Fritzpoll

How's Life?

23prootie (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Deletion review for New Zealand – Pakistan relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of New Zealand – Pakistan relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deletion review for Latvia–Luxembourg relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Latvia–Luxembourg relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Deletion review for Azerbaijan–Spain relations

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Azerbaijan–Spain relations. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Your comment at Abd's talk

The need to express oneself clearly and concisely is an age-old principle and is not some newfangled idea of the internet age. William Strunk said it best, almost a century ago:

Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell.

Refusing to make even a minimal effort to express oneself clearly and concisely is a mark of arrogance toward the reader. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know - I'm just saying it is even more relevant now that it ever was, for a variety of reasons. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly agree with that. Or as Strunk would have preferred, "I agree." cheers - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This claim about "arrogance" is common, particularly from a few editors who are, in fact, objecting to the substance, they object just as vigorously to brief posts as to lengthy discussion. They aren't obligated to read the lengthy discussion, ever, unless they want to make a complaint about it, it's for those who want to discuss. On AN/I, I put up a response to the recent complaint about me that was one paragraph, it was short and to the point. But because other issues were related, but not necessary, I put an extended comment in a collapse box. SBHB removed the collapse box because, he claims, it makes it impossible to search within the box. But wait, why is it necessary to search? Isn't the complaint that I write too much? By removing the collapse box, then, he and others could -- and did -- complain about the "wall of text" that thus appeared. It was rather neat, I thought, a very nice demonstration of what a certain faction of editors are up to. Really, SBHB should have been dinged for altering my edit in a crucial and damaging way.

They tried to suggest a topic ban with RfC/JzG 3, and the ensuing RfAr/Abd and JzG. It fell flat, ArbComm bought none of it. They tried to get me sanctioned for lengthy comment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Abd_and_JzG/Workshop#Proposals_by_User:Short_Brigade_Harvester_Boris. I'd recommend reading that and the discussion, it shows the divide quite clearly, and I just deleted what I'd written above which duplicates what was there. Let me point something out. I went to ArbComm and was given everything important that I asked for. I must have been, somehow, effective. I managed to get every requested link to lenr-canr.org whitelisted, so far, except for one that I withdrew because of a copyright problem that appeared in more depth than prior arguments, in spite of many editors arguing tenaciously against it. Is SBHB really arguing that my writing is ineffective? Or is it effective only through overwhelming other editors so that they go away? I don't think so. That is not going to convince any closing admin. My process usually ends up with something summary that is clear and brief and easy to see. It's either neutral solicitation, as with Talk:Cold_fusion#Poll.2C_reserved_section, summary of consensus, as with Talk:Martin_Fleischmann#Should_readers_be_given_a_link_to_the_paper_where_they_can_read_it?, or it's an edit summary, which is necessarily concise, or it's brief polemic, or, sometimes a mixture of polemic and discussion, where I try to set off the polemic, as I did on AN/I. If I'm trying to convince people, if I'm sure what is best, I can and will take the very substantial time it takes to write effective polemic. Otherwise, people who aren't interested in putting in the effort to read my longer posts, a small fraction of what it takes to write them, are unlikely to agree with them if I boil them down, more often that not, it's wasted effort at that stage, because the ground hasn't been prepared, including my own certainty about the desired result. --Abd (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

"Really, SBHB should have been dinged for altering my edit in a crucial and damaging way." - This is actually an interesting point. The ANI thread in question was started to complain about the manipulation of other user's comments. So in an apparent attempt to either pile onto Abd with anything that might stick or to shift the discussion to his own agenda item SBHB commits the very same type of act that started the whole thread in the first place AND IN ADDITION creates the same type of problem he, himself, was complaining about. In retrospect it seems quite ironic, no? --GoRight (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't really want to get into accusations here - it defies the warmth of my talkpage :) I agreed with SBHB that extended and unnecessary commentary can give the impression of arrogance. I'm sure that this is not really the case with Abd. Generally I've found that when he's asked to summarise, he does so quite effectively, and it is haste which causes so many mistakes and misunderstandings both here and in the real world. I remember feeling that I had to read all of Abd's text when I first encountered him, and the feeling was overwhelming - on later reflection and in incidents since, I've found that the larger quantity of text may add background, depth or meta-discussion, but rarely (I hope Abd doesn't take this the wrong way) adds anything essential/immediate to the discussion beyond the first one or two sentences.

In fact, if anything, the rage against his verbosity hits peaks when his thoughts are summarised - the RfC being a case in point; very tight, compact evidence and analysis in the initial submission, and yet he is attacked for being long-winded. Wasn't sure what to make of that then, not sure what to make of it now. And in terms of controlling his verbosity - well, that's even harder. As soon as you talk about a limit, the argument becomes where that limit lies, and suddenly editing Wikipedia is like a legal submission or an end-of-term school report. Not a desirable state of affairs.

Finally, you are all welcome to my talk page and we can chat about this here if you like - it is a relatively neutral place as far as I can see. I will caveat that I can't act in a mediating capacity of any kind - Abd and I have a clear history lending the appearance of involvement, although as one might gather, my opinions of Abd are a lot more positive that our little incident may suggest. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"I don't really want to get into accusations here - it defies the warmth of my talkpage :)" - Heh, fair enough. I'm not really suggesting any action be taken, just noting what I thought was an irony.

"... on later reflection and in incidents since, I've found that the larger quantity of text may add background, depth or meta-discussion, but rarely (I hope Abd doesn't take this the wrong way) adds anything essential/immediate to the discussion beyond the first one or two sentences." - This has been exactly my observation as well. Abd likes to think through all of the angles before making a comment and, having spent the time thinking them through he endeavors to record them rather than just provide the bottom line of it all. This leads to lengthy texts, but with clear communications if you can make it through all that text. He is not only telling you what he thinks, but why he thinks it so that the reader has the context required to understand his perspective.

Most people do not process information this way because of the volume of information that needs to be processed. So a lot of people just stick to articulating the bottom-line results of their thinking. This is fine when dealing with people of similar backgrounds and who will make similar assumptions. It falls completely apart when people with differing backgrounds naturally come to differing conclusions about the assumptions being made behind a given bottom-line statement. This is the essence of miscommunication in most instances. --GoRight (talk) 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Fritzpoll. Warning: below I ramble quite a bit, and some of the ramblings may be important, but none of necessarily require your immediate attention! In your own Talk space, you get to mediate as much as you care, and if someone complains about your bias, well, they could pick some other "court." Our original encounter was indeed unpleasant, and I truly regret whatever I did to add to that. However, much good came out of it. An earnest young woman who had been rather brutally slapped down at AN/I ended up being unbanned; my complaint about you at the time was that you hadn't sufficiently investigated the case but relied on an apparent consensus there, which, I was contending, was dangerous, and you ran straight into a point that I've been emphasizing for some time, an understanding of administrative responsibility, that, while administrators are indeed responsible to community consensus, they are also individually responsible and should, except in certain narrow situations, never make a decision and implement it that they can't take personal responsibility for. I.e., if the community says A, and I disagree with A, I probably shouldn't close that process. Instead, I should participate in it and, maybe, if it's important, escalate it. In other words, you said that you couldn't change the decision, it had been made by the community. But, outside of, say, RfAs and ArbComm or WMF elections, the community doesn't make decisions; rather it advises, sometimes the advice is incoherent or shallow, and individual admins weigh that and actually make the decisions and implement them, or ordinary editors do this with actions that don't require tools. And a decision that they can make, they can undo, presumably based on new evidence or arguments that, had they been present initially, would have changed the outcome. The position you were taking is pretty common, and when consensus is truly clear, discussion has been broad enough, it makes some sense. But in the case cited, as ultimately came out, evidence had been requested by some in the discussion, editors who had not !voted, and the evidence provided was utterly inadequate to support the decision, and there had been no close, until you stepped in as if a close were a mere formality. There was, instead, an assumption of a decision, based on comments which continued and piled in assuming that the evidence presented was supported by reality, since nobody had impeached it. A few single errors by the editor, such as putting up an article she found in the sandbox, which turned out to be (short) copyvio, were exaggerated into "She violates copyright." Implying multiple violations. In that original copyright incident, she had asked an admin, and both of them failed to search for the text to check for direct copying. Later, a search turned up no more "violations." The same was true of other allegations; an original incident, expanded by the accuser -- who was highly disruptive, had been blocked for it before, and, really, editors should have been more suspicious -- into a pattern. And nobody checked. Happens all the time at AN/I, which is one reason I don't go to AN/I unless it's truly urgent. I've *usually* been confirmed at AN/I, when I've gone there, but it's a roll of the dice, sometimes.

I questioned your implementation of that alleged decision, and, yes, was excessively verbose, though the verbosity was, I recall, in my own Talk space. You actually were not obligated to read it. But, yes, you thought you were. I appreciate the thinking behind that, an intention to be fair, and, had you not been operating under diminished capacity due to external stress, you might have said, with perfect courtesy, "I'm sorry, this is too long, could you summarize it and I'll read the full comment if I have time and am attracted by the summary?" I mixed up discussion, where I become quite verbose, with polemic, where I've come to a conclusion. I was still, at that point, thinking that maybe the decision, even though process-incorrect, might have been correct in substance, it takes time to investigate. If the same thing came up now, you'd see a tight presentation. I wouldn't need to convince you of the principles behind what I'm saying, because it's become thoroughly settled in my mind, and your Talk page wouldn't be the place to hold that discussion, unless you clearly consent, as I expect you are now. This isn't a complaint about you!

Perhaps this points to something I can do which will help, which is to separate the two, being more explicit about which is which. Discussion is never obligatory to read. Even polemic can be disregarded, though, there, disregard could lead to an RfC, if it's in one's own Talk space! Polemic, as I've agreed, is better tight and focused. And, yes, in the RfC mentioned, I put many hours into honing that spear, so to speak, it was designed to penetrate the fog and get attention, and it did. Not broad enough attention to create an appearance of community consensus, to be sure. I'd have to have canvassed to get that, and I avoid that. JzG helped a bit by filing an MfD on the RfC, a singularly ... strange action, guaranteeing more attention, but .... the whole point was that he'd burned out and was becoming erratic and dangerous to community process. I find it sad that such a long-term and valuable contributor ran into such a difficulty, but I also know quite a few editors who had been burned, and they were getting short shrift. One of my long-term ideas is how to convert experience like that of JzG's into valuable and acknowledged benefit, so that, long-term, we build depth into the community, instead of bleeding experienced editors continually. As part of investigating that case, I read back and found some very clear, very good understanding, and clear commitment to the project. It shifted sometime around the end of 2007, when he became highly abusive, with obscene dismissals in edit summaries, all of which was extensively documented in his RfC 2. And when he was told by ArbComm to tone it down, he did, and, instead began acting when involved. A version of "Don't get mad, get even." Which, of course, was no improvement, it was worse.

For months, I tried to find some party whom JzG would trust to advise him. Nobody did, apparently (except that if it did happen, it would probably have happened by email or in person or phone). Instead, the community aligned by tribal affiliation, with a very active tribe descending on the RfC to support JzG and attack this interloper who was obviously (fill in the blank.) Beginning, during the RfAr, around the beginning of May, efforts to retaliate against me began, and an editor began to try to provoke me into actions that would get me blocked or at least banned. Those efforts failed (though I did run into the 3RR edge or over it; Fritzpoll, you might have noticed that I don't ordinarily use edit warring as a tool to improve articles, instead I discuss, maybe too much. May 21, I tried a little action in place of discussion that was going nowhere. I did make one or two bald reverts, and the other edits, which were not reverts in intention but only in appearance under some interpretations of the definition, added up to 4RR. But I wasn't blocked, and I'm sure that this frustrated the tribe. Next incident, I didn't do any reverts, unless my first edit June 1 is considered a revert -- I still argue that edits like that shouldn't count toward 3RR, but I'll argue that on the guideline page -- but this led to article protection and then William M. Connolley's ban on my editing of Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion. While the "action while involved" isn't quite as obvious there as it was with JzG and the blacklistings in December, it will still be shown by clear evidence if needed. I'm hoping it's not needed, which will probably, at this point, take someone advising him to do the right thing, someone whom he will listen to, because he's sure not going to listen to me.

I aim for minimal disruption; that's why I was approaching you last August, not going to a noticeboard, and that's why I haven't gone to a noticeboard now. Disruption arose when you went to AN for confirmation of a decision, where I believed that unnecessary. (I wasn't challenging your right to decide; apparently you thought I was.) My decision about what to do now, with the present situation, will be based on what I judge will minimize overall disruption. I might go directly to ArbComm, based on a sense that local discussion is likely to be ineffective and it would have to end up at ArbComm anyway, and I'm currently being advised by various editors, off-line, on this. Better to resolve an issue with one discussion rather than many. That's the advice ArbComm gave me, though it's possible to interpret that, at this point, they'd be recommending an RfC. Given the history, mediation is unlikely to work, though I'd certainly respond to mediation efforts; indeed, this post could be seen as a very informal request for someone to "mediate."

I suspect that some editors see the "walls of text," and assume this is associated with an inability to focus when necessary. The fact is that people with ADHD have trouble focusing in certain contexts; in others we become "hyperfocused." ADHD is a "disorder," as the name implies, but, like Sickle cell anemia, it also confers benefits, some think it's a genetic variation that benefits the species as a whole. To make a long story short, if everyone were like me, the place would fall apart. If nobody were like me, it would become frozen and unable to adapt.

Now, if you have read to this point, and would agree that mediation would be useful, good chance you aren't a trusted friend of WMC. (But maybe!) But you might know one. My "walls of text" work when the few who read them carefully enough to understand them pick up on an idea and spread it. Usually they will be much more succinct, and whatever was actually irrelevant, they simply don't respond to. That's what I do with walls of text presented to me!

To complete an earlier thought, much other good came from last August. I ended up with rollback privilege, thoughtfully suggested and provided by you when I took community suggestions that I do wider editing. I am far more responsive than some imagine. I listen to and weigh suggestions even from people I know are motivated by enmity. Advice from opponents can sometimes be the most valuable kind, telling you things your friends won't mention. I ended up with a positive relationship with you, as a result of subsequent offline discussions. It brought out a problem with Jehochman, that had been festering for the better part of a year, and that, too, was resolved very satisfactorily by following WP:DR, with great care and attention to the first stages, which are often neglected. (The subsequent JzG flap cemented that relationship even further, as it motivated Jehochman, apparently, to suggest that we meet face-to-face; but it was already quite good before that.) The importance of early recusal was emphasized to me by the fact that the blocking admin immediately recused, which totally took the block -- which didn't disappear because she recused, recusal has to do with further action -- out of the realm of conflict with her and into a direct negotiation with the community. When I was blocked, I wrote "you don't known how happy you have made me," which, I'm sure, confused some. I must admit I do enjoy a certain level of confusion, that kind, the kind that is really closer to humor, it's doing the opposite of what is expected. I had been writing that "if you haven't been blocked, you aren't trying hard enough to improve the project." Which, of course, isn't necessarily a literal truth, but serious work on the project will almost always run into opposition, and we have to learn how to negotiate with opposition. Learning to run an obstacle course requires learning to walk first, and learning to walk always involves falling down! We will make mistakes, and the beauty of a wiki and the Wikipedia traditions is that all mistakes can be fixed. Well, almost all. I suspect that there have been a few suicides resulting from administrative actions with an editor on the edge. (I know directly of one case that could still result in suicide; it's hard to tell, though, how much the abuse which this editor encountered here made the situation worse, but I'm sure it didn't make it better.) It's hard to fix that. If we fully realize the policies and the very deep thinking behind them, this wouldn't be likely to happen, admins blocking a user would do it in a way that helps integrate an editor into the community, if the editor actually has an intention to help. (The damage is done when an editor trying to help is shut out, and abusively.) And we should assume that good faith, and assume that what is needed is guidance. I'm a parent, seven times over, and that assumption of good faith doesn't negate being firm. No, you can't edit Wikipedia until this is worked out. Indeed, "No, you can't edit Cold fusion and Cold fusion Talk until this is worked out." Our structure gives WMC the right to take that action, but he's responsible for how he does it, and he blew it. He hasn't give a reason for the ban except for WP:NPOV and WP:IAR, and the IAR part of it would have worked if he'd been responsive and had focused on the problem situation and how to fix it without going beyond limits, such a path was made abundantly clear to him. Instead, he's acting to exclude discussion based on his POV. That's not going to stand, but I'm still banned, and no admin should wheel-war with him without a community discussion, and I've avoided that for the time being, because, guaranteed, with the aligned forces, it would be much heat and little light, unless very widely escalated, and, please, if you are my friend, don't do that. I'm banned from the article I've been preparing to work on for five months, just when I start being effective with edits, and am reducing Talk. But Wikipedia -- and the article -- will survive, damage is short-term. This is not an emergency, except that if someone doesn't advise WMC soon, effectively, I doubt that it will be a week before it's too late. --Abd (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think there were severe misunderstandings on all sides last August, and the discussions were quite confusing. My then minmal experience of conflict had all been resolved in a series of short paragraphs, and the...larger quantities that you wrote were somewhat daunting and bizarrely we were both suggesting the same thing (getting a third eye on it) but somehow both kind of misinterpreted each other to respectively be suggesting inaction or leaps to arbitration! In the cold light of day, the whole thing was a little strange, but it good that so much good has come out of it.

I would like to think that I've matured a little bit into my functionary role here (although my lack of block log entries suggests I'm not trying hard enough!) and that I understand the concept of involvement - all through the JzG saga I understood, but I wanted the nuances accentuated to prevent abuse of a less focussed ruling. I think that, in the main, our articlespace is what we should mean by defending Wikipedia - to be banned from other namespaces (including article talk) should result only from a level of disruption that is affecting the workings of our (hopefully minimal) bureaucracy and thus indirectly affecting our articles. I am not sure this happened on the Cold Fusion talk page, and am a little concerned that input is being surpressed by anybody, regardless of involvement or not. Regardless, I have no more power than anyone to mount an effective challenge to the statement at this time, but I await the outcome with interest and will meantime be conducting my own review of the talkpage history to examine the run up to the topic ban. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be very clear about one thing: WMC has declared a ban, and no administrator can undo that without a community discussion or WMC's consent. (My opinion is that if he recuses at this point, though, the effect would be that the ban is lifted, it's not quite like a block. If the ban is logged, that might be different, some process or notice might be required. Better if he actually lifts the ban, and I've suggested to another editor who might possibly intervene how it might be done that involves no loss of face on WMC's part, that would leave him looking good, and that would foreclose no possibilities if disruption actually appears at Talk:Cold fusion.) I am opposed to a community discussion now, short of RfC or RfAr, and am inclined to think, at the moment, that RfC would be a waste of community time, for the most part. That doesn't mean that I'm "accepting" the ban, but merely that I'm choosing to minimize disruption, sticking to stage two of WP:DR for a little longer, until and unless it becomes clear that it isn't going to work. I actually support the right of an admin to ban instead of block, if WMC believes that I should be banned, he should ban me! However, he should take care that his judgment isn't warped by prior conflict -- or present content conflict -- and he should, just as I should -- act to minimize disruption while protecting the project. He's invoking WP:IAR, and, in fact, I support that. However, IAR applies to all sides, as does NPOV and "Don't be a dick," the other policies or essay that he's cited in support of his decision, giving no specific details. His latest actions with respect to Cold fusion will not stand if challenged. So what's the least disruptive way to resolve this? A word to the wise. --Abd (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If I can be permitted to comment, you should be aware that WMC is very much his own man and is totally unconcerned with "looking good" or "loss of face." I gather that you're unaccustomed to dealing with people like that. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Abd has dealt with enough of us to become accustomed to that. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the outcome is. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. However, note that people who are unconcerned with how they look to others may not make good members of a functioning and cooperative community. It depends. Personally, I DGAF about how I look, most of the time, and, indeed, this can cause problems; the saving grace -- I hope -- is that I do have a firm belief in the power of consensus. What would make you think, SBHB, that I'm not accustomed to such people? What makes you even dream that you have some grasp of my experience with people? Perhaps I should put some history on my User page, there is practically nothing there now, compared to what could be there. --Abd (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

issue

Why did you get rid of this content = http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina&oldid=293520537 Geography is not just physical landforms. This entity had unique population, political and economic characteristics that have nothing to do with modern day croatia. Population Geography does change. Geography is not just landforms like the person was suggesting in the talk page. (LAz17 (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geography_of_the_Former_Republic_of_Serbian_Krajina - the consensus was to redirect, and I was enacting that consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no consensus. What makes you think there was a consensus or even a debate? There were only three people, one me who opposed any action, and two who supported your decision. That is not a vote, and there was no consensus. Change it back until there is a consensus and more input. (LAz17 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)).

Indeed, AfD is not a vote. And you failed to bring up any policy or guideline in support of your argument, so you didn't add much weight to the discussion. There were also too many participants to relist, per guidelines and the consensus seemed to have formed. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus-Malta relations

Since you got so much flack over some of your other closures of these AfDs, I want you to know that as nominator I think you made the correct decision in that there was no consensus. Thanks for being willing to close these and for doing a good job of it. Drawn Some (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

heh - always nice to hear, thanks. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova

I think your close was quite appropriate, but how long do you think it will last before it's overturned? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The internet and its consequent disconnect from the reality of life allows me to be sufficiently delusional that everyone will love my close and there will be no complaints. The real answer to your question is the sum of the time for a DRV to run and the time for someone to complain. But thank you for your note of support - I shall cling to it like a security blanket in the days ahead! :) Fritzpoll (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize my opinion was so treasured.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What's your opinion?

If you have some time at some point (there is no hurry) I would be interested in getting another opinion on a couple of things that have been bothering me. I'm just trying to devine the societal perspectives on a couple of things.

You are familiar enough with the wikipedia user WMC topic banning Abd and Hipocrite. I am not sure if you followed the actions related to JzG banning Jed Rothwell. These are all Cold Fusion related dramas.

I had asked wikipedia user WMC some clarifying questions here. He responded but not necessarily in a complete way (i.e. some points he didn't address). Given our mutual history I don't really want to belabor my points there so I am looking for other points of view.

One of the things that concerns me in both the Jed Rothwell case and now the Abd and Hipocrite case is that in both cases the bans were imposed with little or no community discussion or formal assessment of consensus to justify the bans. I have contended that if these bans are truly bans in the WP:BAN sense of a ban that they should be duly recorded at WP:RESTRICT as such. This seems the normal and sensible thing to do and yet both JzG and now wikipedia user WMC have declined to take that step.

Do you believe that these Administrative actions (and I mean this generally, these two cases are simply examples that I know of) truly do constitute a ban in the WP:BAN sense of such a thing? And if they are why are the Administrators shying away from recording them? Any thoughts?

As I said, no need to hurry with a response, or even to reply at all if you are too busy. I am just reviewing various opinions as a means discerning the proper way to view these issues within the context of Administrator norms and policies. Your input would be welcome.

Thanks,

--GoRight (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will not object if I do not comment on the specifics of this case for now, and revert this into a more hypothetical debate. In a sense, what you're asking is what I believe has been raised over the issues of per-article blocking, which would be a technical means of implementing an article ban of this kind. Does an administrator have the authority to ban a user from an article unilaterally? I believe that administrators have three possible roles on Wikipedia: the first is janitorial - performance of maintenance tasks that they can be trusted with, which require a special toolbox. The second is that of a bouncer - controlling access to the inner workings of the encyclopedia, controlled by a guest list and a set of keys. The third is more akin to an "elder" of some kind - not because admins ar special people (we're not), but because we are ostensibly selected for our understanding of policy and so can act in an advisory capacity, a capacity that precludes an active authority over non-administrators. This third role is most often observed at discussion closures such as AfD, but is also useable in mediativ capacities.

What you notice about these three roles is the appearance of power - editors often find admins to be too remote and powerful, but when you scratch the surface, these roles are not powerful at all. In your question, you are asking me about the role of an admin as a bouncer - someone who prevents access. To the unthinking, the bouncer seems very powerful as he stops them getting into the club, but actually they are only able to act mechanically according to the instructions from their bosses. To drag this back to Wikipedia, an admin's "boss" is the community at large, and the policies and guidelines that have consensus. If the community at large decides that policies and guidelines no longer represent common practice, they can change them, and with them the manner in which admins are meant to perform their tasks, although the interpretation may vary from admin to admin.

All I can say is that in my interpretation of WP:BAN which, per the above, administrator's are afforded the power of unilateral compulsory topic bans only in the areas sanctioned by the Arbitration Committee. The community has delegated no other local banning powers. At best, we might ban and then take the decision to the community for immediate review, although how that could be enforced is unclear.

I'm sorry for the rambling response, but I'm keen to work towards dispelling this notion of "us" and "them" between admins and non-admins. We are all editors - admins are just the designated drivers. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective, and I was asking a general question so this response is completely in line with that. I agree that Administrators have been granted privileges and not powers, as your analogies seem to suggest. And those privileges are granted by the community at large for the most part, so anything a Administrator does is always subject to community review and, if consensus to do so exists, their actions can be overruled, or upheld, as the case may be. I think that this is consistent with what I saw happen with the Arbcom request for clarification JzG put forth regarding the Jed Rothwell "ban" which has now been implemented as an indefinite block by MastCell. The Arbcom basically refused to get involved citing their preference to allow the community to handle the situation using the standard tools at their disposal, which comes back to your view that the community is where the power actually resides. Cheers. --GoRight (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the skinny on the Rothwell ban/block. JzG declared a ban at Talk:Cold fusion, but he'd already blocked Rothwell IP, and another IP he imagined was Rothwell. The account User:JedRothwell, however, had never been warned, and hadn't been used for a long time. When it was pointed out at the RfAr clarification JzG filed to try to get approval for the ban, that the account wasn't blocked, MastCell blocked it. In other words, he blocked an account that wasn't being used for disruption. I would argue that the Rothwell IP wasn't sufficiently disruptive to block, either, but that's complicated; the real situation is that Rothwell was often uncivil in a way that experts often are. However, what he was facing was worse. Eventually, I'd hope to facilitate Rothwell's return here, as a COI editor advising us in Talk. Obviously, we could expect that his advice might be biased, tbut that's generally true of experts. Whether or not this would work would depend on whether or not he could refrain from provocative dismissal of editors he sees as ignorant. Rothwell has never requested unblock, he has major contempt for Wikipedia. He doesn't need Wikipedia. He believes that it is controlled by narrow-minded ... I'd rather not imagine the word he'd use or go back and check the email. He believes that I'm totally wasting my time here and tries to talk me out of participating every chance he gets. On the other hand, he's been very open and cooperative in terms of providing me with sources and information about, for example, copyright status of work he hosts. He knows the field intimately, he's been covering it for almost twenty years. I have not requested that he be unblocked (I consider the ban null and void), because he hasn't requested it. If I decided this was appropriate, I'd ask MastCell to unblock. I don't know what MastCell would do, and, hopefully, he doesn't know either, because the evidence hasn't been presented. --Abd (talk) 00:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your analysis, Fritzpoll. I originally believed that I should honor the ban even while I disagreed with it, and I dislike taking a wikilawyer approach (in spite of what some think). However, I came, by last night, to agree with your position. There is no local banning power, unless a ban is voluntarily accepted in lieu of a block. For various reasons, that ban should probably be proposed by the editor. If an admin considers the editor disruptive, the remedy that exists is a block. The unblock template then efficiently finds a neutral administrator to review the situation. A declared ban leaves the decision with the original administrator; that's fine when the block is voluntarily accepted. However, where an admin with a prior known bias against the work of an editor declares a ban, the editor can appeal and obtain a community decision, but there is no "unban" process for a ban decision corresponding to the simple unblock process.

I attempted to negotiate a compromise with WMC; he was utterly intransigent, as he had been before the ban declaration, when I had questioned his decision to edit Cold fusion while it was under protection. I'm not going to provide diffs here, this isn't a court, it is a discussion of the principles, and I merely raise an immediate example as just that: a proposed example. I dislike extended discussion of abstractions like "policy" without having examples, real or proposed.

Other editors questioned the ban, requesting information about its rationale. Nothing was provided except for a pointer to WP:TRIFECTA. The only behavioral description there is "Don't be a dick." And that essay, on meta, specifically says that being a "dick" isn't sanctioned. The ban was not logged, and probably couldn't have been logged; there is no provision on that page for bans unilaterally declared by an admin; WMC would have been blazing a new trail. That's fine, except the probable basis of his ban, if I speculate from his prior comments about me, would be (1) verbosity, allegedly driving away other editors through "walls of text," and that argument was rejected by ArbComm just the other day, (2) POV-pushing, i.e., attempting to create NPOV violations. That's a general content decision, which can be complex, and is dangerous if place in the hands of a single administrator, especially one who has a strong POV and historically considers editors with a differing POV to be "POV-pushing." In a heavily watched article, on a controversial topic, with COI editors, editors following a general opinion about, say, "fringe science," but without specific knowledge of the subject, sanctioning POV-pushing is putting the cart before the horse, unless the POV-pushing is accomplished through edit warring, incivility, edit warring in Talk, repetitive assertions of POV text without adequate sourcing, etc.

Opinion has been expressed that the ban should be reviewed by another administrator. That's true. However, my position is a more efficient one. If I "violate" a single-admin ban that the admin had no conferred right to declare, the admin must decide whether or not a block is justified. If the admin decides against blocking, for whatever reason, the matter is over, done, without disruption. If I am blocked, an unblock template will solicit a neutral administrator. Then, if an admin unblocks, again, done, very quickly and simply. If an admin declines to unblock, there is then a new admin with whom I could, or others could, negotiate. Again, this might complete very efficiently. My last block generated some heat and little light at AN, but it was quickly resolved, as soon as I requested review, even though the unblock request was denied, and, to mention it again, that incident led to no further disruption because the blocking admin had immediately recused, allowing any other admin to unblock. I had not requested recusal of her, but it converted what could have been a quite contentious debate into something much simpler.

I see no way for the project not to benefit from the position I'm taking, it benefits in any way, proceeding. If I edit Cold fusion or the Talk page -- given the contention there, at this point, I wouldn't make any controversial edits to the article without having found consensus first in Talk; I was actually implementing consensus when the last edit war started, and, fortunately, I didn't do any reverting in that -- and I'm not blocked, I've shown that an editor can defy WMC and survive, I've shown that WMC has no special right to follow and interpret WP:IAR that is not enjoyed by every editor. If he blocks me, this will become a test of a number of important principles: the right to ban editors without their consent, as distinct from blocking them, the familiar theme of administrative recusal and action while involved, and in particular the prohibition against an admin using tools -- or, originally here, threatening to use tools -- when involved in a content dispute, as he was (over which version to revert to; there was one version that had complete consensus from involved editors. He picked on with much lower expressed consent; actually none, but a suggestion by a new editor to the article, proposed not based on content, an eagerly approved by the editor who had brought down protection in the first place, which should have been a clue. That version ratified the goal of that edit warring, to fully exclude content, reliably sourced -- I assert -- from sources that are allegedly "fringe," though independently published by an academic publisher, or peer-reviewed.)

There are other aspects which would come out if I'm blocked. I'm not trolling to be blocked, though, I'm asserting my rights as an editor, rights every editor should enjoy. You could call it civil disobedience, except that WMC isn't constituted authority. He has the privilege of using buttons to protect the community from prohibited behavior, and even to newly interpret the situation or policy for the overall benefit of the project -- i.e., there is some substance to his IAR argument -- but IAR, when there is dispute with the administrator, only justifies emergency action, pending review, and I've argued, in discussion on recusal, that any administrator so acting should immediately seek review, recusing from further action except, again, in an emergency. I'm prepared to defend all this before ArbComm, if needed, but my hope is that sanity will prevail and there will be no disruption around this.

Had I gone to a noticeboard on this, given, say, the debate at MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, when I made a simple request for whitelisting and the debate became a free-for-all, with a set of editors who clearly have an agenda with respect to all this showing up to argue tenaciously against what was eventually decided (which is distinct from pointing out a problem with one of the suggested links), I know what would have happened. At Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3, roughly two thirds of editors expressing positions supported a general position that JzG had done nothing wrong, and many of these believed that I should be banned. There is a faction that generally supports a certain general view on "fringe science," and I discovered this faction by analyzing WP:TAGTEAM operation, and it shows up. I could expect the majority view at a noticeboard could very well be that I should be banned, on principle. However, ArbComm rejected arguments that I was disruptive and that I should be banned, there ended up being no support for that. I was encouraged to hone my process, and to not engage in fruitless disputes, but escalate as needed. I'm discussing this at length here, where no decision will be made, this is for exploration and analysis; but if this is escalated, at this point, it won't be about the ban, it will probably be over the entire problem of the faction I mentioned, which could be quite a messy case, not resolved nearly as easily as the "Abd and JzG" arbitration, where I'd attempted to keep the focus very narrow, and where the only other issue that was really addressed was the use of the blacklist, where ArbComm fully supported my position.

Some are claiming that ArbComm rejected my goal there. That's based on a misunderstanding of my goal. My goal from the beginning was to confirm recusal policy and apply it. That succeeded completely with the ruling. I did suggest that ArbComm should, in the absence of assurances from JzG that he would respect the policy, desysop, pending such assurances; JzG had gone incommunicado; I believe that, in any case of recusal failure, this option should be on the table. ArbComm declined to accept that proposal, and, overall, given conditions which aren't all public, that decision was reasonable. The purpose had been accomplished. JzG was never my _target or desysopping him my goal, my goal was to confirm recusal policy. Maybe I'll get to do that again, but I doubt it. --Abd (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of P.R.Harikumar at AfD

Hi, you have recently deleted an article P.R.Harikumar based on the consensus at AfD. I think the article you have deleted was a redirect to the article P. R. Harikumar which was the _target article intended to get deleted at AfD. The mistake would have happened because while the AfD was in progress I have moved the article P.R.Harikumar to P. R. Harikumar per naming convention. I am sorry that I failed to notify this in the AfD. Salih (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me - I have now deleted the article. If you would like a userfied copy to work on in your userspace, please let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 09:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need any copy of the deleted article. Thanks. Salih (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Closure of the Poppler AfD

I disagree with your closure of the Poppler (software) AFD. There seems to be no consensus to redirect to xpdf. Only a single editor called for that. Further, User:Gnepets began to clean the article up today. He added at least one third-party source re. poppler. The closure seems premature to me. Can you please revert this redirect and relist discussion so that we can discuss Gnepets's constructive changes? --Karnesky (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Please revert that decision.--Oneiros (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote - you two argued for outright retention, on the basis that it's just notable software without saying why, or providing sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Your arguments consequently carried little weight. One of the others indicated that redirection was acceptable, another argued persuasively outright for a redirec, and there was an argument for deletion. In all three cases, persuasive arguments were made that this should not be a standalone article on Wikipedia, and the need to preserve information sometimes affords me the leeway to use a deletion argument to favour redirection instead. If you wish to work on the article in userspace, you can get a copy from the article's history, edit it, and I will review it before merging the histories. Incidentally, our guideline for relisting does not afford me the leeway that you request. Sorry to disappoint you - if I can answer any more queries, please let me know. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody said that AfD was a vote or that closure should have been a keep due to the mere number of comments supporting that resolution. AfD is about consensus building & there is not consensus for that article to be redirected.

By "one of the others indicated that redirection was acceptable," you are probably referring to my initial comment (in which I call it non-ideal): that is the only other mention of a redirect in a (slightly) positive light in that conversation. I am troubled for two reasons:

1. If you didn't realize that I made the comment (as suggested because you claim I argued for "outright retention" & that some "other" person said that redirection was acceptable), it may indicate the lack of a careful understanding of the discussion on that page.
2. The single line comment encouraging a redirect does not seem anymore compelling than other arguments (let alone a sign that a consensus had been established). It claimed that the content was not able to be sourced. As above, this is obviously false: sources were added to the article. These sources make arguments to keep the article credible; nobody on that page questioned that the new sources meet WP:N and WP:V.

Please alleviate these two concerns.

I see nothing in WP:RELIST that would bar you from relisting this. Please let me know what I am missing. If you can't relist, I think there are indications that a "no consensus" closure would be preferable (as there was nobody who concurred with redirection).

The deletion review policy implies that you have leeway in overturning your decision (and there is precedence to do this). Between the lack of consensus in the AfD & the substantive changes made to the article the day you redirected it, I believe that it is called for. --Karnesky (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I admit that I muddled your name with that of the chap at the bottom - that's my imperfect memory for you! WP:RELIST says I'm only to relist if there are only one or two commentators or if there are no arguments grounded in policy - neither of those applied here. The keep arguments in the discussion are not compelling. Allow me to summarise:

1. "used by a lot of software; poppler is increasingly used instead" - to which policy or guideline does this refer? The issue was the notability of the software. That means independent coverage of the software in reliable sources that give it more than a passing reference. This argument does not address this issue.
2. Yours: "This is a backend to multiple notable products & is a fork of another notable product that has become more popular and better supported." - great, but whilst notability is not inherited from a parent, it isn't inherited from the notable spinoffs either. "Stifle's claim that this lacks sources is legitimate" - at least at this stage, you agree with the deletion side of the discussion. The rest of your argument essentially informs the discussion that the available research indicates only passing coverage. I ignored the bold !vote, and read the substance of what you wrote.
3. Bazzargh tells us that mentions in the sources are "incidental" - i.e. doesn't meet WP:N
4. You comment "This is really the opposite of WP:INHERIT." - no it isn't, read the third paragraph of the section you linked to
5. "I don't think we need exclusive coverage of a subject in order to keep any article" - then you need to establish a consensus for that, because those aren't our existing policies and guidelines. "But they seem reasonable enough in the context of other software libraries we have chosen to accept in WP" - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

What this boild down to is that, in accordance with the deletion guidelines for administrators, I evaluated the discussion on the strength of the arguments, and the deletion/redirection contention that the software lacked individual notability was not adequately contested. Accordingly, I closed the discussion to redirect per my additional imperative from policy to preserve content where possible. If you have further questions or points to make, please feel free. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 14:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond. If I might reply to each of your points:

1. I mostly agree with you on this. As I pointed out, WP:N allows "published peer recognition" & one could charitably consider that use and documentation of the library by a half dozen notable pdf viewers to be "peer recognition." But this is weak in comparison to the sources added to the article.

2-3. At the time of my initial comment and Bazzargh's comment, there were multiple sources suggested in searches that had less-than-exclusive coverage. I'd say some were at least borderline (and that some foreign language ones were unarguably "significant"), but I agree with Bazzargh that many were trivial. After Bazzargh and I made these comments, Oneiros added a citation that was independent and covered poppler exclusively. Neither Bazzargh nor I had a chance to respond to this source prior to closure.

4. I should have said that it was the opposite of Korath's analogy. Again, since we have a source & WP:INHERIT does nothing to encourage a redirect or deletion, it isn't worth quibbling about this.

5. Here you are wrong, and I think that it is critically important that you realize this. I am correct when I say we don't need exclusive coverage, and I chose my words based on WP:N: "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." At the time, I was arguing that some of the sources in the search results could be considered significant. This comment was also made before I saw an article with exclusive coverage.

In short: the AfD failed to have anything but a cursory mention of the source that Oneiros added or the cleanup work that Gnepets began (presumably because both occurred late in the AfD process). Your comments to date have focused only on the comments in AfD and have not addressed these changes either.

These changes (particularly Oneiros's source) would have been the most relevant points for deletion discussion (as I think you'd agree, given your repeated mention of a "failure" to provide sources).

Because I believe you must have honestly overlooked the constructive changes made to the article, I hope that you can take these changes into consideration now. If you are unable to do this, a deletion review will be warranted to at least acknowledge the merit (or lack there of) of the changes and to clarify consensus. --Karnesky (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm only meant to look at the discussion - looking at the article might bias my close. Given that no substantial mention was made of additions in the AfD, can you tell me what they were? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova(second)

I wanted to throw a couple lines in the Transporter 3 article that Natalya Rudakova was redirected to (more than likely under the Cast section). Is there an archive or history available to pull from? I don't know where to look and was hoping to pull a little bit of info and sources from any preserved text.Cptnono (talk) 05:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. In general, for a redirected article, underneath the name of the page it redirects to you'll see a link that says "Redirected from some page" - clicking on that link takes you to the page you were redirected from and lets you access the usual tabs, including the "history" tab, where you can reach all the revisions. For your convenience, click here to get to Natasha's page history. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for pointing me in the right direction!Cptnono (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Soft delete of CSD

I'm actually neutral on your proposal. You asked for feedback, you are getting it. Gigs (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know - it just seemed that you hadn't read it through, or had missed the crucial part of it. All feedback is good, and I'm sorry if I am appearing to be thinking otherwise :) Fritzpoll (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Scott Campbell (blogger)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scott Campbell (blogger). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Scott (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Natalya Rudakova(third)

You should not have redirected that article. You may not agree with the outcome, and it may not be a "vote", but the overwhelming consensus from four attempts to delete the article have been to keep it. Only one or two people recommended a redirect, including the person who tried to delete it every time. You may not agree with the consensus, but Wikipedia works by consensus. Please do not redirect the article against consensus. Jayhawk of Justice (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As a note, the above user has now been blocked indefinitely for this gross personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Daedulus - looked pretty severe. I have explained the determination of consensus many times, and I wish people would check to see if issues had been raised before! Fritzpoll (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damon Vickers

Hi. You recently deleted the article Damon Vickers. Although the article was in the words of one person at AfD "vanispamisement," I think that the subject was unquestionably notable. Thus, I was wondering if you would be so kind as to userify the article for me so that I might source it properly and do my best on the NPOV problems. Thanks! Cool3 (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It may well not have come out in the discussion - I have userfied to User:Cool3/Damon Vickers. You'll notice a {{NOINDEX}} tag at the top - that's to keep this deleted BLP out of Google. Please don't remove this until the article is returned to article space - give me a shout when it's updated, and I'll lend a hand moving it back. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've done my best at pruning back the NPOV and spamminess of the article to what I can clearly verify against reliable sources. Would you please be so kind as to take a look? Cool3 (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What is consensus on Wikipedia?

You wrote: The result was no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC) [edit] Justus Weiner

The result was six votes to delete and three to keep plus one weak keep. That is nearly two thirds in favor of deletion. What is consensus on Wikipedia?

Thanks.

Skywriter (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote, and nor is consensus. Consensus on Wikipedia is about examining the arguments made in a discussion - in the case of a local discussion (like AfD where only a few people comment) the arguments can't override our guidelines and policies which represent a consensus established by a larger section of the community. For example, it would not be sufficient for someone to answer a claim that something is not notable by saying "Keep - you don't need sources to prove notability" - because this argument is in contention with our guidelines.

In the case of Justus Weiner, the people suggesting deletion just said "no notability" or similar, whilst those suggesting keeping the article pointed to the fact that he was notable beyond a single event. This latter argument was not debated, so the discussion was split between people saying "not notable" without a reason, and those demonstrating the potential for notability. Consequently there was no consensus. I hope this helps! Fritzpoll (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Fritzpoll's Day!

User:Fritzpoll has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Fritzpoll's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Fritzpoll! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

1. Support. Everyday is Fritzpoll day in my world. Hope you are doing well Mr. Fritz, maintaining at least some semblence of sanity I presume...Keeper | 76 01:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

How delightful and unexpected - thank you Rlevse! (and Keeper for his usual high level of support :) Hope you'll be back amongst us more regularly soon ) Fritzpoll (talk) 09:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Al Hilali? Thanks Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Macedonia referee appointment

Congrats, you've been approved by the arbitration committee as one of the uninvolved admins to help settle Macedonia naming issues. The centralized discussion is at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Macedonia. The arbitration case final decision is at WP:ARBMAC2. See especially this remedy. Admins User:Shell Kinney and User:J.delanoy form the triumvirate with you. Thank you for your assistance. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Re self-reverted ban violations.

[1]

Fritzpoll, I don't know if you are familiar with the history of ScienceApologists's spelling corrections to articles covered by his topic ban. The community, in that case, quite clearly considered that harmless edits, non-controversial, did not violate his ban, and multiple attempts were made at Arbitration Enforcement, by an editor probably cooperating with ScienceApologist, trying to make a point, to complain about spelling corrections. Nobody wanted to hear it. I later raised the issue of such edits complicating ban enforcement, and that's where self-reversion was suggested and discussed. I cleared it with an arbitrator before suggesting it to ScienceApologist, self-reverted edits that would violate many different policies are considered to not actually do so.

Thus "no edit" overstates the actual situation. As is typical on Wikipedia, there are exceptions to every rule. I have seen and tested -- inadvertently -- a situation where promptly reverting the edit of a banned user violated policy, for example.

Your closing implies there is a policy on this. I don't see it, nothing explicit. I'm going to try to make it explicit, so that there is no confusion over this: the reality is that policy doesn't cover the situation, as far as I can see, and, while it seemed that the community was united on this in actual practice, in the ScienceApologist case, it may depend on whose ox is being gored. I was blocked for doing much less than what he did with impunity. (His spelling corrections were harmless, but he was clearly, by a pattern of such edits, and by other disruption as well as declared intention, seeking to complicate ban enforcement, that's why self-reversion was suggested then, because it bypasses the enforcement problem as any kind of emergency. I've pointed out in one discussion that if a banned editor actually does this -- even a site-banned editor -- it can turn enforcement into productive edits, as someone reviewing the edits of a banned user sees these self-reverted edits, decides to look at them (not obligatory!) and sees a spelling correction to put in with a single undo.

I.e., site banned and blocked editor comes in as IP and makes a spelling correction, and states, with the edit, "will revert per site ban." Then, reverts with edit summary, "Reverting per ban of IveBeenNaughty."

Is this a ban violation that would lead to a lengthening of the ban? Is this block evasion? I would claim, no, not unless the edit itself was disruptive beyond being a technical evasion. In substance, it cooperates with the ban, and seeks to help with the project even while banned.

Most blocked and banned editors won't do this, to be sure, but this would allow that subclass of editors who really do want to help the project do so, and show cooperation.

We should nail this down to avoid contentious discussions in the future. Isolated harmless edits, not controversial in themselves, don't violate policy no matter how stringently we have banned the editor. And a self-reverted edit is doubly safe, and establishes a possibility of cooperation. That's what happened with editor User:PJHaseldine, who was banned from an article. He made quite a substantial edit, which he then self-reverted per my suggestion. A discussion ensued where most of his edit, I believe, was accepted. It was quite efficient, and has, I'm sure, improved communication there. I think he's continued to use this technique without a problem. --Abd (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's quite curious somebody "inadvertantly" tested this "loophole", yet seems to know the comparable SA situation inside out. The incredibly uncontentious answer would be that, given it's a topic ban not a full ban, show love for improving the wiki by editting elsewhere. As for PJH, if Abd is intimating he's advised PJH to use this loophole technique, I'd be concerned it's become yet another crusade. Minkythecat (talk) 18:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Minky, I know the SA situation inside out, because I was inside. This technique to allow banned editors to suggest edits -- that's what it amounts to -- was cleared with an arbitrator before being suggested to SA, originally. I suggested the technique to PJH, as a way to help him accept the ban, and it worked, and there has been no disruption, and there has been cooperation between him and other editors. It's not a "loophole," for it respects fully the purposes of a ban. I wasn't "testing" the loophole, because I believed there would be no objection. I'd discussed this extensively, and had encountered, until this "test," no opposition, except from one or two SA supporters who thought that the self-reversion was preposterous, that harmless edits should simply be allowed without the self-reversion, and that the self-reversion suggestion was "insulting."

The only argument presented against unreverted "spelling corrections" was that it can complicate ban enforcement, as an admin must review edit content to determine it isn't a problem. With a self-reverted edit noting the ban, compliance with the ban is obvious, no problem is left behind, and an attempt to game this would properly lead to an immediate block, but no offending text has been created by a self-reverted edit, so it's not an emergency, and we can simply rely upon complaint to any admin. Self-reverted edits can generally be ignored. Complaints will not ordinarily arise for spelling corrections, unless the complainant has an axe to grind, which should probably receive attention all on its own. We should not harass editors for making uncontroversial improvements to articles, no matter what their history; we only ban for disruptive behavior, and the purpose of the ban isn't to prevent editing, per se, but to prevent disruption from contentious or otherwise offensive editing. --Abd (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, the purpose of the ban is to prevent editting of a specific area where an editor has caused problems. Any attempt to say, "well, but it really wasn't an edit" is garbage. You could easily have commented on someone's talk page raising the issue - which in itself is interesting given the problem in particular had been raised prior to your "helpful" edits. Which means there was zero requirement for your involvement, especially when under a ban. The handy fact you fail to grasp is that the community has determined you have been part of problems on a specific page and should not edit there. Rather than take that salient fact on board and help this site by improving some of the many articles that need help, you instead waste people's time wiki lawyering on the minutest of minute details. Sadly, it will only ever end up with one outcome, and then you can play the martyr on your latest crusade. Minkythecat (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) Some other misconceptions of Minky's. It's not a topic ban, it's a page ban, and I've been actively encouraged to participate in a mediation over specific issues at the article, so I have occasion to review the article frequently. Since I came across the situation with Cold fusion five months ago, where my concern was originally administrative recusal failure, a concern which was validated by other editors, and which was ultimately upheld by ArbComm, I realized I was in a position, because of my background in nuclear physics and chemistry as an undergraduate, to understand the issues at the article. It's an enormously complex subject, where appearances can be deceiving, Cold fusion has been called the biggest scientific controversy of the twentieth century, and it's not over. I spent five months reading the sources, bought books on it, spending way too much for my financial situation. I discussed it extensively on the Talk page, but made only brief forays into actual article editing until a few weeks ago. By then, though, I'd probably become the most informed Wikipedia editor that wasn't -- until now -- banned from the article. My opinions on Cold fusion reversed as I did the research, it's a case where common perceptions, even among "scientists," are generally incorrect and are not supported by the peer-reviewed literature. By about five years ago, there was sufficient evidence that the "fringe science" status of cold fusion was no longer applicable, it was clearly being treated with respect -- among those who became informed, such as the experts convened by the U.S. Department of Energy in 2004 -- as an emerging field, with still great controversy remaining. That process has only continued since then, there has been no reversal toward rejection, until, since the 2004 review and increasing, there have been major journal publications that treat cold fusion as real, that present very strong evidence for nuclear reactions at low temperatures or, in a publication this month in Naturwissenschaften, a theory to account for it. By the way, it's not "fusion" as was traditionally understood, apparently. That was a red herring that led the whole scientific community astray for years, and our article still represents that misunderstanding, though there is now plenty of reliable source to the contrary. When I actually started editing the article, providing reliable sources, I ran straight into edit warring and determined opposition, amplified by long-standing opposition to my general work. That's why I was banned, as I plan to show, and that's why I was blocked for an offense that for other editors would have been passed over as inconsequential. Fritzpoll, this is your Talk page and I've seen that you encouraged discussion here, but I apologize if this is disruptive. I didn't want Minky's accusations to pass unanswered. There is already way too much misinformation about this incident floating around. --Abd (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)