Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:35, 23 June 2005

Purpose

What, just "policies"? We don't have to specify which ones? Isn't that a little on the convenient side?

No wait. What I meant to say was: this page is redundant with Special:Log/Block and/or Special:Ipblocklist. Isn't it?

No wait with feeling. What is the purpose of this page, actually? It doesn't say. I suppose it's not to reinforce the clique of adminship by encouraging them to "me, too" the decisions made, and/or delineate the subcliques by encourage "me neither" responses? Because whatever it's supposed to do, I do believe that's what it's going to end up like, sure as WP:AN/I is doing it now. JRM · Talk 02:01, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and we should let Ed see whether it works. There are cases of serious policy violations where our hands are almost tied, and they shouldn't be. Noel, perhaps you could edit the page to tighten up that the specific policies have to be named. SlimVirgin 02:06, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm genuinely confused—what does it do? I don't object to some sort of trial at all—but what is being put on trial? I don't mind sounding obtuse if that's what's needed to get the explanation for idiots. :-) JRM · Talk 02:10, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

It's a place to list and discuss blocks that might normally be regarded as controversial. For example, if we block a user for disruption, which we're allowed to do, or borderline vandalism, which someone else might not regard as vandalism. Or block for an NPOV violation, which again is a subjective judgment. We can discuss those issues here with other admins, and may only proceed with the block if other admins agree. Then we can list the blocks here, and monitor how effective they are. SlimVirgin 02:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I misread this - I thought it would be a place to discuss potentially controvertial decisions before they were implemented. Am I mistaken? Regardless, transparency is good - better than discussing these things by email or irc. Guettarda 02:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we could use the talk page for that, which is why it also should be protected. SlimVirgin 02:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

What's the problem with using WP:AN/I for this, like admins already do? This seems like unnecessary duplication with the added disadvantage that the page is protected. JYolkowski // talk 02:19, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with having an open place where admins can discuss issues? At the moment, if we want to ask for admin advice on WP:AN/I about a disruptive user, the user we need advice about just continues the disruption on that page. The only current alternative is to contact other admins by e-mail, which makes it non-transparent. With Ed's proposal, we'd have a page to discuss difficult blocks with other admins, where other users could see what's being discussed but without being able to disrupt it. I think the talk page should be protected too until we see how it works. SlimVirgin 02:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's not "open" if non-admins can't edit the page. m:Protected pages considered harmful. If people are disrupting discussion, roll them back, don't create a protected page. JYolkowski // talk 02:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) Oh, and I also unprotected this page. JYolkowski // talk 02:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Function

This is where we record suspensions after making them.

There are three kinds of users who edit pages on this website:

• Those who come to make an accurate, useful and unbiased encyclopedia
• Those who are experimenting, playing around, etc.
• Those who are determined to thwart Misplaced Pages's goals

Those in the latter group should be excluded. And admins should not have to spend days, or even hours, filling out paperwork for this. If a few genuine, heartfelt attempts to explain the rules won't work, suspend the person.

When they come back, they can try again.

And they good part is, with 100 admins able to undo a block by any one admin, there's little chance of egregious error. (Assuming the original admin doesn't launch a blocking war - ah, but that's against the rules too, so that shoul cover everything)

We're not here to create a blog community, but to create an encyclopedia. The rules are VERY EASY to follow, and if you can't figure them out you can always ask. The only people who will get suspended are those who are not even trying to comply with policy. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

But then I have to ask: what's wrong with Special:Log/Block and Special:Ipblocklist? I can see some use for a wiki-only peer feedback channel explicitly for block decisions (the way IRC is often used now) as outlined by people above, but what you're saying makes no sense to me. Admins can already block people without "filing out paperwork", and other admins can and do unblock when they disagree. What does this page add? Ease of archiving? More lines than the block log comment allows? JRM · Talk 02:25, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

May I cut in, JRM? Tell me what part of Log/Block or Ipblocklist admins can explain in detail and with diffs exactly why they've suspended a user. No one can edit lb or ipbl! But at least admins can edit pe. and everyone can comment ont talk:pe. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:56, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

No of course you may not! I asked you a question, I don't expect any answer! :-P So my guess above was right: this page is intended to be a Special:Log/Block with more room for justification than the single-line brevity the block log demands (and the added benefit of being able to watch the page, which you can only do by vigorous refreshing in case of the block log). From what I've seen here there seem to be multiple camps now on what this page is supposed to be good for:

1. It's a block log you can annotate.
2. It's like WP:AN/I, but explicitly editable only by administrators.
3. It's a replacement for the out-of-band IRC/mailing list channels in getting feedback/support on a possibly controversial block.

End of observation. (What, you expected a value judgement too? Not now.) JRM · Talk 03:11, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I found your observations very JRMane. Let's add them to the page. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:24, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you've misunderstood the purpose of the page (or perhaps I have). The purpose, as I see it, is to set up and monitor the effect of short blocks of users who violate policy other than 3RR and vandalism. It is a specialist page, if you like, a subpage of WP:AN/I. SlimVirgin 02:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

That would require a major policy change which I don't think there is the slightest chance of getting a consensus for. The only reason which admins can block for which tends to be contivesal is dissrupting wikipedia. Not a handful of articles wikipedia.03:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a defence of the blocking policy, not a reason for having this page. WP:AN and its subpages are working just fine for discussing problem users. Yes, there's the odd "oh no I didn't" thrust in between comments, but it's in no way hindering discussion. --W(t) 02:27, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I might think this page might be useful if it weren't protected, but that isn't currently the case. JYolkowski // talk 02:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected pages in the main namespace are considered harmful. There's no reason admins shouldn't have a protected page for discussion. It's a lot better than it happening by e-mail and on IRC as currently happens. SlimVirgin 02:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that WP:FA is not protected, and will remain that way. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is. There is no relevant category in Misplaced Pages:Protection policy covering that. It indicates a lack of trust of non-admins. It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose that couldn't be accomplished by rollback. JYolkowski // talk 02:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I fully support this proposal. On Misplaced Pages I would describe myself as a "law-abiding citizen". I tend not to break the rules. Therefore, I have nothing to fear from this :-). And even if one admin does go too far, there are plenty more reasonable, objective admins around to sort the issue out. Dan100 (Talk) 07:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

protect talk?

I don't think Misplaced Pages talk:Policy enforcement needs protection - not if there's no abuse of the page.

If admins need a transparent admin-only discussion page, we can create one easily enough. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:33, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

this page might be useful if it weren't protected

To what use might we put the page that can't be served just as well on its talk?

the clique of adminship

What clique? Are their admins who are abusing their privileges? Point them out to me, and I'll ask Anthere or another Steward to suspend their admin rights.

And while she's making up her mind about it, why, I'll simply undo whatever harm they've done. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:46, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Its members are listed right here. :-) I was speaking in the abstract: I'm not referring to some specific shadowy conspiracy of individuals, but the general tendency of admins to "stick together" just because they're admins. As regular editors do when faced with newcomers on a page, but then specifically for admin-related matters. Yes, admins will disagree on things, sometimes vociferously—but then they will also back each other up over nothing more than "I trust his/her judgement", which is honest, laudable and pointless. OK, "clique" is exaggeration—I don't know what you call this. Peer pressure? Nepotism? Something much weaker than that, but in the same direction. JRM · Talk 03:04, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Specific policy violations

I don't supposed that anyone noticed that I blocked someone already. Does that mean that no one, including geni, thought the 3-hour block was in error? I created this page to make such blocks more transparent, but everyone's focussing on the thickness of the window and the shape and color of the smudges on it. What about looking through it?

Does anyone think the suspension was too long? unjustified? That the user was "really trying to help the project", or what? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 03:28, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds more like you're asking us whether you were right in wiping a particular spot on the window... If you just wanted to get feedback on the decision, you should have (cross?)-posted to WP:AN/I. Of course people are going to pay more attention to creating a new outlet for discussing decisions than the decision that happened to kick it off.

However, let me give some honest, specific feedback then: your block was probably pointless and ineffectual. Blocking a user for being an argumentative weenie will only reinforce their belief that "teh admins" are out to get them. A three-hour block is supposed to benefit the encyclopedia? It's just going to show the "newby" that we know how to spank people who are cheeky, so he'd better behave. If he comes back, he'll just know that one Ed Poor is a bad uncle, and the other admins are probably not to be trusted either. So now he's an argumentative weenie with a grudge. Were you "wrong" in issuing the block? Meh, I don't really care; I'm a vile utilitarian in this regard, and think judging it by its effectiveness is more useful. It's too early to call the shot on that, though.

A valuable footnote to the above is that I'm what some people like to call a "newbie admin", that is, one who has not yet fully reveled in his abilities to block evildoers. I've blocked a few egregious vandals, but I haven't tackled any grey zone stuff, and I'm not planning to either. I'm insanely patient; as long as I can revert, protect and calmly argue, I'll do that before I'll even consider a block. Again, I'm not interested in the moral high ground on admin behaviour; I'm only doing what I think is most constructive. Other admins will do the same, and do things differently; we hardly if ever compare results, to my knowledge. JRM · Talk 03:53, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Quorum for admin actions

At the risk of butting in, it seems to me that what this page is about is that some admin actions are uncontroversial and the relevant admin just goes ahead and does them, but others are more controversial and the admin in question might or might not take the action, and then solicits either retrospective or prospective second opinions respectively from other admins. WP:AN/I has, in practice, been serving this purpose for a while.

One way to formalize this practice as a policy would be to have a (possibly admin-only) page where admins report on controversial situations and state clearly either what action was taken, or what action is proposed. Other admins then list "votes" that agree or disagree with the (proposed) action. If the action is proposed, then if and when the net number of admins agreeing is N, then the last admin actually takes the action. If the action was taken already, and a net N admins disagree, the last will reverse it. N should be small, say 2–4.

This procedure would be lightweight enough that it would reach decisions quickly. It has the advantage that the action will often be taken by an uninvolved admin. It also means that actions reflect a rough admin consensus (and corporate responsibility), and may serve to avoid block wars. I think that part of the concern over recent anti-admin trolls is that admins can feel very alone when exercising their powers.

Note that this procedure does not, strictly speaking, require consensus to implement. Any number of admins can simply volunteer to be bound by it. Think of it as a harmonious administration club. Bovlb 03:52, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Ennobling the adminship

Are we just going to dispense with the arbcom now? Now that Ed has made admins into little Judge Dredds, who ban users on their own say-so? Now he can ban them for whatever he pleases, so long as he can get a couple of activist admins to agree that he was right to do so?

And he plans to do it on a protected page, denying his actions the scrutiny of ordinary editors. Since when did adminship move from being "no big deal" to representing an imperium?

And people get angry with Eequor for saying there's a cabal! Grace Note 03:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are a few points I feel that must be addressed regardless of the merits of this particular idea:

1. Admins already hand out blocks like little Judge Dredds. In fact, people more or less expect them to. Yes, of course they still need to have a good reason, but they're generally assumed to have a good reason. Sometimes people will contend they don't. Admins are expected to make lots more good calls than bad calls, however.
2. Banning is not the same thing as blocking. To my knowledge, there are no proposals on the table that advocate giving admins the right to prevent an individual from editing, indefinitely, without going through the ArbCom. Accounts may be disabled, though, if they use patently offensive names and/or engage in automated vandalism of Misplaced Pages (the "Unpardonable Sins"), but these are highly specific circumstances.
3. A protected page is still subject to scrutiny by anyone who cares to scrutinize it. In-line discussion by non-admins is made harder, though. There are obvious pros and cons to that, just as there are obvious pros and cons to separating article pages from talk pages.

If you think this is "ennobling the adminship" and a departure from the status quo, I have bad news for you: we're already there. Start organizing the Rebel Alliance. JRM · Talk 04:07, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Please unlock this page.

I never saw the need to lock WP:AN, we have never locked WP:FA (editors other than Raul are actively discouraged from editing that page) and our whole philosophy works on openness. Our edit history will show vandalism. I have no issue with locking the page to stop page moves, but please, unlock this page to show that we are an open community! I mean this as no offense to Ed (I know he means well, and I know what he's trying to achieve), but we must practice what we preach. Grace Note has made a good point, and though is a controversial figure, we should be listening.

If the page needs locking because of vandalism, do it. But don't permanently lock it! - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Very much agree. Post a notice requesting that admins only edit this, but adminship is not an editing privilege. -- Netoholic @ 05:25, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

If there's going to be discussion as well as just a block log here, I don't see the reason for that either really. --W(t) 05:34, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Regardless of the relative merits of keeping it protected, people just aren't going to stand for it. Thinking of "ennobling admins": noblesse oblige. JRM · Talk 05:39, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to have this page, much less to have it protected. We are discussing problematic blocks on WP:AN/I. dab (ᛏ) 07:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)