Wikivoyage:User rights nominations

From Wikivoyage
(Redirected from Wikivoyage:URN)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If you believe a Wikivoyager – including yourself – should have administrative status or any other higher user right, then add that person's username to the nominations section below.

If nominated for administrator, the Wikivoyager should meet the guidelines for becoming an administrator. Generally speaking, they should:

  • Have been a contributor for at least a few months
  • Have an extensive knowledge of our policies
  • Have a history of article contribution, janitorial work, cleaning up articles, contributing to policy discussions, and combating vandalism/spam
  • Have a demonstrated ability to work with the community

Nominations must include a short statement outlining the nominee's eligibility in terms of these requirements.

When responding to a nomination, most people choose to express their opinion with a bolded word or phrase, most often Support or Not yet, followed by an explanation of the opinion. After 14 days, a bureaucrat will close the discussion and, if there is a consensus that the nominee would make a good administrator, grant the administrator flag using Special:UserRights.

Bureaucrats and Interface admins should also be nominated here.

Nominations

User:Andrewssi2/Asretired (removal)

Update as of 06:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC): the user has deleted their user talk page so none of the four rollbacks and two page protections are visible to non-admins. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 06:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some time in early March, Andrewssi2 and I had a dispute with each other over Andrewssi's use of exclusionary terms – more specifically, calling activists not part of the general population. When I called this out, they doubled down and mentioned that I should put "personal politics aside". This is a direct violation of foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct#2.1 – Mutual respect, which states "Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves."

They then later went on a break and returned today, blanketing the bottom half of their talk page which is essentially tarnishing my image. When I discussed with them about this, they then abused their rollback tool, not once, but twice, and protected their talk page for admins-only (the only way to fully cut off communication is through an IBAN (interaction ban), which has not been sought after by Andrewssi). This violates foundation:Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct#3.2 – Abuse of power, privilege, or influence.

We cannot have admins who fail to abide by the Universal Code of Conduct by abusing their tools and failing to give collegial respect to others. I didn't want to have to make this, but their behaviour has resulted in where we stand today

--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: add one to the list of misused rollbacks from 2 to 3. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Make that 4. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as nominator. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Can you guys not to do politics on traveller pages and edit warring, maybe just stop talking to each other for a while? IMO as long as there were no rollbacks on the articles (just edit-warring), it's one opinion vs other, talk it out in Talk:, with the community. It's just minor misuse to use rollback on private talk apge, not worth de-adminning discussion. -- andree 10:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not just a rollback, but also UCoC violations (not minor) and another inappropriate rollback for when I brought up that their first rollback was inappropriate. One, I can live with; four, sorry, that would be an instant desysop on a lot of larger wikis I'm active on (not to forget the protections). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:00, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there were no edit wars in this case from either parties involved. The four rollbacks were independent of each other. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rollback on their user talk page, nonetheless. Would it be better if they deleted it using 'undo'? Any rule around here says someone has to tolerate someone in their personal space? -- andree 11:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. You can only formally cut-off someone by seeking an interaction ban (not sought by Andrewssi2).
    2. Rollbacks are to only be used for vandalism and spam (and in some cases, touts); never for good-faith edits. In this case, 3 of the 4 rollbacks were messages from me asking their position on their tool misuse. And yes, an undo would have been fine because of the lack of UCoC policy broken.
    3. None of this had to do with any mainspace edits.
    4. Talk pages are not "personal spaces".
    --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with andree. While a complaint about misuse isn't harassing, at the moment the other person clearly shows that they don't appreciate the communication, continuing it is hardly productive.
    I don't think using rollback on one's talk page in that situation is misuse of the tool, at least not grave misuse – you very well know what it is about, at least if thinking three seconds, so no edit comment is needed. Let's not do rules lawyering.
    Admins are not saints. Sometimes one just needs to get away from such criticism. Having it in one's face, like in this case, it is hard to avoid it. If the message wasn't understood through the first message, it might get understood when the user feels they have the strength to tackle it. If not, they can ask for clarification at that point.
    LPfi (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LPfi: Sure about the rollbacks – I don't agree with your paragraph on it, but do you really think Special:Redirect/logid/3824718 was appropriate? It is very inappropriate for an admin to fully protect their talk page to cut-off communication with someone who wanted to discuss about the admin's tool abuse. You have to also take into the fact that this isn't necessarily about me, but what this holds in general – what if the user whom Andrewssi had a disagreement wasn't an admin? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are other venues, such as the Pub and this page. There is really no need to use the user talk page for this issue. Admins' talk pages should be available most of the time, but if an admin feels they cannot handle the conflict for the time being, I suppose such a protection is reasonable, at least if it is combined with trying to stay out of conflicts while the page is protected. (If you feel ready to handle conflicts, then you probably don't need that protection.) –LPfi (talk) 11:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first resort for dealing with such an issue is the user's talk page – not a high-profile page.
    Your paragraph directly contradicts Wikivoyage:Protected page policy and Wikivoyage:Administrators' handbook#Protecting pages. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A first resort, yes. If you cannot wait after having raised the issue and the admin having refused to discuss it, then action by other people is needed and using a high-profile page is better. As I said above, it was clear that your complaint was noticed, so no more messages were needed before the time when they would feel ready to tackle the issue.
    (Actually, the policy says "Administrators may protect a page whenever they feel that this step is warranted." I assume due process wasn't followed, but I see this as an ignore all rules case.)
    LPfi (talk) 12:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth do you think we "have to acknowledge" that? I've read more than I wanted to of the relevant pages & saw no such attacks.
Of course, I'm hardly unbiased here, see Wikivoyage:User_rights_nominations/Archives/2022#Pashley_(removal)/ Pashley (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Why on Earth do you think we "have to acknowledge" that?" – uhm, because there were?
Re "no such attacks": did you actually read Talk:Australia and Special:History/User talk:Asretired? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read those; I said that above.
What I see on Talk:Australia is you taking offense where obviously none was intended, then when given a perfectly reasonable explanation, choosing to ignore it & double down on being offended. On his talk page, I see you -- having been adequately rebutted on other pages -- choosing to ignore that & harass the user. Pashley (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a frivolous claim. You don't get to pick and choose on what I can be offended by; I am a separate individual with differing opinions, but everyone should have their identity respected – this is agreed upon by the Universal Code of Conduct (applies WMF-wide).
Regarding the talk page messages, if you actually read what I posted on Andrewssi/Asretired's talk page, 3 of the 4 were about their tool misuse – I didn't know that expecting admins to follow policy was considered "harassing". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 12:45, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you posted 3 messages about "tool misuse" on his page after 2 recent fights, the second of which ended with him asking you not to contact him, it's not unreasonable for him to conclude that the purpose of the messages was to harass him and force further contact against his wishes. I think I would feel the same if the same admin who I had just had 2 personal fights with suddenly started to pursue me for site violations. It would feel like that admin was operating in bad faith. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can be offended by whatever you choose, but no-one else is obligated to take you seriously or acknowledge your perceived victimhood. As I see it, your identity was disrespected only in your imagination. Pashley (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pashley, if you're going to continually deny that Asretired did anything wrong and continue victim-blaming, I think it's for the best of both of us that I leave this thread as-is. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As I said in the other discussion, I did not see anyone's "identity" being denied in the original thread (I'm not even sure that "activist" is the type of "identity" that the policy is meant to reference) and it seemed as though everyone understood that by the end of the thread but I guess I was wrong. In the Byron Bay discussion, Andrewssi2 stayed on-topic and laid out a good case for his argument regarding the rainbow reference not actually referencing LGBT. It is SBH2000 who made it personal by bringing up his offense in the unrelated activist discussion. I agree with Jpatokal that this nomination does look like harassment and abuse of the process to punish a user who they dislike. Describing oneself as a "victim" does not make it so. SBH2000 made it personal in the Byron Bay discussion without justification when Andrewssi2 was clearly trying to focus on the discussion topic. SBH2000 was the aggressor not the victim. He continued to make it personal until the other user asked him not to contact him. It seems a reasonable request given the situation. It's not a good idea to contact someone while things are still heated, especially when you've been asked not to. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I stated in the RainbowRespect - British legacy? thread that activists are part of any country's population and that an apology from Andrewssi2 would have been good for maintaining collegial respect among admins. However, I think we have to acknowledge (to use a phrase that's already been used in this thread) that activists usually do not represent the majority of a country's population, and I have to agree with ChubbyWimbus that there have been cases of high-profile users pushing a political agenda instead of focusing more on things travelers are more likely to experience in particular countries. To take one example, I've repeatedly reverted attempts to edit United States of America to represent Americans as a bunch of oversensitive, intolerant folks who can't tolerate discussion of a whole host of topics that many are willing to discuss respectfully. In terms of this nomination, I don't think Andrew has to engage in a further discussion about this on his user talk page, and if he chooses not to, I don't think that SHB2000 has the right to continue to pursue him, much as I believe I would probably do the same in an analogous situation. But that's why it was right for him to start this thread and get the views of others who are at least somewhat removed from the dispute. Both of you are valued admins. The best solution would be for both of you to resolve this by making it nothing personal, but if that's impossible, I think the second-best outcome is for you two to avoid personal interactions and just focus on things you want to do for the benefit of travelers to whatever extent you feel inspired to do so. I might change my mind if any personal attacks from Andrew can be pointed to, outside of his remarks in the Rainbow Respect - British legacy? thread about activists, which definitely could be interpreted as a personal attack but which I don't think were intended to be (though a clarification of the type I suggested in the thread would have been helpful). Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at a couple of discussions, it appears that there has been a very unfortunate misunderstanding. The opposite of "general _____ population" is "special or specific _____ population". The opposite of "general _____ population" is not "non-_____ population".
    The discussion began with a statement "it suggests that the general Australian population...is very sensitive towards British colonial history", and quickly devolves into an editor declaring feeling "excluded from being a "general Australian"." But... there's no such thing as "a general Australian", the original editor never said anything about "general Australians", and when the subject is political views, political activists are the "special" population, not the "general" one.
    There never was any claim against any person's nationality; there was only a claim that the person's political views were not entirely typical of the overall (non-Aboriginal) population. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that's what Andrewssi2 meant, though it would have been helpful for him to have clarified that, and I made the point in that thread that people have reasons to be very sensitive to any comments that could be seen to smack of x or y segments of a country's population not being "real [nationality]." ChubbyWimbus pointed out that Andrewssi2 hadn't said anything about "real Australians", but the best way to deal with all of this would have been to just clear the air. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I do have to ask: irregardless of the issues brought up on Talk:Australia, do you still think it is appropriate for Andrew to use 4 rollbacks and 2 admin-only page protections (for the same page) to cut-off communication (note that a formal interaction ban was not sought after) – hence this request. I do respect your viewpoint, though. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's appropriate. I think it would have been better for him to say "I'm sorry, but I don't want to discuss any of this." But people don't necessarily behave the way I do or think I or they should, and some people are really conflict-averse and unwilling to engage in acrimonious disputes. That doesn't make them bad admins or that they should be desysopped. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Righty, I think I finally understand your position (which if I'm going to be blunt: yours seems to be the only thought-out oppose !vote in this thread; note that LPfi has not !voted). Thank you for explaining. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, but I think I should say that I don't agree that I'm the only one who's thought out their point of view on this dispute, and that other people have made valid points, too, some of which I've either acknowledged or referred to in this thread. I hope that cooler heads can prevail in due time. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I often prefer not to vote. It seemed there was quite a consensus, so my vote wasn't needed. My "!vote" not beeing counted because it is not a vote is a bit ironic. I was adding one because of your comment, but after the user page comments I cannot give that support. I hope I can when things have cooled down. –LPfi (talk) 07:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the bluntness – I didn't count your !vote because it wasn't an oppose (even though it may have seemed that way initially) and I do agree it was well-thought out (whereas 5 of the other oppose !votes from Mx Granger, DaGizza, ChubbyWimbus, Jpatokal and Pashley are directed at me and my actions and not Asretired's behaviour; only Ikan's wasn't). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, all the oppose votes were better thought out than the nomination. Probably Jani said it best, "At this point you are the one harassing them, and this nomination is itself an abuse of process."
They dealt mainly with your actions because your actions are the problem here. Until, after much provocation, Andrewssi2 speculated very unwisely on whether you might be violent in real life, he had done absolutely nothing wrong. Pashley (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As Ikan Kekek wrote, they are both valued administrators. Andrewssi2 his taking a step back -- I hope that they return to Wikivoyage after a break. I also hope that we don't lose SHB2000's energetic participation and valuable contributions by continuing this discussion unnecessarily. SHB2000 has become our third most prolific contributor in just three years, and has created 359 articles, many of them about national parks, expanding Wikivoyage's coverage of them significantly. The source of this dispute seems to be two editors not cutting each other enough slack. The Wikivoyage community should model our desired behaviour by doing so. Ground Zero (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. I was distressed to see the announcement in the Pub and didn't realize or think things would go this far. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I'm not a fan of someone using the admin removal process after every personal dispute someone has with an admin. Starting to see a pattern as a similar thing was done in 2022, which is disappointing to see. I also agree with the above comments that based on the Byron Bay talk page, Andrewssi2 was in the right in terms of the claim being made and the tone being used during the discussion. There's no evidence that Byron Bay is the LGBT+ capital of Australia. Gizza (roam) 23:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"after every personal dispute"? By that, do you mean twice? If so, why not just say "twice" instead of using hyperbole? This nomination isn't going anywhere. Ground Zero (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had several disagreements with several admins and users before throughout Wikimedia and this is only the third desysop nomination I've made over three years (2 here; 1 on Commons), which is not "every personal dispute" and not a "pattern". Thank you to GZ for standing up. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 05:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I considered removing those wordings, but thought that could be seen as a provocation. Better if they can do it themselves after having cooled down. –LPfi (talk) 07:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I agree writing such things is unacceptable. –LPfi (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have been reluctant to participate in what I previously saw as a purely personal dispute. However, the recent use of defamatory language by Andrew is quite unbecoming of an administrator. I think that from a trust and safety standpoint, we ought to desysop. I also believe that the defamatory content should be removed ASAP.
I don't have a strong opinion on the discussion regarding Byron Bay, and if anything I think Andrew is right. I want to be clear that I do not advocate desysopping based upon the original discussion, but given recent developments I think it is the best course of action. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 15:03, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The first allegation is "use of exclusionary terms – more specifically, calling activists not part of the general population". This seems to be a misunderstanding of what Andrew was saying. It is no more exclusionary of activists than his previous statement was exclusionary of the Aboriginal community – and no-one is reading racism into that. The 2nd allegation concerns Andrew saying that SHB2000 "should put 'personal politics aside'". That post started "I wasn't attempting to exclude a specific contributor". Seems clear. Then the part complained about – "people shouldn't bring their personal politics into what is a travel guide. We should be focused on what is relevant for the traveler." That's innocuous enough and does not breach the Universal Code of Conduct (UCC). The next statement by SHB2000 is about Andrew "blanketing the bottom half of their talk page which is essentially tarnishing my image." It is not clear whether this is claimed to be a breach of the UCC or just describing the sequence of events. The next allegation is that they "abused their rollback tool" and "and protected their talk page for admins-only". Given that SHB2000 is an admin, I can't figure out the intent of an admin-only protection or why that would be a problem for SHB2000. In the context of what had become a heated two-way personal dispute with a very experienced editor/admin, the use of rollback on a user's own Talk page to revert edits by the other party is not serious enough to remove their admin rights under the UCC provision of "Abuse of power, privilege, or influence", in my opinion. Nurg (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defamatory content on Asretired's user page

  • Setting aside the nomination to desysop him, doesn't Wikivoyage policy require that we remove the defamatory suggestion that SHB2000 is "quite possibly a violent person in real life," as long as there is no evidence showing that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "This is now a safety issue" needs to be removed, too, as long as there's no evidence to support that. We revert edits that use inappropriate or harassing language routinely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't a reason we shouldn't delete that (I'll leave it to you guys, though), and it fully proves my point on why they are not fit to be an admin on this project. I'll leave it to you interpret, but I will quote that foundation:Universal Code of Conduct#3.1 – Harassment (a conduct that applies throughout Wikimedia) says:

Threats: Explicitly or implicitly suggesting the possibility of physical violence, unfair embarrassment, unfair and unjustified reputational harm, or intimidation by suggesting gratuitous legal action to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.

The keyword here is possibility, which is up for debate. Such violations are a serious issue, though; the foundation can get involved in egregious cases. (I hope you don't mind that I changed the subheading into an H4 header as this is a subthread of an H3 header) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all such defamatory language should be removed from any user page. If it cannot be done neatly, I think blanking the user page is appropriate. Here I think those two sentences can be removed without touching the rest. Wikivoyage:User page help#Examples of unacceptable material mentions threats and personal attacks on other contributors. It still says that case-by-case consensus is required. I think users should be allowed to remove such content on sight (bringing the issue to the community if contested). –LPfi (talk) 07:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I think it would be antithetical if I did so which would further escalate already tense relations between me and Asretired. I would prefer if you or Ikan Kekek (or anyone) removed the statement. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In saying all this, I'd be open to LPfi's suggestion of letting them do it themselves after cooling down. The question is how long. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:10, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can wait a little. I'd prefer for someone other than me to be the one to remove the language, but I think we shouldn't let it stay up indefinitely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should ask them to after a few days and remove it after a few more days if they don't. I suppose the harm those sentences do is limited, regarding people who aren't aware of this conflict. –LPfi (talk) 08:41, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you possibly ask them to? They've deleted their talk page (which AFAIK, isn't allowed, but whatever) explicitly to prevent me from contacting them. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly shouldn't do it. I might do it, but somebody else could do it as well. I think somebody who knows them well could do it better than I can. –LPfi (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; we're only going to have a repeat of things if I do it. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 09:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a potentially important fact: If Alice states that she is afraid that Bob will be violent, Alice has not violated the UCOC. Reporting a perceived threat of violence is not the same as making a threat of violence; reporting threats is encouraged.
The section you want is "Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics". Specifically, "unhinged" could be interpreted to suggest a mental health disability, and so might fall under the UCOC.
But I suggest spending much less time focusing on the letter of the law. None of this is behavior that we want in this community. We do not want an editor to equate his taking offense with the other person actually being offensive; we do not want editors to use their userpages to report perceived safety issues; we do not want admins full-protecting talk pages to (completely ineffectively) stop other admins from carrying on unwanted confrontation there; we do not want to wikilawyer over which button was used to achieve a given result. We need to figure out what would give us the behavior that we want. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What happens next

I am legitimately scared of SHB2000 - Just look at all their comments above and their refusal to leave me alone and hound me through all possible forums just because I corrected a misunderstanding they had on the (frankly minor) Byron Bay article. I was polite to them but soon after they got personal, I concluded that they would never talk with me in good faith, told them not to contact me again and they would not respect that. Literally making it their life obsession to argue with me and get me banned. I changed the content of my page as per the requests above - but really I am scared of them.

All I wanted was to be left alone by that individual, and as a community you failed to get SHB2000 to leave me alone. Just getting them to leave me alone for a few weeks (there was no urgency) could have healed things at the beginning, but you allowed them to go nuclear beyond the point of no return. Just because one person has unlimited time to pursue their wounded pride doesn't mean the other person has equivalent time to deal with it.

If a new contributor ever comes alone and tries to improve Australia articles like I was doing, you need to ask yourself what is going to happen. I know what will happen.

The best thing I can do for Wikivoyage is leave permanently because I do not have the time, energy or even desire to deal with SHB2000. It is sad but not really a sacrifice for me. I just wanted to improve articles, but it was never about me. That will remove the need to continue all the drama above and the schoolyard bully gets their little victory. Desyop me, ban me, whatever, I won't log in again. - Andrewssi2 Asretired (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're good if you remove the defamatory statements (you can say you're scared, and I'm very concerned if there's a basis for that, but you haven't established that there's any basis to state that there is an actual real-life threat to you and that this is in fact a safety issue - if there is, you need to tell us, or at least tell one of us whom you trust, so that we can act on that!), with the one exception that your user talk page probably shouldn't remain deleted, although you have the right to blank it and I don't think anyone has the right to restore any content you don't want to be there. I wish you'd continue contributing here, but of course I completely understand that when donating your time and work is no longer fun, it makes perfect sense to stop doing so. I don't know how you'd expect the community to have gotten SHB2000 to leave you alone, though. What would you have expected us to do, other than disagree with their desysop nomination and counsel them to stop trying to contact you? I for one was unaware of the continuation of the Byron Bay thread or that they tried to start a discussion on your user talk page, and I was blindsided and distressed by the thread in the Pub about this desysop nomination. I'm very sad things have gotten to this point. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, though, would you guys both be willing to bury the hatchet and stop talking about this dispute? SHB2000, I think you should accept that a personal attack against you was not intended in the Talk:Australia thread. Everything has spiraled down from there. It's my belief that except for vandals and touts, everyone who is participating on this site is well-intentioned and has the best interests of travelers in mind. So could we possibly just go past this and agree not to bring it up again? It's not important for us to agree on personal politics, only on ttcf. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to concede that my choice of words on the Byron Bay article was not the best and will gladly apologise and accept that I was in the wrong; I still hold my stance on Talk:Australia, but I'm willing to put that behind me (plus the rollbacks).
However, with the accusations before Special:Diff/4846740, I was inclined to contact WMF Trust and Safety (I still am, though I now don't see the point given they've departed) – for the defamatory statements about me on their user page. That I will need a longer explanation – when half the community still supports keeping sysop perms for a contributor that tried to promote me as a "very unpleasant, unhinged and quite possibly a violent person in real life", I can't simply let that go – and quite frankly, I'm ashamed half of Wikivoyagers that contributed to this discussion failed to address any of this and instead put all the blame on me. The five of you know who you are.
Like Ikan, I am also concerned about the fact that Asretired is scared of me. I'm sorry if I did make you fear me, but everything I've done is within Wikivoyage policy and WMF ToS. There is nothing that I've done that is a safety issue – if that was because I pursued for a desysop nomination, I'm sorry you felt that way, but I can't see how this is a safety issue. Without an explanation, I see this as another attempt to tarnish my image, even if this wasn't intended, because much of their user page is still an indirect attack on me as an individual.
@Ikan Kekek: regarding "could we possibly just go past this and agree not to bring it up again", I'm sorry, but I cannot agree on this. I would have let it go before March 14 (after the rollbacks), but I cannot go past this after the defamation on their userpage.
I will ask three of the five users, plus Andree.skMx. Granger, DaGizza and ChubbyWimbus (I'm not going to bother with the other two): what makes you think a sysop who tried to promote the idea that I was a violent person in real life (remember Wikivoyage:No real world threats, though there isn't any legal issues involved here), should keep their sysop tools? I've conceded that I was wrong on the Byron Bay article and am willing to put the misused rollbacks behind me, but no way can I ever put an open case of defamation behind me (even though it is now removed).
I too am sad that it had to come out this way, but I am not in the slightest sorrowful for Asretired's departure. After the trivial disputes, I just wanted admins to use their tools properly and I'm extremely saddened that the community had to react the way it did.
--SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(I know the selective pinging might come out as canvassing, but feel free to ask me on the talk page why I did not ping two contributors) --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I would like to thank Ground Zero, SelfieCity, Ikan Kekek and LPfi for acknowledging this and attempting to constructively find my way out of things. I would have genuinely left Wikivoyage for a temporary or permanent period of time, had it not been for the four contributors in question. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is that defamation is unacceptable, but that taking it back is a way to remedy it. And I have no reason not to take Andrew at his word that he is genuinely scared, so maybe he got carried away, but I'm more concerned about his fear. I can't make you guys bury the hatchet, but this is sad and unnecessary. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was genuinely scared for a few hours after they added that statement, too. I've come over it to the point where I was no longer scared, but this is one of those disputes that could have potentially involved WMF Trust and Safety which I cannot leave in the past. I'm happy to bury everything else, but not this. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no reason to believe Andrew tried to defame you rather than expressing his honest feelings. On the other hand, what you have written can easily be explained in other ways. Your way of thinking is probably foreign to him, which makes him draw the wrong conclusions. –LPfi (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to get involved, as I only read through this very roughly, and I don't like the drama one bit. I think if I were in Andrew's shoes, I'd just use 'F this F-r, leave me the-F alone', or some-such, esp. if it wasn't recorded in the wiki history :-) 'I think the person is violent in real life' IMO just means he doesn't appreciate the passive-agressive way you "politely" and using all 'WMF politically correct' ways try to gaslight him. That being said, I think+hope you mean it well (for WV, not necessarily him), but it doesn't translate... Just talk directly and get over with it. Maybe he was in the wrong in the articles, but as I already stated, IMO this is like 100x beyond where it should've ended. I still don't think there's any reason for any followup action, just get back to your corners and move on with WV life and avoid each other on LGBTQIA+/Australia/... topics... Then again, I was quite indifferent to the AC cause back in the day, so....... my 5c, I'm outie... :-) -- andree 08:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing your user page statement (and for not naming the person in the first place). I still think that one shouldn't call people unpleasant or unhinged on this wiki, and that such statement should be removed. I believe you feel that way – and have reasons to, although I don't share your conclusions – but what can be read between the lines (or on those other lines) is certainly enough. The issues themselves need to be handled in other ways, which aren't helped by such statements. –LPfi (talk) 10:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statements about personal safety need to be removed as a matter of priority. They do no good here. If you are right (and I don't think you are), then this is a case for the relevant WMF team and the police, not the community. And the parts of the community that perhaps could do something about it (or because of it), are well aware of this already. –LPfi (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to step back from this discussion a little, but if there are genuine threats of safety, they should be directed at . SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the question I was pinged about, I generally agree with what Andree.sk has said. I'll leave it at that, because I'd rather not get involved in this mess, and it seems to me that discussion of it stopped being productive around March 4. SHB2000, I think it would be best if you drop this and move on. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was away for the weekend but am home now, so I will respond to the ping. I agreed with the conversation about removing the part you quoted about being "violent in real life". I would have stated so in that discussion, but by the time I read it, you and the other users had already agreed to contact him to remove it (and did so). Like the others, I believe that he was expressing his actual beliefs from his perspective. While I'd prefer users to not make such statements, I'd also prefer users to not make other users feel compelled to make such statements. I still can't believe this escalated so much. I hope he will come back after a break and that everyone can edit peacefully. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

I've been told many times in this thread and elsewhere to drop the stick and move on. I have already apologised for the Byron Bay incident and have let go of the misused rollbacks + identity incident. While I am not comfortable with this user with their current userpage as part of the sysop team, I am happy to withdraw this thread if:

  1. All references about me, direct or indirect, on User:Asretired are removed ASAP (does not need to be by them), including, but not limited to: (edit: Yes Done)
  • a) "low quality people" (civility)
  • b) "they felt threatened by someone who was editing better than them" (frivolous claim regarding "threatened")
  • c) "someone could obsess about me so much that they literally dedicated hours screaming at their computer" (civility, insults, misinformation)
  • d) "trying to ban me" (misinformation – this is a desysop nomination)
  • e) "This individual is very unpleasant and unhinged in real life." (civility, defamatory language)
  • f) "This is now a safety issue." (for reasons mentioned by LPfi above)
  • g) "my harasser" (defamatory language, civility)
  • h) "complete refusal to listen to group guidance to leave me alone" (misinformation – I listened to what I was told on my talk and I am allowed to pursue a desysop nomination that I started at my will)
  • i) "this is about personal safety" (for reasons mentioned by LPfi above)
  1. Their talk page is undeleted without any page protections. It can be blanked.
  2. Retract the following statements (if possible) and apologise (needs to be done by Asretired):
  • a) "hound me through all possible forums" (hounding has a specific definition in relation to UCoC, which I did not do)
  • b) "Literally making it their life obsession to argue with me and get me banned." (misinformation, ad hominem)
  • c) "Just because one person has unlimited time to pursue their wounded pride" (overexaggerated personal attack)
  • d) "schoolyard bully" (personal attack)
  • e) "my abuser" (defamatory language, civility)
  • f) "vandalism", in response to rollbacks (frivolous claim)
  1. They clearly and explicitly apologise for making the very defamatory claim that I am "quite possibly a violent person in real life" and agree to never make such defamatory analogies again.

The following would be nice, but are non-essential and are not required as I have already decided to let these go:

  1. Clear things up on the Talk:Australia thread about activists being part of the general population (not important for the timebeing).
  2. Explain their positions on the rollbacks and page protections.
  3. Thoroughly read the Universal Code of Conduct.

It's important to remember that this is not a one way conflict as Asretired's wordings might seem. They have yet to accept responsibility for anything they have done and it is the sole reason why I am not letting this go without the four critical points I mentioned above. Again, when a user's userpage, especially a sysop's, is entirely dedicated to ridiculing a single contributor (who, frankly, just wanted policy to be followed), it is only fair if a two-way compromise is reached.

Pinging @LPfi, Andree.sk, Ground Zero, Ikan Kekek, DaGizza, Mx. Granger, Nurg, SelfieCity, WhatamIdoing: for input. Do you think this is a fair compromise? --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously points 3 and 4 aren't enforceable whereas 1 and 2 and be done at any moment, but were Asretired to log on again, we can hope for the latter two (keep in mind that it's also fine to only agree on certain sections and not the entirety). --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 10:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should drop this and move on. After you insulted and badgered another user to the point that they felt concerned for their safety and decided to leave the project, you're now trying to impose a list of more than a dozen conditions? This is not reasonable. I think you should drop the issue, and let other users decide if anything needs to be done about the user page and user talk page. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've said it before, but I can't easily drop an issue when I'm the subject of another admin's user page (while I admit my choice of words on the Byron Bay talk page were poor, they are in no way comparable to the list I've quoted from Asretired). It's easier said than done. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 11:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you to leave him alone, and I think I have clearly stated that I believe a cool-down period is needed. I thought you accepted that. The 3+3 days haven't passed yet. If we count the latter days to have begun with him posting here, that time would have past tomorrow night. Now the cool-down period I asked for was spoiled and I cannot know whether I was on the right path. I hope somebody else can find a way out of this. –LPfi (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the cool-down period did not exclude me commenting on this thread. By making the proposal above, I am not interacting with the user and thus am "leaving the user alone". --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 20:24, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They might read this thread. In that case, do you think what you wrote helped the cooling down? Being allowed to comment doesn't mean that any comment is welcome.
Personal conflicts are delicate issues, and having a list of demands isn't making things easier. You could have hinted on your not being ready to settle this issue yet, to play with open cards, but with this list you took over the handling of the situation from people trying to stay neutral, such as me. I am not going to negotiate or enforce a list unilaterally declared by you while trying to cool things down. Thus, I am out. (I hope, for some time at least.)
LPfi (talk) 21:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I was wrong here but at this point I've lost hope in a community that absolutely does not care about enforcing civility with half-standards for Wikitravel-era admins. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this rate I will close this nomination by this afternoon. Asretired, if the intention of your user page was to hurt me to defame me and to insult me, fine, you've won – and am not the slightest bit sorrowful for your departure. All it's shown me is that this is not a community I can lean back on. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 21:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As Granger wrote, you made the person leave, and still wrote a page full of demands before you 'let go' even though you said you already did. If that was the case, we probably wouldn't be seeing discussion if '3 days cool down' had actually passed, you'd maybe reiterate on this topic in a month or more. Just chill, bro. We (probably) don't know personally either of you, nor your intentions etc., the community doesn't have pick sides. I cleaned the user's page, but by no means have you 'won' this argument, or he 'lost'. I respect (both of) you for the lots of time and work you put into this wiki, but that doesn't mean you will just talk us into anything. Not me, anyway... -- andree 06:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Andree, thanks for what you did. I think removing Asretired's comments is the best course of action. It's probably best for both parties to put this issue aside permanently and entirely from here on. --Comment by Selfie City (talk) (contributions) 23:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I support removing all assertions on Andrew's userpage that SHB2000 is a violent person in real life because those claims are completely unsubstantiated and that's already been done. Beyond that, I broadly agree with the comments from Mx. Granger and andree above. Going forward I suggest not to nominate an admin for removal when you end up in a one-on-one dispute with them on a single issue, or even two as was the case here. Based on what happened this time and in 2022, it won't end well for anyone involved. It's best for an independent third party to make the call, and that too after observing a longer term pattern of behaviour rather than an isolated incident. Gizza (roam) 23:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that all of the so-called demands above are unreasonable, though the act of issuing demands is, itself, not an obviously helpful behavior. I also don't think that the behaviors on both sides are comparable. Nobody is covered in glory here, but the disputed behaviors and their results are different in both type and intensity.
The responses from uninvolved editors here could be characterized as "measured" if you like them and "tepid" if you don't. That doesn't mean that the community "absolutely does not care about enforcing civility". It probably does mean that we have some ideas about how to keep being a community. When the emotional temperature is running higher, immediate decisive action is not always a functional path towards maintaining community. I think that what all the contributors here are saying is: We want both of you, here, with us, whole and healthy and welcome and respected and able to work side by side with the rest of us. Patching up relationships takes time – days, weeks, months, sometimes years. You might be feeling ready to talk about it, but that doesn't mean the other person is. Restoring relationships (which is what I think we want) moves at the speed of trust, and it may take a long time for the other editor to feel ready to engage. It can't be forced. We need to wait. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also