Wikipedia talk:Abuse/Archive 1

General statement
I don't like breaking strict up-down sequence on talk pages, but I'm going to put this right up at the top because I think it's important in helping others here understand the premise I'm working from. At bottom, my basic point is this: IMO, any admin action against a user, that doesn't rest on a clearly-stated policy that a user should reasonably be able to discover and comprehend, is a per se abuse of power. In order for users to conform their conduct to wikipedia's rules and policy, there must be some way that they can reasonably be expected to discover and comprehend those rules and policies. And in a textual medium, the only way that can happen is if this stuff is documented. Simon Dodd 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only action against a user that could be at all considered an "admin action" is blocking. The policy behind that is documented at WP:BLOCK. Other "admin actions" such as rollback and deletion are similarly documented. I can't see anyway in which this proposal adds to these policies, other than by saying someone may be blocked for persistant misuse of the minor edit button, which I'm not sure is a good idea. JPD (talk) 17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The only action against a user that could be at all considered an "admin action" is blocking."
 * Really? Because the lynch mob of admins at WP/I yesterday piling on to me for allegedly violating a policy that isn't written down anywhere sure as hell felt like "admin action" to me. It may not have been a formal sanction (although that was threatened), but it was at least a severe upbraiding that was totally uncalled for and in no way rested on any documented policy that I or any other user who doesn't eat, sleep and breath at wikipedia could reasonably have been asked to be aware of.Simon Dodd 17:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that it felt like a lynch mob of admins. I agree that some of the responses were uncalled for and unfortunate, but the idea that is was some sort of "admin action" is all in your head. At least one of the users you have acused of "behaviour unbecoming an admin" is not even an admin - not that that makes the behaviour any less right or wrong or even (in my opinion) more excusable. At any rate, this proposal, which seems to address everything that happened to you recently, rather than one particular problem, doesn't solve anything. In response to the incident with longterm, changing its description on WP:WARN was necessary. Adding to the intro to WP:WARN was in my opinion not strictly necessary, but definitely helpful.  This proposal is neither necessary nor helpful, as it covers things that are better dealt with in WP:BLOCK, WP:AGF, WP:DE and so on, and makes unnecessary distinctions between admins and the rest of the community. JPD (talk) 10:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the policy being proposed?
See discussion here. As a consequence of a dispute over whether WP:WARN's tag for abuse was excessively harsh as a warning for abuse as distinct from vandalism, I have created a new warning template that does fit the "long term abuse" description, and changed the description of the longterm template to "long term vandalism." To resolve any remaining ambiguity in the term "abuse", this policy was created. This policy also states, and seeks ratification of, the premise that when WP doesn't define a word used in policy as a term of art, admins should accept in good faith any user understanding that is within the Plain meaning rule. User:Cascadia said I should go ahead and create this framework, so here it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Dodd (talk • contribs) Oops! Sorry, I forgot to sign my edit above. Simon Dodd 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I fail to see the need for a formal legalistic definition of this term on a separate page. The premise that "WP doesn't define a word used in policy as a term of art" is flawed.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for this either. And even if there was, it couldn't be left with this wording, which is just designed to provide a rationalisation for Simon's very specific case yesterday. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A rationalization? It's designed to protect other regular users from the kind of conduct you and other admins engaged in yesterday. WP:WARN uses the term "abuse"; that term should be defined, and there should not be trapdoors through which users can be hung from some "spirit" or secret meaning that they couldn't possibly have divined from the text of the policy. This policy attempts to resolve not only the specific problem, but also to provide guidance to admin behavior that protects users from the kind of disreputable behavior we saw yesterday. This policy is clearly necessary. Simon Dodd 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The understanding I had formed from reading the policies (WP:Blocking and WP:WARN in particular) and from previously attempting to get a user blocked was that while users could be informally warned on their talk page, there was a formal warning process, WP:WARN formed its core, and that admins would not block a user until the formal warning process had been observed. That policy made a great deal of sense, but this whole issue arose because a template WP:WARN advanced for abuse was too harshly-worded for warning a user for abuse rather than vandalism. The several changes I've proposed this morning seek to clarify the purpose of warning templates, to better-tailor the text of the templates to their purpose, and to clarify how policy terms generally and "abuse" in particular are to be construed by users and admins. This is a good-faith effort to try and protect other users from the kind of treatment I got yesterday. It's completely irrational and unreasonable to ask users to conform their behavior to policy if the policy the admins will enforce is other than what is in the written policy.Simon Dodd 14:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's going on here, but in general, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we see no need to create "official rules" to define everything, because doing to tends to lead to instruction creep and give rise to wikilawyering. The word "abuse" is defined quite well in the dictionary. The understanding that there is a formal warning process, and that people may not be blocked unless that process is followed, is incorrect. Perhaps we need to reword some of the relevant pages to make that clearer?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The word "abuse" is defined quite well in the dictionary.
 * I had thought so to, but yesterday I was upbraided, insulted and even threatened by various admins for having the temerity to use a template clearly indicated to be for "abuse" to warn a user for behavior that is squarely within the dictionary definition of abuse.
 * The understanding that there is a formal warning process, and that people may not be blocked unless that process is followed, is incorrect. Perhaps we need to reword some of the relevant pages to make that clearer?
 * I'd say we do. I've already tried to make the point clearer at WP:WARN. This applies to this specifically, and as a general criticism of this preposterous "wikilawyering" concept: It's completely irrational and unreasonable to ask users to conform their behavior to policy if the policy the admins will enforce is other than what is in the written policy. So far as I understand "wikilawyering," it means "following the rules as they are written," and in a community that communicates through a textual medium, I am utterly at a loss to know what source of authoritative guidance can possibly exist beyond what is stated in written policy, or that exists in not just general but pervasive everyday wikipedian use.
 * Users have to be able to discover what the rules are, and have to have a reasonable expectation that policy will be enforced consistently by admins. And the only way to do that is to properly couch intent in appropriate text. Whenever the spirit and the letter of the policy are at odds, the problem is ipso facto with the wording of the policy, and it's unreasonable to criticize users for failing to, you know, pull out a ouija board and determine what "spirit" is being exuded from the text. With all due respect, I can't understand why that's not a self-evident concept; maybe it's because admins are immersed in Wikipedia and can't grasp the environment in which ordinary users exist.Simon Dodd 14:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What specific behavior were you warning against? What specific template were you using at the time?
 * Note that Wikipedia takes the opposite approach from what you seem to suggest. We do not require people to read up on Da Rulez before contributing, and therefore the rules are not set in stone. "Wikilawyering" by the way does not mean "following the rules as written", but "using creative but technically valid interpretation of the rules as written to break what the rules are actually there for", in other words exploiting loopholes and technicalities and legalisms rather than working on the encyclopedia. Note that I am not saying that you're doing that; I'm saying that overly complex rules make this easier. Nevertheless users who are interested should be able to find out what the rules are, and there's a consistent effort to simplify and clarify policy. A good place to start is here.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The behavior at issue was a long-term abuse (long-term meaning virtually every edit going back several years) of the minor edit tag. WP:WARN had a tag that was explicitly marked as being for the purpose of warning a user for long-term abuse. Definitionally, the conduct I was warning about was long-term abuse. But what I had not understood was that apparently, the purpose of the templates is to save keystrokes, not to standardize and formalize the warning process, and so a lynch mob of admins complained that the text of the template I used was far too strong. I agree that it's too strong, which is why I've proposed to create a new tag for abuse that is far less strongly worded, and proposed that WP adopt some common touchstone of what qualifies as "abuse" meriting the use of that tag.Simon Dodd 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem has apparently been solved by clarifying that the long term template is intended for vandalism. I've also added a note or two that the templates aren't some kind of "official mechanism". Other than that I'd welcome your feedback on other parts of policy that are unclear, and I would advise you (and everyone else) to drop this particular issue.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I highly support Radiant's recommendation that this proposal be dropped. The one place where the word "abuse" was (mistakenly) used without context that made the meaning clear has been changed, and on other pages, it is clear that it refers to any policy violations. The term is not regularly used on Wikipedia with any particular meaning, and violations are best dealt with by referring to the relevant policy, not some general notion of "abuse". Defining "abuse" and speaking of other definitions is an unnecessary attempt at formalism in a community where processes are highly non-formalist. Apart from the definitions, the rest of the policy is actually harmful, speaking of what "Administrators" must do in a context where the fact that a user is an administrator is completely irrelevant. JPD (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * [At WP:WARN] the word "abuse" was (mistakenly) used without context that [would] ma[ke]e the meaning clear....
 * But that's precisely the point! I'm glad someone's finally conceded the obvious (which I take to be your point): that WP:WARN was ambiguous as it existed yesterday, and that it was therefore possible for a user to in good faith believe that a tag labeled as being for "abuse" should be applied to conduct that was abusive rather than vandalism. And in view of the behavior of several admins towards me over the last few days - failure to assume good faith when there was readily-apparent ambiguity - suggests very much that confining admin discretion is necessary.Simon Dodd 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The description of the template at WP:WARN was incorrect/misleading, I think as a result of the reorganisation of the warning templates. I hope noone has disputed that. However, the reaction of "several admins" was not just in response to this, but was coloured by your interpretation of WP:WARN as a rule or policy. They obviuosly did not understand how you arrived at this conclusion, and while it would probably be fair to say that they did not assume enough good faith, neither did they use anything that could be described as admin discretion. WP:AGF applies to all users already - I don't see why it needs to be spelt out in an "abuse policy", let alone specifically applied to admins in a situation where adminship is irrelevant. JPD (talk) 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I object to the word "abuse" used in this fashion
Abuse is far too strong a word, to the point of being a bit offensive to people who have suffered real abuse. Abuse rarely occurs exclusively over the internet: the only form possible is extreme harassment to the point of emotional abuse. However, it is questionable if that kind of abuse is even possible, as the person being targetted can leave at any time - hence, such a situation would not involve the power dynamics of a traditional abusive relationship.

Of course, things that involve revealing of personal information, threat of off-internet harm, or worse yet, both, are not exclusively over the internet, since they threaten to pour over into an off-internet situation where abuse is possible.

The word "abuse" is meant for things like rape, torture, violence/corporeal punishment (how much violence/corporeal punishment depends on who you ask), extreme emotional harassment (usually from someone with power over your life), unwanted sexual advances (degree here also depends on who you ask). Aside from what I have mentioned above, these sorts of things just aren't possible over the internet.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 14:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at the proposer's recent contributions. By "abuse" he means (you are not going to believe this) misusing the minor edit button. I will not delete this page as I have been highly critical of Simon's actions over the past few days but I do urge any passing admin to simply delete this proposal as trolling. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow. That might be bothersome, but it doesn't mean a person isn't contributing productively to the encyclopaedia, and it certainly doesn't come anywhere near violence / unwanted sexual advances / extreme emotional harassment.  Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Theresa is misleading by omission. In relation to that case, I mean ("you are not going to believe this") using the minor edit button on practically every contribution over a three year period when a significant proportion of those edits were plainly substantive. What might be misuse when done occasionally becomes abuse when elevated to serial and standard practice.Simon Dodd 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter how many times someone uses a minor edit button even when they shouldn't. No one is severely damaged.  There is no rape, no violence, no sexual advances, no emotional harassment of any degree, much less extreme.  No one is even moderately damaged.  Calling something that's a minor annoyance, even a long-lasting one, abuse, is simply offensive to people who have suffered real abuse.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 15:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As above, I strongly advise everybody to drop this issue. There was a misunderstanding based on an omission in policy, which has now been resolved.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The word abuse here applies to the wikipedia policies, and if a user inserts blatant vandalism, or threats (etc.), then he is in fact abusing wikipedia. Obviously physical abuse directed at people is much worse.  However the word abuse is not used to describe an attack on a person in this case, but on an abstract entity.  Every time a user vandalises, he is in fact abusing wikipedia in the same way as a mugger is abusing a person, obviously wikipedia can't be stabbed, but deleting content, or adding nonsense is the equivalent.  Like I said though, abuse directed at a person is much worse than that directed at an encyclopedia.  The word abuse here is fine because, the object of the abuse is not a person but an abstract entity.  There is much the same situation in French with the word "violer", which can be used as meaning "rape", or "violate", this causes no discrepancy, people understand that they must look at the context.--Jackaranga 17:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Instruction creep
This has already been described as a solution in search of a problem, which I think is apt. Essentially, we have lots of guidelines and policies, which allow for various forms of dispute resolution and I don't consider this an improvement. By the way, this is a minor edit. Addhoc 16:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)