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]

• Oppose. I see no problem here except SHB2000 being obviously wrong on the discussion at Talk:Byron_Bay#Is_Byron_Bay_really_the_rainbow_capital_of_Australia? & doing various silly things to avoid admitting that. Pashley (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. At this point you are the one harassing them, and this nomination is itself an abuse of process. You've been here long enough that you really should know better. Jpatokal (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- we have to acknowledge that Andrewssi2 was making personal attacks against SHB2000, and then shutting down and blocking SHB2000's attempts to resolve the dispute on their talk page. While their contributions will be missed, it would be constructive for andrewssi2 to take a break from Wikivoyage to figure how that can interact with other editors in a more constructive way. Ground Zero (talk) 13:58, 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]

• 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]

• 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]

• Oppose. I am really disappointed by this unpleasantness, and I hope User:Asretired will reconsider their retirement and come back. The unpleasant comments at Talk:Byron Bay are sad to read. Let's keep Wikivoyage fun. —Granger (talk · contribs) 07:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree 100%. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't, when their userpage openly breaks the Harassment section UCoC policy and aims to promote that I am a "very unpleasant, unhinged and quite possibly a violent person in real life". This is not just a simple egregious violation of Wikivoyage:User pages#Inappropriate uses; it goes beyond that. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What are you quoting from? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Their userpage. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• [Edit conflict:] I see that is now on their user page. That's defamatory. Is there any reason we shouldn't delete that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to start a separate sub-thread on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 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]

• 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:Wikimedia 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]

• Wikivoyage:User rights nominations/Archives (current)
• Wikivoyage:Administrators
• Current administrators