User:FT2/Snips

1. Note that asking others to join in a debate, unless careful, may be seen as "meat puppetry". Wikipedia debates are a collaboration to find what's best, not a question of "voting numbers". So it's important to be aware of that. Whilst "good faith" newcomers are more than welcome, there are dangers of non-neutrality if a number of people visit an article in response to a request from one "side". Take a look at WP:SOCK for the policy in this area. Especially, note that if it's unclear, then previous decisions have held that inappropriate meat-puppetry can be treated the same as sock puppetry would be. Something to be aware of.

    

2. Even if so, that may well be seen as an inappropriate action. "I didn't like the action so I stacked the editorship in the article" would still be seen as highly inappropriate, and you may have inadvertantly put those concerned in a difficult position of now being seen as sock or meat puppets, both classified under the same policy. The non-neutrality of the action can be seen in that for example, there was not really the chance of people arriving as a result of your invitation, who disagreed with your stance for any reason. And as you point out, none did. So it's a bit of a stacked deck. In future, if you disagree with a decision, I strongly suggest you post a request for help internally, for example on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so that those who contribute and check it out, come with a neutral slant, and from any and all viewpoints equally.

Hi,

I'm glad to see you are interested in developing your wiki-knowhow by seeing admin coaching. Without any prior judgement whether you are ready or not to seek others views on adminship, it is always good to see others aiming to improve themselves. If you are looking for occasional hints and tips on your editing, I would be glad to give you some to-the-point feedback and pointers, and a helping hand for a while.

(Of course what you do with them, and how others view your work, is down to you always!)

If you're interested, you'll want as a first step to set yourself up with an email account, and then let me know.

90% of a successful RfA is three things - learning to be responsible, stable, and answerable for your actions even in the midst of chaos; being engaged, measured and thoughtful enough to gain others respect; and having wiki-focus, judgement, and broad awareness of what janitorship's about.

Information request ([User_talk

Neutralhomer], Oct'07)

Hi,

I noticed your request for information on a contributor to Wikipedia. I thought I'd drop a line as well as the one by the administrator you contacted.

As a rule, Wikipedia is tightly bound by the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. In general, no information is ever released outside those guidelines. To underpin that, even the administrators themselves are not allowed to know more information on identity than you yourself can see -- this is restricted to a very small group of editors who can look behind a username to an IP address, and these operate under a tight code of mutual cross-checking and would be instantly stripped of such rights for even hinting about location or other information they could tell from an IP, if it contravened that policy.

Part of the reason for this is that Wikipedia is accessed, and edited, by a wide range of users, often in countries where the laws are not as generous towards free speech as one might expect here. As a rule, vandalism, including defamatory or unpleasant comments, is handled by the editorial community, which deals with such cases as a matter of routine. I've listed some resources you might find helpful, and it's likely if the comments are unhelpful, or blatently damaging, that you will be able to obtain speedy rectification.

Having reviewed the edits in question though, I can suggest that whilst annoying to you, they are not of a standard that merits more than usual editorial handling - revert them or seek dispute resolution or (if constantly being added in bad faith) administrator input from the noticeboard. Details of all these are below.

Resources

• Foundation privacy policy - applies above all
• Biography of Living People policy - unlikely to apply but may be useful as reference
• Dispute resolution -- how disputes are handled between editors.
• Vandalism policy and blocking policy
• Administrator's noticeboard for Incidents - for speedy admin response to an incident. Do not overuse, but worth knowing it's there for legitimate appropriate need.
• Oversight - for genuine breaches of privacy and the like, in some cases a revision can be deleted completely.
• OTRS - contacting the Foundation ticket service via OTRS. They are less likely to be able to help, since this would usually be considered an editorial issue, but all emails are taken seriously and if you decided to take it further they would be your contact outside the editorial community.
• Wikipedia's policy on actual legal threats - broadly an editor who actually says "I will sue you" or "I will take legal action" in a manner that is a cogent threat to do so, should not edit until the matter is resolved or withdrawn. Worth ensuring you know about given your obvious anger towards this person.

Hopefully one or some of these will help. You've probably come across many of them already here and there. If you need to know more or want further advice on handling, please do ask.

Yours,

Even for incivility there is strong precedent that a block is protective, for example this block decline by a current arbcom member, stating (to another editor):

"You were indeed warned to be civil; you chose to ignore the warnings. Preventing you from being incivil for 24 hours is a legitimate block".

The protective use of such blocks, and the damage caused by such conduct not being inhibited, is emphasized and re-emphasized in policy pages. For example see:

Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Personal attacks ... hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia". "Some types of comments are never acceptable: [eg] epithets (such as against disabled people) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" "Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia." "A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to end up in the dispute resolution process, possibly including the serious consequences of arbitration, and may become subject to a community ban." "In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. [...] Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." (Note that NPA is a core conduct policy on Wikipedia, not an optional afterthought)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights [...] of [users]... A block for protection may be necessary in response to: [...] persistently making personal attacks." "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to: ... persistent gross incivility; ... edit warring or revert warring; ... persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive." "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider: ... the severity of the behavior; whether the user has engaged in that behavior before."

user X breached the bright line rule WP:3RR which is there to dampen and curtail revert warring no manner whether right or wrong and replace it by dispute resolution. She responded to declination by making the following personal attacks [Y][Z].

[...Accordingly I concur with the block, and in the circumstances and, given the [(link) previous record] of blocks for harassment, incivility that had already been escalated somewhat past the minimal 24 hours, I concur that a week's block is an appropriate use of judgement.]

I notice you've written an article on Mike Silverman, which looks like your first article.

I thought I'd drop you a note to fill you in what to expect next.

• Articles on Wikipedia are all communally owned and managed, so you'll see other editors contributing with the aim of adapting the draft towards an encyclopedia entry (rather than resume) style. If it's felt by anyone that it doesn't meet our criteria, then a discussion will take place whether to keep or remove it, and likewise anmy content which isn't within our manual of style, or article norms.

• The article has also been tagged being contributed to by a connected person. This is routine when there may be a perception that the article author, or some invested party, is also connected to the article subject, and arises because we have a duty to be neutral, and so any factor that might influence that must be noted for other editors' and reader awareness. Tags relating to article condition are removed when a consensus forms amongst editors that the relevant editorial concern has been suitably addressed.

• It would help if you'd let us know if you are Mike Silverman, so we can work better on it, but it's not obligatory.

You may want to read our guideline on conflict of interest; broadly what this says is, it's best you tell independent editors of any points you wish to raise, rather than fix them yourself, unless they are obvious (grammar, factual mistake). That way it's clear the article was independently written. The guideline also contains a note of the problems which can arise if ignored, and it's worth reading that section carefully.

If you do decide to edit, then there are three main policies you need to know: Wikipedia is neutral (neutral point of view), does not contain personal comments, thoughts, or personal knowledge/opinions of editors, but only what can be shown to be published in reliable sources (no 'original research'), and verified reliably (verifiability). You might also find this page useful: Business' FAQ. And of course, good conduct is valued and sought.

If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me via my talk page. If you have a problem please ask, rather than let it spiral. Thanks!

We have received your letter regarding X, and our volunteer community is beginning a review of the article in question. We note here, as we always do in response to such complaints, that anyone (including you or Mr. X) can edit a Wikipedia article to remove or change inaccurate or misleading information. Most readers find that editing an inaccurate article is both a less expensive and more satisfying remedy than legal action. If you would like to do so yourself, and you have any difficulty doing so, please contact [our volunteer coordinator, Cary Bass], who will assist you.

Generally, any edits of an existing article should be accompanied both be an explanatory note in the header for the edit and, if possible, by an explanation for the changes in the Talk page of the article. In addition, revisions are more likely to be respected if undertaken by a registered user of Wikipedia rather than by an anonymous user. Registration is, as always, free of charge.

We realize that self-help is sometimes counterintuitive in an era in which we are transitioning from one-way mass media (newspapers and broadcasting) to a more collaborative model (including wikis such as Wikipedia), but we encourage you to explore this option on your client's behalf, even as we ask our volunteers to review the article as well.

1. Checkuser is only to be used to check whether disruptive activity is taking place. That is, it may not be used for curiosity, to find a user's IP without cause, or any other reason, except that. That's roughly the sum of WMF policy. ("The tool is to be used to fight vandalism, to check for sockpuppet abuse, and to limit disruption of the project. It must be used only to prevent damage to any of Wikimedia projects. The tool should not be used for political control; to apply pressure on editors; or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to check a user.")
2. Unless unavoidable, Checkuser obtained information is not to be disclosed publicly or to others. This includes IPs, IP-user connections, or any other material. Major exceptions - broad information (such as "uses AOL" or "IP starts 123.x.x.x" or "is in Western Canada") is usually too wide to be identifying, and disclosure if needed in the course of preventing disruption is permitted. But in general, both minimal wherever possible.
3. Last, English Wikipedia Checkuser policies and norms, are that users requesting an authorized user to run a checkuser inquiry into a matter, must not "fish". But if the checkuser feels a concern is possibly worth checking to limit or prevent disruption, they may run any examination they like, on their own cognisance. (For example in a heated matter like this, more checkusers are probably likely to check issues themselves, simply to remove predictably disruptive red herrings and accusations early, or nip incipient abuse in the bud.)

In this case it would clearly be disruptive for socking to occur, and indeed it is not impossible to believe it might have. Therefore checkuser would be a valid means to "check for sockpuppet abuse and to limit disruption". A number of checkusers have very likely performed sockchecks to try and ensure the RFAR is "clean".

In terms of encyclopedic content, there isn't such a thing as "approved" or "agreed" versions, nor has there ever been. Articles are authored by users as part of the wider community in which all can participate, not by some central group who have the authority to make "agreements" that bind all editors. This is central to how Wikipedia works.

If there is a content dispute, it is resolved by the community, with a subject entitled to a voice. But normal policies and communal standards apply:

1. NPOV is mandatory as always
2. Notability, inclusion norms, and sufficient reliable sources to write an encyclopedic article are the factors that determine inclusion in the encyclopedia
3. OR and V determine suitable facts for inclusion in the article, and
4. BLP mandates (roughly) that a high standard of sourcing and especial care is needed, especially applying to any negative content from poor quality sources, and authorizes prompt removal of poor source negative content and attacks.

What we do not have is "approved versions" that some vague group of editors have agreed and which nobody else can easily edit. (Even protected articles can have a request made, and protection is not a desirable long term state for an article precisely since it prevents collaborative editing.) We have instead, norms about content, editorial conduct, and disputes, that address contentious topics. Again those are the same on all topics. In such circumstances one must edit carefully and be sure to edit in an appropriate manner, and discuss concerns that may arise.

Just an outside view on one aspect discussed above. Hope it helps. Talk:Don Murphy/Archive2

For me it's likewise -- thats when I'm doing work myself like AFD or disputes. But for policy, I word it to help others who might not have "judgement".... I feel if I assume "they will understand the spirit" all we get is argument and dispute. So i try to clarify a lot of it, without setting down fixed "rules". Principles, but a bit more close to how we actually do it as "best practice" sort of thing. It seems to help a lot... editors tend to use them to be sure what not to do :) and whats not okay for others to do :)

But yeah... it'll be a cold day in hell before you find me writing something saying how many hours a block should be, do block on this, not on that...

You're right. As experience grows its all about the spirit of what we're doing, not the wordage :)

[irc]

I'm sure there are exceptions, and also note this is a very simplistic version of a very complex subject, but that's about the "one line summary" of it.

The problem here is, [User] has already had shorter blocks. He's already been through Arbcom. By removing the reality of the situation from him - by endorsing that longer blocks will be retracted into trivial ones upon emailing - you are preventing him from recognizing his position and learning. What do you want -- drive him into a community ban instead?

Two arbcom clerks both agreed that 1/ a comment that "anyone believing in this is a moron or an absolute whacko" meets WP:NPA ("disparaging") and that 2/ those "believing" (and targetted) are not believers in the abstract, but editor-believers. The comment continued, "the perceived slights by those who believe in EVP is not our concern". I disagree. Gratuitous incivility to even those completely wrong, is our concern, if it is posted on the wiki.

I notice and acknowledge the circumstances that have been described by all sides at WP:AE. The problem is, SA has had a lot of rope. Lots of it. Other admins are trying to help him recognize "you just don't do that" without him hitting a ban (I tried myself in January before matters got busy here), which requires setting clear (and sometimes unpleasant) boundaries. As Rlevse commented, your untoward reduction basically makes that unnecessarily more difficult. WP:AE is a final stop where the only concern is breach of arbcom decisions. There more than anywhere, WP:BLOCK comes into play -- if there is disagreement, discuss it with the blocking admin.

I feel this was ill judged in an already difficult situation, and would ask that you take this well, and please consult more beforehand with the blocking admin themself, where circumstances may exist, before reduction in future.

Please bear in mind the real possibility that your actions may at times not always benefit the project as you'd wish, if they don't follow current communal norms and expectations, or respect others' approaches a little more.

(In response to "Intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis/no it isn't")

Much more relevant than this, ID is a topic on Wikipedia. It will have multiple views, and we document and cite the significant ones. We do not need to form a view ourselves, whether it is "scientific" or not, to accurately do most of this, since our view is not as important as neutrally reflecting the significant views (and due weights) that are held and their respective voices. We do not need to treat ID differently from any other contentious topic, in principle, to do that.

Think of it as "just data" if that helps. It's just a topic of an article, where we aim to characterize (describe) the subject, the debate/s and the significant view/s, with neutrality, good cites, and fair weight, rather than re-enact them. All the arguments and differences that exist, are "just information someone might want to know about it", including whether X or Y consider it scientific, how it's used, the controversies attaching, support and dissent, and so on. (The main and authoritative voices for a large part of it will probably be scientific ones, but that doesn't change these basic approaches.)

Just a courtesy note, following a recent edit,

The X article is one of several targetted by internet trolls and vandals. Views, including cites from research, should not be trusted (sadly) unless you check them yourself personally, and in full, and in context, and ensure you understand them. There are strong views both sides, and you're treading in an area that's been heavily vandalized in the past.

I therefore strongly offer advice that you do your own research on the subject, ignoring initially what other editors say, and check for yourself with google. There are many sources on both sides, but history suggests that at present, some got cited partially and selectively, and you are therefore likely to fall foul if you follow the lead of others representations here (positive or negative) on the topic before gaining any of your own research and understandings from your own sources.

Rather than purport to say "I can tell you what to think" (which I can't), I would rather say, do not assume that you know much, until you have read it up yourself. Then, tread a toe carefully, testing whether your view is actually a neutrally balanced one, on the grounds that whatever might be verifiable and balanced, that is probably your best way to find it.

Hopefully this will help give you a good starting point, even though it is a most uncommon "heads up". It's been an unusually warred-over article. Thanks!

I notice you've had some dispute centering around the movie, and original research. I thought I'd drop a brief note to clarify.I don't know what you know, so I'll try to not assume.

We write the content of articles based on information that anyone can verify, now or in the future, published by reliable sources -- meaning, sources that have widespread recognition as credible and that what they publish they have themselves probably checked.

Like alot of reference works, this means that sometimes, facts will be "known" that are not in fact able to be sourced from reliable sources, in which case, we actually try to avoid adding them. Even if it means Wikipedia is slightly out of date on some cutting edge stuff. if it matters, some other source will usually mention it, and we can use that.

Examples of sources which are not usually treated as reliable include posts on forums (because anyone can post them), and files held by individuals but not referenced by some actual reliable source (such as a magazine, TV station, information site of repute, etc). If you can find a reliable source that states this item exists, then it will be possible to include it. Unfortunately even if you, I, and 1000 others download a film, it isn't "reliable" or "verified" because no mainstream source has noted it, recognized its existence, and so on.

I hope this helps a bit. It's not perfect (few things will be), but it's a communally agreed compromise we use to balance the risk of including material that later editors will judge flawed. We know that as a result sometimes valid information is excluded, and communally, we have accepted that compromise and situation.

If you need more clarification, let me know.

Best,

- [1]

Just a quick clarifier on the above. Following the above being passed to me, I looked back in the channel logs. This is what I found. One user, (NAME), was angry, and exasperated at the choice he did not agree with, of who was appointed to the working group. In that context he stated in the channel a month ago on February 7, his upset at the appointments, expressed his concerns, and gave his apprehensions about the impact of appointing a specific user in an uncivil (short outburst) manner. (OTHERUSER) and a couple of others countered this without drama, the matter was over in a few lines as best that log shows. More importantly, not one other person on the channel endorsed or supported that negative statement -- the channel in general on inspection, functioned exactly as was best. It did not analyze (and thereby perpetuate or fuel) the drama, it did not support it. It decided it was unworthy of discussion. It let one or two users do the talking why it was wrong, and the rest either ignored it as a brief outburst quickly dropped, or commented that drama wasn't wanted and to let it go. (NAME) himself dropped it there minutes later, and is not in the habit of making such outbursts there. It was not raised again that way, nor has (NAME) commented on it in any way or spoken uncivilly there on any other matter since. Given that 100% is not attainable in any medium, it is fair to say that this was in fact handled well, that every single channel users with one exception acted appropriately in the channel when it happened, and that one user got the hint and quickly dropped it.

You may have concerns in future on a matter to do with that channel (which is not outside the bounds of possibility). I accept that there are differences whether it should exist or not, be public or not, is appropriately representative or not. But in terms of actual conduct there, a fair number of independent users can usually review what went on and see if the action was seriously out of line.

I will add - although not asked - I have also checked out other statements at other times of recent incidents, and in most of them, the representation on-wiki does not conform to the actual channel dialog as it took place. I accept that this information is not public and therefore perhaps frustratingly, cannot be verified in the way that on-wiki discussion can. Then again, off-wiki chat such as email, irc, and other forums, has never been scrutinizable that way, and technically, often cannot be. The wiki-norm is more that all adverse matters and problematic behaviors, are to be "left at the door", and repeating breachers of norms may be warned or sanctioned. Whether that's right or not is a matter of user philosophy. I have stated my reasons why it works in the recent RFC, and note that people will talk - it's better to have a place where 50 or so admins observe and keep a good standard (which it has had in general at least equal to the wiki for quite some time) and scrutiny, than fragmented "behind the scenes" chat between smaller cliques. At present, any admin at all of any viewpoint can join that channel, which since the action taken in 2006, has consistently proven quite successful as a technique.

[2] - FloNight's talk page

Since others might also wonder, here's some info to help. You may wish to block the IP range, or semi-protect the pages. Since I assume you know how to do the latter, here's some quick tips on the former:

If you visit http://arin.net and enter the first IP, you'll find that's part of an ISP range covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. In fact this covers both IPs in question. [if the ISP wasn't in that part of the world, it would mention RIPE or APNIC or such - links are on the bottom, again you paste the IP into their website to see what they say]. You can then check quickly what CIDR range this would be, at this calculator for example. Enter the lower IP and choose a number of bits in the drop-down box. See what range that covers. By trial and error, you'll find that 22 bits covers it, and the CIDR box on the right will then show 64.228.128.0/22 as covering 64.228.128.0 - 64.228.131.255. This would be the range you block. You'd remember not to block IPs too long, since every user on that range would be affected.

Rules of thumb: try an odd number of days, like 8 days or something (in case they come back). Also if its a wide range, ask a checkuser how much it's used -- you'd tell them you're proposing to block <X range> and can they let you know if there'd be much collateral damage.

In this case, what you might do is semi-protect the 2 or 3 pages in question for 2 weeks, and also block the underlying IP range for say 9 days... if that doesnt deter him a fair bit, ask again.