Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320

Currently there is a proposal to indefinitely ban an editor from contributing at the Good Article project (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Proposal: Happypillsjr is indefinitely banned from GAN). The discussion is already underway there so it might be best for anyone interested to participate at that page regarding the ban. There was some discussion as to the appropriateness of deciding such a ban at the Good Article Nomination talk. I am not overly familiar with the history in this regard, but it might be worth getting some clarification on this from some editors here. If it is the wrong venue then we can move it here. AIRcorn (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Small note, I fixed your wikilink above. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that is not allowed, the
  WP:ANI. Hut 8.5
  08:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I am seriously nervous about this. I should note that AfC has occasionally done reviews of AfC reviewers, and I don't know whether that would be counted as similar or different (as we also control giving our de facto userright etc). The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I agree. I think that this is the place to carry out such a ban. And who would enforce a ban made there anyway? Doug Weller talk 09:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• I too agree - this is the correct venue for a community TBan (which is what this would amount to) to be discussed. I have offered my tuppenceworth at the discussion there. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• What's the difference between the discussion being linked here and taking place elsewhere and vice versa? It just makes a difficult decision unnecessarily harder and more burdensome on the editors involved, and is absolutely not based in the quoted policy which does not mandate that community sanctions must occur only at AN/ANI. — Bilorv (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  WP:CBAN, as I read it, is Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I guess it doesn't go on to say that they can't happen anywhere else, but nor does it say that they can - this venue is clearly specified as the preferred venue, with AN/I being the only other option given. It's less of a problem now that it has been linked - but why not simply move the whole discussion here? I do appreciate the difficulty involved in making a decision like that, it can't be comfortable for anyone, but I'm not comfortable with the idea that editors can be banned from taking part in community processes without wider scrutiny. GirthSummit _(blether)

  11:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• "May be discussed" is not the same as "Must be discussed". Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Beyond My Ken, indeed - I acknowledged that, and I agree that it would be worded better, but when I read 'May be discussed at X (preferred) or Y', I see that as a choice, and infer that Z isn't an option. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do not read it that way. I see no exclusion, only a suggestion of possible venues. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I do read it that way. Two options, one of which is preferred. P-K3 (talk) 12:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  @

  WT:BAN#Proposed wording change to WP:CBAN. Your input there would be appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk)

  13:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Per GS, how about just moving the discussion here, where there will be many more administrative eyes on it, and generally of editors independent of the GA project (which is not implyng that members of the GA project cannot "police" themselves, mere that, on principle, distance is good). In any case, although the letter of the policy indicates that other venues are availble, in reality an appeal based on "It didn't take place at AN/ANI" will almost certainly suceed, if only because the reviewing admin considers WT:GA too narrow a venue. ——SN54129 12:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I am not sure keeping it independent of GA is a good idea. Watchers of
    WT:GAN are generally pretty knowledgeable of the process and should be in a better position to judge if an editors reviews or nominations are up to the required standard (one which is pretty lenient) compared to editors at any other venue. A bigger concern to me would be ban discussions taking place here with no input from the GA project. To be perfectly honest most of our best reviewers are not admins. AIRcorn (talk)
    01:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• My experience with GA is limited (I've submitted 2 candidates, and happily both were accepted), so I'm not an expert there. I also have no knowledge of the particular editor in question here, so all this is in the abstract. There's two issues here:
  1. Can editors be banned from participation in GA due to
     WP:CIR
     ? Surely the answer has to be yes. There's a variety of administrative tasks (new page patrol, AfC reviews, various forms of clerking, OTRS, NAC, DRV, DYK, etc) which don't necessarily require admin rights, but do require specialized knowledge and skill to perform correctly. Surely GA (particularly reviewing) is one of those. In almost all ways, we bend over backwards to be inclusive, but we do have standards and as you move up the hierarchy, those standards get stricter, and there needs to be some way to enforce them.
  2. Where is the right forum to discuss it? I think the current approach was correct. Start with one-on-one communication, and try to provide useful guidance for how the editor can improve their work. If that fails, a project-wide forum such as
     WP:AN
     is where sanctions get imposed. Basically, you're come here and say, "Look, these are all the lesser steps we tried, they didn't fix the problem, so now we're asking the community to impose a TBAN".

-- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@

pag-inated. ——SN54129

13:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• Thoughts:
  1. WP:SOFIXIT
     If you really think that discussion should be here, move it, and leave a 'this discussion has been moved' template. Now anyone can do that, but addressing specifically administrators commenting here who think it should move, here, you are in administration, which in part is administering process.
  2. Keep in mind
     WP:NOTBURO
     , and what are the trade-off's, everyone here now knows about that discussion and can comment there if they want. If it's closed against the editor, there will be a record of a bunch of editors telling an editor not to do something, and if the editor continues doing what a consensus says they should not, pretty much prima facie disruption by the editor.
  3. To me, that looks like a rather sad or embarrassing situation, perhaps ask the subject if they want it moved here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved topic ban discussion

The following content was copiedtranscluded copied from Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Sorry to steal your post, Wugapodes, but I think transclusion is cleaner here. Please undo my change if you think it is not benificial. Primefac (talk) 19:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

As the whole idea was to transfer the discussion here and continue it, transcluding and closing it is exactly what we don't need. Primefac, Wugapodes, can this discussion and the !votes please be continued here? Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: as no one seems to be around, I have restored the Wugapodes move so that the discussion can continue. I hope that I have done so correctly. The first section was the initial discussion that led up to the proposal to ban. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Consultation with Happypillsjr

Though I wouldn't particularly want to call-out a user, many past discussions, most recently here, suggests that the pattern of poor nominations and reviews by Happypillsjr needs to be further (perhaps more formally) addressed. An attempt at mentoring by myself at the end of 2019 and start of 2020 didn't help much, and various requests for the user to slow down or stop have shown that they will wait about 2 weeks before going again.

In this open setting, I would like to invite @Happypillsjr: to tell us all what they think 1. the GA process is for, and 2. what the GA criteria are and mean. Then, it may be helpful if other users could discuss these responses, and what the best way forward may be. Another concern that has been noted in Happypillsjr's reviews is poor communication skills, which could suggest a command of English that is not good enough to assess GA's altogether, but which I bring up here in case it seems comments are being misunderstood. Kingsif (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall a similar discussion only a few weeks ago regarding

another review which you got involved with. From a glance, I must say that the quality of reviews may in part be attributed to what I see as a less-than-ideal grasp of acceptable English grammar. I think Happypillsjr has good intentions and I don't dispute that he believes to be contributing in good faith, but I can identify with the concern that he is perhaps not suited to be reviewing and passing judgement upon articles, particularly when assessing prose quality. On the review I mentioned above, the line "looks perfect, no confusion and bad grammars" is questionable and not just shorthand. I am always very mindful about being critical of those who, like many here, want to help out and contribute in the right way, but equally I fully take the point that in processes like GA, FA, PR etc, those passing judgement need to possess some degree of competency to do so. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs}

) 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I think Happypillsjr should leave the GA process until they can demonstrate the ability to build GA-level articles. It makes me sad to see enthusiastic editors have their well-meaning hopes to contribute frustrated, but here I see no other option. Happypillsjr has been editing occasionally since mid-2014, very regularly since mid-2018, and has accrued several thousand edits, so newness isn't the problem per se. Early in their time here, they were

offers mentoring after more of the same. I see no sign things are improving with time. Just this month Happypillsjr nominated yet another article for GA after doing some cleanup (which included adding material directly copy-pasted from a source), and again it was quick-failed. I'm not aware of any example of a nomination or review led by Happypillsjr ending well (though some example may be out there). At this point, I think further intermediate steps are a waste of everyone's time. I truly appreciate Happypillsjr's enthusiasm, but they cannot seem to contribute constructively to the GA process, and so they should not. Perhaps they can re-build trust by contributing constructively elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Ajpolino (talk

) 21:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur. I must note there is a nomination that Happy is currently reviewing, which they previously nominated (that nomination was removed by Kew Gardens 613 because the article was far from the GA criteria). I think that, besides that nomination needing to be restarted, we need to consider whether Happy should be temporarily restricted from GAN reviews, since mentorship has had only a limited effect. I am hopeful that they could improve with time, but right now, it does not look like they should be reviewing good article nominations at this time. epicgenius (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with those above. Happypillsjr should be restricted from creating GA nominations or participating in GAN reviews, and encouraged instead to just focus on improving article content, making sure that they do not ever copy text directly from a reference. — Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@

Although I appreciate the apology, I am disappointed in Happypillsjr's response. Not simply because they did not answer Kingsif's initial questions, but mostly because there was no offer to stop nominating and reviewing GA articles. As noted above, they've been asked politely many times to please not nominate or review at GA because their skills at assessing articles are clearly inadequate, yet they've ignored every request. Each time a problematic nomination or review has been made, other editors have to drop what they're doing to fix things. They have had five years to learn and understand the process, and still haven't. They were unable or unwilling to make use of the mentoring they were given several months ago.

Happypillsjr's problematic edits related to the GAN process began with their first nomination, made on April 12, 2015, the day after the expiration of a three-day block for disruption. They then opened a review of that very nomination, which had to be deleted, and when the nomination was reviewed two weeks later, never responded to the review, which was ultimately failed. In the five years since, they have yet to make a nomination or take on a review that was not ultimately problematic. I think we need to take formal action on the informal consensus that I see in the above comments: they need to take an enforced hiatus from GAN, hence the following proposal. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Happypillsjr is indefinitely banned from GAN

As is clear from the above, Happypillsjr has, over the past five years, nominated articles that invariably do not meet the criteria, done reviews that do not adequately address the criteria, and otherwise displayed an insufficient grasp of the GA process and how it should be applied. Given this, and because they have not been willing to stay away from GAN despite multiple requests after problematic edits, it is time to prevent further disruption.

The proposal is to indefinitely ban Happypillsjr from nominating any articles to be Good Articles, from reviewing any GA nomination, and from editing in the GA space, broadly construed; this includes all GA-related pages. The ban can be appealed in 12 months, and only at 12 month intervals thereafter, but there must be evidence of attained competence in improving article quality to GA levels for the ban to be lifted. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons mentioned above. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom. This community cannot be forever cleaning up after an editor who should know better. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose has anyone suggested they could work with Happypillsjr on either one of their nominations or a review they might be conducting as a mentor? That would seem to be an obvious first step before trying to ban someone? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @
  tried that. Username⁶⁸⁹²
  21:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Indeed, that's great from Kingsif. Perhaps a more direct "Let's stop all your GA activity right now. Pick one single GAN and an experienced reviewer will review your review. Do not attempt to review any other GAN or submit your own in the mean time. Otherwise BlueMoonset will seek your indefinite ban from the GA process." would work? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• While I tentatively support the idea, i'd similarly feel a little uncomfortable making a formal declaration supporting an actual community-backed ban on a user acting in good faith, even though it's clear this user should step away from GAN. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support: unfortunately, this has been continuing for years and Happypillsjr doesn't have the expertise needed to participate at GAN, which is a very demanding and highly skilled area. They have threatened to retire if banned, which is unfortunate, because they can absolutely learn to make useful contributions to articles. I encourage them to focus on improving articles without thinking about GA status for them, after reading more about
  copyright violations, so as not to make any more mistakes on that front. — Bilorv (talk
  ) 22:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support With notes: 1. a support for the ban is based on Happy's unfortunate history of ignoring requests to stop even when they've made it clear they understood the request. If this discussion goes stale, I would bet on another review/nom in two weeks. 2. the burden it places on other editors, not just myself, with the implicit obligation to double-check Happy's work is unfair; it is also unfair on nominators. 3. the rate of abandonment for both reviews and noms put up by Happy could be considered disruptive in itself - though I feel this comes from not fully understanding the project, which more experience (perhaps at their native language GA project) could help with. 4. that, should Happy return in a little while with more experience, I personally would be OK with them having some involvement (perhaps just watching and asking questions) when I review GANs, to help Happy get experience within this project for a ban appeal in 12 months. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Apears to be well-meaning but
  WP:NOTTHERAPY. Xxanthippe (talk
  ) 22:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC).
• Support Although the editor may have good faith, they are unfortunately causing too many issues and wasting everybody's time here. Their comments are bizarre. One of the biggest GA criteria is being able to assess prose and this editor is not in the position to do this when they can't articulate themself properly. Cool Marc ✉ 22:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose (n.b. partially duplicated from my AN comment) - I am seriously nervous about this decision being made here. The editors might be right about previous decisions being made through here, but I'm not inclined to think the "it's basically just a wikiproject" is sufficient. If the football wikiproject had a purely internal "best of football" I might buy that, but GA is a project-wide descriptor, including marking every article awarded. Depending on how urgent the project considers it, the "should GAN be allowed to handle the matter" discussion could be had first, or just restart the case etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Procedural oppose struck due to move Nosebagbear (talk)
• Procedural oppose as this simply is not the correct forum. AN or ANI are the place, and it's easy enough to raise the issue there with a link here telling people here it's happening. GA is project wide as is said above. Doug Weller talk 09:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose per Nosebagbear and Doug Weller and Josh Milburn. For this to be binding, it would have to be logged as a community imposed TBan, which be discussed at AN per
  WP:CBAN. That it has happened differently in the past isn't a reason for us to disregard policy now. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Oppose no longer relevant post-move GirthSummit _(blether)
  08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose per those above: this isn't the forum. Harrias ^talk 10:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Oppose no longer relevant post-move. Harrias ^talk 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I encountered Happypillsjr about a year ago in another venue, and their use of English was so repeatedly poor that I assumed English was not their first language. Happypillsjr insisted then that it is their first language, which troubled me even more, because such poor use of a first language is less likely to improve. Their post above timestamped 19:00, 30 April contains these two sentences: I was thought being confident reviewing these articles but I thought wrong. I tried so hard of editing these articles work with. That seems to me to be clear evidence that it hasn't improved.
  I don't see how an editor with such poor skills in using the English language can make any constructive contribution at all to an English-language encyclopedia ... and they certainly have no place assessing quality. Their good intent is very clear, but good intent is not enough. Since requests for self-restraint have been unsuccessful, a topic ban is needed as the minimum step ... but a siteban would also be justified, because I fear that a ban from GAs will simply displace the disruption to another art of the 'pedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• TBAN with exemption, I considered a more limited response, but both my own checking and the consensus of the field experienced editors makes me inclined to agree that a straight TBAN is needed. However. Assuming the editor doesn't retire, an option for an experienced reviewer to do a review with them (if both parties are willing) at some stage feels like a positive. The experienced reviewer would need to sign off on the result, but it would be a helpful step for any future appeal. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support partial TBAN, if carefully phrased. I wouldn't support a complete ban from the entire process; I'd suggest a ban from nominating articles to GAN, and from initiating a review, and from participating in a review where they haven't been invited to take part by the nominator or reviewer. If there is a third party who would be willing to work with them, that person could make a nomination, or initiate a review, and them work with them through the review process. Would that work? GirthSummit _(blether) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes, I concur with BlueMoonset that most of the nominations mentioned were well below standards. Too much time is wasted from this. This user's contributions aren't bad on a whole, but he shouldn't be nominating any more good articles without doing far more work on them. Homemade Pencils (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support limited TBAN, something like
  talk
  ) 15:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @
    Creffett: Happypillsjr has acknowledged[1] dyslexia and problems with comprehension. Those problems cannot be resolved by supervision, so it seems to me that supervision will almost certainly to be just prolonging the agony for Happypillsjr, for the supervisor, and for the community. It seems to me to be much much kinder to everyone involved to simply say now that this isn't going to work out. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs
    ) 17:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    talk

    ) 17:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

    @

    Creffett: I am not suggesting writing someone off. I propose redirecting them to areas better suited to their abilities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs

    ) 17:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support with preference towards Girth Summit's proposal except unlike them I'd also support a full topic ban as third choice. Nosebagbear's suggestion which is fairly similar to Girth Summit's anyway, is my second choice. Like Nosebagbear, I'd emphasise that this is entirely voluntary. No editor should feel compelled to help out Happypillsjr and Happypillsjr should recognise this also means they are not allowed to go around continually bugging editors about a review. It may be that there is already no one willing to let Happypillsjr review and this will be a functional complete topic ban. I acknowledge even with someone else assisting, their participation may still be annoying to others in the review, and since I don't do GA reviews myself, I'm prescribing something that will affect others and not me. Still I feel it's worth giving that faint hope since I trust those who may offer to help won't keep at it if it's not working. As for BrownHairedGirl's point, IMO it's better to let any prospective supervisor decide for themselves if it's worth their time. Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Further discussion

• Comment: Is this the place for this discussion?
  WP:ANI. I don't think it says that they can't take place elsewhere, but I think it would be advisable for this to be explored there rather than here. Josh Milburn (talk
  ) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  Indeed, community bans can't just be implemented at some backwater. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• GAN has previously done its own banning with editors who were causing significant problems here, which is why I didn't see a problem with doing so here. Oakley77 was banned from reviewing and nominating in 2012, and was subsequently blocked for violating their ban. (Was Matisse ever banned at GAN, or is that a Wikipedia-wide block?) Nor is GAN alone: Billy Hathorn was banned from DYK in 2011 (in advance of his indefinite en-Wikipedia block later that year), and when the block was lifted and (the same day) they nominated a large number of DYKs, the DYK ban was deemed to be still in force, and the nominations were removed. The ban remained in force through their final en-Wikipedia ban in 2015. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would think that as long as the ban doesn't affect other areas of Wikipedia and there is a decent consensus then there is no real problem. We are after all just a glorified wikiproject and this is our main talk page and where most editors familiar with the issues hang out. I would like to think the affected party should have a right to appeal at AN or ANI though if they so wish, although I see it unlikely that the community would overturn a ban from a wikiproject if most of the other members of the wikiproject support it. AIRcorn (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• My understanding is that
  community bans are supposed to be implemented by the community as a whole, not just the community of a particular corner of Wikipedia. Like it or not, the noticeboards becoming the focal point of the community as a whole for matters like this. (I don't like it; the noticeboards are not pleasant places. But that's not the point.) This all feels a bit grotty to me. At the very least, make sure an uninvolved administrator is the one to close the discussion. But I've said my piece: I'll take no further part in this. Josh Milburn (talk
  ) 11:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• I understand and you may be right. My fear is that theoretically someone could be banned at ANI from this wikiproject without members of this wikiproject even knowing about it and I don't think that is right either. As BlueMoonsets research shows this doesn't happen that often. What about if we put a neutral notice at WP:ANI informing editors there of this discussion. That way it keeps it in house, but allows wider community input. I imagine it would stimiulate some discussion on how to handle these in the future which could be useful (although it is ANI so who knows). AIRcorn (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I think that is a good idea - and if a discussion here genuinely is a no-go, then I'm sure someone from the noticeboard would let us know. I can't speak from much experience, but, years ago, I got the impression that AN wasn't as bad as ANI. You (or someone else) could post there again to seek an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Likewise. There is absolutely no harm at all in making the attempt to community ban this user available to a wider audience. After all, they may have some other suggestions to resolve the situation. Keeping it "in house" is subversive and inappropriate. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Okay I have left a note at AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Good Article ban proposal. "In house" might have come across a bit strong. I more meant that it is still hosted here. Either way we will get some clarification on this hopefully soon. AIRcorn (talk) 22:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: *@
  ✉
  21:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

  User:Happypillsjr, I think the point is that your reviews aren't good enough and are creating more work for others. I suggest you take a step back from all GAN reviews, and maybe do what Kingsif suggested in December, which is to be mentored through a review so you know what you're doing? No-one is asking you to retire, some of us are just trying to help you improve your reviews. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @
  ✉
  21:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• The problem is that English appears not to be your first language and that's causing problems with your review comments and your comprehension of the advice you've been receiving from a number of good faith editors for several months. Don't retire, just ask for (or even accept offered) help. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 21:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
• @Happypillsjr: Another way of making this work could be to take part in the GA process at the relevant Wikipedia for your first language. You could gain experience and a better understanding of the criteria on that wikipedia instead of the English one. I'm afraid to say that, given some of your review comments have asked people to make perfectly fine sentences incomprehensible, you might not be up to reviewing the prose of English articles until language skills improve. Kingsif (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Actually, I don't think the issue is a language barrier per-se, if you look at his userpage (native speaker of "American English") and one has to consider that there may another reason why the language issues present in this way (there may be many reasons besides the one I am thinking). I think this discussion has diverged into something I am not comfortable with, as it seemed clear there was consensus for Happypills to step back from this and he seemed to understand and accept there was consensus. I feel sorry for him here - I don't think we need this additional humiliation but I hope he accepts the position the community have taken here, albeit in a less than ideal manner. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @
  ✉
  22:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Happypillsjr: I am sorry you have been subjected to this process - it isn't how the GA community tend to act. I do sense there is frustration surrounding your participation though and I can accept the reasons why; I can even accept that you should focus your efforts away from the GAN process and hope that you will take on board the constructive suggestions being offered. I am mindful many people have various difficulties in learning, understanding, comprehension etc that is entirely of no fault of their own and considered this may be a factor in your case. That isn't for us to speculate or discuss though, if that's your business. I do hope that despite this, you accept and understand that well-intended contributions to wikipedia are welcomed, yet at the same time you must take heed of (i.e. accept) community feedback and respond accordingly (in this case, unfortunately, you must step away from GAN). Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• Perhaps, and I suggest this as a genuine way to help, simple English Wikipedia and their more simplistic GA process could be useful experience? Kingsif (talk) 01:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• In response to the drive-by admins asserting a procedural opposition, active WikiProjects like this one have every right to manage the functioning of said WikiProject, including banning activity from some editors. WP:GA isn't imposing a siteban or anything beyond their remit. Political maneuvers insisting that the issue has to be handled at WP:AN shows disrespect to the editors here improving the encyclopedia because your clique thinks it has the monopoly on community consensus. Your opposition is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I am not some drive by sysop though I am a sysop. I'd said nothing when I saw this yesterday but I also think this is the wrong forum. GA isn't a Wikiproject, it's a community process. Topic banning from a community process should be done by the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Like Barkeep, I am a sysop but not a driveby sysop, and I think this is the wrong forum. "[Managing] the functioning" of WikiProjects - not that this is a WikiProject - is one thing. Banning is another. To use a real-world analogy: private clubs can certainly manage their own affairs, but there are some things they can't do without getting others (e.g., courts, lawyer, accrediting bodies, accountants, insurers...) involved. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I apologize for my "drive-by" comment, which was unfounded. Still, is

  WP:PROJ seems to intone that DYK, GA, and FA are all WikiProjects. The only thing I see about "community process" is blocking an editor, which isn't under discussion. Any WikiProject can set rules for participation and refuse edits from an editor under that WikiProject. No one is imposing an IBAN or any such sitewide prohibition outside of GA upon the editor in question. Chris Troutman (talk

  ) 16:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I would feel differently if the proposal was about topic banning from say this page. That feels akin to a Wikiproject managing itself. But there is a reason

  WP:WikiProject Good Articles. There is a Good Article Wikiproject but that's not where Happy faces a ban from. It's from The Good Article process and that is a community process - it's why unlike WikiProjects GA appears on the article itself not just on the talk page.Best, Barkeep49 (talk

  ) 16:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  I'd actually go further and argue that even Wikiproject topic bans shouldn't be discussed on their talk pages. While Wikiprojects are allowed a fair degree of self governance, once you start talking about topic banning someone it should go to the community. Other editors are free to ignore any posts of someone to the Wikiproject if they wish. But once they start talking about a topic ban which can be enforced via blocks or reverting the editor IMO it should be handled like any topic ban. That said, even if others disagree on this aspect, I think it's hard to argue against Barkeep49's point. If I visit Talk:Joe Biden I see Talk:Joe Biden#Community reassessment, a transcluded assessment. Any member of the (en.Wikipedia) community should be entitled to take part unless sanctions prevent it. It shouldn't come via the Good Article Wikiproject imposing it without involving the wider community. Likewise if I or an anon visits Polyethnicity, we see the green good article plus symbol. Clicking on it takes us to Wikipedia:Good articles. The good article status is being promoted on the article itself. It's clearly something the wider community has an interest in and so again anyone should be allowed to participate unless the earlier requirements were met to prevent them. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

• Request: Since a number of people feel there are procedural issues that prevent the WT:GAN page from being the proper venue for this proposal, even with a link back here from AN, pinging those admins (Nosebagbear, Doug Weller, and Girth Summit) in the hopes that one of them will move this proposal and discussion to AN (or whatever venue is best), perhaps with a pointer back here to the outer section (Consultation with Happypillsjr) to give context. Or perhaps one of the admins in the most recent thread (Barkeep49 and Josh Milburn) can take care of it. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

  Now that the move to AN has taken place (after a few missteps), the discussion can continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)