Wikipedia

User:Tango/GH discussion

< User:Tango

Moved from User_talk:Jimbo Wales

What happened?

edit

Happened to see this. Can somebody explain what all happened ? -- Tinu Cherian - 12:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Shortest most neutral version I can manage: Jimbo goes into an interview with Giles Hattersley, Hattersley writes an article, his paper publishes the article, which criticizes Wikipedia, and makes an obvious factual error, referring to errors in his own biography (Giles Hattersley), but that biography that never existed. Chatter happens over the weekend, Giano decides to write a Giles Hattersley stub as a "rebuttal" (his own words) and furthermore writes what he defends as a factual, referenced and true. An edit war happens between Giano and Tango, during the edit war Giano makes an edit summary "This page is a disgrace - you make us look like a bunch of idiots.) which Jimbo cites as his reason for blocking Giano. Shortly afterwards Jimbo deletes the article "pending further investigation" while contacting the reporter. Jimbo unblocks Giano in the midst of extensive conversation on whether or not the article was a BLP violation, specifically a coatrack (an instance of undue burden. Giano defends his writing, lambasts Jimbo, Jimbo defends his block, community takes up arms (and popcorn). Giano scrambles his password, makes his last statements, and leaves.--Tznkai (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe I was ever in an edit war over the part of the article that prompted the blocks - I only made one revert there (and I didn't even revert Giano, as I recall). It could be argued that I edit warred over the notability tag and over the inclusion of the date of the article's creation being in the lede without any explanation of why that was significant (they were very minor edit wars, if they were edit wars at all), but those were completely separate to the issue of Giano's name being mentioned (which I think we what prompted Giano's edit summary that you quote - I never actually saw that). --Tango (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I could add that User:Tango and User:MickMacNee also got blocked by User:Coren for a while. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Here are some additions. (It's impossible to remain neutral on this one; I shan't bother.) Fishing desperately for some reason for Jimbo's eruption, I notice that Giano's edit summary for his first edit arguably has a smile about it, and that in its very earliest stages (lasting about nine minutes) the brevity of the article looks slightly like a deflation of something. Giano was effectively the sole editor (with minor interruptions) for about forty minutes, whereupon Skomorokh started adding quite a bit. Tango and Giano got into a bit of a dispute, for which "edit war" would be an absurd overstatement. It's blazingly obvious that Giano's edit summary ("This page is a disgrace - you make us look like a bunch of idiots.") is directed at Tango and perhaps additionally editors who share Tango's notions on notability criteria etc. At that point, the article consisted of three short paragraphs of very roughly equal length. The whole thing was straightforwardly written and scrupulously sourced. Nobody seems to have complained about anything in the first two paragraphs. As for the third, it calmly cited (i) Hattersley saying that Wikipedia had said he was some other Hattersley's son (I'll call the underlined proposition "P") whereas he wasn't; then (ii) somebody else saying that not-P. I happen to think that the introduction of the third paragraph was wrong for various reasons, among them that for (i) party A to say P and then (ii) party B to say not-P is in itself trivial; however, I'd start by writing this on the talk page. There was little sign of real heat among the editors, either, aside from that single irritated edit summary. Sixteen minutes later (and after a total of zero (0) intervening edits in this raging "war"), PeterSymonds protected the article. ¶ Thirty-two minutes after that, Jimbo deleted it. Jimbo writes here: Giano has been blocked for 24 hours by me for incivility related to this entry (20:53, 8 February). Not long later, he wrote that it was a serious WP:BLP violation and a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR also a WP:COATRACK and by implication a "hatchet job" too (23:36, 8 February 2009). Twenty-four minutes later, it was still by implication a "hatchet job", but WP:UNDUE is really the key here. At 01:24 Jimbo wrote that Giano had, probably unintentionally, written a hatchet job and [had done] something monumentally wrong -- this within a paragraph that in its entirety beggars belief (too long to quote here). ¶ Reality check: there was no WP:BLP violation, no violation of WP:NPOV, no violation (or anyway none that lasted more than a few minutes) of WP:NOR, no WP:COATRACK. However, WP:UNDUE was being pushed slightly, as of course it is in very many stubs. (There was hugely more undueness of weight within my own creation of "Jonathan Routh", then a living person, back in 2004; the weight imbalance remains.) ¶ The monumental wrongness is of the block, the characterizations of the article, and the aspersions cast on Giano's work. Conceivably Jimbo read the edit summary "This [sc. Wikipedia] page is a disgrace - you [sc. Tango et al.] make us look like a bunch of idiots." as "This [sc. Times] page is a disgrace - you [sc. Hattersley] make us look like a bunch of idiots." I can't think what else could have triggered all of this. -- Hoary (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
A fine summation, but your presentation of the contested propositions is errant; the first line of the third paragraph was that Hattersley claimed that P)Wikipedia's entry on him contained falsehoods, among them that he was Roy's son, and the second was not not-P but Richmond's claim that Q)Hattersley did not seem to have ever had a Wikipedia entry. Regards, Skomorokh 17:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. -- Hoary (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Could an admin possibly copy the page history/logs (with timestamps and edit summaries) here (or somewhere else, feel free to use User:Tango/GH-history if you like) so people can get to grips with the sequence of events? I'm still a little confused about exactly what order things happened (everything kicked off while I was away from my computer and the article was deleted before I realised anything serious had happened). Thanks. --Tango (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

 – iridescent 17:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That fits with my recollection, it seems some accounts have been slightly incorrect. --Tango (talk) 17:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarity

edit

The summary above needs to be distilled into some definite conclusions, I feel up to the task :)

  • (1) "Reality check: there was no WP:BLP violation, no violation of WP:NPOV, no violation (or anyway none that lasted more than a few minutes) of WP:NOR, no WP:COATRACK.". - Correct.
  • (2) Nor was the "make us look like idiots" edit summary, which was originally cited as the reason for the block, "uncivil" in any meaningful way.
  • (3) The arbitrary nature of the application of the Wiki "civility" rule and its misuse to support blocking of 'unwelcome' editors has been demonstrated by the very highest authority on Wiki.
  • (4) The block on Giano was not justified. Period.
  • (5) The later "justifications" were contradictory and confused. They also claimed the block was for reasons other than a breach of WP:CIVIL as was originally stated. This further emphasizes the arbitrary way WP:CIVIL is implemented on Wiki as a censorship tool by "The Cabal" (for want of a better euphemism).
  • (6) The conclusions above are so blindingly obvious they require no further discussion - merely a grovelling apology to Giano and a genuinely humble plea that he return.

Sarah777 (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the edit summary was uncivil, but nowhere near uncivil enough to warrant a block (and I say that as the person it was apparently directed at). --Tango (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Very well said, Tango. As for Sarah's six-point summary above, I'd considerably tone down the the last part of number six. There's already been way too much drama. Recognition of mistake, yes; grovelling, no. Not that Jimbo seems at all interested. Meanwhile, I'm happy to see that Giano is back (and very civilly so). -- Hoary (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The block was a good block. Faced with the same situation in the future, I will make the same block. It is time to have a zero-tolerance approach to behavior of this kind, and by "of this kind" I include both the creation of the article in the first place and the barking at other editors. Giano has a long block log for a reason.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, for you few in authority seem to agree with you! You made a bad block, an erronious deletion and now seem to be back against the wall. I would learn when to surrender if I were you. Here (finally) [1], is the edit I made with attendant summary for which Jimbo Wales blocked me. It was a bad block. It was wrong and he needs to be admonished and told firmly that that is not how Admins behave.Giano (talk) 11:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Then there is clearly a major difference of opinion between you and several experienced members of the community. Perhaps it would be best if you asked ArbCom to consider the case? That way we won't have this same disagreement next time something like this happens and you make a similar block - we'll have a clear ruling on whether or not such blocks are appropriate. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
This is most confusing. I'm an admin, I can delete articles and block users. But I was under the impression that the limits of the speedily deletable were very constrained indeed. Also, that if an article is particularly noxious (as you and perhaps a handful of others believe this one was), then deleting and salting is sufficient to prevent its re-creation. And finally that a single irritated edit summary doesn't constitute the need for any block. Blocks are, I'd thought, preventative and not punitive, and deleting and salting an article is enough to ensure that there won't be any further uncivil edit summaries for it. ¶ Meanwhile, I see you're satisfied with Hattersley's new stub, one that's similar to the first two thirds of the preceding so-called "hatchet job" but that drops the unneeded but innocuous last third. -- Hoary (talk) 16:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
If we're going to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to barking at other editors, somebody block Jimbo, stat. Thanks. Or perhaps it would be better if Jimbo engaged in some quiet self-reflection, figured out the real reason for his block, and apologized for it like most of us seem to realize he needs to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Not being an Admin I can't block anyone - nor do I wish to be able to. But I passionately believe, based on experience, that amongst the 1,600 Admins with blocking power there is a significant minority who specifically use the "civility" policy to silence editors they don't like. As the policy it is ultra-subjective it is a customized tool for the arbitrary abuse of power and thus a threat to the generally understood principles of Wikipedia. Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the fact that I have had to campagne, vociferously and stressfully, to even permit the diff for which I was blocked to be public [2], is a refection on Jimbo and his judgement; this and the fact that he repeatedly labeled the article a "hatchet job" is a second matter that need commenting on by the Arbs. Here he is knowing about the situtaion [3] (and cross because I interfered), but here he is [4] not knowing about it, long after the page was created. If you check tht times, he clearly had no idea of the article's faslehoods at the time the page was written. This matter, his comments and the bad block are not going to go away by being igmored. Giano (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
It is also worth remembering that the "Jimbo approved" version of the article contained an error about Mr Hattersley's journalism qualifications, which the "Giano originated" version did not. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Did anyone expect Jimbo to fact check the basic biographical details? He wasn't really approving based on them... --Tango (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, no, I didn't expect him to bother fact checking. I would expect someone who was concerned about potential BLP violations (rather than the identity of the contributing editor) to check them though. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Tango/GH_discussion&oldid=1142419018"