RationalWiki:Chicken coop/Archive68

Anti-Authoritarian

Anti-Authoritarian (talk · contribs · block  · rights  · rename) has been a persistent disruptive editor. Their edits have not been vandalism, but this user doesn't understand how to correctly edit and has ignored feedback given to them. See their user talk page for many examples, including:

• Adding links that don't work
• Edit warring
• Adding unsourced claims about living people
• Ignoring warnings about adding excess navigation templates
• Misquoting
• Consistently signing incorrectly after being told how to sign (the signatures that appear to be correct were initially added incorrectly but fixed by other users)

I left the following comment on their talk page:

As I have mentioned here twice already, many of the links you add do not work. From now on, I will revert any of your edits with links that do not work (such as this). You are free to fix them but I am done cleaning up your mess. CowHouse (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Since then, Anti-Authoritarian has continued to add links that don't work: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

These kinds of mistakes are not obvious in the diffs which has caused sysops to mistakenly patrol their edits several times. I have tried to be patient with this editor but I have made very little progress. Other users should not be expected to fix so many of Anti-Authoritarian's mistakes. Due to disruptive editing, I think a lengthy block is necessary I have been unable to resolve these issues and I welcome any suggestions. CowHouse (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a probation would be appropriate. CowHouse (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think blocking someone who isn't formatting properly is necessary. I wouldn't call it "disruptive" either, as Anti-authoritarian has made many contributions. I do agree that we need to sort out why they haven't been following advice/instructions, but blocking isn't the way to do that. —Kazitor, ^pending 08:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to other suggestions. I brought it to the coop because I acknowledge that I have failed to resolve this. Either AA isn't listening or I'm not communicating effectively.

To be clear, I am happy to explain to someone how to format correctly and have done this with plenty of users. AA is different in that they either don't understand or completely disregard the feedback they receive. I still have not worked out why they cannot simply copy and paste a URL so that it works. It's not difficult for any other user.

AA has been making basic errors for months despite receiving feedback from multiple users. Many of these mistakes could be easily avoided by proofreading and clicking "show preview" (which I have mentioned on AA's talk page). AA constantly relies on other users to notice mistakes that aren't obvious and clean up their mess. Some examples (from AA's last five contributions):

• Failed to sign properly
• Forgot to add "wpl" to a link (not obvious from the diff)
• "wpl" links that didn't work (not obvious)

CowHouse (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely that AA isn't listening, no doubt about that. Unfortunately, I don't have any suggestions. —Kazitor, ^pending 20:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

What you're saying about Anti-Authoritarian is true, but I don't see how a block is going to solve anything. Anti-Authoritarian is not even autopatrolled, so everything they edit eventually gets approved or reverted by a sysop. Bongolian (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

That is part of the problem. Most sysops will approve edits that aren't obvious vandalism. As I mentioned earlier, AA's edits are not vandalism and many of the mistakes they make are not obvious in the diffs. This means that AA's edits regularly get approved by sysops. CowHouse (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I am open to suggestions as well. We could also consider a vandal brake, though it would be an unusual use. @Anti-Authoritarian should come here to defend himself/herself. Bongolian (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for two days late (i am not invited to this coop, but TBH i am going to give opinion of this user), from a new user of RationalWiki with a lot of experience from wiki i started my online activities, Wikipedia. I am interested with this user (because i think that this user will have a great future in this site), watched, analyzed and concluded that this person is pretty similar to my earlier years of editing Wikipedia (during 2013-2014 period). Due to this, i am giving my defense for him (don't be surprised as a N00B): I suggest that Anti-Authoritarian should be left alone (but please give him advices), let him to become a mature editor (not giving him a vandal brake) by getting him know how wikis work. I have been doing anything very wrong in my first months of Wikipedia (sockpuppetry) but over time i grasped how Wikipedia laws work and as such i have become a bit somewhat respectable but little-bit problematic (still) editor at Wikipedia. Based on this, let's treat AA like me at first (give him frequent adices) and see how AA can possibly adapt from here, now and on. @CowHouse, if you feel tired, let me become his primary advisor on how wikis work for a while as long as i have time to do so (not much, probably minutes or a few hours in general), even if i am new in here. I would do everything i can to support his activities with some help and pressure to get on line with my advice, generally using my experience (and probably become a role-model for him to follow, maybe he could become more better than me on everything...). And oh, i am not LeftyGreenMario (i am Indonesian). I am long-time fan of Super Mario games, but especially on older ones. SMB99thx (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I can understand why CowHouse is getting annoyed, but I don't think blocking/vandal binning is the solution. AA needs to listen and respond to advice though. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that AA has not responded to advice despite multiple attempts at gentle nudges from different sysops. Bongolian (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Competency is required. If a user continues to make unconstructive edits despite advice, the user should have action taken against it. Other wikis do this. Since this user has repeatedly failed to listen to advice and improve, I support vandal brake, and if user still makes bad edits, then we use temp bans. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

—€h33s3βurg3rF@€3  (talk • stalk) 01:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I believe that we have 3 moderators supporting a vandal brake for AA. AA has not entered this discussion despite two invitations to do so. Unless there are further objections, I will put the brake on AA and add a note on AA's talk page to the effect that if they improve their edits along the suggested lines on their talk page, that they are welcome to petition a moderator to have the brake removed removed. Bongolian (talk) 01:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I was going to impose the brake but didn't want to get too ahead of myself. I think the user should've gotten a brake earlier, as we've given the user way too many chances (with my warnings, I thought, would be the greenlight for other users to impose bans rather than continuously slap more reminders). Of course, if user improves the quality of edits, the user can always notify us through RationalWiki:Your mother's basement and pinging. So far, we haven't seen any communication from the user, so if the user complains then, it's on them for not acting responsible then. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like @CowHouse already vandal braked AA 5 days ago. I'll add a not to AA's talk page. Time to archive this. Bongolian (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)