Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingsindian (talk | contribs) at 00:54, 4 May 2016 (→Your AN/I close of the revdel incident: a review of the close on WP:AN). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. This notification is being sent to those listed on the case notification list. If you do not wish to recieve further notifications, you are welcome to opt-out on that page. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming in out of nowhere, I think maybe one of the more effective ways to maybe deal with any issues of bias which might come up at the Signpost in the future is to maybe have a few editors with markedly different political/social/cultural viewpoints serving as a sort of "editorial board" for any sort of content there which might be questioned by one side or another. If such were created, I think you personally might be a very good candidate. Just an opinion, of course. John Carter (talk) 17:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I think I could work well with Gamaliel on such a board and that sounds interesting. But, I lack any worthwhile credentials. I only have a high school education and a 2-yr degree.--v/r - TP 17:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

‎Hijiri88

Talk with HighInBC about it. I was inclined to defer to you and unblock, but I figured I'd better re-review his talk page before doing anything, and this led me to HighInBC's rationale for declining the unblock request; I don't want to unblock unilaterally after such a statement. Feel free to tell HighInBC that I'm okay with an unblock if he agrees. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

See WP:AN#Admins disagreeing on unblock; when three admins disagree like this, I suppose it's better to request community review. Nyttend (talk) 11:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

UTRSBot

Haha, it looks like you might have a few issues to sort out with the bot you created ;-). I would make sure that there is a newline between the end of the previous talk page message and the beginning of the message that the bot leaves. I'd also trigger the bot to add the message only when a new ticket is created at UTRS. This will ensure that the message is left only once and not done so repeatedly, unless the user creates another new ticket - In that case, repeating the message with the new ticket number would be fine IMO. Anyways, good luck :-) ~Oshwah~ 09:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You asked to be routed. XD—_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your AN/I close of the revdel incident

A few comments:

• Why do you say that evidence of abuse is required to overturn the revdel? One can simply disagree about the judgement without alleging abuse. I never alleged abuse in my own opening statement, but explicitly asked for a review. Thus nobody commented about abuse, because it wasn't even an issue.
• In your quoting of the rev-del policy, you did not quote RD2, the rationale given for revdel. "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy." I think a strong case can be made that this did not violate BLP, and as I see it, there was a consensus against the claim of BLP violation in the ANI thread.
• I do not see why you simply ignored the third bullet point: Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal.. Clearly, there is significant dissent, and was even before it was revdeled. I also fail to see what exactly is "grossly offensive" in a passage which is debunking allegations. If I say to someone "you are not a Nazi, you are in fact a committed anti-fascist" am I offending them?
• As for a consensus of uninvolved administrators, is it my fault that enough admins didn't bother to comment on the administrators' noticeboard? The requirement for limiting it to administrators only exists because the material is only viewable by them - which does not apply here. To cite this requirement and ignore the statements of non-admins seems to me just legalism. If one really wants to be pedantic, the statement "clear, wider consensus" does not say "clear, wider consensus among administrators". However, I have no desire to be pedantic. All matters are ultimately under the control of the community, which you also quote. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• I quoted the policy, read it. Regarding the number of admins, it's luck of the draw but generally gamergate topics runs admins off. Especially after what is happening to Gamaliel.--v/r - TP 04:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I did read it. Hence I quoted from what you wrote, and from the policy. For instance, let's simply look at the first point. From WP:REVDEL: They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus. I don't see anything about abuse here, nor did I raise the point. Yet you write in your close that When closing this discussion, my objective is to determine if there is a consensus of administrators that the action was an abuse. Why? If I ask for a block review, or deletion review, there is no question of abuse. I am asking for an independent review of the revdel, or block, or deletion etc. If I wanted to ask a question about abuse, I would have opened a case against the admin, not a case about the revdel. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused about this, and I'm not involved in Gamergate whatsoever (beyond closing a couple discussions that were listed at WP:ANRFC, I suppose). You quoted a policy which states revdel should not be used when any significant disagreement over its use could arise. This seems to suggest you must have consensus for revdel for it to remain deleted rather than consensus against revdel. Would you mind elaborating on why you think the "no consensus" outcome should be for the deletion to remain in light of that line in the policy? ~ Rob 22:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for me to take an action. I can't stop the original action, but I can take an action to reverse it. No consensus exists for me to take the 2nd action. No consensus generally defaults to status quo. You can discuss with the original admin that REVDEL the material to review the discussion and determine that the action was contended. But what cannot be done is for a future action to be taken when there is no consensus to take it. You can be bold and ask for forgiveness, but you can't ask for permission and then be bold.--v/r - TP 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

May I ask how you determined consensus? I see 4 people supporting the revdel (Johnuniq, Only in death, Jehochman and SlimVirgin) in the ANI thread, and 9 people opposing (everyone else). In my own mind, the arguments of the 4 are weaker, so that counts against them as well, but I am biased, so I will say that, won't I? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read my close since your questions were already answered before you asked them. Read this slowly and carefully so you don't miss anything:

"I can already see how unpopular this is going to be, but, the policy on revdel makes it clear that:

• "RevisionDelete allows selective redaction of posts and log entries by administrators, as well as peer review by any administrator of the correct use of the tool."
• "The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy."
• "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed."
• "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus."

When closing this discussion, my objective is to determine if there is a consensus of administrators that the action was an abuse. This discussion has determined there there is no consensus that the REVDEL was an abuse. It has also noted that there is no consensus for its original use, either. But my role here is to determine if a consensus exists to overturn the original decision - which it does not. In what format the community is meant to prevent abuse of the tool, I do not know. There doesn't appear to me a method for the community to judge the material by themselves in an ordinary situation without administrative access to review the material. In this case, that material is available but the policy isn't written to allow for this exception. A discussion should take place at the WP:REVDEL talk page to resolve this issue. In the meantime, the material should not be restored because a consensus of administrators has not developed in 2 weeks to overturn the original decision. I make absolutely no judgement on the material that was REVDEL'd, no judgement on if the original action is correct, and no prejudicial statement on future precedent. This closure strictly addresses whether or not a consensus has developed to overturn an administrative action in accordance with the WP:REVDEL policy. I've determined there is not a consensus for that."

There are 6 administrators in that thread, 3 in support and 3 opposed. Good day.--v/r - TP 23:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The snark isn't really necessary. We've read the close, but we disagree with it because the policy (RevDel shouldn't be used when it would likely encounter "significant dissent") doesn't match with the action (RevDel remains while there's significant dissent). In any event, this is a more productive use of everyone's time. Dropping the link here for other editors who stumble upon this section while disagreeing with the close. Good day to you as well. ~ Rob 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a judgement on whether it should or shouldn't have been used. But it was. The question is then whether there is a consensus to reverse it. There wasn't. I suggested the issue of review by administrators be taken up at RfC, which you've done. I think that's the best way to go.--v/r - TP 23:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I already told you that I read your close, but thanks for copy-pasting it again. /sarcasm It's clear that you won't change your mind, which is fine. Since a masochist, I have opened a review of your close on WP:AN. I am happy that an RfC has been opened, which can modify BLP to deal with future cases. However, I am of the opinion that even the policy as written does not support the revdel. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)