Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-10-20 RW

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	{{wr}} & etc.
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	John Reid
Parties involved	John254, Ral315 et al.
Mediator(s)	Addhoc (talk · contribs)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|{{wr}} & etc.]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|{{wr}} & etc.]]

Request Information

Request made by: John Reid 17:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the issue taking place?

Wikipedia:Vandalism, Wikipedia:Removing warnings, Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll, Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 August 9#Template:wr, wr2, wr3, wr4, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 October 18#Template:Wr &c., Template talk:Wr, User talk:John Reid ([1], [2]), Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#John Reid ([3]).

Who's involved?

John254 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Ral315 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at minimum. Vote-packing at Removing warnings poll and TfD suggests some sort of faction or "gang"; hard to say who's "in" without digging through every page.

What's going on?

The root issue is the removal of warning templates from user talk pages by the users thus warned. Consensus is clear that this is usually unwise but that's where consensus ends. Opinions range over a spectrum from Removing warnings is a blockable offense equal to vandalism and project disruption to User talk maintenance is the responsibility of each user and nobody has the right to question this. My position on the root issue is moderate: Removing warnings too quickly, without archiving, is foolish because it makes people think you're not paying attention. The issue seems to be tainted by (what I think of as) a side- or non-issue of warning templates being left on some user talk pages in bad faith.

Discussion on this issue has not polarized but a faction has gathered around the "right" end of this spectrum; RW hardliners have been pushing for explicit policy forbidding warning removal. They have so far failed in this effort in at least 4 places; the community refuses to endorse removing warnings as a blockable offense. The hardliners have closed ranks and now resort to false dichotomy and broad interpretation to support their actions:

Current policy does not expressly permit the removal of legitimate warnings, but merely refrains from expressly prohibiting such removals. Furthermore, the removal of legitimate warnings doesn't have to be defined as vandalism to prohibit it. [4]

As chief dishwasher at {{cent}}, I have clerked RW through this policy proposal billboard; you may see my previous summary of the outcome of discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions#Social issues. I questioned its third incarnation -- not the page itself, but the advertisement on Cent -- on that template's log [5]. This was a pure process objection; the proposal had its time in the limelight, now that's over.

I can't remember how I came across the {{wr}} series of templates; I don't see a link from any RW page. In any case, I saw major problems with them:

• Inconsistent use of Image:Stop hand.svg on some templates in this series and not in others. I think it's wrong to use it at all; this is on official warning templates such as {{test4}}. This is a case of The Ass in the Lion's Skin. As a graphic designer, I responded by creating Image:Stop-hand-caution.png and applying it to the series uniformly.

• Nonexistent documentation. I redirected all associated talk pages to Template talk:Wr and fully documented the series with {{doctl}}.

• Confused organization. I organized the templates in a logical progression and redirected the root template to {{wr0}}.

• Misleading, pompous, arrogant, offensive language. I have since highlighted the extremely inappropriate use of the passive voice and royal we; I object further to cotton-candy euphemisms and indirection. I reworded the templates to reflect both the sincere opinions of the people who use them, their avowed intent, and an honest presentation of community policy.

Here are all 6 templates in the state in which I refactored them: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

These changes were by and large reverted and reviled in extremely harsh language. I was asked [12] to remove Removing warnings from Cent and declined, citing conflict of interest. I explained myself fully, honestly, civilly, rationally, and at length on talk. In short order I was insulted, bullied, and blocked. Note that after my original refactor of the entire series, I only reverted a few of the templates, after talk and passage of time, once.

Now the entire series is once more on TfD. Again, it seems the hardliners are organized; again my reasoned comments are met with wordsmog and personal attacks.

What would you like to change about that?

My patience is at an end. I wrote I'm the best friend you've got outside your RW faction and I meant it. I'm a technician at heart; you can burn down the house room by room, so long as you write proper documentation as you go along. I put my expertise at the service of a faction with whom I do not at all agree, merely on the strength of a very thin thread of general community service, tempered by respect for the new editors -- who deserve a modicum of respect as human beings, even if they're behaving badly.

I agree that removing warnings is generally poor form. If editors want to warn other editors that they consider it poor form, too, that's fine by me. If an admin wants to block editors for doing so, well, I don't agree entirely but I strongly support wide latitude and IAR covers a lot of exposed ass. The requirement is only that the blocking admin take full personal responsibility for actions taken without support of community consensus. If an admin wants to threaten that he, personally, will block an editor, well, I really don't agree but even at that extreme, I bent over backwards to write a template containing direct, honest, and appropriate language. I cannot accept the text of these templates as they originally were or, in many cases, as they are now.

Various editors have commented on my wordings and perhaps they are not good; I'm not perfect. It would never have occurred to me to protect my edits, as others have done with their preferred versions. All I can say is that I put myself in the shoes of the editor who gets these templates on his page and I rewrote them in exactly the language with which I would wish to be confronted.

John254's comments are way overboard; I need a retraction, an apology, and an admission that my arguments are rational. I want an enumerated retraction, not a blanket. I want it made clear that he is not permitted to bully his opponents in debate. If he thinks he has a leg to stand on -- a leg permitted in rational discourse -- he needs to state it. Otherwise, it's way past time for him to back off. I want him to accept a ban against editing any wr-series template.

Ral315's block is abusive, an attempt to strangle debate directly and also indirectly, by denigrating me personally. John254 has used this immediately at TFD; it's enough to make one think the two were socks of one another. I need an apology and I want resignation of adminship.

I want a neutral party to restore Image:Stop-hand-caution.png to all templates in this series. This is important for tracking purposes. I want a neutral party to weigh my edits and reword all templates in this series to reflect community consensus on the lack of policy in support; to remove the passive voice, the royal we, and any suggestion that the community as a whole or admins as a group "will" do anything in this regard. I want the wording to leave open the door to new editors who may just need a little straight talk in order to straighten out -- not more offensive, falsely overdiplomatic, obscure indirection.

I will accept template deletion but I think it's the wrong way to go. I came to the issue with a compromise position and I still think that's best.

I don't want to be needlessly confrontational but if these templates cannot be reworded nor deleted, then an exhausting amount of work will need to be done to research every use of them -- since they are, it seems, often substituted -- compile a list of all users blocked subsequent to such use, and institute an RfArb against the entire faction. Frankly, I'd rather not have to do that much work. Who would? Nor do I think the blunt instrument produces the most effective compromise.

Replies

• An included category would be fine. My little graphic is not essential; not using the official stop-hand is. As a designer, I lean toward some sort of graphic for just about anything. Perhaps in this case it's better if substitutions don't even look like tags. I don't know. John Reid 01:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

In general, I think policy matters should be conducted in broad daylight. But MedCab is not my tricycle; I won't tell you how to drive it. If you want a private channel of communication, leave a cryptic message on my talk and I'll get back to you.

Mediator response

• Recusal, as I've protected the WR3 template during this conflict, though I don't feel a leaning to either side. I'm curious if perhaps a different method (an included category, perhaps?) of tracking the templates could be used. ~Kylu (u|t) 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accept - however I should acknowledge I took part in the Wikipedia:Removing warnings poll. Addhoc 19:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise offers

Discussion