| Revision as of 04:07, 18 July 2009 editEnric Naval (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,509 edits →Discussion of admins editing protected pages: looks like a good faith reversal, and reverted also other edits that were in the middle← 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 | ||
| (191 intermediate revisions by 34 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) | |||
| |} | |||
| ::::Exactly. Also, I wanted to hear more opinions from uninvolved editors to make sure that uninvolved people agreed, and because I was interested on their outside assessments, and the early close prevented that. --] (]) 03:48, 18 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) | |||
| ::::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 ] or other such venues. I've been doing it since at least 2007, and my sense is that they've generally worked out well.<p>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. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::What Tatcher and MastCell say. IMHO, the banning policy page should be updated to fit reality. --] (]) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <s>Refactoring. For the long winded version see . | |||
| : The issue at hand is whether administrators have the authority to ''unilaterally'' issue topic bans sans substantive discussion within appropriate venues and having duly arrived at a clear consensus. I argue that they do NOT have such powers. If administrator A declares a topic ban on editor B can we definitively say that editor B is now banned? Of course not. If a community discussion subsequently ensues that clearly shows community consensus ''against'' the ban, well then there is NO ban and we all know it. If on the other hand the consensus is clearly in favor of the ban, well then there IS a ban and we all know it. In both cases the existence of the ban was not established until AFTER the community discussion confirmed it one way or the other. | |||
| : The question in the case of Abd (and Jed Rothwell for those following along) is what was the true status of the purported ban between the time that administrator A declared it and when the community either confirmed or denied it's existence? Was editor B banned during that time or not? If you argue YES, then in effect you are claiming that administrators DO have the power to issue bans. If you argue NO, then in effect you are claiming that administrators DO NOT have the power to issue bans. | |||
| : An interesting case arises if the resulting community discussion show no consensus either way. In that case is editor B banned, or not? I should hope that the benefit of the doubt would go to the editor in this case simply because a clear consensus for a ban by the community failed to appear. --] (]) 22:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </s> | |||
| Note that ] is in the middle of an edit war right now , so don't trust any particular version of it to be sane ] (]) 22:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Edit war seems a bit strong in this case, there was a small consensus on the talk page for the edits made, but please anyone who is interested is welcome to . --] (]) 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::GoRight, if the important issue of this case is "''what was the true status of the purported ban between the time that administrator A declared it and when the community either confirmed or denied it's existence?''", then there is no case at all. The ban was imposed on June 6 and confirmed on June 12; between those dates Abd did not edit the article, edited the talk page only briefly and then stopped, and was not issued any blocks. Arbcom does not normally hear theoretical cases, and Arbcom does not make policy. Arbcom certainly will not issue a blanket policy over what to do in the future when admin A topic-bans editor B from article C. The correct course of action is to bring the ban up for discussion at the admins' noticeboard, and there is no need to edit to edit the article--no need not to respect the ban--during the discussion. If there is consensus for the ban, then so be it. If there is no consensus, then editor B can edit the article sure in the knowledge that another admin will unblock him if Admin A fails to respect the outcome of the discussion (and there will be no shortage of admins to contact based on that discussion, if there truly was no consensus to ban). Admin A's conduct could then come under scrutiny for acting without community consensus. But, Arbcom does not handle theoretical or hypothetical cases, Arbcom does not make the banning policy, and Arbcom decisions do not set precedent for future decisions. Finally, I submit as an axiom that any editor who can not stop editing an article for 48 hours while a ban is discussed deserves the ban. ] 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Understood. I am neither asking ArbCom to rule on hypothetical cases nor to write policy. Given the title of this section I had assumed that it was a general discussion on the issue of topic bans but in retrospect this appears not to be the case. As you can see the policy issue I am discussing above is being pursued on the policy page already. I shall simply strike my comment above as being not directly pertinent to this case and apologize for the confusion. --] (]) 02:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Since ] has brought up the topic of on-going work to improve ] and apparently wishes to during the course of this deliberation, let me simply make a few points in response: | |||
| ::::# I am not the only one that has . If making a single revert (my only edit to the page) to point ] to the discussion page where a small consensus had formed in favor of these changes and asking her to participate in that discussion rather than simply reverting the changes is a serious infraction, well then I guess I have to plead guilty as charged. | |||
| ::::# The evolution of the ] does not have to wait for the outcome of this deliberation in any way. Any changes made there are certainly not retroactive in their effect and so they cannot possibly affect the norms that were in effect at the time of WMC's actions. Ergo I do not believe that those discussions could even be pertinent here regardless of their content. | |||
| ::::# Finally and most importantly, the changes being discussed there are related to the distinction between indefinitely blocked users and community banned users. Since ] was neither indefinitely blocked nor community banned the changes in question have no material effect on this case. | |||
| :::: I submit that all of this should be perfectly obvious, which raises the question of ]'s motivation for even raising the issue here in the first place. I shall not render any opinions in that regard and shall trust impartial observers to come to their own conclusions. --] (]) 03:24, 18 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) | |||
| ::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. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've added evidence on 2. There was no consensus on versions at the time of WMC's revert, and, I would argue, no likelihood of getting any soon. - ] (]) 06:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Mastcell's comment seems a bit odd. WMC was either implementing consensus or else making the choice himself of how the article should be. He's clear that it was the latter. The fact that he doesn't seem to have had very good reasons (article currrent state probably poor but hadn't checked, GoRight in WMC's opinion has made good arguments in the past, WMC's amusement) doesn't change the fact that he was applying his own choice of how to shape the article by editing a protected page. That's an abuse of admin tools. As a one off it's not necessarily the end of the world but it would be reassuring if WMC were to indicate that in hidnsight he doesn't feel that his actions were appropriate and that he doesnt plan to act this way in future. ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 10:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ::::With the polls going nowhere, GoRight's suggestion was to revert to the last stable version that predated the edit war, as per ]. It was a good idea, especially as Abd had been quite vocal that it was the wrong version that had been protected, and Hipocrite was in support. Given that, I'd read WMC's move as an impartial and reasonable approach, especially given how page protection was lifted a few hours later. Characterising the move as "editing" doesn't seem quite right. - ] (]) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Whomever is commenting on the IP address, would you mind logging in or creating an account for the purposes of this case? Doing so will help everyone involved here know what sort of background you're coming from on this case and will allow you to participate more fully in the case itself. Thank you. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::WMC was not familiar with cold fusion and had no POV there, and he implemented in good faith what looked like a good proposal in the talk page by someone familiar with the dispute. Also, his edit reverted to a prior stable version before people started editing frequently, meaning that he also undid one of ''my'' edits which I had to redo and also a wording improvement made by other editors so it's not like he targetted editors of one side or other. --] (]) 04:07, 18 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) |