Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted here for community review. The purpose of an administrative review discussion is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct, to seek retribution or removal of an editor's advanced permissions, or to quibble about technicalities.
To request an administrative action review, please first read the " Purpose" section to make sure that it is in scope. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Administrative action review may be used to request review of:
Administrative action review should not be used:
Instructions
Initiating a review
Participating in a discussion
Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Contributions that are off-topic may be removed by any uninvolved administrator. You may choose to lead your comment with a bold and bulleted endorse or not endorsed/overturn, though any helpful comment is welcome. Please add new comments at the bottom of the discussion.
Closing a review
Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator after there has been sufficient discussion and either a consensus has been reached, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. Do not rush to close a review: while there is no fixed minimum time, it is expected that most good faith requests for review will remain open for at least a few days.
The closer should summarize the consensus reached in the discussion and clearly state whether the action is endorsed, not endorsed, or if there is no consensus.
After a review
Any follow-up outcomes of a review are deferred to existing processes. Individual actions can be reversed by any editor with sufficient permissions. Permissions granted at
WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator.
Closed reviews will be automatically archived after a period of time. Do not archive reviews that have not been formally closed.
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m opening this XRV on behalf of a senior editor who has lost their editing privileges. Those familiar with the situation will know that I’m not a fan of the AE process that led to the editor’s siteban by boomerang, nor of the subsequent appeal rejection. However, this XRV is not about relitigating the AE case but about the recent decision by Doug Weller (reaffirmed by Yamla in UTRS #86485) to indefinitely revoke the editor’s talk page access.
The reason for the TPA revoke (effectively a permaban) was given as: it makes little sense for an indefinitely blocked editor to be discussing anything with other editors...
[2] Doug has also shared his views on this matter at
Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Proxying_while_blocked. However, the consensus in that discussion leaned toward a less codified, more relaxed stance, as exemplified by
Bishonen’s comment.
EXHIBIT A: Sennalen's Talk since her December 2023 siteban
REMEDY REQ.: Restoration of TPA privileges
Respectfully submitted, XMcan ( talk) 00:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The only things a blocked editor is permitted to use their talk page for is appealing or seeking clarification regarding their block.That is not actually written anywhere in policy. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring. Did they do any of that? ——Serial Number 54129 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
the only things a blocked editor is permitted to use their talk page for are appealing or seeking clarification regarding their block.
social capital, a highly relevant consideration may be, based on their track record, what is the likelihood that this editor would ever make clearly and uncontroversially positive contributions to enwiki? I think the most relevant metaphor here to decide Talk page access might be a sliding scale, that takes context and anticipated future impacts into account.
Sennalen has given the name of their previous account to me by email, and I can confirm that it is not subject to any blocks, bans, or sanctions. They have also provided the reason they want to keep the previous account secret, and it is a legitimate privacy issue not related to their editing.[3] Bradv didn't go into numbers of edits. Whether any of that means they should be accorded the privileges of a senior editor is another matter - likewise, whether such privileges do or should exist. NebY ( talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Sennalen is indefinitely blocked, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive330#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen:
Appeal declined, then User talk:Sennalen#The meaning of fringe, addressing one of the uninvolved administrators who had rejected that appeal. NebY ( talk) 21:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suspect that the Merchant of Venice article is subject to a chronic case of Groupthink:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome ... The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup").
As discussed at length on the article's talk page, I have made changes to the article which are not only factual (direct quotes from the text, principally) but informative and educational. That is the whole purpose of an encyclopedia, and the repeated removal of that material is the definition of vandalism. Furthermore, arbitrarily withholding information from readers is censorship and arguably propaganda. My material should not be removed from the article simply because other editors have an irrational/prejudicial dislike of it, or an irrational/prejudicial ideology of what information should appear in the article. AlexAndrews ( talk) 06:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
arbitrarily withholding information from readers is censorship and arguably propaganda.You need to learn the definitions of censorship and propaganda. Removing lengthy plot and copyright violations is not vandalism, censorship, propaganda or whatever you're trying to make it. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
vandalismaccompanied by other severe charges like
arbitrarily withholding information from readersand
censorshipand
arguably propaganda, then one would expect that the editor (namely you) would provide convincing evidence simultaneously or immediately thereafter. You have provided zero evidence. This is (or ought to be) a routine content dispute. Your outlandish, evidence free accusations reflect far more poorly on you than they do on Valereee, who has done nothing to be treated this way. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Just for complete transparency, I did
restore to a previous stable version and semi the page for 2 days. I'm trying to discuss with this editor at my talk.
Valereee (
talk) 10:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I have been accused of making serious accusations without providing evidence - yet you have closed this discussion before I was asked to provide such evidence, so the term "kangaroo court" springs to mind.
If you wish for me to provide evidence then reopen the discussion and I shall do so. DON'T accuse me of not doing something I have not been given the opportunity to do.
AlexAndrews — Preceding
undated comment added 18:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Firefangledfeathers gave me a temp ban for alleged "personal attacks" without any evidence.
The admin later elaborated on the supposed grounds for the ban:
You repeatedly called the good-faith contributions of other editors "vandalism"
However, the supposed "good-faith contributions of other editors" were not good faith: they were bad faith. They were the bad-faith removal of encyclopedic content based on false reasons, as I subsequently detailed:
The first reason @Gråbergs Gråa Sång gave for removing the content was that I hadn't provided reliable sources for it:
Unless there are WP:RS that states "Hey, this thing in this piece of fiction is incorrect!" or "Hey, this bit is inconsistent!" it doesn't go anywhere on this website
But that reason was false because WP:RS only applies to contentious material, which he eventually conceded the material I had added wasn't.
The second reason @KJP1 gave was that no "expert" source had bothered to mention the facts that I had added to the article:The point, for me, is not really whether the inconsistencies are “facts” or not, it is that no RS appear to have thought they warranted mentioning. As they haven’t, I really can’t see that the section is appropriate.
KJP1 has drawn his own conclusion from the absence of the facts having been mentioned in RS - which is therefore original research on KJP1's part. But you can't base article content on original research, so again another false reason.
So there has been no genuine reason for the removal of the encyclopedic content that I added, just false reasons. So the removal was based on falsehoods - ie malicious.
It was therefore vandalism, as I said.
In short, the contributions were not "good-faith" as you stated.
The justifications given by a very small number of editors for the removal of encyclopedic content from the article were false reasons, aka sophistry: "the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving" - Google.
And the axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
So @ Firefangledfeathers wrongfully gave me a temp ban for calling into question bad-faith contributions - by his misrepresenting them as "good-faith". AlexAndrews ( talk) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
wrongfuland
false, you are expected to provide convincing evidence. Accusing other editors of
vandalismis a very grave matter that must be accompanied by highly convincing evidence that the editor in question has deliberately and consciously set out to damage the encyclopedia. You have failed to do so. Evidence free accusations like this are personal attacks which are simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Formal review processes |
---|
|
For RfCs, community discussions, and to review closes of other reviews: |
Administrators' noticeboard |
In bot-related matters: |
|
Discussion about closes prior to closing: |
Administrative action review (XRV/AARV) determines whether use of the administrator tools or other advanced permissions is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Any action (or set of related actions) involving a tool not available to all confirmed editors—except those covered by another, more specific review process—may be submitted here for community review. The purpose of an administrative review discussion is to reach a consensus on whether a specific action was appropriate, not to assign blame. It is not the place to request comment on an editor's general conduct, to seek retribution or removal of an editor's advanced permissions, or to quibble about technicalities.
To request an administrative action review, please first read the " Purpose" section to make sure that it is in scope. Then, follow the instructions below.
Purpose
Administrative action review may be used to request review of:
Administrative action review should not be used:
Instructions
Initiating a review
Participating in a discussion
Any editor in good standing may request a review or participate in discussing an action being reviewed. Participation is voluntary. The goal of the discussion is to determine whether the action is consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Contributions that are off-topic may be removed by any uninvolved administrator. You may choose to lead your comment with a bold and bulleted endorse or not endorsed/overturn, though any helpful comment is welcome. Please add new comments at the bottom of the discussion.
Closing a review
Reviews can be closed by any uninvolved administrator after there has been sufficient discussion and either a consensus has been reached, or it is clear that no consensus will be reached. Do not rush to close a review: while there is no fixed minimum time, it is expected that most good faith requests for review will remain open for at least a few days.
The closer should summarize the consensus reached in the discussion and clearly state whether the action is endorsed, not endorsed, or if there is no consensus.
After a review
Any follow-up outcomes of a review are deferred to existing processes. Individual actions can be reversed by any editor with sufficient permissions. Permissions granted at
WP:PERM may be revoked by an administrator.
Closed reviews will be automatically archived after a period of time. Do not archive reviews that have not been formally closed.
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I’m opening this XRV on behalf of a senior editor who has lost their editing privileges. Those familiar with the situation will know that I’m not a fan of the AE process that led to the editor’s siteban by boomerang, nor of the subsequent appeal rejection. However, this XRV is not about relitigating the AE case but about the recent decision by Doug Weller (reaffirmed by Yamla in UTRS #86485) to indefinitely revoke the editor’s talk page access.
The reason for the TPA revoke (effectively a permaban) was given as: it makes little sense for an indefinitely blocked editor to be discussing anything with other editors...
[2] Doug has also shared his views on this matter at
Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Proxying_while_blocked. However, the consensus in that discussion leaned toward a less codified, more relaxed stance, as exemplified by
Bishonen’s comment.
EXHIBIT A: Sennalen's Talk since her December 2023 siteban
REMEDY REQ.: Restoration of TPA privileges
Respectfully submitted, XMcan ( talk) 00:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
The only things a blocked editor is permitted to use their talk page for is appealing or seeking clarification regarding their block.That is not actually written anywhere in policy. Pawnkingthree ( talk) 12:01, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring. Did they do any of that? ——Serial Number 54129 13:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
the only things a blocked editor is permitted to use their talk page for are appealing or seeking clarification regarding their block.
social capital, a highly relevant consideration may be, based on their track record, what is the likelihood that this editor would ever make clearly and uncontroversially positive contributions to enwiki? I think the most relevant metaphor here to decide Talk page access might be a sliding scale, that takes context and anticipated future impacts into account.
Sennalen has given the name of their previous account to me by email, and I can confirm that it is not subject to any blocks, bans, or sanctions. They have also provided the reason they want to keep the previous account secret, and it is a legitimate privacy issue not related to their editing.[3] Bradv didn't go into numbers of edits. Whether any of that means they should be accorded the privileges of a senior editor is another matter - likewise, whether such privileges do or should exist. NebY ( talk) 20:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Sennalen is indefinitely blocked, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive330#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen:
Appeal declined, then User talk:Sennalen#The meaning of fringe, addressing one of the uninvolved administrators who had rejected that appeal. NebY ( talk) 21:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I suspect that the Merchant of Venice article is subject to a chronic case of Groupthink:
Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome ... The dysfunctional group dynamics of the "ingroup" produces an "illusion of invulnerability" (an inflated certainty that the right decision has been made). Thus the "ingroup" significantly overrates its own abilities in decision-making and significantly underrates the abilities of its opponents (the "outgroup").
As discussed at length on the article's talk page, I have made changes to the article which are not only factual (direct quotes from the text, principally) but informative and educational. That is the whole purpose of an encyclopedia, and the repeated removal of that material is the definition of vandalism. Furthermore, arbitrarily withholding information from readers is censorship and arguably propaganda. My material should not be removed from the article simply because other editors have an irrational/prejudicial dislike of it, or an irrational/prejudicial ideology of what information should appear in the article. AlexAndrews ( talk) 06:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
arbitrarily withholding information from readers is censorship and arguably propaganda.You need to learn the definitions of censorship and propaganda. Removing lengthy plot and copyright violations is not vandalism, censorship, propaganda or whatever you're trying to make it. LilianaUwU ( talk / contributions) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
vandalismaccompanied by other severe charges like
arbitrarily withholding information from readersand
censorshipand
arguably propaganda, then one would expect that the editor (namely you) would provide convincing evidence simultaneously or immediately thereafter. You have provided zero evidence. This is (or ought to be) a routine content dispute. Your outlandish, evidence free accusations reflect far more poorly on you than they do on Valereee, who has done nothing to be treated this way. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Just for complete transparency, I did
restore to a previous stable version and semi the page for 2 days. I'm trying to discuss with this editor at my talk.
Valereee (
talk) 10:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I have been accused of making serious accusations without providing evidence - yet you have closed this discussion before I was asked to provide such evidence, so the term "kangaroo court" springs to mind.
If you wish for me to provide evidence then reopen the discussion and I shall do so. DON'T accuse me of not doing something I have not been given the opportunity to do.
AlexAndrews — Preceding
undated comment added 18:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@
Firefangledfeathers gave me a temp ban for alleged "personal attacks" without any evidence.
The admin later elaborated on the supposed grounds for the ban:
You repeatedly called the good-faith contributions of other editors "vandalism"
However, the supposed "good-faith contributions of other editors" were not good faith: they were bad faith. They were the bad-faith removal of encyclopedic content based on false reasons, as I subsequently detailed:
The first reason @Gråbergs Gråa Sång gave for removing the content was that I hadn't provided reliable sources for it:
Unless there are WP:RS that states "Hey, this thing in this piece of fiction is incorrect!" or "Hey, this bit is inconsistent!" it doesn't go anywhere on this website
But that reason was false because WP:RS only applies to contentious material, which he eventually conceded the material I had added wasn't.
The second reason @KJP1 gave was that no "expert" source had bothered to mention the facts that I had added to the article:The point, for me, is not really whether the inconsistencies are “facts” or not, it is that no RS appear to have thought they warranted mentioning. As they haven’t, I really can’t see that the section is appropriate.
KJP1 has drawn his own conclusion from the absence of the facts having been mentioned in RS - which is therefore original research on KJP1's part. But you can't base article content on original research, so again another false reason.
So there has been no genuine reason for the removal of the encyclopedic content that I added, just false reasons. So the removal was based on falsehoods - ie malicious.
It was therefore vandalism, as I said.
In short, the contributions were not "good-faith" as you stated.
The justifications given by a very small number of editors for the removal of encyclopedic content from the article were false reasons, aka sophistry: "the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving" - Google.
And the axiomatic purpose of Wikipedia is to be a complete source of encyclopedic content:
the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge.
So @ Firefangledfeathers wrongfully gave me a temp ban for calling into question bad-faith contributions - by his misrepresenting them as "good-faith". AlexAndrews ( talk) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
wrongfuland
false, you are expected to provide convincing evidence. Accusing other editors of
vandalismis a very grave matter that must be accompanied by highly convincing evidence that the editor in question has deliberately and consciously set out to damage the encyclopedia. You have failed to do so. Evidence free accusations like this are personal attacks which are simply not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)