Wikinews:Water cooler/policy/Archive/8

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] November 15

[edit] Abolition of Wikinews:Three revert rule

That the so-called 'three revert rule' be abolished on the following grounds:

  • It was implemented without true community consensus.
  • No-one ever seems to be able to tell when the first revert occurred (except for the people who issue the first block, of course! ;) .
  • The rule is never used in good faith.
  • Antagonists in an argument rarely have good judgement. 24hr bans require good judgement.
  • The rule is contrary to the spirit of Wiki.
  • Alternatives such as forking exist. Make two new versions, and protect the old version. That way *nobody* owns the "main" fork. This could even be automated.
  • There are seperate rules for dealing with vandalism, so don't even try to use *that* argument.
  • It is difficult to appeal a block when you have already been banned. And once the argument has been settled, by then you are generally unblocked already and so never find justice, since Wikipedia does not allow for the chopping off of hands of those who unjustly block under the three revert rule.
  • Too many rules makes Wikimedia a sad place.
  • Multiple players may tag-team to force one player into a third revert. This is outside the pririt of the rule, but generally undetectable.
Here is an example submitted anonymously (5th line from the bottom):
IRC About Simmo, 11 May 2005
       Lyellin        growls at simeon
       Amgine        Need a hand?
       Amgine        <claps for Lyellin>
       Lyellin        talk page comments would be nice
       Amgine        There in a minute.
       Lyellin        growls again
       Amgine        Just a moment, almost done...
       Lyellin        I posted in between there :P
       Lyellin        he removed the tag again
       Amgine        You do know that growling makes your nick even more
                     lion-like than usual?
       Lyellin        *laughs*
       Lyellin        most people think I'm female because of the nick :P
       Amgine        <chuckle>
       Lyellin        criminals!?
       Lyellin        you may want to sign your talk page edit amgine, among
                      other things
       Amgine        Heh.. going back.
       Lyellin        is the criminal thing some sort of inside joke?
       Amgine        Yes, it's a quote from a movie, the Princess Bride. It 
                     points out that he is claiming Bush Jr is a Nazi War
                     profiteer since his Grandfather was one.
       Amgine        Which is utterly bogus.
       Lyellin        ah
       Lyellin        missed that :P
       Amgine        By that standard, all Germans are currently guilty of 
                    gassing Jews, something which would surprise them I'm 
                    sure.
       Lyellin        chuckles
       Lyellin        ooooh - I got lead article. *laughs*
       Amgine        Your turn Lyellin. If he goes further, it's 3rr
       Lyellin        done
       Amgine        Blocked
       Lyellin        sighs
       Lyellin        I didn't want that to happen, but damnit
       Amgine        Well, he had every opportunity to speak to us

Unfortunately the article which I 3rr'ed was later deleted, so I can't point out the log of Lyellin and Amgine taking it in turn to revert so that they (technically) (when counting in a special way that only they understand) didn't do three reverts before I did.

  • Please add/subtract from the propsed justifications until we finally get this stupid rule abolished. Then we can start on some of the other stupid rules.

Simeon 07:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extention to the Wikinews:Three revert rule

I would like to propose an amendment, or extension, to the 3RR. Such amendment would state that users with sysop or above status cannot revert a blocking of a user more than 3 times within a 24 hour period. Such reasons are similar to those of articles, in which discussion should be made before undoing whatever a user has done, rather than to incite a "block war". Admins and other users with privileges should undoubtedly be the most civil users on the wiki, and should not be bickering about blocks by acting immaturely against each other. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. It would seem that the 3RR would apply in a case like that but it might be better to state it explcitly to avoid any ambiguity. --Wolfrider 19:14, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Propose some external mediation

Just so that we're all clear on this, in the last 24 hours Amgine blocked Neutralizer (21.11), then Eloquence unblocked him (01.16) then Amgine reblocked him (01.18), then Eloquence unblocked him (02.11), then Amgine reblocked him (02.13), then Eloquence unblocked him (02.23), with the comment "no consensus for 6 month block", then Amgine reblocked him (02.24), with the comment "no consensus to unblock. Ask other admins, please!", then Eloquence unblocked him (02.32) and, as a compromise measure towards Amgine reblocked him for two weeks rather than six months (02.33), then Cspurrier unblocked him with the comment "unblocked to reblock"(04.55), then reblocked him for six months again (04.59) - without mentioning this on the watercooler.

I note that Wolfrider, Bawolff, Rcameronw (ie. me), Deprify, and Eloquence + Neutralizer (though of course he's been barred from the discussion) have all explicitly expressed opposition to the block.

Amgine and Cspurrier have explicitly supported the 6-month block. From comments previously made when Amgine's meticulously-prepared "wiki-indictment" against Neutralizer was "leaked" to the watercooler (a leaky watercooler?) at the draft stage, it appears that at least two other administrator IDs MAY support it in principle. Eloquence has supported a two-week block as a compromise measure. So by my (very far from perfect) reckoning, we appear to have:

2 votes in FAVOUR of banning Neutralizer for 6 months. Both of these have also "voted with their admin status" and acted to implement the ban.

5 votes AGAINST (or six if you allow the banned user themselves a vote) banning Neutralizer for 6 months.

There was one vote for a compromise two-week ban. There were two people who have not voted but who MAY also support the 6-month ban.

For me, this comes down to some basic questions of principle. Can a user be banned or unbanned on the basis of a vote, or does the decision have to be made according to specific rules? Do administrators (individually or severally) have the right to ban people arbitrarily who they merely DISLIKE, or does there have to have been a (serious) contravention of the rules? Can administrators make up a rule and then use that made-up rule to ban a wikinews editor, or do such rules have to be agreed in advance by the community?

Guys, I think we're approaching a stalemate situation, with a lot of people quite unhappy about the way all this has been handled. May I humbly suggest that we need a third party to come in and help us out with this? Rcameronw 17:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I hardly believe that I qualify as a "third party", but for my two cents - the blocks that Amgine and CSpurrier have enacted are fully compliant with the blocking policy. Neutralizer has violated the NPOV policy and has made many bad edits contradictory to Wikinews:Etiquette, and to be fair - some of those messages were passed onto the admins who later blocked him. However, Neutralizer has been warned of his wrongdoing many times - perhaps not through the use of his talk page, but through various visits to the IRC channel, where users there addressed and educated him of his wrongdoings. I do believe, however, that the unblock was unjustified. As according to the blocking policy, sysops/bearaucrats can only unblock a user for the following:
Quote
Admins may unblock users if:
  • They were blocked in violation of this policy.
  • The reason for blocking no longer applies.
  • The block has lasted too long.
  • In other appropriate cases
To be fair, none of these cases apply. I believe that 6 months is adequate due to the amount of violations of policy, and that those justifications were greatly supported by policy without "spur-of-the-moment modifications". I should also note that I have contacted NGerda and have invited him to comment on the issue. It should also be noted that blocking a user is not a decision made by the community, unless it was nominated by the community. Violations of the policy are non-negotiable. --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 17:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Mediation

Hey everybody! Nice to see you all working together collaboratively like always!  ;-) So, we have this Neutralizer guy. He seems to be creating quite a stir among the editors. With regard to the block/no block decision at hand, I believe the core principal involved here is if Neutralizer actually contributes thoughtful, meaningful content to articles or if he just goes around causing problems. If the former is true, then we must weigh out whether his problems are worth his contributions; if not, then we should tell him to stop causing problems and contribute collaboratively or leave. If he refuses, we have no choice but to force him to comply. It is also unfortunate that this character has caused such a diversion from the purpose of Wikinews: to write articles. So, I would suggest to everyone that they not sweat over this matter so much; writing articles is our primary concern, and lately it hasn't appeared to be so.

Good luck on this issue everyone!
NGerda 18:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see this issue surrounding Neutralizer addressed in another way than by an arbitrary ban. Sure, my opinion is that the guy needs to learn that his POV is not NPOV, but I believe he wants to make a positive contribution. He took up my suggestion of making the Avian Flu infobox and worked on that. Like a *lot* of the contributors on Wikinews he can get a bit heated. On this basis, I'd object to his case being dealt with by the appointed Arbitration Committee. Neut has had run-ins with the people there and they'd be excused from jury duty in his case, I don't think this should be any different. As to the ban, I have no opinion one way or the other. I tend to avoid the articles he attaches himself to as I may well end up getting in a heated discussion on them. This is something Neutralizer needs to learn, and if he can't I think he should look for another project as his collabarative skills are somewhat lacking. Brianmc 19:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Another admin has reblocked Neutralizer for 6 months

...and without making any reference to this fact on the Watercooler. Here's the block log: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Special:Log/block Rcameronw 17:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banning User:Neutralizer for 6 months

[edit] Statement of issue

Neutralizer has continually cause disruption and ill feelings among editors on the project. Regardless of the rightness of his arguments, the user has been and continues to publish adversarial comments and discussions in a project that is supposed to collaborative. The user continues to use adversarial and combative editing tactics both in articles and on discussion pages. While I believe our ultimate goal is and should be to produce a quality, NPOV news product, this goal will be impossible to achieve without a community spirit which this user has worked to tear down. To be blunt, the user is trolling. Thinly veiled attacks on users, provocation, and a demonstrated unwillingness to adapt to the community standards of NPOV and collaboration continue unabated -- the community cannot continue to develop with such conduct unchallenged.

[edit] Evidence of behavior

[edit] Sock puppeting

  • User:NPOV contributions - "Original" username on Wikinews. Previously the same username blocked on Wikipedia for behaviour nearly exactly the same as that exhibited by NPOV/Neutralizer [1]. First edit as Neutralizer is to accuse admins of violating policy despite having been asked to choose another username in accordance with Wikinews policy. (Under previous username, user unilaterally chose to edit policy to suit ou's wishes.

[edit] Anti-social behavior

[edit] Abusive comments on talk pages

Including personal attacks and other violations of Wikinews:Etiquette.

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

[edit] Abusive edit summaries

By most editors, summaries indicate what changes were made to the article. User:Neutralizer rarely (less than 30% of the time, far less after factoring out page moves and other automated summary entries) uses article summaries (see Help:Edit summary#Edit summary - An important guideline is always fill summary field), but the following edit summaries were clearly intended to insult, abuse or intimidate when they are examined in their context. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]

[edit] Accusations of Administrative abuse

An accusation of administrative abuse is a very serious accusation, one which disrupts the community immediately, to examine whether their most trusted members are acting on their behalf or not.

  • Accusations with basis, but without merit: [58] [59]
  • Frivolous requests for deadminship: [60] [61] (as Johnnyk)

[edit] Accusations of conspiracy, related whisper campaigns, innuendo, slander, defamation, and attempts at character assasination

[62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] (not logged in, see [77]) [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] (as Johnnyk) [87] [88] [89] [90] [91]

[edit] Editing other user's comments

[92] [93]

[edit] POVioring

[edit] Action taken

Accordingly, I have banned the user for 6 months and encourage my fellow administrators to look carefully at the user's contributions since his arrival and discuss this ban here before they consider unblocking. While several incidents do stand out, it is the user's pattern of disruption and the totality of his actions that have driven me to this action. - Amgine / talk 21:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition

  • For the record I vehemently oppose the action taken by Amgine. This was a pre-meditated ban (see above discussion) carried out by an administrator who has a history of conflict with the user. I had suggested a better course of action would be Mediation, which is the policy of Wikipedia, this was ignored. It is not an administrator's place to pro-actively create community policy without consensus and feel this is a gross violation of administrative powers. I feel this action, and its pre-meditated nature, is grounds for revoking the users Sysop status. --Wolfrider 22:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I Strongly Oppose the bannning of Neutrilizer. (sorry if I spelt your name wrong.) Bawolff ☺☻image:smile.png 22:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC). In regards to Sock Pupputs we can't assume that JohnyK is puppet without undeniable evedence. user:NPOV was neut's previous name which he changed after being requested to so that would not be a sock puppet. Bawolff ☺☻image:smile.png 22:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
It was confirmed by a user with Checkuser, that JohnyK was a sock puppet --Cspurrier 22:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
[moving comment from above]
Sorry to go right in the middle of your big statement, but... People should not be afraid to bring up complaints about admins. This makes it sound like thats a bad thing. Bawolff ☺☻image:smile.png 22:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Note the number of accusations from a single user in a 6 week timeframe. It's not being afraid to bring up a complaint, it's being consistently disruptive of the site without justification. - Amgine / talk 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I would like to join with Bawolf and Wolfrider in strongly opposing this measure, which, to the best of my understanding, constitutes a serious abuse of power by the administrator in question, and contravenes the wikinews rules. The phrase "vindictive personal vendetta" comes inescapably to mind - frankly it demeans us all. In my view this incident, and the precedent it sets, will seriously undermine the effectiveness of wikinews unless we can get it sorted out. I strongly support Wolfrider's call for independent Mediation. Rcameronw 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I have unblocked Neutralizer. Unilateral actions with subsequent justification are not the way to deal with abusive behavior. Since you, Amgine, have had conflicts with the user before, it would have been much preferable if you had not made such a drastic decision yourself. No wiki in the Wikimedia family, to my knowledge, uses a policy where admins can unilaterally decide to ban non-vandals for periods more than a few days. If you feel that Wikinews needs better ways to deal with such users, I suggest creating either a voting (German Wikipedia) or arbitration process (English Wikipedia) to do so. If you really believe blocks of this duration should be handled by admins unilaterally, then I suggest changing the policy accordingly, but I would oppose such a change.

When Wikipedia was still young, we rarely banned even the most disruptive users. We made every possible effort to reform people. Looking at the user's history, I see little evidence that this has been done.

I have to leave for Vienna for Wikiposium in a couple of hours and don't have much time to look into this until Tuesday. I ask you not to take any action unless there is a true community consensus on this page to do so. A cursory look at the summary you gave above already colors me very skeptical. You seem to be very liberal in your definitions of "personal attack" or "abusive edit summary" and if the same liberal definitions were applied to all users, I'm sure I could dig up plenty of edits by you, me, Dan100, or many other people on Wikinews which fall under those definitions.

Certainly, Neutralizer appears to be particularly antagonistic and disruptive. But my current feeling is that an effort should be made to improve his behavior, rather than simply locking him out of the site. I may change my opinion on this. My main point, however, is that a block of this duration has not been sufficiently debated and is currently not supported by policy, therefore, this discussion should continue until the community reaches a decision, at which point an action should be taken.

If you feel that Neutralizer is so disruptive that keeping him on the site until a decision has been reached, I would not be strongly opposed to a suspension of editing privileges for two weeks to debate the matter. But I am opposed to a block for 6 months that is not explicitly supported by the community as a whole.--Eloquence 01:40, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand your reasoning, though of course I do not agree entirely with it. I do feel Neutralizer is disruptive enough that keeping him on the site while attempting to reach a decision should be avoided, but I would rather that time were counted against the total ban which is easiest accomplished by leaving the block at 6 months. Should the community reach a decision to remove the block earlier, or for a shorter period of time, that change can be applied at that time. This is why I reblocked the user after you unblocked.
I would like to note one thing: Unilateral actions with subsequent justification are not the way to deal with abusive behavior. I did ask you to read and discuss before unitlaterally unblocking. - Amgine / talk 01:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Neutralizer has just emailed me and has stated he wants to participate in mediation. I also must oppose the second block, as I believe it is unfair to not allow him to speak for himself. I believe it would be better if the block was removed and we asked Neutralizer on good faith not to make any more edits (with the exception of participating in this discussion) until the issue is resolved. If he violates the request, then we have a reason to keep him out of the discussion for a certain amount of time. --Wolfrider 02:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


1) A temporary suspension of editing privileges, even of two weeks, should be approved by the community. I for one would abstain from such a decision at least for now, but I feel that other users should be given a chance to comment before it is taken. What I would make as a condition of such a block is that the user is notified that they are under investigation and due to serious complaints by some administrators, his editing privileges have been temporarily suspended until a decision by the community has been made. I would prefer it if such a block was performed by an administrator who has had very few dealings with the user in question.
2) Blocking the user for 6 months makes the possible maximum sentence look like a fait accompli. Innocent until proven guilty is a valuable principle. A sysop should not be