User talk:Aron Manning
Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages
11:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Access to Steward requests/Username changes
I have been approached as an indepedent Meta admin with a request to restrict your access to Steward requests/Username changes per your repeated request and wikilawyering that has been time consuming for all those involved, to a disruptive extent. There is consensus for this action at this point in time. I have approved this request and as such, have restricted your access to the page via a partial block. You can appeal this, at a later point in time, when you are in goodstanding. ~riley (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @~riley: Thank you for the notification, Riley. I accept the restriction, I do not intend to post further on that page as I've made it clear in my last comment: "I won't be furthering this request". As such the request for the block was unnecessary. I note this without appealing the block, which wouldn't solve anything.
- Also note: I refute the accusation of "wikilawyering" to describe my justifications which cited the rename policy. When referring to this request and the block I'd like to ask you and those who proposed it to use non-demeaning words. Thank you in advance.
- I find the handling of the request raises numerous concerns – which is I assume what was also called wikilawyering. As those concerns were not addressed, the way this request was handled needs to be reviewed by an independent board. I do not intend to take that path at this time, however my complaint should be noted. Please direct me to an independent review board, where these concerns can be raised at an appropriate time in the future. Thank you. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 07:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- I also not that there is no proof of the consensus regarding the decision. It would certainly help if that claim was authenticated by the signature of those who decided that consensus, also in the case of the block. Just a thought regarding the procedure. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 07:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for your polite and prompt response, as well as acknowledging and accepting the restriction I will note that I was approached before your last comment was made, and the block was placed without knowing of any additional comments as it was made just minutes prior.
- I recognize you refute the accusation of wikilawyering, and while there are no intentions to be demeaning, I understand there are less-demeaning alternatives.
- I have no knowledge of an indepedent review board that would be applicable to this situation as the Ombudsman's are limited to CU/OS actions and Meta has no ArbCom. A request for comment would likely be the most appropriate venue, however, I would not recommend this.
- In regards to concern of consensus, mailing lists are both an acceptable and common form of consensus gathering for advanced permission usergroups. Having the renamers and stewards involved in the discussion sign onwiki en masse would be counter productive. It is something to consider from a procedure perspective moving forward though.
- Once concerns of goodstanding have been addressed, an appeal can be made at firstname.lastname@example.org. All the best, ~riley (talk) 07:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
- @~riley: Thank you for your response, I also appreciate the polite notice and discussion.
- Thank you for the suggestions. An RfC would be imho an overshoot for this minor matter, the OC has a 7+ months long backlog (how do I know that...). I'm more interested in exploring how the need for an independent review board can be fulfilled.
- Regarding the consensus: I'm certain in this short time-frame only a handful of editors were available to form that consensus. Signing off would not be a trouble for those few people and it would give more authenticity to the outcome and address some of my concerns. As a form of good faith and accountability I ask those who formed the consensus to do so. Also for transparency, I'd like to ask who proposed and supported the block. Please communicate this to them, I do not wish to be called wikilawyer any more.
- I believe the appropriate word instead of "wikilawyering" is "policy citation", "request for justification", "concern" in this case and "complaint" in some other cases. The difference is significant and have damaging consequences. There should be a clear guideline to using the appropriate, good-faith expression and I believe enwiki's good-faith and civility guidelines imply this.
- I'd like that this distinction would be emphasized to those who used the bad-faith word, but I reckon this request will not be acted upon and I see no point in making this a request on one of the dramaboards. However, I'd like to ask you to dispatch to them this feedback. This should serve as a note for the future to prevent this happening again.
- Thank you for understanding my perspective. Have a nice day. —Aron Man.🍂 edits🌾 08:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC).
- It is to my understanding that a link to this thread has been sent to the mailing list, so consider your above requests and feedback dispatched to the global renamers/stewards. It is most definitely not my place to outline who proposed/supported your username change being denied or this block/restrictions being placed, so I unfortunately do not have anything to offer you. Best of luck, ~riley (talk) 09:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)