Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:02, 26 May 2010

Comment

Might be good to better summarize the enforcement actions, although this would take some amount of work. I should avoid my specific RFC comments now; however, I would suggest expanding the criteria to both "reasonable and necessary" from just "necessary" as the conjunction is an important distinction in justice. Thanks for starting this. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, this is a work in progress; I like to leave ***** in the text when I am working on something piecemeal to make it easier to come back to the right place later.

I would argue that if the probation is not necessary it should be abolished, and if something else would work better then we should try that instead. I will keep "reasonable and necessary" in mind when poring over the language, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

How do we want to enable review? Review could be of the process, or of the outcomes. Process review might be facilitated by presenting some of the requests and an analysis, but there is the danger that any one chosen might be seen as skewed. Outcome review seems rather harder. Anecdotally we have heard folk say that things are "better" but we know this still is a problem area. And progress is glacially slow in some cases. ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, it will be nice if folks clarify their comments on the process and outcomes distinction. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am honestly not sure right now what I think should be done, other than that the probation was established with some intent of exposing it to later review. I think the RE page is currently a mess, but I am not sure if that puts me in the abolish camp, the reform camp, or the take it to ArbCom camp. I think review of any individual case is better suited to (*shudder*) AN/I, and would like to hear from the community whether they still think this is a good idea or if we should change anything about the stated or the actual processes. Anecdotally, I think the situation is better than it was five months ago, but I have no idea whether it is better than it was a year ago. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's been clear there is a recurring issue, Arbcom could not deal with it so the Probation was created to give the community a chance to address things. However, the community may be losing will, so it seems the only resolution path will be back to Arbcom with some nebulous undecidable issue or maybe a series of bans or blocks. Rebuilding community trust is difficult after sides are drawn. If only we could play a song. Maybe there will be some other resolution path created. Perhaps a mini elected tribunal (3 eds) group (like arbcom) just for climate change. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I quite like the fact that the scope is not too defined, although the outcome(s) is/are. As long as anyone attempting to decide on what is and is not off-topic is quickly corrected, then not only the purpose - past, present and possibly future - of the probation can be discussed, but the issues in adminning it, in achieving resolution, in changing issues identified (and whether issues have been identified or simply repeated and rebutted), and frankly, the whole kit and caboodle (I know that I will be, as an "uninvolved admin", subject to comment regarding my actions and alleged perceptions - well, so be it.) If it is going to be fairly lax in the breadth of review then I suggest it gets started with as little refining as is needed; let it evolve. Oh, and one last question; who the fuck is going to close it? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sections

Can we split this RfC into multiple subsections please? Some of these could involved "involvedness of administrators", "administrator-only discussion areas", and of course, the central issue of usefulness. The first two are smaller but important points that relate to the workings of the probation; the latter is the big-important issue that we must address. NW (Talk) 01:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That could end up a huge RFC, as the 'uninvolved admin' and 'admin discussion' subsections could receive a lot of comment. Is it better to concentrate on the question of 'keep as is, delete, or modify the sanctions' and then have a separate process for the actual modification, if that is decided? Or to expect the RFC to arrive at a definite solution for all these things? I don't know which option is the more desirable or the one most favoured when using RFC. Weakopedia (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can see value in an "uninvolved admin" section of WP:GSCCRE (at least I think I can -- I'm no longer sure even about that). I can't see any possible value in separating admin and regular editor comments here. Frankly, I'm not even sure why we separate "involved" from "uninvolved" in the RfC. The point is to get a sense of the consensus of the entire community (when there is one or may be one), right? Admins have no special standing in that. None whatever. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

View

2over0, do you have a view on the civility concerns raised in the RFE? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 15:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Recently, I have not checked. Generally, I think many of them would be more amenable to WP:WQA or WP:RFC/U. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Notes for RfC closer

In addition to the call from the {{rfctag}}, this request for comment has been advertised at my talkpage, Misplaced Pages talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation, and Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Stephan Schulz‎ & Lar (currently open but hopefully archived by the time this RfC closes). I also requested input before opening at the talkpages of three users who have been highly active in administering the climate change probation, Lar, LessHeard vanU, and NuclearWarfare. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

About those numbers in my RfC proposal

Thanks for your comment. I wasn't sure how detailed to be about numbers, but let me lay it out in a bit more detail: Arbcom initially picks five admins, initially one for a one-month term, a second for two-months, etc. up to five. Then each month Arbcom picks a replacement for the admin whose term ends. The one- and two-month appointments should go to editors already on the scene (and perhaps more of the initial appointments, I dunno). In a year's time, Arbcom could potentially have picked 16 admins (five initially, then one each month) and be ready to pick another if it passes another RfC. Arbcom will probably have to pick replacements at some point. I think there are 16 good, willing admins out there who could do this. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Five months is a long time to be in the barrel. What about 7 admins and every month rotate two out? (some fudging to handle the odd man out case needed but you get the idea) ++Lar: t/c 15:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There are other issues about quorum for action to occur, unless it will just take a seconded motion. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 16:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Was that a response to me? Wasn't clear. Quorum with 5 is 3 (and 2 is a majority of quorum), and with 7 is 4 (and 2 is a tie so you need 3 of 4, maybe not as good). My concern purely is with burnout though. Replacing everyone at once is bad for continuity but just one at a time is not fast enough to avoid it with 5 people, and we don't want just 3 for sure! How about 9 folks with three a month? Then quorum is 5 (and 3 is a majority of quorum). People could rotate back in too. ++Lar: t/c 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought this was a volunteer outfit (where's the fine print I missed?). Now we're advocating that arbcom draft admins for a five month shit detail? Would this be a random selection or a "get even with so-and-so ..." Hey all admins, hurry up and edit climate change articles substantially so you'll be exempt from this draft as involved. Side benefit, we get new experienced editors (the "draft dodgers") working on the climate change articles. Vsmith (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I could make some puns about drafts and cold winds blowing under doors and so forth I guess? But no. I think I'll just point out that the way I read JWB's proposal (I could be wrong) was that the Arbs would seek volunteers and then select from the pool. If they could not scare up the requisite number of volunteers that were suitably qualified (whatever "suitably" means) then... um... shoot, I dunno. Maybe THEY'D have to do it? But I don't see that as a problem. All the glory and good times that come with it... should have people busting down the door in no time. Ok maybe not but I DO think we'd have enough volunteers. ++Lar: t/c 21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Following on about Quorum, is that decisions can be hung by no shows. Quorum is not the majority required to pass an action it is the minimum required to have a deliberation or motion. If 5 are appointed and 2 no show then would all three be required for majority to pass an action or 2 of the three to make majority? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the latter is the way to go... A majority of the majority, not an absolute majority. So in my 9 example, 5 is quorum and 3 is a majority of the minimal quorum. If more folk participate the majority goes up. Or one could use the same scheme ArbCom uses where there is explicit removal and the majority calculated as one goes. ++Lar: t/c 03:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Simple enough thanks, if the Quorum shows up. ArbCom might have a better method, I'll have to look. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would think a majority of those present (two out of three, three out of four or five) should be a workable way to go. If more are necessary, it would probably be unworkable. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I thought I'd posted this at Hans Adler's talk page. Imagine my surprise to find I'd stuck it here. I have no clue about the dynamics of admin volunteer involvement. I've never found the idea of being an admin in any way interesting or rewarding, so it's all alien to me. (Yes, I think volunteers would be the way to go, perhaps some behind-the-scenes recruiting from ArbCom members.) Perhaps we could offer discount movie tickets to those who stick it out for the full term. I figured five admins for five months was something doable, but it isn't a suicide pact. If ArbCom finds it impossible, Arbcom should be able to adjust it or toss it out. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 04:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Motion to Suspend

Can we suspend this RFC, with a temp close box, until the ArbComm case is answered? It is taking away from the quality in both. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather it were the other way round, once the views here are concluded (and most of them see some need for arbcom in one form or another, presently) then the ArbCom will have a better understanding of the perceived issues and be able to address those in their deliberations - plus, here the participants are attempting to address the issue of the probation rather than save their necks/slay their opponents in the ArbCom arena. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, how to suspend an Arbcom motion but to ask the filer? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What ArbCom will probably do is just let the case sit and the RfC sit for a week or 2 before all the arb members vote. So for now I would just let both run. Since this is such a heated topic, there will be plenty of comments and votes on this RfC that it will probably be safe to close it in say 5 - 7 days time. There is already a large amount of votes on statements on this RfC, so arbcom will be able to get a good feel of community views.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Content caring

Since discussion is not encouraged on the RFC, I'll start here. This bit about Admins and others not caring about the content seems like a bad faith assumption to me. In my opinion, NPOV means that editors should care about the sources to make the content into a neutral voice. It seems like some folks may be taking ownership too far, when they assume others don't care about content like they do, more or less their specific content is what they would like others to care about. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to a particular point raised by one of the editors in the RfC? If so, who and what section? SPLETTE :] 21:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC in one of his endorsements - it is a viewpoint that is based on a premise that if you don't support WMC's actions that you do not support his scientifically based editing and therefore editing based on good sources; therefore you don't care about content. Not subscribing to that viewpoint is, therefore, also not caring about content. The better known variant is; the ends justify the means. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think WMC has a term that aptly describes the notion that if you abhor WMC's approach to editing here you necessarily either disagree with the science or don't care: "rubbish". ++Lar: t/c 01:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)