There it is. Now, please tell me, which part of my post is a BLP violation? BLP only applies to Wikipedia. So, which part of the above post is a BLP violation? Is it the "http"? Is it the "amherst.edu" Is it the "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen"? If you honestly think some part of that URL is ban-worthy, then why won't you tell anyone what it is? In fact, if that is a BLP violation, you now need to ban me, right? You also need to ban anyone who's ever posted a similar URL to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. These noticeboards cannot possibly exist unless editors are allowed to discuss issues of reliability which requires the posting of URLs. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 00:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
There it is. Now, please tell me, which part of my post is a BLP violation? BLP only applies to Wikipedia. So, which part of the above post is a BLP violation? Is it the "http"? Is it the "amherst.edu" Is it the "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen"? If you honestly think some part of that URL is ban-worthy, then why won't you tell anyone what it is? In fact, if that is a BLP violation, you now need to ban me, right? You also need to ban anyone who's ever posted a similar URL to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. These noticeboards cannot possibly exist unless editors are allowed to discuss issues of reliability which requires the posting of URLs. [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 00:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Line 95:
Line 95:
===Again, here is the alleged BLP violation - I repeat it word for word ===
===Again, here is the alleged BLP violation - I repeat it word for word ===
<br /> Yes, I've already explained that BLP applies ''' ''everywhere'' ''' on Wikipedia. So, please tell me what part of this is a BLP violation? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 03:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
<br /> Yes, I've already explained that BLP applies ''' ''everywhere'' ''' on Wikipedia. So, please tell me what part of this is a BLP violation? [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 03:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Line 105:
Line 107:
:This is all very simple. All I'm asking for is an explanation of what the BLP violation is. Which part of this URL is a the BLP violation?
:This is all very simple. All I'm asking for is an explanation of what the BLP violation is. Which part of this URL is a the BLP violation?
:<redactedperabove> BLP violations shouldn't be a guessing game.
:Is it the "http"? Is it "q=article/2014/12/03/"? BLP violations shouldn't be a guessing game.
:'''But even more important, and the crux of the matter, should every editor who posts a URL at [[WP:RSN]] and [[WP:BLPN]] risk getting sanctioned depending on the result of that discussion?''' [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
:'''But even more important, and the crux of the matter, should every editor who posts a URL at [[WP:RSN]] and [[WP:BLPN]] risk getting sanctioned depending on the result of that discussion?''' [[User:A Quest For Knowledge|A Quest For Knowledge]] ([[User talk:A Quest For Knowledge|talk]]) 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.
Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.
Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.
On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.
There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.
When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.
Include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing easier. Move discussions go in the 'other types' section.
Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.
Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.
Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} oder {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes.ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}}{{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.
If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
This discussion is a huge headache. I'll keep working on it as I have time, but if somebody else wants to close this before I do, I won't complain. —Compassionate727(T·C)02:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I know what the result should be, I just need to write an explanatory statement. That will happen this weekend, Lord willing. Thanks for the resource though, I had no idea that existed. —Compassionate727(T·C)19:54, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading
Requests for comment
RFA2024, Phase II discussions
Hi! Closers are requested for the following three discussion:
If re-requesting closure at WP:AN isn't necessary, then how about different various closers for cerain section(s)? I don't mind one or two closers for one part or another or more. --George Ho (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During Phase I of RFA2024, we had ended up having multiple closers for different RFCs, even the non-obvious ones. I think different people closing subparts of this should be acceptable Soni (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is ongoing discussion there as to whether a closer for that discussion is necessary or desirable. I would suggest to wait and see how that plays out.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 32 days ago on 2 July 2024) - The original topic (Lockley's book, "African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan") has not been the focus of discussion since the first few days of the RFC when it seemed to reach a concensus. The book in question is no longer cited by the Yasuke page and has been replaced by several other sources of higher quality. Since then the subject of the RSN has shifted to an extension of Talk:Yasuke and has seen many SPA one post accounts hijack the discussion on the source to commit BLP violations towards Thomas Lockley almost exclusively citing Twitter. Given that the general discussion that was occuring has shifted back to [Talk:Yasuke] as well as the continued uptick in SPA's committing NOTHERE and BLP violations on the RSN, as well as the source in question is no longer being used - I think closure is reasonable. Relm (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 30 days ago on 5 July 2024) This is a contentious issue, so I would like to ask for an uninvolved editor to properly close. Please have consideration to each argument and provide an explanation how each argument and source was considered. People have strong opinions on this issue so please take consideration if their statements and claims are accompanied by quotes from sources and whether WP guidelines are followed. We need to resolve this question based on sources and not opinions, since it was discussed multiple times over the years. Trimpops2 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 71 days ago on 24 May 2024) Originally closed 3 June 2024, relisted following move review on 17 June 2024 (34 days ago). Last comment was only 2 days ago, but comments have been trickling in pretty slowly for weeks. Likely requires a decently experienced closer. Dylnuge(Talk • Edits)01:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 68 days ago on 28 May 2024) Latest comment: 3 days ago, 79 comments, 37 people in discussion. Closing statement may be helpful for future discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to note that this is taking slightly longer than expected, but it is at the top of my priority and will be completed soon. — Frostly (talk) 05:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Initiated 56 days ago on 8 June 2024) Since much of the discussion centers on the title of the article rather than its content, the closer should also take into account the requested move immediately below on the talk page. Smyth (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the closer finds "no consensus", I have proposed this route in which a discussion on merger and RM can happen simultaneously to give clearer consensus.VR(Please ping on reply)20:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Avono(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) was given a 1 month topic ban on GamerGate by The Wordsmith(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA)[1]. The request was made that a warning be issued. The requestor ReynTime(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has since been blocked indefinitely.[2]. It was not clear exactly what the violation was as it appears the only complaint was a link to an external web page per WP:BLPTALK. This is the preferred way to link to contentious material. The banning admin needed a copy of the offsite webpage to decide whether a violation occurred which appears to be exactly what WP:BLPTALK protects. Nobody minded a warning, whish was the original request. It escalated to a 1 month ban without much discussion. Additional eyes as to how WP:BLPTALK did not protect this edit. No violating material was repeated on Wikipedia. The wording that User:The Wordsmith used in his reasoning appeared to require that the material was voiced on Wikipedia pages. (i.e. "The inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced claims, even on talk pages, is a major problem. " though no claims were ever made, and "If Avono comes to me with an appeal indicating that he understands why posting the link violated policy egregiously," although WP:BLPTALK says it doesn't violate policy at all and is preferred.) Linking to contentious material is how contentious material is discusses without creating a BLP violation. It is very chilling if a link is now a BLP violation. This is the comment that generated a 30 day topic ban [3]. This is the discussion [4] Another uninvolved person EdJohsnton suggested a warning and smaller sanctions but that was ignored and the TBAN was increased rather arbitrarily to 30 days. Additional eyes if this seems a bit excessive since it's a link on an article talk page, main sources make similar statement and the original request was for a warning. User:The Wordsmith expressed that he was a "BLP hardliner" before semi-retiring which I find irrelevant and the lack of attention to WP:BLPTALK problematic. --DHeyward (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this ban and thought about bringing it up, but, frankly, didn't want to get sucked into the whole GG thing. But I agree, the ban appears to go directly against policy. Of course GS gives the banning admin wide latitude to decide that posting the link was disruptive irrespective of BLPTALK, but that wasn't the reasoning given. GoldenRing (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the link but according to The Wordsmith, the linked page contained "unsupported and likely libellous claims". The wording at WP:BLPTALK needs to be rewritten because several people have completely misinterpreted it to mean that editors can link to an attack site containing made-up garbage and innocently ask "should we put a summary of this unsupported nonsense from an unreliable source in the article?". Avono is one of a long line of people who have posted undue and unreliable negativity about living persons on the gamergate talk pages,[citation needed] and it is not feasible that each case be micromanaged. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnuniq: It was student newspaper we would have used. The difference between that piece and pieces that actually exist in the article is the word "alleged". His question was, since it was getting wide play, is it fringe? It was not a request to include BLP subject matter. Nobody would have reposted the information as it's covered ad nauseum. He didn't repeat the claims (it's unnecessary because all the reliable sources say the same thing except say it's "alleged"). It was a poorly worded BLP source but not as topic for discussing "fringe." Regarldess, the wording at BLPTALK is what it is (I don't think it would ever be reworded to stifle the discussion he brought but if it were a hate site or some other universally acknowledged BADSITE, I could see it, but this was an student paper with editorial oversight). Do we support bans of any length based on linking to an editorial oversighted mainstream university (Amherst link here - now gone <redacted per below>)? Amherst excercised editorial discretion and removed it so, in effect the exact function of oversight was achieved. This is the exact type of site we would like to link to since their removal breaks our link and there is no Wikipedia claims at all. Compare the Amherst site to this source [5] which exists in the article as a source. It has direct links to the ex-boyfriends rant but we have no issues with it. It lists the ex-boyfriends rantings with "alleged" as if that is less damaging. Somehow, the world is topsy-turvy if the link in the article itself contains links that are awful while the talk page link repeats no content is bannable. Just read the names in the link title: DailyDot, the acceptable source, labels it "zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal" in the link name. Amherst says "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen". Which is the BLP violation? we published the "zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal" link to the world as the neutral source reference. "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen" link resulted in 30 day ban. Hint: it's not a sex scandal and we would never call it that.--DHeyward (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since I am Topic Banned I am asking if WP:BANEX can be applied if someone else is doing the appealing for you. I am not interested in an appeal but would like to explain why but would also like to say what is worrying me about it. Avono (talk) 09:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this straight: you're asking "if someone else is talking about the ban, do I get to participate?" If that's what you mean, I would say yes; appealing the ban is just an example of the exception. This would surely be "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"; WP:AN is obviously an appropriate forum, and you'd be addressing a concern about the ban itself. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The link is broken because the newspaper's student editors, quite rightly, realized that the article could be construed as actionable libel (publishing false claims about an identifiable person which the author should have known were false) and took it down. It claimed, as proven fact, two allegations which are factually false. No professional newspaper with anything resembling editorial controls would have published such a column. Such are the pitfalls of attempting to use an op-ed column written by a college freshman and published in a college newspaper as a source for Wikipedia articles about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: Are you a lawyer? I read it and there was nothing "actionable" though it was highly charged and not well sourced. In reality, the link is broken and we have no idea why unless you have a letter that says they removed libellous material (don't bet on their lawyers saying it was libellous). The now-banned editor that complained said he was contemplating warning them of legal action if they didn't remove it but we have no idea why or if he threatened them (or if he spoke as a wikipedian). We have article sources in the main article that point to sources we wouldn't use but that doesn't make it against policy to link to them. The daily Dot names their link the "zoe-quinn-depression-quest-gaming-sex-scandal" and has a direct link to the ex-BF's rant. We link to it for all to see in the main article. Is it the "Zoe Quinn Depression Quest Sex Scandal?" I don't see anyone reaching for the ban hammer for that whopper of a BLP title violation or the editor that added it. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lawyer, but I have taken several media law courses during my academic career, and you're simply wrong. The article contained factual claims about the subject's actions which would expose the subject to hatred, ridicule and contempt and lower her esteem in society. Defamation. The article clearly identified the person who it claimed committed the actions. Identification. The article was published on the newspaper's website. Publication. The article's claims were factually false. Falsity. All four of the core components of libel are present. Additionally, it is easily provable that the author and editors should have known that the claims were false, as such has been widely reported elsewhere — which could easily constitute a reckless disregard for the truth, meaning the statements would be libelous even if the courts viewed Quinn as a public figure. At the very least there is a very good case that the article would constitute actionable libel, and the newspaper's student editors clearly understood that fact given the rapidity of depublication. n.b.: these statements based on libel laws and precedent in the United States of America, other jurisdictions may differ.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely someone wasn't arguing here that an op-ed in a student newspaper is to be accepted as reliable, and on the same footing as something published in a real paper? Because that strikes me as the height of naivete, as naive as Avono's comment in that diff, "why would have this source bothered to write an opinion article about it?" I am sure plenty of people know that college papers need one thing more than anything else: copy. Doesn't matter what it's on or how accurate it is. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Of course not. It was linked on the talk page during a discussion about fringe and coverage. It was essentially "Even the Amherst student newspaper is writing about it" with a link to the Amherst student paper writing about it. That's the whole point of WP:BLPTALK. An appropriate follow-up question would have been "what statement changed or added to the article can be supported with that link?". If the answer is nothing, the discussion moves on. There was nothing presented that the editor that added that link to the discussion was disruptive and he was TBanned for 30 days for writing exactly nothing about Zoe Quinn when he followed WP:BLPTALK to the letter. It's literally the text book case. --DHeyward (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Editors have been posting inappropriate links to the talk pages of these articles for months and it needs to stop. To quote the banning admin. User:The Wordsmith: "If Avono comes to me with an appeal indicating that he understands why posting the link violated policy egregiously, and that he'll make an effort to be much more careful going forward, given his contribution history and track record I would be willing to commute the ban". If that simple step cannot be taken by Avono, then there is no reason why we should consider overturning this ban. The editors supporting overturning this ban should encourage Avono to be in compliance with BLP and be more thoughtful regarding the potential damage Wikipedia can do to living individuals. If Avono is unwilling to take that very simple step, and if the other editors here are unwilling to urge him or her to do so, why should anyone else waste time discussing this matter? Gamaliel (talk) 03:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Gamaliel: The concern what policy did he violate? I can't find it. Please cite the policy that we can understand and learn. Why was that link inappropriate for a discussion about "fringe" when it highlights that it's being discussed in college newspaper articles (the link was titled "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen")? Why isn't this WP:BLPTALK compliant, which makes no qualifications on content offsite, only on wikipedia? No one has said the BLP content of the article at Amherst should be repeated on WP and no one repeated it - it was cited to show that it was widespread in the middle of a discussion about fringe. --DHeyward (talk) 06:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: First, editors should know that student newspapers are generally not considered reliable sources, particularly for sensitive BLP matters. As a former student journalist, I'm quite willing to admit that while there are a number of very good student publications out there, many do not have anywhere near the level of editorial control necessary to be a reliable source. Second, it is quite obvious by reading that article that it is repeating false allegations which were debunked and proven false by reliable sources months ago, and editors in the subject area should be assumed to have that understanding by this point. Why is Avono not willing to simply say that they made an error and won't do it again? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@NorthBySouthBaranof: The discussion was about whether the topic was "fringe" and he didn't repeat anything BLP related, he only noted that it existed. He didn't suggest any content be taken from or sourced by it. It wasn't notable for it's content, rather it was notable because it was in a University newspaper, not wonky political or gamer tabloids. The link name of the article was "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen" which supports the premise of being widespread beyond just gamers. --DHeyward (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy, this squabbling over my topic ban (with no offence meant towards DHeyward) is exatly the reason I decided to stay out by using my topic ban as a time-out. Wither I am banned or unbanned is not going to have a high impact on the article. DHeyward has summed up the issues with my banning; the only extra thing I am going to add is that is already being used to discourage discussions about posting links[6]. This in my opinion has an Chilling Effect. If someone would have actually read the second link I posted they would have seen that I understand why I was wrong now. So stop making me look Bigoted I am just no longer interested in this drama. Thanks, but no thanks Avono (talk) 09:44, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's supposed to have a chilling effect. It supposed to get you to think twice before you post links that are potentially slanderous or otherwise damaging to a living individual. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What policy is that? Please let us know why editors following WP:BLPTALK policy should not post links for discussion on talk pages from sites that are not known for BLP violations or outing. --DHeyward (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn As per Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate#Remedies, Gamergate general sanctions are only authorized when an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." I fail to see how this applies in this case given WP:BLPTALK specifically authorizes linking to potentially BLP violating material when it says: For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating This link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article? Posting links to potentially BLP violating material in talk space does not violate BLP policy as per WP:BLPTALK, as long as he didn't make the claim himself on WP or add it to the article in mainspace (and I don't see anyone claiming that), he did not seriously fails to adhere to any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process and as such the topic ban should be overturned as not authorized by General Sanctions. --Obsidi (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Per Obsidi. No policy was violated, and even if there was, the sanctions are authorized for when an "editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I obviously stand by the ban that I imposed. I even gave Avono the opportunity to come discuss it with me and I would consider reducing or commuting it. He has not done this, and has indicated above that he is no longer interested in this topic area. What I see here is other users appealing a topic ban on behalf of an editor who doesn't actually wish to appeal. It would seem that DHeyward lacks standing to appeal. The WordsmithTalk to me02:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only want the polcy reason you used considering you accused him of posting BLP violating material yet not one diff of anything he wrote was presented and you needed an article that someone else wrote on a site that isn't wikipedia and made the same claim against Avono again. He posted no violating material and already Tarc has used your decision to stop other users from excercising the exact process allowed, encouraged and outlined in WP:BLPTALK. You don't appear to be familiar with it (it's a relatively new clarification but it was available before the edit and dcision). You wrote "The inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced claims, even on talk pages, is a major problem" - yet no claims were made. Nothing was posted in Wikipedia as you claim in the next section. WP:BLPTALK says that links to problematic sources on talk pages ARE allowed and indeed preferable. It is explicitly stated and Avono followed it to the letter though it appears you missed that policy and mischaracterized links as "claims." It explcitly says at the top that "if you make comments your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it." You made comments that contradicted policy to support a 30 day ban when only a warning was requested. Also, your contention about standing is flawed as well. It simply says that sanctions should not be reversed without consensus on "Administrators Noticeboard." I am seeking it to be overturned because so far, all the claims for implementing the TBAN are lacking in understanding of policy. The comment about standing, without a policy justification, is more of the same. The only standing required is consensus. I would appreciate it if you would simply reduce your ban as a sign of good faith and a recognition that no one has cited the policy you upheld yet many have cited the policy you missed. It also appears the archive failed for some reason as I can't find it except by old revisions, but that's unrelated to a good faith reduction to time served. --DHeyward (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLPSOURCES states "...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources". The article posted contained claims so blatantly defamatory that the editorial board retracted it in less than 24 hours.[citation needed] Avono should have known that there was exactly zero chance it would ever meet our policies and be considered for inclusion in an article, and so the only possible reasons left were that he either didn't know (unlikely given his positive track record in many other areas), didn't care (again unlikely, he seems to have a solid grip on the core policies elsewhere), or simply didn't review the content with a critical enough eye since it agreed with him (a serious policy violation, but one that is understandable on occasion). Perhaps there should be a chilling effect on the article talk page, since I see in the history plenty of experienced editors linking to blatantly inappropriate sources that have zero chance of being suitable to inclusion. If editors are more critical of the sources they propose out of fear of sanction, perhaps it will have the effect of them presenting sources that actually meet our standards. As for me overturning the ban our of good faith, i've already extended plenty of good faith. I considered the user's positive track record and lack of prior sanctions and offered to commute it if the banned user discusses it with me. Avono does not wish to do that, and i'm not going to overturn my own decision just because an involved editor thinks I should. Believe me, i'm being far kinder with my offer then the admins at Arbitration Enforcement will be. TheWordsmith Talk to me13:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article wasn't posted. It was linked for a discussion on fringe. Again, WP:BLPTALK - have you read it? I'm not sure how much kinder ArbCom will be for misusing tools against policy. I've asked for a simple end, which is already past the recommened warning so that people are not afraid to bring sources, as links for discussion, to talk pages. There are links in the article, not the talk pages, that point people to non-retracted sites such as Gjoni's Zoe post. Where does your misreading of BLP policy end? Are links within sources bad too? It's a slippery slope when you miss the mark and hold people accountable for things they did not write. Also, there is no evidence the editorial board did any such thing. It's quite possible the original writer received so many death threats that he pulled it himself. Was there as retraction statement or are you just making it up the reason? --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith: You're completely misinterpreting BLP. BLP applies to Wikipedia. What specific content that appeared on Wikipedia did you find objectionable? Please give me the exact quote. You can't because that content doesn't exist. You've taken BLP and twisted it around to mean something that it doesn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The user has been given every opportunity to understand core content policies related to not using Wikipedia as a platform to spread unfounded and false attacks on living people, and has declined to do so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please use a diff to show where he "spread unfounded and false attacks on living people" on wikipedia. Since we have not seen such a diff yet regarding why he was Topic banned, please help us out. --DHeyward (talk) 15:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Any editor that read that 'article' in a student newspaper would be struck by the unfounded accusations the author made in the first couple paragraphs. There is no question about that, and it is the reason why the University deleted and scrubbed the article from existence. There is no question that it should not have been cited, and anyone involved in the GG issue knows this. The only reason we are prevented from really providing the reasoning here is that we cannot repeat what was in the article because of extreme BLP violations, and the article was scrubbed by the University. That should be the end of this silliness. Dave Dial (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The reason is that no BLP violating claims were made on wikipedia that were sourced to that article. Oversight and revdel is not even needed. It was a poor source for claims that were never made here. It was cited only to show that it was a widespread coverage. As to why it was deleted, there is no retraction or reason. Could be the author received death threats or possibly legal threats from Wikipedia editors as many were mentioned - it's just as valid as your guess. There was no retraction to validate your claim. WP:BLPTALK makes clear that links made on talk pages without any claims are acceptable and encouraged. Readers can find archived content REDACTED by The Wordsmith (talk·contribs) and click the "Prev" link in the upper right of the page. Repeating that content here is prohibited. Noting that it existed in a student newspaper and was archived, however. The reason a ban for a link that was never intended for BLP citation is ridiculous is our article sources are just as bad. Anyone that clicks our "dailydot" reference will be welcomed with a "zoe quinn sex scandal" in the url title bar. the source is rife with links to primary sources including the zoepost from Gjoni. Links for discussion on talk pages are necessary and encouraged per WP:BLPTALK. WP editors are not accountable for content they didn't write. --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to clarify that my link was to an archive that is actually a "File not found" link. The instructions to click previous brings up the post that was deemed in violation (and I agree that the content in those pages is not conforming with policy). My conflict is not personal with The Wordsmith and I won't restore it. Rather there appears to be a policy interpretation conflict on how controversial material about living people can be discussed. There is no reason to force a "showdown" as reasonable people can disagree. I understand The Wordsmith's concern and respect his opinion though I obviously disagree. I think I can say that through a different channel he saw more of my concern (and our interpretation discrepancy) than before though it doesn't rise to his level of a reversal. I think this is a nuanced area of talk discussion that ArbCom might be able to help clarify. I was a bit pointy in the post of the link that gave readers a path to see the original post without directly creating that. At the same time it created, not through me, a condition that highlighted the value of discussion dispite a policy that would prohibit it. For me, this isn't particularly related to overturning the topic ban (the banned editor is indifferent to the remedy). Rather it's the process and conditions upon which the need for discussion overrides secondary and tertiary considerations regarding BLP. There is no doubt that the content from Amherst deserves repeating in Wikipedia, the wording is a violation. Even the retraction is not acceptable for wording as it is much more vague than other sources and a proposal to use the retraction wording would not pass consensus. The issue is about when posting such a link is acceptable on a talk page. My contention is that WP:BLPTALK makes allowances for links to further understanding and to make broad points that are still under consideration. The link itself has to have a redeeming value (in this case, the value was about how fringe GamerGate is/is not). There is no doubt that inserting a link thats only purpose is to bring up long settled disputes or to reintroduce long settled BLP contentions is not allowed. The issue is when a new link is found that illustrates a new point but may repeat long-settled BLP concerns can be discussed. My interpretation of WP:BLPTALK allows for this for discussion. Whether the new point can use the link for citation in the article is subject to other BLP policies and consensus. It's more readily apparent in historical documents without BLP concerns. We can cite Newton for classical mechanics in physics even though we know it's been superseded by Einstein. we simply separate where each theory is relevant but we don't dismiss one view as "wrong." For this case, in the future, there may be litigation. Undoubtedly there will be a source that repeats content that has been rejected here. With this precedent, who can point to the new link on a talk page covering litigation and ask "How should we include this new development?" without fear that the link to the new development will result in a block or topic ban? This is the concern. --DHeyward (talk) 06:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith: No, you still need to explain what the BLP violation is. For the life of me, I can't figure out what it is. I've asked you to provide the exact quote that violates BLP but you have not done so. What's the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't. It doesn't use the word false to describe anything about Zoe Quinn. If you think it does, how would you feel about the article having those three words they used to describe Zoe Quinn in the article? It would be a BLP violation to use that weak of a retraction. But it's progress if you think we can discuss the BLP violating retraction. --DHeyward (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wordsmith has says that they are willing to hear from the user and commute the block if the user acknowledges community expectations. This is a fine offer and one that this user should take up if they wish to have this undone. Short of that I see no reason to reverse this decision. Chillum18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for The Wordsmith to tell us what the BLP violation is
The diff has been posted, the link is dead now but that is not the same thing as not providing evidence. Without repeating the allegations a description of the link has been provided in detail. Sometimes things outside of Wikipedia change between the time a decision is made and when it is reviewed. We don't always have the benefit of a revision history for external sites. See my post above, this user is being given a chance to be unblocked so what is the big deal here? Chillum18:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What diff? As best I can figure out, The Wordsmith is alleging that a URL is in violation of BLP, but The Wordsmith is refusing to explain what exactly about this URL that is in violation of BLP. It seems to me that if there really was a legitimate violation of BLP, it would be easy for The Wordsmith to explain what the violation is, but the longer that The Wordsmith goes without explaining what the BLP violation is, the more it is apparent that there was no BLP violation. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's explained and acknowledged. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to read through the discussions, is not the fault of anyone else. Continued oblivious reactions are not going to accomplish anything, the BLP violations are not going to be repeated. Dave Dial (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
AQFN, relax. Your histrionics are getting tiring. If you had actually taken a look at the evidence and my decision, you would have seen that I indicated that the link in question contained blatantly false and libellous claims, that Avono should have recognized that with even a cursory glance, and that any editor with even a brief familiarity with our BLP policy would have known that such a screed had no place on Wikipedia and absolutely zero chance of being used in an article. This is now the third or fourth time I have explained this; its not my fault if you're just not keeping up. I decline to go into further detail about specifically which false claims were made, because that would involve repeating said claims and would be inappropriate. The WordsmithTalk to me23:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the alleged BLP violation - I repeat it word for word
As best I understand their position, @The Wordsmith: here is the alleged BLP violation and I will repeat it word for word:
There it is. Now, please tell me, which part of my post is a BLP violation? BLP only applies to Wikipedia. So, which part of the above post is a BLP violation? Is it the "http"? Is it the "amherst.edu" Is it the "gamergate-controversy-extends-beyond-computer-screen"? If you honestly think some part of that URL is ban-worthy, then why won't you tell anyone what it is? In fact, if that is a BLP violation, you now need to ban me, right? You also need to ban anyone who's ever posted a similar URL to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. These noticeboards cannot possibly exist unless editors are allowed to discuss issues of reliability which requires the posting of URLs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP.
Since BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia, and since the only semi-reliable source which published the information at that link has since withdrawn it as inaccurate and poorly sourced, I have redacted the address posted above by AQFK, and ask that he not repost it. BMK (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BLPTALK is BLP policy, ELNO is a guideline. Why are citing a guideline as overriding policy?. ELNO applies to the "external Links" section of the article and sources for the article. If you interpret that websites must be compliant before linking them on talk or discussion pages, you are mistaken and have created an impossible bar. The link isn't used to source anything on wikipedia which is what ELNO requires to be a violation. That aside, I bet nearly every article (especially gamergate articles) have BLP violating material in the offsite link that is unsuitable for wikipedia. As long as statement being sourced isn't defamatory, the external link is not a BLP problem. It can be removed by consensus after discussion but BLPTALK protects the editor, who makes no claims about the subject/source at all, to post links for discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under many circumstances, you would have a perfectly valid point. Under the GG sanctions and Avono's instance, not so much. The editor knew the link had no value at all, and disguised posting it with a question that didn't make sense. Avono knew perfectly well the problem with posting the link, you cannot get through the first 2 paragraphs without knowing full well that it should not be posted. It's beyond credulous to believe that wasn't the case, just pointing to the many ANI and GG sanction threads that have popped up the past several months. If one reads the GG Talk page, one knows full well not to post a link like that, stating those unsubstantiated accusations as fact. It's not even close. BLPTALK doesn't mean that we have to bury our heads to obvious violations, especially concerning BLP violations that extreme. This is going to be my last comment on this particular issue, and an admin should close this. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 19:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Suggestion
I suggest that, since this is within the scope of WP:ARBGG and has now come up in the context of that case, further discussion here is never going to achieve anything other than drama. Therefore, this thread should be closed. GoldenRing (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, here is the alleged BLP violation - I repeat it word for word
What AQFK doesn't seem to understand is that by allowing a link to a website on Wikipedia, we're saying to our readers that the information on the website is compliant with our policies. For instance, take copyright violations. We are very serious about copyright violations and strictly do not allow them. Other sites are, obviously, not so fussy, but we cannot get around our restriction on copyvios by sending our readers to sites that carry material that wouldn't pass muster here. In short, we cannot bypass our policies by sending our readers offsite to see information that we wouldn't allow here – it's strictly forbidden by WP:ELNO and WP:COPYVIO. The same goes for violations of the WP:BLP policy, which are disallowed everywhere on Wikipedia, including article talk pages, user pages, user talk pages and Wikipedia space. We cannot get around this policy by posting a link to material that we know is in violation of that basic policy by posting a link to a site which carries that information.
Certainly, there are numerous times when no one bothers to enforce the rules, or an offending link slips by because no one's aware that the site is not compliant with our policies, but once we know that the information at a URL is not Wikipedia-compliant, posting (and reposting) the link to that page is a clear and straight-forward violation of the relevant policy. BMK (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion started by Avono is difficult to accept as a good faith attempt to improve the article. We're not using student newspapers as a reliable source on anything, I would hope, except their own content and (just possibly) their own history. This article was so blatantly defamatory that it didn't even stay up on the original website for long. If BLPTALK can be read in such a way that it seems to weaken BLP, it needs to be fixed. Avono should know better. Egregious violations of BLP like this are ban-level offences, and trying to brazen them out by rules-lawyering is not the way to make amends for the harm done. This isn't a borderline case. --TS14:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is all very simple. All I'm asking for is an explanation of what the BLP violation is. Which part of this URL is a the BLP violation?
Quest, you have been answered multiple times. Suggesting that the different sections of the url are at issue is a disingenuous straw man argument and you know it. You are engaging in sophistry. You are plugging your ears to answers you do not like and repeating the same question over and over. It is disruptive. Please stop. Chillum19:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tony Sidaway:WP:BLPTALK is policy. It is BLP policy. If the reason for the block is that the user was diruptive, then use "disruptive" as the block. Shoehorning in a policy that doesn't apply because it's easier, though, is nonsense. We are not responsible for content we don't write. Period. WP strives to have accurate and reliable content and that is the basis for the BLP policy. The whole point of the WP:BLPTALK policy is to allow discussion for links and, links alone, cannot be the foundation for sanctions. Nor is it a reasonable interpretation that WP is accountable for every external link in the encycopedia. No articles would be allowed if that is the standard. Every single link for gamergate has a BLP violating reference. We simply don't repeat them here and instead source non-blp violating statements to the otherwise reliable source. You won't find he link to the original Gjoni piece on Wikipedia (or shouldn't) but it is referenced on many of the sources used for the piece. Is it your contention that any talk page or article that links to a source that supplies a link to Gjoni is a BLP issue? Is there some sort of 3 click degree of freedom you've invented? the truth is that offsite material is offsite. If it's published by an otherwise respectable institution (i.e. amherst.edu), we can link to it for discussion. It it doesn't pass muster, it can be deleted or ignored on the talk page. If you think the user is being disruptive by adding it, bring up "disruption" on the sanction board. But it's not a BLP violation no matter how many clicks away it is. --DHeyward (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you satisfied I'm happy to replace the 1 month topic ban with a 1 month block for being a tendentious and general nuisance on the article talk page. And I'll be happy to extend that both to anyone else who is acting similarly (if I can stomach reading that talk page for much longer) and also to whoever is continuing to waste this much time with this thread. I'm joking, but only sort of. NW(Talk)21:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this editor had been banned due to tendentious and general nuisance, that would be one thing,. But they weren't, They were banned for posting a URL. I've made this point several times now, and nobody seems to have an answer, but how can WP:RSN and WP:BLPN possibly function if we banned every editor where the result of the discussion is that the source is not reliable? I am defending the integrity of the WP:RSN and WP:BLPN process.
But speaking of admin action, I believe that it is a violation of WP:NPA to accuse an editor of misconduct without evidence. TWICE now, the URL in my posts have been redacted to a non-existent BLP violation. How about blocking which ever editor(s) made obviously false accusations that I violated BLP? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
New levels of absurdity
The link that folks are edit warring over inserting and redacting leads to a prominent "PAGE NOT FOUND," and is the same link contained in <diff redacted, no need to publicize a policy-violating EL> which has been on AN for the last six days. NE Ent11:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A case of repeated abuse with delayed discovery
User X engages in hugely disruptive and abusive behavior, but because it's done in a deceptive way, the abuse isn't discovered until months later. Since Wikipedia has a way of forgiving all sins with the passage of time, no action is taken against User X.
Later, User X engages in even more disruptive and more abusive behavior. And again, because of the deceptions involved, it isn't discovered until months later. Further, there is evidence indicating that another abuse may happen.
Can one conduct an unlimited number of abuses on Wikipedia without repercussions, provided there is a sufficient time lag between the disruption and its discovery? Can there be an exception to the "disruption must be current" rule?
The above are generalities that correspond to a real situation. I have discovered the second abuse, and there is evidence that a third may happen. The case requires email due to private information, and is somewhat lengthy. I'll send it to an admin who is willing to look at it. Manul07:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Manul, one definitely shouldn't be able to get away with an unlimited number of abuses without repercussion, but I really can't say more without knowing the details. Feel free to email me about this. Sam Walton (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sneaky abuse is a sign of bad faith, and this pattern is one where the first move would be to indefinitely block the editor to prevent any future recurrence. If the editor came around and said, "yeah, I understand that was wrong and won't do it again," Wikipedia might generously give them a second chance. JehochmanTalk21:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The mere act of indef-blocking them may jar them into recongition that their earlier actions are unacceptable; a secopnd chance (on request), where the user clearly understands what they did wrong, may be reasonable - but not a third chance, at leadst for a long while. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say, raising a hypothetical and then insisting on findings only being disclosed in private is not the best way to start a complaint process. Such a path, in my mind, suggests an unwillingness to attempt a good faith attempt at resolution with the editor in question by giving the appearance of a "set up" and so negatively colors any future action. I would recommend full disclosure now. GraniteSand (talk) 08:03, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is hilarious. I have already apologized and said I am re-writing the article making sure I use my own sources and this guy doesn't seem to get the message. He also doesn't seem to understand that most (about 85%) of the article was MY WORK. He is claiming I took it all. I did not. Clearly he feels threatened for some reason or another. I'd argue the person in question is notable enough, but would like a second opinion. I just want to write this article and am sorry for any problems cauused. A simple message telling me to remove aspects that were lifted would have sufficed, but this man deciding to delete an entire article, which I have mentioned was mostly my work, was very frustrating. This was my first article so I'm still learning and this man who brags about his experience in writing articles doesn't seem to be able to listen to reason. Also the post about "it all coming from me" was in regards to the main body of work that was all my information that I gathered and cited.Vince193 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So new editor Vince took CC BY-SA 3.0 licensed work and added to it without proper attribution. Now he knows not to do that. GS has merged the histories, resolving the problem; so why is the article now in user space instead of mainspace? NE Ent15:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Vince believes the guy is notable, he can create the article. If someone believes he's not, they can WP:AFD it. NE Ent 16:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC) While Dougweller's action was one solution to a copyvio, another valid solution is annotating the talk page per WP:MERGETEXT. NE Ent16:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It won't change a thing for the socking user (they'll keep socking), and it won't change a thing for admins (revert & block socks). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉01:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Meh per above. This is not a person who will be getting unblocked anyway. Sanctions should not be punitive, and that's really the only effect formalizing the ban would have here. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 01:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural question A number of times, editors have chosen to oppose a CBAN, particularly after a checkuser indef block, much like NE Ent's rationale above. Perhaps it's time for a change to the CBAN policy specifying that a checkuser indef block be viewed as a ban and does not necessitate community !voting to make it a ban? Blackmane (talk) 02:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - We block, He creates another account, Ends up at SPI, then ends up here, We block, He creates another account, Ends up at SPI, then ends up here, ..... Yep it's just going to be one big merry-go-round. –Davey2010 • (talk)03:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Davey2010: You seem to have mis-understood what Blackmane's proposing here. (S)he's proposing that the CBAN be automatic - that is, that we never have to come to AN for checkuser indef blocked users, as the CBAN will automaticly take effect. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:36, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd misread something somewhere .... Probably due to lack of sleep!, Thanks for spotting the error, (I apologize for editing this whilst closed) –Davey2010 • (talk)15:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In practice, editors are extremely reticent to revert editors who aren't de jure (community-)banned for fears of 3RR. In addition, as noted above, CUs tend to run checks of their own volition when sockpuppets of banned users are involved, at the very least to find sleepers/autoconfirmation busters. —Jeremyv^_^vBori!07:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where's the ACC?
So dumb question... The Account Creation Interface used to live here. Now it's gone, with a notice to look for it at the Tool Labs index, where of course I can't find it :\ §FreeRangeFrogcroak00:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the police need information from Wikipedia, I'm fairly sure they'll approach the Foundation and ask. If you think you see something in an account's edits that you think the police should know, you should probably contact Philippe or Maggie at the WMF. Short of that, there's not really anything we can or should do from this end to investigate account owners or their real lives, as best I can figure. AN isn't quite the Vidocq Society. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Partly done reminder of civility norms. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Erledigt. Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
