Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:39, 27 January 2022

Slippery slopes and other slights

Re: this - all policy applies under certain circumstances - in a certain context - and when discussing policy this should a main drive. For example, unrestricted gun ownership makes perfect sense where policing is lacking, but zero sense where gun ownership itself is the main source of trouble. Similarly, the argument of "sources creating interests to conflict editors" only makes sense when that's an actual problem; the only concrete discussion taking place ATM is about editors potentially acting against legitimate COIs. More broadly, "slippery slope" arguments aren't much without evidence, and if such exists then we can always work together to mitigate both our concerns, rather than failing one for fear of the other. François Robere (talk) 20:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand what youre saying here, policy of course applies, always. I just dont buy the argument that if a Misplaced Pages user expresses an opinion off-site that creates a COI. Especially if a Misplaced Pages user responds as that Misplaced Pages user in the same forum as criticism against him was leveled. That doesnt create a significant controversy or dispute and certainly does not make one an avowed rival and find suggestions otherwise to be abjectly silly. And I find absurd suggestions such as this to be indicative of the player vs player bullshit that I had previously found so annoying, made only more annoying by the willingness to just ctrl-f a user's name and throw out wild accusations because somebody didnt actually read the result. Obviously my close is related to that discussion as it stood, but what I said was unless and until we start slipping down that slope, and in my view this is a fairly clear display of slippage. I understand you think there is a COI with Grabowski, but even if it were true, I find the idea that a user cannot comment about a book because it is edited by some person who they published a response to in a newspaper to be so incredibly idiotic that I dont know how somebody can make that suggestion in good faith. And oh, even if there were a COI, WP:COI says to not edit the articles directly, not that they cannot participate in discussions. Which makes the invocation of a COI here even sillier. Did I mention how silly I thought it already was? nableezy - 20:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Your position that there's no COI is reasonable and I don't object to it as such, though I do disagree with it; the problem I'm posing is with the other part of the argument - the so-called "slippery slope". This is mere fiction: an unlikely and unprecedented hypothetical, which shouldn't stop us from addressing a concrete problem one way or the other. This being factored into several editors' considerations seems to mirror how "real world" policies are often decided: not by evidence - whether empirical or probabilistic - but by imagination and emotion. François Robere (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, yes - Ctrl+F is silly. Serious people use regex. François Robere (talk) 13:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Slippery slope was how I described arguments like The inescapable consequence of such a conclusion is that sources will be able to restrict the editing of critical Wikipedians. And that was echoed over and over in the COIN, but when evaluating the argument against the claim as it stood, that there is a COI with editing related to this article, but not say Grabowski or the Holocaust in Poland, I found that it was indeed just a hypothetical that does not impact whether or not there is a COI related to that specific article, and so on that specific issue I gave that argument less weight. But now it is not a hypothetical, it has transformed in to, literally, sources will be able to restrict the editing of critical Wikipedians. And my reading of that discussion was if it had been seriously argued that a source like Grabowski could restrict editors from topic related to him that the arguments against a supposed COI would have carried the day. But it is no longer a hypothetical or a figment of ones imagination, somebody is indeed trying to have us slip down that slope. nableezy - 15:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But again, for a "slippery slope" to be more than an informal fallacy the end result must have a reasonable chance of occurring, and it must be a high enough chance to justify upending whatever policy is being discussed. In the context of this discussion one would have to show that the risk of sources choosing their editors is higher than the risk of editors abusing their sources - something we already know happens, and not infrequently. I don't think this argument has been made. François Robere (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It has already occurred is my point and I dont think any policy is being upended here. Im not making a slippery slope argument, Im saying the slippery slope argument that was made in the COIN thread has in fact turned out to be true, or at least it is being attempted here. Im not saying some hypothetical scenario makes this iffy, Im saying the hypothetical that I largely dismissed as irrelevant to that COIN thread has turned out to be true, or at least some editors are attempting to make it so. nableezy - 17:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But that's an important distinction: it's not that the source in question has picked their editors, it's that editors supposedly gained another route for wikilawyering. Correct? François Robere (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand. What wikilawyering? I think we are talking past one another. When I said slippery slope argument I was referring to the arguments in the COIN thread that argued against a COI on the basis of the supposed inescapable consequences. And I was saying that here is an attempt at proving those consequences true. Regardless of any slippery slope, on the merits I dont think a COI has been established with Grabowski, and I find the evidence cited for it to be beyond flimsy. nableezy - 17:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

My point is that those "inescapable consequences" are not "inescapable" by any means, and that no one actually made the complete argument as to why that would be the case. You seem to rile not against the prospects of sources "playing favorites" with editors (which is what some editors were worried about), but about editors gaming/wikilawyering the COIN resolution. François Robere (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont think anybody is playing a game with the close, I dont think any of the editors involved has continued to edit anything related to the Haaretz source, which is the only thing covered. I think this a completely separate issue and I dont really see anybody here as gaming. I think somebody is wrong, obviously, but that is on the merits. I dont think Grabowski purposely attempted to disqualify an editor by writing about him. I find that idea as silly as anything else here. But I do think the idea that a source can disqualify an editor by writing negatively about them, even if that is not their intention and only the position of some misguided WP editor, to be silly. Or if a person makes a remark about a topic off-wiki, including by responding to an op-ed about their editing, that makes a COI also silly. Does anybody actually think the two op-eds form a significant controversy in either persons life? Do you seriously think these people are avowed rivals now? And even if you did, do you actually think Piotrus has a COI with discussing Dalej jest noc? Because he wrote an op-ed answering an op-ed by a co-editor of the book? Do you really not think that absurd? nableezy - 21:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying.

Personally, I think we should strive for objectivity, so "avowed rivalry" should hardly be the standard. Should I edit about my neigbhours? Co-workers? People with whom I contracted in an official capacity? People with whom I contracted in a personal capacity? Family? Friends? Any matter that would require a journalist to post a disclosure or a public official to disqualify themselves, should in the very least require a Wikipedean to do so as well. François Robere (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Avowed rivals is what WP:COI says, so regardless of what you think it should say, do you think that what it does say applies? I dont think a journalist having written an op-ed criticizing an op-ed by some other journalist must disclose that now and forever if he or she ever mentions a work by that other journalist again. Do you? nableezy - 14:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It also says "anyone you know" (WP:COISELF). You're taking an unusually narrow stance on a problem that is usually taken as much broader (see WP:COI#Further reading and WP:BLP#Notes). François Robere (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thats for personal relationships. Do you think those two people know each other? Not know of each other, know each other. nableezy - 18:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they do. IIRC, Piotrus at some point mentioned chatting with Grabowski. François Robere (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

If they actually know each other to the point of having an external relationship (though having chatted once isnt that, WP:COISELF about self-promotion or promoting people you are close to) then there may well be an issue there. But, if has been suggested, all the evidence for a COI is having written an op-ed in response to another op-ed, and crucially having written that op-ed as the Misplaced Pages user, I dont buy it. nableezy - 16:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Question about CounterPunchs RfC

Considering the mess caused by the previous RfC, what is going to happen if the new RfC is results in 'No consensus'? I believe that in such case it is a return of the status quo ante but which? The latest RfC has not been overturned. So will no consensus results in de-deprecation or will it remain deprecated? Davide King (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If this one ends in no consensus and David Gerard refuses to overturn the prior one then I guess would have to be a close challenge at WP:AN. I very sincerely hope that does not happen though. nableezy - 03:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/Operation Guardian of the Walls

Template:Editnotices/Page/Operation Guardian of the Walls has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Tamzin (she/they) 16:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

SPA(m)

Please remove your inaccurate insinuations as requested here. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nah. nableezy - 14:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Please see here.AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to note that arbitration case request has been declined as premature. Dreamy Jazz 16:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I note your comment at AE that you were not insinuating that I was a sock. Please amend your comments to make this clearer as it seems to me that's exactly what you were implying. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nah. nableezy - 16:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AllOtherNamesWereTaken (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for arbitration declined as premature

The above request for arbitration to which you were listed as a party has been declined by the Committee as premature. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 16:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. nableezy - 16:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen WP:OBVIOUSSOCK dissected with so much nuance  :) I guess it's a silver lining from being dragged to Arbcom, anyway. SN54129 16:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I dont even know if this is a sock or not tbh, not enough to go on. After the CP RFC edit seemed to look for an article to get to 500 edits, and so far has only edited that one. Im sure with time things will become a bit clearer, but I can honestly say I have not once implied that this editor is a sock. Just that they may not participate in ARBPIA related discussions. I have a bigger problem with the established users effectively running interference in a discussion that we know has been infested with IW socks. The throwaway accounts are much less pernicious imo. nableezy - 16:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)