Let's talk about LDS editors

[Kelly Martin]

But with the recent discussion, mostly spurred on by JPS over on the talk page for Ammonihah (T-H-L) and a few other places, the reliability of many of these sources is coming into question. But the way jps was talking about sources last week, I was puzzled about his criteria for when a source on the BoM is a RS or not. ARE some of these sources fringe?

I am not familiar with the particular dispute, but it is a historical fact that, on Wikipedia, a common strategy that people who are attempting to advance a point of view will use is to challenge the reliability of any source that does not comport with the point of view they intend to advance. The usual strategy here is to conflate bias with reliability, demonstrate that the source that the advocate wishes to exclude is biased, and from that demand that it be excluded as "unreliable". The problem is that bias, even extreme bias, does not mean that the source is "unreliable".

For example, the Center for Immigration Studies, a profoundly anti-immigrant public policy research group, is deeply biased on immigration issues, and they will reliably analyze any data they do collect in a manner that they will then use to argue for restricting immigration. Despite their bias, their study methodologies are generally sound and the data they present in support of their flawed arguments are generally valid, and so one can generally rely on the factual claims set forth in their position papers as being accurate.

From what I've read there is currently a pogrom somewhere on Wikipedia to declare the New York Post as unreliable, again using highly specious arguments (including referencing the Post's notorious Page Six). I don't know what has motivated this particular assault on the Post (nor do I wish to research it), but the reality is that all sources are biased, and anyone who does research has to learn how to recognize bias and how to account for it in evaluating how the bias of the source applies, or not, to the claims made by that source. Wikipedia's "reliable source" rules generally reject doing any sort of analysis of this sort, instead imposing a vast array of contradictory and incoherent brightline rules declaring individual sources as either "reliable" or "not reliable" (as a binary matter, which is also analytically suspect, as iii correctly points out above). This is because almost all arguments over reliable sources in Wikipedia are really attempts by someone involve to impose (or oppose) a particular point of view.

The reality is that a huge fraction of Wikipedians are editing to advance an ideological position of some sort, and many of these editors will actively game policy in order to advance their ideological position at every opportunity, with no intellectual concern toward whether the policy forms they advocate for are consistent or advance Wikipedia's purported status as an encyclopedia. Remember that, almost always, in a Wikipedia policy dispute, the winner is determined not by who is "correct", in an academic, intellectual, factual, or moral sense, but rather by which of the parties to the dispute shows greater loyalty to the Cause. As a result of resolving this dispute in favor of that party, who will win for reasons not related to anything related to truth, policy will be twisted in some way that permits whatever the winner was doing to be "allowed", whether or not that twist makes any sense from the broader context of "writing an encyclopedia". The result of this per-conflict outcome-driven process of policy development is that almost all of Wikipedia's core policies are incoherent, having been repeatedly tugged and twisted over and over again to facilitate specific outcomes, with very little if any regard to whether any of this makes sense from a broader perspective.

I made my own sourcing guidelines to help my students tell if a source is scholarly or not (there are many devotional sources that must be adequately explained or maybe not used).

This is probably wise, certainly wiser than most of your compatriots on Wikipedia. However, it will not be accepted by the POV warrior caste, and since they outnumber you they will probably win in the end.

[Sennalen]

In spite of most "orthodox" Muslims believing that Muhammad physically traveled Jerusalem during his night journey and ascension, we can say that there is no evidence for this happening and it beggars belief that one would claim such a thing.

At least as late as the 9th century CE, the "furthest mosque" was understood to mean Al-Ji'rana (T-H-L) - the furthest in the outskirts of Mecca.

[Rachel Helps]

I was puzzled about his criteria for when a source on the BoM is a RS or not. ARE some of these sources fringe? I made my own sourcing guidelines to help my students tell if a source is scholarly or not (there are many devotional sources that must be adequately explained or maybe not used). But apparently they weren't stringent enough.

The idea that there is a binary bifurcation between a "reliable" source and an "unreliable" source is a distraction, as far as I am concerned. It's how the sources are used that determines whether there is a problem. As it is, the pages were leaning heavily into a "take all this on its own terms" approach which was often befuddling. I mean, the Book of Mormon is interpreted by Mormons to say that there were Christian churches (by which they typically mean churches that look almost entirely like Mormon Churches) in the New World prior to 1 AD. That's a wild claim on its face. How do you describe this so that people understand (a) that's what most Mormons believe and (b) it is so ridiculous that it's hard to take seriously unless you are taking it on blind faith? You don't hit people over the head with its absurdity, but at the same time you can't just ignore it as though it isn't really what matters. Literary treatments of the Book of Mormon sidestep this sort of question on purpose and lend to an article that takes as given some things that are totally unaccounted for by, say, people who actually study the history of the claimed timeframe. The problem really is that the Book of Mormon is not a fiction book. That is not the right genre (though, of course, one can read it like that and, apparently, that's a popular way to approach the subject in certain English classes in Vermont, it seems).

You pointed out that this would equally apply to other religious claims as well, to which I say, absolutely. In spite of most "orthodox" Muslims believing that Muhammad physically traveled Jerusalem during his night journey and ascension, we can say that there is no evidence for this happening and it beggars belief that one would claim such a thing.

I think that saying "it beggars belief that one would claim such a thing" is not NPOV. It seems like it would be more neutral to say something like "orthodox adherents believe that...". I know you meant this in jest. But it's actually at the core of how we word information about other people's religious beliefs on Wikipedia.

Going with your Christian example. Lots of Christians read back into Isaiah (a prophet who came before Christ in the Old Testament) to say that he prophesied of Christ. Does that make Isaiah a Christian? Well, some Christians believe he had a vision of Christ and believed that this person in the vision would save Israel.

I've had this question of how do we talk about "Christians" in the Book of Mormon. Would it be better to have a separate Wikipedia page explaining "Christians in the Book of Mormon" to wikilink to so we don't have to explain it in-text every time? Or do we just explain it in-text every time? Or do we avoid using the term "Christian" to refer to people mentioned in the Book of Mormon?

[Rachel Helps]

But with the recent discussion, mostly spurred on by JPS over on the talk page for Ammonihah (T-H-L) and a few other places, the reliability of many of these sources is coming into question. But the way jps was talking about sources last week, I was puzzled about his criteria for when a source on the BoM is a RS or not. ARE some of these sources fringe?

I am not familiar with the particular dispute, but it is a historical fact that, on Wikipedia, a common strategy that people who are attempting to advance a point of view will use is to challenge the reliability of any source that does not comport with the point of view they intend to advance. The usual strategy here is to conflate bias with reliability, demonstrate that the source that the advocate wishes to exclude is biased, and from that demand that it be excluded as "unreliable". The problem is that bias, even extreme bias, does not mean that the source is "unreliable".

For example, the Center for Immigration Studies, a profoundly anti-immigrant public policy research group, is deeply biased on immigration issues, and they will reliably analyze any data they do collect in a manner that they will then use to argue for restricting immigration. Despite their bias, their study methodologies are generally sound and the data they present in support of their flawed arguments are generally valid, and so one can generally rely on the factual claims set forth in their position papers as being accurate.

From what I've read there is currently a pogrom somewhere on Wikipedia to declare the New York Post as unreliable, again using highly specious arguments (including referencing the Post's notorious Page Six). I don't know what has motivated this particular assault on the Post (nor do I wish to research it), but the reality is that all sources are biased, and anyone who does research has to learn how to recognize bias and how to account for it in evaluating how the bias of the source applies, or not, to the claims made by that source. Wikipedia's "reliable source" rules generally reject doing any sort of analysis of this sort, instead imposing a vast array of contradictory and incoherent brightline rules declaring individual sources as either "reliable" or "not reliable" (as a binary matter, which is also analytically suspect, as iii correctly points out above). This is because almost all arguments over reliable sources in Wikipedia are really attempts by someone involve to impose (or oppose) a particular point of view.

The reality is that a huge fraction of Wikipedians are editing to advance an ideological position of some sort, and many of these editors will actively game policy in order to advance their ideological position at every opportunity, with no intellectual concern toward whether the policy forms they advocate for are consistent or advance Wikipedia's purported status as an encyclopedia. Remember that, almost always, in a Wikipedia policy dispute, the winner is determined not by who is "correct", in an academic, intellectual, factual, or moral sense, but rather by which of the parties to the dispute shows greater loyalty to the Cause. As a result of resolving this dispute in favor of that party, who will win for reasons not related to anything related to truth, policy will be twisted in some way that permits whatever the winner was doing to be "allowed", whether or not that twist makes any sense from the broader context of "writing an encyclopedia". The result of this per-conflict outcome-driven process of policy development is that almost all of Wikipedia's core policies are incoherent, having been repeatedly tugged and twisted over and over again to facilitate specific outcomes, with very little if any regard to whether any of this makes sense from a broader perspective.

I made my own sourcing guidelines to help my students tell if a source is scholarly or not (there are many devotional sources that must be adequately explained or maybe not used).

This is probably wise, certainly wiser than most of your compatriots on Wikipedia. However, it will not be accepted by the POV warrior caste, and since they outnumber you they will probably win in the end.

These are wise insights. I mean, I know that every source has a bias, but it seems easier to argue whether or not a given source is reliable than to say how it should or shouldn't be used, but I shouldn't let that stop me from thinking about the bigger picture, which is how to cite some Book of Mormon scholarship while making it clear that the people who engage in this scholarship are a small portion of adherents and/or scholars.

[Ryuichi]

These are wise insights. I mean, I know that every source has a bias, but it seems easier to argue whether or not a given source is reliable than to say how it should or shouldn't be used

Reliability is always in the context of how the source is used.

As a simplistic example, I've had some quite robust discussions with some very fine volunteers about "reliability" of the author, publication & publisher; where the source did not support the material for which it was cited.

In which case, "reliability" is a distraction.

... but I shouldn't let that stop me from thinking about the bigger picture, which is how to cite some Book of Mormon scholarship while making it clear that the people who engage in this scholarship are a small portion of adherents and/or scholars.

This is, perhaps, not the biggest picture.

[Sennalen]

As a simplistic example, I've had some quite robust discussions with some very fine volunteers about "reliability" of the author, publication & publisher; where the source did not support the material for which it was cited.

In which case, "reliability" is a distraction.

This kind of thing happens so much, and it drives me nuts. The worst is people who are effectively arguing that something has been given undue weight, but are convinced to their core that WP:OR is the right policy to be citing.

[Ryuichi]

Reliability is always in the context of how the source is used.

Reliability is also always in the context of how the source uses the material.

As a generalisation, if it's not the main topic of the source, it's probably not as reliable as one might wish it to be.

[Vigilant]

How would we know that they had a COI in the relevant topic, you bumbling dipshit?!

I disagree that people should be required to disclose COIs that are irrelevant to their editing or other actions they take on Wikipedia. To do so would require many people to out themselves, potentially placing themselves at the risk of real-world harm, with no benefit to the encyclopaedia. For example, if User:Example is both an admin a senior executive of a notable laboratory that tests cosmetics on animals they obviously have a conflict of interest regarding that laboratory, animal testing and closely related articles. However if their editing and admin activities do not include that area (say they focus primarily on textile arts) then their COI is irrelevant to Wikipedia and we gain nothing by knowing who they are in real life. Thryduulf (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

[iii]

I think that saying "it beggars belief that one would claim such a thing" is not NPOV. It seems like it would be more neutral to say something like "orthodox adherents believe that...". I know you meant this in jest. But it's actually at the core of how we word information about other people's religious beliefs on Wikipedia.

I didn't mean it in jest. It's a real problem. As in when someone tries to argue something that just doesn't make sense.

It's not as if the religious believers don't know that it doesn't make sense. It's that when they believe something like that on faith, that's as far as it goes. For a decent discussion of such matters, that needs to be made apparent. "This believer takes it on faith that the Earth is flat." That sort of thing.

Going with your Christian example. Lots of Christians read back into Isaiah...

Lots of people think lots of things that are substantively in opposition to the way we know things to be. Isaiah was not a Christian. The Book of Isaiah was not written as a Christian text. It would be absolute folly to pretend that there is any sort of controversy over those facts.

[rnu]

Today at DYK ...

... that an unnamed abuse survivor risks her life to become a spy in "one of the bravest actions in all of the Book of Mormon"?

A nice illustration of how BoM topics should absolutely not be presented on Wikipedia. The people responsible for getting this onto the Main Page now of all times must be completely oblivious of the discussion about LDS editing, right?
Written and nominated by P-Makoto (T-C-L) who is very much part of the discussion, not to mention of the problem.
Reviewed by BeanieFan11 (T-C-L) who may be unaware of the discussion. After all it has nothing to do with obscure football stuff or vanity projects like DYK.
Promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (T-C-L) who opened the ANI discussion, for crying out loud!
This probably all happened before the LDS discussion and was scheduled long ago and no-one realized that it should probably be reconsidered, right? It was nominated 4 March, reviewed 5 March whereas the ANI discussion was opened 13 March. However it was promoted 22 March.

[Giraffe Stapler]

The producers of Wikipedia would like to announce a last minute program change. The part of P-Makato will now be played by Hydrangeans (T-C-L). Thank you.

[greenday61892]

The producers of Wikipedia would like to announce a last minute program change. The part of P-Makato will now be played by Hydrangeans (T-C-L). Thank you.

The timing on that change

[rnu]

The producers of Wikipedia would like to announce a last minute program change. The part of P-Makato will now be played by Hydrangeans (T-C-L). Thank you.

The timing on that change

Since it has been established that pointing out that the transgender, Japanese-American P-Makoto who has participated in a WikiEdu project at BYU and writes about Mormonism on Wikipedia is the transgender, Japanese-American P. Makoto Hunter who studied and worked at BYU and has written about Mormonism in other places is OUTING, pointing out that the transgender, Japanese-American Hydrangeans who has participated in a WikiEdu project at BYU and writes about Mormonism on Wikipedia is the transgender, Japanese-American P. Makoto Hunter who studied and worked at BYU and has written about Mormonism in other places is probably SUPERDUPEROUTING. That should resolve any remaining issues.

[rnu]

There is near-anonymous consent for a topic ban for Thmazing on Mormonism, broadly construed. The comments provide enough evidence that the community supports the wider ban; an even wider ban (an indefinite one on all topics, I presume), as is suggested by some editors for blatantly violating some basic Wikipedia policies/guidelines, might be in the future. Drmies (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I love how the consent is "near-anonymous". That's very important with all the outing going on.

[rnu]

Now closed by the one admin regularly willing to do the (dirty) work:

This is one of those discussions where both sides have equal footing in policy and consensus comes down to interpretation of the policy, interpretation of an editor's actions, and weighing the two against each other. That said, there were some responses that I disregarded or down-weighted, e.g. opposing based on concerns about employment which has no basis in our policies or guidelines. What we're left with is a roughly 60/40 split, an absolute landslide in most elections, and not even in the discretionary zone for RFA on Wikipedia. There was a pretty high turnout in this discussion, and the same breakdown in support/opposition demonstrates varying levels of consensus based on turnout. A 6 to 4 discussion is less likely to result in a consensus, whereas in a larger discussion it becomes numerically obvious where the community consensus is. In this situation, looking at around 24 opposing to 34 supporting, I see a rough consensus for topic banning Rachel Helps from LDS Church-related topics, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

[Vigilant]

OK, this is some funny shit right here.

Rachel_Helps_(BYU) (T-C-L) just added "adding paid connected contributor templates for pages I've contributed to per community request" to several HUNDRED articles...

[rnu]

OK, this is some funny shit right here.

Rachel_Helps_(BYU) (T-C-L) just added "adding paid connected contributor templates for pages I've contributed to per community request" to several HUNDRED articles...

One more sign that Rachel Helps has acted and is acting in good faith and the fault lies mostly with "the community" who once again for years decided to deny and downplay issues until they became so big you can see them from space. This could all have been avoided if people would have admitted years ago that there is an issue and then worked to remedy that issue instead of lashing out at everyone who refused to deny that there is an issue.

[Giraffe Stapler]

OK, this is some funny shit right here.

Rachel_Helps_(BYU) (T-C-L) just added "adding paid connected contributor templates for pages I've contributed to per community request" to several HUNDRED articles...

One more sign that Rachel Helps has acted and is acting in good faith and the fault lies mostly with "the community" who once again for years decided to deny and downplay issues until they became so big you can see them from space. This could all have been avoided if people would have admitted years ago that there is an issue and then worked to remedy that issue instead of lashing out at everyone who refused to deny that there is an issue.

Soooooooo, Helps is topic banned from LDS topics (broadly construed), but she directs the work of paid BYU students who, as far as I know, are not topic banned. How is that going to work?

[rnu]

OK, this is some funny shit right here.

Rachel_Helps_(BYU) (T-C-L) just added "adding paid connected contributor templates for pages I've contributed to per community request" to several HUNDRED articles...

One more sign that Rachel Helps has acted and is acting in good faith and the fault lies mostly with "the community" who once again for years decided to deny and downplay issues until they became so big you can see them from space. This could all have been avoided if people would have admitted years ago that there is an issue and then worked to remedy that issue instead of lashing out at everyone who refused to deny that there is an issue.

Soooooooo, Helps is topic banned from LDS topics (broadly construed), but she directs the work of paid BYU students who, as far as I know, are not topic banned. How is that going to work?

Now you're being unfair. (Some) People have admitted that there is an issue. Surely that has to be enough! You can't expect them to admit to the extent of the issue or to the fact that it is a systemic issue, too. And you sure as hell can't expect them to come up with anything resembling a solution.
Fortunately Rachel Helps has stated herself that she and her student editors will step back from editing LDS related articles (for now).

[...]
My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions.

[...]
If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church.

The idea of a "mentor" or better a collaborator without LDS connection makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately the likelihood of someone volunteering and then constructively working with her (and her students) is probably close to zero.

[Vigilant]

OK, this is some funny shit right here.

Rachel_Helps_(BYU) (T-C-L) just added "adding paid connected contributor templates for pages I've contributed to per community request" to several HUNDRED articles...

One more sign that Rachel Helps has acted and is acting in good faith and the fault lies mostly with "the community" who once again for years decided to deny and downplay issues until they became so big you can see them from space. This could all have been avoided if people would have admitted years ago that there is an issue and then worked to remedy that issue instead of lashing out at everyone who refused to deny that there is an issue.

Soooooooo, Helps is topic banned from LDS topics (broadly construed), but she directs the work of paid BYU students who, as far as I know, are not topic banned. How is that going to work?

Block and ban each and every one of her students for WP:MEAT and proxying for a banned user.

Leave a template on their talk page and remove talk page access.

It's the only way to be sure!

[Vigilant]

OK, this is some funny shit right here.

Rachel_Helps_(BYU) (T-C-L) just added "adding paid connected contributor templates for pages I've contributed to per community request" to several HUNDRED articles...

One more sign that Rachel Helps has acted and is acting in good faith and the fault lies mostly with "the community" who once again for years decided to deny and downplay issues until they became so big you can see them from space. This could all have been avoided if people would have admitted years ago that there is an issue and then worked to remedy that issue instead of lashing out at everyone who refused to deny that there is an issue.

Soooooooo, Helps is topic banned from LDS topics (broadly construed), but she directs the work of paid BYU students who, as far as I know, are not topic banned. How is that going to work?

Now you're being unfair. (Some) People have admitted that there is an issue. Surely that has to be enough! You can't expect them to admit to the extent of the issue or to the fact that it is a systemic issue, too. And you sure as hell can't expect them to come up with anything resembling a solution.
Fortunately Rachel Helps has stated herself that she and her student editors will step back from editing LDS related articles (for now).

[...]
My current plan is to give myself and my students a break from editing Book of Mormon pages for the rest of the semester (here that's until the end of April), which I hope will give time for some consensus to develop and for one or two pages to get to a standard that is acceptable to the community, which I could then imitate. If my team returned to editing Book of Mormon pages, it would be either me, or me and one other student, to make the pace of editing slower to wait for review from other editors. And it would be great if I could find an on-wiki mentor who is not associated with BYU or the LDS Church to go to with my editing questions.

[...]
If we were to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, cleanup of archeological/historical arguments on pages we have edited would be my first priority. However, my students have experienced emotional damage from my incompetence. I would let them choose whether or not to return to editing Book of Mormon pages, with an option to continue their projects that are less connected with Mormons and the LDS Church.

The idea of a "mentor" or better a collaborator without LDS connection makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately the likelihood of someone volunteering and then constructively working with her (and her students) is probably close to zero.

I nominate Fram (T-C-L).

[DanMurphy]

I'm having a fun little moment thinking of a Mormon elders meeting and a confusing discussion of "meatpuppets."

[Rachel Helps]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

I have thought of compiling a "higher law" for paid/WiR editors. Editors have higher expectations of paid editors, so why not lean into it? Things like that have been mentioned like: only submitting articles to AfC, disclosing potential COI on talk page, user page, AND edit summary, etc. Is that worth doing or am I going to paint myself into a corner?

[Kraken]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

I have thought of compiling a "higher law" for paid/WiR editors. Editors have higher expectations of paid editors, so why not lean into it? Things like that have been mentioned like: only submitting articles to AfC, disclosing potential COI on talk page, user page, AND edit summary, etc. Is that worth doing or am I going to paint myself into a corner?

You need to acknowledge the core issue.

Your opinion of what Wikipedia is for and what the community thinks, is out of alignment.

For good or ill, the community is not obliged to help you fix this misalignment. Not even if it has arisen from a genuine mistaken interpretation of vague policy. Wikipedia encourages people to be bold and dive right in. But they don't tell people the risk is all on them.

They really won't want to hold your hand or spend their time helping you. It's just not that kind of place. Especially given they're volunteers while you're getting paid for your time.

Attempts to appeal that do not acknowledge the core issue and show you have addressed it, with real examples, will not just fail, they will be used as evidence you are not deserving of the privelage of being a Wikipedia editor at all.

Advice from people who didn't foresee this outcome, or think you have been mistreated, won't be worth much. And it costs them nothing.

[Rachel Helps]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

I have thought of compiling a "higher law" for paid/WiR editors. Editors have higher expectations of paid editors, so why not lean into it? Things like that have been mentioned like: only submitting articles to AfC, disclosing potential COI on talk page, user page, AND edit summary, etc. Is that worth doing or am I going to paint myself into a corner?

You need to acknowledge the core issue.

Your opinion of what Wikipedia is for and what the community thinks, is out of alignment.

For good or ill, the community is not obliged to help you fix this misalignment. Not even if it has arisen from a genuine mistaken interpretation of vague policy. Wikipedia encourages people to be bold and dive right in. But they don't tell people the risk is all on them.

They really won't want to hold your hand or spend their time helping you. It's just not that kind of place. Especially given they're volunteers while you're getting paid for your time.

Attempts to appeal that do not acknowledge the core issue and show you have addressed it, with real examples, will not just fail, they will be used as evidence you are not deserving of the privelage of being a Wikipedia editor at all.

okay... what do you perceive as the core issue? because I have a lot of ideas but I'm not a mind reader.

[iii]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

I think you'll want to demonstrate some activity which shows that you would be a net benefit in those areas and also give a good argument for what you would do in those areas and how it would help. I'm not convinced that your desire to continue contributing material directly related to Mormonism is all that laudable given the closeness you have with the subject. Even when you pointed out certain material you added/researched that was less-than-flattering to the LDS Church, I did not find the argument convincing that this was being done in such a way as to really engage with the full import of the topic. For example, the few bits of work you did with issues related to sexism and racism that are endemic within Mormonism seemed to sometimes miss the forest for the trees with rather unfortunate skewing of the content being the result. Awilley and I had a back-and-forth over that, but it's really hard for me to see it any other way. But there are so many other things you could be contributing to at Wikimedia projects, why are you hung up on wanting to contribute about Mormonism given your employer?

I have thought of compiling a "higher law" for paid/WiR editors. Editors have higher expectations of paid editors, so why not lean into it? Things like that have been mentioned like: only submitting articles to AfC, disclosing potential COI on talk page, user page, AND edit summary, etc. Is that worth doing or am I going to paint myself into a corner?

Considering how to implement better identification for what activities on Wikipedia are being paid/sponsored is always good. Sometimes this stuff can end up looking a bit officious. Just look at the controversies over how many Women in Red edit-a-thon templates should or should not be slapped on various talk pages. Honesty rather than formulaic rulemaking, I think, should be the goal.

[greenday61892]

Rachel, do you have any interest whatsoever in editing topics that have zero relation to anything LDS-related? And I'm talking stuff that you wouldn't even be able to question yourself whether or not it's related, there's zero doubt that it's unrelated. Because quite frankly I think that may be the only way the community at-large would see you being able to.... I suppose for lack of a better word "prove" what you can do in the broadest sense of the encyclopedia (rather than so strictly confined to your capacity as a WiM) while you're topic-banned from LDS topics broadly construed. If that's not what you're willing to do, unfortunately I just don't see a way forward per what Kraken said.

[rnu]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

I have thought of compiling a "higher law" for paid/WiR editors. Editors have higher expectations of paid editors, so why not lean into it? Things like that have been mentioned like: only submitting articles to AfC, disclosing potential COI on talk page, user page, AND edit summary, etc. Is that worth doing or am I going to paint myself into a corner?

My advice would be to let things rest for at least three months. In that time work on different subjects to show that you can make positive contributions to Wikipedia. At the same time you can work on ideas for rules and standards for WiRs especially those who are getting paid.
Then after three months you can ask for a reduction of the tban. The tban means that you are not allowed to contribute to the topic in any way, not in article space, not in talk page or noticeboard discussions, not even via edit requests. You can ask for the restrictions other than article space to be lifted. That way you could not directly edit articles, but you could contribute to discussions and make edit requests. Several people (including Rhododendrites (T-C-L)* and Vanamonde93 (T-C-L)**) have supported such a solution in the ANI discussion. That way you can regain trust that you are able to contribute to the topic area without asking people to just "hand you back the keys" and hope for the best.
If that works out well, after another three months you can appeal the tban (maybe leaving a core tban for AML and other more direct COIs in place).
It will take time and work to regain trust. But I see no reason why a lifting of the topic ban should be impossible in the long term.

[Vigilant]

Do you have any more advice for me?

Sure.
Don't edit in areas where you have a clear conflict of interest using an account that can be easily traced back to you.

Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics?

Item B.

Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

You are a tainted woman now.
Anything you do further in that area leads to an indef block eventually.

I have thought of compiling a "higher law" for paid/WiR editors.

See above.

Editors have higher expectations of paid editors, so why not lean into it?

For 80+% of en.wp editors, this is the cardinal sin as drawn down from the burning bush of Jimbo's holy loins' most glorious outpourings.

Things like that have been mentioned like: only submitting articles to AfC, disclosing potential COI on talk page, user page, AND edit summary, etc. Is that worth doing or am I going to paint myself into a corner?

Honest advice?

Abandon your current account and start a new one in a month or two with ZERO reference to your 'in real life' identity.
I'd recommend using the name of a minor fictional character from a non-religious novel.

Stay away from Mormon topics for at least a year.

[Rachel Helps]

Rachel, do you have any interest whatsoever in editing topics that have zero relation to anything LDS-related? And I'm talking stuff that you wouldn't even be able to question yourself whether or not it's related, there's zero doubt that it's unrelated. Because quite frankly I think that may be the only way the community at-large would see you being able to.... I suppose for lack of a better word "prove" what you can do in the broadest sense of the encyclopedia (rather than so strictly confined to your capacity as a WiM) while you're topic-banned from LDS topics broadly construed. If that's not what you're willing to do, unfortunately I just don't see a way forward per what Kraken said.

Look, I do have interest in editing non-Mormon topics. I've edited a bunch of them in the past. Pages like Carlos Salzedo, Kelmscott Press, Didymus the Blind, Ebensee concentration camp, Topaz War Relocation Center, Lloyd Alexander, and Charity Bazaar. These pages are all related to our non-LDS holdings in special collections and were significant undertakings. But I don't know if I want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia if it's like "yeah, you can play here, as long as you don't talk about Mormony things, ew."

[greenday61892]

On that penultimate piece of advice, don't past accounts HAVE to be declared on new accounts except for super-specific circumstances?

[Rachel Helps]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

I have thought of compiling a "higher law" for paid/WiR editors. Editors have higher expectations of paid editors, so why not lean into it? Things like that have been mentioned like: only submitting articles to AfC, disclosing potential COI on talk page, user page, AND edit summary, etc. Is that worth doing or am I going to paint myself into a corner?

My advice would be to let things rest for at least three months. In that time work on different subjects to show that you can make positive contributions to Wikipedia. At the same time you can work on ideas for rules and standards for WiRs especially those who are getting paid.
Then after three months you can ask for a reduction of the tban. The tban means that you are not allowed to contribute to the topic in any way, not in article space, not in talk page or noticeboard discussions, not even via edit requests. You can ask for the restrictions other than article space to be lifted. That way you could not directly edit articles, but you could contribute to discussions and make edit requests. Several people (including Rhododendrites (T-C-L)* and Vanamonde93 (T-C-L)**) have supported such a solution in the ANI discussion. That way you can regain trust that you are able to contribute to the topic area without asking people to just "hand you back the keys" and hope for the best.
If that works out well, after another three months you can appeal the tban (maybe leaving a core tban for AML and other more direct COIs in place).
It will take time and work to regain trust. But I see no reason why a lifting of the topic ban should be impossible in the long term.

Thank you for your sincere advice. I didn't initially understand that a TBAN includes talk pages (even though you mentioned this before). I guess that means I can't finish adding the COI talkpage banners to Mormony pages or even ask someone else to do that (at the AWB request page)? I wasn't able to get to the University Archives sub-category of our editing maintenance category on the day I was adding them and I feel like that's the most important one.

[greenday61892]

Rachel, do you have any interest whatsoever in editing topics that have zero relation to anything LDS-related? And I'm talking stuff that you wouldn't even be able to question yourself whether or not it's related, there's zero doubt that it's unrelated. Because quite frankly I think that may be the only way the community at-large would see you being able to.... I suppose for lack of a better word "prove" what you can do in the broadest sense of the encyclopedia (rather than so strictly confined to your capacity as a WiM) while you're topic-banned from LDS topics broadly construed. If that's not what you're willing to do, unfortunately I just don't see a way forward per what Kraken said.

Look, I do have interest in editing non-Mormon topics. I've edited a bunch of them in the past. Pages like Carlos Salzedo, Kelmscott Press, Didymus the Blind, Ebensee concentration camp, Topaz War Relocation Center, Lloyd Alexander, and Charity Bazaar. These pages are all related to our non-LDS holdings in special collections and were significant undertakings. But I don't know if I want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia if it's like "yeah, you can play here, as long as you don't talk about Mormony things, ew."

It's unfortunate that you don't wish to participate because of a topic ban, but that's a rather unfair summary of what a topic ban is for. The way you put it, to me, makes it sound like an arbitrary, undeserved decision and if that's what you truly believe it is it really doesn't seem like you actually understand what the problem was in the first place with this entire situation.

[Rachel Helps]

Rachel, do you have any interest whatsoever in editing topics that have zero relation to anything LDS-related? And I'm talking stuff that you wouldn't even be able to question yourself whether or not it's related, there's zero doubt that it's unrelated. Because quite frankly I think that may be the only way the community at-large would see you being able to.... I suppose for lack of a better word "prove" what you can do in the broadest sense of the encyclopedia (rather than so strictly confined to your capacity as a WiM) while you're topic-banned from LDS topics broadly construed. If that's not what you're willing to do, unfortunately I just don't see a way forward per what Kraken said.

Look, I do have interest in editing non-Mormon topics. I've edited a bunch of them in the past. Pages like Carlos Salzedo, Kelmscott Press, Didymus the Blind, Ebensee concentration camp, Topaz War Relocation Center, Lloyd Alexander, and Charity Bazaar. These pages are all related to our non-LDS holdings in special collections and were significant undertakings. But I don't know if I want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia if it's like "yeah, you can play here, as long as you don't talk about Mormony things, ew."

It's unfortunate that you don't wish to participate because of a topic ban, but that's a rather unfair summary of what a topic ban is for. The way you put it, to me, makes it sound like an arbitrary, undeserved decision and if that's what you truly believe it is it really doesn't seem like you actually understand what the problem was in the first place with this entire situation.

What do you think is the actual reason I got banned? I would like to know what you think.

[greenday61892]

OK, so you really don't believe you deserved sanctions? I'm not rehashing the reasons with you when we just had a weeks-long discussion with plenty of people who articulately pointed out the issues; if you re-read the whole discussion and still come away with the feeling that the topic ban was arbitrary and undeserved, this conversation isn't worth continuing in my opinion, sorry to say.

[Jester]

On that penultimate piece of advice, don't past accounts HAVE to be declared on new accounts except for super-specific circumstances?

If she successfully appeals her TBAN, she may create a WP:CLEANSTART (T-H-L) account. However, it's generally recommended not to return to the topic that caused controversy immediately otherwise you might resume the behaviour that got you punished(of course, Vigilant suggests waiting a year before moving on to Mormonism topics). However, if two years from now an editor declares themselves a paid editor from BYU and starts editing Mormonism-related articles, I think most of us would be able to figure out it's Helps.

She really only has two viable choices to continue editing enwiki: violate a policy/guideline by not disclosing PAID on a sock or try to repair her reputation. I'd strongly advise the latter and do not normally (including in this case) condone violating the PAGs.

[Vigilant]

On that penultimate piece of advice, don't past accounts HAVE to be declared on new accounts except for super-specific circumstances?

If she successfully appeals her TBAN, she may create a WP:CLEANSTART (T-H-L) account. However, it's generally recommended not to return to the topic that caused controversy immediately otherwise you might resume the behaviour that got you punished(of course, Vigilant suggests waiting a year before moving on to Mormonism topics). However, if two years from now an editor declares themselves a paid editor from BYU and starts editing Mormonism-related articles, I think most of us would be able to figure out it's Helps.

She really only has two viable choices to continue editing enwiki: violate a policy/guideline by not disclosing PAID on a sock or try to repair her reputation. I'd strongly advise the latter and do not normally (including in this case) condone violating the PAGs.

Can you point me to several accounts where your recommendation succeeded?

[AirshipJungleman29]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

My advice would be to let things rest for at least three months. In that time work on different subjects to show that you can make positive contributions to Wikipedia. At the same time you can work on ideas for rules and standards for WiRs especially those who are getting paid.

Three months seems a bit ambitious to me—I'd say six, if not a year.

[Watershed]

Maybe you could start a user group and become an affiliate (or whatever they call it) of the Wikimedia Foundation. Then your group could discuss what they highly prioritize and ask for grant money from the Wikimedia Foundation. You could channel your energy in that direction. Other people could pick up the slack in the actual editing. What you would not want to do is actually meatpuppet. It sounds like you really didn't know how much English Wikipedia cannot stand paid editing.

[Jester]

On that penultimate piece of advice, don't past accounts HAVE to be declared on new accounts except for super-specific circumstances?

If she successfully appeals her TBAN, she may create a WP:CLEANSTART (T-H-L) account. However, it's generally recommended not to return to the topic that caused controversy immediately otherwise you might resume the behaviour that got you punished(of course, Vigilant suggests waiting a year before moving on to Mormonism topics). However, if two years from now an editor declares themselves a paid editor from BYU and starts editing Mormonism-related articles, I think most of us would be able to figure out it's Helps.

She really only has two viable choices to continue editing enwiki: violate a policy/guideline by not disclosing PAID on a sock or try to repair her reputation. I'd strongly advise the latter and do not normally (including in this case) condone violating the PAGs.

Can you point me to several accounts where your recommendation succeeded?

To clarify, are you asking me to name users who suffered a major sanction due to a high profile discussion and later regained all of their rights as well as all or most of their trust?

[Midsize Jake]

Maybe you could start a user group and become an affiliate (or whatever they call it) of the Wikimedia Foundation. Then your group could discuss what they highly prioritize and ask for grant money from the Wikimedia Foundation. You could channel your energy in that direction....

They do use the term "movement affiliate," but that's mostly as a catch-all for the more formal terms — specifically, "chapter," "thematic organization" and (as you say) "user group." Chapters have traditionally been organized for countries and cities only (they're listed here), so I guess they'd want it to be one of the other two types — there are currently only two thematic organizations, but there's a ton of user groups. I don't see any religious groups on that list though, probably because any potential members know they'd be setting themselves up for religion-based COI accusations.

That's not to say your suggestion lacks merit, though. In fact, if any religious group could benefit from something like that, it's probably the LDS. (Also, "Swifties.")

[tarantino]

That's not to say your suggestion lacks merit, though. In fact, if any religious group could benefit from something like that, it's probably the LDS. (Also, "Swifties.")

BYU enters 'Swiftie Era' with new college course

the Taylor Swift class at BYU is different from what you might think

[Vigilant]

On that penultimate piece of advice, don't past accounts HAVE to be declared on new accounts except for super-specific circumstances?

If she successfully appeals her TBAN, she may create a WP:CLEANSTART (T-H-L) account. However, it's generally recommended not to return to the topic that caused controversy immediately otherwise you might resume the behaviour that got you punished(of course, Vigilant suggests waiting a year before moving on to Mormonism topics). However, if two years from now an editor declares themselves a paid editor from BYU and starts editing Mormonism-related articles, I think most of us would be able to figure out it's Helps.

She really only has two viable choices to continue editing enwiki: violate a policy/guideline by not disclosing PAID on a sock or try to repair her reputation. I'd strongly advise the latter and do not normally (including in this case) condone violating the PAGs.

Can you point me to several accounts where your recommendation succeeded?

To clarify, are you asking me to name users who suffered a major sanction due to a high profile discussion and later regained all of their rights as well as all or most of their trust?

One might want to see evidence that a course of action has any possibility of working prior to embarking on it.

[rnu]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

My advice would be to let things rest for at least three months. In that time work on different subjects to show that you can make positive contributions to Wikipedia. At the same time you can work on ideas for rules and standards for WiRs especially those who are getting paid.

Three months seems a bit ambitious to me—I'd say six, if not a year.

You may be right. Three and six months is certainly the lower limit for both steps. But there has already been support for restriction of the tban to article space in the ANI, plus a number of people who opined that the problem was not so much with Rachel's edits as with the lack of transparency about COI and edits by her students. If in three months she can show that she understands what the issues are and can lay out steps she intends to take so they won't happen again I think there is a chance. And by not asking to be allowed to directly edit articles she would demonstrate a willingness to accept scrutiny of her actions. I think the fact that tbans by default include discussions and edit requests is due to the fact that they usually are applied in cases where issues like CIVIL and BLUDGEON cause a lot of drama.

[rnu]

[...]

Thank you for your sincere advice. I didn't initially understand that a TBAN includes talk pages (even though you mentioned this before). I guess that means I can't finish adding the COI talkpage banners to Mormony pages or even ask someone else to do that (at the AWB request page)? I wasn't able to get to the University Archives sub-category of our editing maintenance category on the day I was adding them and I feel like that's the most important one.

A strict reading of the tban would indeed mean that you cannot place COI notices on article talk pages. But at the same time one of the main demands was that you declare your COIs as transparently as possible. So there is an inherent conflict here. I would recommend asking at ANI for permission to post the COI declarations (and nothing else) and notify ScottishFinnishRadish (T-C-L) (as the admin who closed the discussion) about the request on his talk page. If people allow you to post the notices you're good to go. If not, at least no-one can blame you for not posting the notices.

[Jester]

On that penultimate piece of advice, don't past accounts HAVE to be declared on new accounts except for super-specific circumstances?

If she successfully appeals her TBAN, she may create a WP:CLEANSTART (T-H-L) account. However, it's generally recommended not to return to the topic that caused controversy immediately otherwise you might resume the behaviour that got you punished(of course, Vigilant suggests waiting a year before moving on to Mormonism topics). However, if two years from now an editor declares themselves a paid editor from BYU and starts editing Mormonism-related articles, I think most of us would be able to figure out it's Helps.

She really only has two viable choices to continue editing enwiki: violate a policy/guideline by not disclosing PAID on a sock or try to repair her reputation. I'd strongly advise the latter and do not normally (including in this case) condone violating the PAGs.

Can you point me to several accounts where your recommendation succeeded?

To clarify, are you asking me to name users who suffered a major sanction due to a high profile discussion and later regained all of their rights as well as all or most of their trust?

One might want to see evidence that a course of action has any possibility of working prior to embarking on it.

My question was about how specific my answer should be. Should it be restricted to paid editors, all high profile blocks, or something else? I realized why you asked, but I phrased the question poorly. Sorry about that.

To answer, Koavf is at 5 indefs now with several giant AN threads and was most recently unblocked after 5 days last January. If Justin behaves, I fully expect the 1RR restriction to be removed in a year or two. Like Helps, if he were to sock and return to the same behavior, he'd probably get blocked because we extend less leniency to new editors.
Floq had the second most high profile desysop in history. The community somehow now trusts him enough that we ignore him editing policy to manipulate arbcom cases.
Will add more later.

[greenday61892]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

My advice would be to let things rest for at least three months. In that time work on different subjects to show that you can make positive contributions to Wikipedia. At the same time you can work on ideas for rules and standards for WiRs especially those who are getting paid.

Three months seems a bit ambitious to me—I'd say six, if not a year.

You may be right. Three and six months is certainly the lower limit for both steps. But there has already been support for restriction of the tban to article space in the ANI, plus a number of people who opined that the problem was not so much with Rachel's edits as with the lack of transparency about COI and edits by her students. If in three months she can show that she understands what the issues are and can lay out steps she intends to take so they won't happen again I think there is a chance. And by not asking to be allowed to directly edit articles she would demonstrate a willingness to accept scrutiny of her actions. I think the fact that tbans by default include discussions and edit requests is due to the fact that they usually are applied in cases where issues like CIVIL and BLUDGEON cause a lot of drama.

You're more optimistic than I am about the possibility of her showing understanding; I get the impression from her replies to me here that she doesn't think the topic ban was just, and thus doesn't get what brought us to this quagmire in the first place.

[rnu]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

My advice would be to let things rest for at least three months. In that time work on different subjects to show that you can make positive contributions to Wikipedia. At the same time you can work on ideas for rules and standards for WiRs especially those who are getting paid.

Three months seems a bit ambitious to me—I'd say six, if not a year.

You may be right. Three and six months is certainly the lower limit for both steps. But there has already been support for restriction of the tban to article space in the ANI, plus a number of people who opined that the problem was not so much with Rachel's edits as with the lack of transparency about COI and edits by her students. If in three months she can show that she understands what the issues are and can lay out steps she intends to take so they won't happen again I think there is a chance. And by not asking to be allowed to directly edit articles she would demonstrate a willingness to accept scrutiny of her actions. I think the fact that tbans by default include discussions and edit requests is due to the fact that they usually are applied in cases where issues like CIVIL and BLUDGEON cause a lot of drama.

You're more optimistic than I am about the possibility of her showing understanding; I get the impression from her replies to me here that she doesn't think the topic ban was just, and thus doesn't get what brought us to this quagmire in the first place.

I see good faith, a willingness to learn and do better. That is more than can be said for the most people who receive a (justified) topic ban. She's asking for advice, she has brought up the idea of a mentor, she has said that she wants to see what coverage of Mormon topics should look like -- those are all good signs. And doing it in the three step way I outlined would give her the opportunity to learn and to show what she has learned. That would especially show in the second phase where she could contribute to discussions and make edit requests. If these contributions are good then people can gain trust that she can edit articles. If not they can lay out what is wrong with them and Rachel can either accept the criticism and adapt or not. It would be a low risk way for both sides. Rachel can learn and demonstrate her willingness to adjust to the expectations of "the community" and the community has the opportunity to observe and evaluate her actions without having to worry about article edits. Of course whether or not Rachel can adapt to the expectations of "the community" is a different question. The "ball is in her court" now.

[greenday61892]

Do you have any more advice for me? Should I try to appeal the ban, or simply abandon the thought of editing in Mormon topics? Some people in the ANI discussion suggested appealing the ban after a few months of "good behavior"... do you think that would actually work?

My advice would be to let things rest for at least three months. In that time work on different subjects to show that you can make positive contributions to Wikipedia. At the same time you can work on ideas for rules and standards for WiRs especially those who are getting paid.

Three months seems a bit ambitious to me—I'd say six, if not a year.

You may be right. Three and six months is certainly the lower limit for both steps. But there has already been support for restriction of the tban to article space in the ANI, plus a number of people who opined that the problem was not so much with Rachel's edits as with the lack of transparency about COI and edits by her students. If in three months she can show that she understands what the issues are and can lay out steps she intends to take so they won't happen again I think there is a chance. And by not asking to be allowed to directly edit articles she would demonstrate a willingness to accept scrutiny of her actions. I think the fact that tbans by default include discussions and edit requests is due to the fact that they usually are applied in cases where issues like CIVIL and BLUDGEON cause a lot of drama.

You're more optimistic than I am about the possibility of her showing understanding; I get the impression from her replies to me here that she doesn't think the topic ban was just, and thus doesn't get what brought us to this quagmire in the first place.

I see good faith, a willingness to learn and do better. That is more than can be said for the most people who receive a (justified) topic ban. She's asking for advice, she has brought up the idea of a mentor, she has said that she wants to see what coverage of Mormon topics should look like -- those are all good signs. And doing it in the three step way I outlined would give her the opportunity to learn and to show what she has learned. That would especially show in the second phase where she could contribute to discussions and make edit requests. If these contributions are good then people can gain trust that she can edit articles. If not they can lay out what is wrong with them and Rachel can either accept the criticism and adapt or not. It would be a low risk way for both sides. Rachel can learn and demonstrate her willingness to adjust to the expectations of "the community" and the community has the opportunity to observe and evaluate her actions without having to worry about article edits. Of course whether or not Rachel can adapt to the expectations of "the community" is a different question. The "ball is in her court" now.

The reason I'm not really sure she truly gets it is her characterization of the topic ban as "you can still edit here but not in Mormony topics ew"

[Kelly Martin]

What do you think is the actual reason I got banned? I would like to know what you think.

a combination of people being jealous of the fact that you get paid when they don't and the fact that you're editing to the benefit of an institution that is broadly unpopular with Wikipedians