Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Morriswa

Imzadi1979's desired outcome

I didn't see a specific place to put this in the RfC form, so I'll say this here for now. My hope is that Morriswa engages the constructive criticism that's being offered. I really hope he stays around and continues the good work he has done, but minimizes the the activities that have drawn critiques. I'm of the opinion that he has done, and can continue to do, good work for the project. It's just a matter of channeling his energies and enthusiasm down the right road, pardon the pun. Imzadi 1979 → 11:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Morriswa

I have a two-part reply to Morriswa's response.

"I honestly didn't know that I was making really controversial edits. I never wanted to cause any trouble, but I thought I was making good edits, and making the pages better."

With just the categories, there have been at least four times when someone has thrown up a red flag. Did you think these were all isolated incidients?

"Now, I'm not stupid, but I think that I need people to explain things to me at a beginner level. Don't get me wrong. I know how to do basic editing, and I know some of the basic functions of scripts/tools. What I don't understand is more advanced levels."

This line rubs me the wrong way. Not because you use the tools, that's great that you took some time to learn them. What bothers me is that it fundamentally misses the point of this RFC. It's not that you use the tools at all, it's how and where they are used.

There is no greater "advanced level" as going to a library, doing some research, and writing a featured article. No script can duplicate that. –Fredddie ™ 02:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that I mentioned to Morriswa twice (the diffs are in my evidence section) that maybe it would be a good idea to talk to people about what he was doing before continuing. That should have been a major indicator that his edits were controversial, and something was amiss. I was ignored both times. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd like to point out that for at least one more week I work 1a–8a, so I've always been around to help, if needed, but I was never approached. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm online until 2-3 am every night, which is 5-6 am your time. --Rs chen 7754 03:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Adopt-a-user" schemes don't rely on live participation, meaning the time frame an adoptee is online is irrelevant to the process. Since the schemes are based on posted questions and posted replies, any adoptee can respond at his/her own pace. Of course there is WP:HWY/IRC which does use a live conversation medium, but even so, many editors are online at varying hours of the day and night. Imzadi 1979 → 06:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is by no means a final say on the matter, and I welcome corrections to the view, but when we say that certain edits (categorizations, dates) are controversial, I expect to see some discussion on the talk page. This would be more inviting to outside editors and involve less WP:BITE for those who may in the future make the same mistake. I think the use of the word controversial may be a bit strong, considering this isn't a typical hot-button topic. Perhaps inaccurate or unclear are better? It's not easy to see what is controversial or what consensus is without more effort at delineating the problem. Sorry if this in any way seems dense. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What talk page, though? There are a couple hundred categories involved here. The only obvious talk page that covers them all is WT:USRD. Morriswa was approached several times by various users telling him they disagreed with his categorizations, and more than once was directed there to start a discussion. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 08:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in question. Specific diffs were given for specific edits. I didn't find any evidence given for a consensus given at those articles, showing that random user has no idea they could be walking into a hornet's nest of controversy. A previous consensus is represented, now elaborated as being part of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads but not demonstrated here. Could someone show me the proof so that I can understand the development, degree, context and scope of that consensus? ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"controversial: (adj.) giving rise or likely to give rise to public disagreement". His categorizations and other edits elicited such "public disagreement" when they were brought up for discussion on WT:USRD or User talk:Morriswa, repeatedly. Imzadi 1979 → 14:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly there is public disagreement. I am asking for proof of consensus. Can you provide it? ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions have yet to be held/completed. The editor in question (Morriswa) never participated. Rather, when presented with notices/comments that there was a disagreement over his editing and categorization practices, his response was to continue editing/categorizing instead of discussion. It's hard, nay impossible, to reach a consensus on a point of disagreement when one editor won't engage and attempts to assert his position as a fait accompli.

In short: the only time Morriswa has engaged with others in the community over his editing was after the RfC was opened and yet he's continued with the practices that led us to open this RfC. The desired outcome of the RfC is, after all, "That Morriswa would slow down and listen to concerns about his automated editing, and not continue with inappropriate automated and careless edits." Imzadi 1979 → 15:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so there wasn't a previous categorization discussion which resulted in a prior understanding that the categorization and dating was to be understood as problematic? Okay. So following WP:CONSENSUS, after an edit reversion, what happens next? ClaudeReigns (talk) 15:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the principle of WP:BRD, Morriswa would have been Bold to make the initial edit, someone else Reverted it, and a Discussion should have been had to determine the path forward. However, attempts at discussion, as pointed out in Scott5114's evidence, were ignored in the case of the categorization issue. In fact, it's my recollection that not only were both attempts rebuffed, but that Morriswa continued to make his categorization after those attempts. It took the filing of an RfC to force some attention, which no longer seems to be paid by Morriswa. (He's continuing with scripted editing, even though that's part of the concerns raised here, using the Reflinks.js script as recently as yesterday.) Imzadi 1979 → 15:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems that Morriswa should explain the reason for the edit on the talk page of the article for reverting. While I don't have any particular objection for using scripted tools (I'm old school and never touch them myself) there are definitely stated civility standards for using them, especially not using them for reverts. I still do feel that some neutral reference could be made on the talk page of the few particular articles mentioned where a controversy has been established to direct users where to consider or discuss ideas, solutions and reasons. ClaudeReigns (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not just a few articles involved here. The issue that everyone wants to discuss with Morriswa is that we feel he is interpreting a whole class of category scopes too liberally. There are literally hundreds of these categories. It isn't applicable to just one or two pages. See WT:USRD#Category scope. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What other evidence is missing, then? ClaudeReigns (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Morriswa

Something I don't understand, and perhaps you can clarify, is your motivation for editing another user's user page. It seems like this wouldn't be welcome in most contexts. ClaudeReigns (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify just what page you are talking about? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, I can think of this edit to Imzadi1979's page, which used a scripted tool. –TC N7 JM 11:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This puzzled and concerned me greatly. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed closing

I am planning to write a proposal to close the RFC and hope to have it posted soon. --Rs chen 7754 07:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to close

This RFC was filed over a month ago. Since then, Morriswa has become a more effective content contributor (see User:Morriswa/Cup submissions). He still has room for improvement, but many of the concerns brought up in the RFC have been resolved.

Therefore, I am proposing the following agreement to close the RFC:

Before performing many automated edits, Morriswa agrees to communicate with other editors to make sure that the task is not controversial.
Morriswa agrees to engage in discussion on the appropriate talk or user talk page when users raise questions regarding his editing.
Morriswa agrees to not edit other editors' userpages, except for reverting blatant vandalism.
Morriswa agrees to become familiar with the rollback guideline before reapplying for the permission on the English Wikipedia.
The RFC will be closed with no further action at this time, in hopes that the above agreement will resolve the matter at hand and that further dispute resolution processes will not be necessary.

Is this acceptable to everyone? --Rs chen 7754 05:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. –TC N7 JM 05:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Morriswa approves, make it so. V C 05:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the closure of this RFC. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Imzadi 1979 → 12:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Morriswa has improved over the past month. Dough 48 72 14:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur as well. –Fredddie ™ 15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. (well 6th'ed) Blackmane (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted below, I thank everyone that has helped me in my growth as an editor. I have a terrible memory (my wife thinks that I will be an early Alzheimer's patient), so I may forget one or more things every now and then. Please forgive that and politely remind me that it is not encouraged, and to ask about it. Since I will be expanding/making articles for the foreseeable future (and then possibly making KMLs), I shouldn't be getting into trouble like I had been. Yes, I agree to abide by the above, as long as I don't forget (just nicely remind me). By the way, Blackmane, I laughed when I saw your post ("well 6th'ed")! Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proper. ClaudeReigns (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

To all editors concerned,
Thank you for bearing with me over my growth as an editor. It was hard going through Wikipedia "puberty", but now I think I am growing up. Please continue to be patient with me in the future.
Also, thank you for the USRD Cup. If it wasn't for the Cup, I don't think that I would have really learned about C-class articles so soon. And this RFC wouldn't be closed.
Thanks, again, for helping me. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]