User talk:Zad68/Archive 2015 Jul

Favor
Zad, I noticed TRPoD yesterday edited Voat, Social Justice and Talk:Ellen Pao. Perhaps you could spare the aggravation of yet another AE request by clarifying the scope of his topic ban. 104.238.169.31 (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Surgical implementation of 500/30 rule
Hi Zad, I have a proposal to make 500/30 rule much more appropriate for the spirit of Wikipedia. I am proposing this because I see time and time again people seems to misunderstand the scope of this sanction, and I saw a couple of times people suggesting it to be extended to another articles. I'm concerned that it might become a norm for contentious topics, and this sanction is against the very spirit of the Wikipedia.

My proposal is that we lift this sanction and let any auto-confirmed editor to edit, but implement a zero tolerance policy for disruption and impose 500/30 sanction only to those who seem to be disruptive or unfamiliar with the Wikipedia rules to comprehensively discuss the topic.(Note that this would not be count as a sanction, only giving time to a new user to familiarize themselves with the Wikipedia rules just as it was meant to be in the original sanction) Therefor we would be assuming good faith and let new editors say their piece and give them a chance to constructively contribute to Wikipedia, while simultaneously protecting the article from people who, willingly or unwillingly, disrupt the work of others.

I realize this may potentially take more time of admins, but I believe it to be in the best interests of Wikipedia, especially in the long run. Exceeding an arbitrary goal like 500/30 does not instantly make someone better at dealing with conflict areas, nor does it mean that editors below 500/30 will be disruptive. It's not like we are leveling up at that point, but we should draw the line somewhere right? So why not do what Wikipedia always does, and assume good faith? Darwinian Ape talk 21:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The 500/30 rule is very much in the spirit of Wikipedia. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not another battlefront in whatever culture wars are taking place on the Internet. If new editors wish to contribute to the encyclopedia, rather than just wanting to have their opinion recorded on this issue, they have 4.5 million+ articles they can work on. --Neil N  talk to me 21:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with simply assuming good faith is that we know a great many new accounts have arrived at Wikipedia who have been specifically recruited for one purpose: to violate Wikipedia policy in order to further the interests of Gamergate. By the time the handful of people who still defend Wikipedia policy against this influx build a case against each new disruptor, we would also have built an equally good case for a topic-ban or a block. This would simply double the already-considerable effort required to rid Wikipedia of the most egregious cases, and allow the disruptors more opportunities to publicize the sex lives of their victims through our servers. (No one anywhere has an answer for the less egregious cases, and that’s a clear and present danger to the entire project.) The 500/30 rule was not sufficient: I said so at the time, and I've been proven correct: Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu have seen multiple revdel and oversight incidents this month, while Ellen Pao and now Grace Dunham have seen the contagion spread. How much time have j0eG0d (who, if I recall correctly, inspired the rule), Handpolk (the original 500/30 gamer, banned today) and Vordrak alone consumed in the past week or two? Do we really want to make this even harder and more frustrating for people who are trying to enforce BLP? MarkBernstein (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * True, we are supposed to be an encyclopedia anyone can edit. There is no "unless its a contentious topic" clause in there somewhere. Does my proposal encourage Wikipedia to be a battlefront for any ideology? It is basically the same sanction with a little bit of precision. This sanction was implemented for a reason, that new editors might unintentionally disrupt the other editors working in that article, as well as preventing malicious editors with another agenda. If we can get new eyes on that article with more or less the same protection of this sanction, isn't it better for Wikipedia?
 * Look, this site is being run by people, and people have their own opinions, ideologies, agendas. If we start to make Wikipedia a club for privileged established editors we are at risk of being biased. That is why new users are important. And we should make it possible for them to edit any article if possible! That is not to say we should allow them to do anything they want, which is why I am not proposing to remove the 500/30 rule all together. Honestly, I don't really care about gamergate article. What I'm worried about is that we may be turning Wikipedia into something else, something worse. Darwinian Ape talk 21:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is nowhere close to the same sanction as it encourages gaming, wikilawyering, socking, and constant trips to the AE board - all of which 500/30 drastically cuts down on. And there are plenty of articles which have restrictions on who can edit them. --Neil N  talk to me 22:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there would be none of those things because an uninvolved admin would impose 500/30 sanction at the first sight of disruptive editing. See that I said zero tolerance. I realize this would put a little more burden on the admins, but there are so many eyes entrenched in that article right now, a disruptive editor would not last a second with my proposed sanction. I am not proposing a trip to AE, just asking not to put a de facto ban on new users. There are other areas with restrictions of course, but this one is too drastic to be a regular sanction. Darwinian Ape talk 22:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Define uninvolved admin. Define disruptive editing. Both are subject to gaming and wikilawyering. --Neil N  talk to me 03:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't we have uninvolved admin defined currently? Why would it be any different then? When I said disruptive editing I mean anything less then constructive. We are already sanctioning every new editor with this sanction. Only change will be that we will first look if they could be useful to the article, if not impose the same sanction we have right now. <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 16:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Darwinian: I understand your concern, but this is not simply a matter of some people who have biases -- Republicans and Democrats. This is a concerted and organized effort to use Wikipedia for a purpose: to humiliate women in the software industry by spreading sexy gossip and innuendo, and also to use Wikipedia as a PR platform. If they had succeeded, Wikipedia would already be something different and worse.  They nearly did succeed: my reading of ARBCOM is that ARBCOM intended for them to succeed so that peace would prevail. ("I and Wikipedia neither support nor oppose Zoe Quinn. Wikipedia is not a battleground.-- Jimbo) It's hard enough to defend these pages as it is. Zero tolerance would lead to immediate appeals, at which each of Gamergate’s expert WikiLawyers would immediately appear pleading for clemency on behalf of the latest newcomer and insisting that the admin is involved, duplicitous, bias, and should be run out of town on a rail.  So it would really just be a requirement to build a case for a ban, succeed, then build another'' case for a ban in a month when the account resurfaces.  MarkBernstein (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * MarkBernstein, I wholeheartedly agree that Wikipedia should never be a place to spread gossip, or humiliate anyone. That is why we should write every article in a neutral manner, using highest reliable sources for living people. What we should not do is; to get ourselves into it so much, that we can't see past our preconceptions. That can happen to anyone, I go absolutely apeshit when it comes to child abuse and animal cruelty. That is why I try to avoid those subjects because I know I will be biased and my bias might make me blind to reasoned arguments, or evidence. After all, we are here to build an encyclopedia and our own bias, however rightful, has no place in it. As for the appeals, do they allowed to appeal the current sanction? I said it at first this 500/30 sanction will not be like a regular sanction that can be appealed, it will be the same sanction we have right now, just that we will filter new users. <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 22:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it really so onerous to wait 30 days (a month!) and doing some editing on other articles to get familiar with Wikipedia policies before diving into one of the most contentious articles on the project? A month and 500 edits is nothing! It's not a year and 10,000 edits. It's not forever. The restriction is discouraging new accounts who only come to edit this one article, out of the 4+ million articles on Wikipedia. Is it so impossible to wait four weeks and do some editing on other articles before editing Gamergate? It's not like you're being sent to detention. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 01:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not really bad, but I offer a better solution, one that will both protect the article and let constructive new users contribute. And my main concern is that this sanction, being considered really good by some editors, may become a norm for contentious topics, because then it would be really bad. You say "The restriction is discouraging new accounts who only come to edit this one article" most people first come here to edit one article, and if we make that one article not editable to them, how do you think they will feel like contributing to other articles? I think some people who wrote in that article lost perspective, you should remember that this article is just one of many contentious topics in Wikipedia and should not be treated any differently. If some article is contentious we need more eyes on that article not less. <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 12:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The point of the rule was to make sure that we didn't spend time arguing about whether or not someone was operating in bad faith or needed the sanction. Undoing it removes its entire reason for being.
 * Is this the new Gamergate tactic? Try to get the rules changed?--Jorm (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is the exact attitude I am worried. People already see this extreme sanction as the rule of the land. Yes, jorm, thats the new gamergate tactic. Anyone with a shred of objectivity is a Gamergate supporter. If you could actually listen to my proposal, you will see that it does not change anything except allowing good faith editors to contribute. I don't know how you got the impression of me being a gamergate supporter. I don't know you, and I don't know what is the reason for this prejudicial attitude towards me. But I know, I probably can't change your mind. All I can do is to assure you that I have the best interest of Wikipedia in mind, not some other group. So could you please look at what I'm proposing rather than insinuating that I am a gamergate supporter? <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 16:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Darwin: Please be calm. Jorm was, I think, gently reminding you that the same proposal was recently made at AE by Handpolk, who loudly proclaimed himself an exemplary editor of Good Will who Just Wanted To Help, and continues even after he had to be blocked -- whilst they were simultaneously at AN/I, AN/3, SPI, and AE on separate issues! And in each of these issues, we were told to Assume Good Faith. In fact, the Gamergate supporters have repeatedly called for applying the 500/30 rule only to those who have demonstrated bad faith, knowing that it takes a very great effort to demonstrate that bad faith and that, in the meantime, they will be free to use Wikipedia servers to discuss the sex lives of women of whom they want to make an example. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well I haven't seen Handpolk's suggestion at AE, I thought Handpolk's appeal was a bit like a joke so I wasn't really following it. Sorry if I came off as "not calm." It may be true that some people trying to abuse AGF policy. I don't know Handpolk and I am not saying he/she is one of them. But he/she clearly not good at handling conflicts. What I proposed wasn't just removing the editors with bad faith, those editors should be sanctioned even if they are above 500/30, I proposed we look at the new editor, if he/she seems like he/she can handle this complicated article, let them help, if not politely tell them that they need more experience in Wikipedia, isn't this a better way of implementing the same rule? <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 16:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Your change would invite disputation, argument, outrage, and attacks on all who try to enforce the rule. Objective standards help. Further on Jorm’s comments: it appears that you “arrived” at Wikipedia on 18 May. Your first edit created your user page, your second was to join a WikiProject. Your first long edit was to Masem’s talk page, where you started a section, Wikipedia is becoming a dystopia, doubtless based on your experience of a dozen edits and more than five hours as an editor. Since then, your 187 lifetime edits have concentrated on Mattress Performance (a favorite Gamergate target) and the health effects of observing Ramadan. New but very knowledgable editors who immediately engage in Gamergate targets and in Wikipedia rules discussion: this is a pattern we have seen before. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I made my proposal, and explained why I think it would be better for wikipedia, I can only hope that you would consider it and do what you think best for wikipedia.. Also responded MarkBernstein at his talk page because it's off topic here. <span style=" color:#0B0B3B; text-shadow: 3px 3px #C0C0C0;font-style: italic; font-family:'Britannic Bold';">Darwinian Ape talk 02:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

The Signpost: 08 July 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Offsite
This tweet and its sequels might be of some interest to you. It’s another step in the strategy raised in the Lightbreather case -- using offsite platforms to pursue on-site goals. MarkBernstein (talk) 15:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow. This little kid's out for blood on you, man. Laughable, if it weren't for the amount of time spent refuting bullshit. And what looks like yet another arbitration case trying to get you sanctioned.--Jorm (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep! . Citing (perfectly good) edits from 2007, linking to a KiA thread that begins "MarkBernstein's infamous lunacy about Gamergate continues..." and downstream has a very concise statement of the issue to which I tried to draw attention in the wake of Lightbreather:
 * EDIT: Fuck I hate Bernstein. I can't wait until an inevitable skeleton comes out of his closet and he's shamed into obscurity.

I wonder how much time this is going to consume, and how it will benefit the encyclopedia. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)