Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 16 July 2009

Discussion on topic bans

Admins can topic-ban individual editors without prior arbitration guidance, because I've done it. The most recent case is here, with the notification to the editor here. Like site bans, topic bans are enacted when one admin places the ban and no other admin is willing to lift or reverse the ban. I placed the ban after a long discussion on the Admin noticeboard in which a ban was proposed and endorsed by multiple uninvolved editors and admins. In the case of Abd, Hipocrite, and Cold Fusion, the ban was placed first, and then posted for discussion to the Admin noticeboard here, where it was broadly endorsed. It might have been better if WMC had himself posted the ban for review, but that does not invalidate the review itself.

If topic bans are not described in the current version of the banning policy, then that is a result of the fact that written policy often lags, rather than leads. New policies are sometimes developed by discussion first, then changing the written policy. But new policies are sometimes developed by editors and admins doing things that work, and that are broadly endorsed, and then eventually written into policy. It is telling that in neither the topic ban discussion for Grundle2600 referenced above, or for Abd and Hipocrite, did anyone (other than involved parties) argue that the ban was invalid because admins can't place such bans. Thatcher 11:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The letter of policy currently indicates that topic bans by administrators can only be made in conjunction with an associated arbcom remedy - there actually was one in this case at Fringe science (I think), but which required the admin to warn the users first - this was explicitly rejected by WMC. By-and-large, I'm with you on this one: the individually-placed topic ban was endorsed by the community, so this could be viewed as moot, since we aren't beholden to procedures. I suspect Abd's contention will be that the AN/I discussion didn't really endorse it because it was filled with involved editors, but that is a matter for him. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Given, of course, that it was filled with "involved" editors because Abd requested that it be closed early. I would expect that at least some editors would have commented in Abd's defense, had it been allowed to continue. I think, under the circumstances, that we'll have to regard the ban as confirmed by the community, or at least agreed to by Abd. - Bilby (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which makes me feel that this request is less about the ban itself, so much as the technical/propriety issues surrounding it. I suppose the question is whether WMC acted properly in his administration of the ban, and who is administering the length of it, what the length is, etc. I don't know the answers to any of this by the way! Fritzpoll (talk) 11:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

What Thatcher said. I may present evidence on this if it becomes the focus of substantial attention in this case. Like Thatcher (and, I suspect, most admins active in resolving disputes and handling problem editing), I have unilaterally enacted a number of page and/or topic bans, generally with the proviso that they can be appealed to WP:AN or other such venues. I've been doing it since at least 2007, and my sense is that they've generally worked out well.

In my view, a page/topic ban by an admin is actually a form of restraint rather than excessive authority. The alternative is a complete block from editing, which admins are of course permitted to employ. So if I say: "Rather than blocking you, just avoid these two pages and edit the other 2.5 million for the next few months"... that seems to me to be both a) more nuanced, b) more constructive, and c) less "authoritative" than blocking someone outright. MastCell  18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

From my personal perspective, the issue at play is whether someone can be community banned without the community (as opposed to only administrators) having been reasonably involved. An administrator can certainly declare someone banned, but does that make them actually banned? No one knows. Until the ban is actually (a) tested by the individual in question by making an edit AND (b) they are subsequently blocked citing that ban declaration AND (c) a community discussion on the matter is held to specifically decide I don't think you can consider the matter settled either way.

We all know that if community discussion clearly goes against the declaration of a ban that the ban will be lifted (or that it never existed in the first place). But what happens if the community discussion fails to demonstrate a clear consensus either way? Does the benefit of the doubt go to the banned editor (and the ban is thus null and void) or the declaring administrator (and the ban is thus upheld)? I would certainly hope that it would be the former. Misplaced Pages should be about being inclusive and so something like a declaration of a ban should not be made lightly. A reasonable level of deliberation on the matter should be required. And if the banning is being done in the name of the community, well it should be a requirement that the community have expressed its explicit opinion either way.

Unrelated to the specifics of this case but pertinent to this discussion is the case of Jed Rothwell (whom I am only using as an example for discussion purposes). Jed is purported to be a single purpose account, abrasive in his demeanor, and possibly with a COI on the topic he cares about. There are lots of involved users who have discussed banning him from time to time, never with a clear community consensus of uninvolved editors upholding the ban. JzG declared a page ban on him. Arbcom decided not to get involved. He is currently indef blocked by MastCell who has not declared any specific reasons for the block and has basically washed his hands of it by declaring that he would not object if any other administrator is willing to unblock. Jed has never appealed but there are those who have argued in his favor from time to time as being a valuable voice to keep around. Jed's detractors claim he is banned. There are those who dispute this assertion. The whole mess just keeps going round and round. So how do we decide if Jed is actually banned, or not, so that the bickering and disruption can be put to rest once and for all?

At the heart of Rothwell's case is the same issue as we have for Abd, can administrators (WMC in the case of Abd, and JzG in the case of Rothwell) unilaterally declare a ban on someone without having an explicit community consensus to do so? Are such bans legitimate bans with all the restrictions set forth for such bans? (I am excluding, of course, administrative actions legitimately taken based on direct authorizations from Arbcom such as those enumerated in the current banning policy - which don't seem to apply in either Abd or Rothwell's cases.) I clearly prefer and argue that administrators do NOT have the power to unilaterally declare such bans. If a community discussion on JzG's declaration of a ban on Rothwell were held and it (hypothetically) showed a clear consensus against that ban then moving forward obviously Rothwell would not be banned. The question that remains is, was he ever actually banned, or not? Arguing yes says, in effect, that administrators DO have the authority to issue bans and that the community simply lifted the ban in this case. Arguing no says, in effect, that administrators DO NOT have the authority to issue bans and so Rothwell was never really banned at all. It's a thorny issue, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of admins editing protected pages

There is nothing wrong a priori with admins editing protected pages. Under the normal course of events, editors who want an edit made will put the {{edit protected}} template on the talk page. This places the page in Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests and any admin can review and make the edit. Some requests will be non-controversial, like fixing broken references or spelling errors. For controversial requests, the admin should look to the article talk page for a discussion and consensus on the edit. Maybe this approach is not used as much as it should be, it was more frequently used several years ago and I participated in several disputes that were resolved by protecting the page, discussing disputed content one piece at a time, negotiating language, and then making an {{edit protected}} request. The key things in this process are that the admin who makes the edit must not be involved in the dispute, or in other disputes with the same editors on other articles, and that disputed edits should not be made without consensus on the talk page from all sides of the dispute.

It doesn't really matter whether or not the {{edit protected}} template was used, as that is only a way to attract admin attention. And it is silly to argue that the admin who recognized the dispute and protected the article can not also enact edit requests; that admin probably watching the article anyway, and the assumption is that any admin who protects an article in a dispute will have been uninvolved in the dispute itself. However, it is important that any disputed edits enacted during protection reflect agreement of the parties involved in the dispute, and not the personal views of the admin making the edits.

The key questions, on which evidence has not yet been presented, are:

1. Was WMC involved in a content dispute at Cold Fusion, or was he involved in dispute(s) with the parties at other article(s) (the parties seem to be Abd, Hipocrite, Coppertwig and GetLinkPrimitiveParams, are there others?)
2. Did the edit WMC made reflect consensus among the disputing parties, or did it reflect his personal opinion on the subject.

-- Thatcher 11:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

1. No. 2. Neither (or at least, not that I checked). I was aware that the protected version was likely not good, though I hadn't checked. GoRight had suggested a different version. GR and I have for a long time been on different sides of the global warming wars, in which I've found that while he is usually wrong on the science and its interpretation, his arguments are often good. I decided I'd trust his judgement. So it amused me to change to his proposed version William M. Connolley (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WMC altered the page to the revision suggested by GoRight. Since WMC and GoRight are generally at opposite ends of the spectrum on content issues, this strongly suggests that WMC was not motivated by a desire to enshrine his personal opinion on a protected page. Whether "amusement" is a suitable rationale is arguable, but seems less than criminal. MastCell  18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)