Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement

Collapsing

HiP is taking it upon himself to collapse sections he doesn't like. In case it isn't obvious, I don't accept HiP as a neutral editor, and ask him to stop doing this. I'm sure the admins watching the page are perfectly capable of doing it themselves, should they wish William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As you noted, (part) collapsing ones "own" section is acceptable in most circumstances. A good faith collapse of a section that is not ones own is permissible, but if reverted should then not be done so again. In this instance HiP collapsed a particular discussion that he was not part of, and you reverted it. Unless either of the two main participants in the discussion wish it collapsed then it should be actioned by them, but otherwise it should now be left as is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm happy if uninvolved admins collapse (or remove entirely, perhaps to talk, perhaps to the bin) sections that they judge unhelpful or meandering. Indeed, I think it is the duty of admins patrolling the pages to do this (I have, on occaision, bitterly whinged at arbcomm for failing to do its duty) William M. Connolley (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

A collapse by an uninvolved admin is also fine, but might be only undertaken when there is serious issues - a simple action that may otherwise spawn reams of complaint, explanation and opinion, so unlikely to be undertaken for minor issues such as "distracting", etc. No problem with a non admin also collapsing content not involving them as major participants, providing that such actions may be reverted by otherwise similarly uninvolved editors. Most readers will recognise when a specific discussion is going off topic and choose whether they are interested in that diversion or not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider this a halfhearted request for a restoration of my two collapses by an uninvolved admin.--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe admins should have any more control over this than any other user. Unless it comes to the situation of having to enforce clear consensus. Polargeo (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Admins already have a section to themselves making them more important than other users, against wikipedia principles and this concept is disgusting to me. Admins are here to enforce consensus if need be and nothing more. Polargeo (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I just think I have hit upon the point. Enforcement sets admins up as Judge and Jury. This is utterly against wikipeida principles, where admins should simply enforce consensus. Now the argument that enforcement is some sort of community consensus that allows admins to act as judge and jury (and police) is complete and utter shit Polargeo (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the unfortunate aspects of Wikipedia principles is that they are consensus determined. Cases where the consensus decision is anti consensus cannot easily be resolved whilst Wikipedia has no form of constitution harder to change than by the action of instantaneous consensus. Arbcom has been set up (by community consensus, nearly) for cases where there is no possibility of a solution being reached by simple consensus. The consensus of Arbcom in this case seems to be that there is a need for uninvolved adjudication and that the only suitable adjudicators are uninvolved admins. This is an unsatisfactory situation in lots of ways but the consensus process to overturned it is unlikely to work well if you start off by declaring things to be "shit". Anyway the point is that the macro-consensus of this probation is to over-turn microconsensus which is unworkable. Not my idea but there it is. --BozMo talk 21:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay so what you are saying is that admins are police. All my idealism is out of the window and I should get real and start policing cimate change articles in favour of those who I agree with, as seems to be happening at present. I am utterly disgusted. I admire your actions but not your conclusions. Maybe I will become another Stephan Schulz and act as uninvolved just to balance things out. Polargeo (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Weren't you planning an RfC over this 'probation'? --Heyitspeter (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The community placed this topic under general sanctions, and explicitly empowered admins to make these decisions. Therefore, admins are enforcing consensus by policing this area, as the community wants them to. The Wordsmith^Communicate 02:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Community did nothing of the sort. A few wikipedia hacks and a few of the people currently arguing with each other on these pages did it. I personally as a semi active editor in this area was not even made aware of sanctions until templates started being slapped on several articles I had on my watchlist. Polargeo (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

As for an RfC. I think it should come soon as this probation is turning out to be a joke. Polargeo (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd support it, and help you with it if you wanted.--Heyitspeter (talk) 03:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Global Climate Change??

Would it be at all sensible for someone to try to make a proposal for a WikiProject Global Climate Change? The idea is that it would have members from "both sides of the street". I can think of some arguments for and against it.

For:

1. There are enough people interested in the topic to make a wikiproject.
2. It would be good to have a forum which was not dedicated to games of gotcha.
3. It has been suggested that it would be good to have a forum which did not give special privileges to uninvolved admins.
4. Another wikiproject on a contentious subjects, WikiProject Paranormal, sort of worked for a while (although it is semiactive now).
5. What we already have is dysfunctional so, if this works at all, it would be an improvement.

Against:

1. It might well degenerate into a permanent food fight (something like this page) requiring constant administrative intervention. If this happens, it could be eventually MFD'd, but that might take a while.
2. It might turn out to be pointless wiki-process.

What role would I play in such a wikiproject? I would join it, but, in keeping with my wikisloth nature, would likely only just barely participate in it. Cardamon (talk) 01:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I see, thanks. Cardamon (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, the cl ch t f is somewhat moribund. Anyone wanting to bring such an issue to everyone's attention tends to post to t:GW. Or, nowadays, maybe to here William M. Connolley (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the editors who have made appearances here in this enforcement board have been active in the AGW articles for yeras, yet the AGW task force in the environment project doesn't appear to be very organized. As far as I can tell, in four or five years of work only one AGW article - Global warming, is featured and only one other article -DeSmogBlog is GA. Are there more? Cla68 (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the long-term editors are more concerned with the quality of the article than with formal promotion of them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I remember asking a number of involved editors if they could help out on improving and expanding the Watts Up With That article in unison with me and several others' efforts with DeSmogBlog. I haven't checked Watts Up lately, but I'm looking forward to seeing the level of quality that that article has subsequently attained. With the expertise and experience shared by the editors that are working on it I'm sure that any formal promotion of it will naturally follow. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit apathetic about those blog articles, to be honest. Even if they become as good as possible, there simply is not very much interesting to say about the subject matter. Getting something like Greenhouse effect, Idealized greenhouse model, Urban heat island or History of climate change science up to scratch would be more useful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in spite of how boring the topic may be, I see by checking the Watts Up article history that since it was first posted on 10 March 2010, it has received quite a lot of activity in the succeeding two months. The history shows 45 edits by marknutley, 14 by FellGleaming, nine by me, 38 by William M. Connolley, 16 by Short Brigade Harvester Boris, 13 by KimDabelsteinPetersen, 14 by Hipocrite, a good number by JPRW, TonySideaway, TMLutas, Tillman, Dave Souza, and Guettarda, among a few others, plus 12 from you! Of course, all that effort is greatly appreciated. With that amount of activity by so many editors concerned with the quality of articles, I'm sure that article must be almost ready for GA promotion already. Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That statistic means the topic is contentious, not interesting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo

I don't know if a formal request is warranted, but perhaps the uninvolved admins might consider banning Polargeo from the enforcement page? He is now littering the uninvolved admin section of WMC's request with repeated inflammatory comments attacking other admins and using sarcasm involving the antichrist. Is this really helpful? Marknutley was banned for several months for simply raising a complaint; Polargeo has filed a pointy request against himself and has repeatedly jumped back and forth between "I'm an editor commenting on the merits now!" and "I'm an uninvolved admin now!" He has also expressed repeatedly that he does not believe this CC enforcement page should remain in existence, so it calls into question his motives in his pointy requests and flip-flopping between admin and editor. This is much more disruptive than anything Marknutley did, perhaps a ban for Polargeo should be considered? Note that many of the points Polargeo is making are already being made in much less inflammatory terms by others (i.e. Hipocrite, Boris, Stephan) so his absence will not create an imbalance of opinion. ATren (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll second that. Polargeo's comments in the admin section do not appear to be very helpful in assisting the uninvolved admins in reaching a decision. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with all the points in ATren's characterization (especially calling his motives into question), but essentially concur on the broader issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It would be helpful to keep the posts on that page constructive. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur as well. Polargeo's been making a string if pointy, timewasting, uncivil, distracting comments. Perhaps this should be moved to the project page as a formal complaint. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I have said this elsewhere already. I agree with the sense of this. ObDisclose: P and WMC were the coinitiators of the RfC, with the stated goal of getting me eased out of working in this area but I don't think that has unduly influenced my perception of Polargeo as being disruptive. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a plainly wrong statement - ontologically, the RfC is not trying to do anything, being a social construct without an independent will, and substantially, no, no-one wants to get you "eased out of working in this area". The aim of the RfC is to get you to recognize (if necessary) and acknowledge that you are not uninvolved, but came to the arena with a massive predetermined bias, not to mention that you use a very double standard for when to appeal to policy, when to common sense, when to tradition, and when to just claim The Truth. Claiming uninvolvement is in no way a prerequisite to working in this area. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Restated the first part, as it was malformed, RfCs have no independent volition. Thanks for calling me on that, although you are all wet with all the rest of your commentary, I'm afraid, Side issue though, the point being that Polargeo is disruptive. Don't get sidetracked. ++Lar: t/c 17:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am on a general wikibreak but wish to make a brief comment. I initiated that RfC to question Lar's involvement as uninvolved with WMC. I did not know that WMC would come in and "co - initiate" it. I did not know what other editors would do. Therefore I have had no coordination with WMC except on a formal wikipedia level, just as Lar does. I have had only fairly minor contact with WMC on-wiki. I certainly did not call WMC a "wacko" on his talkpage as Lar did before these sanctions even started. I genuinely believe myself to be as uninvolved as Lar is on this. I really genuinely believe that. Polargeo (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You have misread this section and have again taken the opportunity to drive home a tangential point. Please reread the text here. Incidentally, and if it isn't already clear, I 'third' or 'fourth' or 'whatever' the present proposal.--Heyitspeter (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize this is the talk page,and not (yet) a formal request for sanctions, but it appears to me, procedurally, that jumping to a proposal for a ban before even trying a polite”Hey, can you dial it back a little?” is getting ahead of ourselves.SPhilbrickT 12:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that's been tried already. I can dig up some cites if it's really needed. ++Lar: t/c 13:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's far beyond ”Hey, can you dial it back a little?” "general wikibreak" sounds like a very prudent step. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: "minor involvement" - The intersection tool shows 8 AfDs in the Climate Change category in common, as well as 50 user talk pages in common. 35 articles in common, almost all of which are clearly in the same area. Presented as data only. Collect (talk) 13:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

As an editor I occasionally, but do not primarily edit climate change articles. How do I avoid having some article overlap with WMC? As for the talkpage crossover. Lar has a 220 user talkpages in common with WMC. These sort of statistics are of little value. Polargeo (talk) 09:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I got my adminship mostly through my work in AfD. Also of the 8 AfDs we have in common I didn't !vote the same way as WMC on 3 of them. Two of the other 5 were nominated by me. It is hardly like I am following WMC around mindlessly backing up his position. Polargeo (talk) 08:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that I have dialled back considerably. Anyway I'm back on wikibreak now. I just wanted to defend myself on this talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I count you as agreeing with WMC on 6 of the 8, quibbling with him on procedures (whether articles by country are encyclopedic or not) on 2. I found zero cases where you showed any substantive disagreement wth WMC on any of the 8 AfDs. And again, the material is furnished as data only, not any sort of accusation. Meanwhile, I would suggest that every time I have seen an RfC/U with one user devoting well over 150 edits to the topic, the person has gotten far too emotionally involved. The purpose of an RfC/U is to gain comments from others, not to iterate the complainant's views. I daresay most people reading the RfC/U already know how you feel <g>. Collect (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not completely fair. I started the RfC/U and so needed a certain number of edits, also to agree with the comments of others. All of my edits on the main page of the RfC/U are very balanced and unemotional. Most of my edits which you are counting have been on the RfC/U talkpage where okay I got a little annoyed at times but a substantial amount of this was dealing with your own 30 edits presenting wikistalk data that was trying to tie various editors together, including myself, as some sort of a cabal, similar to what you have presented here. Polargeo (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Kindly redact your accusation. At no time did I state "cabal" about any group at all. Nor did I use any term other than "data" to describe what I have presented here. Meanhile, 170 edits > 30. Outediting others by a factor of more than four is evidence enough that you have somehow become so emotionally entangled here that you are unwilling to let outsiders (such as myself) have reasonable say (which, funny enough, is the purpose of an RfC/U). Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that you personally stated "cabal" did I? Also most of my edits have been on the talkpage not on the mainpage. "Outsiders" have been commenting quite properly and happily on the RfC/U mainpage with me simply endorsing their comments or not as the case may be. I did not realise that as initiator of the RfC I was restricted from defending myself on the talkpage when people were trying to show I was part of a group and to therefore discredit my motives. Polargeo (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo: In general your participation in the RE page, and in the RfC, has been manifestly unhelpful. That said, one of the reasons you have a high edit count in general is that you often take 5 edits to say what could be said in 1. Preview is your friend, as is composing your thoughts offline to make sure you say everything you want to say at one go instead of tacking five postscripts on. I'm guilty of this too, mind, although I don't think quite as much as you... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well seeing as the majority of my participation in those two pages has been to criticise you I am not surprised that you find it unhelpful. As you seem to be managing to talk several people round to a long article ban for WMC based on his rational edits and a bunch of long past history I can only take my hat off to you. You are a true operator. If I wasn't so clumsy and inexperienced compared to you I do believe that my rational arguments would carry more weight. I look forward to learning more from a master. Polargeo (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ATren

Lar closed the ATren request with indecent haste. If there were several admins all agreeing it should be closed, that would be fine. But one alone is not acceptable William M. Connolley (talk) 16:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One alone is perfectly acceptable. It's such a transparently obvious close that there's no reason to waste time on it. ATren will cease being intentionally incivil or he will get progressively banned. That was the only and obvious resolution from the second I filed it to the second it was closed. It should have taken about three seconds. Appeal it through the appropriate channels, if you must, but you are wrong. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, would you agree to retract all your recent incidents of incivility and I will retract mine? ATren (talk) 16:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are not going to retract incivility that you are aware of unless someone else does something, I'll file ATren2 right now. Is my understanding correct? Which incivilities of yours that you are aware of have you not yet retracted? Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead if you like. I am trying to extend an olive branch to WMC, why do you take it as something different? ATren (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Olive branches are phrased like this - "WMC, I'm sorry I was incivil to you. I'm retracting everything I said that was wrong. It would be nice if you'd do the same, and I hope we will be able to work together productively in the future." Tit-for-tat requests for appeasement are phrased like this - "WMC, would you agree to retract all your recent incidents of incivility and I will retract mine?" See, the "Olive Branch" thing is you putting yourself out there, not you asking both parties to do something. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry I don't meet your standard of what an olive branch is. In any case I stand by my offer. ATren (talk) 16:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

H, if you're really concerned about incivility might I suggest you begin with WMC? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Cost-benefit analysis suggests that given the limited amount of time I have, I should not only aim for low-hanging fruit, but also only fruit that I'd like to eat. I suggest that one could infer that while I am not a fan of all of WMC's editing, or any of his incivility, I am, in fact, a fan of many of his main-space edits, particularly those that are not about living persons. To be fair I am also a fan of some of Atren's main-space edits, particularly those about living persons that are not the focus of off-wiki pressure groups. Hipocrite (talk) 16:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no lower-hanging fruit than WMC when it comes to incivility and policy violations. As for eating only fruit you like, I'm currently expanding the bio of a man I disagree with. It's good for the soul, and it's what Wikipedians are meant to do. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's my obligation as a wikipedian to assist people who are interested in misinforming the public. If WMC weren't editing, articles like Global Warming would be misinforming the public. I try to get him to be more civil and be careful with BLPs in ways that are less likley to make his inarguably good edits to articles about science more likley. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite, what do you mean by "particularly those about living persons that are not the focus of off-wiki pressure groups."? ATren (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[1], [2] and the like. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this closure, if it makes WMC feel better. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! On the other hand if other uninvolved admins decide to undo it, I'm fine with that ahd have no issues with it. I do agree it was done somewhat quickly, but H had a point.... we got about all we were going to get I think. I note that I didn't close it the way H wanted it closed, not exactly. ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you didn't lay out a penalty schedule, but it's pretty much implicit anyway. Hipocrite (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Archive indexing and RFC draft

2over0 is drafting an RFC for this Project [3]. A better archive index may help in this effort. Due to the many collapses, the Archives can be difficult to review who filed against whom. Would anyone disagree if I amended the archives to specify the complained and complainer before the close boxes? Thanks, Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

First pass at Archive 1 [4] Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased

Is it possible to have an editor who is so biased one way that anyone who comes close to them is assumed to be biased the other way? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you been chatting with that Phil O. Soffey again? LessHeard vanU (talk) 08:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have a better time with Lady Justice. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 14:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

re Sandstein's comment regarding the value of threaded admin discussion

I realise that AGK also commented, but Sandstein incorporated that into their post. To avoid the dreaded threaded discussion, and to permit non-"uninvolved admins" to comment, I have opened a discussion here.
My response to Sandstein's main point, that Requests for enforcement was set up to allow the first uninvolved admin to action the request in the manner they thought appropriate, was, "It evolved, necessarily". I can well imagine that there are editors involved in CC related articles that would prefer that I was not the sole arbiter of a complaint brought by or against them, that other contributors are likewise disinclined to have a Request involving them solely adminned by certain individuals, and there was/is a historical perception that editors were treated differently according to their viewpoint regarding the validity of AGW. It was found that by enlarging the number of admins reviewing a case, and discussing where their conclusions differed, that not only would a consensus arise between those admins but the other parties could see how actions were arrived at. Further, it meant that admins reviewing a new case were aware of how consensus had dealt with similar matters and could suggest proposals that were consistent with those decisions, or proposals that dealt with perceived deficiencies of previous conclusions. Lastly, it meant with that enforcement actions handled by one admin following a decision were taken as being supported by all participating admins and the potential of another admin reversing it extinguished.
That last is why I think the admin only section is required, so that there is a clear collective responsibility for the conclusion of a case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we should be very leery of (in this particular enforcement) going to a "first on the scene" system of enforcement. We have a system that works, sort of. ++Lar: t/c 13:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is apparent that you are all misunderstanding what I'm saying. You can certainly reach a consensus amongst yourselves about what sanction is necessary. You are directed not to have a discussion amongst yourselves about the facts of the case. "I think he should be blocked for five months." "No, three months." "Four months?" "Done!" is fine. "Hipocrite is a hothead." "Could you show some diffs showing he's a hothead?" "Here are some diffs." "Thanks!" is not admin-only discussion, and should be conducted where other people can interject without feeling the need to ""comment in admins section so admins see before closing". Hipocrite (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"You are directed" ?? Er, ok... But no. I think it's likely we'll keep on with what seems to work well. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"works well"? Can you please let me know what kind of evaluation criteria you use or what you are having? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Experiential rather than specific criteria. And I refer to the discussion itself rather than the entire enforcement regime. However you may be right, I note that many folk seem to still be up to the same mischief they were before this all started. A nice orderly discussion doesn't quite make up for that, does it? Perhaps we should try it your way. As always I will defer to the consensus (in this case, of the uninvolved admins, which I note does not by any stretch of the imagination include you) should it change. ++Lar: t/c 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Experimental rather than specific criteria"? Sorry, that does not make sense to me. Do you mean "I did an experiment and the result felt good"? And, as before,ceterum censeo you are not uninvolved. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Experiential not experiemental. So, no that's not what I meant at all. Regarding your postscript, as before, I am uninvolved, you are not. Regardless of how many times you repeat yourself. You have no standing to comment further, as far as I am concerned. ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It may more be the case of "What shall we do about Hipocrites hot-headed comments here?" "Nothing, he was just being a little passionate." "I say ban him forever and blank his Userpage!" "Um, why not just ask him to put his comments in more dispassionate terms?" "Okay, that seems reasonable.", "No! Ban him, blank his userpage, and go through all his contributions and see if we should revert the lot!!!" "Er, not this time, Less, I think an admonishment will be the right response..." - sometimes there is debate between sysops whether a case has been made, and then whether there is a need to sanction as regards the circumstances. I do agree with a developing view that we should try and move to a quicker consensus, and less musing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree fully with Lar's comment regarding the "first on the scene" approach. I have never undertaken my work at AE in such a way, although I realise that in doing so I am at odds with some of my colleagues. As with most Wikipedia decisions, an element of consensus-building ought to be present in AE discussions (if not because that's the "Wiki Way™" then certainly as a sanity check). Ultimately one sysop will have to proceed to action the complaint one way or another, but setting some time aside for reasoned discussion is in all cases beneficial.

  With respect to Hypocrite's point that we should not debate the facts of the complaint, I agree. Where the facts are ambiguous or misunderstood, requesting clarification must be an option. So long as that can happen, I don't much care who supplies (to answer your hypothetical) the diffs illustrating that Hipocrite is a hothead. The danger of allowing involved parties to supply those diffs in the section reserved for "uninvolved users" is that they may dilute the usefulness of the discussion there (as those with a vested interest are inclined to do). But should that happen, a sysop can always simply move their comments back up to the statement reserved for the parties' statements. Dictating precisely where everybody may comment, with no latitude afforded either way, strikes me as instruction creep. I always did prefer open, fluid discussions, and Hipocrite is right to criticise anything that appears to be a movement away from that.

  In reply to LHvU: I'm a muser by nature, so I'm less inclined than most to action a complex thread immediately without at least some detailed examination and in most cases some time for comment by uninvolved users. But unnecessary delay is a bad thing, so you might be right. Again, I hesitate at subscribing to set philosophies here: there is so much scope for variety in an AE thread. AGK 18:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Involved/uninvolved

There have been disputes about the "uninvolved" admin "Result" section on the Requests for enforcement page. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Stephan_Schulz.E2.80.8E_.26_Lar. It appears the definition of uninvolved given on the probation page:

• For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute).

is at variance with definitions used by various admins on this page. Uninvolved is clearly defined on the probation page. If users here disagree with that definition - then seek consensus to change it. Meanwhile, it is the "definition" of uninvolved for this page. Vsmith (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Therefore I am uninvolved in the dispute regarding WMC as I have never edited Fred Singer (article or talkpage). I am no more involved than Lar regarding the current RfC. I disagree that an admin should never have edited a climate change article to be uninvolved. This is an extreme view that is designed by a few people here and its primary purpose appears to be to keep certain admins away. Although it is enforced by Lar (moving my comments for example) it is not supported by any wikipedia policy. Polargeo (talk) 08:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

However, I accept Lar's move of my comments appears to have consensus amougst other admins here. Nobody has really criticised him. Therefore I respect the verdict. Polargeo (talk) 08:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So then, you are involved, and I am not, by consensus? Would it be time to fold up the RfC as a bad job? To go along with what ArbCom members have said several times now? Or no? ++Lar: t/c 15:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I said there was a "consensus amoungst the admins here" (mostly I interpret this by their silence on the matter) not to disagree with your move of my comments. I see no point in fighting this here as you appear to be gaining an upper hand in CC enforcement through shear persistence rather than from reasonable arguments. For this very reason I think there is now even more need to keep the RfC open for the full duration. Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Errm, isn't it obvious that there is a massive problem with not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions? It means that someone who makes edits directly in support of mine is not "involved"; only someone editing against me is "involved" with me. That seems to me to be wrong. However, in the past Lar has leant very heavily on the letter of the defn of involved rather than the spirit. Use of this defn (which appears to be the operative one) means that Lar's move of Stephan's comment [5] was an error: I am not invovled in a current, direct, personal conflict with Stephan William M. Connolley (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Erm, I'll go with what ArbCom members have opined several times already, when asked... Stephan Schulz is involved in this topic area and all enforcement actions. Generally. Across the board. I'm not. Generally. Across the board. Unless you can bait me into losing my temper enough times, I guess. Keep trying. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should seek to change the definition of "involved/uninvolved" quoted above from this probation. I and others should be open to discussion about such a re-definition or a clarification of "uninvolved" for this probation. And further stop applying a different "definition" while that definition remains as stated and in effect. Vsmith (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Policy is what we do, and the writing catches up as it can. If most everyone with standing seems to agree on a definition in practice, that's good enough. You can change the writing though, if you like. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this won't do, because you have in the past relied so very heavily on the letter of your version. Unless you're arguing that since you've got away with it so long, we're now obliged t change the policy to fit whatever you do? William M. Connolley (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a correct assessment on your part. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) That seems a rather absurd statement - especially as some "in good standing" obviously don't agree and are basing their comments and actions on what is written as policy. Or are you implying that no one who disagrees with you can be "in good standing"? We change policy by consensus and discussion - not by individual whim. So where is this consensus discussion regarding the definition concerned? Or is the definition as written back in January in error and no one "in good standing" pays it any attention? Vsmith (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I said with standing, in other words, the uninvolved admins have been deciding who's uninvolved. Which decisions ArbCom members among others have been endorsing. ++Lar: t/c 18:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, sorry 'bout the "standing" confusion. I guess only those with this magical "standing" bit are allowed to make up policy on the wing and those who aren't "standing" must go by what is written as policy. And nice that I "can change the writing though, if you like." Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The cited definition makes sense in the context of individual admins taking action on their own, which in my understanding is generally what these sanctions empower. It just doesn't make sense on this board. If Stephan wanted to unilaterally block WMC, I think the point is that he could do so as long as he wasn't in conflict with WMC. The problem is that on this board where admins are trying to get consensus, it's obviously disruptive if an admin who is involved in the general sense jumps in the way. So perhaps that should be clarified, but maybe it's also common sense that discussion set aside for uninvolved admins should use the standard definition of involvement, and not the one for applying sanctions, since otherwise this board couldn't be used. Mackan79 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That leads to a rather hilarious conundrum - Stephan blocks WMC as uninvolved, but Stephan cannot announce that block on "this board" because he is involved per a different "definition". This highlights the need for a consistent definition. Vsmith (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably true that the specific definition where Stephan could block WMC doesn't make much sense in light of this board. I think he could still announce it here, though the awkward point would be whether he could defend it in the uninvolved section (or then change his mind?). But I'd say it's hardly more sensible to have an admin here promoting his personal position in a dispute, claiming to be "uninvolved," criticizing opponents in the same dispute who then can't respond, or saying that the person reverting with him really deserves the benefit of the doubt. Admins aren't supposed to user their status under that conflict of interests; I think one has to presume the probation simply didn't consider how it would play out on this board. Mackan79 (talk) 06:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation?

I draw your attention to this edit Sanctions, especially bans or blocks, should not be based on edits made before the beginning of this probation [6] by Cenarium. This seems to me to be a good principle. Discuss William M. Connolley (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

What is past is prologue. Searching for patterns and behavioral styles can go back further, yes, but the sanctions should be based on actions after the start of the probation. Why do you ask? Do you think there's been marked improvement in your behavior since the start of the probation? ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Current actions are different from past enforcement history, the former is material to bring cause, the latter is referable. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Per my 'If we block for historical bad edits, where is the incentive for an editor to contribute in a policy compliant way now?' rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Numerous diffs brought up during the FS case were from before the probation William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To evidence an allegation of continuing issues - which in part is why I feel your withdrawal from the article is appropriate - with the same subject. You get sanctioned, or not, for returning in an alleged non appropriate manner to an area where you have previously been seen as having issues, not for those historic issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. TW certainly disagrees; his close is based on pre-probation diffs. Much of the discussion around this RFE was based on pre-probation diffs William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

An analogy; person X is believed to have vandalised Z car previously, and there are some disputed eyewitness accounts of same. The case does not proceed because of lack of reliable evidence. Should person X then be found to have subsequently to have caused some minor damage to Z car, the excuse of "I only kicked the tyres a little" does not suffice for a penalty not be applied. The apparent subsequent behaviour indicates that there may have been substance to the earlier issues, and that that problem still exists. It is, however, wrong to penalise person X for the broken headlight that happened previously. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) WMC, there were three groups of edits which concerned me: (1) the Martian edits from 2008, (2) the critical material sourced to RealClimate (2009), and (3) the addition of a link to a personal website which contained personal information on Singer (2009). As you say, these were all from before the probation, but it was never clear to me whether you considered them to be inappropriate (then or now). And if you don't consider them inappropriate, my concern is that you might do it again. So in the spirit of moving forward, perhaps you can acknowledge that you recognize the problem with those edits, and commit to avoiding such edits in the future. And in that case I will have no objection to you further editing Singer or any BLP. ATren (talk) 22:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

This really seems the crux. We want better editing going forward. The edits in the past are deficient. Regardless of whether the more recent edits are or not. The questions are to WMC: Do you agree with the generally accepted view that the edits are deficient? Do you think your editing in this area will no longer be deficient in the way those were? Do you understand and accept that others have concerns, and accept the validity of them? That's the heart of the matter, not sparring and faffing about. ++Lar: t/c 22:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that #2 isn't (RC is an RS on non-BLP material, and the material was non-BLP) and #3 wasn't discovered until very recently despite that a multitude of editors of opposing viewpoints have seen it. #1 is very much debatable - its a context issue - there is no doubt that Singer at the time expressed that Mars might be artificial, and there is also no doubt that the article at no point in its history has stated that "Singer believes in martians" (no matter how formulated). #1 is not a BLP issue - but may be a due weight one. You will have to explain how they are deficient in specifics here. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we please discuss of WMC or any editor, edits, etc on the RFE page itself, to avoid splitting discussions and because it's where it should be discussed. With respect to this procedural point, I think it's a direct corollary of the probation terms (2nd point) "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to these provisions;...", it follows under basic due process that edits made before the beginning of the probation can't be hold against a user as basis for a sanction since the warning could not have been given before those edits. See also non-retroactivity. Cenarium (talk) 00:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have WMC answer the questions asked. Here or on the main page, as he finds convenient. I am less happy to have KDP running interference. To be clear, I'm not saying WMC is sanctionable for edits made before the probation started. I merely want to know if he understands that many folk find his edits of Singer (in general) deficient, and if he agrees, and if he thinks he is doing better now, or about the same, or worse, or what. KDP's smokescreens notwithstanding, that's the crux. ++Lar: t/c 00:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: I'm rather unamused by the assumptions of bad faith expressed both here, on Lar's talkpage and on the main page. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have WMC answer the questions asked - I think it is regrettable that Lar, and ATren, are seeking repeatedly to derail this discussion. The question here is, "do edits before the probation count", not "are there any edits before the probation you'd like explained". If yuo'd like the second question answered, start you own section William M. Connolley (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

An entire section is not necessary, it's been asked of you in the "Request for revert of The Wordsmith's close of case "William M. Connolley" section on the project page. You can answer there. Until you do answer, completely and without evasion or prevarication, I oppose revision of the sanction in question. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd say yes, edits before the probation period count, but not so much that they count all on their own. By that I mean the probation didn't give any editor who had a persistent problem a clean slate. If an editor makes a mistake, ok, correct the editor. But if it is the tenth time and it just so happens that the other nine times were before probation started, then that would be evidence of a pattern, rather than a one-off mistake, and those two different motivations should be treated differently.

So as supporting evidence to show a repeated pattern I think old edits/blocks/warnings/whatevers can be useful, but only to support a current complaint, and only to show an ongoing problem of the kind the current complaint is about. I would take the wording of the probation to mean that no action should be taken solely on anything done before probation was enacted, but I don't think it helps to ignore evidence of a repeated problem, if one exists. Weakopedia (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Applied to the current situation: None of the edits after the probation started are remotely sanctionable, or even remarkable. They are sign of normal editing. WMC actually offered discussion on the talk page. There is no reason for a sanction. I have trouble even understanding why SV made the request, unless we have a failure of WP:AGF. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

That view is not universally held. ++Lar: t/c 13:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming to reply to me, which parts? None of the edits after the probation started are remotely sanctionable(1), or even remarkable(2). They are sign of normal editing(3). WMC actually offered discussion on the talk page(4). There is no reason for a sanction(5). I have trouble(6) even understanding why SV made the request(7), unless we have a failure of WP:AGF(8). List all that apply. Feel free to expand in case I forgot something. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Lar, NuclearWarfare, The Wordsmith, Polargeo

(Moved from the requests page to this talk page. NW (Talk) 18:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC) )

The admin section of the templated sanctions request is not for threaded discussion. While I'm content to allow Lar to stagnate the above request with his reversion, in the future if any of you disregard the purpose of the admin section and engage in threaded discussion amongst yourselves, I will seek to have the lot of you prevented from using your tools in this area - admins do not have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Eh? The way we've gotten to results in the past is by discussion, amongst the uninvolved admins, of what a good approach would be. Your moving the threads was unwarranted, which is why I reverted it. I suggest we take this to the talk page and hash it out further. Feel free to move this entire section there. ++Lar: t/c 14:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The uninvolved admins should feel free to discuss with the plebians. This will resolve the problem of you lot deciding which of you lot is involved vs. uninvolved. It will also resolve the problem of you lot thinking you have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The current section intro indeed says "Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above". On basic Wikipedia principles (adminship is no big deal), Hipocrite's action is actually well founded. Of course, for "getting results" it may be inconvenient to actually interact with more editors. Ceterum censeo, Lar has not been involved in any discussion among uninvolved admin during this probation, although he probably has been involved in a discussion with uninvolved admins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no magic discussion powers. I would sooner chew my own foot off than comment on sanctions. However, I just cannot stand by and watch biased admins wade in to level the playing field in their own image. Polargeo (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please respect WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The RfC you opened on this topic has so far not favored your interpretation of Lar's behavior. It would probably help if you stopped plastering this page with slanderlibel. It doesn't come across well, contrary to your best intentions.--Heyitspeter (talk) 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyperbole (e.g., "slander") isn't helpful either. and besides, it would be libel because it's in a fixed medium instead of spoken. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Slander'Libel' is not hyperbole. Sorry, I occasionally confuse project pages with talkpages. --Heyitspeter (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Stephan and Hipocrite, that section says it is not for discussion. Admins should be reacting to consensus, not establishing it amongst themselves. Weakopedia (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The admin only section should not even exist. Nor should CC sanctions. Polargeo (talk) 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit iffy with this, as I have seen both methods used at WP:AE. On the one hand, Hipocrite is indeed correct that administrators should not have any "magic discussion powers" on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the reason that probation and discretionary sanction boards were implemented in the first place was to allow for arbitration in areas where it is not possible to establish an agreement between all parties. I shall think on this further, and refrain from commenting in the admin-only section in the meantime. NW (Talk) 18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

How are the admins supposed to reach a group decision if they don't discuss it amongst themselves? Would you rather they did it by email? If we want to comment on something they say in the admin-only area, we can leave a comment on each admin's respective user talk page. This is the format that we have chosen and if we respect the rules (yes Polargeo and Stephan Schulz, I'm talking to you) things should continue to operate effectively with this enforcement board. Cla68 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Since "the rules" explicitly state that the admin response section is not to be used to conduct discusson or debate it's not altogether cleaer what point you are making. The wording of the no-discussion-and-debate proviso is meant to apply to admins because the next section says Comments by non-admins, and any discussion or debate will be moved to the section above, i.e., it calls out "discussion and debate" separately from "comments by non-admins" (emphasis added for clarity). You can argue that the rules should be changed, and I can see some merit in doing that. But to chide other editors about "respecting rules" when you appear to misunderstand those rules yourself is inappropriate. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The rules I'm referring to relate to involved/uninvolved admins participating in the admin-only area. I think we're interpreting the rules differently. I interpret those rules to mean that the area is not for discussion or debate among non-admins or involved admins like Stephan or Polargeo. Again, the system that has evolved seems to be working fine so far. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the key sentence (from Weakopedia) is Admins should be reacting to consensus, not establishing it amongst themselves. Your interpretation, to put it bluntly, is not compatible with the text. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys are rules lawyering. Policy is what we do (at a page), not what it says. What we do is we have a section where uninvolved admins discuss amongst themselves. They are influenced by the discussion in other sections, or should be. If the writing of how things are done here doesn't quite match what we do, we fix it. That's how things work here. Stop rules lawyering, it's not helpful. ++Lar: t/c 13:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Given your insistence on a narrow, technical definition of "uninvolved" I see more than a little irony in your objecting to rules lawyering. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My insistence is merely to go with what the other uninvolved admins have said, that I'm not involved. Regardless of how much you spin it, you can't avoid that. You're involved. I'm not. Deal. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I take that that you sanction my posting in the admin section now, since that's "how we do things"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Your attempts to post in various uninvolved admin sections have been reverted, multiple times, and no uninvolved admin has undone that reversion. So it's not "how we do things". How we do things is to remove your postings there. Because you are not uninvolved. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It seems that everyone is very focused on the wording of the intro sentence. In order to avoid "wining" this debate unfairly, it should be noted that I changed that wording without objection on May 6 perWikipedia_talk:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation#Note_re_template. Individuals whose arguments are based only on the revised wording in the template should strongly consider if they support the revised wording - I based my revision on the fact that admins lack magic discussing powers, and that the constant back-and-forth in the admin section has hobbled this page (in the case directly above that has led to my ire, if not for grandstanding about who could type what where, a sanction against WMC would have already have been passed by almost unanamous consent - consent which I would have joined, even if the twin evils of Polargeo and Steven were permitted to write in the admins only section) Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just changed the wording, again, to clarify how things are actually done, which should sort this. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Intresting. Do you think that editing a template that stood for almost 14 days after an edit and a talk page announcement about that to win a debate here is really a deal-ender? I would argue it's not. See, unlike my edit, which was well publicized and apparently non-controvercial, your edit was done by what one might term an "involved" party - in that it's your name up at the top of this section, but, hey, I'm just a plebian - perhaps you should full-protect the template in the version you think is right, just to shove it in our plebian faces. Hipocrite (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your rhetoric is noted. However, as I said, we change policy writings to match what we actually do. Do you dispute that in the many enforcement requests to date there has been considerable back and forth discussion between uninvolved admins in the uninvolved admin section on the way to arriving at consensus? If you don't dispute it, it was a good edit. If you do, then please provide some proof. Because you're ruleslawyering and that's not helpful. I am at a loss as to why you do this. ++Lar: t/c 14:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

And I'm telling you that local "consensus" (which obviously dosen't exist, given the above) that admins have magic discussion powers does not override policy that admins don't have magic discussion powers. Hipocrite (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How do you figure? The uninvolved admins have been doing things this way for some time. If you want to change it, this isn't the way. Convince the rest of us. You're not an uninvolved admin, and no one else commenting here, save NW and myself, are either. ++Lar: t/c 14:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

As the subjects of the requests, niether you nor NW are uninvolved. Further, admins do not have magic powers of discussion, and I alledge other than the frequent violators, I have convinced everyone else. Find me someone who thinks the admin-only back-and-forth is valuable, as opposed to convincing some of you to grow a pair and start actually closing things. Go on, I'll wait. Hipocrite (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"As the subjects of the requests, niether you nor NW are uninvolved" ... oh that makes my head spin, it's so sophistic. Yes, technically, since we are discussing uninvolved admins, no uninvolved admin is uninvolved when the topic is uninvolved admins. ++Lar: t/c 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved admins are those who do not engage in admin-only segregated discussion. Off the top of my head, I can think of 1,700 of them. Hipocrite (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

A novel definition, but an incorrect one. ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How so, exactly? The question on the table is "enagaging in admin-only segregated discussion - unwiki?" You're asking that the question be decided only by people engaging in admin-only segregated discussion, as opposed to everyone? Why do you think admins have special powers to decide that they can engage in admin-only segregated discussion? When the probation was created by community (not admin-only) consensus, was there a discussion about having admin-only segregated discussion that I missed? Perhaps you could point it out to me. Hipocrite (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense. How do you expect us to decide on a sanction (or lack thereof) if we can't discuss it without the conversation being polluted by mountains of crap? It has been this way for a long time, which makes it a de facto consensus (see WP:SILENCE). The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You can discuss anything you want to, including the proposed sanctions, up in the plebian sections. You can write your proposed sanctions in the admin only section. Another thing that was this way for a long time which makes it a de facto consensus is that admins do not have any special abilities other than buttons - that broader consensus overrides the local false "consensus," that obviously dosen't exist here - from the essay you just linked it seems pretty obvious to me that there is not even a majority of users who support admin-only discussion sections. Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems entirely appropriate - discussion in the discussion section, only proposed sanctions or results in the admin section. If the probation can't get everyone talking and making consensus decisions then they were ill founded. Admins should be participating in that, not trying to limit it or holding themselves aloof from it. Weakopedia (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to distract from this section, but I am unsure why I am named in this section. I do not appear to have engaged in threaded discussion in the above complaint. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you concurred with another uninvolved admin (which is a response, apparently) and then had the audacity to actually respond to a request by yet another uninvolved admin... what's more, you responded by elaborating the reasons for why you concurred!!! CLEARLY that was way out of line. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You engaged in threaded discussion above - "I was asked to expand upon my viewpoint by NuclearWarfare above, so I will do so here..." You could have expanded in your initial comment (acceptable), or in the plebian section (preferred). Hipocrite (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated use of hyperbole is noted. Barring a serious time travel accident, I doubt there are many Roman citizens editing Wikipedia, and certainly not enough that we need an entire section for them. Therefore, we should eliminate the "Plebian" section entirely. In addition, your assertion that we believe that we have "magic discussion powers" is faulty. The ability with which we have our conversation is well-grounded in science, particularly the fields of computer mechanics and software programming. I request that you cease using these inaccurate phrases. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith here, but you should be aware that I have a substantial case of dyslexia that makes it very difficult for me to imagine that plebeian and plebian are different, let alone write one when I want to write the other, or vice-versa. I try to remember to put substantial effort into my main page postings to make sure that the spelling is correct - I will not do so on talk pages. Sorry that my poor spelling distracted you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that they are actually alternate spellings of the same thing, that the both refer to the Roman citizens whom were not of the nobility (both redirect to the same article on WP). It wasn't meant to be a jab at your spelling. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:25, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

[7] - "Of or pertaining to the common people; vulgar; common; as plebeian sports." Hipocrite (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I was unaware that it was in current usage. I know it comes from the Roman citizenry, of whom many could actually become prestigious. I guess I learn something new every day. The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

See Plebs#Modern_usage. MastCell ^Talk 18:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• What a lot of silly nonsense. As I was asked to comment, my opinion is this: the section should be for discussion between uninvolved editors. Non-administrators permitted; threaded discussion and direct replies permitted; those with a vested interest or a prior involvement prohibited; and bickering or pointless comments prohibited. In my experience that is how things are done, and the template should of course reflect the status quo. AGK 02:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

No, silly nonsense is incorrect. There is already a section for discussion between uninvolved editors. This is about the section that is being used for discussion between administrators. Changing that section to allow discussion between editors would mean having two identical sections, repetitive and not needed. Silly nonsense, to coin a phrase. Weakopedia (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What I find silly nonsense is the ferocity with which debate on this topic is being pursued. Some perspective and cooling down is needed. AGK 11:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"the section that is being used for discussion between administrators" – Do you mean the 'result concerning [subject]' section? Oh, well that really shouldn't be used for discussion unless it is a formal proposal by one administrator of one course of action or another. For instance, I usually give my preliminary thoughts in the main discussion section (for uninvolved editors), and solicit the input of other uninvolved people. When the parties' statements are all in, I'll propose, for example, "Topic ban X for 3 months; topic ban Y for 1 month; and place Z on final warning" in the 'results' section. If there are no objections from the other uninvolved parties, I'll action the request in that way.

I don't think there is a need for much rigidity with respect to which sections uninvolved editors and administrators can comment in. I think excluding involved people from the "results" and "uninvolved editor discussion" sections is wise to simply avoid too much heat and noise; if they have a comment to make, they can do so in the section devoted to their statement. But otherwise I don't care much either way. Ultimately we should manipulate the layout of the discussion in whatever way produces the best results. AGK 11:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely on how that section should be used, thanks for the clarification. Weakopedia (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment on this entry, but I have no opinions hereon. Stifle (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• I too have been asked to comment, and like AGK find this debate silly. Please keep in mind that the purpose of this board (like AE) is to request action from uninvolved administrators. That action is discretionary, and therefore requires no consensus. The purpose of this board, then, is not to generate community consensus, but only to convince one single person that they should act. Consequently, there is no need to provide for a framework for threaded discussion at all. Everybody who thinks they have something useful to say should make a single statement and then shut the hell up. Uninvolved admins will read all statements, and will then decide whether to act on the request or not. Moreover, uninvolved admins, as the people at who these requests are directed, should take all steps necessary to keep the request manageable for themselves, e.g. by removing unhelpful comments or, if need be, unhelpful editors, from the page. If there is any disagreement about the uninvolved status of an admin so acting, that should be made the subject of an appeal to WP:ANI, as I believe is provided for in the community sanction.  Sandstein  21:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It evolved, necessarily. Since this is off topic, I shall take it to talk. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, the terms of the probation say that "Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so.".

It is not just about convincing one uninvolved administrator to act on their own, it is about trying to establish a community consensus that one uninvolved administrator can act upon.

Your system would mean a bunch of editors adding a comment and moving on, the administrator evaluating all of that and then deciding on which sanction to impose. However if the administrator acted against consensus, then community consensus is all that is needed to reverse their decision. Therefore it is important that the uninvolved administrators are sure there is consensus to begin with, and that is not decided by one uninvolved admin reading a bunch of one-off comments, it is done by interaction and conversation amongst the community.

And what would be the point of your system? Your system doesn't help foster discussion amongst the various parties, it just imposes sanctions. A year from now there will be a list of sanctioned editors, and there will be no more discussion than there was before the sanctions started. But the sanctions aren't intended to be a permanent regulatory framework, they are meant to last only as long as they are needed, and for that you need goals.

The idea should be that discussion on the probation page shows consensus for an uninvolved admin to act, or that the admin can evaluate the whole scenario in such a way as to reasonably infer that their actions would meet a broader community consensus, even if there is no consensus formed on the probation page. But the mechanism of at least trying to establish consensus first isn't voided by the wording of the sanction.

By engaging the participants in discussion you have a chance of establishing civil communication between editors, which is what we need to allow contribution to CC articles. That also means that uninvolved admins need to address the community directly - by engaging in threaded discussion in the admin only section it limits the ability of the community to respond directly to their points.

The probation isn't punitive, it is meant to improve CC articles. Your method means simply sanctioning people til the only ones left are those who will edit entirely within the rules. The other method (and I would say the one the we have been using) is to foster discussion between the various parties, even if that is sometimes futile, in order that some day we can have the discussion part without needing the framework of probation to impose it, and all editors can learn to abide by the rules we have. Weakopedia (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Two other important points - the first is that not everyone who comments on the probation page is an involved editor - disallowing discussion disables concerned and uninvolved editors from contributing to the consensus building process and effectively shuts out the entire community save for the lone uninvolved admin. Which is point two, that until a wider interest is shown amongst administrators towards this probation it would be wrong to put the entire responsibility for establishing community consensus on the small group af administrators who do participate - especially when that group have at times, including in some very recent requests, had rather vocal opinions about each others status as involved or uninvolved. Weakopedia (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weakopedia's analysis of why Sandstein's view would result in an unworkable system. What we have now at least sort of works. It may be (to paraphrase WC) the worst possible system, except for all the rest, but it does at least sort of work, and most of the enforcements get closed (and stay that way at least in part because consensus was arrived at first). If the narrative at the top is wrong, it should be changed to reflect how things are done. (and changed again if how things are done changes) ++Lar: t/c 14:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)