| Revision as of 13:03, 16 July 2009 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,015 edits →Discussion of admins editing protected pages: reply to T← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:48, 16 September 2009 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,550 edits make page history, pre-blanked page, and other case pages, more accessible | ||
| (211 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NOINDEX}} | |||
| == Discussion on topic bans == | |||
| Admins ''can'' topic-ban individual editors without prior arbitration guidance, because I've done it. The most recent case is ], with the notification to the editor ]. 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 ], the ban was placed ''first'', and then posted for discussion to the Admin noticeboard ], 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. | |||
| {| id="mp-topbanner" style="width:100%; -moz-border-radius: 1em; background:#fcfcfc; border:1px solid #ccc; margin-bottom: 7px;" | |||
| 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. ] 11:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | style="font-size:95%; text-align: center;" | | |||
| :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. ] (]) 11:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This page has been ].<p> The version of this page before blanking is still available in the , and can be seen .<p> For the other pages in this case, including the ], please see:<p> ] <small>(])</small> — ] <small>(])</small> — ] <small>(])</small> — ] <small>(])</small> | |||
| ::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. - ] (]) 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! ] (]) 11:38, 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 <nowiki>{{edit protected}}</nowiki> template on the talk page. This places the page in ] 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 <nowiki>{{edit protected}}</nowiki> 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 <nowiki>{{edit protected}}</nowiki> 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: | |||
| # Was WMC involved in a content dispute at ], 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?) | |||
| # Did the edit WMC made reflect consensus among the disputing parties, or did it reflect his personal opinion on the subject. | |||
| -- ] 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 ] (]) 13:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:48, 16 September 2009
|
This page has been blanked as a courtesy. The version of this page before blanking is still available in the page history, and can be seen here. For the other pages in this case, including the final decision, please see: Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) |