Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 1

Contents 1 Guideline 2 Recent changes to model for dealing with disruptive editors. 3 Crank 4 Step 2: What to do when an editor unreverts 5 comments about this article 5.1 Re reversion of edits 5.1.1 On second thought: I support this page 6 Please see... 7 What if? 8 Quotation from NPOV 9 Do we have the sequence right? 10 Steve Alan Hassan 11 Uninvolved 11.1 Previous uninvolved discussions at this talk page 11.2 Problems getting uninvolved editors interested 11.3 Uninvolved, part II (an unexplained system glitch dumps new posts to that section down here) 12 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies 12.1 Reasons to include the clause 12.2 Reasons not to include the clause 12.3 Responses 13 minority opinions

[edit] Guideline

RE:nope, it's accepted as a guideline covering an existing convention [1]

But wasn't this born out of the Expert Revolt? Wasn't the point that cranks weren't getting dealt with? 192.75.48.150 16:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My take is as follows. This is strictly my opinion, so that and USD $3.25 will buy you a mocha at Starbucks.

• The process outlined in this document for dealing with cranks, has been available prior to the writing of this document.
• However, in many cases where there weren't obvious violations of things like WP:NPA, WP:3RR--the process has not been used in cases where it could have been. Why, I'm not sure--in some cases, parties to a dispute were not aware of options; in others, perhaps admins weren't willing to issue blocks for patterns of behavior (it's a lot less controversial to issue blocks for vandalism or WP:3RR, where there is little room to argue). This shouldn't be taken as criticism of admins--they have a tough job, and admins who do issue controversial blocks frequently attract loud, vocal legions of critics accusing them of all sorts of nasty things.
• Having this written down will hopefully a) put people on notice--cranks and those who deal with them--that crank edits aren't welcome at Wikipedia, and that an ArbCom ruling is not needed; b) give admins something to point to when asked to justify a controversial or non-obvious block.

Again, just my USD $3.30 (did Starbucks raise the price again? Damn.)

--EngineerScotty 16:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, well put. It also aligns with and can support the new Wikipedia:Community probation process, which is a less constraining and unilateral response to disruption. FeloniousMonk 16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's an uneasy mix of describing current practice and trying to dictate future practice, which is pretty normal around here. But what isn't normal is that it involves the Block function, namely extending the way "community patience" blocks are applied. Very few pages address blocks, and of those that do, none are guidelines. So I hope you'll forigve the tickybox jihad, but I think you'll understand why I was unnerved at this, despite assurances that this is the way it already is. And are you sure Starbucks upped their price? Maybe your dollar just dropped. 192.75.48.150 18:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Community patience blocks have always been at the discretion of the community; no policy I'm aware of limits their use. What is a bit new, and outside the scope of this, is the concept of Wikipedia:Community probation--though that is considered a power which the community possess (on account of it being a lesser sanction than a community ban), but hasn't until recently chosen to exercise. And yes, Starbucks is raising the price of liquid crack; see [2]. At least in North America; in other parts of the world, kilometrage may vary. :) --EngineerScotty 18:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

If I may add my $3.35 (Did Starbucks raise that price again?), from my reading of the discussion and history, some administrators gave this a serious look. An ArbCom member agreed that this situation ought to be handled at the community level and promoted the page from proposal to guideline. Durova 23:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Guideline is the appropriate scope of for this concept as the community begins to use it. WP:BLP was a guideline for months before it was made a policy. This guideline helps support Wikipedia:Community probation. It puts in writing and clarifies the thinking of the community and the supports arbitration committee actions. None of this is completely new. Rather it has never been put in writing in a way that explains it so clearly. --FloNight 03:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It describes current practice and thinking, so is descriptive not prescriptive. The underlying policy has not changed, nor does it need to. Guy 12:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to model for dealing with disruptive editors.

These changes, described as "Minor wording changes; adding a seventh step to process, " seems to be anything but minor. The Disruptive editing process was intended to be quick and informal; this proposed change would transform an informal model into a legalistic seven-step procedure. It opens the way for all sorts of Wikilawyering and I've reverted it until it can be discussed on the talk page.

My suggestion would go in the other way, changing the opening line to:

"Following is a suggested model for remedies:"

--SteveMcCluskey 17:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Steve. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link that documents some history of User:Terryeo who made those edits: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Terryeo#Log_of_blocks_and_bans

Hope this sheads some light on his motivations.--Fahrenheit451 18:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

lol, I'm happy to tell you all about my motivations, that's what user discussion pages are for, I believe :) Terryeo 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but the "Minor wording changes..." were made by User:John Broughton.

--SteveMcCluskey 18:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That would be me. I'm not sure how going from a six item list (before my edit) to a seven item list (yes, I just added ONE item) changes the process from quick and informal to legalistic; I await further explanation. As for the wording describing the six/seven steps/items, please feel free to make changes to improve it; I was striving for clarity but apparently didn't accomplish that.

I do want to explain the step I added: Ask editor to participate in Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, with editor selecting an appropriate action. In my experience, one thing that separates a disruptive editor from a constructive one is the unwillingness to consider the opinions of others. Refusing ANY sort of dispute resolution IS an important indicator of where the problem lies in an inability to reach agreement on an article, in my opinion. PLUS, if the (problematical) editor selects a process (Mediation Cabal, RfC, whatever), it's more likely that he/she will become more invested in (committed to) its outcome. John Broughton | Talk 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, anyway. Terryeo 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me if I sound irritated, but I thought I made a lot of constructive, if minor, changes to the project page. I've also explained, above, why I added a step. No one who had initial objections has responded - and many of the changes I made were deleted from the project page.

Unless someone objects or comments here in the next 24 hours, I plan to start posting, one by one, the minor changes I think should be made to the wording on the project page that were deleted, so each is clearly differentiated. That will make it easier, I think, to see that the changes are both constructive and minor.John Broughton | Talk 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As the editor who drafted the original version of the model, I regard those changes as a lot more than adding just one step. Most of the steps themselves were altered from informal to procedural. The consensus behind this guideline is that an editor is disruptive when a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agree that they are. When one editor insists the moon is made of green cheese at a science article, it's pointless to force the page's productive contributors to jump through a lot of hoops. The green cheese enthusiast isn't going to negotiate and the reasonable editors may quit in disgust. Durova 17:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a lovely thought? "An editor is disruptive when a consensus of univolved Wikipedians agree that they are?" Lovely thought. They used to run whole towns in the old west in that manner. If they didn't like someone, a concensus of townspeople simply ran the sucker out of town. As recently as WW II, the United States Government, in consensus and without authority, rounded up everyone who looked oriental and put them into guarded camps. Lovely thought and it has historical precedent, too. Lovely. Terryeo 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Since anyone can return as an anonymous productive editor, the consensus involves behavior not persons; so the analogy fails. WAS 4.250 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the analogy fails because it overlooks the uninvolved requirement. This isn't vigilante justice. It's more like consulting the people of some other town or calling in United Nations observers. Durova 17:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

We're talking about editing an encyclopedia here, not rounding up people and sending them to camps. --EngineerScotty 18:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, we are talking about how to weed people out of our midst who have a tendency to interrupt our actions. My statement is not a disagreement, but an illistration of historical precedents of this action. "Consensus" has many advantages but police type actions is not one of them, such "weeding" actions tend to be punitive rather than rehabilitative. Which is why I comment on User:Durova's statement of original intent wherein he compares his original intent with what the project has become.

I'll state it in another way. It is wrong for a consensus of editors to be able to put their heads together for 30 seconds, decide they don't want User:xyz interrupting, and block him. Plain, stupid wrong. Our "due process" is in place for the excellent reasons that it creates the spirit of community, it takes a while, and it has a process of appeal. As the project now stands it is a good, solid project with broad agreement but if it becomes too streamlined (as User:Durova's statement seems to imply) then it will no longer contribute to Wikipedia's popularity. Terryeo 18:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I support Durova's comments above 100%. The whole point of starting this guideline was that "as the project now stands" wasn't effective at dealing with disruptive editors. We must protect our productive editors more than we get concerned about a few borderline disruptives. Nobody is sent being to jail and nobody has a right to edit Wikipedia any way they care to. There are also plenty "historical precedents" of authorities getting blocked by red tape, vetos and bureaucracy whilst watching folk shell civilians or commit genocide. Let's not get bogged down with analogies that aren't relevant here. Colin°^Talk 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points here. First, I wear a matching set of X chromosomes. Second, Terryeo contributed to this discussion during the drafting phase. I wish the decision had been unanimous, but Terry was one of the few dissenters, and I don't see any new facts or logic in the current thread. Durova 04:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crank

I question the use of this word in section headings. What purpose does it serve that "disruptive" doesn't already address in a less inflammatory and more objective way? One example of how disruption might not always be crankery is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. Among other things, an anonymous editor alleged that Australian colonialists massacred native people at a site in New South Wales. The assertion is possible but unreferenced. If I understand correctly, an archaeological investigation is underway. No editor absolutely denies that this could have happened; they just haven't located reliable sources (which might exist in print or in local archives). The crank epithet might not apply in that instance, but disruptive certainly does. After the ArbCom case opened the user's behavior deteriorated so this isn't so good an example today as it was a month ago. It's fair to say that all cranks are disruptive, but outside the hard sciences disruptive editors are not necessarily cranks. Durova 17:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the introduction of the word "crank" into wikipedian policy/guideline dialog will cause more trouble than it is worth. "Agressively disruptive" does the job far better. Descriptions and not labels. WAS 4.250 17:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It's already there, although I've voiced my opinion against it in the archives. I tried deleting it from a heading and another user reinserted it, so I'm leaving it up and discussing it again. Durova 17:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe Fred introduced the term. His introduction of "tendentious" into wikipedia psuedo-legalese dialog was likewise less than felicitous for quite different reasons. WAS 4.250 18:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, the English word "crank" describes the situation quite well. In English, a crank is merely an eccentric, that is, someone who insists on being different from the consensus, especially someone who is zealous. I suggest that it is the duty of the Wikipedia community to describe compassionately in a section of WP:DE: Here is what you should do if you find the consensus calling you a "crank." The Wikipedia community must describe a safe harbor in which the "crank" can operate without the crank's sourced and significant NPOV being ripped out by the localized consensus faction arrayed in opposition against the "crank." After all, there are a lot of "cranks" in the world that Wikipedia has tasked itself to represent the significant views fairly and without bias. No one has ever before in the history of humanity come as close as Wikipedia to NPOV on the significant views. We have to design the system as we go. What's next? --Rednblu 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The irony here is killing me. FeloniousMonk 18:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

rofl. Terryeo 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

My concerns about the use of the word crank are also in the archive. I guess some find it less offensive than others. Colin°^Talk 21:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just don't get all cranky about it. :) WAS 4.250 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Step 2: What to do when an editor unreverts

The current version reads, for step 2:

Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Revert again if no response, along with edit summary. (19 words).

I proposed (via an edit) that it be changed to:

Post to talk page asking for discussion and/or sources. Then revert again, and refer to talk page in the edit summary. (22 words)

Durova reverted my edit with the following explanation (edit summary): the alteration made the step more wordy and less clear. The appropriate point for another reversion is if an editor fails to join talk discussion.

To analyze the specifics of that reversion:

• more wordy: yes, it was 19 words and it's now 22 words, a net increase of three words. Is this really a serious objection??
• less clear: the current version (the one I want to change) is actually the less clear one. The second sentence (the only one I changed) now says Revert again if no response, along with edit summary. That wording raises an obvious question: how long should an editor wait for a response - a hour, 12 hours, a full day? And the words along with edit summary mean what? Editors are always supposed to use edit summaries - why even bother to say along with edit summary? By contrast, my suggested reversion has neither of these problems; the timing of the revert is obvious (immediately) and the wording makes it clear that the edit summary should specifically mention the talk page.
• The appropriate point for another reversion is if an editor fails to join talk discussion. Step 3 of the process says Attempt to engage new editor in dialog. So there already is an appropriate place in the process to respond to an editor who fails to join talk discussion. And if one is dealing with a disruptive editor, why should the policy say that the article should remain with a disruptive edit in it for a while (but for how long?).

SteveMcCluskey said, above, The Disruptive editing process was intended to be quick and informal As I noted in my edit summary, the wording change that I proposed makes the process faster and less formal, since step 2 no longer says that the editor should wait (again, how long?) before doing his/her second revert. If the change I want to make is in line with Steve's suggestion, why the insistence that the original version is perfectly worded as is? John Broughton | Talk 15:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing dialogue people. Wikipedia is as alive as discussion pages grow with healthy discussion. Terryeo 15:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You've already got my opinion on the matter. Let's see what the other editors say. Durova 17:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The other editors don't seem to be saying anything, not even about [an edit by another user that added more than 30 words to step 1 of the process]. Since this talk page discussion seems to have failed to resolve the differing opinions on my proposed rewording of step 2, it appears that the next step is Wikipedia:Requests for comment or a similar dispute resolution process. I don't have a preference; if there is no further response, I'll probably start an RfC in a week or so. John Broughton | Talk 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comments about this article

On first glance, this article appears to have a huge weakness. The entire article, its entire foundation, is based on the term of "fringe". The term fringe is an opinion.

What maybe fringe me may not be fringe to you. What is fringe today, may not have been fringe before, or in the future. What is fringe to Americans, may not be fringe to another culture.

This wiki guideline (thankfully it is not a policy) is inviting wikipedia to be even more ethnocentric than it already is. I can see a real Slippery slope with this policy, this policy being abused by editors, in a "might makes right" argument.

Please keep in mind, I am not advocating that wikipedians should not follow WP:OR or anything of that nature. Please see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias

Signed: Travb (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of "fringe" is simple. How is well is a hypothesis accepted by the experts in the relevant field? I agree that "fringe" my change--plate tectonics was once a fringe theory; and it was once considered a settled matter that the sun resolved around the earth. But that's OK. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we do not need to anticipate which theories which are today considered fringe, will become accepted in the future. If the state of a given theory changes, the encyclopedia changes to reflect that. Wikipedia should primarily focus on the state of knowledge today, may and should document the past when appropriate, but should avoid speculating on the future.

In some cases, systemic bias is a good thing. I'm not at least troubled that academic and scholarly sources are "biased" against crackpots.

• --EngineerScotty 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect your viewpoint, and I can see where you are coming from. Let me see if I understand your position. You seem to be equating "fringe" and "crank" with science. Whereas I have a broader definition of "fringe" and "crank", and I would hazzard to guess that most editors who read this article would take a more expansive view then simply science.

A little more background may be necessary to let you understand my viewpoint. I edit mostly political articles. And the majority of my views on the US are considered "fringe" to wikipedians, the majority who are Americans. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. So the definition of "fringe" to me is not as cut and dry as it maybe to other wikipedians. I would give several examples, but I don't want editors to get hung up on examples, and forget my main point here.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we do not need to anticipate which theories which are today considered fringe, will become accepted in the future.

I am not suggesting that we do. I am a firm believer in WP:V WP:NOR and WP:RS. Since many of my viewpoints would be considered "fringe" viewpoints, in the minority, I exhastively research every one of my points. I attempt to use sources which are almost irrefutable, such as senate reports, etc. Yet, from what I read in this article, my political contributions are considered "fringe" and should be dealt with administratively, simply because I have views which are not in the wikipedian majority (i.e. American).

IF this article is only meant to deal with science, as your response only focuses on, then maybe this article would be clearer if we explain clearly that this article is only are talking about sceince and scientific wikiarticles. Although the examples in this article are only sceintific examples, my query here shows that this pages intention, as it is currently written, is probably confusing to other editors (in fact, I came here because another editor mentioned this article on the village pump page, in a discussion about politics).

I look forward to your response User:EngineerScotty. Thanks for your comments. Travb (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The guideline goes beyond science, but it does tend to focus on academic topics where a clear locus of opinion can be reasonably found from reliable sources. Generally, political issues are another matter altogether; political thought which is documented in reliable sources is, per NPOV, OK to present in the enyclopedia. (Such opinions should never be stated as fact, and rants which are little more than unsubstantiated opinion are not welcome, whatever the source). And keep in mind; this is the English-language Wikipedia, not the US Wikipedia. Don't let large numbers of us yanks stop you from enjoying the place.  :_ --EngineerScotty 16:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this guideline goes beyond science. As the archives show, my main experience with disruptive editors has been on history articles. Durova 17:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re reversion of edits

RE: reversion of edits how does one go about making a case for changes?

There seems to be other independent editors with the same concerns as I have.[3] #Crank #1 #2

Please discuss all edits on the talk page, particularly reverts.

Thanks in advance. Travb (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with taking the word crank out of the article. Your edits were more extensive than that. Durova 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On second thought: I support this page

I read over the archive, and I really think that this page has its real merits. These two comments from Durova and EngineerScotty and JzG's excellent , but oddly named essay Wikipedia:Tendentious editing is what convinced me that this is a commendable project.

I guess I am worrying too much about a slippery slope as many other editors have in this talk page archives.

I won't be responding to posts here.

I still support my edits which were reverted, but I won't fight for them to stay.

I hope this policy doesn't come back and bite me or other well meaning editors in the ass, but with editors like Durova, JzG, and EngineerScotty watching this page and the development of the policy, that shouldn't be a problem. Travb (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, we found it challenging to develop a fair standard. One of my primary concerns was to insulate this against exploitation. We didn't want to drive out legitimate contributors who held minority views (and cited them appropriately), yet we also didn't want Wikipedia to be a soapbox for editors who ignored content policies (and an unwieldy dispute resolution process was de facto making it that on some articles). Durova 14:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Returning more than a week later...I'd like to address the challenge of systemic bias. I happen to have a cup of green tea beside me as I write this. In the United States, where I live, the notion that green tea may have health benefits is euphemistically termed "alternative." However, a number of Japanese population studies have linked the consumption of six or more cups of green tea a day with lower rates of a variety of cancers. This type of tea appears to contain a mild antioxidant. Any editor may go to the green tea article, cite those peer reviewed sources, and WP:DE would protect them from the allopathic-Western-medicine-posse (I don't know if such a posse really exists but let's suppose it does). This proposal was crafted specifically to protect that kind of editor while weeding out the individuals who make it a personal mission to tell the world the moon is made of green cheese. Durova^Charge! 16:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

He he! Most of WikiProject Medicine's participants have been accused of being members of that posse. I agree with Durova - the careful editor has nothing to fear from this guideline. Sadly, medicine gets its fair share of disruptive editors. BTW: that green tea article's heath benefits section is currently a textbook example on the use of poor sources and abuse of good sources. Colin°^Talk 17:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please see...

Wikipedia:Notability (science), yet another proposal. --EngineerScotty 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What if?

Hi.

I saw this:

"...Only when editors show themselves unwilling or unable to set issues aside and work harmoniously with others, for the benefit of the project, should they be regarded as irredeemable, and politely but firmly removed."

In my opinion, nobody is incapable of changing themselves or doing the right thing. It's all a question of what they want to do. Do they really want to make the hard effort it takes to become a good person? What if someone gets "removed", but then decides finally to grow up and change? Is it possible for them to ever come back? At all?

Also, what would happen if somebody got banned, then decided to ignore the ban, refusing block after block but each edit they put in was positive, and they were trying to change and move away from whatever the "bad thing" that got them into trouble was?

Just a curiosity question, by the way.

170.215.83.212 00:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. WAS 4.250 05:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation from NPOV

I recently edited the quotation from NPOV, which had only partially presented a summary statement of the policy. The version before my change said:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

This quotation omitted an important qualification to that policy, which I inserted, (quoting a later version of the policy which had also made a minor change from reliable source to verifiable source).

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

The "important qualification" derives from Jimbo Wales' statement:

If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.

User:WAS 4.250 reverted to the truncated version, I have, in turn, reverted to the complete version to more adequately reflect the NPOV policy and its interactions with NOR. --SteveMcCluskey 15:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV gives its summary (nutshell) as :"All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." Your excerpt from the "Undue weight" sub-sub-section gives undue weight to a poorly phrased sentence implying Wikiality (populaity decides truth) and thus you are disruptivly editing this policy and thus ipso factoid must be banned forever ... no just kidding about that last part. But I do believe that the nutshell summary should be used rather than your handpicked quote from the bowels of the policy. WAS 4.250 03:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I was not the one who, in your terms, "handpicked [a] quote from the bowels of the [NPOV] policy." When this quote was originally addedto the guideline, it was handpicked from NPOV, but without the important qualification that relates NPOV to the NOR policy.

You implied I was arguing that popularity decides truth. As the Verifiability policy says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." As Jimbo said in the quotation above, that threshold is based on demonstrating whether a viewpoint is held and published by a substantial number of experts in the field.

Since this guideline began its life, in part, as a way to enforce the NOR policy against those advocating minority points of view against the consensus of experts in the field, it is essential that the "important qualification" be included in the quotation that User:Durova selected from NPOV. --SteveMcCluskey 16:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, this is pretty tardy, but Steve has a good point. The crux of whether someone can adapt to the site or needs to get booted often hinges on whether they grasp that specific part of WP:NPOV. I'd rather reform editors and keep them than implement sitebans so let's extend them the courtesy of highlighting exactly what they need to understand. Durova^Charge! 06:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we have the sequence right?

The Model for Dealing with Disruptive Editors places a Request for Comments (RfC) as a fourth step, and then proposes going on to the Administrators Notice Board/Incidents (AN/I) to call upon the powers exercised by admins as the fifth step.

A cursory glance at the AN/I shows repeated comments considering proceding from the AN/I (apparently seen as informal) to the more structured proceedings of an RfC.[4][5] It seems we may have the procedure backwards, but perhaps more experienced editors have other insights. --SteveMcCluskey 22:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking further at the Administrators Noticeboard I noticed a link to the Community Noticeboard, which claims to be the place to discuss community bans. I've added that to the final step as an alternative to ArbCom.

Perhaps the Community Noticeboard should be moved up to the fifth step, replacing the Administrators Noticeboard. Since this was meant to be a rapid procedure, cutting out the fifth step would make sense. --SteveMcCluskey 22:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Alan Hassan

I would like some neutral input about this Wikipedia article. Could someone who is not personally involved in this dispute on the Hassan article view comments towards the middle or bottom of the Discussion page and offer some neutral input? This one user sucked me into an argument and is contantly changing edits. It seems to be just this one editor, and no one else that has criticized me, but you can read that for yourself. I need some input before I proceed John196920022001 07:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O is probably closer to what you're looking for, and should be more heavily populated with responsive users. Opabinia regalis 07:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John196920022001 12:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvolved

Note: My time in this first post is limited. This thread will document prior instances of discussion on the points of potential POV gaming and the need for an uninvolved consensus. I'll return later to complete the record.

There is debate over whether a siteban should be decided by a "consensus" or by a consensus of "uninvolved editors in good standing". Durova claims this clause was "vital to raising this page from a proposal to a guideline", but that is false since he added that clause himself last week ([6]) without any discussion. As discussed on Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy, adding the word "uninvolved" would lead to Wikilawyering (in that anyone who has had any interaction with a disruptive user can be said to be involved). "Editor in good standing" is either nebulously defined at best, or a tautology. >Radiant< 08:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• On closer look, there has been some discussion about the word "uninvolved", but just about the only person pushing for it in the archives here is Durova himself, and people like Fred Bauder have voiced strong objections. This is hardly the "massive consensus" that Durova claims. >Radiant< 08:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have strong objections as well. How is "involved" defined? Is someone who comments on an RfC or files a 3RR or other admin report "disqualified"? Are admins who blocked the offending user not allowed to participate? It seems unfair to those who actually take action to try and curb disruptive behaviour, not to mention completely skews the pool of editors who can actually participate in a community ban discussion. It also seems like a potential incentive not to get involved in controversial cases for fear of becoming "involved" and losing the ability to participate. I can see how "involved" applies to an admin taking action on a page they edit, or discussions being closed by an admin who didn't !vote. But this doesn't seem like the same thing. I'd like to see "uninvolved" come out of this page as well as the banning policy. --Minderbinder 13:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. See also Fred Bauder's comment in this Talk page's archive. All a troll would need to do is 'involve' an admin and thus force him/her to recuse. This goes counter to logic and practicality. Crum375 13:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is a good example of where adding something about "involved" editors would lead. It would mean that if you had ever blocked that person, been in a content dispute with him, protected a page against his editing, supported a block against him, or even were seen to be "wikifriends" with anyone who had, you'd be deemed "involved" and your opinion wouldn't count. Decisions about community bans would be left in the hands of people who know nothing about the user in question, and what use is that? Also, we have to bear in mind that disruptive editors often engineer "involvement" with an admin or arbitrator so they can object to that person's continuing to administer their case. This page shouldn't say anything that might encourage that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous uninvolved discussions at this talk page

• The first to raise the subject was EngineerScotty on 11 September 2006.[7]
• Later that day Terryeo introduces the objection that the proposal could be gamed to drive away editors on the basis of partisanship rather than legitimate problems.[8]
• Also that day, I agree that the proposal should be crafted so that it doesn't permit editors to game the community banning option in garden variety edit disputes.[9]

(first part of documentation - more to follow) Durova^Charge! 22:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also on 11 September 2006, Terryeo emphasizes the concern that an editor's POV should not constitute the basis for banning if the editor abides by existing policies.[10]
• In response, I agree that the proposal should distinguish fringe behavior from legitimate POV.[11]
• Also at the same thread, llywrch adds If I am understanding correctly, then the problem then becomes one of how do we enforce this guideline in a way that doesn't end up giving both sides in an edit war one more weapon to bludgeon each other with.[12]
• On a concurrent thread on 11 September, Radiant adds, An unfortunate reality of Wikipedia is that any sufficiently determined editor can keep pushing views that are nonstandard, irrelevant or downright false for a staggering length of time, and not infrequently frustrating good editors to the point of giving up the issue or even leaving the encyclopedia in disgust. If quality is one of our goals, we must put an end to that. [13]
• On another concurrent thread on 11 September, EngineerScotty adds a clause that would disqualify parties to a Wikipedia dispute from citing their own self-publications as reliable sources.[14]
• On 13 September Ed Poor introduces a new thread to discuss other aspects of the potential that this page might get exploited at articles where editor disputes reflect real world disputes.[15]
• On 15 September Electrawn posts strong objections that note, among other things, the polarizing effect this proposal could have.[16]

(end second post - more to follow) Durova^Charge! 23:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• On 19 September Antaneus Feldspar expresses his reservations about POV exploitation, including but one thing I don't see is just what, if anything, is going to stop this policy/guideline/whatever becoming a weapon for the very editors it was intended to rein in. For instance, one of the most tendentious editors I know is very fond of mislabelling as "original research" anything unfavorable to his POV that he can construe as imperfectly cited.[17]
• Edit conflicted with Antaneus Feldspar's objection, Opabinia regalis shares similar worries. ...Or a crank with a crappy but existent reference tries to use this proposal as a mechanism for attacking those who remove his "sourced" material.[18]
• KrishnaVindaloo chimes in agreement a few hours afterward. There are problems I see with the proposal itself and I agree with Antaeus. As it stands, its far too easy to spit at people willy nilly and use against legitimate editing.[19]
• Later that day, EngineerScotty asks Antaneus Feldspar, given the classic battle of "expert" vs "crank", when the two editors in question have similar dispositions, are content RFCs useful in determining who has the stronger position, and who is full of it? Or is RFC just as likely to attract more cranks to the debate? Much of the proposal hinges on RFC being a somewhat effective hinging/gating mechanism... (At this point in the draft proposal WP:RFC serves that important role).[20]
• Ten minutes after EngineerScotty's question, I express a similar thought this way 'nobody should be eligible for a tendentious editor block until after a consensus of impartial third party editors agree on what's been happening at a page.[21]
• Along with some other clarifications from EngineerScotty, this convinces Mangoe to change positions and support the proposal less than an hour afterward.[22]
• A few minutes later I edit the first explicit statement into the proposal about a consensus of uninvolved editors as the defining standard for disruptive editing, and note the change at the talk page for discussion. My reasoning expands the realm for consensus forming beyond RFC.[23]
• nae'blis responds to the new wording and recommends removing mention of a threshold number for uninvolved editors' consensus.[24]
• I comply with that recommendation.[25]
• The following day, EngineerScotty states a concern about another part of the draft proposal language.Each and every crackpot who is brought to heel under this policy will claim that their particular theory of cosmology is of course normal scholarship, merely suppressed by a great conspiracy. Arguments will ensue as to what is "normal scholarship" under other conditions as well.[26]
• My reply to that objection includes: That concern about normal scholarship in the wording doesn't really resonate with me: one tendentious editor can't overrule an impartial consensus.[27] (Discussion of Scotty's particular objection ends with that post, so the impartial consensus standard appears to carry weight).
• Within three hours, Gleng expresses strong support for the proposal.[28]
• Minutes later, EngineerScotty formally states his support for the proposal and asks whether the draft is ready to set before the general Wikipedia commuity.[29]
• The next day (shortly after the proposal's general announcement at Village Pump, RFC, etc.) JzG reviews it and expresses another angle of the concern about editor bias.[30]
• Among several responses by the proposal's main editors to JzG's several points, I express that consensus of impartial editors is important here.[31]
• KrishnaVindaloo adds his agreement to my post. As long as a group of impartial editors can be found to judge whether you, I, or anyone else is tendentiously editing, then there is a fine solution. He expands on the idea at length including, For sure, if one is going to illegitimately accuse someone of tendentious editing, there may be consequences, as it is often the case that those making such kind of accusations are themselves pushing a particular view themselves.[32]
• On 23 September, WAS 4.250 promotes the proposal to a guideline.[33]
• On 24 September Doxmyth starts a new thread, stating two challenges for this WP:DE: it should be refined enough to distinguish disruptive editing from reasonable disputes and it should be nimble enough to provide a timely response to disruptive editing.[34]
• Fred Bauder agrees and expresses a concern about the consensus of impartial editors standard (not that it's liable to wikilawyering, but that there may be a need for a new venue). Requiring that they be "uninvolved" is in itself a problem; they have to get up to speed as to what's going on and then come to an agreement. So how should someone who is having a problem of this nature ask for help? Do we need a special page or will Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents do?[35]
• Following upon Fred Bauder's post, [[[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] discusses the speed with which such a consensus could act. I don't think consensus of noninvolved editors can be as timely as you indicate. You have to find people who care, they have to evaluate the situation, they have to decide if they have a consensus.[36]
• The following day I add a reply to Doxmyth's discussion that includes the following: ...the guideline recommends reporting to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard rather than individual admins' talk pages if problems continue after impartial consensus has formed. As I understand the consensus from the draft stages, we sought to establish some baseline that would merit administrator intervention (short of ArbCom) that would be resistant to attempts at misuse. The best we came up with was a consensus of uninvolved editors. While no solution is perfect, editors agreed that most of the time this would protect rules-abiding Wikipedians from frivolous accusations and give well-meaning but misled editors a fair chance to adjust without punitive action. Another advantage (less discussed, but of interest to admins) is that it would offer an appropriate defense in case an admin who issued a block got accused of disruption by a disruptive editor.[37] (The thread ends with this post, so no one voices disagreement with that summary).
• Ten hours afterward, WAS 4.250 responds to doubts about what actually constitues disruption with these words: A consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agreeing that someone's edits constitute persistent violations of fundamental policies is how "disrupton" is defined in the context of this guideline.[38]

Moving from the archive to the present talk page, we also encounter:

• On 24 October, John Broughton changes the model for dealing with disruptive editors.[39]
• The same day, SteveMcCluskey begins a talk thread that objects to John Broughton's alterations.[40]
• On 27 October I join the thread and, among other comments, state The consensus behind this guideline is that an editor is disruptive when a consensus of uninvolved Wikipedians agree that they are.[41]
• Terryeo's prompt response focuses on that part of my statement. The full text of that reply: Isn't it a lovely thought? "An editor is disruptive when a consensus of univolved Wikipedians agree that they are?" Lovely thought. They used to run whole towns in the old west in that manner. If they didn't like someone, a concensus of townspeople simply ran the sucker out of town. As recently as WW II, the United States Government, in consensus and without authority, rounded up everyone who looked oriental and put them into guarded camps. Lovely thought and it has historical precedent, too. Lovely.[42]
• Was 4.250 disagrees with Terryeo.[43]
• I respond to Terryeo's characterization. I think the analogy fails because it overlooks the uninvolved requirement. This isn't vigilante justice. It's more like consulting the people of some other town or calling in United Nations observers.[44]
• EngineerScotty disagrees with Terryeo.[45]
• Terryeo reformulates the objection in different terms. An excerpt: I'll state it in another way. It is wrong for a consensus of editors to be able to put their heads together for 30 seconds, decide they don't want User:xyz interrupting, and block him.[46]
• Colin joins the thread beginning with support Durova's comments above 100% and expanding upon them.[47]
• On 30 October Travb decides the guideline has merits after reading the talk archives. I hope this policy doesn't come back and bite me or other well meaning editors in the ass, but with editors like Durova, JzG, and EngineerScotty watching this page and the development of the policy, that shouldn't be a problem.[48]
• I thank him and remark on the concerns that this page must balance. Yes, we found it challenging to develop a fair standard. One of my primary concerns was to insulate this against exploitation. We didn't want to drive out legitimate contributors who held minority views (and cited them appropriately), yet we also didn't want Wikipedia to be a soapbox for editors who ignored content policies...[49]

---

• On 15 March 2007 Radiant objects to the standard of impartial consensus at this page. Durova claims this clause was "vital to raising this page from a proposal to a guideline", but that is false since he added that clause himself last week ([50]) without any discussion.[51]

Exhaustive talk page discussion on that point - and the need for it - actually goes back six calendar months. That language has existed in this page since 19 September 2006, the day before consensus formed to publicize the proposal to the community and four days before the proposal became a guideline. This is perhaps the most thoroughly discussed and widely supported clause in the guideline and if some edit removed it through mistake or subversion, any failure to restore it earlier than last week was accidental.

Radiant's allegation of 15 March ignores two explicit references to impartial consensus and broad support among surrounding comments from other editors at the current talk page. This is also odd because Radiant made several posts to this talk page during draft discussion.[52][53][54] Although WP:AGF naturally requires that my assurance of prior discussion deserves credit at face value unless proven false, both a casual perusal and Radiant's own recollections should have reinforced the truth of my statement.

Furthermore, in a 14 March 2006 edit to WP:AN, Radiant addressed me directly on a somewhat related topic with a statement that included the following. Policies are edited all the time, so I fail to see the problem here. We could discuss the matter at the policy talk page, as is common for suggested changes to a policy...[55] (Note also the edit summary). The context of that conversation was that Radiant had edited WP:BAN according to his or her own preference with no prior attempt at discussion, immediately and partially reverting a change I had implemented after I had solicited discussion in multiple forums for eight days.

Taken together, these circumstances have a disappointing appearance. The conclusion that presents itself to me is that Radiant considers himself or herself privileged to edit policy with no prior discussion, yet insinuates that an equivalent action on my part would be improper at guideline level and wrongly accuses me of falsehood, when in fact my statement is not only very true, but Radiant ought reasonably to have known that it was true, and exhaustive discussion and consensus actually did support my edit. It was Radiant's actions that defied consensus while this editor simultaneously accused me of impropriety. If there is some good faith explanation here of which I am not aware, I want very much to see it because this looks like a retaliatory attempt to impugn my integrity. At the very least, it demonstrates failure to assume good faith and failure to perform ordinary research.

One final note: as stated both at this talk page[56] and my RFA where Radiant was the nominator[57], I am female.[58] Durova^Charge! 02:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Problems getting uninvolved editors interested

I think Fred Bauder's commentabout the difficulty of getting a group of uninvolved editors interested enough to follow up on a long-running case of disruptive editing is right on target.

I recently raised an RfC on a case of Disruptive editing that involved a six-month dispute centering on a few arcane historical / philosophical questions. After a month passed, no one had commented on the RfC, except the two of us who were involved and had signed off on the original statement of the dispute.

If the Disruptive editing procedure is to be effective, it should not rule out action involving those parties who are interested enough to do something about it. --SteveMcCluskey 23:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Interested enough to want to do something about it, and knowledgeable enough about the particulars to know what to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvolved, part II (an unexplained system glitch dumps new posts to that section down here)

Per the discussion I cite below, how about changing uninvolved to impartial? Fewer undesirable connotations could attach to that phrasing. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Comment - there seems to be a system glitch. I've posted this statement three times to the "Uninvolved" section. It keeps showing up at the bottom of the page. If it appears out of place this time I'll just leave it be).

I think that impartial is possibly even worse than uninvolved, as it assumes that once an admin (or editor) starts addressing an issue, s/he becomes automatically 'tainted' and loses the capacity for objectivity. I believe that we need to have the presumption of objectivity and neutrality, with the understanding that our primary purpose in spending countless unpaid hours here is to help improve the encyclopedia. I think that letting trolls dictate which admins or editors they want, by letting them taint anyone they don't want by becoming 'involved' with them, is counterproductive. Let the trolls and troublemakers understand that all admins (and regular contributing editors) are impartial, and are united in their desire to maintain a safe and comfortable working environment for productive editors. Crum375 03:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow down, please, and peruse the exhaustive discussions that have already taken place regarding that point. SlimVirgin's diff (from the "uninvolved" thread, responses to which route here for some explained reason) that quotes a post to my user talk page is taken out of context. See my reply and the prompt thanks and retraction that followed. The remainder of the thread is entirely cordial and reasonable.[59][60] So instead of gaming the stipulation, that editor initially misunderstood it and supported the distinction as soon as he or she learned what it meant. Slim's reading is out of date. Nearly four hours before Slim linked to that diff on this page I responded to the same evidence at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy and supplied these diffs of the subsequent developments at my talk page thread.[61] Durova^Charge! 04:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see a case of pure POV disputes and edit wars, where you wouldn't want one group to railroad the other. But to the best of my knowledge, that is not the case with bans. The typical banned person is someone who's "exahusted the community's patience". That typically involves sockpuppetry, incivility, personal attacks, threats, major disruptions, etc. These are not POV issues - they are basic behavior patterns that are very easy to identify, once the details are uncovered. So I still believe that a ban consensus should not exclude any regular editor, and specifically the most 'involved' editors may be the ones who know the case best. Crum375 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but if neither policy nor guideline constrains POV edit warriors from clubbing up to support a community ban proposal, then that hamstrings the closing admin. Involved editors are welcome to comment and provide evidence. We ask only that the people who make the weighty decision of sitebanning not be the individuals who have an axe to grind. Equivalent actions are routine in the real world: judges recuse themselves from a case where their objectivity might be in doubt and lawyers reject potential jury members who have a relationship to a case. Durova^Charge! 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your judge analogy - I think the same criteria can be used. You will note that judges specifically don't recuse themselves in cases where the accused makes threats against them, as that would allow the accused an easy way to reject judges they don't like. If we are down to the 'closing admin', then I would agree that in general we like to have a closer who was not part of the discussion or poll, but the decision should still reflect the consensus formed. Crum375 06:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

A closing admin should be "uninvolved" but that's standard for any admin action. If a horde of POV pushers is making false accusations and otherwise "railroading", the closing editor will ignore arguments that aren't based in policy, same as closing an AfD or similar. --Minderbinder 13:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in this guideline has ever empowered the subject of a community ban discussion to unilaterally pick and choose whose input gets discounted. That's the closing admin's responsibility and the problem editor had better support allegations with evidence. Likewise, attempts at railroading often have much more sophistication than Milo's scenario anticipates. I've dealt with that consistently at investigations and dispute resolution: editors who personalize a quarrel often lose perspective on a situation. They seize upon an opponent's minor faults or a couple of short blocks and contend that some editor is much worse than they actually are. Whether or not the distortions are deliberate, they're seldom outright falsehoods and usually have partial basis in fact. Durova^Charge! 14:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is a matter of using common sense. For the purposes of deciding community bans, we ignore a gibbering horde of POV edit warriors anyway. That is not a real problem. But I recall several instances of a disruptive user claiming that "you talked to me / disagreed with me / blocked me for disruption in the past, so you are by definition biased and involved with respect to me, so you may not make any further decisions about me". I know of at least two users who have regularly (and succesfully) used this reasoning to dodge well-deserved blocks. That is a real problem. >Radiant< 09:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a matter of using common sense. WP:BLOCK#When_blocking_may_not_be_used and WP:BLOCK#Controversial_blocks are the relevant places to raise those objections. It is very easy for a sysop to disarm allegations of impropriety here: declare any actions that may be interpreted as involvement while posting opinions and evidence to a consensus discussion, then after consensus develops make a public request for some other admin to implement the ban.

Yet by removing a clause from this guideline that lets a closing admin discount the input of genuine edit warriors, you empower those edit warriors to abuse the guideline and drive legitimate viewpoints out of the project. As I document above, many editors raised that concern in different terms and separate threads while this guideline developed. That is not a real problem dismisses those thoughtful discussions.

Of course some of the disruptive editors will try to bend any guideline or policy to their wishes. That doesn't mean reasonable people must give them credence, and if the blocking policy is getting gamed then go edit WP:BLOCK instead of here. Or as I once put this, Site policies apply to everyone (although not necessarily according to the interpretations proposed by multiply blocked users who comment at noticeboards).[62] Durova^Charge! 13:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a closing admin should 'discount' only editors who are clearly trolling and/or have nothing useful to say. I don't think that mere involvement in a POV war, or having other interactions with the subject, should subsequently cause an editor a loss of a vote, or of the ability to present evidence. I think that any indication that 'involved editors' are recused, or ignored, or discounted, will encourage the trolls and disruptive editors to 'involve' and sideline anyone they don't want. Crum375 14:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my response above. Durova^Charge! 14:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your response above. It still boils down to common sense, not hard and fast rules. Adding 'uninvolved' or 'impartial' would only give ammunition to the trolls and cause further disruptions. Crum375 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a new reason for asserting that, or is there some aspect I missed in my previous replies? I thought I had already addressed that opinion comprehensively. Durova^Charge! 19:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies

I've opened a request for comment to solicit broader input on this question: Should the guideline stipulate that community bans be decided by a consensus of uninvolved or impartial editors? Durova^Charge! 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons to include the clause

As demonstrated at Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#Previous_uninvolved_discussions_at_this_talk_page, the requirement had extensive discussion and overwhelming support during this guideline's early development. It prevents edit warriors from exploiting the community banning mechanism to run a productive editor out of Wikipedia during an edit dispute. Other than from one participant (who had already been sanctioned at ArbCom and was subsequently sitebanned), no serious objection arose until 15 March 2007 when Radiant mistakenly claimed that the clause was a recent and unilateral addition. Actually it has always been a key provision here and was pivotal to gaining the proposal's acceptance. Durova^Charge! 14:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Well, since you seem intent on basing this decision on ad hominems rather than actual arguments, I must point out that your addition was a recent and unilateral addition, "recent" meaning "March 6th", and "unilateral" meaning "without any discussion on this talk page". If you claim this is a "key provision" and "pivotal", please do tell us where that was determined; proof by assertion isn't. Archives of this talk page show that you made the suggestion several times in the past, and very few users backed you up on it. >Radiant< 14:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not personalize this request for comment, which is about a guideline rather than individuals. Also, please assume good faith and refrain from accusing me or anyone else of logical fallacies that have not been committed. The link I provided above goes to a thorough set of supporting diffs and quotes from many editors. Radiant's single diff is presented out of context. I stand by the evidence I have already supplied, which appears to have gone unnoticed, and respectfully request that Radiant retract allegations against me. Durova^Charge! 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to avoid "personalizing" this, I'd recommend not calling other editors "mistaken" in your intro. I'd also recommend not moving others comments - if you are going to make accusations about individuals, they certainly have the right to respond. --Minderbinder 15:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons not to include the clause

As SV stated, it encourages people put under sanction to wikilawyer that their sanction was placed by an involved user, in the broadest definition of the word. Several users have a reputation of evading blocks in this manner. >Radiant< 14:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Plus we have no definition of "involved" and it would be very hard to come up with a good one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather than repeat myself, let me only note that, as I mentioned earlier, the clause can be a hindrance to the effective operation of the guideline's sanctions because of the difficulty of finding interested and informed editors who are not involved. SteveMcCluskey 03:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responses

(Responding to Radiant above). If Radiant is offended by my attempt to move a response to a section called Responses, I apologize. I performed the move to make it easier for visitors to browse this RFC. This format has been employed at other requests for comment and usually succeeds when the participants abide by its structure.

It does not personalize a discussion to characterize a statement mistaken when its factual errors are well documented. That describes the action, not the person who performed it.

I have opened this request for comment in the hope that additional input can de-escalate a disagreement that has turned rather hot. Successful RFCs usually include mostly outside responses; unsuccessful ones usually contain mostly back-and-forth from the disputants. Let's open the floor here to outside responses and continue our own dialog in other threads at this page. Durova^Charge! 15:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why either should be stated? Isn't it enough to just say that community bans can be decided only by strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users? -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In last fall's discussion a persistent and serious issue was the risk of POV editors clubbing together to drive out a legitimate minority POV. It satisfied those concerns when the proposal/guideline acquired the clause that impartial editors decide what's disruptive. If a new consensus forms I've no objection to removing the clause. My worry has been that this week's discussion has mischaracterized the previous consensus and largely overlooked it.

It is no secret that I was the first editor to formulate this clause. As the diffs I provide above demonstrate, consensus had been moving in that direction for some time before I expressed it in these terms, it was among the last changes to go into the proposal before the drafting editors agreed it was ready for community input, and the proposal rose to guideline status very shortly afterward. Numerous editors besides myself supported it until the last few days, and I am worried that the new discussions fail to address the eloquent concerns that prompted it and provide no alternative means to resolve those issues. I don't own the guideline and I'll gladly agree to whatever consensus develops. I've opened this RFC because I doubt the most recent contributors have given the prior discussion its due consideration. Durova^Charge! 18:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I agree with your judge analogy above. Judges also don't recuse themselves just because someone claims they're "involved." Even when judges have prosecuted the defendant, they're not obliged to recuse. When they've worked closely with the prosecuter, also not. When previously contemptuous behavior was directed at the judge by the defendant, still not. The situations where a judge is expected to recuse are very limited because otherwise defendants could too easily trigger recusal as a way of getting rid of a judge they didn't want. We're faced with a similar situation here. Trolls often target certain admins or arbitrators hoping to get them off their case, simply because that admin or arbitrator is very familiar with the troll's behavior. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Then we're in agreement that far. Just as in real life, the defendant doesn't get unilateral power to expel the judge (or closing admin or ban-implementing admin). I don't believe the guideline was ever intended that way. To continue the analogy, how about the jury? If it's a trial about burglary the victim's sister could be a witness but not a juror. How would you craft this guideline so the prosecution doesn't stack the jury? Durova^Charge! 21:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If I may intervene, I don't think the jury analogy is a good fit, as Wikipedians can supply evidence and make judgments (or cast votes). Perhaps a better analogy is the 'investigating judge' seen in some countries. In any case, the point is that WP is an open system, and unless someone is clearly off topic and out of order, their evidence, views and votes should be included in any discussion. A recusal based on prior involvement is a powerful tool for trolls and those wishing to abuse the system. Crum375 22:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that we have no definition of "involvement" and that it would be very hard to come up with an adequate one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Site precedent for other recusals would operate here and be somewhat easier to apply than at, for instance, WP:BLOCK because a blocking admin usually acts alone while this is by nature a community discussion with plenty of people examining the situation. Per WP:AGF, the closing admin would count each support or oppose unless the sysop's own research or someone else's evidence gave reason to disregard it, or unless that editor's reasoning was nonexistent or faulty. Durova^Charge! 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If what you are saying is that the closing admin should use common sense, then we agree. It's artificial exclusion based on 'involvement' or 'impartiality' that I have a problem with. Crum375 03:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Then how would you apply common sense to this community ban request? WP:CN#Certified.Gangsta The user's block history shows the proposal isn't frivolous.[63] Yet it's initiated by the same editor who started the RFC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta which received almost no discussion other than this.[64] And the requestor's own block history has its problems.[65] Durova^Charge! 05:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly when common sense kicks in. There are two issues: whether to even start a community ban process, and then given the votes to decide on consensus. In this case, while an RFC is ongoing, it is clearly improper to rush to a community ban, unless the user's disruption suddenly reaches new heights. I would have no problem, however, to accept the RFC originator's inputs and vote, if a ban process is started. The closing admin and other participants should carefully look at the evidence and rationale provided by each voter - the fact that a voter was himself disruptive at some point should not affect the results if the evidence is otherwise solid. We focus on the message, not the messenger. And this would include both possible 'involvement' with the ban candidate as well as disruptive behavior in general. Crum375 05:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel there's too much wikilawyering going on here. Common sense is the key. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Right 2 pennies worth from Lethaniol:

As far as I have read here, and at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy there seems to be general consensus for the principle but not on the practical wording required for this policy. Now I may have missed something, so please correct me if I am wrong.

The consensus on the principle that I see is this - that when working out if there is a strong consensus for a community ban, involved users are not counted in any consensus. This does not include editors who occasionally have made minor edits to the articles in question or administrators who respond to basic tasks e.g. 3RR requests, vandalism reverting, page protection. As a number of users have said - common sense is paramount, and the closing adminstrator will hopefully have enough to make the call on who and who is not "involved".

So the real issue seems to be how to get this principle written down. Currently we have the following options:

1. The current version: Community bans must be supported by a strong* consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful* of admins or users.
2. An inclusive version: Community bans must be supported by a strong* consensus of uninvolved users ..."
3. An exclusive version: Community bans must be supported by a strong* consensus exclusing involved users ..." (I have added this alternative as I do not think it has been considered as of yet)

• Note I will not comment further here but vague terms such as strong or handful I find, well too vague - they should either be made more precise, or precedent from previous cases followed.

• • Also note that I will not comment on whether uninvolved editors should be of good standing or not. Obviously they should be, we can not have trolls supporting one another, but this issue is for another discussion, on how we define good standing.

• • • Vague adjectives such as in deeply involved users, or active uninvolved users, could be added in, but will likely lead to even more wikilawyering on what these terms mean - better to keep it simple.

Now basically none of these three versions are perfect - law and bureaucracy never is. We should pick the one that is likely to cause the least problems, and hence cause the least additional work.

These are the following problems that I can see:

1. A majority of involved users gang up to try and ban minority user(s). This is most likely to happen with the current version, if the closing administrator lacks the required tact, foresight and common sense.
2. Involved users lodge a ArbCom request because they have been excluded from participating in reaching consensus (note even though the ArbCom request is unlikely to be accepted - it still wastes time). This is most likely to happen with the current version, as though it will be clear to experienced administrators that common sense means that involved users should not be counted when reaching consensus, it would not be unreasonable for the average user (let alone trolls) to think that this principle has been picked out of thin air and feel that the system is not transparent and being used against them.
3. Involved (and maybe even uninvolved) users wikilawyer over what involved or uninvolved means, leading to prolonged discussions, presentation of precedents and explanation of common sense principle, and maybe even an ArbCom request. Now obviously this is most likely to happen with options 2/3 above, and is the main reason people seem to be uncomfortable with them. But think for a moment about the current version - it has exactly the same problem - if only delayed! When an involved user finds out that their views have not been taken into account in any consensus against their opinion, they will not only ask "Where does it say that involved users are discounted in any consensus discussions" (problem 1 above) but also "and who determined that I was an involved user" etc.
4. That not enough uninvolved users turn up to enable a fair consensus to be reached - i.e Fred Bauder's concern. Note I will bring to Fred's attention that this comment has been raised a number of times during this discussion - just in case in does not know and he wishes to have an input. Maybe our fears on this issue should be somewhat placated considering the recent turnout in such discussion on the Community Noticeboard [66][67].

So because of the first problem and the fact that the third problem affects all three options, better to pick either the second or third option (i.e. inclusive or exclusive) IMHO. As to which is better of these options I do not know.

Anyway something to chew the cud on, and get the discussion restarted. Cheers Lethaniol 11:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minority opinions

Regarding "While notable minority opinions are welcome when attributable to reliable sources, and normal editors occasionally make mistakes, sometimes a Wikipedia editor creates long-term problems by persistently editing a page with information which is not attributable to reliable sources." Isn't the opposite also frequently happening, editors disrupting by censoring articles from good-faithed inclusion of minority opinions with reliable sources? —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)