Anonymous user
The Sims Wiki talk:Admin Portal: Difference between revisions
→Editing restriction on DrakonoSkerdikas
imported>LostInRiverview No edit summary |
imported>K6ka |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 477:
One final note: on the Discord server, I suggested to [[User:k6ka|k6ka]] that we (meaning he) might implement an [[Special:AbuseFilter|abuse filter]] to catch additional insertions of the generic bio on articles in the main namespace. I would be curious to see k6's, and everyone else's, response to that idea. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 05:38, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
:I believe abuse filter is an ideal solution because that way, it can prevent further edit warring while allowing the user to continue their good-faith contribution. This may allow us to avoid repeated banning, which would be unnecessary if abuse filter can prevent the edit in the first place. Let's assume it wouldn't cause further disruptive behavior from the user. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] 06:17, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
::Well I wouldn't have thought of setting up the abuse filter to prevent further attempts to insert the generic biographies to articles. I guess because I was too busy waiting to see whether they'd ever stop trying to add the generic biographies, and then block them if they kept trying to add them.
::But I wouldn't be opposed to setting up a filter to catch any further attempts to add the generic biographies, or to edit war on specific pages. But then I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the idea of warning them not to keep trying to do the things that the abuse filter would prevent them from doing either. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="#800020">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 06:33, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
:::My reasoning for the abuse filter is that the warnings and the blocks don't seem to be a deterrent to adding the biographies, as if the person either doesn't know they have a talk page or simply doesn't understand what we're asking of them. Implementing an abuse filter to stop the generic bio seems to be a good solution for stopping the problem edits in the first place, before the person can resort to warring. I will say as well, my issue isn't necessarily with the fact that they are adding the generic bio, but that they are edit warring. I have a vague recollection that the community at some point made the conscious decision not to include generic bios, but I do not have definite proof that the topic was ever discussed. So, I don't think the addition of generic bios is valid grounds to block them (barring some proof of community consensus)... but edit warring ''is'' a blockable action, as is block evasion; those are the grounds on which I support blocking this user. Of course, if the community never actually agreed to not use/to remove generic bios, then it would also be improper to set up an abuse filter to stop their inclusion.
:::So, to clarify my position a bit: if it can be demonstrated that the community has established a precedent of not including generic biographies, then I would propose implementing an abuse filter to catch the generic bio, and would support additional blocks if this user continues to add them in defiance of consensus. But, if the community has not established that standard, then I think a community discussion and consensus would be necessary before taking action against this user for the addition of said generic bios, or before implementing an abuse filter to stop it. All that notwithstanding, edit warring and block evasion are still blockable offenses. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 06:52, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
::::I don't actually recall there ever being a discussion regarding not including generic biographies into Sim articles. All I remember was that in very late 2013 or very early 2014, removing the generic biographies became a practice, and not seeing anything wrong with the practice myself, I stuck to that practice as well.
::::I definitely would be opposed to the practice being undone though, considering that the said Sims don't have those generic biographies in the game. So they technically shouldn't have them in the articles either. ― <span style="font-family:'Constantia'; font-weight:bold; font-size:108%;">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="#800020">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font-family:'Adobe Garamond Pro'; font-size:108%;">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[:Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 09:37, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
:::::New consensus was thus formed by new practice. No discussion is required for a new consensus to be established; if everyone else follows suit, it can be assumed that the consensus was changed. Anyways, I've set up [[Special:AbuseFilter/47|filter 47]] to catch these kinds of edits. Testing showed that it catches the edits I want it to catch. I've set it to warn only for now (since the outdated version of the extension Wikia uses doesn't allow for a custom disallow message) in the hopes that this will get the message across. If they keep adding it (and the [[Special:AbuseLog|filter log]] will tell), then I'll tighten the settings. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 11:57, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
::::::This is only tangentially related, but we ought to devise some way of tracking ideas that have received either formal consensus or have been adopted into widespread practice. The reason I bring this up is because it is difficult to enforce a particular rule if there is no way to demonstrate definitively that a rule exists. There might also be disagreement about whether a consensus or standard truly exists if said standard isn't "officially" adopted by way of a community discussion. I don't disagree with the fact that some practices are standard enough to enforce despite having no formal discussion to implement them, but it would be useful (especially for new editors who will likely be unfamiliar with our practices) to have these standards written down somewhere. '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 22:35, April 16, 2019 (UTC)
==Editing restriction on [[User:DrakonoSkerdikas|DrakonoSkerdikas]]==
Administrators who have been monitoring the ''#administrative_chat'' channel on [[Project:Discord|Discord]] may know about this already, but I will explain for those who don't use Discord.
{{Userlinks|DrakonoSkerdikas}} has been editing since 2014. Their activity has increased over the past year and they've had a bit of a history, including [//sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=Fun&action=history&year=2019&month=3&tagfilter= counterproductive edit warring] and [//sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DrakonoSkerdikas&oldid=887435#Use_the_preview_button failing to use the preview button in order to check over their own work]. They've also been extremely unresponsive and unwilling to act on or even notice messages left on their talk page, as evidenced [//sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DrakonoSkerdikas&oldid=887435#RE:_Revision here] where their edit duplicated an entire article, and despite the fact that I left them a message on their talk page, they somehow insisted I [[Special:Diff/875307|didn't leave them a response]]. [[Special:Contributions/74.198.131.130|74.198.131.130]] has gotten into quite a bit of dust with them, and I think the bulk of it (given my own frustrations with Drakono) comes down to the overall low quality of work in their edits, which may in turn be explained by their lack of patience and rational judgement in their actions (as evidenced by a frivolous [[Special:Diff/882130|page move]] done without consensus or without heed to [[The Sims Wiki:Spoilers|standard practice]], as well as forum threads making irrational proposals such as [[Forum:*Says something unpopular and controversial:*|shutting down fanon creation because "I don't think I can word out my reason properly"]]). Many of their edits are riddled with typos (such as [[Special:Diff/884432|this]] and [[Special:Diff/885276|this]]), and are often filled with difficult-to-understand sentences that make it a pain for copyeditors trying to figure out what he is trying to say. They've also been known to have a bit of an odd attitude, such as [[Special:Diff/861702|this threatening message]] (combined with the edit war mentioned above, shows that they are poor with conflict resolution) or just [[Special:Diff/876948|wasting people's time]]. They have also been banned indefinitely from the Discord server for having an intolerable attitude towards other users and to the moderation team, having also been kicked previously for linking to NSFW material.
I recently left the user a [//sims.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DrakonoSkerdikas&oldid=887435#Issues_with_your_grammar message] informing them of their low quality edits and advising them to ask for help, and telling them that some users have suggested that they draft their edits in their user sandbox and having other people review them before they are published, due to the exceedingly low quality of edits they are making. I provided them a long list of screenshots showing them just some of the glaring issues in their edits ([https://i.imgur.com/xxwiTcO.png] [https://i.imgur.com/ZkbppXp.png] [https://i.imgur.com/F5SwC8k.png] [https://i.imgur.com/Cwjh05r.png] [https://i.imgur.com/tZ8c8EH.png] [https://i.imgur.com/sRFuhKc.png] [https://i.imgur.com/zqfTrwS.png] [https://i.imgur.com/A7fScpV.png] [https://i.imgur.com/OEyeTyx.png]). They responded with [https://i.imgur.com/p4hbihF.png this], as well as [[Special:Diff/887434|this]]. They clearly have seen my message and the errors I've pointed out in their edits, yet they still managed to make [[Special:Diff/887665|this]] edit on [[Telephone]], with the glaring errors highlighted [https://i.imgur.com/LR1jUcq.png here]. At this point, I started writing this thread, because it's become clear that they are simply not listening. I can't imagine why it would be necessary to have to clean up after someone who's been here for ''five'' years.
Drakono is, I believe, a good faith editor as they have made constructive edits in the past. Good faith, however, doesn't excuse their failing to heed to advice. Since they do not seem interested in drafting their edits beforehand, it is starting to become necessary to impose an [[TSW:ER|editing restriction]] on them in order to ''require'' them to draft their edits and have them reviewed. [[User:LostInRiverview|LostInRiverview]] has suggested requiring them to draft and explain their changes on talk pages before they can be published. We do not have a formal edit request system the same way [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Edit requests|Wikipedia]] does, but we can adopt this approach. In this system, Drakono would be:
* prohibited from making edits on his own to articles (unless those changes are obviously uncontroversial and wouldn't require checking, such as reversion of vandalism)
* required to either 1) draft his changes and propose them on the talk page for review; or 2) explain his changes on the talk page in a "please change X to Y" format
I understand English is not their first language, but that still doesn't excuse the recurring pattern of problematic edits despite numerous messages. They have also not reached out to ask for grammar assistance, which strikes me as odd given how they are clearly ''aware'' their edits are of low quality. To quote him: <span class="inline-quote-talk" style="font-family: Georgia, 'DejaVu Serif', serif; color: #008560;">I do know my edits have been causing trouble because right after editing I think to myself my edits end up looking like garbage.</span> I'm not in the mood to be editing with an editor that ''knows'' their edits are problematic but ''doesn't'' fix them himself and ''expects'' others to clean up after them, rather than fixing their mistakes and improving so that others ''don't'' have to be cleaning up after them. But if this is the attitude Drakono is adopting, then the two options I can think of right now are: 1) block them so they can't edit; or 2) have their edits be reviewed first so that at least their low quality edits aren't presented to readers. Option one is a bit nuclear and should probably only be used if option two doesn't work out, or if Drakono breaches the ER (as is standard practice for violating an ER).
Thoughts? —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 00:15, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
:''*Sigh*'' I know I was the one that suggested this idea, but I was really hoping that we wouldn't have to resort to actually doing it. I think that, as a whole, we try to be accommodating to users who are new and inexperienced, users who may not be totally fluent in English, and users who don't fully understand the way our wiki works. We offer help and guidance for those who are willing to put the effort into improving their edits. The big problem with Drakono isn't that his edits are often/usually of poor quality, but the fact that ''he's aware of it, persists in making them anyways, and seems resistant to improvement.'' There can be quite a lot of leeway given to well-intentioned users who just don't "get it" at first, but we have given Drakono '''a lot''' of leeway and he still is either unwilling or unable to meet the general standards that we'd expect long-time editors to meet. I really dislike that we have to resort to imposing an edit restriction in order to address this problem; I feel that this may have the unintended effect of pushing Drakono off the project, which is something I would like to avoid if at all possible. But, I think there's a limit to how much screwing-up we can tolerate before we say "enough." So, all that said, I must reluctantly '''support''' the imposition of editing restrictions. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<span style="color:navy;">LostInRiverview</span>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">blog</font>]] · [[Special:Contributions/LostInRiverview|<font color="green">contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 01:48, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
::I haven't had much time to weigh in on things recently, since I've been busy with some of my personal projects recently. But I've obviously seen the topic brought up in ''#administrative_chat'' and therefore I knew that an editing restriction proposal was on the way.
::I personally would agree that placing an editing restriction on Drakono would be the best way to go, to see if it has any effect on their behaviour. If not, then we can take any appropriate actions from there.
::In case my response is lacking in sufficient detail, it's because I don't have any issues with the current proposal, and therefore I haven't really got anything new to add. ― <span style="font:bold 108% 'Constantia';">[[User:C.Syde65|<font color="#800020">C.Syde</font>]]</span> <span style="font: 108% 'Adobe Garamond Pro';">([[User talk:C.Syde65|<font color="black">talk</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/C.Syde65|<font color="black">contribs</font>]])</span> 02:04, July 31, 2019 (UTC)
:::Given what I've seen so far of Drakono's behaviour, I believe it's gotten to a level where an editing restriction is necessary. Like k6 said above, we have given them ''many'' chances to improve themselves, and they have ignored or perhaps even stubbornly refused to heed advice. They have frankly exhausted any goodwill I may have felt for them, and I haven't even been directly involved with this incident. I therefore '''support''' the imposition of an editing restriction on this user. — '''[[User:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="blue">THE TIM TAM</font>]] [[User_talk:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="blue">IS MY</font>]] [[User blog:WikiBuilder1147|<font color="blue">SPIRIT ANIMAL</font>]]''' <sup>([[w:c:sims:User:WikiBuilder1147|TSW]] • [[w:c:althistory:User:WikiBuilder1147|AH]] • [[w:c:mapgame:User:WikiBuilder1147|MGW]] • '''[[Special:Contributions/WikiBuilder1147|<font color="#006400">Contribs</font>]])'''</sup> 01:11, August 1, 2019 (UTC)
===Enactment===
The ER is now [https://sims.fandom.com/index.php?title=The_Sims_Wiki:Editing_restrictions&diff=prev&oldid=892605 in effect] and the user has [https://sims.fandom.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DrakonoSkerdikas&diff=prev&oldid=892608 been notified]. Appeal can be made on the [[TSW:AN|admins' noticeboard]]. —[[User:K6ka|'''<span style="color:#0040FF">k6ka</span>''']] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> ([[User talk:K6ka|<span style="color:#0080FF">Talk</span>]] · [[Special:Contributions/K6ka|<span style="color:#0B4C5F">Contributions</span>]]) 22:15, September 6, 2019 (UTC)
| |||