User:Scott MacDonald/Removal of reviewer rights from User:Wnt
I noticed that you recently removed reviewer rights from User:Wnt. While this is rather a moot point at this time with the end of the pending changes trial, I'm concerned to see that the diff cited for the removal indicated only expression of an opinion, rather than misuse of the removed privilege. Do you have any examples of this user engaging in actual misuse of the ability to review? Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not willing to run that risk. One of the main points of reviewers is to insure that poor BLP material is kept out of articles. Thus we need people with the best judgement and proper attitude to BLPs. A user with views that far off beam doesn't cut it. If he can demonstrate evidence of good judgement in the future we can reconsider. I'll reconsider now, if you can show me that despite his views he's done a lot a reviewing on BLPs without any difficulties.--Scott Mac 08:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see that he's used reviewer at all, per se. But this type of careful source checking would certainly give me confidence: [1]. I'm also concerned that a userright was removed because someone thought someone else had the "wrong attitude". For one, I don't think you or I or anyone can be the single arbiter of that—the purpose of discussing things is to get the various viewpoints out there and come to a consensus, and that requires frank and honest discussion. I'm afraid this could have a chilling effect as that goes (imagine if we started desysopping people for expressing a viewpoint that fails to gain consensus!). This editor has never been sanctioned for problematic BLP editing, or for any other reason that I can find for that matter. I'm seeing here that this user had a userright removed over a content dispute, one in which you were extensively involved. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewer-rights need to be given out carefully and to people on whose judgement we have reason to place the highest of confidences. The default is for people NOT to have this right. If it had been granted after due scrutiny, then it would be wrong for me to impose my contrary judgement, but it was not. We are not talking about rollback here, where we can assume good faith until it is abused. A few poor reviewers and the whole idea of flagging is meaningless. We need confidence that poor BLP edits will always be screened out. A chilling effect? Yes, I hope so. As I say, if you can produce some evidence of a normally solid judgement that has been let down by one unfortunate post, I'll relent. But we must err on the side of caution here. Reviewer-rights are being carelessly awarded; given that we can't make it unduely burdensom to remove them. It is not a matter of punishment or fairness to the user, it is principally a matter of ensuring BLP subjects are protected by edits being reviewed by people of the highest judement. He is entitled to his opinions and won't be punished for them, however we can't run the risk of people with such odd contrary opinions reviewing edits.--Scott Mac 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think refraining from making the disputed edit at all when it failed to gain consensus shows solid judgment and a willingness to respect consensus even when it goes against him. Another editor had reviewer rights removed for actually making a poor edit and after a discussion showing consensus to do so, and I've got no trouble with that. But removal of a userright is an administrative action, and especially for an involved admin is inappropriate given no history of misuse and only the expression of an opinion on a talk page. Think of it this way—if you had instead indef blocked the editor, saying "I've no confidence in allowing this user continued editing privileges because they may violate BLP", would that be appropriate? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a clear difference. The default is to allow people to edit, and all their edits are scrutinised. The default is for people not to have reviewer rights, as reviewing IS the scrutiny. As I say, if reviewing rights are to enjoy tenure, then more scrutiny would be required before granting them.--Scott Mac 09:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Enjoy tenure" is a bit different than "May be removed by an involved admin during the course of a dispute". I certainly hope you can see the difference here? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there were protections and rules for granting reviewer status, I'd be amenable for the same for its withdrawal. I wasn't in a dispute with him anyway, other than I disputed the judgement displayed in his post. If that's a dispute, then anyone who removes rights will be "involved". I suppose, ideally, there would be a process for removing rights. But there can't be one unless there's an even more careful one for granting them. --Scott Mac 09:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Shall I presume you do not agree to reinstate the right, then? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't presume anything. If the user wishes to discuss it with me, and can give reason why we can, despite his post, have the highest confidence in his good judgement reviewing BLP material, I shall be happy to consider and act appropriately.--Scott Mac 09:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is also rather troubling that the user never even asked for the rights in the first place. Not that this is his fault.--Scott Mac 09:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- There seems to be another issue here. Seraphimblade, as an admin you also have reviewer rights and you have access to deleted pages. Would you say that "I would further say that Wikipedia should continue to include all reliably sourced information, including Fair Use reproduction of the topless photos discussed in a recent AP wire.[2]" is in the reasonable range of discussion on a BLP talk page? Are you defending the user's reviewer rights because you think users should be free to say outrageously stupid and offensive things, or because you think it wasn't outrageously stupid and offensive? Hans Adler 10:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- As the OP of the content that started all of this, I have been concerned that Scott and Hans in particular have been using discussion about content as a means to enforce their interpretation of how things should be. I posted content once and sloppily sourced it. Scott removed it based on sourcing and even though nobody tried to restore the content at that point simply attempting to engage in discussion was grounds for the type of ad hominum attack ("outrageously stupid and offensive"?) seen above. After posting an AN/I discussion (sorry, was unable to find it in the Archives, posted on 05/10/11) on this where I agreed to voluntarily surrender my reviewer status should the community decide I was in the wrong, my report boomeranged after being up for less than 5 hours. I was okay with that (even though it was pretty quick, I believe a 24 hour time frame is standard), but I do have an issue with other people losing their rights for attempting to discuss it. My understanding is that my rights were revoked because I violated WP:BLP by adding a poorly sourced fact to a biography, and this sloppiness drew my reviewer's status into question. Scott, if you are unilaterally deciding to remove reviewer status because you disagree with the opinion of other editors, then that is something I feel should be addressed. I'm not trying to poke the bear here or anything, and I don't want to clutter up Scott's talkpage any more than I already have, so I won't reply here without Scott's permission. If anybody would like to address this on my talkpage I'd welcome the discussion. SeanNovack (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hans, in reply to you, for what it's worth, I fully agree with Scott as far as the content dispute is concerned. But that's neither here nor there. Editors are allowed to have an opinion that does not ultimately gain consensus. They are not allowed to attempt to push it in when it doesn't gain consensus, but I see no indication whatsoever that Wnt attempted to do this—when his proposed edits failed to achieve consensus, he properly refrained from making them. So I agree Wnt was not correct as the content issue goes, but that matter's already decided, and Wnt did not act inappropriately. He did what any of us should do upon a content disagreement, that being, discussed it and accepted the consensus outcome even when it went against him. "Offending an admin" is not in itself a sanctionable offense, and for good reason. To be sanctioned, you must actually misbehave. I don't see that happening here. And I certainly don't see such an emergency situation that Scott could not so much as have discussed the issue with the admin who granted reviewer first, which is really just the most basic of courtesies when you intend to reverse someone. Given that not even that was attempted, this just looks bad to me—it looks to be a penalty for an editor who dared to disagree in a content dispute. It is alright to hold an unpopular position in a content dispute, so long as one does not edit war or otherwise act inappropriately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I am not offended. But unless Wnt wants to discuss the matter with me, or asks me to reconsider, I consider it closed.--Scott Mac 15:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hans, in reply to you, for what it's worth, I fully agree with Scott as far as the content dispute is concerned. But that's neither here nor there. Editors are allowed to have an opinion that does not ultimately gain consensus. They are not allowed to attempt to push it in when it doesn't gain consensus, but I see no indication whatsoever that Wnt attempted to do this—when his proposed edits failed to achieve consensus, he properly refrained from making them. So I agree Wnt was not correct as the content issue goes, but that matter's already decided, and Wnt did not act inappropriately. He did what any of us should do upon a content disagreement, that being, discussed it and accepted the consensus outcome even when it went against him. "Offending an admin" is not in itself a sanctionable offense, and for good reason. To be sanctioned, you must actually misbehave. I don't see that happening here. And I certainly don't see such an emergency situation that Scott could not so much as have discussed the issue with the admin who granted reviewer first, which is really just the most basic of courtesies when you intend to reverse someone. Given that not even that was attempted, this just looks bad to me—it looks to be a penalty for an editor who dared to disagree in a content dispute. It is alright to hold an unpopular position in a content dispute, so long as one does not edit war or otherwise act inappropriately. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- As the OP of the content that started all of this, I have been concerned that Scott and Hans in particular have been using discussion about content as a means to enforce their interpretation of how things should be. I posted content once and sloppily sourced it. Scott removed it based on sourcing and even though nobody tried to restore the content at that point simply attempting to engage in discussion was grounds for the type of ad hominum attack ("outrageously stupid and offensive"?) seen above. After posting an AN/I discussion (sorry, was unable to find it in the Archives, posted on 05/10/11) on this where I agreed to voluntarily surrender my reviewer status should the community decide I was in the wrong, my report boomeranged after being up for less than 5 hours. I was okay with that (even though it was pretty quick, I believe a 24 hour time frame is standard), but I do have an issue with other people losing their rights for attempting to discuss it. My understanding is that my rights were revoked because I violated WP:BLP by adding a poorly sourced fact to a biography, and this sloppiness drew my reviewer's status into question. Scott, if you are unilaterally deciding to remove reviewer status because you disagree with the opinion of other editors, then that is something I feel should be addressed. I'm not trying to poke the bear here or anything, and I don't want to clutter up Scott's talkpage any more than I already have, so I won't reply here without Scott's permission. If anybody would like to address this on my talkpage I'd welcome the discussion. SeanNovack (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Shall I presume you do not agree to reinstate the right, then? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- If there were protections and rules for granting reviewer status, I'd be amenable for the same for its withdrawal. I wasn't in a dispute with him anyway, other than I disputed the judgement displayed in his post. If that's a dispute, then anyone who removes rights will be "involved". I suppose, ideally, there would be a process for removing rights. But there can't be one unless there's an even more careful one for granting them. --Scott Mac 09:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Enjoy tenure" is a bit different than "May be removed by an involved admin during the course of a dispute". I certainly hope you can see the difference here? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is a clear difference. The default is to allow people to edit, and all their edits are scrutinised. The default is for people not to have reviewer rights, as reviewing IS the scrutiny. As I say, if reviewing rights are to enjoy tenure, then more scrutiny would be required before granting them.--Scott Mac 09:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I think refraining from making the disputed edit at all when it failed to gain consensus shows solid judgment and a willingness to respect consensus even when it goes against him. Another editor had reviewer rights removed for actually making a poor edit and after a discussion showing consensus to do so, and I've got no trouble with that. But removal of a userright is an administrative action, and especially for an involved admin is inappropriate given no history of misuse and only the expression of an opinion on a talk page. Think of it this way—if you had instead indef blocked the editor, saying "I've no confidence in allowing this user continued editing privileges because they may violate BLP", would that be appropriate? Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Reviewer-rights need to be given out carefully and to people on whose judgement we have reason to place the highest of confidences. The default is for people NOT to have this right. If it had been granted after due scrutiny, then it would be wrong for me to impose my contrary judgement, but it was not. We are not talking about rollback here, where we can assume good faith until it is abused. A few poor reviewers and the whole idea of flagging is meaningless. We need confidence that poor BLP edits will always be screened out. A chilling effect? Yes, I hope so. As I say, if you can produce some evidence of a normally solid judgement that has been let down by one unfortunate post, I'll relent. But we must err on the side of caution here. Reviewer-rights are being carelessly awarded; given that we can't make it unduely burdensom to remove them. It is not a matter of punishment or fairness to the user, it is principally a matter of ensuring BLP subjects are protected by edits being reviewed by people of the highest judement. He is entitled to his opinions and won't be punished for them, however we can't run the risk of people with such odd contrary opinions reviewing edits.--Scott Mac 08:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see that he's used reviewer at all, per se. But this type of careful source checking would certainly give me confidence: [1]. I'm also concerned that a userright was removed because someone thought someone else had the "wrong attitude". For one, I don't think you or I or anyone can be the single arbiter of that—the purpose of discussing things is to get the various viewpoints out there and come to a consensus, and that requires frank and honest discussion. I'm afraid this could have a chilling effect as that goes (imagine if we started desysopping people for expressing a viewpoint that fails to gain consensus!). This editor has never been sanctioned for problematic BLP editing, or for any other reason that I can find for that matter. I'm seeing here that this user had a userright removed over a content dispute, one in which you were extensively involved. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- While the matter may appear moot, Wikipedia has had a bad habit of setting policy according to "what has been done in practice". Because Pending Changes is still up for discussion, I do not want to condone a practice where reviewer status is removed for bad reasons. In Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 2, positions about the options of reviewers were divided into three camps: "Vandalism only" (9), "Any edit violative on its face of WP:BLP" (32), "Other problematic edits" (11). Note that an edit violative on its face of BLP was detailed: "As WP:BLP states that unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material should be removed from biographies of living people, it makes sense not to have it part of a BLP in the first place if it can be avoided. Such material is not vandalism but should also be considered by reviewers." As I said at Talk:Pippa Middleton, it seems clear that SeanNovack's edit was not "unsourced or poorly sourced", as he indicated.[3][4] Therefore, the edit was not within the purview of those which most participants in the RfC felt it appropriate for a reviewer to revert in the first place. Furthermore, that discussion did not say that reviewers were required to revert all such edits. Therefore, there is no basis even in provisional policy for SeanNovack's rights removal, nor is there any "established practice" to support it.
- Now in my own case, I simply am unaware of any discussion or suggestion at all that reviewer rights should be taken away for opposition to the expansion of WP:BLP. There's not much more that I can say about it than that.
- As to what current BLP policy may be, I believe the case can be made for including not just the mention of the photos, but the photos themselves, but admittedly it is difficult. Looking over WP:BLP, I think it should by now be pretty clear that Middleton has crossed over from being a peripheral figure "notable only for one or two events" protected by "Avoid Victimization", to a public figure subject to WP:WELLKNOWN. She participated in a very widely televised event and apparently (according to SeanNovack's Chicago Sun-Times source) has some ongoing relationship with Buckingham Palace that is sufficient to dissuade her from taking part in commercial activity, porn-related or otherwise. Publishing embarrassing facts about her is not like publishing them about the mother of an accused killer or the eyewitness to a terrorist attack. I don't feel moved to pity someone who is young, pretty, desired by men all over the world, and who can turn down a simple photo shoot for $5 million because she has better options. It's not Wikipedia's job to suppress such information. That said, however, I do recognize that some of the tips on "Writing style" in WP:BLP might tend to run against the idea of a prominent topless photo in the article, and it might be difficult to justify Fair Use with only a link from a footnote. I don't think it is "outrageously stupid and offensive" to believe it shouldn't be that way, though. Tabloids sell, many people buy them, many people flock to the websites - and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia by the people, for the people. Its purpose is for them to read and find what common people are looking for, not to make elites and celebrities feel comfortable that nothing nasty is being said or shown.
- I should note that I do not oppose a general stripping of the rights of all reviewers from the experimental test phase, if it is part of a plan with community consensus to set up a new certification system. Nor do I claim to be above accusation of BLP violations in the past, as it is a quite vague system given to many differences of opinion. I simply oppose the revocation of my rights and of SeanNovack's rights (and probably others of whom I'm not currently aware) for such reasons as are given here. If it were truly the case that reviewers are censors, and must support censorship, then of course I'd be a bad candidate for the job, but that remains under dispute. Wnt (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
The "sources" presented for the "porn connection" to Pippa are each clearly reporting it as a totally unlikely "offer" to ever get any consideration from any rational person - more on the order of using the same sources stating that "BatBoy is reported by the WWN to be a twin brother to Hillary Clinton" would be allowed in a Hillary BLP short of a day when Sheol reaches 0 degrees Kelvin. Saying that are anything better than incredibly "poorly sourced" boggles the mind when they are so misused. And note that I am extremely aware of the discussion about use of PC for all violations of WP:BLP and the specific reason for the section which achieved extraordinary support that PC ought to apply to all BLP violations. Defending such a clear BLP violation is not something any reviewer who expects to keep that flag should consider short of that cold day. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- I quote the Chicago Sun-Times: "While a friend of Pippa’s says she was understandably “freaked out” by the alleged pitch for her to pose nude, she is also likely to decline any and all commercial offers — strongly influenced by advice from Buckingham Palace." Whether she seriously considered it or not, she was "freaked out" by it. And apparently Buckingham Palace somehow "influences" her against such ideas. That is relevant biographical information. Whether she would consider the offer or not has nothing at all to do with the sourcing of the fact that she received it and responded to it in this way. Wnt (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, you really are clueless. We don't know she was "freaked out" by it. All we know is that a tabloid a continent away, claimed that an anonymous friend claimed that she was freaked out about it. This is no information at all. Tabloids also claimed that friends claimed Kate Middleton's dog ate Prince William's earring. It turned out Kate had no dog and there were no earring. This is not reliable sourcing for anything whatsoever.--Scott Mac 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Chicago Sun-Times is NOT a tabloid. It's one of Chicago's two main newspapers. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't care what form it is in. It isn't an authority on British society figures, and such unattributed gossip is meritoriously unreliable.--Scott Mac 00:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)external in question - While a (unnamed) friend of Pippa’s says she was understandably “freaked out” by the alleged pitch for her to pose nude, she is also likely to decline any and all commercial offers — strongly influenced by advice from Buckingham Palace. “She will never knowingly do anything to embarrass her sister or Prince William,” said someone-in-the-know. its just complete nonsense to suggest this is anything apart from speculated celebrity type content and she has made no comment about it at all, we have no idea if she has heard of the offer or not, she certainly would not even ever consider it so its meaningless in her life story. I can't believe you continue with this claim that its somehow biographical content. Off2riorob (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've read articles in major newspapers with unnamed and anonymous sources before. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, and you should not suspend disbelief as you do.--Scott Mac 00:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Are you saying that comments from Deep Throat about Nixon in the Washington Post shouldn't be accepted by a reviewer?
- Note also that I am not even saying that the comment ultimately must remain in the article - only that it is not the role of a reviewer to revert it. As I covered above, according to the last RfC discussion the reviewer is supposed to be looking for whether the Chicago Sun-Times (8 Pulitzers) is a reliable source - not whether the information is "meaningless in a life story". Wnt (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The role of a reviewer is slightly more complicated than that. I think Yaris laid it out quite well on the talkpage there recently. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no User:Yaris, and I don't see obviously what you mean on the main PC or RFC2011 talk pages. I don't see why one more opinion would carry much weight, anyway. Can you link? Wnt (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 4#.2AHow to review - Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's the opinion of one user, with a few assents. It doesn't carry the weight of the RFC polls. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I have been quite closely involved and that it pretty much a consensus position as to how to review - I do understand your position, there is some difference of opinion and this case with you and the otherone from ANI, have moved me to begin considering removing all users reviewers permission and starting from scratch raising the level of policy understanding for granting the right. Many users are now commenting that the right was given too freely, this was to get the trial off the ground. I also sympathize with you that you did not ask for the right and that you did not misuse the right, that said we do remove user rights if and when trust to use that right is lost. From your comments on another page I think you are a supporter of adding anything at all as long as thee is a reliable source to support it. . that imo would lead to low quality content proliferating. If your read WP:BLP you will see we are required to write conservatively about living people and are requested to use our editorial judgment. As yet I haven't seen a single support for your addition to the BLP. As a reviewer I would likely have moved your addition to the talkpage for discussion, just because I think a new unconfirmed user deserves a bit of discussion to understand. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Accurate summaries to reliable sources do not lead to "low quality" content. They lead to politically unreliable content. Content that isn't censored to favor wealthy and/or Western persons who might potentially sue. I understand that there is some climate of fear that must be driving Jimbo Wales and others to support this awful BLP drive, but the outcome is beneath our dignity. It is one thing to put up a notice that we could not cover all aspects of the article because of fear of legal action - another to arrange a Third World style "spontaneous demonstration of support" where we all are supposed to pretend our love for the article subject, or else quietly disappear in a "review" by censors afraid of losing their flag for a single ideological error. Meanwhile we continue to include the most flagrant exaggeration and misrepresentation of, say, what the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square, using anonymous intelligence agency estimates and retracted NGO figures about the death tolls, because they're not given the same consideration. Though I've been called "stupid" and "troll" and untrustworthy and such lately for saying we ought to have one unsophisticated standard for all, you can't hide the facts: at the moment of the ArbCom BLP decision in the Badlydrawnjeff case, Wikipedia went from exponential growth to steady decay. Continuing this effort under a class of Loyal Reviewers would only sink the ship faster. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really care about all that stuff. The low quality content was your addition that P Middle was offered 5 million to do a porn scene...there no support for it from anyone but you, its simple really and talking to you , you seem to object to BLP policy, so we really have no place to meet in the middle, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, that was SeanNovack's addition; but it was reliably sourced to the Chicago Sun-Times. Your assertion that it is "low quality content" is based solely on some preconceived notion that this shouldn't be talked about even though it is out in the newspapers. There's nothing in the article that is any more important than that. It's all entertainment news of one sort or another. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- ...so you're trying to defend SeanNovack's edit, huh? Did you notice by any chance what happened when Sean brought the matter to ANI for review? NW (Talk) 03:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I did not; I should have favored his position there. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive693#Admin_User:Scott_MacDonald._and_the_Pippa_Middleton_article Wnt (talk) 05:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- ...so you're trying to defend SeanNovack's edit, huh? Did you notice by any chance what happened when Sean brought the matter to ANI for review? NW (Talk) 03:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, that was SeanNovack's addition; but it was reliably sourced to the Chicago Sun-Times. Your assertion that it is "low quality content" is based solely on some preconceived notion that this shouldn't be talked about even though it is out in the newspapers. There's nothing in the article that is any more important than that. It's all entertainment news of one sort or another. Wnt (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't really care about all that stuff. The low quality content was your addition that P Middle was offered 5 million to do a porn scene...there no support for it from anyone but you, its simple really and talking to you , you seem to object to BLP policy, so we really have no place to meet in the middle, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Accurate summaries to reliable sources do not lead to "low quality" content. They lead to politically unreliable content. Content that isn't censored to favor wealthy and/or Western persons who might potentially sue. I understand that there is some climate of fear that must be driving Jimbo Wales and others to support this awful BLP drive, but the outcome is beneath our dignity. It is one thing to put up a notice that we could not cover all aspects of the article because of fear of legal action - another to arrange a Third World style "spontaneous demonstration of support" where we all are supposed to pretend our love for the article subject, or else quietly disappear in a "review" by censors afraid of losing their flag for a single ideological error. Meanwhile we continue to include the most flagrant exaggeration and misrepresentation of, say, what the Chinese did in Tiananmen Square, using anonymous intelligence agency estimates and retracted NGO figures about the death tolls, because they're not given the same consideration. Though I've been called "stupid" and "troll" and untrustworthy and such lately for saying we ought to have one unsophisticated standard for all, you can't hide the facts: at the moment of the ArbCom BLP decision in the Badlydrawnjeff case, Wikipedia went from exponential growth to steady decay. Continuing this effort under a class of Loyal Reviewers would only sink the ship faster. Wnt (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I have been quite closely involved and that it pretty much a consensus position as to how to review - I do understand your position, there is some difference of opinion and this case with you and the otherone from ANI, have moved me to begin considering removing all users reviewers permission and starting from scratch raising the level of policy understanding for granting the right. Many users are now commenting that the right was given too freely, this was to get the trial off the ground. I also sympathize with you that you did not ask for the right and that you did not misuse the right, that said we do remove user rights if and when trust to use that right is lost. From your comments on another page I think you are a supporter of adding anything at all as long as thee is a reliable source to support it. . that imo would lead to low quality content proliferating. If your read WP:BLP you will see we are required to write conservatively about living people and are requested to use our editorial judgment. As yet I haven't seen a single support for your addition to the BLP. As a reviewer I would likely have moved your addition to the talkpage for discussion, just because I think a new unconfirmed user deserves a bit of discussion to understand. Off2riorob (talk) 01:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- That's the opinion of one user, with a few assents. It doesn't carry the weight of the RFC polls. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011/Archive 4#.2AHow to review - Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- There is no User:Yaris, and I don't see obviously what you mean on the main PC or RFC2011 talk pages. I don't see why one more opinion would carry much weight, anyway. Can you link? Wnt (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The role of a reviewer is slightly more complicated than that. I think Yaris laid it out quite well on the talkpage there recently. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, and you should not suspend disbelief as you do.--Scott Mac 00:35, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- I've read articles in major newspapers with unnamed and anonymous sources before. Wnt (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- The Chicago Sun-Times is NOT a tabloid. It's one of Chicago's two main newspapers. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, you really are clueless. We don't know she was "freaked out" by it. All we know is that a tabloid a continent away, claimed that an anonymous friend claimed that she was freaked out about it. This is no information at all. Tabloids also claimed that friends claimed Kate Middleton's dog ate Prince William's earring. It turned out Kate had no dog and there were no earring. This is not reliable sourcing for anything whatsoever.--Scott Mac 00:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe that discussing Wnt's behavior and judgment would've been preferable to unilaterally removing Wnt's reviewer right. I don't see any evidence of abuse of reviewer rights. Scott MacDonald should've went to WP:RFC/U, initiated a dialog with Wnt, or sought a second opinion. Wnt didn't engage in an edit war; he or she simply expressed his or her views in a discussion where opposing views should've been welcomed. Although disagreeable, Wnt's views and concerns are still valid. Pending Changes was only in affect here for testing purposes. The tool's main purpose in this trial period (now over) was to be used for gathering data and feedback. There isn't any consensus on how (or if) Pending Changes should be implemented here and what policies should govern it. Wnt didn't break BLP policies and guidelines; he or she only disagreed with it. Using hyperboles and analogies isn't wrong either. Users are allowed to have opinions of their own. My goal isn't to reinstate Wnt as a reviewer, as the trial is now over, but it would be nice if MacDonald would acknowledge that he may have erred in his actions. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:27, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- It's funny that "prevention, not punishment" (prevention, as in preventing Wnt from using his [wrong] views on BLP to damage an article in the future that might not be so heavily watched That's how I read the discussion anyway; I haven't really followed the matter fully enough) is so selectively ignored. NW (Talk) 03:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Special:UserGroupRights – Autoconfirmed users still have the "autoreview" right, so Wnt's revisions will be auto-accepted and overlooked by most reviewers anyway. I don't see much being prevented. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- NW, doesn't a fear of someone "damaging an article" come from...you know...the fact that they've done so? Not the fact that they had an opinion, that opinion failed to gain consensus, and they accepted that and did not make the edit? If suggesting an edit that doesn't ultimately gain consensus is unacceptable and leads to a conclusion that one will "damage articles" (what does that mean, anyway? In a collaborative environment, one person's damage is another's fine edit. That's why we discuss.), we're all in trouble. We work by discussion, and editors should never be penalized for good-faith discussion of what they want to see in an article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- By this kind of reasoning everybody should get a driver's licence until they cause an accident. This user has obvious problems w.r.t. basic ethics competence. The slogan about the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" refers to the normal case, not to exceptional cases of non-standard competence, for which restrictions are necessary just as for vandals or spammers. This project has a large contingent of fundamentalists and literalists with no respect for, or understanding of, common sense. I guess this is mostly related to young age and to the fact that we are attractive to people with autism spectrum disorders. In any case editors of this kind have reached a critical mass where they can no longer be ignored as they are actually trying to run the place and set its norms. Hans Adler 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- We ran this place in 2007 when it was growing, before this BLP debacle ever got started. And if you're so interested in competence regarding basic policies, why don't you read WP:NPA for starters? What you call "incompetent ethics" are the ethics of not just tabloid newspapers, but the mainstream media. Not to mention Google, which needs only revamp the Google Knol system to something a little more familiar to people here to wipe away Wikipedia like a bug on a windshield, if Wikipedia is only going to offer Pollyanna BLPs. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Hans, I just don't see any evidence of incompetence here. Wnt realized that an edit was controversial, discussed it on the talk page, failed to gain consensus, and didn't make it. What in that is evidence of poor competence? You're, from what I see, trying to state that a user having an opinion indicates incompetence. I disagree. An ability to work within collaborative norms when one's opinion does not gain consensus is a critical part of working on a collaborative project, and Wnt demonstrated that admirably here. Simple disagreement without inappropriate action should never be grounds for a finding of a lack of competence. Wnt did not "cause an accident" here, to use your analogy, simply argued that the speed limit should be raised and accepted when this view was not accepted. That's no grounds for taking away your hypothetical driver's license. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound like any progress is going to be made here. Before I go, I should make one last comparison with today's In The News on the Main Page. There we are putting forward as the top story that Dominique Strauss-Kahn has just been accused of rape. Now while I fully support the detailing of such allegations in the article, it seems odd for Wikipedia to deliberately feature this news in the light of all these people talking about "do no harm" (which is usually an absurd principle incompatible with a NPOV view of the subject, but which can reasonably affect our choice of what to feature). Unless the New York police have broken entirely with American standard procedure, there can't be DNA evidence yet; for now this is an allegation from one hotel maid. By comparison, Pippa Middleton's photos are quite unarguably established. Also, Strauss-Kahn's allegation was truly damaging, whereas Middleton's facts only improve her prospects for future employment (in any kind of filmed endeavor, since virtually all entertainment is secretly porn at heart). So why is Strauss-Kahn's allegation on the front page, while Middleton's article is subjected to censorship? I honestly believe, simply, that it is because he is a French (now would-be) politician, whereas she is associated with British royalty. (When I said "Western" before I was thinking more even of Australia and New Zealand than of France, which doesn't always get much sympathy) Your system perpetuates this bias. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- By this kind of reasoning everybody should get a driver's licence until they cause an accident. This user has obvious problems w.r.t. basic ethics competence. The slogan about the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" refers to the normal case, not to exceptional cases of non-standard competence, for which restrictions are necessary just as for vandals or spammers. This project has a large contingent of fundamentalists and literalists with no respect for, or understanding of, common sense. I guess this is mostly related to young age and to the fact that we are attractive to people with autism spectrum disorders. In any case editors of this kind have reached a critical mass where they can no longer be ignored as they are actually trying to run the place and set its norms. Hans Adler 16:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- While it may be a moot point in that the right might be removed from all reviewers as part of the "how to move forward" phase of Pending Changes (assuming there will be some form of Pending Changes going forward), I think this situation is somewhat worrisome in that it may set a precedent in absence of an articulated policy. A review of this discussion should be included in the next phase of Pending Changes to determine whether or not the right should be removed in situations such as this. Mojoworker (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Let me just say that this is yet another example of admins abusing their powers. This seems to be becoming a more frequent occurrence lately, which is worrisome. SilverserenC 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I concur that this appears to be an abuse. I'm also a bit shocked by the statement that the Sun-Times is a tabloid. This is one of the most respected papers in the world. If the Sun-Times is considered a tabloid, then I have to wonder if there is any newspaper in the world that qualifies as a reliable source. CavalierLion (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
- I won't accuse abuse regarding the removal of rights per se, because there's not actually any policy on giving or taking these rights, and there's been no forum designated to form consensus on the point which someone might be accused of ignoring. I didn't go through any process to get them, after all. It's sufficient to decide that it is wrong to revoke reviewer rights based on discussion comments, or for that matter to demand that reviewers reject properly sourced edits. Wnt (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is abuse because Scott Macdonald did it in response to you stating an opinion opposite of him and removed a right that is entirely unrelated to that opinion expressed in a talk page discussion. Essentially, it was a punitive action based on his own personal opinion, which clearly makes it abuse of admin powers. SilverserenC 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I said "per se" above. I didn't know what I was expecting, but I've seen it now: Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Admin blocked for removing PC, which said that Scott Mac had blocked an admin for trying to remove PC and then read myself that Scott Mac is saying to continue Level 2 PC at Talk:Dustin Diamond and Talk:Barry Chamish. Based on this I've mentioned this subpage at ANI, because we do have a policy WP:OWN which I think rules out the idea of one person saying a page has to be subject to a policy, against consensus, which effectively mandates that the only people who can edit it are himself and those who agree with him. Wnt (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
- It is abuse because Scott Macdonald did it in response to you stating an opinion opposite of him and removed a right that is entirely unrelated to that opinion expressed in a talk page discussion. Essentially, it was a punitive action based on his own personal opinion, which clearly makes it abuse of admin powers. SilverserenC 01:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I won't accuse abuse regarding the removal of rights per se, because there's not actually any policy on giving or taking these rights, and there's been no forum designated to form consensus on the point which someone might be accused of ignoring. I didn't go through any process to get them, after all. It's sufficient to decide that it is wrong to revoke reviewer rights based on discussion comments, or for that matter to demand that reviewers reject properly sourced edits. Wnt (talk) 01:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- I concur that this appears to be an abuse. I'm also a bit shocked by the statement that the Sun-Times is a tabloid. This is one of the most respected papers in the world. If the Sun-Times is considered a tabloid, then I have to wonder if there is any newspaper in the world that qualifies as a reliable source. CavalierLion (talk) 22:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)