User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 9

Anythingyouwant, they were placed under the same page level sanctions but under different arbcom rulings. The main Roy Moore article is under sanctions from the American politics case, which has a special template. The sexual abuse allegations are under sanctions from the BLP case, which just uses a standard template. I placed the sexual assault page under BLP sanctions specifically to avoid Wikilawyering as to whether it was “highly visible.” Additionally, page level sanctions are placed and users made aware not primarily by talk page templates, which are an additional measure, but by edit notices. Both pages contain nearly identical edit notices, with only the case differing. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If the sanctions are the same, may I suggest that the templates be re-jiggered to have a more similar appearance instead of looking vastly different? Regarding edit notices, I see you just left me one, but they don't say which articles, right? For that we would have to look atop the articles' talk pages? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Page_restrictions makes it clear that this is how editors are to be informed of page level restrictions. They are identical except for the case on both pages, so you should know that the sanctions are identical. TonyBallioni (talk

) 07:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. I was very lucky today that someone alerted me at my user talk to a mistake I made in this regard, so I was able to self-revert. I'm just here to explain what happened to me, and it was because the templates looked so different superficially. Maybe other editors won't be so clueless as I was. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:37, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, and sorry I am being so firm on this, but I specifically applied BLP sanctions to that one page for a reason, so I don't think it would be appropriate to change the talk templates. Thank you for being so understanding. Have a great night. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I have not expressed myself well enough to you. I am not suggesting that you switch from a BLP-based template to an American politics-based template at

Talk:Roy Moore sexual abuse allegations. I am suggesting that the BLP-based template be re-designed so that it looks more like the American politics-based template. The former template is now much smaller and insignificant-looking than the latter template, even though they carry the same sanctions. Anythingyouwant (talk

) 07:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The place to have that conversation would be at the talk page of

Template:Ds/talk notice which is the generic discretionary sanctions talk page notice. TonyBallioni (talk

) 07:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Did this instead. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted. Thank you for your concerns, but I placed the templates on those pages intentionally, and you shouldn't change them. If you want to open up a discussion, please do so on the template talk page(s). TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No, I see no reason to go to the template talk pages. If you have an objection to what I did, then I see no reason why you (or someone else) wouldn't likewise object to doing it some other way. I did not change the substantive content one iota, so if you have a problem with that, then I don't see why you wouldn't have a problem accomplishing the same thing via a different and more cumbersome process. So I'm going to just forget about it, which is unfortunate, because the present disparity is confusing (it confused me at least). However, it might have been nice to learn what your reason is, beyond "do not do that". Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinions on the general format of the AP2 sanctions template. If you want to make a case that it should look like the rest of the DS talk templates, I will not object one bit. I placed

My reason is this: Roy Moore is the more visible article, and the AP2 sanctions are so well known that using that template there makes sense. I sanctioned the sexual abuse page under the BLP case because I wanted to avoid Wikilawyering over whether a split from the main article qualified as "highly visible", so I didn't use the AP2 template on it. There is a large edit notice anytime you edit either page, so no one should be in the dark that there are active sanctions, and while I am sorry you were confused, I don't see a need to change it.

Also, as a helpful piece of advice (and it is meant this way, so please take it as such), it is a really bad idea for a non-admin to make any changes to a discretionary sanctions template placed by an administrator. You are free to ask about it, but don't change it. It is also an especially bad idea to make changes to the DS template on a page that you have just been put under discretionary sanctions on. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I discussed the general problem here first and you expressed no objection to fixing it. Did I do anything more than formatting? If so, I apologize. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I like the AP2 template on Roy Moore better because it contains more information and will be helpful to users who are not familiar with our discretionary sanctions system. As the sexual abuse article is a split, its less likely to have new editors who will need this information. You didn't change anything in terms of what the restrictions are, but you still shouldn't have changed the template because as I hope you understand by now, I was very intentional with the way I dealt with both pages.

I also hope you know that I really am not mad and aren't out to get you: I have no idea where you stand on any of these disputes (except the one I sanctioned you on), and I am far removed from the American politics battleground so I'm not trying to enforce one "side" or another. I just want to decrease disruption on those pages, so that our readers benefit, and I've done it the best way I know how. You don't have to agree with it or like it, but I do ask that you leave it that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Per the Atsme result, the Roy Moore sexual abuse allegation article is within Volunteer Mareks topic ban. Reverting topic banned editors is not considered a revert. Please lift my topic ban in light of this finding. You can trout me with the same fish that was given Atsme. --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No. That is not clear, and GoldenRing did not think that it was. It was also far from clear at the time that it was within his topic ban. Your topic ban still stands. I will not be lifting it. Also, for the record, if I had been commenting on that case, I would have strongly opposed the idea that it was within Marek's topic ban: that would be a de facto ban from all AP2 articles, which was clearly not the intent. I don't think there is a consensus among administrators on that point, and I would oppose sanctioning Marek for it in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony would this be because the new rendition does not cause abandonment of an older finding?--MONGO 16:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Its because the actions by DHeyward were disruptive, indicated an intent to game the system, and at the time before Sandstein's close of the new AE thread, I saw no possible way even under the broadest of constructions how Moore as an individual could fall within a Trump ban unless GoldenRing had intended it to be an AP2 ban entirely, which in the AE thread that Sandstein closed, he said he did not intend. If there are questions as to if an action counts as a revert for edit warring/1RR/3RR purposes, editors should generally assume it does. DHeyward also didn't seem to come to this belief that it fell within Marek's topic ban until after he was at AE. It was just edit warring, plain and simple, and I don't think that it should be WikiLawyered out of because of an unclear sanction placed by another admin.

Also, to address criticisms of me at DHeyward's talk page: I'm new, in my RfA I described no intent of working in AE, and I still don't really have an intent to work in it. I just happened to be the first uninvolved admin to come across Roy Moore the day the scandal broke, and I put it under DS because it was obvious that it would need it. Same with the sexual abuse one. I don't like working in this area, and I don't like sanctioning experienced editors, but I also try to be fair, and always to explain my reasoning if people have issues. I don't mind saying I'm wrong or taking criticism, but I don't think this was a case where I was wrong. Anyway, thank you for dropping by, MONGO (and I mean that). I always appreciate when people drop by, even if its on contentious things :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

That's not true. I will raise some issues though. First, Volunteer Marek I believe is under a topic ban for articles related to Donald Trump. is my first statement regarding the reverts. Anyway, I brought it to AE in light of the fact that two other editors violated 1RR DS to revert two other editors subject to the Goldenring topic ban. Those two editors were not sanctioned. Anyway, off we go again[1]. --DHeyward (talk) 17:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Tony...I recognize you're a newer Admin and I thank you for taking on the roles and for the thankless job of working as an AE admin as well. This is a difficult set of articles, drawing very polarizing views and with the Senate having such a narrow majority led by the Republicans at present, I'm concerned that the Moore articles and related ones are being used as a coatrack for every negative piece of information imaginable, and NPOV as well as BLP are being put to the test and Wikipedia is being misused as an advocacy platform. This is not to say you are doing anything other than what you think is best. Best wishes.--MONGO 17:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, MONGO, that is appreciated. I also have concerns about the neutrality of articles, but I think that it should be worked out by consensus on the talk page, and that the edit warring here is more harmful than things that can be addressed through consensus and are not clear BLP violations. Thank you agan for your work here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• MONGO, I don't think there's any precedent for the Moore situation. He's a person credibly accused of the sexual molestation and assault of multiple young teenagers, and yet he's running for the US Senate with the tacit (and increasingly, the explicit) approval of the Republican Party—despite the Party leadership's agreement that the accusations are credible and likely true. I'm not sure what the right balance is for a Wikipedia biography under those circumstances, but I'm hesitant to say that it's just people throwing negative stuff into a BLP. Presenting the facts alone paints a pretty negative picture, both of Moore and of the Party, to many people. It's our job to be fair and accurate, but it's also our job not to pretend that every set of facts has a separate and equally valid set of alternative facts.

  Tony, I think you're a good admin and quite possibly will turn out to be a great admin. I do think it's wise to go slow when it comes to getting involved at

  WP:AE is, without exception, the most challenging and demanding administrative corner of the project. By its nature, it attracts and concentrates the most difficult topics, and the most difficult editors, on the project. The only error I think you made in this case was in underestimating the capacity of DHeyward and others for wikilawyering. Once you've been an admin a little longer, you'll become cynical enough not to make that sort of mistake again. :P I hope to see you active at WP:AE down the line—it's historically been quite understaffed—but I also think, as you alluded to, that it's best to gain some experience in dispute resolution in slightly less treacherous terrain before taking that on. In any case, thanks for your work and I hope to see you around. MastCell ^Talk
  20:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, thanks for the advice, I agree :). AE was not something that I wanted to get involved in at all, to be honest, I just stumbled upon Moore after the scandal and put the DS on it to try to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. It definitely isn't my goal to be a regular AE admin: I try to stay away from drama, and have not particularly enjoyed the whole Roy Moore saga. Anyway, thanks again for posting here :) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

To put it more concretely, DS covers contentious topics. Topics become contentious when two or more opposing groups of editors disagree. Ideally these groups maintain a balance and the resulting articles are a satisfactory compromise; that's rare. More common is that the group with greater numbers dictates content. That's a consequence of the consensus model and editing restrictions like 3RR. Because the cost of recruiting new editors is high - it takes months or years to learn to edit difficult articles properly - and the cost of topic banning editors is low - a week or so of back and forth at AE - numbers are determined more by who's banned than who's recruited. Thus article content is controlled by bans. The fewer administrators who dispense the bans the more power each has to control content. This is amplified if the administrators coordinate explicitly off wiki, or implicitly though shared biases.

If that model is correct is predicts: higher correlation between editor and outcome than action and outcome, high correlation between topic and administrator, high correlation in known biases - expressed in article edits and casual discussion - of participating administrators, and hostility to new administrators whose biases are unknown, or known but conflict with the existing consensus. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to determine whether those predictions are confirmed. 107.77.223.97 (talk) 22:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

I object in the strongest possible terms to your early closure of that Request for Comment. The process is meant to last thirty days, and if my understanding is correct, an automatic means to solicit feedback had yet to even begin (and which your action assumingly aborts).

As I had just made clear in my last comment, any argument that the issue has been conclusively settled, is flat out wrong - currently, on a survey of just seven people, one of whose actions as an Administrator (Dennis) is the direct inspiration for the question, there is clear disagreement over whether journalists can or cannot contact Wikipedia users, and if they can, whether they should declare themselves as paid editors or not. It goes without saying that such an issue cannot be settled formally as undecided (and so leave it to chance) on such a low turnout and short time period.

I genuinely hope this is just a case of you not having properly read the question, or thought through the implications of the responses (do not be misled by the mere existence of only "oppose" responses, what matters is their reasoning, given the question). Unless you can convince me this is not what has happened here, for example by telling me exactly what an Administrator is supposed to learn from this outcome (with reference to the precise wording of the question, in a way that is consistent with the responses so far), I have to dispute it.

If you cannot explain this action, I will absolutely challenge it, because journalists do not deserve to be left in limbo like this, unsure whether they will be blocked on basic principle (Alan, Dennis?), blocked if they do not declare as paid editors (Dennis? Cullen) or should not be blocked at all (Justin, Risker), plus whatever Carrite thinks is the common sense approach to each unique situation. I hope that mini-summary alone illustrates the perversity of GMG declaring there is "unanimous opposition" to the question, and you apparently acting on it.

I am loathe to give Dennis' words any more gravitas than he is seeking with his stream of unceasing insults and insinuations, but on a point of fact, in case you gave it any consideration when deciding to end this RfC early, I have not "shopped this all over" - after being brushed off by him on his talk page, I asked at the Help Desk what I should do, and they suggested a Request for Comment at the Village Pump, and so there I went.

Until your premature ending of the process, I was confident of generating enough responses to either produce a clear and authorative protocol, or at least a widely agreeable advice page, if clarity was still lacking. But what can I write with this handful of contradictory views? I can have a go, but I suspect the very first reaction from others on seeing it, would be to dismiss it as illegitimate.

In anticipation of the right outcome, thank you for your consideration.

James Marshall Y (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN, but I don't think you should. We had opposes from some of the most respected members of our community that come from very different places on the WikiPhilosophy spectrum. Further discussion of this would be a waste of the community's time and would be extremely unlikely to change the result. TonyBallioni (talk

) 19:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Six minutes seems barely enough time for you to have read my request and posted the reply, let alone go back and review the RfC to understand what I was asking you to do. Thus, I am not convinced.

James Marshall Y (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

(

disruptive. Happy editing! Serial Number54129^{...speculates}

20:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:AN, but the result isn't going to be any different. TonyBallioni (talk

) 20:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Your friend apparently doesn't even realise his own recommendation that I do some article work isn't backed by HERE at all, indeed it is explicitly called out as wrong. And if he had studied my time here as closely as he claims, would have known I would be very familiar with its contents. I know nothing of NOTWEBHOST, but if he had a point he'd probably not have to be so vague in this piece of advice (and how does one recreate a page that never existed?).