Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Redrose64

To remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this sysop and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Please note : This template is for listing disputes about actions that are limited to administrators only, specifically these actions:


 * protecting and unprotecting pages
 * deleting and undeleting pages
 * blocking and unblocking users

For all other matters (such as edit wars and page moves), please use the template at Requests for comment/Example user.



Statement of the dispute
(Apologies if I'm not filling out this form correctly; I'm doing my best.)

On October 12, 2014, administrator Redrose64 instituted one-week protection of Template:Same-sex unions. The stated reason was:

"because people kept adding and removing Idaho and some other states. Before any other states like Alaska are added, we need to be sure that somebody won't then remove it again. Accordingly, please at the very least demonstrate that adding Alaska is the correct thing to do."

Since then, Alaska and Idaho have both achieved legal same-sex marriage. However, (1) the page remains protected for four more days, even though the precipitating circumstances no longer exist - this is excessive; and (2) Redrose64 has refused to edit the template to reflect Idaho's status, despite requests by several users. Redrose64's reason for the refusal to change Idaho was "How can we be sure that it won't change again? The way things have been recently, it could cease again any time now." This is simply not true. The Ninth Circuit dissolved its stay, the U.S. Supreme Court dissolved its stay, the Ninth Circuit turned down Governor Otter's request for an additional stay, Governor Otter has said he is giving up for now, and most importantly, marriages in Idaho are happening. The asterisk is for states where same-sex marriage is not yet in effect. It is in effect in Idaho. The asterisk should be removed. Many users have been following the issue of U.S. same-sex marriage very closely; with respect, Redrose64 does not appear to be well informed on this topic, and this is interfering with the quality of the administrative decisions being made.

The same administrator also performed his own edit of the template during the time that the page was under protection, editing the alphabetical order of the listed states, without asking for a consensus. Tinmanic (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Numerous citations have been given for the factual change requested. The English pages which reference the template, the Idaho link from the template, and the Spanish version of the template all agree that Same-sex Marriage exists in Idaho, and thus that ID should not be listed with an asterisk in the template as all the users who have commented have pointed out. Difbobatl (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: the administrator in question has stated: "If another admin wishes to unprotect the page, I won't object." Hopefully another admin will unprotect it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redrose64#Protection_of_Template:Same-sex_unions Tinmanic (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Further update: Page protection has been lowered to a satisfactory level, so I consider this RfC resolved. I don't know how to close an RfC, so I'll let someone more knowledgeable do that. Tinmanic (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Desired outcome
At minimum, the requested change should be made; optimally, protection of the template should be removed. There was no edit-warring in the first place; there was confusion among editors over when to update the template, and additionally, marriage equality in the U.S. is greatly in flux, which also accounts for the number of edits. The editors of this template are well informed on same-sex marriage matters and have previously been able to resolve disputes among themselves without the involvement of an administrator who, again respectfully, is not well informed on this topic. Tinmanic (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Description
Protection of the template should be removed. See more information above. Tinmanic (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Powers misused

 * Protection (log):
 * Template:Same-sex_unions

*Protected pages edited
 * Template:Same-sex_unions: diffdiff

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
I and others have made several attempts to resolve the dispute:

(1) Posting on the template's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Same-sex_unions#Template-protected_edit_request_on_15_October_2014

(2) Posting on the administrator's Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Redrose64#Your_blocking_of_the_same-sex_marriage_template_is_unwarranted

Attempts by certifier name

 * Tinmanic (talk) 20:06, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempts by certifier name

 * Difbobatl (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
Despite our explanations and requests, the changes still have not been made.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Difbobatl (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Rreagan007 (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this statement

 * Kumorifox (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Jono52795 (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Swifty819 (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 00:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nat Gertler (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC) (I think this is the right place for me to sign; I did make posts on the template's talk page and the admin's user page, but only after his most recent posts there. Forgive me if I'm placing this wrong.)
 * Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Prcc27 (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Another Onymous (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Response
''This section is reserved for the use of the sysop whose actions are disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but no one else should edit or change this response.''

Regarding : it is incorrect to state that I "also performed his own edit of the template" - it was not my edit, but made as a direct consequence of, and no, I did not ask for a consensus because as I stated at the time, "the established order is alpha by full name". This is in line with WP:PER "Prior consensus is not needed for uncontroversial changes which do not require sourcing, such as correcting typographical errors ...".

I dispute the assertion that admin powers were misused in making two edits to Template:Same-sex unions (hereafter "this template") whilst it was under protection. The of those two edits states in its edit summary "per Template talk:Same-sex unions". If the linked thread is examined, it should be apparent that I was reluctant to make that edit. The edit doesn't have a link in its edit summary, but it relates to this thread. Nowhere have I said that another admin - or indeed a template-editor - couldn't make any of the edits requested on this template's talk page. Furthermore, making edits to protected pages is not covered by any of the three pairs of actions listed at the top of this RFC/U. Therefore, all comments on this page related to my editing or non-editing of that page should be stricken from the record.

This leaves the matter of page protection. Whenever a state's executive, legislature or judiciary makes some change in the law regarding same-sex marriage (SSM), it seems that there is a mad rush to update a whole string of articles and templates, even if the change in the law will not take effect for some period. Then somebody finds a news article that demonstrates that the first edit was not-quite correct, and so the templates and articles get changed again; and then there's an appeal lodged by somebody from the state; and then a stay of the first ruling; etc. etc. This template seems particularly prone to back-and-forth editing, since some people can't agree on the order in which the thirty-odd states currently recognising SSM should be listed. This, and the amount of space devoted to U.S. states, might cause some people to think that this template is primarily for the U.S. - but it is global. This template has inclusion criteria, described in the green box at the bottom, and it often seems that in the clamour to be "the first" to add their own state to the list, those criteria are often ignored. As I have stated at User talk:Redrose64: "I'm trying to discourage the increasing tendency to pointless edit-and-revert which has been happening on that template for some months". Since this RFC/U was raised, I have also stated (in the same thread) "Other users with the appropriate right [i.e. other admins and template editors] are ... not barred by myself from editing the template"; also (at User talk:Redrose64) "It was indeed protected because of the Idaho dispute, which no longer exists; but it is now apparent that a similar controversy now exists regarding Alaska. I am reluctant to lift the prot before it expires, ... If another admin wishes to unprotect the page, I won't object. Feel free to file a request at WP:RFPU.". Nowhere did I say that another admin couldn't unprotect the page.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Prcc27 (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding performing your own edit of the template, you appear to be absolutely right. That wasn't the main reason for my complaint anyway, so I'll strike it out. Tinmanic (talk) 14:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Views
''This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add their views of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.''

Outside view by Fry1989
The response provided by the protecting admin on the protected edit request asking "How can we be sure that it won't change again?", while surely well-intentioned, shows a lack of understanding of the reality on the ground. The fact is that the situation is rapidly changing, sometimes even within hours of each other. The rapid changes being applied here can easily appear to be edit-warring, and it is true that File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg was recently temporarily protected on Commons because users could not agree. However when these legal changes happen they must be applied and this Admin has shown disregard for reflecting the current legal truth in favour of a hypothetical reversal. Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) (as the writer of this opinion)  Fry1989   eh?  20:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Difbobatl (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Rreagan007 (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Prcc27 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Another Onymous  (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Shereth
I understand the consternation of the editors when dealing with a rapidly changing situation such as the same-sex marriage issue. That said, I think that an RFC over this dispute at this time is a little heavy-handed; the attempts to resolve the dispute via other channels have hardly been exhausted. Accusing the administrator in question of misusing their privileges is a fairly weighty charge, and I cannot help but to wonder if it is more rooted in frustration other than a case of genuine administrative abuse. I would encourage the editors in question to take a step back, take a deep breath, and ask themselves if less onerous avenues of dispute resolution have yet to be explored before proceeding further with the RFC.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Shereth 05:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Hammersoft
This RfC makes a claim of administrative abuse. Admin Redrose64 is potentially in breach of WP:INVOLVED. His first edit to this template or talk page was in March of 2013. Since that time, he has made 42 edits to this template, tying him for 3rd most active on the template in that time period, and 46 edits to the talk page, placing 6th. He has protected the page four times in that time period, though there was no active request to do so at WP:RFPP any of the four times, nor was there anyone calling for it on the template's talk page at those times:
 * The 4 February 2014 protection was done due to IPs attempting to modify the wording regarding Northern Ireland (no related discussion) (WP:RFPP status).
 * The 8 April 2014 protection was done due to an IP attempting to remove the UK from the template (discussion) (WP:RFPP status).
 * The 22 April 2014 protection was done due to IPs attempting to add unsourced content (discussion) (WP:RFPP status).
 * The 12 October 2014 protection was done due to a dispute over Idaho (discussion) (WP:RFPP status). Redrose64 followed this up with denying the first two edit requests under this protection.

An administrator may use protection even if involved where "any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion". Further, an administrator may make edits to a protected page "to make changes which are uncontroversial". Changing the alpha sorting of the template does not appear to be controversial. The addition of Alaska was requested, and was possibly marginally controversial. During this overall time period, only one other administrator has made more than one edit to the page/talk page (Xaosflux, a total of 8 times). Redrose64 is clearly the dominant administrator active on this template and its talk page. While there is not a clear breach of policy here in his actions, Redrose64 is dancing a fine line and needs to take great care in using his administrative privileges on this template. He should consider allowing another administrator to handle such cases in the future via a request at WP:RFPP as any other editor would do, and should refrain from denying protected edit requests.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Rreagan007 (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Difbobatl (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Please note, I have never edited this template; but have visited the talk page while patrolling protected template requests; primarily due to numerous editors creating duplicate, triplicate, etc edit requests for the same edit, rather then using the existing discussion. The only edit requests I declined were due to that specific one being a duplicate.  WP:RFPP should be used if a protection is contested. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like this request for reduced protection has already been made. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Same-sex_unions_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 Tinmanic (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by
is one of six administrators that have protected this template. have all also protected this template and all of those protections have been for similar reasons and all for longer than a week (once two weeks, twice indef, and once a month). This indicates to me that any other reasonable administrator would have done the same, and WP:INVOLVED does not apply here. All four of Redrose64's protections of that template have been for one week (doesn't seem outrageous at all to me), the first three protections where at the autoconfirmed level and only this most recent one is at the level (as I believe all of them should have been). I don't think this administrator has abused their powers in this case whatsoever and I think that this RfC/U is nothing more than a mob reaction to an action by an administrator that they did not agree with. Short of obvious malicious content added to a page, there is nothing on Wikipedia that can't wait a week and see what happens, after all, we're WP:NOTNEWS and our pages don't need to be up to the minute updated... I suppose I could rant on about this for a bit, because it annoys me, but y'all get the point by now.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 21:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia may not be a news source, but we are also WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. The response "How can we be sure that it won't change again?" suggests the predictability that the legal status could reverse itself, making that reason to deny the multiple requests for unprotection or alteration of the template inappropriate. I also believe I am not the only one who takes reservation in regards to the accusation of being a "mob".  Fry1989  eh?  22:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A comment of something with pending legal implications of "How can we be sure that it won't change again?" doesn't seem unreasonable to me. It simply says that since this is a pending legal situation, we should abstain from putting it into an article that someone could mistakenly assume it as fact (which is a logical reasoning for the creation of the Legal disclaimer, which not all may be aware of).  It has always been Wikipedia's stand to abstain from adding information with pending legal implications to the best of my knowledge until they are appropriately concluded.  I agree that WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL may apply here, but my stand on it is that we can't assume that this change in what is momentarily allowed will remain true where it has been immediately objected to and that objection is still pending. Disclaimer: I was raised near New Hampshire and fully believe in the "Live Free or Die" motto that says let people live the way they want as long as they're not hurting others.  As such, I don't care if same-sex couples marry or not, it has no impact on my life and if it makes them happy, so-be-it.  As far as "mob" goes, it is simply a term to mean a group of people, I suppose I could have used "gang" or "cackle" or "herd" or "posse" as well, but I figured "mob" might be the most neutral (it's certainly the shortest) word for a group of people.  It is your right to disagree, and I mean no ill will towards anyone. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 22:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But why should we have to live a week with a clearly inaccurate template which doesn't even agree with the pages it appears on? This makes no sense.  Currently Alaska is not listed as having had same-sex marriages, which is STILL inaccurate.  Difbobatl (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really? For a few days?  Tell me what it says in the print encyclopedia at your local library... Is it in there?  When will the next release of that encyclopedia be?  Will you have it in less than a week?  No?  Then why worry about a couple days when it will likely be at very least temporarily repealed pending the current legal action? That's what makes no sense... We are not a new reporting agency, and we don't need to have up-to-the-moment data.  Take a break for a few days, enjoy life (certainly much more important than Wikipedia), then come back in a week and make your edit.  It's no big deal, really.  — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 03:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a very large difference difference between "up-to-the-moment" and "up-to-the-week".  Fry1989  eh?  03:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't WP:NOW apply to the template..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It applies as much as WP:NODEADLINE, as both are essays which are the opinions of one or two editors. Just because the template is  protected for week doesn't mean that discussion can't happen and Template edit requests can't be granted upon agreement.  There is no reason for a page that is a higher profile than "Index.php" (which is a fully protected redirect and would have minimal impact if edited and reverted), which I feel is a lower risk than Template:Same-sex unions which is a highly charged issue for most and could cause much more damage to the wiki as a transcluded template if maliciously edited. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 23:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, really, for a few (actually several) days. This isn't a print encyclopedia. Part of the beauty of Wikipedia, part of the reason it is a part of how many of us "enjoy life", is that it can be kept up to date on the fly and through our own participation. Edit protection takes that away from the vast majority of us. That a few of us are admins or template editors does nothing to cure that. It should therefore only be used for a very good reason. There simply isn't one here. The problem cited is essentially that Redrose64 got sick of seeing the compressed version of the Wikipedia editing process that invariably follows major current events. As this template more or less always will see its changes happen in response to major news stories, of course it will be hit by that process more often than other articles. But that doesn't mean it should be protected from editing. It just means that editors need to be vigilant during the brief periods after an event when well-meaning editors are going to make ill-informed edits. And they are. Not allowing editing because the situation might change again is just dumb. Why shouldn't the template show the legal situation as it exists in real time? If a given jurisdiction is issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples now, why should it be listed as "not yet in effect" or not listed at all just because a party has or might file something tomorrow that could result in the stay of a court order? Could we consider using a double asterisk for jurisdictions with marriage due to a court ruling that is still subject to an appeal? Of course. But that is a reason to start a discussion on the talk page, not to endorse leaving edit protection in place. -Rrius (talk) 05:57, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by Rrius
Regarding edit protection of the article, Redrose64 says, "Whenever a state's executive, legislature or judiciary makes some change in the law regarding same-sex marriage (SSM), it seems that there is a mad rush to update a whole string of articles and templates, even if the change in the law will not take effect for some period. Then somebody finds a news article that demonstrates that the first edit was not-quite correct, and so the templates and articles get changed again; and then there's an appeal lodged by somebody from the state; and then a stay of the first ruling; etc. etc. "

Changes to the template in question happen in reaction to current events, usually as brought to our knowledge by the news media. The news sources and the editors often are not knowledgeable enough about litigation or legislation to understand the nuances, and so make mistakes. Other editors come along and make other changes, sometimes correct, sometimes based on a flawed understanding of the situation. In the end, we get to the right place, and usually fairly quickly. If this sort of process is too messy, we should start edit protecting all articles involved in current events—deaths of celebrities and the like. Until the project makes that change, we should accept that the editing process will continue to be messy.

Having the template edit protected during a seven-day period in which we are likely to have more rulings on SSM (Wyoming is supposed to get a ruling on Monday, Arizona could happen at any time, and so could the Sixth Circuit) is unfair to editors. As is the attitude that we can't be trusted to make the appropriate changes. There are far less drastic ways to deal with the problems cited. If editors are jumping the gun, after the first revert use comment tags at the appropriate spot in the list to explain why the particular jurisdiction should not yet be included.

Finally, I find it interesting that the Redrose64 cites the length of the list of US states (leaving aside that the US-centric points he makes have nothing to do with his main argument about why the page should be protected), which has been a topic of discussion for a few years now, going back to when fewer than ten states had same-sex marriage, and a few of us were trying to work out at what point you start simply giving a number or listing the jurisdictions that don't have it instead of the ones that do. To me that shows that editors are well able to handle issues through normal means without having to have the article protected from their hasty edits and warrior mentality. -Rrius (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Prcc27 (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Difbobatl (talk) 11:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) I find the entire template editor right to be objectionable on similar grounds. My user page comments about this at the very top of it. This is in line with the above view. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Tinmanic (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Rreagan007 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by User:CambridgeBayWeather
This seems a little over the top for the action taken by Redrose64. Anyway I changed it to indefinite semi-protection. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 08:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A request has been made at RFPP for an indef increase to protection as this is marked by administrators as a Highly visible templates and based on the edit history, editors have a problem with obtaining consensus to make an edit before doing it and insist on adding information that violates WP:CRYSTAL.  Thank you. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 11:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by User:DangerousPanda/User:EatsShootsAndLeaves
I find this RFC on a user to be boneheaded, and wholly unnecessary. We have steps in dispute resolution, and although a talkpage RFC on the contents, protection, or other elements of the article would have been wise and intelligent as it could have obtained CONSENSUS to lower protection levels, an WP:RFC/U is patently ridiculous - no tools were abused. Geez people, take the path of least dramah.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Me, of course  the panda  ₯’ 23:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername
''{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}''

Users who endorse this summary:

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.