 |
Essays Low‑impact  | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
The following is copied from WP:ANI#Specific question. DES (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (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.
What do we think should be done in the case of users restricted from editing in project space (something which is not as unusual as it once was) in the specific case of AfD discussions on articles to which they have significant past contributions? I would say this should be an exception to general project-space bans, provided that involvement on the AfDs does not become disruptive. Line by line rebuttals after every !vote is obviously going to be perceived as a problem but a single !vote with rationale would seem to me to be a reasonable thing to allow in the specific case where the user has significant prior contributions to the article under discussion. I don't want to open the door to Wikilawyering here but I do think we need to be fair to people. The point of topical bans is, as I see it, to allow people to continue to contribute to content but to keep them away from their hot-button topics. I think you could argue this either way and I think we should come to a consensus view of how it should be handled in general. Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, should we just do it here, village pump or an rfc? Unomi ( talk) 10:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You start making exceptions and they argue for me. Suddenly it was in the "spirit" of the rule and not the "letter". No. If they're restricted from editing wikipedia space, they're restricted from editing wikipedia space. If they have some vitally crucial to the debate (in the terms of sources), then it can be edited into the article as necessary and the discussion can carry on from there. I can't say that there is every a reason where a specific person "needs" to participate in an AfD debate. AfD debates usually come up on things like sources and they don't need to edit the debate to provide those sources.-- Crossmr ( talk) 13:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Exceptions need to be noted, so that uninvolved admins requested to act upon an alleged violation know precisely the remit. A working model that an exception to WP namespace pages bans/restrictions would be AfD's/DRV's, GA/FA discussions relating to articles previously edited would be fine, but it would need to be spelt out within the topic ban wording. That way, there is no confusion as to the extent of the ban when the wording is reviewed (and people under total exclusion type bans would not need that reinforced within the wording).
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree and have voiced this opinion previously, but unfortunately, the "specifying the exceptions" part has often been forgotten during sanction proposal discussions (rather than always deliberately left out). I tend to avoid letting that problem exist when I make a proposal precisely so that enforcement is practical, and does not become as much of a headache as the alleged violation(s) that might later occur. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Editors should be able to at least defend articles they created in AfDs, barring they were banned for something like real world harassment, i.e. in which they are permanently blocked anyway. Any unblocked account, under other restrictions or not, should be able to defend articles they created under the normal participation conditions, i.e. if he is not swearing and tossing out severe personal attacks, then okay, but in this case, he made a mere two edits to the discussion which do not strike me as the least bit disruptive. I understand some editors did not like his RfA comments and apparently admin board ones as well. Upon reviewing his Afd contributions, I see nothing overly wrong with them. Even if some accounts don't like when he says "Keep, it exists," so what? We see lame non-arguments ("Delete, it's cruft") all the time in AfDs. We should probably not make a bigger deal out of them then they merit as any reasonable closing admin will hopefully ignore the weak arguments anyway. So, yes, like all of us, no one should be making personal attacks and such, but if he wants to make a mere two edits defending an article he created and therefore might know something about, just let him and if anyone thinks his arguments are weak, ignore them rather than start admin threads that only exacerbate tensions and distract us from improving content. Take care everyone and best wishes! Sincerely, --
A Nobody
My talk 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- No. Per
WP:OWN, having created an article doesn't give an editor any special privileges relating to that article.
Bobby Tables (
talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with
A Nobody on this point. While no one
owns any article, a major contributor, particularly when that editor is also the creator, is particularly likely to have useful information and views worth considering. That is why CSD and AFD taggers are strongly encouraged to notify the original creator, and all the scripted tools for that do so automatically AFAIK. The alleged disruptions by kmweber involved "mass-!voting". If limited to discussions of articles of which he was the creator or q major contributor, he could hardly "mass" comment, and the process would be more transparent. In the absence of a modification of the restriction, I would, in principle, be willing to post on his behalf any comments in any such AfD discussion, whether I agree with them or not.
DES
(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- A major contributor can't argue anything that anyone else can't. There is nothing any individual person can do in an AfD that no one else can do. Most AfDs comes down to a lack of sources and they don't need to edit an AfD to provide those. Kurt's language on his talk page had a tinge of
WP:OWN to it and that isn't remotely a good reason to ignore your sanctions.--
Crossmr (
talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course a major contributor can argue something that someone else can't, especially for marginal articles a major contributor may be the only editor who is familiar with the material or had cause to believe that the existence of the article had merit in the first place. Kurts arguments or behavior on his talk page is immaterial to a general discussion of how these things might be better handled in the future. At the very least a person in such a case should be granted a proxy or other means of informing the discussion.
Unomi (
talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- What? AfD discussions are supposed to be decided on policy. So what is it that they can argue that is going to make a difference. Their opinion that it should be kept shouldn't really influence the outcome unless they've provided evidence to support it that wasn't already in the article. Evidence they could add to the article without editing the AfD. There is nothing preventing them from improving the article or addressing concerns on the article and then posting on the nominators or someone else's page who is involved in the AfD and asking them to reconsider the improved article. If there are questions over a borderline source they would be just as free to defend it on the article's talk page (which is where a borderline source should be discussed first). Otherwise, in what scenario do you envision that someone would be incapable of addressing a deletion reason without being able to access the AfD, which no one else on wikipedia could do?--
Crossmr (
talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I frequently find myself arguing with accounts in AfDs who have no real knowledge or the topic under discussion and nor are they even interested in looking for sources. Rather, they just decide that they
don't like the topic and so vote rather than argue to delete. By contrast, an article creator might actually be familiar with the subject and willing to look for and add sources in order to rescue it, including sources that might not be fully accessible on a standard Google Search. Google Books, for example, only gives snippet views of some books and some editors might not even have access to something like J-Stor. Many subjects are actually discussed in reliable secondary source journal and magazine articles as well as even full length books that are not always accessible online or in the case of something like Google News, one needs a paid subscription to access. I would much rather hear from someone who has a greater likelihood to have these sources or an interest in acquiring them and utilizing them than ignoring such a crucial opinion. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge and what matters more is the opinion and efforts of those who have, look for, and incorporate the sources than merely accounts that just toss out abbreviated links to ever changing guideline and policy pages. And let's be frank, we know many accounts show up in an Afd to never acknowledge or return even if the article has been drastically improved since nomination. We need those improving it to indicate as much in the actual discussion so that key development is not glossed over. I cannot help but ascertain that simply allowing Kurt to have made his two posts and either replied or ignored them in the discussion would have been far more favorable and far more constructive use of everyone's time than making an issue out of something easily ignored at worst. Best, --
A Nobody
My talk 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- If an administrator is closing an article based on votes and not reading the policies and arguments made and checking the article itself than that is matter for deletion review or administrator review. It isn't a reason to allow disruptive users to start trying to make exceptions on their restrictions on the off chance they might have a close of an AfD on their article done by an admin who isn't doing his job properly. If someone has been restricted from editing wikipedia space because of their constant disruption, I don't find their opinion to be all that crucial to begin with. But you're not describing anything that shouldn't first be discussed on the article talk page. If sources are questioned, they should be discussed on the article talk page before being taken to AfD. If there is a question about the sources the party is more than welcome to give much fuller details about the source on the talk page, which is where it should go so future editors can find it if they also question it. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge yes and we're doing it as a community. What matters most is that the people who participate in that process can do so without being disruptive. That is first and foremost. he had choices and chose the most disruptive path before him. Something he was restricted from doing. As durova pointed out he could have contacted someone, as I've pointed out he could have addressed sources on the talk page and asked the nominator to look at that again. If admins are closing debates properly there is zero reason for any restricted user to edit them. They can address whatever concerns there are at the article level. If there is a problem in the process, creating further issues by creating exceptions for some users who are otherwise restricted doesn't solve that problem. It then gets into a battle over what is a "major" contributor. Someone says 50%, someone else says 30%, someone else says just 10%, do we count characters? Visible words on the page? If someone simply makes an edit to a page is he then allowed to go edit the AfD. Would we then see restricted editors simply making a single edit to a page so they can go get involved in the AfD? no. As I said above. Give them inch, they'll take a mile.-- Crossmr ( talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I frequently find myself arguing with accounts in AfDs who have no real knowledge or the topic under discussion and nor are they even interested in looking for sources. Rather, they just decide that they
don't like the topic and so vote rather than argue to delete. By contrast, an article creator might actually be familiar with the subject and willing to look for and add sources in order to rescue it, including sources that might not be fully accessible on a standard Google Search. Google Books, for example, only gives snippet views of some books and some editors might not even have access to something like J-Stor. Many subjects are actually discussed in reliable secondary source journal and magazine articles as well as even full length books that are not always accessible online or in the case of something like Google News, one needs a paid subscription to access. I would much rather hear from someone who has a greater likelihood to have these sources or an interest in acquiring them and utilizing them than ignoring such a crucial opinion. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge and what matters more is the opinion and efforts of those who have, look for, and incorporate the sources than merely accounts that just toss out abbreviated links to ever changing guideline and policy pages. And let's be frank, we know many accounts show up in an Afd to never acknowledge or return even if the article has been drastically improved since nomination. We need those improving it to indicate as much in the actual discussion so that key development is not glossed over. I cannot help but ascertain that simply allowing Kurt to have made his two posts and either replied or ignored them in the discussion would have been far more favorable and far more constructive use of everyone's time than making an issue out of something easily ignored at worst. Best, --
A Nobody
My talk 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- What? AfD discussions are supposed to be decided on policy. So what is it that they can argue that is going to make a difference. Their opinion that it should be kept shouldn't really influence the outcome unless they've provided evidence to support it that wasn't already in the article. Evidence they could add to the article without editing the AfD. There is nothing preventing them from improving the article or addressing concerns on the article and then posting on the nominators or someone else's page who is involved in the AfD and asking them to reconsider the improved article. If there are questions over a borderline source they would be just as free to defend it on the article's talk page (which is where a borderline source should be discussed first). Otherwise, in what scenario do you envision that someone would be incapable of addressing a deletion reason without being able to access the AfD, which no one else on wikipedia could do?--
Crossmr (
talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course a major contributor can argue something that someone else can't, especially for marginal articles a major contributor may be the only editor who is familiar with the material or had cause to believe that the existence of the article had merit in the first place. Kurts arguments or behavior on his talk page is immaterial to a general discussion of how these things might be better handled in the future. At the very least a person in such a case should be granted a proxy or other means of informing the discussion.
Unomi (
talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- A major contributor can't argue anything that anyone else can't. There is nothing any individual person can do in an AfD that no one else can do. Most AfDs comes down to a lack of sources and they don't need to edit an AfD to provide those. Kurt's language on his talk page had a tinge of
WP:OWN to it and that isn't remotely a good reason to ignore your sanctions.--
Crossmr (
talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with
A Nobody on this point. While no one
owns any article, a major contributor, particularly when that editor is also the creator, is particularly likely to have useful information and views worth considering. That is why CSD and AFD taggers are strongly encouraged to notify the original creator, and all the scripted tools for that do so automatically AFAIK. The alleged disruptions by kmweber involved "mass-!voting". If limited to discussions of articles of which he was the creator or q major contributor, he could hardly "mass" comment, and the process would be more transparent. In the absence of a modification of the restriction, I would, in principle, be willing to post on his behalf any comments in any such AfD discussion, whether I agree with them or not.
DES
(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- No. Per
WP:OWN, having created an article doesn't give an editor any special privileges relating to that article.
Bobby Tables (
talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
AfDs come down to polices applied to the specific facts of an article. A creator or major editor can, in many cases, assist in establishing those facts. Such an editor may know better where to find sources than most other editors commenting -- not always, but often enough to take note of. Such an editor may have relevant information on which sources in a particular field are reliable and why. Such an editor may have relevant information about the context of the article that most editors do not. Granted, this info could be presented via a proxy. Granted also, a different editor might have any or all of this information, and might happen to see the AfD and comment. But that might NOT happen either. Yes an editor might be disruptive. In such a case that editor might be blocked (note that in the instant case kmweber was not disruptive, although he was also not persuasive). It is said above that no one editor can do anythign at an afd that anyone else can't. And in a formal sense this is true. But it is common at an AfD for one editor to do something that no one else in fact does. For one editor to present sources or arguments or information that persuade others and turn the result of the discussion. That is why it is a discussion, and that is who it is supposed to work. And it is not by any means inevitable that had one editor not offered those sources or arguments someone else would have. AfDs are limited in time and space. Most AfDs have only a few editors commenting, who are not always really representative of the community as a whole. This is a problem with the AfD system. Restrictions of major contributors to an article will be all to likely to worsen the situation. The possible benefits -- avoidance of some possible disruption -- do not IMO match the possible costs -- possibly valid arguments or views not being considered. DES (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- and again, it all can and should be provided on the article talk page if it the sources are questioned. Both to solve the immediate question and to help future questions. The sources can be edited or clarified on the article just fine without editing the AfD. The user can then ask the nominator via their talk page to recheck them or ask another user to make a note on the AfD. Sorry, but I still fail to see anything which necessitates a restricted user from having their restrictions lifted. If that editor didn't want to be in that position, they shouldn't have been disruptive in the first place. With proper process the admin should be checking the article before deleting it and comparing it to the argument. If the article has been significantly improved to render the argument invalid, he shouldn't be deleting it. If the admin isn't closing properly that is a separate issue from trying to make exceptions for restricted users. And you haven't even begun to address what is considered a "major" contributor. That alone could take months to hammer out and you'd still have wish-washing over it when it came time to try and handle users. We're not avoiding possible disruption when we restrict a user. A user only ends up restricted from wikipedia space after they've been significantly disruptive. It doesn't happen from a single comment. It happens after long term disruption so it isn't done without good reason, when it is done the community has decided that there contributions in that area are no longer welcome. What's going to happen is some restricted editor is going to go from AfD, to DRV, to AN/I or wherever because is tangentially related to the AfD for which they're exempted, which will only result in more drama.--
Crossmr (
talk) 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are taking an excessively melodramatic approach to all this, why don't you just tell use how you really feel? In this particular case kmweber did not disrupt anything, he defended his article with 3 posts to the afd (as I recall) yet we are now faced with walls of text that read like the end of times is upon us, is this a disruption we should lay at his feet? Should there be actual disruption of an afd or improper use of ancillary venues then I trust that the editor in question will be made to regret it, but there is no reason to assume to worst without cause.
Unomi (
talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're being intentionally obtuse since you asked. The specific question is about users in general. Not just kmweber. In fact my last post had nothing to do with KMweber. We talked about Kmweber above and you didn't want to have anything more to do with it. So which is it? If you want to continue talking about him we can do so in the section above, this section is for discussion of sanctions in general and should exceptions be made for users to defend articles on which they are a "major" contributor (whatever that means). My answer is quite simply and will always be, no. There is zero reason to afford them that luxury if they've found themselves in a position to be restricted from editing wikipedia space. We don't just do that lightly. There is nothing that they could say in an AfD that couldn't and shouldn't be said on an article talk page that would genuinely have an application to the AfD process.--
Crossmr (
talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- By that argument we shouldn't have centralized AfD discussions at all, since such discussions can occur on article talk pages -- as indeed they once did, before the creation of VfD, which later became AfD. Comments on article talk pages may well not be seen by other participants in the discussion and so may not persuade or inform them. An AfD is not supposed to be merely a bunch of people posting arguments for an admin to evaluate (even assuming that the admin reviews the article talk page, which is not part of the standard instructions to AfD closers), it is supposed to be a discussion. This means that comments should be read by and reacted to by other participants. Restricting one user's comments to a quite different page hinders such discussion, and therefore makes the AfD potentially less useful than it could be. As to what constitutes being a "major contributor", that is no more subjective than having "substantial coverage" -- a matter often debated at AfDs -- nor for the matter of that than many other Wikipedia standards. If the matter comes up and a question is raised, an uninvolved admin can review and if s/he thinks the "major contributor" standard isn't met, warn the restricted user or if need be issue a block. In many cases it is crystal clear when a given user is a major contributor -- lots of articles listed at AfD have only one non-trivial contributor, ignoring edits to add tags, formatting and the like. If the user involved becomes disruptive on the AfD that can be dealt with. If the user has in the past been disruptive on AfDs for articles s/he created, then the restriction can specifically include such, it merely should not do so by default and without specific discussion of the issue.
DES
(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Wikipedia is usually served better by pragmatism than legalistic interpretations of rules or even editing restrictions. If the user is behaving and helping an AFD debate on an article he's had content involvement with, then treat it as an exception to the restriction. If he's obviously being unhelpful or disruptive, then revoke that implicit privelage and come down like a tonne of bricks on him. Sure, the letter of the restriction may not allow him to contribute, but this looks to me like a valid place for IAR, as long as it is helping the project.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am actually arguing for an explicit exception, not for creating one on the spot via IAR. The problem with IAR in such a case is lack of predictability. If an editor comments despite the letter of a restriction, s/he may be blocked with no significant discussion of the value or non-value of the particular edits involved, by an admin who simply points to the letter of the restriction (as in fact the blocking admin did in the current case). While in a different case an admin may take the view espoused by Scott MacDonald. Thus an editor subject to a restriction would not know with reasonable assurance what conduct would or would not result in a block. I am arguing that when a restriction would by its terms cover AfD, it should be interpreted as always having an exception for AFDs of articles where the editor is the creator of or a major contributor to the article, unless there is an explicit provision to restrict AfD participation in such cases. In short I am arguing for a "leagalistic" view of editing restrictions, because some will choose to treat them that way anyway, merely for a specific amendment to the general rule in such cases. One of the principles of a legal system is that people ought to be able to determine in advance what conduct is subject to penalty, and while Wikipedia is not a government or a legal system, that principle should IMO apply in general here. (As usual I have little support for the use of IAR, a policy I think we would be better off without.) DES (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Wikipedia is usually served better by pragmatism than legalistic interpretations of rules or even editing restrictions. If the user is behaving and helping an AFD debate on an article he's had content involvement with, then treat it as an exception to the restriction. If he's obviously being unhelpful or disruptive, then revoke that implicit privelage and come down like a tonne of bricks on him. Sure, the letter of the restriction may not allow him to contribute, but this looks to me like a valid place for IAR, as long as it is helping the project.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- By that argument we shouldn't have centralized AfD discussions at all, since such discussions can occur on article talk pages -- as indeed they once did, before the creation of VfD, which later became AfD. Comments on article talk pages may well not be seen by other participants in the discussion and so may not persuade or inform them. An AfD is not supposed to be merely a bunch of people posting arguments for an admin to evaluate (even assuming that the admin reviews the article talk page, which is not part of the standard instructions to AfD closers), it is supposed to be a discussion. This means that comments should be read by and reacted to by other participants. Restricting one user's comments to a quite different page hinders such discussion, and therefore makes the AfD potentially less useful than it could be. As to what constitutes being a "major contributor", that is no more subjective than having "substantial coverage" -- a matter often debated at AfDs -- nor for the matter of that than many other Wikipedia standards. If the matter comes up and a question is raised, an uninvolved admin can review and if s/he thinks the "major contributor" standard isn't met, warn the restricted user or if need be issue a block. In many cases it is crystal clear when a given user is a major contributor -- lots of articles listed at AfD have only one non-trivial contributor, ignoring edits to add tags, formatting and the like. If the user involved becomes disruptive on the AfD that can be dealt with. If the user has in the past been disruptive on AfDs for articles s/he created, then the restriction can specifically include such, it merely should not do so by default and without specific discussion of the issue.
DES
(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're being intentionally obtuse since you asked. The specific question is about users in general. Not just kmweber. In fact my last post had nothing to do with KMweber. We talked about Kmweber above and you didn't want to have anything more to do with it. So which is it? If you want to continue talking about him we can do so in the section above, this section is for discussion of sanctions in general and should exceptions be made for users to defend articles on which they are a "major" contributor (whatever that means). My answer is quite simply and will always be, no. There is zero reason to afford them that luxury if they've found themselves in a position to be restricted from editing wikipedia space. We don't just do that lightly. There is nothing that they could say in an AfD that couldn't and shouldn't be said on an article talk page that would genuinely have an application to the AfD process.--
Crossmr (
talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are taking an excessively melodramatic approach to all this, why don't you just tell use how you really feel? In this particular case kmweber did not disrupt anything, he defended his article with 3 posts to the afd (as I recall) yet we are now faced with walls of text that read like the end of times is upon us, is this a disruption we should lay at his feet? Should there be actual disruption of an afd or improper use of ancillary venues then I trust that the editor in question will be made to regret it, but there is no reason to assume to worst without cause.
Unomi (
talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I see six editors who have for one reason or another supported the idea of such a general exception, and only two who have opposed it, one quite briefly and one quite extensively. What would be the best way forward to confirm and document such a consensus? DES (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Make that 7. I was of a mind with Scott, but DES convinced me; in this case, he did, as Scott said, "behave", but still got his ton of bricks. This is a reasonable exception, and due to kmweber's reputation with several people who would like to see him gone, I think an "official" (much as I hate that word) exception is the best way to go. Kmweber should be allowed to participate constructively in AFD's of articles he has previously edited, and discussions that are about him. I assume an uninvolved admin will come along eventually, decide whether there's consensus to change the wording of the ban, and make the change. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As always, I find any Draconian punishments to be a major problem. I would suggest that no one be barred from a single short comment (under 100 words?) in a WP process page concerning articles etc. with which they have been active. Such a single comment is hardly likely to upset the great order of the cosmos, and will prevent cases in which (for example) one editor decides to nom for deletion lots of stuff from a person who is barred from making even a simple comment on the process (without claiming this is the precise current situation). Collect ( talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Such an exception would easily be gamed, which would lead to further drama. It should either be "allowed to comment" or "not allowed to comment." This is something where a gray area is just inviting abuse. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I think differently than everyone else here on Wikipedia, but this question occurs to me: why can't the individual Guy mentions in his post above first ask someone for permission to participate? If a person who has been banned from a given namespace decides to add a comment, her/his contributions will be ignored or deleted -- unless some uninvolved party runs interference. Doing so will only make their contributions more convincing. While we can't make our fellow Wikipedians think, we shouldn't unduly mollicuddle them when there is a reasonable alternative she/he can take. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Please place further discussion of the proposal in this section and below. DES (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- How many editors have had projectspace limitations? To whom would this apply?
Will Beback
talk 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Currently, one editor is under such restrictions by community consensus, and there is a specific proposal to modify that restriction somewhat along the lines above. One editor is under a similar restriction by ArbCom ruling. (This is according to
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.) However, restrictions, as opposed to general bans, seem to be increasing in use of late, so this may apply to ore editors in future. I admit that I thought, from comments in the thread above, that this currently applied to more editors.
DES
(talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Let's hope this is a one-off remedy. Given that it's at least rare, maybe it would be better applied just to the individual case rather than maintained as a general policy/guideline/essay. Will Beback talk 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Currently, one editor is under such restrictions by community consensus, and there is a specific proposal to modify that restriction somewhat along the lines above. One editor is under a similar restriction by ArbCom ruling. (This is according to
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.) However, restrictions, as opposed to general bans, seem to be increasing in use of late, so this may apply to ore editors in future. I admit that I thought, from comments in the thread above, that this currently applied to more editors.
DES
(talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You haven't defined what is a "major contributor". As I already pointed out on AN/I which you didn't copy, GA doesn't require the editing of project space. GA reviews are created in article subspace. I oppose it just as much here as I did there. If we ban a user, we don't make concessions. We are not here to coddle users. If they've done something so bad to wind up banned from the project or an entire area, it isn't our place to bend over backwards to accommodate them. They have to earn that from the community.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I copied the entire thread on the general issue, excluding the threads dedicated to a specific user. I had not noticed your comment about GA, I have removed it from the proposal. "Major contributor" no more needs definition IMO than does "substantial coverage" used in
WP:N. It will normally be be obvious judgment and when it isn't an uninvolved admin can decide. As for "coddling" the purpose is to improve the project. When relaxing a restriction is more likely to do that than otherwise, it should be relaxed, not in the interests of the specific user but in the interests of the project. But it is also true that providing a measure of accommodation to a user can help lure that user back to the path of useful contribution. I note that to date you are the only editor to oppose the similar modification in the specific case now at issue, while 10 editors have supported such a modification. Perhaps your views are not as widely supported and you think.
DES
(talk) 03:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I said before. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. I wouldn't remotely support any relieving of restrictions on a banned user unless it was unequivocally spelled out what they were. Leaving "major" contributor up to judgment is a recipe for drama where one side thinks they are a major contributor and the other doesn't. This proposal seems to only create further scenarios for drama instead of relieving them.--
Crossmr (
talk) 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have no opinion about Kmweber, and have only kept an eye on the matter as an uninvolved admin in case enforcement is required. However I think it's inadvisable to create a special policy page to handle a detail of one user's topic ban. Among other things, it will waste more of the community's time. I suggest we userfy this to DESiegel's userspace. If the issue comes up again then we can dust it off and reconsider it then. Will Beback talk 05:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I said before. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. I wouldn't remotely support any relieving of restrictions on a banned user unless it was unequivocally spelled out what they were. Leaving "major" contributor up to judgment is a recipe for drama where one side thinks they are a major contributor and the other doesn't. This proposal seems to only create further scenarios for drama instead of relieving them.--
Crossmr (
talk) 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Lets see how it goes. The proposition seems sound and if it doesn't work out it can be undone, nothing to fear here. Unomi ( talk) 10:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Suspend and userfy -- I agree with User:Will Beback. Basing a policy on a one-time occurrence is WP:CREEP. Maurreen ( talk) 12:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support: I am not convinced with the WP:CREEP argument because instruction creep applies to creating new rules when they are not really needed or when existing rules could, with creative interpretation, be used instead. This case is clearly not in any of these categories as the long AN/I discussion and motion suggest. The argument that it only applies to one person is also shaky. More cases are guaranteed to appear in the future plus this policy goes beyond the current AN/I motion which will help in avoiding further discussions on similar tweaking. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support: this is a good idea. Also, I think that it should be emphasised that running for a position of trust in any way is not an exception, unless the permission can be sought without touching Projectspace, as it's understood that any run for said permissions would undoubtedly fail; i.e., RfA, RfB, AC, etc runs are prohibited, but rollback and accountcreator are not. Sceptre ( talk) 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I note that a different user was recently discussed at AN and ANI with a proposed editing restriction that would include a ban from the Wikipedia namespce, so this is not a single-instance policy. DES (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
|
|
Essays Low‑impact | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
The following is copied from WP:ANI#Specific question. DES (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2010 (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.
What do we think should be done in the case of users restricted from editing in project space (something which is not as unusual as it once was) in the specific case of AfD discussions on articles to which they have significant past contributions? I would say this should be an exception to general project-space bans, provided that involvement on the AfDs does not become disruptive. Line by line rebuttals after every !vote is obviously going to be perceived as a problem but a single !vote with rationale would seem to me to be a reasonable thing to allow in the specific case where the user has significant prior contributions to the article under discussion. I don't want to open the door to Wikilawyering here but I do think we need to be fair to people. The point of topical bans is, as I see it, to allow people to continue to contribute to content but to keep them away from their hot-button topics. I think you could argue this either way and I think we should come to a consensus view of how it should be handled in general. Guy ( Help!) 09:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, should we just do it here, village pump or an rfc? Unomi ( talk) 10:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Give them an inch, they'll take a mile. You start making exceptions and they argue for me. Suddenly it was in the "spirit" of the rule and not the "letter". No. If they're restricted from editing wikipedia space, they're restricted from editing wikipedia space. If they have some vitally crucial to the debate (in the terms of sources), then it can be edited into the article as necessary and the discussion can carry on from there. I can't say that there is every a reason where a specific person "needs" to participate in an AfD debate. AfD debates usually come up on things like sources and they don't need to edit the debate to provide those sources.-- Crossmr ( talk) 13:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Exceptions need to be noted, so that uninvolved admins requested to act upon an alleged violation know precisely the remit. A working model that an exception to WP namespace pages bans/restrictions would be AfD's/DRV's, GA/FA discussions relating to articles previously edited would be fine, but it would need to be spelt out within the topic ban wording. That way, there is no confusion as to the extent of the ban when the wording is reviewed (and people under total exclusion type bans would not need that reinforced within the wording).
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 13:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I agree and have voiced this opinion previously, but unfortunately, the "specifying the exceptions" part has often been forgotten during sanction proposal discussions (rather than always deliberately left out). I tend to avoid letting that problem exist when I make a proposal precisely so that enforcement is practical, and does not become as much of a headache as the alleged violation(s) that might later occur. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 15:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Editors should be able to at least defend articles they created in AfDs, barring they were banned for something like real world harassment, i.e. in which they are permanently blocked anyway. Any unblocked account, under other restrictions or not, should be able to defend articles they created under the normal participation conditions, i.e. if he is not swearing and tossing out severe personal attacks, then okay, but in this case, he made a mere two edits to the discussion which do not strike me as the least bit disruptive. I understand some editors did not like his RfA comments and apparently admin board ones as well. Upon reviewing his Afd contributions, I see nothing overly wrong with them. Even if some accounts don't like when he says "Keep, it exists," so what? We see lame non-arguments ("Delete, it's cruft") all the time in AfDs. We should probably not make a bigger deal out of them then they merit as any reasonable closing admin will hopefully ignore the weak arguments anyway. So, yes, like all of us, no one should be making personal attacks and such, but if he wants to make a mere two edits defending an article he created and therefore might know something about, just let him and if anyone thinks his arguments are weak, ignore them rather than start admin threads that only exacerbate tensions and distract us from improving content. Take care everyone and best wishes! Sincerely, --
A Nobody
My talk 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- No. Per
WP:OWN, having created an article doesn't give an editor any special privileges relating to that article.
Bobby Tables (
talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with
A Nobody on this point. While no one
owns any article, a major contributor, particularly when that editor is also the creator, is particularly likely to have useful information and views worth considering. That is why CSD and AFD taggers are strongly encouraged to notify the original creator, and all the scripted tools for that do so automatically AFAIK. The alleged disruptions by kmweber involved "mass-!voting". If limited to discussions of articles of which he was the creator or q major contributor, he could hardly "mass" comment, and the process would be more transparent. In the absence of a modification of the restriction, I would, in principle, be willing to post on his behalf any comments in any such AfD discussion, whether I agree with them or not.
DES
(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- A major contributor can't argue anything that anyone else can't. There is nothing any individual person can do in an AfD that no one else can do. Most AfDs comes down to a lack of sources and they don't need to edit an AfD to provide those. Kurt's language on his talk page had a tinge of
WP:OWN to it and that isn't remotely a good reason to ignore your sanctions.--
Crossmr (
talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course a major contributor can argue something that someone else can't, especially for marginal articles a major contributor may be the only editor who is familiar with the material or had cause to believe that the existence of the article had merit in the first place. Kurts arguments or behavior on his talk page is immaterial to a general discussion of how these things might be better handled in the future. At the very least a person in such a case should be granted a proxy or other means of informing the discussion.
Unomi (
talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- What? AfD discussions are supposed to be decided on policy. So what is it that they can argue that is going to make a difference. Their opinion that it should be kept shouldn't really influence the outcome unless they've provided evidence to support it that wasn't already in the article. Evidence they could add to the article without editing the AfD. There is nothing preventing them from improving the article or addressing concerns on the article and then posting on the nominators or someone else's page who is involved in the AfD and asking them to reconsider the improved article. If there are questions over a borderline source they would be just as free to defend it on the article's talk page (which is where a borderline source should be discussed first). Otherwise, in what scenario do you envision that someone would be incapable of addressing a deletion reason without being able to access the AfD, which no one else on wikipedia could do?--
Crossmr (
talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I frequently find myself arguing with accounts in AfDs who have no real knowledge or the topic under discussion and nor are they even interested in looking for sources. Rather, they just decide that they
don't like the topic and so vote rather than argue to delete. By contrast, an article creator might actually be familiar with the subject and willing to look for and add sources in order to rescue it, including sources that might not be fully accessible on a standard Google Search. Google Books, for example, only gives snippet views of some books and some editors might not even have access to something like J-Stor. Many subjects are actually discussed in reliable secondary source journal and magazine articles as well as even full length books that are not always accessible online or in the case of something like Google News, one needs a paid subscription to access. I would much rather hear from someone who has a greater likelihood to have these sources or an interest in acquiring them and utilizing them than ignoring such a crucial opinion. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge and what matters more is the opinion and efforts of those who have, look for, and incorporate the sources than merely accounts that just toss out abbreviated links to ever changing guideline and policy pages. And let's be frank, we know many accounts show up in an Afd to never acknowledge or return even if the article has been drastically improved since nomination. We need those improving it to indicate as much in the actual discussion so that key development is not glossed over. I cannot help but ascertain that simply allowing Kurt to have made his two posts and either replied or ignored them in the discussion would have been far more favorable and far more constructive use of everyone's time than making an issue out of something easily ignored at worst. Best, --
A Nobody
My talk 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- If an administrator is closing an article based on votes and not reading the policies and arguments made and checking the article itself than that is matter for deletion review or administrator review. It isn't a reason to allow disruptive users to start trying to make exceptions on their restrictions on the off chance they might have a close of an AfD on their article done by an admin who isn't doing his job properly. If someone has been restricted from editing wikipedia space because of their constant disruption, I don't find their opinion to be all that crucial to begin with. But you're not describing anything that shouldn't first be discussed on the article talk page. If sources are questioned, they should be discussed on the article talk page before being taken to AfD. If there is a question about the sources the party is more than welcome to give much fuller details about the source on the talk page, which is where it should go so future editors can find it if they also question it. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge yes and we're doing it as a community. What matters most is that the people who participate in that process can do so without being disruptive. That is first and foremost. he had choices and chose the most disruptive path before him. Something he was restricted from doing. As durova pointed out he could have contacted someone, as I've pointed out he could have addressed sources on the talk page and asked the nominator to look at that again. If admins are closing debates properly there is zero reason for any restricted user to edit them. They can address whatever concerns there are at the article level. If there is a problem in the process, creating further issues by creating exceptions for some users who are otherwise restricted doesn't solve that problem. It then gets into a battle over what is a "major" contributor. Someone says 50%, someone else says 30%, someone else says just 10%, do we count characters? Visible words on the page? If someone simply makes an edit to a page is he then allowed to go edit the AfD. Would we then see restricted editors simply making a single edit to a page so they can go get involved in the AfD? no. As I said above. Give them inch, they'll take a mile.-- Crossmr ( talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- I frequently find myself arguing with accounts in AfDs who have no real knowledge or the topic under discussion and nor are they even interested in looking for sources. Rather, they just decide that they
don't like the topic and so vote rather than argue to delete. By contrast, an article creator might actually be familiar with the subject and willing to look for and add sources in order to rescue it, including sources that might not be fully accessible on a standard Google Search. Google Books, for example, only gives snippet views of some books and some editors might not even have access to something like J-Stor. Many subjects are actually discussed in reliable secondary source journal and magazine articles as well as even full length books that are not always accessible online or in the case of something like Google News, one needs a paid subscription to access. I would much rather hear from someone who has a greater likelihood to have these sources or an interest in acquiring them and utilizing them than ignoring such a crucial opinion. We are here to build a compendium of knowledge and what matters more is the opinion and efforts of those who have, look for, and incorporate the sources than merely accounts that just toss out abbreviated links to ever changing guideline and policy pages. And let's be frank, we know many accounts show up in an Afd to never acknowledge or return even if the article has been drastically improved since nomination. We need those improving it to indicate as much in the actual discussion so that key development is not glossed over. I cannot help but ascertain that simply allowing Kurt to have made his two posts and either replied or ignored them in the discussion would have been far more favorable and far more constructive use of everyone's time than making an issue out of something easily ignored at worst. Best, --
A Nobody
My talk 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- What? AfD discussions are supposed to be decided on policy. So what is it that they can argue that is going to make a difference. Their opinion that it should be kept shouldn't really influence the outcome unless they've provided evidence to support it that wasn't already in the article. Evidence they could add to the article without editing the AfD. There is nothing preventing them from improving the article or addressing concerns on the article and then posting on the nominators or someone else's page who is involved in the AfD and asking them to reconsider the improved article. If there are questions over a borderline source they would be just as free to defend it on the article's talk page (which is where a borderline source should be discussed first). Otherwise, in what scenario do you envision that someone would be incapable of addressing a deletion reason without being able to access the AfD, which no one else on wikipedia could do?--
Crossmr (
talk) 02:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Of course a major contributor can argue something that someone else can't, especially for marginal articles a major contributor may be the only editor who is familiar with the material or had cause to believe that the existence of the article had merit in the first place. Kurts arguments or behavior on his talk page is immaterial to a general discussion of how these things might be better handled in the future. At the very least a person in such a case should be granted a proxy or other means of informing the discussion.
Unomi (
talk) 21:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- A major contributor can't argue anything that anyone else can't. There is nothing any individual person can do in an AfD that no one else can do. Most AfDs comes down to a lack of sources and they don't need to edit an AfD to provide those. Kurt's language on his talk page had a tinge of
WP:OWN to it and that isn't remotely a good reason to ignore your sanctions.--
Crossmr (
talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with
A Nobody on this point. While no one
owns any article, a major contributor, particularly when that editor is also the creator, is particularly likely to have useful information and views worth considering. That is why CSD and AFD taggers are strongly encouraged to notify the original creator, and all the scripted tools for that do so automatically AFAIK. The alleged disruptions by kmweber involved "mass-!voting". If limited to discussions of articles of which he was the creator or q major contributor, he could hardly "mass" comment, and the process would be more transparent. In the absence of a modification of the restriction, I would, in principle, be willing to post on his behalf any comments in any such AfD discussion, whether I agree with them or not.
DES
(talk) 20:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- No. Per
WP:OWN, having created an article doesn't give an editor any special privileges relating to that article.
Bobby Tables (
talk) 18:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
AfDs come down to polices applied to the specific facts of an article. A creator or major editor can, in many cases, assist in establishing those facts. Such an editor may know better where to find sources than most other editors commenting -- not always, but often enough to take note of. Such an editor may have relevant information on which sources in a particular field are reliable and why. Such an editor may have relevant information about the context of the article that most editors do not. Granted, this info could be presented via a proxy. Granted also, a different editor might have any or all of this information, and might happen to see the AfD and comment. But that might NOT happen either. Yes an editor might be disruptive. In such a case that editor might be blocked (note that in the instant case kmweber was not disruptive, although he was also not persuasive). It is said above that no one editor can do anythign at an afd that anyone else can't. And in a formal sense this is true. But it is common at an AfD for one editor to do something that no one else in fact does. For one editor to present sources or arguments or information that persuade others and turn the result of the discussion. That is why it is a discussion, and that is who it is supposed to work. And it is not by any means inevitable that had one editor not offered those sources or arguments someone else would have. AfDs are limited in time and space. Most AfDs have only a few editors commenting, who are not always really representative of the community as a whole. This is a problem with the AfD system. Restrictions of major contributors to an article will be all to likely to worsen the situation. The possible benefits -- avoidance of some possible disruption -- do not IMO match the possible costs -- possibly valid arguments or views not being considered. DES (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- and again, it all can and should be provided on the article talk page if it the sources are questioned. Both to solve the immediate question and to help future questions. The sources can be edited or clarified on the article just fine without editing the AfD. The user can then ask the nominator via their talk page to recheck them or ask another user to make a note on the AfD. Sorry, but I still fail to see anything which necessitates a restricted user from having their restrictions lifted. If that editor didn't want to be in that position, they shouldn't have been disruptive in the first place. With proper process the admin should be checking the article before deleting it and comparing it to the argument. If the article has been significantly improved to render the argument invalid, he shouldn't be deleting it. If the admin isn't closing properly that is a separate issue from trying to make exceptions for restricted users. And you haven't even begun to address what is considered a "major" contributor. That alone could take months to hammer out and you'd still have wish-washing over it when it came time to try and handle users. We're not avoiding possible disruption when we restrict a user. A user only ends up restricted from wikipedia space after they've been significantly disruptive. It doesn't happen from a single comment. It happens after long term disruption so it isn't done without good reason, when it is done the community has decided that there contributions in that area are no longer welcome. What's going to happen is some restricted editor is going to go from AfD, to DRV, to AN/I or wherever because is tangentially related to the AfD for which they're exempted, which will only result in more drama.--
Crossmr (
talk) 00:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are taking an excessively melodramatic approach to all this, why don't you just tell use how you really feel? In this particular case kmweber did not disrupt anything, he defended his article with 3 posts to the afd (as I recall) yet we are now faced with walls of text that read like the end of times is upon us, is this a disruption we should lay at his feet? Should there be actual disruption of an afd or improper use of ancillary venues then I trust that the editor in question will be made to regret it, but there is no reason to assume to worst without cause.
Unomi (
talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're being intentionally obtuse since you asked. The specific question is about users in general. Not just kmweber. In fact my last post had nothing to do with KMweber. We talked about Kmweber above and you didn't want to have anything more to do with it. So which is it? If you want to continue talking about him we can do so in the section above, this section is for discussion of sanctions in general and should exceptions be made for users to defend articles on which they are a "major" contributor (whatever that means). My answer is quite simply and will always be, no. There is zero reason to afford them that luxury if they've found themselves in a position to be restricted from editing wikipedia space. We don't just do that lightly. There is nothing that they could say in an AfD that couldn't and shouldn't be said on an article talk page that would genuinely have an application to the AfD process.--
Crossmr (
talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- By that argument we shouldn't have centralized AfD discussions at all, since such discussions can occur on article talk pages -- as indeed they once did, before the creation of VfD, which later became AfD. Comments on article talk pages may well not be seen by other participants in the discussion and so may not persuade or inform them. An AfD is not supposed to be merely a bunch of people posting arguments for an admin to evaluate (even assuming that the admin reviews the article talk page, which is not part of the standard instructions to AfD closers), it is supposed to be a discussion. This means that comments should be read by and reacted to by other participants. Restricting one user's comments to a quite different page hinders such discussion, and therefore makes the AfD potentially less useful than it could be. As to what constitutes being a "major contributor", that is no more subjective than having "substantial coverage" -- a matter often debated at AfDs -- nor for the matter of that than many other Wikipedia standards. If the matter comes up and a question is raised, an uninvolved admin can review and if s/he thinks the "major contributor" standard isn't met, warn the restricted user or if need be issue a block. In many cases it is crystal clear when a given user is a major contributor -- lots of articles listed at AfD have only one non-trivial contributor, ignoring edits to add tags, formatting and the like. If the user involved becomes disruptive on the AfD that can be dealt with. If the user has in the past been disruptive on AfDs for articles s/he created, then the restriction can specifically include such, it merely should not do so by default and without specific discussion of the issue.
DES
(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Wikipedia is usually served better by pragmatism than legalistic interpretations of rules or even editing restrictions. If the user is behaving and helping an AFD debate on an article he's had content involvement with, then treat it as an exception to the restriction. If he's obviously being unhelpful or disruptive, then revoke that implicit privelage and come down like a tonne of bricks on him. Sure, the letter of the restriction may not allow him to contribute, but this looks to me like a valid place for IAR, as long as it is helping the project.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I am actually arguing for an explicit exception, not for creating one on the spot via IAR. The problem with IAR in such a case is lack of predictability. If an editor comments despite the letter of a restriction, s/he may be blocked with no significant discussion of the value or non-value of the particular edits involved, by an admin who simply points to the letter of the restriction (as in fact the blocking admin did in the current case). While in a different case an admin may take the view espoused by Scott MacDonald. Thus an editor subject to a restriction would not know with reasonable assurance what conduct would or would not result in a block. I am arguing that when a restriction would by its terms cover AfD, it should be interpreted as always having an exception for AFDs of articles where the editor is the creator of or a major contributor to the article, unless there is an explicit provision to restrict AfD participation in such cases. In short I am arguing for a "leagalistic" view of editing restrictions, because some will choose to treat them that way anyway, merely for a specific amendment to the general rule in such cases. One of the principles of a legal system is that people ought to be able to determine in advance what conduct is subject to penalty, and while Wikipedia is not a government or a legal system, that principle should IMO apply in general here. (As usual I have little support for the use of IAR, a policy I think we would be better off without.) DES (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- I tend to agree. Wikipedia is usually served better by pragmatism than legalistic interpretations of rules or even editing restrictions. If the user is behaving and helping an AFD debate on an article he's had content involvement with, then treat it as an exception to the restriction. If he's obviously being unhelpful or disruptive, then revoke that implicit privelage and come down like a tonne of bricks on him. Sure, the letter of the restriction may not allow him to contribute, but this looks to me like a valid place for IAR, as long as it is helping the project.--
Scott Mac (Doc) 20:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- By that argument we shouldn't have centralized AfD discussions at all, since such discussions can occur on article talk pages -- as indeed they once did, before the creation of VfD, which later became AfD. Comments on article talk pages may well not be seen by other participants in the discussion and so may not persuade or inform them. An AfD is not supposed to be merely a bunch of people posting arguments for an admin to evaluate (even assuming that the admin reviews the article talk page, which is not part of the standard instructions to AfD closers), it is supposed to be a discussion. This means that comments should be read by and reacted to by other participants. Restricting one user's comments to a quite different page hinders such discussion, and therefore makes the AfD potentially less useful than it could be. As to what constitutes being a "major contributor", that is no more subjective than having "substantial coverage" -- a matter often debated at AfDs -- nor for the matter of that than many other Wikipedia standards. If the matter comes up and a question is raised, an uninvolved admin can review and if s/he thinks the "major contributor" standard isn't met, warn the restricted user or if need be issue a block. In many cases it is crystal clear when a given user is a major contributor -- lots of articles listed at AfD have only one non-trivial contributor, ignoring edits to add tags, formatting and the like. If the user involved becomes disruptive on the AfD that can be dealt with. If the user has in the past been disruptive on AfDs for articles s/he created, then the restriction can specifically include such, it merely should not do so by default and without specific discussion of the issue.
DES
(talk) 20:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you're being intentionally obtuse since you asked. The specific question is about users in general. Not just kmweber. In fact my last post had nothing to do with KMweber. We talked about Kmweber above and you didn't want to have anything more to do with it. So which is it? If you want to continue talking about him we can do so in the section above, this section is for discussion of sanctions in general and should exceptions be made for users to defend articles on which they are a "major" contributor (whatever that means). My answer is quite simply and will always be, no. There is zero reason to afford them that luxury if they've found themselves in a position to be restricted from editing wikipedia space. We don't just do that lightly. There is nothing that they could say in an AfD that couldn't and shouldn't be said on an article talk page that would genuinely have an application to the AfD process.--
Crossmr (
talk) 05:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- I think you are taking an excessively melodramatic approach to all this, why don't you just tell use how you really feel? In this particular case kmweber did not disrupt anything, he defended his article with 3 posts to the afd (as I recall) yet we are now faced with walls of text that read like the end of times is upon us, is this a disruption we should lay at his feet? Should there be actual disruption of an afd or improper use of ancillary venues then I trust that the editor in question will be made to regret it, but there is no reason to assume to worst without cause.
Unomi (
talk) 00:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
I see six editors who have for one reason or another supported the idea of such a general exception, and only two who have opposed it, one quite briefly and one quite extensively. What would be the best way forward to confirm and document such a consensus? DES (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Make that 7. I was of a mind with Scott, but DES convinced me; in this case, he did, as Scott said, "behave", but still got his ton of bricks. This is a reasonable exception, and due to kmweber's reputation with several people who would like to see him gone, I think an "official" (much as I hate that word) exception is the best way to go. Kmweber should be allowed to participate constructively in AFD's of articles he has previously edited, and discussions that are about him. I assume an uninvolved admin will come along eventually, decide whether there's consensus to change the wording of the ban, and make the change. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 00:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As always, I find any Draconian punishments to be a major problem. I would suggest that no one be barred from a single short comment (under 100 words?) in a WP process page concerning articles etc. with which they have been active. Such a single comment is hardly likely to upset the great order of the cosmos, and will prevent cases in which (for example) one editor decides to nom for deletion lots of stuff from a person who is barred from making even a simple comment on the process (without claiming this is the precise current situation). Collect ( talk) 13:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Such an exception would easily be gamed, which would lead to further drama. It should either be "allowed to comment" or "not allowed to comment." This is something where a gray area is just inviting abuse. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 14:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I think differently than everyone else here on Wikipedia, but this question occurs to me: why can't the individual Guy mentions in his post above first ask someone for permission to participate? If a person who has been banned from a given namespace decides to add a comment, her/his contributions will be ignored or deleted -- unless some uninvolved party runs interference. Doing so will only make their contributions more convincing. While we can't make our fellow Wikipedians think, we shouldn't unduly mollicuddle them when there is a reasonable alternative she/he can take. -- llywrch ( talk) 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Please place further discussion of the proposal in this section and below. DES (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- How many editors have had projectspace limitations? To whom would this apply?
Will Beback
talk 00:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Currently, one editor is under such restrictions by community consensus, and there is a specific proposal to modify that restriction somewhat along the lines above. One editor is under a similar restriction by ArbCom ruling. (This is according to
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.) However, restrictions, as opposed to general bans, seem to be increasing in use of late, so this may apply to ore editors in future. I admit that I thought, from comments in the thread above, that this currently applied to more editors.
DES
(talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Let's hope this is a one-off remedy. Given that it's at least rare, maybe it would be better applied just to the individual case rather than maintained as a general policy/guideline/essay. Will Beback talk 01:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Currently, one editor is under such restrictions by community consensus, and there is a specific proposal to modify that restriction somewhat along the lines above. One editor is under a similar restriction by ArbCom ruling. (This is according to
Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.) However, restrictions, as opposed to general bans, seem to be increasing in use of late, so this may apply to ore editors in future. I admit that I thought, from comments in the thread above, that this currently applied to more editors.
DES
(talk) 00:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
You haven't defined what is a "major contributor". As I already pointed out on AN/I which you didn't copy, GA doesn't require the editing of project space. GA reviews are created in article subspace. I oppose it just as much here as I did there. If we ban a user, we don't make concessions. We are not here to coddle users. If they've done something so bad to wind up banned from the project or an entire area, it isn't our place to bend over backwards to accommodate them. They have to earn that from the community.-- Crossmr ( talk) 02:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I copied the entire thread on the general issue, excluding the threads dedicated to a specific user. I had not noticed your comment about GA, I have removed it from the proposal. "Major contributor" no more needs definition IMO than does "substantial coverage" used in
WP:N. It will normally be be obvious judgment and when it isn't an uninvolved admin can decide. As for "coddling" the purpose is to improve the project. When relaxing a restriction is more likely to do that than otherwise, it should be relaxed, not in the interests of the specific user but in the interests of the project. But it is also true that providing a measure of accommodation to a user can help lure that user back to the path of useful contribution. I note that to date you are the only editor to oppose the similar modification in the specific case now at issue, while 10 editors have supported such a modification. Perhaps your views are not as widely supported and you think.
DES
(talk) 03:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I said before. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. I wouldn't remotely support any relieving of restrictions on a banned user unless it was unequivocally spelled out what they were. Leaving "major" contributor up to judgment is a recipe for drama where one side thinks they are a major contributor and the other doesn't. This proposal seems to only create further scenarios for drama instead of relieving them.--
Crossmr (
talk) 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have no opinion about Kmweber, and have only kept an eye on the matter as an uninvolved admin in case enforcement is required. However I think it's inadvisable to create a special policy page to handle a detail of one user's topic ban. Among other things, it will waste more of the community's time. I suggest we userfy this to DESiegel's userspace. If the issue comes up again then we can dust it off and reconsider it then. Will Beback talk 05:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- As I said before. Give them an inch, they will take a mile. I wouldn't remotely support any relieving of restrictions on a banned user unless it was unequivocally spelled out what they were. Leaving "major" contributor up to judgment is a recipe for drama where one side thinks they are a major contributor and the other doesn't. This proposal seems to only create further scenarios for drama instead of relieving them.--
Crossmr (
talk) 04:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Lets see how it goes. The proposition seems sound and if it doesn't work out it can be undone, nothing to fear here. Unomi ( talk) 10:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Suspend and userfy -- I agree with User:Will Beback. Basing a policy on a one-time occurrence is WP:CREEP. Maurreen ( talk) 12:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support: I am not convinced with the WP:CREEP argument because instruction creep applies to creating new rules when they are not really needed or when existing rules could, with creative interpretation, be used instead. This case is clearly not in any of these categories as the long AN/I discussion and motion suggest. The argument that it only applies to one person is also shaky. More cases are guaranteed to appear in the future plus this policy goes beyond the current AN/I motion which will help in avoiding further discussions on similar tweaking. Dr.K. λogos πraxis 18:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
- Support: this is a good idea. Also, I think that it should be emphasised that running for a position of trust in any way is not an exception, unless the permission can be sought without touching Projectspace, as it's understood that any run for said permissions would undoubtedly fail; i.e., RfA, RfB, AC, etc runs are prohibited, but rollback and accountcreator are not. Sceptre ( talk) 21:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
- I note that a different user was recently discussed at AN and ANI with a proposed editing restriction that would include a ban from the Wikipedia namespce, so this is not a single-instance policy. DES (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)