SR has claimed for years). If I recall correctly, he's literally made the same cryptic "I'll have the media expose you all!" accusation on this very talk page before. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an accusation against me, you had damn well better provide evidence. And if you don’t want me on your talk page, don't make odd PAs. O3000 (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) "Why the heck is Snoog reverting so many of Sashi's edits in the first place?" SR is the most active editor on the page. Thus, there are many edits, and some of them are bad and get reverted. Note also that I have not reverted anywhere close to most of SR's edits. Only the bad ones.
2) Yes, why am I allowed to make edits on Wikipedia? I abide by BRD when I add new content. I expect the same of others.
3) Your insinuation that I and MrX are these unprincipled hacks who not only conspire together but who specifically edit to get others banned rather than improve the encyclopedia is pathetic. Please substantiate any inconsistencies in how both of us edit that would support your conspiracy theory. For example, demonstrate brazen flip-flopping on issues and policies just to "entrap" SR or whatever nonsense it is that you're pushing.
4) Your remarks about you and Mr Ernie joining content disputes that you have no substantive opinion on is again an insinuation that I and MrX edit in an unprincipled fashion, and that the content under dispute is not what is motivating our edits.
5) So there are apparently multiple groups of editors across diverse parts of Wikipedia conspiring together against SR?
6) "Awilley, BRD is not a policy, and it can be abused, and it is being abused here, where one editor or a group of editors are routinely reverting all of another editor's edits." This last part is a falsehood, and illustrative of the fact that you have no clue what's going on at the Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page, yet feel the need to instinctively side with SR regardless of dispute. The Media coverage of Bernie Sanders page is largely a reflection of whatever SR wants the page to say because he (1) has steamrolled over every edit that challenges new content that he adds, (2) reverted or changed content added by others, and (3) driven most other editors off the page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly, the list of diffs that I provided is only part of SR's many many brazen BRD violations on that one page over the course of 3 weeks. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this isn't about being pro-Sashi, it's about being anti-AP2 cabal. Sashi is not the only editor to experience this–obviously I've experienced this myself. And as for diffs, I included diffs in my post above; I've included diffs every time I've complained about this; everybody is tired of my diffs. We're way past diffs; we're on to what are we doing about it. Levivich 18:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The hypocrisy is astounding. Very very recently you led an effort to impose sanctions on me because you were purportedly so upset about my edit-warring. Now you're singing a completely different tune, actively defending SR's brazen and repeated BRD violations, including brightline edit-warring violations, which make it impossible for anyone else to substantively contribute to the page. In particular, it makes it impossible for me, due to my voluntary editing restrictions, to have any say on the article (which is perhaps the reason why you say that edit-warring is now OK). How is that in any way principled? And at the same time that you're flip-flopping 180 degrees on this issue, you have the temerity to cast aspersions and accuse others of conspiring together and editing in unprincipled ways (no diffs were provided for this). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [7]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Miller

Awilley- I just saw the photo of Doris Miller on your Talk page. As a Navy veteran, I am familiar with this great sailor and his story, but it was nice to be reminded of him again. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double block templates on 15 November

Awilley, is your second block template at User talk:BattleshipGray from 15 November a mistake? Your two block templates there contradict each other. I thought you had merely blocked the account because the user had lost the password and created a new account (User:GlassBones) — no? I just noticed a post on Doug Weller's page, where YoPienso talks about your block for "abusing editing privileges". Maybe you'd better comment there. Bishonen | talk 20:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I remember the block, but I don't know how that second template got there. It was a mistake...probably automated. I've stricken it. ~Awilley (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User GlassBones

This user has (i) again falsely claimed that I'm stalking his edits[8] and (ii) decided to stalk me to a page that he hasn't edited before just to revert me[9]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate violation of topic ban:[10]. Topic ban:[11] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snooganssnoogans - I didn't go to the Presidency of Donald Trump page just to revert you. Yes, I changed your edit (I didn't revert the whole edit - just the problematic parts, which were significant). You used inaccurate, inflammatory language, and cited to a left-wing source that is not a Wikipedia reliable source in your edit. I requested that you discuss your proposed edits on the Talk page. But instead of doing that, and dealing with the issue directly and reasonably, you again ran to Awilley to complain about the fact that I happen to edit an article that you edited before, stating that I never previous edited that article. First - you edit almost every post-1932 US politics article. Of course if I edit anything in this topic area it will probably be something you edited before. Second - just because you edited an article previously does not mean that you own the article and no one else can ever again edit that article. Third - it was my understanding that any editor can edit any article he or she chooses. Fourth - at the risk of being accused of a personal attack, I have to ask if you are you really so much of a snowflake that you cannot discuss edits on the Talk page, as requested repeatedly, but need to run to an Admin every time one of your edits is challenged? I am sure Awilley has more important things to do than to deal with this issue which could have simply been discussed and resolved on the article Talk page. Finally - what topic ban are you talking about? Are you trying to get me banned again? GlassBones (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of GlassBones topic ban

Hi Awilley. You topic banned[12] GlassBones yesterday. They violated it by making this edit 12+ hours later. - MrX 🖋 13:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrX - I am not aware of any topic ban from yesterday. The last thing at the bottom of my user Talk page was about an edit to the article on Ray Brown, a Hall of Fame pitcher who played for the Homestead Grays in the Negro Leagues. GlassBones (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GlassBones: please see this diff [13] ~Awilley (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley - I see it's a one-year topic ban. So on your sole discretion as an administrator, my alleged violation of the nebulous and highly subjective standard of Battleground has been penalized with a one-year ban. Arguably, given this standard your buddy Snoog should be banned for life. In any event - this one-year ban is arbitrary, capricious, and ridiculous. Please let me know how to appeal. Thanks. GlassBones (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GlassBones, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Awilley topic-banning you for a year on his sole admin discretion. That's how discretionary sanctions work (the term comes from the word discretion). On the other hand, Awilley, you put the notice about it into an existing section some ways up GlassBones' talkpage, not in a more visible separate section at the bottom. It sounds like he didn't notice it, and that's not altogether surprising IMO. Therefore, I definitely wouldn't sanction him for the violation MrX mentions. But, GlassBones, now you know you have been topic banned from post-1932 American politics, I hope. You can appeal the ban using the process described here. Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen - Thanks. But before I start this process, is there any real chance of having the ban significantly reduced or eliminated? I don't want to waste my time and everyone else's time in appealing if I have no reasonable chance to prevail. Is there any place to look at previous decisions to see what chance I might have? GlassBones (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there's no chance at all if you appeal immediately, GlassBones. This is from my experience of these things. The people assessing your appeal (whether they're the community at WP:AN, or admins at WP:AE) will be looking for good editing in other areas during the topic ban. I'd wait six months if it was me. Bishonen | tålk 17:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Bishonen - So even under the best of circumstances this is a de facto topic ban for at least six months. So much for due process. GlassBones (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GlassBones: You can find the appeal process by looking at the ban template on your talk page and following the link at the end of the sentence, "You may appeal this sanction using the process described here." I can't tell you whether or not to appeal, but you have a couple of options. You can appeal to me directly or to the larger community. If you appeal to me I expect you to demonstrate an understanding of what the problem is and have a specific plan for how you're going to avoid the problem in the future. If you appeal to the community, one of three things will probably happen. The sanction will be reversed, the sanction will be confirmed, or in some cases the sanction's severity could increase. If #2 or #3 happen then that takes away my power to reverse the sanction on my own, so any future appeals will need to be to the community. I can't predict what the community will do.
@Bishonen: My bad for not making a new template at the bottom of the page. I would never have blocked for the initial ban violation when they didn't yet know the ban existed. ~Awilley (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another clear topic-ban violation.[14] The edit is also a continuation of an edit-war on a page he stalked me to. 21:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans - You really think this was somehow a violation that warranted a notification to Admin Awilley? How could you construe my edit of this article as this a topic ban violation? This article is about illegal immigration and crime - not about post-1932 US politics. Further, the language I edited into the article had nothing at all to do with politics - it was a cite to the law stating that entering and/or remaining in the US illegally is a crime. There was no topic ban violation. What next- are you going to claim that my edit to a list of villages in Allen County, Ohio was also a violation of the topic ban because Allen County, Ohio happens to be in the US, and people there have voted in presidential elections since 1932? GlassBones (talk) 22:54, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GlassBones That is in fact a topic ban violation. Illegal immigration in the US clearly falls under the umbrella of politics. You don't need to take my word for it. Just look at the templates at the top of that article's talk page. Anything under Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/American politics is out of bounds, and editing content about those subjects in unrelated articles is too. Here's an example: 2020_coronavirus_outbreak_in_the_United_States is off limits, and the section titled "United States" at 2019–20_coronavirus_outbreak#United_States is too. If you're not sure if something is a violation, ask somebody before you edit. ~Awilley (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley - Thanks. I guess I just have a difficult time understanding what exactly are the standards for editing Wikipedia. I mean - I have been harshly sanctioned for a Battlegound mentality, while at the same time Snooganssnoogans does exactly what I was (unjustly) sanctioned for, and not only gets away with it but other editors congratulate him for it, since they have the same biased point of view. I mean - just look at Snoog's User page. He or she delights in having a battleground mentality. Further, this editor constantly undoes other editors' edits with insulting statements like "nonsense", "fringe" or "faux controversy", on those occasions when he or she doesn't simply hit Undo without any explanation whatsoever. On February 14, 2020, on my Talk page, you stated that "when you stop engaging with reasonable arguments and just revert without any edit summaries that's edit warring." That is exactly what Snoog does and has routinely done for years, without consequence. And when others challenge his or her edits, Snoog accuses them of edit warring and not following BRD, when this editor doesn't follow BRD. Yet, no matter what, Snoog does not get a one-year topic ban - just voluntary sanctions. There is no editor I am aware of who has more of a battleground mentality, or engages in more harassment and bullying of fellow editors, than Snoog. This double standard is hard to understand, GlassBones (talk) 11:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snoog, is adding diffs to your user page as you did here really necessary. It brings your user page watchers and could constitute as canvassing especially when you add RfCs etc.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion...if people have problems with it maybe a user subpage/sandbox could serve the same purpose? ~Awilley (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's to remind myself. I do not want more documents, reminders and bookmarks on my computer than I have to, so the userpage is the best place for it. I probably have more editors watchlisting my page who have problems with my edits than vice versa, so if I were to list active RfCs (which I'm not sure I do a lot of), it would probably attract a type of editor who holds a different POV. Canvassing is, as far as I can tell, related to drawing people to a page who are likely to edit / vote my way. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This[15] is a clear-cut violation of this editor's topic ban, and is yet another instance where the editor stalks me to a page he hasn't edited in order to revert me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Patapsco913 & User:Patapsco913 (2)

Hi Awilley, can you please take a look at the discussion I placed (User:Patapsco913 ) and the follow up (User:Patapsco913 2) at ANI for me? The flow and closing of the discussion wasn't satisfactory. My concern is about canvassing (which has been denied), possible meatpuppetry (don't have evidence so can't judge) and BLP violations (especially the Silverman's piece)? Thank you. 217.150.87.242 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who was complaining about canvassing, what would you call your pings at your last ANI? And now you are FORUMSHOPPING. I suggest you drop it before someone looks into your edits and AFD and CSD behavior. Let's remember, you AFD/CSD Maurice Kremer, one of the pioneers of Los Angeles with a google search for Maurice Kremer, the Senator from Nebraska. You might want to explain how your nominations aren't disruptive. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement used for POV-pushing

A closing statement that you added to a RfC 4 years ago(!) is being referenced by people on Wikipedia insisting that skepticism and denial are not the same thing when it comes to climate change skepticism and climate change denial. Don't know if you are aware this is happening, but thought I should do you the favor of letting you know: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Skeptics_versus_deniers jps (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've added a suggestion there. ~Awilley (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on close of NPOVN discussion on location-based virus names

Hello! Hope you're well. Thanks for closing the discussion on location-based virus names at NPOVN! I have a question about this part: the China virus and Wuhan virus disambig page and redirect should target this article. How does that work with the closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese virus? Specifically, The articles on the current disease and the virus do not use the phrase...at all, so would make poor redirect targets. "China virus" redirects to Chinese virus. Thanks again, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was a mistake on my part. I had meant to write Chinese virus (the disambig page) not China virus (the redirect). So basically a restatement of the status quo. I don't think the close should be incompatible or override that AfD discussion. So Wuhan virus is a redirect, Chinese virus is a disambig page, and China virus is a redirect to the most logical place (probably to Chinese virus, but that's not part of my close). ~Awilley (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on NPOVN discussion

Hi there. It seems that the "Summary of consensus" posted by one of the users in favor of removal, was quite misleading. I'm wondering did this factor in at all? It indicated 12 for removal 3 against removal, but looking over the discussion I'm not sure how the poster came to that conclusion. It appears to be either 10-7 or 9-7, or around that mark. Thanks in advance. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I didn't actually count votes at all, I was reading the discussion and evaluating the arguments themselves. I didn't make any decisions on the basis of the summary you mentioned. I make a point of not giving weight to vote counting summaries done by involved individuals. ~Awilley (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Symphony Regalia (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Will you please lift the Jully 2019 t-ban? It serves no purpose, acts more like an obstacle that inhibits discussion, feels like an invisible trip line when I'm engaging in the consensus-building process, and stifles the exchange of free thoughts and ideas. The purpose of any t-ban is to stop disruption, and while we differ as to what caused the disruption at those 2 articles and how you treated my use of WP:GASLIGHTING, I cannot deny that there was disruption; I sought your help because of it. What I've learned from your t-ban is to not seek your help when I'm being bullied, and to do my best to avoid disruption rather than try to resolve it. I have gotten much better at ignoring PAs, stonewalling, gaslighting, baited questions, and outright bullying...it took me a while, but once I got over the hump and recalled a childhood chant about sticks and stones, life on WP became a lot more pleasant - so, ironically, I thank you for the reminder. In preparing this request, I discovered that the 2 editors who caused me to seek your help initially appear to have voluntarily stopped editing that article a few months after you t-banned me - one of whom apologized to me, and the other whose BLP vio you redacted a few days later has not edited WP since January - so the potential of future interaction is slim to none. Also, there appears to be an abatement of certain political movements in the US that caused such a stir in 2019, and as a result, no longer poses a threat to the continuing peace and productive collaboration those 2 articles have enjoyed since my t-ban, which further supports my request. Atsme Talk 📧 13:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, sorry for the slow response. Three things:
1. Just a minor point, but I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting what led to the topic ban. It was not your use of WP:GASLIGHTING. This has already been litigated at ARCA where I pointed out that your first use of "WP:GASLIGHTING" was 3 days after the topic ban had been placed. You don't need to take my word for it. See the comment in the Arb section by Premedicated Chaos: Atsme, the topic ban rationale clearly cites five separate diffs where you literally state that various editors are gaslighting you. Awilley didn't T-ban you for linking to a behavioral guideline via internal shortcut. For one thing, in those diffs, you didn't - every instance of the word "gaslighting" in those diffs is lowercase and unlinked, and WP:GASLIGHTING isn't so common a shortcut that it would be obvious you meant the internal shortcut rather than the common word. You were T-banned for backsliding into the same behavior that got you T-banned from AP2 as a whole. The "gaslighting" diffs are examples of that kind of unproductive behavior, but the rest of the rationale clearly describes that the T-ban is based on your behavior as a whole.
2. I took some time to look at your talkpage edits over the past month going back through about April. From what I can see you only edited 3 talk pages in the AP topic area during that time: Talk:Joe Biden (38 edits), Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (15 edits), and Talk:Federal Commission on School Safety (4 edits). And from a quick scan of those edits it appears that all of your posts on Talk:Joe Biden were related to the sexual assault allegation except for one vote to spin off a section and two posts opposing mention of Sanders endorsing Biden. Scanning those edits I can't see where an ANTIFA topic ban could have hampered you. Nor do I see evidence of the type of constructive collaboration and compromise that should be taking place on talk pages. Don't get me wrong, it's a battleground and I'm not saying your behavior was the worst (it wasn't), but you were as intransigent as anybody else. For example: your interactions with MelbourneStar ("You are entitled to believe whatever suits you. I'm done here so stop pinging me." ) Aircorn ("It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK, Aircorn. You made my reassessment controversial when it should not have been and it was based on your fallacious allegations of it being political." or "I will not indulge further in this unwarranted trial because it appears too much like wikilawyering."), MelanieN (taking her to WP:AN without making any attempt to resolve the issue with her first, and then not even notifying her about the thread), and your posts under the header "If it looks like stonewalling".
3 This probably won't make you feel any better, but the topic ban was 100% unrelated to your request for help. I honestly didn't even realize that some of the offending diffs were on the same page. With your request for help, I opened the diff, saw that someone else had already restored the thing that you had asked me to restore, checked for any further edit warring, and then replied to you. If you had said you thought someone was bullying you I would have looked deeper. Your topic ban was in response to a request for help from a different editor who emailed the complaint to me because I was the one who had closed the appeal with the warning about "backsliding".
So the response is no for now. You made similar promises in your first appeal, so this time I want to actually see evidence that you're out of the battleground rut. ~Awilley (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Awilley - your response is why I have made it my mission to draw attention to the problems you and a few other admins have created with DS and AE, specifically unilateral actions, and the POV creep associated with sole discretion. Your response solidifies my position, and I will use it in my arguments until the community is aware of why this is an extremely important issue to the future of the project as it relates to maintaining NPOV, and the ability for editors to engage in discussions where the exchange of free thought and ideas is paramount. Happy editing. Atsme Talk 📧 18:34, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, check out the talk page of SPECIFICO and BradV for the egregious example of POV and how POV creep works. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::"Your topic ban was in response to a request for help from a different editor who emailed the complaint to me because I was the one who had closed the appeal with the warning about "backsliding""...be nice to know who this person was.--MONGO (talk) 19:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, , Since you told Atsme that "I can't see see where an ANTIFA topic ban could have hampered you." what is the purpose of continuing the ban? DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To prevent disruption in the ANTIFA topic area and encourage Atsme to rethink her approach generally. I think she is a very well-intentioned person who could be a big asset to the topic area if she would set aside some of the WP:RGW missions she seems to pursue. The topic area is saturated with POV wiki-knights who are 100% confident that they're in the right, but there's a shortage of editors who have building a quality encyclopedia as their primary mission and who are able to set aside their own views, try to see things from multiple perspectives, research high quality sources, and write good articles. And since you're here, let me say that while I think it's nice to have wiki friends who turn out to support each other, I don't think you'd be doing her any favors in the long run if you let her believe she had an arb in her corner. ~Awilley (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you realize how arb com works. No individual arb every makes decisions (this is different from ANI or ArbE, where any individual admin who claims that they are uninvolved can make a binding decision) We go by votes, and there are 15 of us. Every one of us there thinks of themselves as very much independent, and uses their own judgements. If someone were my best friend, at arb com I could not help them if there were a valid case against them; if they were my inveterate enemy I could not myself harm them unless the majority of other arbs agreed with me also. This is completely different from the idiosyncratic and bias prone procedure of AE and ANI (I'm not claiming that voting always reaches the right decision, any more than that AnI always makes the wrong one, but just that it reaches an open majority decision by visible processes.)
Nor do I see that my being an arb is relevant to what I said just above--I didn't even say it as an admin, but as an ordinary editor making a comment . Atsme is a realist, and knows that I have sometimes supported her and sometimes not. if she proposes anything unconstructive, I will certainly oppose her, and some of what in the past she has proposed does fall in that category. And I think you'll find there's nobody on WP whom I have always or even consistently supported or opposed. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG, sorry, I wasn't referring to ArbCom, but more along the lines of what you addressed in the first sentence of your second paragraph. Here's an example I saw recently: you made a cautious comment presumably also as an ordinary editor but it was interpreted as clear support from an Arb. ~Awilley (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, I disagree with everything you've said about me and with reference to me, and that's all I'm going to say here. You are far too WP:INVOLVED and wearing your prejudice on your sleeve. It will all come out in the wash. Atsme Talk 📧 21:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tag reverted

This revert of the tag by Volunteer Marek is one of a few valid reasons why the Joe Biden article will not pass GA. He called the tag spurious when it is far from it. RS can certainly see the issues. The Hill, The Atlantic, Fox News, BBC and on and on. The tag belongs where I had it but I'm not going to revert the removal of it. Atsme Talk 📧 18:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your tag was spurious and your insertion of it into the article can be seen as a disruptive attempt to sabotage the GA process. You have been repeatedly warned about your behavior in American Politics articles and, IIRC, came very close to being completely banned from it. Volunteer Marek 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You also failed to substantiate or explain the tag on tag. Just for the record. Volunteer Marek 18:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those tags had no business on the article. There are droves of editors discussing the article on the talk page. Those claiming that the article needs more opinions or is not NPOV are in the minority, in spite of their persistent efforts to describe Biden as raping racist. I agree 100% with what VM wrote immediately above. Atsme, you really should back away from the horse. - MrX 🖋 18:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Appears the talkpage has multiple ongoing issues about coverage that indicate it does have NPOV concerns.--MONGO (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alas there always will be no matter how well the article is written. We may as well tag every political article. Or not. O3000 (talk) 19:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe all where a substantive number of editors have voiced legitimate concerns. Especially when those concerns are covered by MSM and RSs yet we choose to ignore them cause we fear they may make the subject look naughty.--MONGO (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really think that for these articles where The Usual Suspects (myself included) are always barking away at each other that Rfc's are the way to go when an impasse is ongoing or the issue keeps cropping up. I also wonder what the articles would look like if about 2 dozen of these usual suspects all walked away from editing these article until 11/5/2020 and we all agreed to do only vandalism patrol.--MONGO (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think an election will stop this? Assuming we have an election. O3000 (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--MONGO (talk) 20:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As was your comment. O3000 (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'm like over a month late to the party here, but MONGO, your idea here is the only way to fix AP2. Sign me up. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, when you add a maintenance tag to the top of a high traffic article you need to be prepared to elaborate on the specific concerns you have. Right now I'm hearing "The article is biased because the mainstream media and Democrats have a double standard on #METOO". That's not specific enough. "This article is biased because it should give as much weight to sexual assault allegations as the Brett Kavanaugh article gives to sexual assault allegations." That's a bit better, but still not very specific or actionable, and it's kind of a weak WP:OTHERSTUFF argument because it's easy to think of counter-examples. (For example, compare the size of Joe_Biden#Allegations_of_inappropriate_physical_contact to Donald_Trump#Allegations_of_sexual_misconduct.) A better example of specific actionable concerns would be: "This article is biased because it gives too little weight to the Tara Reade allegations. There needs to be at least another paragraph of that in the body, and it needs to be mentioned in the Lead. And the section header needs to be changed to 'Allegations of inappropriate physical contact and sexual assault.'" (I'm not saying this is your argument or even that it's a good argument, just that it's an example of specific concerns.) Anyway I'm not equipped to make a detailed comparison between Biden and Kavanaugh. But if correcting the injustice is something you wish to pursue, I have a feeling that you might make more headway trying to trim down Brett_Kavanaugh#Sexual_assault_allegations which strikes me as being too detailed. Top-level biographies rarely require a blow-by-blow tweet-by-tweet recounting of events. And it's usually easier and safer to work on the side of WP:BLP. ~Awilley (talk) 21:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley - I did not fall off a pumpkin truck yesterday. I do wish you would not focus on me which you always do (it is blatant prejudice in that you automatically assume everything is my fault). You need to focus on what VM just did - he removed a valid tag with no explanation. Why are you not asking him the questions you're asking me? I provided support of my position, and it comes from RS. What has VM provided beyond aspersions? He can just say whatever he wants to say but I have to provide more evidence?? If we are supposed to be using MSM to cite what we include for DUE, NPOV, BALANCE, etc., then why are you excluding what MSM says in favor of VM's aspersions against me? Read this article which specifically mentions WP if you don't trust my perception of the situation - which is pretty obvious that you don't. Try focusing on the evidence I've provided without letting your prejudice against me trip you up - IOW, approach it from a NPOV. If you are going to let the past taint your approach, then you need to look at VM's past because it dwarfs mine. We are 2 entirely different editors, and you are siding with VM while denigrating me for not accommodating YOUR POV. It is not going to happen, Awilley. I follow PAGs to the "T" - and if that is what you are faulting me over, then so be it - let it be known now. I have logged this discussion in preparation for an AP3, not to mention what the WMF is in the process of enacting because of the behavior we just witnessed with VM...and I welcome it wholeheartedly. Atsme Talk 📧 23:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really getting tired of editors tagging entire articles because they can't gain consensus. O3000 (talk) 00:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would never occur to me to bring something like this to an admin's UTP. Theoretically they have the power to issue a sanction at a DS article, but I've never seen that happen over a tag disagreement, which is little different from any content dispute. In my experience it's always been AE or bust. Even if I took it to an admin, it wouldn't be an admin that I believe is "prejudiced" against me; that honestly doesn't make a lot of sense. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I like pumpkins, and I neither asked you questions nor condoned Volunteer Marek's "spurious" comment. I responded to your original post only, after having read all 4, (now 5) articles you linked here, and looked at the diffs and recent talk page posts. Then I gave you a bit of advice on how to avoid the problem in the future, using examples I thought you might find relevant based on what you linked here and said on the talk page. I suppose I could have just quoted "WP:PAGs" at you like "Tags must either be accompanied by a comment on the article's talk page explaining the problem and beginning a discussion on how to fix it or, for simpler and more obvious problems, a remark using the reason parameter" but I took the time to put it into my own words. I'm sorry you didn't find my response as helpful as I meant it to be. ~Awilley (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article name - George Floyd

Thank you Awilley - for bringing up the appropriate WIKI rules in relation to article names. WIKI must always be neutral or it looses its encyclopedic purpose. I fear a people's court, without appropriate reflection and based on biased votes. It may be "democratic" but it doesn't make it correct or truthful. --Lechatmarbre (talk) 14:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave me hangin'

Hi Awilley. You asked me for a suggestion and I offered one. Are we going to continue this discussion? I would genuinely like to help craft a solution that prevents harm to our articles without crippling the ability of good faith editors to improve them. As an aside, I also tried to direct your attention to a editor who popped in to the article, adding unverifiable material, adding a BLP violation, re-adding the unverifiable material after it was rightfully reverted (violating your conspicuous editing restrictions), and then adding a comment to a template resulting in a Lua error. - MrX 🖋 21:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:, Sorry, I haven't forgotten, and I was fully intending within the next couple of hours to ping you to a separate discussion where I'm discussing the first issue. I will do that now, and then try to follow up on the other thing. ~Awilley (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, on ChiCubsFan, I can see it's an example of the problems you're talking about with SPAs gaming the system. I can also see Bishonen has given a final warning of sorts, and they haven't edited since then. Is there something specific you'd like me to do? The account doesn't look like the typical SPA sock, having been around for a year. ~Awilley (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you asked, I would like admins who place editing restrictions on articles to enforce those editing restrictions. I mean, a boy can dream can't he?- MrX 🖋 23:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain...please

Hi. I am genuinely confused. I have twice removed the same non-neutral language but 7 days apart. How does that violate the 24 hour rule? Birtig (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it - I think I understand - I am supposed to discuss the issue on talk first. Kind of means the non neutral languages gets to remain as long as second editor re-inserts it. Ok I will revert
Birtig, you have voiced a lot of frustration on the article talk page concerning that article. I think you are misunderstanding what NPOV means on Wikipedia. We only reflect the weight of what reliable sources say, and this may not seem balanced to you in the ordinary sense of the word. But the article has been written and watched by dozens of experienced editors Although it can always stand improvement it is not off the rails as you seem to suggest in many of your talk page comments. SPECIFICO talk 23:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AE

Sorry for disturbing, the AE case is closed. I just wanted to answer that there was no a 1RR template, but the editor was under 1RR restriction.--WEBDuB (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it. Thanks ~Awilley (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markbassett

Hi Awilley. Would you mind looking at a few of the recent comments from Markbassett on talk:Donald Trump#COVID-19 in the lead? (take 69) and tell me if you think they are beneficial toward resolving the content disputes? Here's one example:

"Oppose all - factually short when it’s saying as if always against when factually he did change; and as if everything slow when some items were fast, and perhaps more importantly some responses have been yuuuuge! Also just not looking to be good summary of article per LEAD, but instead showing wow I could google 10 sites that say X as if that’s impressive."

Perhaps it's just me, but I find almost all of his comments virtually incomprehensible, evasive, and highly disruptive. There is also a lot goalpost moving. For example claiming that something is false, and then when presented with numerous sources verifying the facts, he claims that the sources were cherry picked. I believe you had brought up something similar about the volume and quality of his talk page communication in the past, which is why I'm asking. I'm not requesting that you take any administrative action. I'm really just looking for a second opinion. I may very well be losing my mind. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 01:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just you. I never have any trouble understanding where he stands on an issue. That's usually pretty clear. But he sometimes seems to use some kind of slang that I can't wrap my mind around. And his appeals to WP policy are often completely bogus. I'm not sure what to do about it. It's not disruptive in the normal way like edit warring, but disruptive in that it makes people's heads explode when they try to engage in logical discussion with him. Maybe kind of a WP:competence issue but not obviously so unless you spend a lot of time dredging through talk pages. ~Awilley (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Awilley. I appreciate your perspective. I'm not sure what to do about it either, other than stay away from Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 15:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, just to repeat my usual comment on AP2 disruption: It's not classic edit warring that is most disruptive. It's pointless extended talk page threads, arguments from nonsense, arguments against or without policy, arguments without references to sources, and the like. Human nature being what it is, many editors cannot resist respeonding to the most vacuous or repetitive messages with new replies that prolong and compouund the threads. It's WP:TE deluxe. Sort of like white-collar crime is not like a stabbing but it's still a problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)
I have warned Markbassett against making people's heads explode. Bishonen | tålk 16:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Interesting - have any of his comments been hatted recently like what MelanieN did here? Disruptive comments are hatted, and then we run to Awilley with innocuous comments and try to make them appear disruptive because we don't agree with what is being said, and then sit back and wait for Bish to issue a warning? This is a very disturbing pattern. Aren't all editors entitled to express their views in a debate, including Markbassett? Why not simply ask him to clarify whatever it is you're not understanding? Sorry, but I'm not seeing any heads explode except for a few who oppose Markbassett's views. Atsme Talk 📧 16:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so glad that we have the benefit of your superior wisdom to point out the things that really matter like Bishonen's disturbing pattern of warnings(!). Do you ever read your comments the next day and regret having been so transparently obnoxious? - MrX 🖋 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bishonen Thanks for the ping here, but that talk post only read as a rather meaningless threat that was self-contradictory said about my !vote by a link said "here". A strong opposition to my !vote wouldn't result from a 'not understandable', a 'not understandable' would lead to no response or getting some question back. And a vague statement to not post things that make peoples heads explode -- well I would suggest they need less explosive thinking because how do *I* or anyone else know where their heads have detonators ??? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done on this issue, Markbassett. For you to choose to remove my post from your page and then respond to it here, on Awilley's page, is too strange for me, and I frankly find it objectionable. I do not wish to continue any conversation with you. Bishonen | tålk 20:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
In all fairness, your threat to block followed by "Please do not edit under the influence, whether of cabin fever, lack of sleep, or some substance." is certainly worthy of removal. Comeon...you can do better than that.--MONGO (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bishonen - I kept other bits I thought useful or interesting, and just removed yours per WP:TALKO cleanup of my personal talk space since I was not inclined to report it as a WP:PERSONALATTACK. The note in this talk to admin was because you who mentioned it as "I have warned" - so in response I also noted the reception and "don't make heads explode" was unusable for any guidance purposes plus seemed contradictory with there being responses. (Unclear would get either no response or questions.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Me thinks all can be solved if we remember we are all human beings and one should be able to come to you directly and work things out amicably.--MONGO (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the reason behind Markbassett's exhaustingly incoherent comments, there can be little doubt that they are disruptive to the collaborative process. Competence is required to participate in this project. - MrX 🖋 17:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no difficulty understanding them. I'd like to think that the 3rd grade level education I got properly prepared me for Wikipedia. Isn't there another editor that was sanctioned for questioning others competence once too often? Would reduced or shorter talkpage contributions suffice to appease you?--MONGO (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm 100% with MrX as to Markbassett's communication issues and language-related CIR, although I wonder how disruptive he could be if we just ignored him. Since you MONGO have no difficulty understanding them, please be always on hand to translate for the rest of us. Then we can see how much Markbassett thinks your translations are accurate. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just adding that I cannot think of a situation where I had issues understanding Markbassett. It is more concerning to me that you two have issues with it. But you are always welcome to ask me if you have issues in the future. I always enjoy the company of friends. PackMecEng (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Please direct me to the Rosetta stone for "factually short when it’s saying as if always against when factually he did change" or "That you did an example (or above several) simply does nothing for DUE or OFFTOPIC or picking which particular hit for relevance and information instead of SENSATION or POV" or "The concern of negative negative complaint list or long runaround to just get to somehow a view being uninformative and seems a failure of ENC and CRITICISM which are only guidance essays and not policy." I don't want to have to seek out translations from suddenly-friendly PacMecEng or newfound-humanitarian MONGO in order to decipher Markbassett's creative grammar meanderings. I volunteer here because I've come to expect my peers to possess basic communication skills. It's not a lot to ask: Just make sense! - MrX 🖋 19:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure...maybe English is not Mark's first language? I have been known for my Dr. Doolittle qualities (I can speak bear, wolverine, pika and a little bit of moose) but if I am now also a humanitarian I am most pleased. Have you read any Shakespeare? I mean, it comes across as sometimes unintelligible but if you know how to parse the wording its actually mostly comedic. I see a wee bit of Elizabethan English in Mark's wording, but do I understand what they are saying. You came here at first for what appeared to be a mental health check but seem more and more to be seeking some kind of injunction? Expectation is the root of all heartache.--MONGO (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Levivich got to it before I could. Also what is with this suddenly-friendly PacMecEng or newfound-humanitarian MONGO?! I thought we always got on fairly well. PackMecEng (talk) 03:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion seems to be going in a direction that would be more appropriate at AE or ANI or Arbcom. Also, while CIR is a problematic assertion and a difficult standard to enforce, Markbassett is far from the only editor about whom such concerns have surfaced on AP2 articles. SPECIFICO talk 19:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Markbassett is far from the only editor Point being? Should we not voice such concerns unless the editor's issues are unique? Or, should we voice them against a group simultaneously? What an odd piece of illogic. In any case, I can't think of a single other editor who is both so vocal and so incomprehensible. Can you? "Word salad" applies, too often. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you offering a medical diagnosis of Markbassett here? I don't feel comfortable with that. However, I could see a batch processing of CIR issues and editors at some other venue. This is a workplace. AP is not a good use of volunteer time given the current level of CIR. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am not "offering a medical diagnosis". Don't overinterpret a wikilink. "Batch processing" is completely unworkable in any venue if there is any expectation of actual change. But I can see that this is not going anywhere given the evidence-free accusations of ulterior motives, etc. I'll just continue to ignore Markbassett's word salads whenever I can. They don't consume much in the way of server resources. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interpret"?? Are you T.S.Eliot? Ezra Pound? I thought that around here we just expressed clear expository thoughts -- kind of like what MrX pointed out at the start. SPECIFICO talk 00:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark said that all the proposals were inaccurate ("factually short") because they suggested that Trump's opposition was constant ("as if always against") when, in fact, his position changed ("when factually he did change"), and because they suggest that he was always slow to respond ("as if everything slow") when in fact he responded quickly in some cases ("when some items were fast"), and, more importantly, some of his responses were impactful ("some resposnes have been yuuuuuge"). Further, none of the proposals were good summaries of the article body as required by WP:LEAD ("not looking to be good summary of article per LEAD"), but instead were based on cherrypicked sources ("instead showing wow I could google 10 sites that say X as if that’s impressive."). I don't agree with everything mark wrote, but I had no problem understanding it, although a bit more punctuation would have helped. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 00:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Years of Adminship

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!

Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I may avoid any problems

Please would you advise me how I am close to a topic ban? Thank you. soibangla (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a followup reminder [16] [17] to focus on content, not contributors. ~Awilley (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the basis for a topic ban or, say, a 48-hour block? soibangla (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Don't post to a recently sanctioned editor's TP unless you are seriously trying to politely help the editor. Even then, think three times. Most folk don't take sanctions well -- at least in the immediate aftermath. Let them blow off steam. O3000 (talk) 00:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of his sanction, not in the habit of following such proceedings. I figured that if someone was on an AP2 Talk page that meant they are allowed on AP2 articles as well. soibangla (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this works for you

Under the hat. Does that work? Atsme Talk 📧 02:16, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

👍 ~Awilley (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ayurveda

I restored the warnings at Talk:Ayurveda given the extremely problematic behavior we've had there recently. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hipal, these aren't just warnings, they are discretionary sanctions which have to be applied by an administrator. As the administrator who originally applied sanctions on that article has retired, Awilley has taken over responsibility for the article and applied the sanctions as he sees fit. This is according to the current DS policy, and doesn't get changed simply by reverting him. – bradv🍁 19:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I think they should remain and be enforced as best we can, given the behavior there.
Where's the proper venue for discussing this? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal, the best venue at this point is simply to ask Awilley to reconsider, as you have already done. – bradv🍁 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Hipal, thank you for reverting the revert. I don't know how recently you began editing that page, but if you don't mind I'd like to give a bit of history. The Ayurveda article has been under sanctions for nearly 6 years. Back in 2014, User:John placed a WP:0RR editing restriction on the page. You read that right. Zero reverts. Predictably that had a destabilizing effect on the article, since WP:BOLD edits couldn't be reverted. After complaints at AN/I, the article was taken to the other extreme with a restriction stating that "You must get consensus on the Talk page for any change to the article that might be controversial BEFORE making the change to the article." That basically made the article uneditable by outlawing BOLD editing altogether and guaranteed a quagmire on the talk page. In 2018, I think, after more complaints, that sanction was lightened slightly to the "Consensus required" which disallowed any reverts of material that had previously been reverted. So technically that allowed BOLD edits as long as the BOLD edits weren't too similar to something that had previously been reverted in the article.
One thing I do when considering edit restrictions is to look at how hard they make it to change the status quo at an article. If we take normal editing with no sanctions as our baseline, the 0RR sanction basically blew up the status quo, making it impossible to restore. The "consensus first" sanction made it nearly impossible to change the status quo, as you can see how much work it takes to achieve a "consensus" on that talk page. The "consensus required" improved things slightly, but it still allowed a single editor to force an extended talkpage discussion for any edit they might disagree with. It also tends to drive away less-invested editors who don't want to deal with complex sanctions and who get worn out by talkpage stonewalling, leaving just the people who care the most about Ayurveda.
Anyway, at a certain point one might look at the article and begin to wonder if the sanctions are having a positive effect at all. That is what I did today. I think it might be time to give the article a chance at normal baseline editing. The 1RR sanction, still in place, will still put a damper on egregious edit wars, and the extended-confirmed protection will still prevent sockpuppets and SPAs from disrupting the article. This is something that has not been tried yet at this article.
Does this make sense? ~Awilley (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've been trying to help with the article for over six years.
I'm very glad you're so aware of the problems. I agree that the editing restrictions are, and have been, problematic in the long term. I don't think BOLD edits are helpful at this time, though they need to be allowed at some point in the future.
I'm equally concerned with the civility. There's been a lot of snark from both sides, and worse from the COI editors, well into clear BATTLE behavior. I don't want to see that escalating. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It still rankles. It's why I watch this page. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 23:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment

I didn't want to add to the mass of stuff in the ARE discussion but I would like to disagree that the Dave Rubin article showed edit warring. I'm going to justify my POV here but also note that it makes no difference to the outcome of the ARE if we decide it was "just 3 articles" or 4. Of the 5 overall edits (two were sequential), two were rejecting changes (change, revert, end). Two were an IP editor making a change that was rejected by a RfC consensus. Basically I don't see Rubin was edit warring. That said, I do think the suggestion of few mandatory BRD settings could help on these articles (Andy Ngo, TPUSA already got one, Tucker Carlson etc). Springee (talk) 16:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thank you. ~Awilley (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially related to above, have you ever considered a "Discuss First" limitation? This is a new idea in my head and not fully thought out but still, an idea. A DF rule/limitation would require new content be proposed on the talk page before being added to the article. If no one comments in 24hr it would be assumed to have consensus for inclusion. If objections then it would be treated like the D in BRD. Assume Tucker Carlson says something that upsets the twittershpere tomorrow. Rather than immediately adding text to the article, a talk discussion would propose the text. Text edits could be suggested or people could object. Either way we avoid the issue of text goes live then changes several times as each editor runs against the 3RR limit.

I think this could help in cases where say Mr A adds new content that is arguably DUE but the fails IMPARTIAL. In such a case Editor B often reverts rather than trying to fix a biased edit. A is incensed that their edit was quickly reverted so they restore or Mr C decides to restore feeling that inclusion is more important than dealing with the IMPARTIAL issues. But if A proposes the text on the talk page first, then there is no immediate delete. If B has an issue they can say so and A can change the wording before anyone gets reverted. Also, because no one feels incensed that they were just reverted I think people would be less emotionally invested in keeping content in/out vs discussing how it might best be presented.

This fits with my feeling that one of the best things we could do for the articles is force people to really follow BRD rather than just see who has more revert cards to play. Just a thought. Springee (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(orange butt icon Buttinsky), forgive the intrusion but I think strict adherence to WP:RECENTISM is what we need to avoid/curtail disruption and make it policy. Atsme Talk 📧 17:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Springee, would "Discuss First" be the same as Consensus Required? I feel like BRD is just Consensus Required but with one bold edit permitted first. I wonder if it would simplify things to have these limitations written as permutations of Consensus Required. Even the edit warring policy could be written as "Once an edit war occurs WP:Consensus Required (v.2) should be followed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JimKaatFan AP2 edits

Awilley, are edits related to BLM on the Tucker Carlson page considered part of AP2? After your request here [[18]] JimKaatFan has made edits to a Trump page [[19]] and Carlson's talk page here [[20]], [[21]] Springee (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And again here [[22]] posted after the message above which pinged JimKaatFan. Springee (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I will be applying a simple 1RR sanction. And to be clear, I would have done that regardless of whether or not you posted here. I lost patience with this user when they "archived" the thread on their talk page last night, after having made two AP2 edits [23] [24] a few days earlier. I would have let the edits slide as mistakes, but the "archive" edit indicates they have no intention to follow up, probably hoping I'd just forget. ~Awilley (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you missed this [[25]] Springee (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I recently noticed at AE that the "Show" button on hatted discussions does not uncollapse the discussion. Is it being done that way on purpose, or is it an error, or maybe it's an issue with my 3 browsers? Atsme Talk 📧 17:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I just tried it on my mobile browser (Firefox) and it worked fine for me. ~Awilley (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS Guidance at Julian Assange

At Julian Assange, SPECIFICO is claiming that the "Consensus required" restriction prevents restoration of long-standing material after it is removed. This seems to be the exact opposite to how the restriction is generally understood: removal of long-standing material is an "edit." If that edit is challenged, it cannot be restored (i.e., the material cannot be removed again) without consensus. At SPECIFICO's recent WP:AE case, this was the assumption that all the admins appeared to be operating under, with the only question being whether SPECIFICO's edit fell into the BLP exception. SPECIFICO is now threatening to go to WP:AE to enforce their own (to me, apparently opposite) interpretation of the "Consensus required" restriction. As an uninvolved admin, your guidance on this question at Julian Assange would be helpful. See this discussion section: [26]. -Thucydides411 (talk) 09:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I think Thuc is (or should be) aware, that is not what I and other editors are claiming. The material that was removed had no consensus. The fact that it is in the article for a long time, in the absence of talk page evidence of consensus or even the awareness of other editors, does not confer bullet-proof consensus. At most, it gives a slight presumption of seniority. But in this case, as I and others have gone to pains to establish on the current talk page, there is no consensus for the material Thuc wants to place in the lead. The talk page thread is here. Too bad that Thuc would take advantage of Awilley's tireless volunteer efforts and attention to continue his crusade for this bit of self-serving Assange propaganda that has not been confirmed by any evidence of the intention or action by any government. There is clearly not consensus for this text in the lead and after one failed trip to AE with this bit, I'm surprised Thuc would now be ignoring a civil warning to stand down. FYI, Awilley, he is now doing the same thing with other such content in this talk page section. SPECIFICO talk 11:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This material has been in the lede with the exact same wording since April 2019, and with slightly different wording for years before that. Julian Assange is a highly edited and watched article. The idea that this material just slipped through unnoticed is absurd. Again, my understanding is that removal of long-standing material requires consensus, and this appeared to be the understanding of all the admins at SPECIFICO's recent AE case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike @Upland Jack and JzG: and myself, Thuc pins us to the lowest rungs of Graham's triangle, repeating his POV ever more insistently. First off, in Thuc's failed AE complaint against me for removing his "Consensus Required" DS violation, the panel clearly did not see valid consensus for the longstanding unsourced and UNDUE lead text. Second, WP:CONSENSUS makes clear that there must be some evidence of consensus on the past article talk pages. Third, it is entirely clear from the current talk page that there is no current consensus for Thuc's representation of Assange's pretext. And fourth, Awilley is the Admin who has deprecated "consensus required" as a page sanction exactly to prevent the kind of GAMING that Thuc and his cohorts wish to sustain, in which a fringe or otherwise UNDUE text can be defended simply by a small minority of editors bludgeoning the community with unreasoned insistence. SPECIFICO talk 14:56, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This level of gaslighting is really unacceptable. You asserted the "pretext" claim is UNDUE. I (and other editors) cited numerous reliable sources that report the "pretext" claim, and explained how it has been central to Assange's response to the accusations in Sweden. You again asserted that it is UNDUE. I asked you several times to elaborate beyond your bare assertions. You just kept saying UNDUE and ONUS, without any explanation. Anyone can read the exchange on the talk page (Talk:Julian_Assange#Swedish_pretext) and judge for themselves - and I very much encourage others to do so. To any third party: just take a look through all of SPECIFICO's comments in that discussion thread, and ask yourself whether they ever make a single substantive addition to the discussion (beyond asserting UNDUE & ONUS). This gaslighting has to stop at some point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Awilley, I noticed that you commented here [27]. To be honest, based on my limited interactions with that editor I am reluctant to comment for fear of future retaliation. I would like to express a concern here. I don't think the diffs shown rise to the level of anything more than a verbal warning. However, I'm bothered by a number of aspects here. First, I would like to think that admins are the grownups in a sea of child editors. As such I would hope they act to a higher standard than most editors. Keeping yourself to a personal 1RR policy is an example of that higher standard. Many admins clearly think about policy and editorial consistency when debating inclusion/exclusion of content or neutrality etc. I've found very few admins who are unwilling to at least talk with an editor, even one they have just sanctioned, so long as that editor is making a good faith effort to discuss a disagreement. I see none of that in the case above. The comments are petty even if three of the 5 edits were clearly reverting vandalism/NOTHERE. If this were just an admin with a sharp tongue I would be less concerned by my first interaction with said editor was restoring clear OR into an article. When I challenged the restoration, much like the discussion above I got static. That's actually the second part. To me it comes across as rather imperialist to not even reply to the discussion. Anyway, I'm not sure if this is just something that rubs me the wrong way or if my concerns are legit. That is why I figured I would tell ask the first parent I saw :D I don't want to come off as petty but I do think the outcome should be a clear message that as an admin the editor needs to uphold a higher standard, not just avoid crossing the lines that all of us are expected to uphold. Thanks for hearing my rant/comment. Springee (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize Jorm was an admin. While I personally agree that admins should be held to a higher standard, I consider trying to enforce that to be above my paygrade. ~Awilley (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2020 (UTC)::[reply]
It turns out he isn't. I'm not sure where I got that impression but it was wrong. As such much of my complaint is invalid (see that I added then removed a comment). The up side is I was wrong that an admin isn't living up to that standard. I certainly disagree with a number of admins from time to time (especially when I'm right and they are clearly wrong :D ) but honestly I think they generally do a good job and they do live up my expectations of a higher standard with respect to civility and editing... other than when they are wrong and I'm right of course. Springee (talk) 17:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda ~Awilley (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump comment

As I see it, the flaw in this reasoning is that there is no way to ensure that follow-on editing is in fact "tweaking/refining/polishing wording" rather than total disregard for the previous discussion. Your approach requires that most editors are mature, fair, reasonable, and collaborative, which is simply not the case especially in areas of politics. No amount of wishing that were true will ever make it true, and I've yet to see such idealism work in the real world of editing. The relative peace we have experienced at Donald Trump has been the result of tighter controls and more structured processes, which regrettably mean that things take longer. Without that, content disputes are too often won by aggressiveness and intimidation. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Awilley knows, I agree with Mandruss on this, and I believe most seasoned AP editors agree as well. SPECIFICO talk 23:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Might want to check it and advise. Atsme 💬 📧 17:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek

Awilley, because Volunteer_Marek removed this post I will repeat it here[[28]]. Some of VM's recent edits may be violations of your proposed sanctions here [[29]]. Springee (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JimKaatFan

Hello, I see you blocked this user already for something. Can you please tell him to stop reinserting nonsense on pages about the Juventus-Perugia '99-00 match? [30][31][32][33][34] [35] Nobody called "Steve Slutz" from Kazakhstan played for Juventus. The match was not won by an own goal, but Alessandro Calori playing for Perugia scored the goal, as seen in the Herald Tribune article [36] 93.138.143.208 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ONUS, NOCON, Consensus Required DS

Awilley, you were involved one of the discussions I found [37] [38] about the interpretation of the Consensus Required DS. My interpretation is that the DS works the same way as WP:NOCON. There are differing interpretations of the ONUS policy, and I feel it's time we started an RfC to ensure that no contradictions occur among these three policies. There are two proposals at WT:V, [39] [40], based on the interpretation that ONUS applies to new additions which have not yet achieved consensus, vs a proposed change to WP:NOCON based on the interpretation that ONUS applies to all inclusions [41]. Do you have any advice for an effective RfC? Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:28, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to read that whole discussion, and I don't have any specific advice for an RfC. Maybe if you asked a more specific question... I personally think ONUS applies both to additions and removals of longstanding text. The longer something has been in place, the more "silent" consensus it has. Which is not to say that it shouldn't be changed. We're here to edit and change and improve. But the onus is on the person making the change to provide reasonable justification for that change, especially when challenged. And that applies whether the person is adding or removing material or doing a bit of both. ~Awilley (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a difficult topic because the wording can be so confusing. Are you saying you think ONUS applies to both new additions to longstanding text and removals of longstanding text, so basically any change? My proposal was just to change the word "onus" to "WP:ONUS" and move the wikilink ONUS to NOCON. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching the never-ending discussion about consensus/onus and have to interrupt here to let Awilley know that my humble opinion is that CONSENSUS is what they are thinking of: you need consensus to add text or to remove text, and the longer the original has been the way it is, the stronger the consensus would have to be (for example, it might not be sufficient to declare a new consensus if two new editors turn up with one removing text and the other saying that was good). However, ONUS refers to a specific problem, namely what happens after someone removes an assertion saying that there is no citation or that the source is not reliable. Another editor should not restore the assertion merely on the basis that it has been there a long time. The person removing text does not have to prove that the text should be removed. The onus is on the person restoring the text to say why it should be restored (that is, explain how WP:RS + WP:DUE + anything else are satisfied). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: Now that I follow the actual wikilink to WP:ONUS I see what you're talking about. It does kind of say that. "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." You're right, I was thinking about it in more of a general CONSENSUS perspective. Though I would disagree with the statement "The person removing longstanding text does not have to prove that the text should be removed." They still need to give a valid reason. Otherwise "Revert unexplained blanking" is a perfectly valid edit summary.
A side note: I'm generally not a fan of people using WP links like ONUS or BURDEN or PRESERVE or STATUSQUO in their edit summaries as justification for reverts. Probably my least favorite link used by people restoring disputed content is WP:PRESERVE. That can never override something like WP:V or WP:DUE, yet people still still use it that way. ~Awilley (talk) 05:38, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[Y]ou need consensus to add text or to remove text...The person removing text does not have to prove that the text should be removed. This is the contradiction I am speaking to. The ONUS policy is just saying that verifiability is not enough of a justification for inclusion, we always need to achieve consensus that information is DUE, etc. But once information has achieved consensus, the person removing the text has to prove that it should be removed. The "onus" is on the person who wants to change consensus; this is why I believe the wikilink WP:ONUS should link to NOCON. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
STATUSQUO is important since it determines the result of a no-consensus situation. I've seen more than one case where one side was allowed to force new content into the article while discussion was in progress, the discussion failed to reach consensus, and the uninvolved closer declared (over strong objections) that the new content should remain in the article because it had been there for the weeks-long duration of the discussion. Had procedure been more strictly enforced, the result would have properly been omission; failure to do so rewards aggressive editing, thereby encouraging more of it. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed the article WP:Consensus required written by User:El C, which seems to indicate that there is no greater onus to retain text than remove text under the DS, which I assume extends to Consensus normally. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question

Awilley - Opening scene: article TP - lengthy discussions are taking place on article TP about the reliability of a source. A related side-discussion crops up after an editor discovers a potential error in the way the source was downgraded. Editor explains sequence of events leading to the error. Editor explains what happened, hats the discussion to save scrolling time, but leaves the discussion open, noting same in the top margin of the hat. Is that acceptable? Atsme 💬 📧 00:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a bit abstract/hypothetical, but it seems reasonable as far as I can tell. I guess it could depend on the details. A potential problem might be that an article talk page probably isn't the best forum for discussing the general reliability of a source, and such a discussion wouldn't be able to override a decision made at a general forum like RS/N. But the hatting is considerate. ~Awilley (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considerate is a good thing. The RS discussion is relevant in the context that the discussion is about the source's reliability for inclusion of the material in that particular article. But nevermind, I think there is a much bigger issue involved and I'm simply trying to find the path of least resistence. I don't want to cause any of our admins undue stress. 😊 Atsme 💬 📧 22:19, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, I just now took a peek into your edit history. It might be a good idea to step away from the Hunter Biden article for a few days. I think a lot of people are a bit on edge these days, and from a brief skim it looks like you're wanting to use lower quality sources to say negative things about a living person. That seems unusual for you...I seem to remember seeing you demanding higher quality sources especially for BLPs. ~Awilley (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely - the "on edge" is why I was querying you about hatting, but to say I was "wanting to use lower quality sources" is quite a [stretch]. Award-winning journalists are not low quality sources...unless what they're publishing doesn't align with the ideological bias on Wikipedia, then they become low quality, or at least, that's what I've gleaned. I haven't proposed any text, rather I simply asked for input, made some suggestions, and quoted Jimbo's argument about TDM and IAR. You might want to read that - maybe he needs an admin action? ^_^ I've grown weary of AP, and know when it's time to end discussions with certain editors and simply let them be wrong and yes, that time has arrived. Atsme 💬 📧 00:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering

It's a creative idea, but I don't see by what mechanism an admin makes up special editing rules for a particular article. EEng 08:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: I see now it's DS. Next time it might be a good idea to state that in your post. EEng 11:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I dread the coming mess

Recommend you keep an eye on the Mike Pence article, not to mention all other American government office (federal & state) article infoboxes. If enough editors force out the 'successor' field for elected or confirmed/incoming officials? Such inconsistency can be highly messy, when a big change like that (after so many years) is pushed. GoodDay (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be flippant here, but it really doesn't matter very much to me when or whether the infoboxes list the successors. My primary concern here is to avoid having high profile, high traffic articles gold-locked again for everybody because a couple of people weren't willing to resolve their disputes on the talk page without edit warring in the article. ~Awilley (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just pointing out that right now the inconsistency caused at the Trump infobox, is quite sloppy looking in an encyclopedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: I've been thinking about this... It would make sense to have a centralized discussion on this so we don't have parallel discussions at Donald Trump and Mike Pence and who knows how many other articles that come to different conclusions. I checked the template's guidance at {{Infobox officeholder}} and it clearly says, The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place. So maybe Template talk:Infobox officeholder is the appropriate place for the discussion to change that globally. I also wonder if there's some compromise between putting "Joe Biden (elect)" vs. nothing at all. Like "Joe Biden (anticipated Jan 20, 2021)" or "Joe Biden (Jan 20, 2021)", or something similar that would give people less to fight over. ~Awilley (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Such a RFC would certainly be ideal, with plenty of announcements to relative WikiProjects. FWIW - I've no problems with 'blanking' the succession part, as long as it's done consistently across all related articles. Consistency is where my concern lays. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved administrators

Hi,

I had a vague memory that you and Specifico have had several content disputes. I refreshed my memory with Editor Interaction Analyzer and quickly found some evidence:

Let my emphasise that this was a quick analysis and you both have been so active at Donald Trump that a complete analysis would require scrutinising hundreds of diffs.

I would argue that, due to your past disputes, you are not an uninvolved admin with regards to Specifico. Hence it seems that the sanction you imposed here is not within policy. Please remove the topic ban. Politrukki (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Politrukki, are you talking narrow 2-week topic ban from AE where I initially opposed any sanction, but then suggested the short topic ban as a middle ground when another admin insisted that a sanction was necessary? I don't have the power to reverse that because one admin can't overturn a result imposed by multiple admins.
Responding to your other point, SPECIFICO reverting me a few times over a period of many years is not a content dispute. And I'm pretty sure that if you did dive down and do that thorough analysis you'd discover that I never reverted SPECIFICO back. If you read the section at WP:INVOLVED you will find the following sentence: "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'. Often when I see intractable disputes or talkpage stalemates involving groups of entrenched editors, I will step in and try to nudge people toward a compromise. Sometimes I suggest it on the talk page, sometimes I'll make a "bold" edit to break a logjam. If you look at the section immediately above this titled "I dread the coming mess" you'll see an example of that. That is related to the dispute at Talk:Donald_Trump#Survey:_"Succeeded_by"_field. I personally don't care how that dispute resolves itself. If I'm being really honest I find it a bit silly. But I do care about getting it resolved in an orderly way and without edit warring, so not only did I block GoodDay (the user I'm discussing with above) for edit warring (a clear admin action), but I added a comment to the talkpage discussion here suggesting that users put some hidden text in the infobox to head off edit wars. I consider that to fall under "suggestions on possible wordings and approaches". And it probably would have been fine if I had added the hidden text myself.
Finally, if an editor could make an admin "involved" by simply reverting a few of their edits and disagreeing with them on a few talk pages, no admin would be able to remain uninvolved for very long because the system would be too easy to game. Another thing I've seen editors do after a "final warning" from an admin is to harshly criticize, swear at, mock, or complain about the admin, trying to make that admin involved so they can't follow through on the warning. If you were to search you'd probably find some of that between me and editors I've sanctioned, including SPECIFICO. It's not what the editor says or does, but how the admin responds that shows "involvement". ~Awilley (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon man. I know you know enforcement is a unilateral action and you don't need consensus to overturn your unilateral action. That's why, at AE, there's no need for uninvolved closers to asses the consensus. That would be cumbersome. (I have only read a portion of the enforcement request, so I have to take your word that there was a consensus.) C'mon.
"I personally don't care how that dispute resolves itself." – I don't doubt that, but non-trivial BOLD editing of mainspace – especially when there is an ongoing dispute – goes beyond "discussion". That may have the same perceived effect that supervoting has. And the community sets the bar of "article involvement" relatively low.
What you say about gaming is true, but irrelevant in this case as no such thing happened here. In my experience, administrators are granted – and should be granted – broad leeway to deal with editors who indulge in rudeness in "final warning" situations you describe.
I now remember that several months ago I read your mini essay. Even though we know that your intentions were pure (and even if one were to agree on your conclusions), your opening message looks like a textbook case of casting aspersions, which does not fall under the role of administrators. I now also notice that my colleague replied to you "The allegations against SPECIFICO seem unfounded.", but that was not my point rather than condemning casting of aspersions on many sides, cheers Politrukki (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not one of them, but I think there must be a few admins who have never working in American Politics. DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention and coaching

Awilley, would you mind taking a look at Noteduck's recent edits to PragerU and Douglas Murray (author) as well as how I'm handling it. I think Noteduck is a good faith new editor who is getting frustrated with opposition to their edits (especially mine). I'm not asking for an assessment of the merits of either side rather some coaching on how this exchange could be handled better. Thanks. Springee (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting

Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is defined as antisemitic:

https://www.jta.org/2016/06/02/global/comparing-israel-to-nazis-is-anti-semitic-31-western-states-declare

https://fathomjournal.org/holocaust-inversion-and-contemporary-antisemitism/

https://www.state.gov/defining-anti-semitism/

Yet in -

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Onceinawhile

You are letting a serial bully, who attacks Jewish editors on Wikipedia, to get away with this offensive rhetoric.

Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackieMB (talk • contribs) 04:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Onceinawhile

If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors (in the original reports) are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open and in parallel with their conciliatory discussions with you on user talk:

  1. filing a fake retaliatory report against me. This also contains a blatant falsehood, I have made over 1,000 mainspace edits yet Onceinwhile says I only made 186. This false statement is a personal attack.
  2. canvassing for this report. A posting of little substance as most users, including Onceinawhile, edit these pages.
  3. Attacking unnamed editors who raised objections.
  4. Continued bludgeoning, forum post in which he in essence calls his opponents mad through the comparison made.

Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I checked those diffs and they just don't pan out the way you said. Onceinawhile didn't say 186 main space edits, they said 186 non-automated main spaceedits. ~Awilley (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, when I made my comment (at SPI, and here at 05:17) it read: "despite having made just 186 mainspace edits". After I commented on this falsehood, Onceinawhile made this deceptive edit at 09:13 in which they added "non-automated". They did not strike their false statement, and this deceptive addition confuses those who check this out. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000 closed and archived

The Amendment request, Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000, has been closed and archived. A permalink to the now closed amendment request can be viewed here.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump - North Korea

Hi Awilley. I refer you to the discussion at Talk:Donald Trump#North Korea which has stalled. Myself, Jack Upland, Starship.paint, The Four Deuces, Levivich, JFG, Felix558, Berchanhimez and Mr Ernie have all expressed support for not only trimming the section, but the specific trimming that I attempted. Only Specifico and Neutrality have expressed opposition to that proposal. Could you please close the discussion and add this to the consensus list? I really want to avoid an edit war and we really have to move on and get onto other matters in the article. Cheers. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. I already told you the best way to solve the problem. You clearlty see issues with Neutrality's version. SPICIFICO, Neutrality, and Snooganssnoogans see issues with your version. The solution isn't for me to swoop in and cement one version in the consensus list. Find a compromise. ~Awilley (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The version being agreed to is already a compromise. In future, how many supporters would we need to implement a particular version? Are two editors enough to force a further compromise? Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Awilley, following up on these queries. I will need that guidance to engage further. Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought those questions were rhetorical. It's not about one side winning or "forcing" a compromise. I guess I'm a bit unclear on what the problem is. People wanted the section to be shorter. It's shorter now. It's not the original trim you proposed, but that was never going to be the final revision. That's the nature of Wikipedia. Stuff gets changed. I've already suggested what I think is the best way for you to proceed above. It may not be ideal, but it's better than edit warring, and better than some admin stepping in to try to make one version permanent. ~Awilley (talk) 15:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speaking more generally about editing on that article for future reference. I'm finding most of my edits on that article being reverted by the same editor. I'm intending that BRD be followed when this happens, and the support for my edits when I raise them on the talk page ranges from somewhat more support than opposition, to almost unanimous support. I'd like to know what is the minimum amount of opposition required to prevent an edit being implemented. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of your recent edits, and your edit summaries kind of stink. You seem to be removing large amounts of content with little to no explanation. In fact, some of the reverting edit summaries have more justification then your original bold edits. I refer you again to my original advice. Try your edits in small chunks, making incremental improvements, starting with the non-controversial stuff, and using edit summaries to describe not just what you're doing, but why it needs to be done. ~Awilley (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure which edits you are looking at, but I've limited my size reductions on the Donald Trump article to only a few thousand bytes at most, like 1-3k. I don't mind explaining more in edit summaries, but I don't think this will change anything. The most important question I have is how many editors would it take to force a compromise and prevent the implementation of something that would otherwise be unanimous? Likewise, what is the minimum amount of support needed for something to pass? Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. ~Awilley (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fools!

Awilley, a while back you mentioned the benefits of a self imposed 1RR. As April 1 approaches marking a 6 month self imposed 1RR I have to say I think you are right and it is a good idea. I've been pleased to see that often the concerns I've had are addressed by others after posting the question to talk. I appreciate that you try to practice what you were preaching as well. Just thought I would let you know. Springee (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you for this. That's really good to hear. ~Awilley (talk) 15:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly forces one to slow down and think about their arguments and if a revert is worth making. If there is a case where an editor has been tbanned and the community is on the fence about lifting the ban it might be a good way to let them back in slowly (or course that does depend on the original reason for the tban). Springee (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek drive by reverting

Awilley, since Volunteer Marek is unwilling to discuss this on their page I'm paying it here. Despite your warning 6 months back[[47]], drive by reverts are still an issue. After a 2:2 no consensus discussion had died down I removed newly added content from the Tucker Carlson page. VM quickly reverted the edit[[48]] without joining the talk page discussion. They did join after I protested on their talk page[[49]]. I'm sorry that your previous warning is being ignored. Springee (talk) 01:43, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm sorry that your previous warning is being ignored". Oh. My. Fucking. God. Can you lay it on any thicker??? Volunteer Marek 01:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked Springee previously not to post on my talk page [50]. They've ignored that request [51]. They could have easily raised this issue on the article's talk page. There was no reason to come running to my talk to make thinly veiled threats except as an intimidation WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic.
As far as the dispute itself, I'm perfectly willing to join the discussion - and did. I just had to go pick up my kids from school first. If Springee had just waited they would've gotten their response. Instead they chose to "jump in" and start trying to engineer some excuse for an admin complaint.
What's weird about this dispute is that Springee themselves acknowledge that this info needs to be in the article [52] (first and last comment). THAT is why discussion ended. But then they sneak back into the article and remove the material under the pretense of "no consensus" because... the discussion ended. Yeah. It ended because it looked like Springee agreed the info should be in the article! So why are they removing it?
This game-playing is just tiring. Volunteer Marek 01:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't recall that VM issued a talk page ban. That was an oversite. I did notify them that I was banning them from my talk page.
VM you are misrepresenting what I said. I felt this material could be used as supporting evidence for a section talking about Carlson's rhetorical methods. When I said that I also noted I started a NORN discussion to make sure it would be acceptable.[[53]] It looks like we need a source to establish the pattern for us. Regardless, removing the material as presented was correct per BLP-NOCON regarding contentious materials. Springee (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Springee really has an issue with trying to abuse processes to push their POV. Every time I look more into this user, I find more issues of censorship of information they deem critical to their POV. Springee has been editing against consensus whilst justifying reverts with a supposed lack of consensus. This is part of a broader pattern of generally dishonest conduct, including blanking criticism of his "POV-pushing," and canvassing. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent comment

I'm surprised and disappointed, given even the brief exposure and evidence you've seen about 123-IP, to see you posting what may sound to him like an endorsement of a sanction against me. Reverts of what he calls "trims" have been extensively discussed and concerns expressed by at least half a dozen longtime editors and admins on the Trump-related talk pages. Moreover, his baseless personalization of his experience -- clearly he does not like seeing his edits reverted -- is a false and inappropriate smear on me as a POV-pusher. I have repeatedly stated that the problem with many of his edits -- actually most of them -- is that he disregards talk page consesnsus against his view and that he prioritizes shortening the articles at the expense of NPOV text that has been worked out by dozens of active experienced editors. By the time an article has been scrutinized as intensively as the Trump articles, it's very unlikely that a single editor can make broad substantive cuts (and remove curated references) without impairing the quality of the article. I'd ask you to take stock of how this editor responds to feedback -- he often misinterprets or cherry-picks the parts that please him. Under the circumstances your statement about seeking a sanction for hounding, was extremely ill-advised in my opinion, and I hope you share my concern that your words not be misused as a suggestion or endorsement of something you did not intend. The fact is that at least 3 of the editors who formerly opposed many of 123's edits have retired - MrX, Mandruss, and 03000. I am one of a dwindling group that has worked on that article over an extended period and who remembers many of the discussions, the editing decisions via collaboration and compromise, and the significance of the many reference citations that 123 has sought to expunge. That has nothing to do with Hounding. I really wish you'd nip this in the bud. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deja deja vu for you FYI

Greetings Awilley. Unfortunately we have yet another violation of page restrictions relating to Trump: revert 1 and revert 2 in less than 24 hours. I didn't see any talk page engagement addressing this edit, so it's possible that 24-hr BRD was again breached as well.@Onetwothreeip, Soibangla, Snooganssnoogans, MelanieN, and Jaredscribe:. SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't realise these two were within 24 hours. I'll self-revert. You can raise this on my talk page instead. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like Specifico has been purposefully deceptive here. I only ever removed that content once. "Revert 1" and "Revert 2" are actually both using the same initial edit, to make it look like I removed the same content twice. In source editor it is very clear, both of these purported diffs show 1013505891 as the old version. In reality, what happened is that I reverted Jaredscribe's edit about the presidential transition, then Onghai1929 added content about the 2018 midterm elections and I reverted Onghai1929's edit. As Specifico cannot show two edits of mine which were removing content within 24 hours, there is no case here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, I'm also concerned that Specifico has notified editors to the discussion who are not related to these edits, but appear to have been notified because Specifico believes they will add to opposition against me. This seems like improper canvassing at best, and harassment at worse, but either way shouldn't be something that is normal. I would also like to hear more about the potential interaction ban that you have suggested. I will be monitoring this page throughout the day as best I can. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Wow, that was so confusing. I thought for sure you had removed the Pelosi sentence and table twice in 24 hours. There's still the 1RR rule, which you did breach, but you're fine with BRD. Thanks for self-reverting.
@SPECIFICO: how on earth did you produce this diff? I can't even figure out what it's showing. How is the version on the right side older than the version on the left side? ~Awilley (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Just copied prev diff links from history. Its easy to see 2rr from the history. But now I see 123 says there was no violation? I don't see any talk engagement anyway. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, I thought 1RR had been lifted from the Donald Trump articles, or was that only for the Donald Trump article itself? If the latter, that doesn't make much sense since the Presidency of Donald Trump article and related articles get much less editing and attention than the Donald Trump article, but I definitely want to be on the right side of this. Does the content need to remain on the article? As for how Specifico produced those "diffs", it fooled me as well and I can only see that being done deliberately and not by accident, but I can leave that to you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC) I don't see any talk engagement anyway. 13 of the last 50 edits in the talk page are mine, but I'm not required to a talk page comment before or after every article edit I make. If Specifico or anybody wants to engage with me about article edits, they are more than welcome to do so. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley, sorry if this adds to the confusion, but I attempted to self-revert my self-revert about an hour ago on another computer, after finding out that there actually wasn't a 24BRD issue. There were Wikipedia server errors at the time and the edit has only gone through a few minutes ago (from the original computer). I don't want to keep re-reverting but I will take your guidance on this at face value if I should still keep the content in the article or out of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're outside the 24-hour window now, so I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about it. ~Awilley (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a relief, thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a simple 1RR violation, one of numerous recent violations. Ex post corrections really don't help the editing environment, as the create an unintended new rubric where violations are permitted so long as other editors take the time and trouble to document and report them in order to get back to constructive editing process. This happens from time to time -- fine -- but it is not the way DS is intended to work. DS are intended to make less work, not more, for editors trying to collaborate on the talk pages of difficult articles. SPECIFICO talk 13:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Politics edit notices with BRD

Hello, Awilley,

This category showed up on the Empty Categories list where categories are typically tagged CSD C1. Do you anticipate this category to remain empty? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, thank you for noticing that. I had accidentally populated a category called Category:Category:American Politics edit notices with 1RR. I've fixed that now. ~Awilley (talk) 01:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP editor violating NPA

Awilley, would you please look into this IP editor [[54]]. They attacked me on the Andy Ngo page as well as on the IP page. Thank you. Springee (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the message was received [[55]] Springee (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for 48 hours. Though looking at your comment they were responding to they did have a point. I'm surprised you think Wikipedia should base anything on sources like the Daily Wire. ~Awilley (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a bit more complex than that. For some time the Ngo article had content sourced to the Daily Wire and the congressional record that said Ngo said X before congress. I get that the Daily Wire is not a great source but in this case the validity of the claim could be verified by the congressional record and, perhaps it's just me, but I think for most BLP articles, if they testify before congress a summary of what they say should be included. If this were the Dialy Wire saying why Ngo was right or how the other side was misrepresenting Ngo then I would completely agree that this isn't a sufficient source. However, this is a case where I think the context matters part of RS comes in. There is no question Ngo said X (we have video and transcript) to congress. Since the facts aren't contested I feel like this is a case where a lower quality source (yet one that hasn't been deprecated) should be acceptable. In a later edit I noted that a lot of right wing sources covered this so clearly this is of interest to at least those who read the heavy right leaning sources. Still, this does hinge on my view that for most articles what someone says before congress is a significant event by default. Perhaps that's just mean. Springee (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. The fact that something was previously in an article is rarely a good justification for anything.
2. Not everything someone says before Congress is significant. We have to use secondary sources to determine significance.
3. If only low quality right-wing sources are reporting on something, that's probably not significant for anything other than the statement, "Right-wing news outlets reported X..." like when you're contrasting that with what left-wing or mainstream sources did or didn't report.
4. You should probably get out of the habit of citing low quality sources unless you're actively trying to cultivate a reputation as a POV pusher. ~Awilley (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I generally don't cite low quality sources and in this case these aren't sources I've added. I think it's problematic that we we felt it was important to add a left wing criticism (ie commentary vs straight fact) of what Ngo didn't say in one of his testimonies but we don't want to say something that was rather straight forward and clearly verifiable. Perhaps part of the issue as when one zooms out the article as a whole has had a lot of issues with IMPARTIAL. In this case content was removed, another editor found a new source and now that source is being questioned. The new source looks marginal and if this were commentary/interpretation etc I would agree. But when it's a simple summary that can be verified it feels to be like we are trying to keep negative stuff in, anything that isn't negative out.
Regardless, I do value the input. It's helpful to have someone point out blind spots, especially when we are certain we don't have them! I'm still finding that the 1RR suggestion is rarely a true restriction so I figure you probably have some other good tips. Springee (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee: I think it's time for you to move from "I generally don't cite low quality sources" to "I don't cite low quality sources." I just skimmed the thread at AE and it's a bit of a mess. Your statement is too long, hard to read, and it doesn't address the core of the complaint against you. You just waffle around (So and so added the Daily Signal material first and I was just blah blah blah...So and so said blah blah blah...I'm friendly with Dlthewave blah blah blah) The best way out of this is to face it head on. And concisely. "I'm sorry for my use of unreliable/deprecated sources in the diffs above. I think there were extenuating circumstances (described earlier) and I still think the Ngo article has big problems, but I recognize now that trying to fix those problems with more poor sources is counterproductive. In the future I will try to consistently use high quality sources for Wikipedia." And then stick to that. Your arguments will carry more weight, and your contributions will stick better. I prefer high quality and neutral sources (think Reuters, AP), but if you prefer right-leaning sources there are still plenty of reliable ones, even if you don't want to shell out $100/yr for a WSJ subscription ;-) ~Awilley (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying. If this were one of my research papers this wouldn't be an issue since I would just cite the primary source, the copy of the submitted testimony. If Dlthewave had just stripped the Daily Caller source and put a CN tag that might have helped since we had the primary source. I'm not sure if I actually have inserted anything sourced to these low tier sources but I added a statement saying I wouldn't unless we had consensus first.
On a different matter, is there something that can be done about this IP editor? They have taken quite the interest, simply 100% of their edits. Springee (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think this IP gets it [[56]]. That or they are a sock since I'm not sure how else they would have replied to AE before I did. I'm wondering if this is yet another HughD sock. I don't see enough evidence yet but in the past IP's that were here just to bother me were typically HughD's [[57]] Springee (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I regret to inform you that I am not a sockpuppet, the last time I edited Wikipedia was in February, to the Russian Imperial Movement article. My interest in the Andy Ngo article related entirely to Ngo's very recent, and very public complaints over his own article. I'm simply a stranger who thought your behaviour was so egregious that I had to call it out. Then you started blanking everything I said, in addition to my talk page. That got me looking through your own talk page extensively, and your feuds with various users spurred me to check them out too. Given your apparent abuses of processes before (as detailed in dlthewave's complaint), it seems likely that you don't actually think I am a sockpuppet either. Despite the fact that I am amused by the idea of you wasting your time trying to prove that I'm random users you've feuded with in the past, I'm feeling generous enough tell you that I am not. Unless HughD researches extremist movements (which is reason enough to not have an account here), I doubt you will find much reason to confuse me with them. Maybe instead of assuming there are people out to get you, commit to some introspection over why so many people think you're a "POV-pusher." 69.158.90.121 (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The IP editor might be related to this one [[58]]. I noticed the IP in that link named myself and Pudeo which seems odd since I don't think I have ever edited article about German politics. Pudeo and I have almost no editorial overlap other than a suspicion about a possible sock editor [[59]]. Springee (talk) 16:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are wasting your time. I have never been to Germany. I've never even crossed the Channel. :( It seems you have gone back to stalling out the reliable sources page. The attacks on Bellingcat really grinds my gears. If dishonest actors like you got their way, what's to stop authoritarian governments elsewhere to use that change in their propaganda? Bellingcat investigates war crimes and the illicit activities of authoritarian regimes, and is a partner with DFR Lab. You are very obviously trying to push a POV that whitewashes controversial subjects. In the Reliable Sources discussion, you have tried to use displays of an "antifa banner" by Bobfrombrockley to discredit his affirmation of Bellingcat as a reliable source. It seems readily apparent that you think opposition to fascism constitutes some kind of discrediting factor. You seem to also believe conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden, including a laptop that has not been: 1) conclusively linked to Biden; 2) deemed evidence linking Hunter Biden to any criminal wrongdoing; and 3) purportedly central to information operations conducted by the security services of the Russian Federation, sourced by a man whom the NATO intelligence community has publicly warned of being in contact with Russian intelligence officers. The most generous assumption without looking into your history would be that you do not understand Wikipedia's sourcing policy. However, it's abundantly clear from your history that you understand it, but apply that knowledge selectively to suit your preference. These attempts to run me off with accusations of being a sockpuppet run by random editors only demonstrate your eagerness to attack anyone who blows the whistle. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awhilley, this IP account appears to not understand WP:CIVIL. All of their edits have been to attack me. Would you please restore their block. Springee (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So let's be clear about this: Springee was already blanking my talk page by my sixth action. The idea I'm hounding this user is ONLY because I am using a single IP to comment on Springee's conduct is to not present the appearance of multiple IPs taking issue with them. Since blocking me the first time, Springee has had a complaint filed against them for PRECISELY the pattern of behaviour I've consistently complained about on this IP. This is also a pattern of Springee weaponising Arbitration and Enforcement and other litigious means to censor criticism, a fact that it already mentioned in that Arbitration and Enforcement complaint. Moreover, why is Springee's behaviour acceptable, but my response and continued criticism is "uncivil," or "hounding?" This strikes me as a very selective and arbitrary sort of enforcement. I've been editing wikipedia on a VPN for at least a year. Your (extremely questionable) block on me didn't stop me from editing in the period you blocked me (nor will you ever stop me lol), all it did was demonstrate that you either affirm Springee's biases, or didn't pay attention to the dispute. If you want people to help you build an encyclopedia, maybe don't help dishonest ideologues chase off new(ish) editors. I've stated numerous times why I don't have a username, it's because people who research and report on extremist organisations have exposure when acting under a fixed identity. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, the insults have returned [[60]] including attacking another editor' " not accepting a response from one of Springee's canvassing pals, especially a bad faith response to an X to Y format request." Springee (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping just incase this message was lost with all the above discussions. Thanks. Springee (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, the editor is back with another IP address [[61]]. Would you please block that one as well. Springee (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of the same IP editor, different address [[62]]. More personal attacks etc. Springee (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Topic Ban Appeal

This is to ask if you're inclined to remove my indefinite climate topic ban after a year. The ~369 edits since then speak for themself, but if you have any questions or comments, just let me know. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yae4: Because that ban was placed by a community of administrators (as opposed to just me) you will need to appeal it in the same forum. There are instructions for how to appeal on the template that I placed on your own user talk page last year. Please also see my note in closing the AE thread here. If you want the sanction lifted you'll need to show that you understand what you did wrong that led to the sanction being placed, and commit to fixing that problem in the future. At least that's a much better way to get a sanction lifted than simply hoping that your 369 edits speak for themselves. (They probably won't, because admins are just volunteers and don't have the time to review your last 369 edits.) ~Awilley (talk) 22:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: I was going with what you wrote on my talk page: "You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard." (emphasis added) -- Yae4 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I guess I just used the generic topic ban template or didn't adjust the settings correctly for an AE ban. Sorry about that. ~Awilley (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange

Hello Awilley. I do hope you will have time to review the current situation at the Julian Assange article, where as far as I can tell, 3 editors -- two of whom perceived routinely to edit in tandem -- have locked down the article despite evident talk page consensus to trim certain content related to the opinions of a UN volunteer investigator. It is a prima facie example of how the editing process goes wrong in AP articles -- not captured by the rules we rely on such as 1RR or 24/BRD -- but which has led to considerable editor attrition and weakened these articles. Pinging a few Admins who've either edited the page or participated in the recent AE relating to this article, in case any care to review this matter. I am not requesting any action, or demanding any Admin time and attention. But for those so inclined, I think that examination of such examples is valuable in support of current community discussion of how to improve DS. There was a rapid tag-team edit war beginning here The associated talk page threads, before and after that incident, are [63][64][65] @JzG, Muboshgu, El C, TonyBallioni, Swarm, Guerillero, Bradv, and DGG: SPECIFICO talk 14:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counting noses in the tag team edit war, it looks like there are four editors who want the content in the article, and three editors, including yourself, who want it gone. Since you're the one trying to change the status quo, I would expect you to get a consensus on the talk page. Looking at the talk page, I'm not sure I see a consensus to remove all the health material. I'll bet you'd get better mileage with the compromise, removing or summarizing the less relevant bits.
Side note: I couldn't help but laugh out loud at "increasingly marginal legacy world organization" ~Awilley (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I commented there. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley, last time someone took me to AE I took your advice and I think I'm a better editor for it. In this case, what is the actual advice you would suggest? You mention a warning but for what specifically? If you suggest that I should be a bit quicker to read the room and drop a losing cause, OK, that's fair and I'm happy to do that. I don't think I have some sort of long history of arguing for using questionable sources and certainly not one of putting such sources into the article. I will however, pledge to slow down a bit and make sure I'm not confusing sources when arguing about their use. Things would have been a bit smoother if I slowed down two reverts to verify the source I was thinking of and the source in question were the same. Is that what you had in mind? Springee (talk) 22:42, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave you my best advice above. Stop using low quality sources. Period. Only use high quality sources. You wouldn't need to worry about confusing Daily Caller with Daily Mail with Daily Signal with Daily Wire with Daily whatever if you simply eschewed all news sources that aren't in the top tiers of reliability. There's way more news published then we can ever cram into Wikipedia. Why scrape the bottom of the barrel? ~Awilley (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I don't think, outside of this specific case, I ever added/suggested using RSP red sources (disclaimer - I might have for ABOUTSELF claim). I also affirmed as much here [[66]]. Is that acceptable? Springee (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's kind of a watered down way of saying it. Though if I take, say, Aquillon's statement at face value, it does nothing to address that. Lots of editors here will argue on the Talk pages using low quality sources they agree with while discounting high quality sources they disagree with. It's too common. And the commitment you linked could be read as pledging to do more of the same (seeking consensus to use low quality sources). Even though we don't have a rule explicitly prohibiting that, my advice is to hold yourself to a higher standard. Ignore low quality sources. Only use high quality sources. Like with the 1RR, it keeps you out of trouble, and makes you a better editor. ~Awilley (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me expand on that last sentence. Years ago when I was a newer editor I stumbled into an article that I felt was written in a biased way. I had my own POV on the subject, and I had a lot of medium quality sources sources available that agreed with my POV. Meanwhile the article was also using medium quality sources to generally endorse the opposing POV. (oversimplifying a bit) Instead of trying to use my medium quality sources to "balance" the POV of the other sources, I went online and purchased the highest quality and most authoritative source available: a 700 page book. It was basically the gold standard: the source all the other sources cited and were measured against. Even though I personally didn't agree with everything in the book, for the purposes of Wikipedia I tried to make the book's POV my own. Then I simply tried to make the article reflect the book, both in content and in tone. It was much easier than trying to battle it out on the talk page with lower quality sources. And it was kind of fun to always have the highest quality source always backing me up. It was like I was always right. I could win almost any argument because I wasn't arguing for my own POV, but the POV of the best source out there. People respected that. And the article ended up better and less biased. ~Awilley (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair and I will take that to heart. I do want to emphasize that I don't have a history of using poor sources so I don't see this as something hard to live up to. The 1RR is actually harder when editors aren't doing the same but I'm still pleased to see how often a good talk page argument wins out. Springee (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AE Springee

Why did you think it necessary to mention me in the close.? The case was about Springee, and the reason you gave (correctly) for the close is that the matter was stale. Why did you not stop there? It would perhaps have been appropriate to mention my arguments had they been relevant to the close, either because the close was in accord with them or the close was disagreeing with them. I think you're using the opportunity to make a close to try to say in a prominent place something about me, and I think that's inappropriate--whatever you may think of my arguments, which are along the same lines I've said other times also. This wasn't the place. You may want to revise it.

I don't want to challenge a close when i agree with the end result. But I want to ask you: for the matter under discussion do you think you're neutral enough to close? Do you think you're more neutral than I? If you think the difference is that your interpretation of sourcing is right and mine is wrong, then perhaps you're not neutral on the underlying issues. DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning you wasn't my idea. It was MastCell's. Reading that comment led me to look at the other admins' comments. In that close I did my best to make it represent the consensus in the admin section, just like I would with any other close. ~Awilley (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that response addresses the issues DGG brings up here. I saw that close and found it rather belittling and insulting personally. I would also recommend you revise it. PackMecEng (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you read my edit summary, I saw DGG's message right as I was going to bed and made a very brief reply on my phone. Responding to DGG's other concerns, yes, I think I'm uninvolved enough to make that close, and the fact that I support our sourcing policies is irrelevant. I think DGG has some decent points about sourcing (some of our articles are written in a very one-sided way), but he went a bit too far this time, and having a long argument with Gorilla Warfare in the admin section and then replying to everybody else's comments as well was disruptive. We ask editors to respect word limits and keep comments in their own sections. Admins have more flexibility in their own section, but should still try to hold themselves to a similar, if not higher, standard. Finally, the idea that I am trying to use the close as some kind of cheap shot to say something about DGG in a public place is wrong. I made the close because it needed to be closed and nobody else was doing it, and I only mentioned DGG to reflect the consensus in what I was closing. Of the 8 (going off of memory here) admins who responded to the case, 6 of them explicitly pushed back at DGG. And 3 of those 6 only pushed back at DGG, not even addressing Springee. ~Awilley (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved with respect to DGG? That really is not credible. On its face, this looks like yet another out of process action with respect to an editor or Admin who has good-faith disagreed with you on this or that. Of course if you disagree, it's your right to continue to try to justify your action, but that looks like a steep climb. SPECIFICO talk 17:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? A good faith disagreement on this or that doesn't make someone involved. I can't think of anybody I haven't disagreed with at one point or another. ~Awilley (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, this is not good, Awilley. I'm not surprised by who suggested it or the involvement that has already been pointed out to you. Try listening to the good advice you've been getting here and do the right thing. Atsme 💬 📧 19:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At this point this discussion may be more appropriate in the context of a noticeboard appeal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley's close accurately reflects the admin discussion in my opinion. It's not quite clear how WP:INVOLVED applies here (was there a previous conflict with DGG?) but if that is the concern then the solution at this point would be to either open a noticeboard discussion or have another admin re-close. –dlthewave ☎ 14:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley needs to simply remove that part of his close. He is involved all the way around per User_talk:Awilley/Discretionary_sanctions#WP:INVOLVED. He basically admitted it here. I just want to mention that any attempt to politicize entire sources by calling them unreliable/deprecating them, especially if they don't align with one's POV, is very disconcerting. Opinions don't need to be fact-checked - opinions are not facts, and they don't have to be accurate - we use WP:INTEXT. What matters more is the credibility of who said it, or what official document was published that can be corroborated by a primary source. I also recall the citing of Buzz Feed's article about the unverified Steele dossier when no RS would touch it when it first came to light. That article was nominated for deletion as a BLP vio but was kept. Retrospect tells us how that whole ordeal ended. It also appears that some of our admins may have misinterpreted how sources can/will be used, and that is a problem because to my knowledge it is not within the duties of a sysop to decide what sources can or cannot be used; i.e., CONTEXT MATTERS, and such a decision should be made by the wider community on a case by case basis, not by individual administrators. Of course we're free to express our opinions but those opinions should not have prevailed in the close of that AE case, and to include it was highly inappropriate. And let's not forget, WP:RS is only a guideline, consensus can change, and WP:RSP is basically an essay unvetted by the community. I'll just stick with what Jimbo Wales said in a prior discussion when responding to an editor's statement to not cite The Daily Mail as a source in articles because it has been deprecated.
"No, that is not true. It is true that the Daily Mail is generally prohibited as a source, but in Wikipedia terminology that does not mean an absolute ban. Exceptions to the general rule can and do exist, per WP:IAR as well as general common sense in specific circumstances." And that is also what our guideline suggests. DGG was quite accurate in his comments, and is very knowledgeable about sources. Atsme 💬 📧 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've been mentioned (and subtweeted) here, I'll elaborate on the concerns that led me to recommend that DGG be admonished for his behavior in the AE thread in question.
I also want to emphasize that all of this behavior occurred in the admin section of an AE request—a location where we're expected to remain focused and to model appropriate behavior for contentious topic areas. I've been active at WP:AE for more than a decade now, and I can never recall another instance in which an admin derailed and disrupted a request with rambling expositions of their personal ideology to the extent that DGG did in this thread. I think that's why a number of admins came out of the woodwork specifically to call him out.
I think the reason that admins were harder on DGG than on Springee is obvious—Springee recognized he'd slipped up in using unreliable sources and apologized, which goes a long way, whereas DGG doubled down on the idea that unreliable sources are not only acceptable but somehow essential to NPOV. It's sort of like someone getting arrested for petty theft, apologizing, and then the judge goes off on a tangent about his personal belief that private property is a social construct so there can be no such thing as "stealing"... I mean, you get the idea. Anyway, I was obviously not the only admin concerned, and I think Awilley's close reflected the consensus of administrative opinion in the request. MastCell Talk 17:00, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's one place where MastCell is correct. I said at the beginning I wasn't sure which section to post in--I gave the reason for posting there, that I was uninvolved with the specific person or issue, but I qualified it by saying I wasn't going to myself do any admin action. I hadn't foreseen the extent to which I would be challenged, and didn't expect to make further comments--I almost never do. In retrospect, I did make the wrong choice. As for the rest, this is not the place to explain and defend it. (And I want to emphasise that I think AW's close as no-consensus was correct.) DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with MastCell here. I never did get around to saying anything at AE and wish I had. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC
So you agree with the odious character assassination, personal attacks, misinterpretations and misrepresentations that Mastcell is leveling against DGG?--MONGO (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not helpful, MONGO. ~Awilley (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo isn't trying to be. Not a lot of change in the almost six years since one of the 3 remedies at AP3[67] was MONGO is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area." Doug Weller talk 11:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how stating that I questioned why the personal attacks, character assassinations posed by Mastcell and your endorsement of that is to be deemed as "hostility", unless of course anyone who disagrees with our policies on NPA believes that such commentary is okay so long as it is against those we disagree with. Bringing up ancient arbcom findings with zero diffs demonstrating evidentiary support for your ongoing slights indicates I need to be careful about disagreeing with you since doing so will of course be seen as "hostile".--MONGO (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nor was the wording of your close. DGG asked you to retract and I think you should have.--MONGO (talk) 04:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, canonical examples of personal attacks include:
So there are a number of concrete, blindingly obvious personal attacks in DGG's AE commentary. You're ignoring these, but wielding WP:NPA as a bludgeon against carefully supported criticism of DGG's position. Which clarifies that this is not about your distaste for personal attacks in general but more about your irrational and, frankly, obsessive hostility toward me. MastCell Talk 17:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to thank you for pointing out what you see as my glaring omissions, (since I am apparently irrational and have obsessive hostility towards you), especially considering that all this should be "bindingly obvious". I also wanted to thank you for making it obvious that our intent here is not to simply see if Awilley would have NOT added DGG in their closing statement, but instead use this talkpage as a place to hurl further insults. I am not going to unravel what DGG meant by "I'm not going to try to explain it to you" (did he mean he wasn't going to explain the rift he had between him and his father...its not clear to me) or your insinuation that DGG was actually comparing any editor to Nazi's, etc. My take on the latter is DGG is saying that ignoring other sources, or silencing them is what the dictatorial regimes did (He never said Nazi at all actually, just "dictatorial regimes",,,that could be Nazi's Maoist, Stalinists, modern Turkmenistan, etc)....and the pedia itself should not do that, but I don't see them calling out anyone specifically as a Nazi. It is not the manner I would have phrased it...but then again, I wouldn't have used the language you have here against him or against me. DGG's comment "there seem to be two sorts of people on the left: those who want to take on their opponents, and those who want to pretend they don't exist" is not a personal attack, but what I see as an admission where he, as a avowed liberal, is stating that he apparently prefers to demonstrate via discussion the fallacies of his ideological opponents, rather than pretend they do not exist. I am on the side of those that feel saddened that more conservative leaning sources of great reliability are not available. I do not agree that we should ever use unreliable sources. I do not agree with DGG that depreciated sources should be used unless they can be demonstrably proven to have returned themselves to a level of reliability and accurate reporting.--MONGO (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mongo, you are part of There is a significant minority (along withincluding DGG and Springee) who believe that our practices should be changed to include more conservative perspectives, even if that means using sources that are currently considered unreliable. This has been discussed extensively, including some of the specific instances in the AE discussion, and community consensus is clearly against it. You all are entitled to your opinions and are free to voice them at appropriate venues such as Village Pump and RSN. However, admins at AE are expected to evaluate behavior against current guidelines and consensus. It is inappropriate for an admin to advocate against sanctions and go off on a long tangent based on what they think the guidelines and consensus should be. Sure, maybe DGG does have a valid point about balance and maybe someday our rules will change to fit that, but until that day they need to work within our current expectations. Our response to this should be no different from an admin who went around handing out sanctions to every editor who cited CNN because they didn't like it. –dlthewave ☎ 22:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC) Striking the mention of MONGO, I somehow misread their comment and I apologize. Keeping the rest as a general comment on the situation. –dlthewave ☎ 03:54, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that adjustment.--MONGO (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
dlthewave...not once have I stated "that our practices should be changed to include more conservative perspectives, even if that means using sources that are currently considered unreliable." That is a total and complete misrepresentation of my stance. I guess you did NOT read what I just posted that you are responding to?--MONGO (talk) 22:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What you are talking about is tool abuse. This is not that. Honestly I think you are mischaracterizing pretty much the whole discussion. Several people here seem too actually. Generally ones that are probably a little too involved in AP areas in general, with demonstrated strong biases, to be acting as admins. But I digress. PackMecEng (talk) 22:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG:, when you said above that you said at the beginning I wasn't sure which section to post in--I gave the reason for posting there, that I was uninvolved with the specific person or issue, but I qualified it by saying I wasn't going to myself do any admin action, were you perhaps thinking of GW's comment where she said just that in different words? Because you didn't say anything like that in that report. (courtesy ping @GorillaWarfare:) 2605:8D80:628:5492:E946:49EF:FD50:8F08 (talk) 05:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This thread seems to be going astray. The RS and NPOV issues were discussed and clarified, if not fully resolved, at AE. But this thread is about abuse of process. We don't see Justice Souter censuring Justice Thomas about a legal matter discussed in chambers when the courts opinion is published on the substance of the case. I'm not aware of anything in Arbcom's rubrik for DS and AE that contemplates one Admin censuring another at that venue. And as I said above, although this was not DGG's concern, this out of process action by Awilley comes amid concecrns about other questionable actions, supervotes, and unfortunate disparagement of editors or Admins who have disagreed with Awilley in the past. This is not the place to litigate these concerns, but they are germane to DGG's more limited and valid request that the inappropriate part of Awilley's close be revised. SPECIFICO talk 22:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins at AE choose to rebuke or even sanction other participants in the AE thread all the time. I've seen warnings, topic bans, and blocks issued to people who were being disruptive. This is in addition to normal boomerangs. We should not treat DGG differently because they are an admin. ~Awilley (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about "other participants". I was talking about discussion among Admins as DS adjudicators feeling their way among themselves to a decision. Can you provide diffs of an Admin being TBANned or blocked for the opinions they expressed in intra-judicial discussion at AE? Or did you choose not to respond to the concern I specified? I can't recall any instances of that but perhaps you have diffs? SPECIFICO talk 14:23, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before (before Awilley deleted it), this complaint at [User:Awilley|Awilley] is little more than a blatantly obvious attempt by known POV pushers supportive of the Republican Party of the United States. [User:PackMecEng|PackMecEng] is another good example of a POV pusher that rallied to support [User:Springee|Springee] and [User:DGG|DGG]. It now seems that they are attempting to back unreliable sources, as well as sources that do not support claims made in edits on Antifa_(United_States). Citing Paul Gottfried is especially egregious given his ties to white supremacists such as Richard Spencer. I also know for a fact that Chronicles Magazine has been publishing articles by at least fake persona (mirroring a network uncovered by the Daily Beast, but I will spare everyone the details to avoid clogging this up with original research. AWilley is technically correct that DGG shouldn't have special treatment as an admin, but that isn't what these activists want. They want to have special treatment on the basis of ideology, and to freely compromise Wikipedia's integrity by sourcing crackpots. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 01:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going to comment again, but your posting made my day. I've been smiling broadly ever since, and sometimes laughing outright. I do not know the politics of the other people you mention, but I can speak for myself: I am very decidedly not a supporter of the Republican Party in the United States, even before Trump, or any party of comparable ideology anywhere. In my early days in WP, I tried to improve the writing of one of the articles on creationism, and was accused of being a secret creationist only pretending to be a scientist. DGG ( talk ) 06:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I wasn't going to comment here at all, but you seem to be changing the subject, DGG. Your personal political convictions are not really relevant to Awilley's close. It's your lack of respect for the NPOV policy, per MastCell's analysis above (especially his first three points), that is the problem. I too, like Doug Weller, wish I had commented at AE, and I fully support Awilley's close. Bishonen | tålk 11:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment - I count nearly a dozen experienced editors at that AE case who were somewhat or highly skeptical about the case against Springee, and a number of them echoed concerns expressed by DGG.
If you want to be a politically educated reader or editor, you must read a variety of news sources every day, including news sources that disagree with each other, and whose editorial offices don't ascribe to your own personal political convictions. DGG's comment is extraordinarily straightforward:

No source is completely unreliable. I think we can include material like this, and clearly indicate where it came from, and let the reader judge. A variety of views is essential to NPOV... I may be upset that others hold views I thing wrong, but that's what the world is like... I do not think Springee is being a nuisance, but rather those trying to remove him from the field might be the ones whose actions are questionable. NPOV is not defined as MyPOV.

Darwin jokes in his writing about people who acknowledge that species numbers sometimes appear to decline in the fossil record, but absolutely deny the possibility of extinction. It would be as if someone admitted illness were possible, but death were not.
Arguing that source bias is wholly unrelated to reliability is similarly simple-minded. All of you know that reputable newspapers occasionally publish falsehoods. Far more frequently newspapers will publish half-truths: statements that are technically correct but omit information that's inconvenient to their editorial line, or the candidate they've endorsed in the most recent election. Do you really believe that rare falsehoods or more frequent half truths, printed by one newspaper or another, in one nation or another, is unrelated to their editorial line and political views?
All DGG has done is argue that a diversity of viewpoints need be expressed in political articles. If such a simple and obviously true statement on DGG's part rankles some admins, they do view "MyPOV" as NPOV. I've disagreed with DGG plenty of times, but DGG is spot on here. -Darouet (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If all DGG had done was argue for a diversity of viewpoints in political articles, I would've agreed with him. But that's not at all what he was arguing: he was arguing that we should be using unreliable sources to "maintain NPOV". MastCell has already provided in this conversation a good breakdown of DGG's comments, so I will just refer you to that to explain why I found them so shocking.
On a separate note, I agree with 2605:* that it is bizarre that DGG has represented something I said as a statement he made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2605 looks like the same editor as User:69.158.90.121, who has been blocked twice for stalking and PAs.--MONGO (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare , you're right. I'm always glad for my errors to be corrected. It was an unsigned paragraph after mine, and I didn't realize it was part of your succeeding statement. Since it represented closely the way I was also thinking, I assumed I had said it and forgot to sign it. I'm glad we have at least some common ground. Perhaps we can build from there. DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It was combined under the same bullet (where I had also formatted my comment with further paragraph breaks) so I thought it was clear, but perhaps I should have signed it separately. Thanks for the explanation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO I am not the other IP editor. I have made it clear that I have stuck to a single VPN IP when discussing matters related to Springee. I've been accused several times of being a sockpuppet of random users Springee has had previous feuds with, all of which being (at least as far as I can tell) completely different people. Regardless, this demand for a "diversity of viewpoints" from a small contingent of ideologically biased (and even worse, American) editors is categorically absurd. As I have already stated, these users want special exemptions to sourcing requirements based upon their own ideology. When they complain of a lack of "diversity of viewpoints," they are arguing to be allowed to introduce conspiracy theories and material from cranks so long as it is sympathetic to their POV. Springee for instance has cited conspiracy theories about Hunter Biden as justifications for adding other unreliable sources. Mastcell is correct in recognising attempts to abuse NPA to silence criticism, and I will point out that Springee has attempted to do the same in response to my own criticism of them, notably after blanking my own talk page. I daresay that this is a pattern of censorious behaviour undertaken by activist POV-pushers determined to compromise the integrity of the project. When they complain that the majority thinks "MyPOV is NPOV," they don't say it out of a profound lack of self-awareness, they are simply gaslighting in order to continue their activism. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've been blocked twice already for your odd fascination with Springee, yet here you are again, posting further attacks. "small contingent of ideologically biased (and even worse, American) editors"...nice.--MONGO (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, this IP was blocked, and by AWilley at that. I wasn't blocked from doing anything. My "odd fascination" is restricted to a single IP, and not at all representative of my contributions. I don't usually wade into Wikipedia's community, if only because it's a time sink for IP editors. The only reason a talk page got my attention was due to public complaints from the talk page's subject made to an audience of millions, and Springee's conduct stood out as being distinctly biased and focused on matters addressed specifically in that same complaint. Upon airing my observations, Springee began blanking my own talk page to censor my criticism. Notably, Springee has hidden complaints about them on their own talk page as well, something they have done multiple times (in one case later professing ignorance of prior warnings from other users). I do not use a username because patterns of behaviour are only attributable to singular identities. If someone adds information on say, extremist and terrorist organisations, that pattern could be identified and compared to others they deem "opponents" (whether they are academics, law enforcement, NGO employees, or other stakeholders) as part of a targeting method. It is a safety precaution that has seemed to instill a sense of paranoia that I'm random users that people have feuded with in the past. If you are citing conspiracy theories and hoaxes about Hunter Biden and Antifa, it isn't exactly a difficult task in identifying your politics, because outside of the US that propaganda is relegated to the fringes of the left and right (but mostly the latter). These are not personal attacks either, they are assertions of bad faith that have been later validated by accusations of tendentious editing that applies a double standard to sourcing depending entirely on the bias of the source. Anything and anyone that challenges your POV is then subject to retribution by those same POV-pushing editors. 69.158.90.121 (talk) 10:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DS 2021 Review Update

Dear Awilley,

Thank you for participating in the recent discretionary sanctions community consultation. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a summary of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future mailings by removing your name here.
--Barkeep49 & KevinL (aka L235) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JzG

I do not think you really should have posted in the uninvolved section, for anything involving AP, tho I have no great disagreement with what you said. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm not convinced you're demonstrating good judgement of what constitutes WP:Involvement. If you have any specifics we can discuss them, otherwise we'll probably have to agree to disagree. ~Awilley (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
we may be misunderstanding each other--to clarify, by your standards, do you think that I could have posted in that section also? DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm not sure. You'd be a better judge of that than I. I don't know what prior involvement you might have. I know that you have a more conservative approach to admin action than most, but that's not a bad thing. In regards to American Politics and the editors involved there, I have no idea what personal biases you may have, but I assume that you, like I, try to compartmentalize that, to keep Wikipedia separate from your personal views, and make your on-wiki decisions based solely on policy. ~Awilley (talk) 05:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


You have made things much more difficult by actually closing it yourself, despite knowing there was already a challenge to your neutrality on the matter. I would probably have closed it somewhat differently, but not very differently, had I closed--but I wouldn't have closed it. I suggest the fairest course would be to revert it yourself. You might also want to consider that if DS is not used in a way that is unambiguously fair and not open to challenge, it will make a much stronger argument for getting rid of it entirely. I want to diminish, not increase, the occasions for us to come into conflict, for in the context of some of the views in the areas like AP, we're both somewhat moderate, and I continue to hope we might work to help each other. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I asked above for specifics that you declined to provide. So basically you're saying that you think I'm somehow involved, but you can't say why. And you think my actions were reasonable. I'm having a hard time seeing what the problem is. ~Awilley (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Awilley, your participation in discussions of DS and AE increasingly sounds like Sealioning. JMHO. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I'd love to pursue you with persistent requests for evidence and pepper you with questions in a long meta debate about sealioning, I simply don't have time for that right now. ~Awilley (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm comes off as an alternative form of passive-aggressive denial, and equally inappropriate. SPECIFICO talk 14:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) FWIW, while I'd have vastly preferred to see a broad-ranging-boomerang that would have eliminated the cause of JzG's manner of discussion, I'm also aware that allowing these things to sit and fester without any resolution is harmful, and that sanctioning JzG would have been equally harmful, so your close was well within the range of acceptable and proper closes I've seen. The complaints about WP:INVOLVED don't seem to measure up to the actual standards in that guideline.
The comment about sealioning is entirely unnecessary, and simply explained by the (very reasonable) presumption that you're occasionally required to make an actual effort to remain calm in the face of ridiculousness and stupidity, two things which are anything but rare in AP2 topics, and much of the reason I stepped back from editing in the topic. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (talk page stalker) as well. I'm not fully aware of Awilley's background in AP2 but it's concerning to see the same few editors repeatedly accusing them of being too WP:INVOLVED to weigh in on or close a discussion, refuse to provide further details when asked, and then reprimand them for continuing to act in their capacity as an admin. This comes across as hounding/undermining and should be taken to the appropriate noticeboard if there's an ongoing issue that needs to be addressed. –dlthewave ☎ 02:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Come on man, don't pull the tired "same few editors" card. Seriously this one side vs the other is just sad at this point. YOU ARE MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE NOT BETTER. PackMecEng (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates my point. Why not explain what the problem is so that folks can avoid exacerbating it? –dlthewave ☎ 03:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally the second sentence. PackMecEng (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which second sentence? I'm not following, you're going to have to explain what exactly it is that you mean. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlthewave: - I believe what @PackMecEng: is saying is that your line (same few editors repeatedly accusing...) is exemplifying a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality (one side vs the other), which is inflaming the situation. That's what I read. I see WP:BATTLEGROUND mentions In large disputes, resist the urge to turn Wikipedia into a battleground between factions... starship.paint (exalt) 14:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Starship.paint, Assume, at least for the sake of argument, that Dlthewave is correct that there are handful of editors consistently pushing a certain agenda in a manner that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Would you still agree that pointing it out is making it worse? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! MPants is right. Let's try this parallelism. Exposing racism is not racism, and it is not battleground behavior to point out when a group of editors consistently edits in a one-sided, politically-biased manner, such as deleting properly sourced content to leave only one side of the story told by RS. They are engaging in whitewashing that leaves only the story told by unreliable sources, without ever having to use those bad sources. Pointing out that serious problem is not wrong, but attacking the one pointing it out is the battleground behavior. -- Valjean (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This only holds true if the base assumption is true. This requires that the base assumption be demonstrated to be true. If it is not demonstrated, then it falls within the realm of Aspersions and battleground behavior. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyohyi, Yes, that's kinda my point. That it would be more productive for uninvolved admins and editors to look into this allegation and investigate it (it's an extremely common allegation, one iteration of which is spelled out in great detail higher up on this page), rather than to respond to the tribalism which is mostly symptomatic.
If this allegation is true, then the tribalism simply cannot be solved without solving the core problem, first. If there's no truth to it, then that knowledge might well help to mitigate some of the tribalistic tendencies. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MPants, Dlthewave, I have also noticed that there are a few editors who tend to weigh in here a lot. I think that kind of "talk page stalking" is normal. I don't suspect politically-motivated "tribalism" in the way Starship.paint interpreted Dlthewave's comment. At least I haven't noticed any obvious factions that disproportionately criticize or thank me. I do tend to get more criticism from editors I've sanctioned or warned in the past, but I expect that, and it doesn't bug me.
As for DGG's criticism, I have tried hard to understand where he's coming from. As best I can tell the root of his argument is something along the lines of, "I can't imagine anybody doing admin work in a topic area for as long as Awilley has without becoming emotionally invested or biased against certain editors." (My response to that is that I think it's good for admins to be introspective and regularly evaluate whether they've become too close to a topic, but it would be fallacious to assume that all admins have equal capacity for emotional detachment/compartmentalization.) I'm less clear on why DGG continues to focus on me with my paltry 50 contributions per month. Especially when, as far as I can tell, there's nothing objectionable about my contributions except that I'm the one making them. I work hard to make sure every action I take is fair, proportionate, and in line with Wikipedia policy, and every close I make represents the consensus (or lack thereof) in whatever I'm closing. ~Awilley (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The participation here is reasonably enough explained by stalkers, I agree. I'm one of them, though clearly not one who shows up just to complain about your admin actions.
I think it's worth noting that SPECIFICO very often seems to be on the opposite side of political issues from PacMecEng and DGG, which is at odds with the characterization of Dlthewave's comments as part of some tribalistic conflict furthering.
In any case, this is something I've been mulling over lately and writing about. Something I'll probably eventually want to discuss with a couple of admins who are active in AP2, and then possibly have a much broader discussion about, but am not ready to start that just yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intent to accuse anyone of tribalism. I was just concerned that accusations seem to be piling up without elaboration on exactly what the problem is, so I'm not sure how Awilley could be expected to change their behavior. That's all. –dlthewave ☎ 02:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off topic
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I encourage any page watchers to head over to our (that is, Valjean and me) favorite article and join the discussions. It would be helpful for others to weigh in on the dichotomy of removal of UNDUE vs deletion of properly sourced / whitewashing. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good demonstration of active and one-sided deletionism that ends up leaving the narrative told on unreliable sources, without actually using them, rather than just leaving the mixed and multifaceted narrative told by RS. Such selective deletionism should not be tolerated. UNDUE is in the eye of the beholder, and thus an extremely weak policy to cite, so better to document what RS have said. RS always have more due weight than unreliable sources, so deletions that leave only a narrative that is driven by dependence on unreliable sources that are not cited is not good. That may not be a conscious decision, but that is the effect.
One should not delete the content one does not like, especially when it is very well sourced. That is the opposite of our duty as editors to try to also edit for the opposition. Such editors should ask themselves "When is the last time I included properly sourced content that criticized Trump, rather than consistently removing or minimizing such content?" I know that I have added lots of content that criticized Steele and the dossier, so why are some editors deleting content that takes opposite views? RS are mixed on the issues, so one-sided deletions are not a good thing. -- Valjean (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:UNDUE is typically a much stronger argument than WP:RS. Think of it this way: the vast majority of reliably sourced material has no place in an encyclopedia. We're a summary of a summary. With the number of books, scholarly papers, and news articles being published every day I doubt we could fit more than a fraction of one percent into an encyclopedia. WP:RS is not an argument for inclusion. ~Awilley (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

talk page

thanks for the help. I'm glad you got there so quickly to fix my error. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Springee 1RR

Awilley, I wanted to ask your opinion on whether two of Springee's edits [68][69] break 1RR. I brought it up on his talk page but he disagreed and deleted my comment before we could discuss further. He also self reverted "as a show of good faith". This has happened a few times over the past few months. I could give you several examples of Springee self reverting (or being reverted by others) after being called out, which makes the immediate issue a moot point but seems disruptive nonetheless. What do you think? Is this something that would be appropriate for AE or even an individual admin DS action? –dlthewave ☎ 01:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dlthewave, you claim this has happened a few times over the past few months. I'm going to ask that you support that claim or retract it. I think I have perhaps once violated the now totally voluntary 1RR policy I have followed since sometime last fall. In this specific case I think what I did to the article was an original edit and thus not a revert. However, I do grant that since I was removing some long standing text (with clearly stated reasons) that it could be seen as an initial revert hence why I restored it. I don't think it was a 1RR violation but self reverting is good faith. Your comment about disruptive is less than an AGF especially since you seemed to have come out of the blue to make the accusation. Springee (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dlthewave, it's not clear to me whether those edits are reverts or just removals of content. I looked at the recent edit history and couldn't find the edits where the removed content was added. It would be helpful if you provided diffs showing when that content was added and by whom. In any case Springer's 1RR is voluntary, so even if both edits were unambiguous reverts, there's nothing to enforce. Especially since Springee is self-reverting out of an abundance of caution. There is nothing disruptive about that, and I wish more editors would act like that. Instead of taking this to AE, you should send a "thank" notification on Springee's self-revert. ~Awilley (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your perspective, Awilley. I'm not quite sure where you draw the line between a revert and a removal and I think this is the root of our disagreement over what constitutes 1RR. The first removal was a partial revert of a 21 February edit and the second removal is a full revert of content added several hours earlier on 18 June.
Andy Ngo is under a 1RR restriction. I realize that Springee's own restriction is non-binding, but it's still reasonable to ask whether it's being followed since it seems to have been a factor in avoiding sanctions at AE. It's understandable if it happens once but I wouldn't say an editor is keeping their promise if they're repeatedly breaking it and then self-reverting. But again, this could just be a misunderstanding of what 1RR covers, which is why I came to you.
I would note that back in March, Springee warned me about 1RR over this removal of content which was added a full 8 months earlier, so I'm a bit confused about why it would be a revert in that case but a removal when Springee makes a very similar edit. –dlthewave ☎ 20:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dlthewave, my previous understanding of a revert would have supported your view that my first edit where I removed stable content was a revert. However, I think between the outcome of my 1RR concerns with your edits in March and discussions related to this failed 1RR in April I think my previous strict interpretation of a first revert was wrong [[70]]. Based on what others said I think the consensus view is a change to long standing material is not likely to be seen as a revert. Do you have examples where I was "repeatedly breaking it and then self-reverting"? Springee (talk) 03:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the 3RR post in April, but looking over it, I really don't see how it supports what you're saying. That discussion, along with your warnings in March, concerned edits that were adding or modifying material, which clearly would not have been reverts, but they're unrelated to removing long-standing content which is what we're discussing here. Can you point me to where I can find that consensus? –dlthewave ☎ 04:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having been told twice in less than a month my understanding of what counts as a revert was wrong I tried to figure things out. I don't recall if that was reading other's comments or a direct conversation but I think it was clear my understanding at the time was wrong. More than once you have accused me of violating 1RR then reverting. Can you point to the examples? Springee (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider the removal of long-standing content to be a revert. So in this case removing some content that was added in February doesn't count towards 1RR. There isn't a strict definition as to what constitutes "long-standing" and it varies by article. In a highly watched and heavily edited article, long-standing might be a few weeks. In an article that only gets a few edits per month, it would be longer. In evaluating 1RR questions, I try to consider if it is reasonable to expect editors to remember when the content was added that they're removing. If the content was added 3 weeks ago and is being disputed on the talk page it's reasonable. If it was added 3 months ago and nobody objected to it, I don't expect people to remember that. Yes, I think it's a problem that we have this ambiguity in a supposedly bright-line rule like 1RR. ~Awilley (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021 Request

I am about to be extremely busy moving beginning in August - I know you can relate to that - and since you mentioned that you wanted to clean-up some of your stale backlogs, I hope you'll remove the t-ban as part of your clean-up. July 24th marks the second year. Atsme 💬 📧 02:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, I'd be happy to lift the ban. As I said in my statement at your last AE appeal (link) and in my last email to you, all I require is a commitment from you to do better in the future. ~Awilley (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better than what, Awilley? I'm a content creator, GA/FA reviewer, I teach new reviewers at NPP school, I'm a member of the OTRS VRT, so let's look at what you really want from me. From my perspective, you want me to cry Uncle while you sit on top of me with all your admin weight holding my hands down. I am an adult woman with grandchildren, and I've been editing WP for a decade now, so don't expect me to act like someone who is still learning how to edit. I will not admit to doing something I didn't do, and will never commit to allowing myself to be bullied, which would include not asking the bullies to DROPTHESTICK and to stop GASLIGHTING me...especially when I was the one who received the apology for their aggressive behavior. You might as well duct tape my fingers, or lower your expectations. You even admitted that you didn't do proper research into the complaint you received about me: “If you had said you thought someone was bullying you I would have looked deeper.” You are much too involved and prejudiced against me as evidenced on your own POLEMIC talk page. You need to delete that chart because it is embedded in your mind and it serves a similar purpose for all others who view it. It isn't even accurate. Your desire to change my approach is the same as cognitive restructuring to make me align with your POV - you cannot control an editor's thoughts - that is not an admin's job. Your t-ban has been in place for 2 years, and even you recently referred to it as "punishment", but I'm now at the stage of WP:DGAF. Look no further than how quickly you dropped cases for those editors whose POV you align - even Swarm noticed it. Other admins have also noticed your backroom deals. In special:permalink/943215390#Your advice to me, you said it was "an extremely small and relatively ugly part of the encyclopedia. Why is it so important that you want to spend time there? You said yourself that you'd only made 30 or so edits there. I also don't understand why you wouldn't want to just appeal the topic ban normally. The same "backroom deals" you criticized me for making with Snoogans are available to you.” I have appealed normally but you keep wanting to make it look like I did something wrong even though I didn't - and it's all because of your prejudice against me. Speaking of backroom deals, show me Snoogs commitment to you to do better. You even admitted to your own potential involvement in your response to DGG. Your t-ban hasn't prevented me from editing Fascism or Fascism in Europe, Fascism in Africa, Fascism in France - you used diffs from Fascism to t-ban me, but didn't t-ban from that topic. Now we have this deletion - scrub-a-dub-dub, I don't give a fub. Our readers can see what's going on. I'm here to help build an encyclopedia, not to make it my political soapbox or a tool for propaganda. I never have and never will do anything like that, and certainly cannot stop others from doing it. That's your job. The t-ban you imposed on me wasn't needed in the first place, and it is not needed now, except to serve as a tripwire for me if I accidentally mention it. This diff is basically at the heart of why you t-banned me in that I was actually trying to gain consensus via an RfC at that article but ironically, you interfered with the consensus building process when you t-banned me within 24 hrs of my seeking your help. I will make one commitment to you - I will never ask you for help again, so yes, I learned a lesson from you. Atsme 💬 📧 14:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, I'm not going to re-litigate the original rationale for a sanction two years after the fact. If it were so flawed it would have been overturned in one of the (3?) times you appealed it at Arbcom and AE. I've told you my own criteria for lifting the ban. I need to see some kind of commitment to modify your sometimes overbearing approach in talkpage discussions, to stop pursuing arguments to the bitter end, and to be slower to take offense at perceived slights, attacks, or assumptions of bad faith from those you're in disagreement with. ~Awilley (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok - it makes sense for you to not re-litigate because it lessens exposure to your very bad judgement call. So...I'll follow your lead in this edit summary. Based on the repeated objections to remove my t-ban by the acting administrator who has a prejudicial belief that I have a "sometimes overbearing approach in talkpage discussion" (which others perceive to be winning arguments), and that I "pursue arguments to the bitter end" (which others perceive to be the result of the 1RR consensus required DS), and that I "must be slower to take offense at perceived slights, attacks, or assumptions of bad faith" (despite the fact that I received an apology for the bad behavior), I will do my best to not do that in the future. Atsme 💬 📧 11:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Oh come on, Atsme. That's got to be the worst "commitment to do better" I've ever seen. What I get from it is that the ban is entirely the fault of the "bad judgement" of the banning admin (whose judgment has been upheld every time you've appealed the ban) while you are a perfect editor who has no need to do better in any respect. Isn't it time you moved on to describing your virtues at AE or AN instead of continuing to harangue Awilley? He has replied to you. Bishonen | tålk 16:36, 4 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Awilley. What's your opinion of the "unblocks are cheap" essay? wbm1058 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Not really applicable to this situation. I'm not demanding an apology, and this is the second time the editor has been topic-banned for this behavior. (Rope was extended on the first time.) The more applicable guideline would be Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Composing_your_request_to_be_unblocked. ~Awilley (talk) 16:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you forgot this discussion, Awilley. Your comments about me are off the charts. Atsme 💬 📧 22:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When you say second time you are not referring to the time Bish did an end run around Arbcom because it looked like they were not going to sanction are you? Because that was the most BS of BS topic bans I have seen in a very long time. I would not use that as an example of anything negative against Atsme. PackMecEng (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jacoh Hamblin

I find your continued insistance on finding ways to make sure the depricated "M-----" word is the first mention to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in this article highly offensive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: I've been thinking about trying to frame an RfC to resolve this. Trying to resolve this article-by-article is obviously not going to work. Do you have any objections to this framing?
Extended content

Background: In August 2018, LDS Church president Russell M. Nelson announced an effort to discourage the use of words like "Mormon" and abbreviations like "LDS". He requested everyone refer to the church and its members using only the full name of the church, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" or if length was an issue, shortened versions like "the Church of Jesus Christ" or "the restored Church of Jesus Christ" or simply "the Church". The church followed up with a major renaming effort, changing the names of scores of subsidiary organizations, websites, and blogs. Notably, the church's primary websites at lds.org and mormon.org merged to a new website at churchofjesuschrist.org, and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir became the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square. Church-affiliated publishing house Deseret Book began phasing out book titles that used the word "Mormon" and some authors had to revise upcoming publications to avoid having them blacklisted. The scope of these changes was unprecedented.

Historically, the church has had an on-again-off-again relationship with the word Mormon. Church leaders periodically give sermons emphasizing the "true name of the Church", but for much of the past two centuries "Mormon" has been an acceptable nickname and church members have proudly self-identified as such.[1] In fact prior to 2018 the church itself was having a "Mormon moment" where they were actively embracing the word. They were running a multinational I'm a Mormon ad campaign (2010-2018) and had just produced the film Meet the Mormons (2014), and their public-facing website mormon.org was helping to crowd out other more negative search results.

In any case, since Nelson's announcement, editors routinely show up here scrubbing articles of the word Mormon or (as happened yesterday) moving pages. Here's a table showing the general thrust of these changes:

Old New
Mormonism "Latter-day Saint belief"
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"
Mormon (adj.) Latter-day Saint
Mormon (n.) Member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
LDS Church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
"the church" (other preferred alternatives are too POV)
Mormon missionary missionary of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

For what it's worth, our current style guide is in harmony with the style guides of major news organizations, and we discourage the use of terms like Mormon church. For articles about modern and living members of the church, we typically refer to them as "members of the LDS Church". But when writing about historical figures we often still refer to them as Mormons. (For example: Mormon pioneers). We also have articles like Mormons, ex-Mormons, Cultural Mormons, Jack Mormons, Fundamentalist Mormons, etc., whose scope is broader than just "members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints".

References

  1. ^ Take for example Joseph F. Smith, who when asked at gunpoint if he was Mormon, responded "Yes siree; dyed in the wool; true blue, through and through."
Thoughts? Pinging other people recently involved in this dispute: FormalDude Rachel Helps (BYU) Good Olfactory Jburlinson Richwales ~Awilley (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think the missionary page is the most egregious. The category states that it is for missionaries of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, yet still doubles down on using the deprecated name. I also as I have said elsewhere think that the insistence of only giving the full name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in long articles is unreasonable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, to treat the 2018 changes as if they are part of a general back and forth about the name really ignored the level to which the 2018 changes have been implemented. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has since A-changed the names of its main websties B-changed the name of email addresses of employees C-changed the name of LDS Business College to Ensign College, and changed the name of its wify system. The changing of the name of the choir to the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square was also big. I think your statement does not give full credit to the amount and bredth of these changes. We can also track several changes in blog and website names done by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on their personal blogs that related to the churc, such as the blog once titled "LDS Church growth" now named "growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". LDS Family Services has changed its name to Family Services. LDS Charities changed its name to Latter-day Saint Charities, see here [71]. This article [72] covers lots of changes in names of apps and the like. This was a huge level of changes, that took at least a year to fully implement because they involved changing the names of so many things. Note that most of these names involve dropping the use of LDS.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this edit (see diff) help resolve your concern? ~Awilley (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I laid out my perspectives and opinions on this matter in a comment I made at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints on 23 September 2020. (Go to that page and search for my opening phrase, "Full disclosure before I proceed".) I still stand by what I wrote then and really have no stomach to try to re-engage when it appears clear that the entrenched positions are every bit as entrenched now as they were then. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this has now been resolved and reflected at MOS:LDS. If anyone has additional suggestions please feel free to make them. ––FormalDude talk 02:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yikes, I didn't see those recent edits. Some of that is completely backwards. ~Awilley (talk) 03:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @FormalDude: I do appreciate the effort at compromise, but the MOS was correct before. I've reverted for now. I tried to explain in the edit summary, but I can clarify further if you like. ~Awilley (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS change was a result of discussion on the talk page, did you get the chance to look at that? I don't think what you explained in your edit summary applies to the entirety of what you reverted. I'll go into more detail at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Latter Day Saints. ––FormalDude talk 03:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have now. I think I saw Jgstokes's wall of text before and decided not to read it. I don't think the comments in that discussion warranted those changes, and I don't think Jgstoke's arguments carried any water. We need to follow the sources, not the preferences of the church. If somebody finds a better words for "Mormon" and "Mormonism" and the sources pick up on those, we can start using them instead. But as it is, we don't have a good replacement, so deprecating it in our MOS isn't helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with that interpretation of the sources. Post 2018 the majority of sources generally do not use the terms "Mormon" "Mormonism" or "Mormon Church".
    • Newsweek uses "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint"
    • Deseret uses "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint"
    • NBC uses "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint"
    • Associated Press uses "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint" and "Mormon church"
    • USA Today uses "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint"
    • Salt Lake Tribune uses "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" and "LDS Church". (2)
    The main point is that other terms exist, and post 2018 the term is considered deprecated by the LDS Church, the largest denomination, and that is worth mentioning in our MOS guidelines. It doesn't mean we must change every instance of Mormon to "adherent of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint." All it does is lays out things to consider in the context of MOS. If you're referring to the actions of a "Mormon" person in 2021, it may be better to refer to them as "LDS", as that is equally used by RS and equally convenient. Is that not fair to include in the MOS:LDS? ––FormalDude talk 07:52, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so all of the articles you just quoted are for how to refer to the LDS Church. We are already in agreement over that. Our MOS already says to use the full name of the church and to not use Mormon Church, and it has been that way for years. The question is whether the religion (not the church) should still be referred to as "Mormonism" and the adherents as "Mormons". And the sources still do that. Here are some quotes from the same articles you linked above:
  • Newsweek: "And a common formulation, especially among evangelical Christians, is that Mormons are not Christians."
  • NBC: "The choir renaming comes a day before Nelson and other Mormon leaders are set to provide spiritual guidance..."
  • AP: As you noted, they open with "The Mormon church"
  • USA Today: "[Margulies, a PR expert] predicts confusion among people who won't realize the full name is the same religion as Mormons, and said there's a "very slim" chance the name change will catch on. "It's a recognized, large religion. Mitt Romney is a Mormon," Margulies said."
  • SL Tribune headline: "Proposed name change exposes divisions in Mormons" (Note this article is by Peggy Fletcher Stack, the author of the article I linked on the MOS talk page, where she explains why she can't drop the word "Mormon" altogether.)
  • Re: If you're referring to the actions of a "Mormon" person in 2021, it may be better to refer to them as "LDS", as that is equally used by RS and equally convenient. Actually, "LDS" is just as "deprecated" by the Church as "Mormon". JPL noted that above. And for our global audience it's more confusing. Everybody's heard of Mormons. But Latter-day Saints sounds like it might have something to do with modern Catholicism. ~Awilley (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does this change satisfy some of your objections?
Another small OR data point: my wife is really into "true crime" and last night when she saw what I was working on, she suggested we watch the 2021 Netflix/BBC mini-series titled "Murder among the Mormons". We watched the first episode, and they liberally referred to the religion as "Mormonism" and members of the LDS Church as "Mormons". ~Awilley (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen Murder among the Mormons, it's quite good. I'm probably a little biased, having lived in several states with high mormon populations, I am used to people referring to them as LDS. But you make a good point about that being confusing for a global audience. I wouldn't necessarily agree that "LDS" is just as deprecated by the Church as "Mormon"–I think LDS is still acceptable by most members of the faith. Either way your change does satisfy some of my concerns. I imagine other editors may have something to say as well though. ––FormalDude talk 19:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was going off the statement by JPL above: "We can also track several changes in blog and website names done by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on their personal blogs that related to the churc, such as the blog once titled "LDS Church growth" now named "growth of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". LDS Family Services has changed its name to Family Services. LDS Charities changed its name to Latter-day Saint Charities, see here [71]. This article [72] covers lots of changes in names of apps and the like. This was a huge level of changes, that took at least a year to fully implement because they involved changing the names of so many things. Note that most of these names involve dropping the use of LDS." Actually looking this up now in the church's revised styleguide they say that "Latter-day Saint" is actually fine but "'Mormons' and 'LDS'" are not. ~Awilley (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you're right then for sure. I was somewhat going off OR. ––FormalDude talk 20:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban for Johnpacklambert. Thank you. ––FormalDude talk 17:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda. ~Awilley (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Awilley/Archive_10&oldid=1139830988"