Professor marginalia (talk | contribs) m →convenience break (1): real words work better ;) |
→convenience break (1): r to ProfM |
||
Line 750: | Line 750: | ||
{{OD}}Yes well that's fine, but the real question is, would you be willing to let it be ''tried?'' '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__[[User_talk:Becritical|Talk]]</sub> 04:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
{{OD}}Yes well that's fine, but the real question is, would you be willing to let it be ''tried?'' '''BE'''—<span style="background:black;color:white;padding:2px 7px 4px 0px;text-shadow:white 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;font-size:100%;">—'''Critical'''</span><sub>__[[User_talk:Becritical|Talk]]</sub> 04:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:"Tried" is fine. "Imposed" someplace is not. I was only half jesting before that this be the test case. New guideline proposals are perhaps the best place to start. You'd have less pushback for the experiment (it's a ''proposal''), and both the finished product and the process by which it was derived may be more dispassionately judged by the community at large. [[User:Professor marginalia|Professor marginalia]] ([[User talk:Professor marginalia|talk]]) 04:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
:"Tried" is fine. "Imposed" someplace is not. I was only half jesting before that this be the test case. New guideline proposals are perhaps the best place to start. You'd have less pushback for the experiment (it's a ''proposal''), and both the finished product and the process by which it was derived may be more dispassionately judged by the community at large. [[User:Professor marginalia|Professor marginalia]] ([[User talk:Professor marginalia|talk]]) 04:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
::ProfM: I don't expect you or anyone else to fully understand the system until you see it in action. I'd hoped for a little more good faith and/or intuitive grasp than I've actually run across (not surprising, since most of the people who have contributed here so far dislike me for one valid reason or another), but it's a subtle concept and it takes some getting used to. The thing you have to know about me for this to make sense is that I am perhaps the strongest and most knowledgable advocate for the consensus process on the project. I have ''faith'', if you will, that the consensus process - done honestly and fairly - can resolve a large majority of the problems on wikipedia. The problem is that most editors (and most sysops) have only a dim and ignorant conception of what the consensus process is (no offense to anyone), and so most debates on wikipedia have as much in common with consensus discussions as Mubarak's purportedly democratic regime had in common with actual democracy. |
|||
::This proposal is designed to enforce and reinforce the consensus process, nothing more. It doesn't mean that the discussion will actually reach a result, it doesn't mean that the discussion will reach the ''right'' result (whatever that might mean to you); it doesn't mean that editors will be any more honorable or knowledgable than they are now. It just means that the discussion will be required to be a consensus discussion in its true and proper sense, and not the steaming piles of garbage that often pass for consensus discussions on project. that's all. |
|||
::You are entitled to think that that's a stupid idea if you like, but I will remind you that consensus in one of the five pillars of the project, and this sheriff thing is a first step in taking the idea of consensus seriously. Of course, if you don't believe that we ''should'' take the idea of consensus seriously, then maybe it's time we scratched it off as one of the pillars and moved to a more autocratic form of social organization. That would be better than the (unabashedly stupid) system we have on the project now. So, you tell me what you want to do: |
|||
::*Do you want to throw in the towel on consensus completely and try something else? |
|||
::*Do you want to argue that the system we have is actually a good consensus system? |
|||
::*Do you want to take some steps to give consensus discussions a fighting chance? |
|||
::First point - fine with me, I can work in an autocratic system at need. second point - meh, you don't have a ghost of a chance of winning that debate with me. third point - welcome to sheriffville (unless you have a better idea). This proposal ''will work as advertised'' if you give it half a chance. --[[User_talk:Ludwigs2|<span style="color:darkblue;font-weight:bold">Ludwigs</span><span style="color:green;font-weight:bold">2</span>]] 07:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== proposing to the community == |
== proposing to the community == |
Revision as of 07:02, 18 February 2011
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Abuse
What happens if this is abused, as admin ship is on occasions?Slatersteven (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- First off, note that abuse is much easier to identify that it is with normal sysops, because of the restricted nature of what a sheriff can do. Sheriffs have a clear and limited mandate, and are held to a higher standard: If they can justify their acts as unbiased and necessary for the preservation of peace on the page they should be more or less immune, but if there's even a reasonable suspicion that they've gone awry then the community should take action. There are different gradations: a sheriff who makes an error in judgement should probably get a reminder about the restricted mandate, then be allowed to do a mea culpa and get back to work. A sheriff who seems not to understand the limited mandate and consistently behaves in un-sheriff-like ways should be removed and replaced, possibly with a bar on sheriffing again until they understand the rules better. A sheriff who grossly and intentionally violates the limited mandate (e.g. where someone volunteers to sheriff on a page specifically to use those powers to push through a POV), should be removed, barred from sheriffing, and probably desysoped for the violation of community trust. It's pretty much like cops in the real world: they should be given broad benefit of the doubt because they are doing an unpleasant job for the community's benefit, but woe unto them if they violate that community trust.
- It's actually a fairly self-balancing system. Sheriffs can pretty much guarantee to ruffle feathers on a page, and editors with ruffled feathers will be watching and documenting every darned thing the sheriff does, looking for a way to get him/her in trouble. perceived abuse will be noticed and reported rapidly, and evaluation of such claims is straight-forward (does the reported incident lie within the sheriff's limited mandate or not?). Sheriffs will get quick feedback on their actions, will have an incentive to stick to the letter of their mandate religiously, and the clear specification of that mandate means that whole thing will be handled with far less wiki-drama than your normal ANI "this sysop is being mean to me" thread. --Ludwigs2 16:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Im seem to recall that that has all be sadi about admin ship, yet admins regulay abuse their power with apparetn impunity. Such as the recent incident over Carol where admins clealry acted in a way that was (at best) partial. Unless it is will and not should then we will get the saem cabalisation gangs of Sherifs protecting their pets. Its not only the rules, but the enforcement that would have to be tougher.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Slater, pardon me for leading off with this, but you really need to (1) pay more attention to your typing, or (2) invest in a background spell checker. posts like above are hard to parse, and make it hard to take you seriously. I mean, nine spelling/grammar errors in one short paragraph??? My 12 year old niece wouldn't do that badly, ever...
- The key difference here is that the rules for a sheriff are specific and restrictive. The problem with controlling normal sysops is that sysops have broad powers, more or less complete autonomy, and an ambiguous mandate. Anyone who wants to say that a sysop is doing something s/he shouldn't be doing has to get over the hurdle that no one has a clear idea of what a sysop should be doing, so such discussions boil down to wandering debates with huge loopholes and lots of wiggle room. That's not the case here, where the intent is to restrict the job to a limited area of action and take a jaundiced view of behavior that seems to step outside that area. It will be easy to tell when a sheriff is doing something s/he oughtn't, and quickly resolvable by removing the sheriff (who is only there because the community asked him/her to be there int he first place).
- In short, I understand your concern, but the system is designed specifically to minimize that concern Rogue sheriffs will get the axe without fuss, muss or bother. --Ludwigs2 15:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest then the addition of a new restriction. "that no Sheriff may be appointed to pages that they have been involved in acting in the role of an editor or as a party to dispute.” Lets make sure that the old gangs do not show up by having truly uninvolved sheriffs.Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that would probably be a natural part of the selection process, but it's easy enough to work in. I'll add it. --Ludwigs2 17:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
- HAs it been added yet>Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I see two things here: one, that a sheriff would need to apply the rules equally to people on both sides of a debate. I've seen it happen otherwise. Second, a sheriff would need to be someone who is inexpert not only in the subject area, but also in the kinds of debates taking place. There are too many people on WP who simply have an ax to grind concerning particular types of POV pushing, whether it be about race, politics, or other kinds of things. These admins have seen so much POV pushing that they are angry, and they will be unable to see that a POV pusher may have a point. They will subtly favor one group over another. I really don't like it that the admin corps is going to enforce this. If this is what we're going to do, then create a new usergroup in addition to admins. Here's what I propose:
Create a new usergroup called "sheriff" like this
$wgGroupPermissions['sheriff']['block'] = true;
That added to the WP Localsettings file would add a new usergroup and people could be given that right (by a bureaucrat), as "temporary admins" and they would be allowed only to block users who are editing on the page where they've volunteered to be a sheriff. (And yeah, it's that simple to implement in mediawiki). BE——Critical__Talk 20:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Another suggestion: what if the editors on a particular page had to agree to accept the sheriff? They could be told they have to have a sheriff, perhaps, but they could choose which one they wanted by full consensus. Full consensus probably wouldn't be too hard to achieve on such a matter, if the pool of sheriffs were large enough. BE——Critical__Talk 01:36, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've added in most of your stuff, plus some other material. check it over. with respect to your last point, sure, if a group of editors decides they want a sheriff, they could ask (either over at AN, or maybe on a special Sheriff's noticeboard for things like that). That's kind of covered under the 'Various procedures for doing so may occur...' bit.--Ludwigs2 09:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Two problems jump out at me. First, the name is too reminiscent of Citizendium's constables.
- Secondly, a bigger concern is that admins do this kind of thing already. Why would a special group need to be formed for it? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 10:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, the reverting back to a version of the sheriff's choice is highly problematic for all the obvious reasons. Admins have leeway to do this now, but it has to be used sparingly—there has to be something like a BLP violation, or some other clearly inappropriate thing. We can also choose to revert to a version before a 3RR violation. But making a purely editorial decision (this is the best version) is not on. And I think I saw somewhere on the page (though now I can't find it) that sheriffs should apply their restrictions to all parties equally? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 10:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Why so many 'mays' A sheriff who breaks rule A may lose his powers. Sorry but if they have extraordinary powers then the sanctions need to be extraordinary too. I would say that any sheriff, who is found to have broken the rules, should not may, lose their status as a sheriff.Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- @Slim: I've never edited (or even looked) at Citizendium, so I don't know what constables do there, or why the comparison is problematic. That being said, the idea here is to create a class of 'Officers of the Peace' (aka cops), and so any appropriate name is going to be reminiscent of every other appropriate name. unless, that is, you want to reach for obscure referents. The thing I like about the TS name is that it retains that sense of lawlessness that Wikipedia already prizes - 'sheriff' feels more freewheeling and liberal while 'constable' sounds stuffy and establishment oriented (to my ear anyway). do you have a better suggestion?
- with respect to reversion - this kind of thing isn't strictly necessary, but it's a useful tool for the toolbox. As noted, the goal here is to take away the advantages of bad behavior. One of the more frequent activities I see in page fights is editors struggling over which version gets displayed to the public during discussions, and this often has ramifications for the discussion - editors who manage to get their preferred version displayed will often drag their heels or try to squelch discussion, because they already have what they want. and that's not even considering tendentious edits and reverts in mainspace designed merely to infuriate other editors. Giving the sheriff power to dictate a particular version of the page for the purpose of the discussion pulls the rug right out from under that. If it helps, think of it as an ad hoc implementation of flagged revisions for troubled pages. Remember, the operant thought here is that sheriffs are going to be heavily monitored by page participants and sysops at AN, and will lose the sheriff status if they do anything controversial or one -ided, or at least anything that they cannot explain adequately on demand.
- @Slatersteven: I'm still rewriting. however, I do want to leave the opportunity for sheriffs to explain an action and have them discussed rather than just get a bureaucratic axe on appearances. I expect some acts might look odd at first blush, but actually have decent reasons behind them which place them well within the Sheriff's scope. We wouldn't want good sheriffs de-sheriffed for doing their job well. --Ludwigs2 17:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am not sugesting that what I am saying is that if a 'cop' breaks the rules (and is found to have broken the ruels) there should be no may about them being sanctioned (and indead givent the extent of their powers I see no reason why they should not lose those for even minor infringements). I see that this will be the same as aminship with 'Cops' arguing the toss about the fact they did not breach the rules for days on end at RFC's. There is also the issue of consesnsus, If some one does indead become an advocacy 'cop' then he will have allies who will step into any complaint and assist.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ludwigs, constables on Citizendium are or were the admins, and the name attracted a fair bit of ridicule because of the cop aspect. We had a similar thing on Wikipedia years ago, which didn't last, and I'm writing now entirely from memory, but it was an investigations/mediation group that offered to troubleshoot at any article it was invited to look at, and it also used cop imagery, and was sunk almost entirely because of the name. So I think "sheriff" wouldn't work. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Jack Merridew 15:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- So why not call them a Protector? Or (as a joke) a page lord.Slatersteven (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Ludwigs, constables on Citizendium are or were the admins, and the name attracted a fair bit of ridicule because of the cop aspect. We had a similar thing on Wikipedia years ago, which didn't last, and I'm writing now entirely from memory, but it was an investigations/mediation group that offered to troubleshoot at any article it was invited to look at, and it also used cop imagery, and was sunk almost entirely because of the name. So I think "sheriff" wouldn't work. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- lol - thank you for not suggesting "unterführer". The two keys to making this not a joke are establishing authority and legitimacy. achieve that and it will work, fail to, and it won't. To my mind the name is largely irrelevant, because what's ultimately going to make it fly is the broad understanding that this person (whatever s/he's called) can make it impossible to achieve editing goals on an article unless the goals are sought in civil, deliberative discussion. To use a not-great analogy, this is the same reason they have teachers in study hall: the teachers don't do anything, they just inhibit the kids from acting out on the normal hijinks that kids will get into unsupervised. Without the hijinks, the kids either sit in boredom or study; what else is there to do? The teacher needs to have the authority to send students to the principle, obviously, and needs to pay attention to stop sneaky hijinks, but once that authority is recognized as legitimate it almost never needs to be used because the rules get respected.
- and you're right about all the 'mays'. I'll fix that now. --Ludwigs2 21:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I changed the reverting back part per SV. These Sheriffs have greater powers than current admins at the pages they monitor. Their mandate is for much deeper control than I've ever seen an admin take under the current system. In accordance with this, they have to have stricter rules so they don't abuse their powers. But of course there should be consensus among neutral editors that they did abuse them. You can't have a Sheriff feeling too unsafe. It would be embarrassing to actually lose your status.
I have another suggestion, which I don't really like, but which might make this fly much more easily: give Sheriffs the ability to give page bans, and subject area bans, but not blocks. However, if an editor breaches a ban, a sysop should automatically block. That way, there won't be so much blather about it.
The Sheriff should have the power to make a call on consensus and then enforce it for a period of time- say a month or a week: once consensus is reached you don't want a couple of editors to come in and say "oops, no consensus anymore."
I'd be fine changing the name... how about "Crisis Mediator?" Sound psychological enough? BE——Critical__Talk 03:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
And another suggestion: a Sheriff should try to get a bunch of other editors involved; that should be easier for a page under a Sheriff, because sometimes all the non-POV accounts have been driven off and would come back under a sheriff's protection. This would be necessary to getting real NPOV. Sometimes most of the current page editors are of one opinion, and they would call in a Sheriff thinking they will get their way. BE——Critical__Talk 03:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- BC, you're starting to lose the edge on this. it's very important from a sociological perspective that sheriffs are self-contained authorities. If we don't grant them the power to impose short blocks, then they have to rely on sysops for their power, and they will (almost immediately) find themselves having to request help and having to explain before they act, and that will mean that the editors they are trying to moderate will be able to start doing run-arounds (wheedling sysops, organizing disputes and debates, playing politics, attacking the sheriff's character and legitimacy). If that happens you might as well not even have a sheriff. they will not be able to do the job effectively, and will just be another bureaucratic layer for people to squabble in.
- I understand that this is very uncomfortable (and I know it will be uncomfortable for many people on project), but the only way this will work is if you give the sheriff complete self-contained authority over the page, and rely on the strict restrictions, close monitoring, and the ability to easily unseat him/her to keep his/her behavior in line. Imagine what the world would be like if police officers had to call their superiors each and every time they wanted to discharge their weapon: the ones who didn't get shot waiting for permission would not have one ounce of respect from anyone.
- I'm less concerned about the reversion thing, but I'd still like to see it available as an option. again, the point here is to give the sheriff the tools s/he needs to quickly, quietly, and efficiently put a stop to nonsense. In disputes, people use mainspace to do all sorts of nonsense. Half the time I see edit wars start, they start because a group of editors is trying to bait another editor into getting blocked so that they don't have to discuss changes in talk. Now a sheriff could put a stop to that quickly enough with BoP blocks, but that will leave legitimacy issues of its own (much like the 'always locked on the wrong version' thing with edit protection). Maybe we could compromise - rather than give sheriffs revert power, give the sheriff a special template that says something like "This article/section is currently disputed; discussion is ongoing"; they can slap that onto the article and insist that it stay there until editors work things out. The point is not to let the end product of a nascent edit war be seen as a victory for either side.
- In other news... If you really don't like the name, I suggest we go with the simple but factual "Moderator". That's really what they are, anyway, but I like the folksy feel of the word sheriff. Reminds me of The Andy Griffith Show.
- with the respect to your last point - I don't think sheriffs should canvass, and I think they should steer entirely clear of content issues. The most a sheriff would do would be to recommend an RfC or noticeboard posting to participants without insisting on it. if you get a page that's dominated by editors of a single mind, then what they decide is what they decide; The sheriff's only job is to make sure that if editors of a different opinion show up, the conversation remains civil and productive, and doesn't devolve to dirty tricks.--Ludwigs2 04:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, so let's see if we can get them blocking power. I don't think Mediawiki gives the option for single page blocking, which would be ideal. I think moderation would be part of the job. Also, I think a moderator should have the ability to enforce consensus. IOW, make a judgment about what the consensus is, and not let one or two objecting editors mess it up for at least a while. Install a consensus version, and then continue discussion, then a week later maybe there's a change if someone still objects. It should be official also that a Sheriff can block/ban for continual IDIDNTHEARTHAT which has been explained in a thoroughly convincing way over and over. Which is about the same thing as saying enforce consensus for a period of time. As to reverting to an NPOV version of the page, that requires content decisions on the part of the moderator. But reverting to a page before the current dispute should be acceptable. BE——Critical__Talk 04:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you want to change it to "Moderator," there's a you can use. BE——Critical__Talk 05:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if you’ve already addressed this point somewhere else Ludwig, but if you have I haven’t seen it. Your proposal for this policy says that editors can make a complaint if they think the sheriff is using his power irresponsibly, and that if this is indeed the case it’ll lead to the sheriff being replaced. What I’d like to know is, who will be making the ultimate decision about whether the sheriff has misused his power? Will it just be determined by community consensus?
If that’s the answer, I’m concerned that situation will lend itself to the same cycle of bias that already exists. If an article is being dominated by a large enough group of editors with the same viewpoint, they would be able to select a sheriff who shares this viewpoint, who could then help drive away everyone who opposes this group. Even though this would obviously be an abuse of the sheriff’s power, if the dominant group of editors support him and all of the editors who oppose him have been driven away, it would still be impossible to reach a consensus to replace him. If this proposal gets implemented, how would we prevent this sort of situation from happening? --Captain Occam (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I am also concearned about this. I have raised doubts about this as well. The idea that Sheriffs will not be able to enforce on pagesd that are already active on is one answer to this. But enforcement by consensus would still be a potential issue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sheriffs definitely should need to meet the criteria to be considered “uninvolved” in the pages they patrol, but I don’t think that’ll be enough on its own. There have been plenty of examples of nominally uninvolved administrators who’ve still enforced policy non-neutrally. From what I’ve seen, this problem seems to have arisen especially often in the climate change topic area. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree its not enough. I shall start a new sectio to discuse this point.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- The point of this (and this is an idea that might take some getting used to) is to make the sheriff's responsibilities as non-interpretive as possible, and to impress upon sheriffs that they should interpret their abilities narrowly. that makes the system self-balancing. so, as an example: the sheriff has a right to redact personal attacks, but shouldn't disrupt the flow of conversation; yet some editor posts "If that idea weren't so stupid it would be laughable, but assuming you idiots really want it, we could try this..." Possible sheriff actions and results
- Sheriff does nothing - s/he's not fulfilling the mandate for the job. should be reminded of the job or even replaced if the pattern continues.
- Sheriff redacts the first two clauses, leaving the "we could try this..." part - fulfills the job mandate, can in no way be seen as exceeding it.
- Sheriff redacts the whole line - fulfills the job mandate, but exceeds it - should be reminded of the restrictions, asked to restore the non-attack part, and if the pattern continues should be removed or replaced.
- What makes this work is the fact that some editor on the page is inevitably going to be (at minimum) miffed by any action that the sheriff takes which the editor thinks is unfair, and there will be an open thread somewhere (at AN, perhaps), where perceived unfairness can be reported. This creates a nice tension. On the one hand, miffed editors have an incentive to keep a watchful eye and complain about perceived unfairness, but must make clear and compelling arguments because the sheriff will be assumed to be acting in good faith by default. On the other hand, the sheriff (if he's not an idiot) will recognize that people he restricts are going to be pissed at him and looking for ways to get him in trouble, and that's a wonderful incentive for the sheriff to be a pedantic stickler about remaining within the office's limits and doing things correctly by the book. Add that there's nothing a sheriff can do that's seriously irremediable (redactions should all be inline, and the worst a sheriff can deal out is a 24hr block). Let's take the absolute worst case scenario I can think of: a sheriff goes totally off the deep end, starts redacting every post an editor made and starts blocking him every 24 hours. well, sheriffs don't have the power to lock pages, so the editor will be complaining in his talk (and probably emailing sysops), no one can really argue that the sheriff's actions are within the job's restrictions (even if they want to), so within 2-3 days at the outside all that sheriff's actions are undone, the sheriff is off the page, desheriffed and probably having a very unpleasant time at ANI; problem solved.
- The point of this (and this is an idea that might take some getting used to) is to make the sheriff's responsibilities as non-interpretive as possible, and to impress upon sheriffs that they should interpret their abilities narrowly. that makes the system self-balancing. so, as an example: the sheriff has a right to redact personal attacks, but shouldn't disrupt the flow of conversation; yet some editor posts "If that idea weren't so stupid it would be laughable, but assuming you idiots really want it, we could try this..." Possible sheriff actions and results
- I agree its not enough. I shall start a new sectio to discuse this point.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- The trick is keeping the complaint threads tightly focussed on the "Is this allowable?" question, not "should this have been done" or "was this right". any questions of the latter type should be directed to a thread about modifying the rules that sheriffs work by; so long as a particular sheriff stays within the rules and applies them fairly he should be more or less immune. if he steps outside them, he should be toast.
- (Just as an aside, this is a standard move in governance everywhere: create a set of rules, make individals accountable for performing those rules correctly, but make any legitimacy questions focus on the rules themselves. cops do the job the legislature tells them they should do; people can't really argue with cops for doing their job, but should get the legislature to change laws they don't like.) --Ludwigs2 18:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. I do think this could work, but you haven’t really answered my question. In the hypothetical situation you’ve described, where a sheriff goes off the deep end, who will actually be making the decision about whether or not they’ve abused their power? Even if what is and isn’t an abuse of their power is defined in completely objective terms, it’s still going to have to be someone’s job to examine complaints about this, and determine whether or not the complaints have any merit.
- From what you’ve said here, it sounds like this would be determined by discussion at AN/I, and the decision to replace the sheriff would be made by ordinary sysops in response to complaints there. Well, if the sheriff is a popular editor whose actions are supported by many other editors, even if those actions are clear policy violations, I’m a lot less confident than you that an AN/I complaint would be able to resolve the issue. You probably remember the way this went when we were dealing with Mathsci’s personal attacks last spring. Some of the comments in question were completely obvious and clear-cut violations of WP:NPA, and ArbCom eventually agreed with us about that, but every time this issue was brought up at AN/I most of the people there ended up supporting Mathsci regardless, and it was impossible to find a sysop who was willing to do anything about how he was acting. How can we be confident that this same situation won’t arise when someone is trying to report a popular sheriff who’s abused his power? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, we don't want Sheriffs to have the same problems as the Admin corps. BE——Critical__Talk 23:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- From what you’ve said here, it sounds like this would be determined by discussion at AN/I, and the decision to replace the sheriff would be made by ordinary sysops in response to complaints there. Well, if the sheriff is a popular editor whose actions are supported by many other editors, even if those actions are clear policy violations, I’m a lot less confident than you that an AN/I complaint would be able to resolve the issue. You probably remember the way this went when we were dealing with Mathsci’s personal attacks last spring. Some of the comments in question were completely obvious and clear-cut violations of WP:NPA, and ArbCom eventually agreed with us about that, but every time this issue was brought up at AN/I most of the people there ended up supporting Mathsci regardless, and it was impossible to find a sysop who was willing to do anything about how he was acting. How can we be confident that this same situation won’t arise when someone is trying to report a popular sheriff who’s abused his power? --Captain Occam (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Broader questions
Isn't there a fundamental contradiction in empowering a "commander-in-chief" for the purposes of policing the "consensus process"? Consensus decision making is the means elected to writing the encycopedia, and not the overall objective of the project itself. And in my mind, the dispute resolution process in place now does a better job of incorporating "consensus decision making" in dealing with disruptive behaviors than this proposal does. While I agree DR is unwieldly, frustrating and uneven--but isn't this true of consensus building in the writing of articles as well? Why is consensus inadequate in this one context-editor behavior? Should we appoint sheriffs for NPOV, original research, fringe, and sourcing disputes too? The most contentious disputes I've witnessed in WP took place in policy, RFC/U and AN pages. Do we need sheriffs for those too? And user talk pages? Why not cut to the chase and simply appoint "Town Sheriffs" to write the articles themselves?
All admins currently have most of these "powers" already, one significant exception being granted any sort of "dominion" for their decisions in particular articles. We currently have DR up the ying-yang. WP:3, Wikipedia:NPOVN, WP:WQA, WP:RFCC, WP:AN, WP:RFAR--why aren't they enough? Assuming for the sake of argument that the "town sheriff" will be a real human being, that is, a person who is no more and no less gifted with neutrality, intelligence, and good intentions in DR, what do we expect the office Town Sheriff will accomplish that ordinary adminship through DR doesn't? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Prof Marginalia: First let me point out that I'm trying to strike a personal balance here. I'm relying on a whole lot of research and academic training in the construction of this, but I don't really want to come off as an authority, so I am intentionally underplaying things that I could (literally) write volumes about. I'm only saying that because I'm having a hard time striking that balance correctly, and so I apologize if I'm coming across as confusing in the following response.
- The thing I recognize that generally is not immediately evident to most people is that deliberations (in the formal sense of discussions aimed at achieving collective goals) always operate on two distinct levels:
- the ostensive level: things that are actually being discussed and considered by the group.
- the structural level: actions and things involved with determining intra-group dynamics and interpersonal relations.
- When wikipedia people talk about consensus they are almost always thinking solely about the first point - consensus as the process of discussing the material - and generally don't recognize that consensus is first and foremost a structural ideal. Equality among editors, civil interaction, use of reason, reference to real-world sources: these are conceptions about the structure of the discussion that apply independently of any particular content that might be discussed on a particular page. If you've ever participated in real-world mediation you can see this in action: professional mediators use a variety of tools designed to construct an artificial discussion structure so that people can escape whatever entrenched social dynamics are preventing proper communication. For example, any time you hear a mediator say something innocuous like "So, John, you've heard what Matilda has to say: what's your response to that?", the mediator is implicitly (for the short list) (i) putting John and Matilda on the same social level, (ii) enforcing turn taking, so that everyone gets heard, and (iii) legitimizing both John and Matilda's opinions, and their right to express an opinion in that context. Freeing up the conversation structurally like that is a necessary first step in real-world mediation; it's what allows further substantive discussion to happen.
- Wikipedia has almost no structural controls. In fact, wikipedia follows an 'ignore until punishment-time' strategy. We basically allow editors to do and say anything they want until they "go overboard", and then start applying cumulative warnings and sanctions; worse, the "gone overboard" criteria varies dramatically according to subjective sociological factors (time-on-project, popularity, impressions of factual correctness, etc.). This creates a conversational structure that (despite its superficial appearance of broad freedom) is actually anti-liberal and anti-egalitarian: it encourages demagoguery, cliquishness, Machiavellian intrigues, and other rhetorical gambits as editors unconsciously try to create a conversational structure that gives them advantages in the ostensive deliberation. You see this in real-world mediation as well: If it's corporate mediation, for instance, managers will often expect to be seated at the head of the table (an empowered position), and will get miffed if they are asked to sit at the side of the table opposite workers; even then, managers will often try to adjust the agenda for the mediation to focus on their concerns and avoid worker's concerns.
- This whole thing is designed to create a particular and favorable structure for conversations without actually affecting the ostensive deliberation itself. Real-world deliberative bodies almost invariably use some variation of Robert's Rules of Order to accomplish the same task, but RRO isn't suited for the kind of free-ranging discussion that happen on wikipedia - that would require an authoritatively-structured system that would not work (or be appropriate) on project. instead, wikipedia needs a retroactive remedy - let people say what they want, but quickly rein them in when they start to go off in bad structural directions, and do it before it has the chance to amplify.
- There's no more contradiction in 'enforcing consensus processes' than there is in a liberal society choosing to establish laws for itself. Anarchic democracy is a beautiful system if you have a community of people with the wisdom and detachment of buddhist monks. However, I don't think anyone would accuse wikipedia of that, and for a less enlightened community, structure is a decided blessing.
- The reason why a separate 'sheriff' class is useful is four-fold:
- legitimacy. Sysops have all the power they need, yes, but it's too easy to delegitimize their actions. The few times I've seen sysops try to intervene on pages in ways consistent with what I've been talking about here, they have been roundly assaulted and abused for overstepping their bounds (or worse crimes against wikipedia). By setting up a separate class, we can imbue the class with the necessary powers, and place necessary restrictions on the use of those powers, and remove all legitimacy objections at the start.
- limitations. sysops have a lot of concerns aside from the flow of discussion, including more serious sanctions and policy considerations. when sysops enter page conflicts they are usually inclined to start evaluating things more broadly than a sheriff would be allowed, and that (again) starts to impact on their legitimacy. Sheriff's have one general task: they do it well or they get removed. no conflicts.
- accountability. again, sheriffs have one clear, general task. if they perform it badly they lose their sheriff status and no one has to worry about them again. Contrast that with sysops, and the painful process of evaluating and desysopping even the worst admin, and you'll see the accountability advantage.
- division of labor. last, and possibly most important, shuffling off these kinds of non-project-threatening behavioral issues onto a class of sheriffs frees up sysops tremendously. They can apply their efforts to other, more important tasks; they can enter into discussions about more serious sanctions against editors without being burdened by a history of minor conflicts. In fact, I fully expect that many sysops will become sheriffs as well, because then they can choose between acting as a sheriff (which wold give them community legitimacy to protect them from certain kinds of recriminations) or acting as a sysop (which gives them a greater range of powers), so long as they were careful to keep the two separate.
- Long post, sorry, but I wanted to get things across as clearly as possible.
- P.s.per NPOV, fringe, rs, etc.: sheriffs would not engage in content discussions - they are structure-only. A sheriff might be appointed to a dispute over (say) some issue of NPOV, but he would have nothing to say or do about the content issue, he would just keep he conversation within the bounds of behavioral guidelines. --Ludwigs2 20:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- This in-depth explanation is useful, thanks. I'm pessimistic that this sheriff would be spared the "painful recriminations" like those admins are subjected to, but leaving that aside...
- Some of the most brutal "consensus building" I've seen on the project has taken place outside the confines of the articles themselves--in RFC/U and AN pages, the date linking dispute, FA reviews, policy and guidelines proposals, AFDs, and spread over an array of articles within a given topic area. Given the fact that in highly controversial topics, coming to a consensus over what's encyclopedically valid content within the article relies so heavily on evaluating claims against sources (and far less so, in my mind, inviting one-and-all to spout their own opinions, which are already overabundant as a rule)--how can the sheriff facilitate this necessary task without judging content? I ask this because in my experience editing controversial topics, it almost always comes down to this. Wouldn't the content neutral Town Sheriff idea be more realistic in smoothing consensus building when the legitimacy of sourced content isn't at issue?
- Models in place now that are often imposed once the "community's patience has been exhausted" include arbitration imposed article probation and discretionary sanctions, which tend to eliminate most "legitimacy" conflicts over admin blocks, etc. And true, or not true? This is often, but not always, successful in eliminating disruptions in the article(s)--even while certain editors may continue to push the boundaries, escalate through other means, and subject themselves to tighter restrictions. Editors who receive these "discretionary sanctions" frequently moan and groan more than ever, and campaign about how corrupt, arbitrary or unfair the process is, attempting to de-legitimize the authority of the arbitration committee and administrators. How would this be any different under the authority of a Town Sheriff? Wouldn't the discipline they try to impose be even easier to undermine? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- First, no, they shouldn't have any trouble maintaining their legitimacy if we make the rules tight enough. Then it would be a cut-and-dried case of whether or not they've broken the rules. A normal administrator has a lot of leeway, and thus more ways they can be attacked. As to whether the sheriff would need to rule on content: there is, contrary to Ludwigs' desire, a very tight body of rules regarding content. If strictly followed, those rules practically dictate content. The Sheriff can comment on procedure and policy. What you're asking here is what happens when a couple of editors are going against consensus, based on their arguments and policy. What does the Sheriff do if they're right and yet going against consensus? That's a good question, and I don't think we've answered it yet. The following is a possible way, but is it too much like determining content? I would love for you to review the argument on the Jerusalem talk page, because I think it's a perfect example: fully RS sources are ambiguous on the matter of whether Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. POV pushers are trying to keep the statement that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" in the article lead. It's a totally obvious case of POV pushing and breaking the policy. What would I do if I were a Sheriff there? First, I think I'd be able to say that there are RS sources on both sides. Everyone there agrees on that. I could do a vote/hand count to determine if that's consensus. Given that consensus, I could assume that if WP takes a stand on the matter, it's against the part of NPOV that says we describe the controversy. I could then request a refutation of the proposition that stating in the lead that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel" is not taking sides on the matter, that it is, in fact, merely "describing the controversy." Having asked that leading question, I could determine whether the editors who are practicing IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the matter are being disruptive. I could then warn/sanction them, and make a determination that in fact we need to change the article to the new proposed lead or something like it. But still... what if you have 10 POV-push editors who want it one way, and 1 who is right but going against consensus? Do we just enforce CIV and let the editor who is actually upholding the rules be driven from the article? We have, perhaps, the same problem as usual, in that we can't enforce NPOV and consensus doesn't always support NPOV. Ludwigs? BE——Critical__Talk 19:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, Arbitration enforcement has the same problems as usual for administrators, in that it's easy to attack someone who is relying on their own judgment too much. BE——Critical__Talk 19:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I largely agree with you that policies practically "dictate content" to a large extent, at least according to how I interpret those policies. But in my experience, disputes in articles are almost always entangled with disputes over whether or not rules have been broken. The broadly agreed "cut-and-dried" situations rarely lead to extended disruptions in articles because the existing systems work well managing them. But "cut-and-dried" situations often go unrecognized because (too many times) editors chime in who haven't read the sources or acquainted themselves with the topic enough to know which sources are good and which ones are crap. (That's a problem with RFCs in my opinion-it tends to stimulate "just some guy's opinion" from flyby's giving no attention to sourced opinion on the issue.)
- To be effective, admins, arbs and the Town Sheriff all have to constrain themselves to rules but there is no alternative, they also must be empowered to "use their own judgment". Professor marginalia (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- (e/c) The fundamental difference between sheriffing and arbitration (and really the key to this concept) is the way that power and authority is localized in a single individual whose behavior is limited by established rules and fully accountable. Editors dissatisfied with the sheriff's behavior should be directed to start a discussion about changing the rules; the sheriff's behavior should only come into question where the sheriff breaks or stretches the rules. that's what saves the sheriff from undue recriminations (he's just doing the job, as written and authorized).
- Now compare the two: in the arbitration model, there have been weeks of ugliness at the article page, and further weeks of ugliness at noticeboards, ANI, or other administrative venues before it even gets to arbitration. and then there are further weeks of ugliness as various people lay out their cases about how evil and horrible other editors have been. The arbitration result is usually restricted to sanctions on people: topic bans, admonishments, instructions to sysops that they can block certain editors for certain behaviors, etc. By contrast, a sheriff, steps into the talk page dispute directly and puts a stop to the nastier elements of the wrangling right there: he doesn't really have the power to sanction people themselves except in minor ways, but stops them from getting away with the kind of ugliness that would eventually lead to an arbitration case. In both approaches we get the same basic result - editors being more cautious about how they present themselves on the page - except the sheriff gives the results months earlier, in a way that doesn't actually excluding anyone from the conversation, and without all of the intermediary screaming, moaning, and ugliness.
- With respect to the 'necessary task' of evaluating content... this system relies on the dual-level observation I made above. The sheriff's job is essentially to enforce the liberal, egalitarian consensus structure that most Wikipedians would expect already exists (fair, reasonable discussion about content without nastiness, chicanery, or melodrama). Once the overt nastiness, chicanery, and melodrama are removed by the sheriff, the discussion in talk will be relatively calm and reasonable and it will become much easier for participants on the page to evaluate content discussion points on their merits. This may let the problem resolve itself, but more likely the varying sides will express their viewpoints in the most reasonable terms they can, and the conversation will get stuck there. This is actually a good state to be in, because it will clearly delineate the content differences without all of the superfluous interpersonal problems. At that point, the sheriff might do a number of things: make a suggestion for a compromise, suggest wording for a 3O or an RfC, suggest that mediation might be helpful, suggest that a particular policy or guideline is the solution to the problem and point the participants to a noticeboard... The sheriff doesn't have to judge content himself; he just has to remove all of the obstacles to reason and common sense that will naturally and inevitably crop up.
- (Just for an example, I've recently been involved in a discussion where one editor mostly relies on the the argument that a particular sourced viewpoint is being suppressed by advocate editors - he uses that line every time someone questions the reliability of his sources. A sheriff would simple redact that claim as uncivil wherever it occurred (without further judgment), implicitly forcing that editor to make an argument based on the merits of his sources rather than on the behavior of other editors. it would have saved the talk page a couple of thousand lines of cross-chatter and focused the issue right where it really needs to be.) --Ludwigs2 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- (after edit conflict comment. to prof M) yes, about using their own judgment. One of the most important qualities of authority is that the authority is trusted to act knowledgeably, responsibly, and independently within the boundaries of its mandate. The sheriff should be allowed to interpret the rules in terms of their spirit and intent and not be bound by their literal phrasing. There will obviously be an ongoing process of sheriffs taking action and the community retrospectively considering those actions and tweaking the rules to limit or expand the sheriff's power, but w should trust both that they will do their job well and that it will become evident and clear when they don't. --Ludwigs2 20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I reiterate what I said here about the need for a police force. The ensuing discussion illustrates the need. Yopienso (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- There already is a police force. They're called administrators. They're authorized to enforce some WP policies, which they do haphazardly (does anyone question this?) and according to some people sometimes biasedly. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, we have people with large machine guns, mops, and signs on their asses which say "kick me." BE——Critical__Talk 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Which is also a job description for "sheriff". Will Beback talk 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, we have people with large machine guns, mops, and signs on their asses which say "kick me." BE——Critical__Talk 16:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- There already is a police force. They're called administrators. They're authorized to enforce some WP policies, which they do haphazardly (does anyone question this?) and according to some people sometimes biasedly. Peter jackson (talk) 10:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Instatement process
I think it should be the same as for full Sysops, though it should be easier to get in considering that you get desysopped if you abuse your powers. Regular sysops can't be desysopped (really) so it's a big deal, but this is different. But if you just let people volunteer with only the vetting of "good standing," well, I can think of a number of editors who would get in and have no business being a sheriff or moderating skills. BE——Critical__Talk 04:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was actually thinking something milder - rather than requiring full community approval, the editor has to pass certain basic requirements, after which there's a waiting period of a week or so for others to register objections. basically it would be a "approved unless good cause to reject is shown" rather than "support needed to approve". I'd rather it didn't turn into a popularity contest, which would tend to stack the sheriff's box with editors who can gather lots of supporters. but more tomorrow - it's late here. --Ludwigs2 06:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, well from what I gather, you've been in a lot of conflict areas. If you think that the editors who participate in what you call "gangs" would make good Sheriffs or would not be approved, then I would say you probably know what you are talking about. So like you say it's in the details. BE——Critical__Talk 07:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- My own preference is not to judge people. There are editors on-project I really, really despise, but I have to admit that (in their own twisted, dysfunctional way) they have the best interests of the project at heart. I would be comfortable with them being sheriffs for two reasons: (i) I expect that once they got the gist of it, they would see the value of it and try to execute it well, and (ii) if they tried to abuse it, I'd take them to ANI and get them desheriffed (and would thoroughly enjoy the process). It wouldn't be like trying to get them banned or blocked or sanctioned (where half a ton of their friends can come and whine about what good editors they are). if they break the rules, then all of the 'good editor' protestations are irrelevant: they're still bad sheriffs. they get desheriffed and can go back to being "good editors". --Ludwigs2 19:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, as long as the whinging doesn't work. BE——Critical__Talk 16:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- My own preference is not to judge people. There are editors on-project I really, really despise, but I have to admit that (in their own twisted, dysfunctional way) they have the best interests of the project at heart. I would be comfortable with them being sheriffs for two reasons: (i) I expect that once they got the gist of it, they would see the value of it and try to execute it well, and (ii) if they tried to abuse it, I'd take them to ANI and get them desheriffed (and would thoroughly enjoy the process). It wouldn't be like trying to get them banned or blocked or sanctioned (where half a ton of their friends can come and whine about what good editors they are). if they break the rules, then all of the 'good editor' protestations are irrelevant: they're still bad sheriffs. they get desheriffed and can go back to being "good editors". --Ludwigs2 19:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, well from what I gather, you've been in a lot of conflict areas. If you think that the editors who participate in what you call "gangs" would make good Sheriffs or would not be approved, then I would say you probably know what you are talking about. So like you say it's in the details. BE——Critical__Talk 07:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Name
Any other potential names instead of "Sheriff?" SV for one had a problem with that name. BE——Critical__Talk 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Judge (it will appeal to comic nerds).Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Deputy, with the implication that the community has deputized the person to act on its behalf? BE——Critical__Talk 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- SOB?
- Deputy, with the implication that the community has deputized the person to act on its behalf? BE——Critical__Talk 16:59, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Look, I think we should just drop the name issue for now (because I doubt we're going to solve it), and discuss it when we present the idea to the greater community. there are a number of good options: sheriff or deputy, moderator, officer of agent (in the technical sense of someone empowered to do something), tongue in cheek ones like 'den mother'. let's get the idea across and worry about how it looks later. --Ludwigs2 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just a quibble, but I don't think there's actually such a thing as a town sheriff. They're county officials. Peter jackson (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- 'Town sheriff' is a convention used in westerns. I think in the old west sheriffs were appointed by the county but assigned to work in particular towns - they didn't really monitor the range-land between towns (that was more the realm of US marshals), but kept order in and about the towns themselves. In the modern US, of course, Sheriffs are mostly relegated to things like prisoner transport and jail staffing, but they still patrol towns that are not incorporated or have no local police force of their own.
- But quibble accepted: I wasn't really aiming for historical accuracy. --Ludwigs2 01:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Topic sheriff" seems more appropriate than "town sheriff", unless they will only work on town articles. ;) "Moderator" is not taken, and seems closer to the actual role. Will Beback talk 02:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, moderator probably has a much better chance. BE——Critical__Talk 03:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- But quibble accepted: I wasn't really aiming for historical accuracy. --Ludwigs2 01:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure the name issue ought to be deferred. As much as I truly love the current name and the analogy it raises, I'm very concerned that the notion of an authority figure such as a sheriff or other law enforcement officer raises the specter of additional wiki-bureaucracy in a way that we're just adding the anti-bureaucrats to the coalition likely to oppose this idea as a form of junior or probationary adminship (which it is not). I wonder if that could not be diffused, at least a little, by renaming the concept to "Peacekeeper" which would also emphasize the positive purpose of the project rather than the power/authority concept. (And Peacekeepers could use a little sky-blue helmet like this one as their symbol, instead of a mop. ) Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- ok, so, here's a list of current potentials (in no particular order):
- Town Sheriff (or just plain sheriff)
- Peacekeeper
- Moderator
- Deputy
- Officer/agent
- Did I miss any serious ones? If so, feel free to add them to the above list
- I think the problem we are having over the determination of the name is that we are all second-guessing the attitude and reactivity of the community to to authoritarian/bureaucratic type names. I suggest we make a short list of options, then present the idea as the 'Sheriff' idea but give the short list as alternates with an explanation that we couldn't decide on the best name ourselves. --Ludwigs2 17:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm for that. BE——Critical__Talk 16:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shall we move it to "moderator", "peacekeeper", or "playground monitor"? "Sheriff" has a lot of baggage and connotations that distract from the aims of this proposal. Will Beback talk 09:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that "Sheriff" is not calculated to get as much support as other things might, yet I like it best and we could do as Ludwigs says and present it as something that can be changed and list the possibilities. BE——Critical__Talk 16:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shall we move it to "moderator", "peacekeeper", or "playground monitor"? "Sheriff" has a lot of baggage and connotations that distract from the aims of this proposal. Will Beback talk 09:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm for that. BE——Critical__Talk 16:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Difference from general probation
The ArbCom and, more rarely, the community occasionally imposes article probation which usually empowers any uninvolved admin to impose blocks and bans after warnings. If I understand correctly, this proposal would go further by allowing talk page redactions? It sounds a bit like a cross between "supervising admin", mediator, and content czar. Have there been specific problems with topics on probation that this would solve? Will Beback talk 22:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Administrators using ArbCom probation are still easy to attack. Sheriffs would be less easy to attack because of their limited mandate. They wouldn't have any control over content. They would perform partly as mediators. They would take some of the pressure off ArbCom, because they could intervene with some forcefulness before it was necessary to go to ArbCom. They would still be useful on pages under ArbCom sanction. For example, take a look at the Jerusalem page. That's under ArbCom's thumb. It needs a Sheriff to go in there and do a cross between mediation and protecting other editors from abuse of the ArbCom system, and regulation of disruptive accounts. A Sheriff would have a certain kind of power, which would allow focused intervention while protecting the Sheriff in ways which Admins are not protected. At the same time, the Sheriff's powers are not as broad. BE——Critical__Talk 23:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Adding: part of the problem of arbcom sanctions is the "any uninvolved admin" thing. This creates a number of problems:
- Any admin who takes action can be attacked on whether they are really uninvolved.
- Numerous purportedly uninvolved admins may have different ideas about what action to take, which can create disputes over any action taken
- There's no clear accountability. It's unclear in advance who might be taking an action on the page, and once an action is taken there's no clear metric of whether it was or wasn't appropriate, and the acting admin as any number of means of avoiding accountability.
- We had this problem just recently with Olive, Will. NuclearWarfare imposed a sanction - I could question NW's neutrality on the issue (and hence his status as uninvolved), I certainly questioned whether the act was appropriate and justified, but NW never bothered to respond to my assertions - you and Jim took all the burden of defending his actions, and then some third admin closed the case peremptorily, which of course means that NW's action never actually came into question or under discussion. All of which is fairly skanky, and none of which would affect a sheriff as construed here. --Ludwigs2 23:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Adding: part of the problem of arbcom sanctions is the "any uninvolved admin" thing. This creates a number of problems:
- OK, it's helpful to have actual cases to look at.
- No one questioned NW's bias before he applied the remedy, so in this scenario he could have been appointed/elected/designated sheriff for this probation. So what happens if someone questions the neutrality of a sheriff after they've applied a remedy? It becomes an ANI debate? In that case it's not unlikely that commentators will line up depending on their views of the topic and the involved editors, thereby creating a lot of drama and contention. I don't see how appointing a single person will reduce the purported bias issues versus the largely consensus-driven AE process. Will Beback talk 08:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- There are a couple of significant differences:
- Sheriffs can only block for 24 hours, nothing longer. The purpose of a sheriff is to make problematic behavior difficult and unrewarding giving editors an incentive to behave well; it is not designed to remove editors from discussion on a long-term basis, which seems to be the primary goal of arbitration.
- Sheriffs would be accountable for their actions, and couldn't get away with refusing to explain why they took a particular act. If they tried to get away with with the kind of extensive rule-bending that sysops regularly engage in, it would be both painfully obvious and immediately sanctionable.
- So, here's what happened on the TM page under the arb model: There was a long term squabble that ended up in arbitration. The only person admonished in that case was DocJames, and no one was sanctioned beyond some general restrictions placed on all actors. A year of so later NW imposes a 3 month topic ban on Olive that (so far as I can tell) was based on specious reasoning, using the "any uninvolved admin to impose sanctions at their discretion" clause. At the appeal, NW refused to explain his reasoning, and instead left everything in the hands of other admins who (first) tried to justify the action and (second) closed the appeal on what appear to be procedural grounds, without further discussion.
- There are a couple of significant differences:
- In fact, if you look at the bigger picture, the ultimate result of the arbitration process was to remove all of the editors from one side of the discussion long-term (through the actions of a number of different admins), leaving article editing solidly and solely controlled by the other side. Even assuming good faith all the way around, this is an undesirable result: (i) it's likely to lead to a POV article, (ii) it's likely to build bad feelings and alienate editors (even good editors), and (iii) regardless of the actual truth of the matter (which I don't know), it looks entirely like the system was manipulated by a faction to destroy a particular point of view. Frankly, I can't imagine what could have been done to make it look more like brutal, strong-arm politics, short of lining all the TM people up against a wall and shooting them.
- A sheriff on the same page would have forced the conversation to remain civil and focused on content. the excuse NW used for the 3 month topic ban (you know, that moment where Olive got baited by a pair of obvious meat-puppets) would have resulted in a round of 24 hour blocks and a reminder to discuss things in talk. Nothing a sheriff could do could possibly look as unfair and biased as the result that actually followed from the arb ruling, because the sheriff would have to do everything himself and couldn't hide a systematic bias by distributing it across multiple people. There's no guarantee that it would succeed, obviously, but then the only thing arbitration succeed in doing was blowing off one side of the discussion (which is a bit like resolving a marital dispute by strangling your spouse).
- The arbitration system is designed to amplify bad behavior to the point where editors can be removed from discussions; this sheriff system is designed to nix bad behavior so that editors will have to engage in good behavior to get what they want. do you see the difference? --Ludwigs2 09:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- The arbitration system is designed to amplify bad behavior to the point where editors can be removed from discussions; - that seems like a rather cynical approach to the current arbitration scheme. If it's true then it should be addressed directly with proposals for ArbCom reform.
- The case in question is under general probation because of a history of problems that led to an ArbCom case. One-day time-outs may be weak ammunition against (hypothetical) longterm SPA POV pushing accounts. There may be other topics, which haven't already been to the ArbCom, where this kind of remedy would be more effective.
- You are misinformed about the TM case and the number of editors there who have been topic banned. WP:ARBTM. Only two editors are currently topic banned, there are plenty of unbanned editors involved in the topic. Maybe it'd be better to use as an example a case with which you're more familiar.
- Admins are supposed to be accountable, and good ones are. Admins who have refused to account for their actions have been de-sysoped. I don't see how this proposal forces sheriffs to be any more accountable than admins or any other editor.
- I'm also concerned that sheriffs appoint themselves to a topic and then can only be removed by a consensus of the community. If there were unlimited sheriffs for a topic that wouldn't be a problem, but it looks like the job would go to whichever sheriff gets his name in first. The sole sheriff shiredom creates a powerful incentive for someone with a hidden bias to take control of a topic. A low threshold for being appointed sheriff could allow sock sheriffs to get appointed. That combination could be disastrous in high conflict topics like the EEML.
- Overall, I think the proposal is an understandable reaction to problems with dispute resolution process, but it would create major headaches of its own, including numerous community determinations and a method of gaming the system through the appointment of non-neutral sheriffs.
- Is there a way of taking some of these ideas and using them within the existing structures? For example, a mini-probation that would allow admins to give 24-hour blocks for bad talk page behavior. Will Beback talk 10:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... There are a number of points where you've erred here, WIll; enough so that I have to give you bullet-point corrections. Sorry about that, but the extent of the misunderstandings requires a bit of bluntness:
- No offense, but you appear not to have actually read the proposal as written, because you are complaining about things that either aren't possible or are specifically excluded:
- Sheriffs do not appoint themselves to a topic. At best they ask permission at AN to work on a page, but more generally some discussion at AN asks them to take it on
- Sheriffs are not removed by consensus decision, sheriffs are removed when they violate a strictly limiting set of rules for their behavior. There won't be a whole lot debatable about whether they've violated the rules, because the rules are fairly clear.
- Sheriffs have not tools that allow them to 'take control of a topic'. I have no idea where you got that idea, since there's been extensive discussion against it here in talk.
- Sock sheriffs? Sheriffs have to have "a sufficient number of edits to demonstrate they are dedicated to the project", which I was thinking had to be in the 10000 edit range. If someone wants to build up a sock with 10000 reasonable edits just to get sheriff power that won't actually help them control page content... let 'em.
- Yes, admins are supposed to be accountable. Yes, good admins are. Not all admins choose to be, and when they choose not to be they almost invariably get away with it.
- I'm not trying to be informed about the TM case: I'm telling you precisely how it looks. You all may be pure as the driven snow and God's gift to wikipedia for all I know (or care - I'm happy to assume you're doing what you think is right), but you and DocJames and NW look like you've taken pains to remove the most prominent editors who oppose you by gaming the system to your advantage. Appearances matter.
- I'm not being cynical about arbitration; I'm explaining to you the predefined limits on arbitration. Arbitration does not rule on content, and it does not itself monitor articles or talk pages. It merely imposes restrictions on editors with respect to various actions, and empowers sysops to impose greater restrictions at need. It's a system that does nothing except set up ground rules for article participation, but leaves the implementation of those rules (and any subsequent restrictions on participation) to random sysops.
- Finally, the proposal is not a reaction to anything, and it's certainly not a reaction to you. I began this page months ago, and it is a carefully considered and thoughtful approach to solving a common problem on-project. You can disagree with the approach, but I would suggest to you (nicely) that you avoid ad hominem arguments, such as implying that I'm 'reacting' to things. Psychologizing of this sort is against talk page guidelines, and is unlikely (at least with me) to net any predictable result.
- seriously, dude... If you want to use ad hominem arguments, ok; but try to do it using something in which I don't have years of academic training and experience.
- No offense, but you appear not to have actually read the proposal as written, because you are complaining about things that either aren't possible or are specifically excluded:
- Now, I'm happy to sit here and explain things to you in an ongoing fashion if you want to continue arguing along these lines, but it would make both of our lives easier if you read the proposal (and this talk page) first and made reasonable and sensible critiques of the idea, rather than hyping up a bunch of imaginary horrors and trying to destroy the concept in the bud. There will be plenty of time for the "Oh Horror, This Must Be Stopped!" misperceptions once the proposal gets presented to the community, and I would rather deal with those kinds of concerns once and only once during the actual presentation of the idea rather than having to explain them repeatedly here, there and everywhere. If you don't have anything constructive to add, then your objection is noted and we will deal with that at the appropriate place and time. If you have an alternate idea, then I suggest you write it up elsewhere so you can be prepared to present it at pump (policy) when this gets there. If you have constructive critiques of this idea, I'm more than interested in hearing them, but (again) please do familiarize yourself with the actual project first. --Ludwigs2 18:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm... There are a number of points where you've erred here, WIll; enough so that I have to give you bullet-point corrections. Sorry about that, but the extent of the misunderstandings requires a bit of bluntness:
"In that case it's not unlikely that commentators will line up depending on their views of the topic and the involved editors, thereby creating a lot of drama and contention. I don't see how appointing a single person will reduce the purported bias issues versus the largely consensus-driven AE process. Will Beback" The rules for a Sheriff will be so strict that you will be able to tell exactly when he has or has not broken the rules. So gang deplorement will not effect him. This system also makes the Sheriff more of an expert on what is actually going on at an article. Under the current system, the admin can't be an expert, else he's involved. That's for good reason, since his powers are so broad, but an originally uninvolved Sheriff will have the protection to develop a bit of expertise. At the same time, he'll have to explain his actions. Beback, you can't do better with ArbCom and the current system, because you can't get past the arbitrary nature of admin actions. The Sheriff has, or should have, another tool, which is to build up and enforce a series of consensus changed to the article, only to be changed for good and new arguments. This is how a Sheriff would combat long-term SPAs. And yet the Sheriff will be able to point exactly to the discussion in which that consensus is reached. He is not acting to determine content himself. "Admins are supposed to be accountable, and good ones are" ROTFL!!!!!!! No offense, Beback. I think the Sheriff would be much more accountable than current admins, and also would be expected t be much better informed after a while. "it looks like the job would go to whichever sheriff gets his name in first" Good point. People on a page should have a Sheriff that they all trust. And they will be able to complain about a Sheriff's actions and get results if he's broken the clearcut rules. It's true that the community could be fooled into thinking a Sheriff was neutral when he wasn't, but that's impossible for the people on the page and the Sheriff's mandate doesn't give him enough power to show much bias without getting caught. And no, your idea about letting the current admin corps do it wouldn't work because the current corps isn't accountable enough on one end, and too easy to attack on the other. BE——Critical__Talk 17:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps I don't understand exactly how a sheriff comes to a topic. It sounds like the community has a discussion on AN, and someone(?) closes it with a determination that a sheriff is warranted. That discussion could take anywhere from a day to a week, and presumably could include all of the involved parties. As soon as the "Sheriff wanted" sign goes up the first one to volunteer for the job is automatically accepted. If there are complaints about his activity then a new AN thread is started and all of the involved editors can argue their cases. After day or a week of discussion someone(?) closes the discussion and either does nothing or declares a vacancy, after which a new sheriff volunteers. Any editor could also start a thread at AN over whether to end the shiredom at an article, with the discussion running from a day to a week before getting closed by someone (?).
- I'm also not sure I fully understand the "RFS" process: Request for Sheriff-ship. It'll be exactly like RFA? A one week vote following an acrimonious discussion of how many featured articles the editor has written and whether they know the dash rule, closed by a bureaucrat using a 70%-80% threshold. Is that right? Is the view that the standard would be higher or lower than for an admin? Would Admins be eligible, or would they automatically qualify? Would sheriffs be given limited admin tools, to block accounts? If so, this job would seem like a "junior admin". That might be useful in increasing the dwindling ranks of the admin corps.
- There are few if any jobs on Wikipedia that are filled by single editors. Even mediators work often together. Is there a compelling reason for only having one sheriff at a time on an article?
- General probation often applies to an entire topic, "broadly defined". Because the Sheriff's role would be so strong yet narrowly defined, it seems like it'd be necessary to clearly define which articles are included rather than leaving it open-ended like with general probation. If it's later decided that more articles need sheriffing, would the sheriff on a related topic get the job automatically or would it be a fresh opening? Will Beback talk 22:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, basic answers to these questions (keeping in mind that this is all subject to revision and approval by the community):
- Your first assessment is basically correct: the community comes to the conclusion (through some valid procedure, and with or without the approval of the editors involved in the dispute) that a page is problematic, and that a sheriff should be installed on the page. Someone from the sheriff's page agrees to take it on, and there is a brief (few days to a week) discussion of whether to accept the volunteer. at this point the only reason for rejecting a sheriff would be that the sheriff has a history of disputes on that article or topic, and even that would need to be fairly notable - sheriffs are so restricted that POV-pushing by the sheriff will almost certainly break sheriff's rules and get him removed. If there is agreement, the sheriff is installed; if not, a new volunteer is sought.
- Once a sheriff is installed, s/he stays on the page until removed, which can only happen if it becomes clear that s/he is breaking the limits of the office or applying his efforts unfairly (or, obviously, if it's decided a sheriff is no longer needed). Editors are encouraged to complain about the sheriff (that keeps the sheriff honest), but editors will be required to show clearly that a sheriff went outside the rules that govern sheriffs, or that a sheriff has a distinct pattern of unequal treatment in his/her sheriffing. If they can make a convincing case, the sheriff is toast, otherwise the complaint will be dismissed. Either way, the sheriff continues working without interruption until s/he is removed.
- The point of this is that it's middling easy to install a sheriff, very easy to remove a bad sheriff, and hard as hell to remove a good sheriff. That's on purpose: it both allows a sheriff to exercise his authority fully and coerces a sheriff into exercising his authority equally, neutrally, and cautiously.
- The RfS procedure (in my view) would be as follows: someone making a request must have a decent edit count (I'm thinking 5000-10000 edits minimum), must explicitly commit to the principles of sheriffing (sort of like taking an oath of office), and there should be a week for people to raise objections and concerns. Things like a history of sock-puppetry, significant vandalism, ArbCom sanctions or admonishments would all raise red flags about potential sheriffs, but other than that the approval process should be fairly pro-forma. Sheriffs are controlled by the restrictions on their abilities (just like real cops), and vetting them as people is not all that relevant outside of extreme cases. Admins would be eligible, but would need to keep their admin and sheriff jobs separate (where working as a sheriff, no use of broader admin powers; where working as an admin, no sheriffing).
- Sheriffs could block accounts but for no more than 24 hours. this block is primarily a speed bump thrown in the path of editors who are (at a given moment) way off the deep end. some people here have been suggesting that sheriffs could also lock an article for the same 24 hr period, but I'm of two minds about that. Those would be the only 'admin-type' tools that a sheriff would have, and they would be used in ways that admins currently are not allowed to use them. Further, sheriffs could block admins just like normal editors if the admin's behavior is bad enough and falls within the sheriffs purview. so no, sheriffs are not junior admins.
- The compelling reason for having a lone sheriff is accountability. Two sheriffs working together would have no great gains in fairness or efficiency, and would risk conflicts of opinion (sheriffs arguing with each other over the proper course of action would destroy the authority of both of them on the page), and risk unintentional errors (sheriff A does something without fully considering what sheriff B just did, the combined result of their actions is more harmful than helpful, and no one knows whether to blame A or B for the screw-up). One sheriff, one authority, one locus for blame: This translates to one sheriff who is very carefully watching his own a$$ as he works on the page. Sheriffs should be very conscious that all responsibility lands on their shoulders, because that is what will keep them honest.
- Your last point is substantially correct. a sheriff would be installed on a specific page where there's a problem. If it seems like the problem is spreading to other pages, then the sheriff or someone in the community can request that the sheriff's mandate be expanded to other pages (so long as they are narrowly defined). I don't think there would be an automatic decision about it: if the sheriff wants to tackle multiple pages, can handle the load, and the general consensus is that all the pages should be monitored by the same sheriff, that would be fine; if for any reason it seems like a good idea to install a new sheriff, that would be fine as well. I would assume that sheriffs working independently on related pages would communicate and cooperate with each other to any necessary extent, but since nothing a sheriff does escalates and the job is restricted to a limited range of activities, there shouldn't be all that much need for cooperation (aside, perhaps, from comparing notes about effective and ineffective approaches to particular editors).
- did I cover everything? --Ludwigs2 01:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Whew - you covered more than everything!
- The appointment process isn't clear in the proposal. I hadn't realize that the self-nomination of a sheriff for a topic has to be ratified by a consensus (51% 66% 85% ?) of AN contributors. That means there's a discussion on making an editor into a sheriff, a discussion about the need for a sheriff on an article, followed by a discussion over which volunteer sheriff to appoint (either looking at one candidate after another until one is successful, or choosing the most popular among several simultaneous candidates). Then the community discusses the frequent complaints and if any of those discussions is successful then more discussion ensure regarding the replacement and the possible de-sheriffing of the fired sheriff. That seems like a lot of discussions at AN for each covered article.
- As you describe it the RFS is identical to the RFA. Am I missing an important difference?
- If sheriffs are given a special selection of one or more tools then it'd require a developer to code the new rights.
- It sounds like the idea is that Sheriffs should use their block tool freely and enforce civility rules aggressively, but if they overstep the bounds they can be fired and de-sheriffed easily. In practice that could tend to make sheriffs cautious rather than aggressive.
- It seems like some of this proposal is based on perceived failures of the Admins and ArbComs - perhaps those problems should be addressed directly rather than creating a new bureaucracy, one which may end up having the same failures. Will Beback talk 02:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It would take a developer about 10 seconds to code the new rights, that's easy with mediawiki... probably just as easy for WP as with a single server, but I wouldn't know. We're still discussing how one becomes a Sheriff. I doubt the discussions would be burdensome. As to addressing any "perceived" failures of the other structures, have at it... you'll be the hero I would like to be, if I could think of a way to do it. I think just maybe that this is a way of fixing them. They may need the support of this further structure. For example, they need the local knowledge the Sheriff would develop. I've seen admins get driven off, and their specialized knowledge thus lost, but it would be hard to drive a Sheriff off if he obeyed his rules. And Sheriffs should be cautious, but are given sufficient tools that they can still be effective without getting in trouble. BE——Critical__Talk 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Focusing just on the the RfS procedure, how would it be different from the much-maligned RfA process? Will Beback talk 03:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It would take a developer about 10 seconds to code the new rights, that's easy with mediawiki... probably just as easy for WP as with a single server, but I wouldn't know. We're still discussing how one becomes a Sheriff. I doubt the discussions would be burdensome. As to addressing any "perceived" failures of the other structures, have at it... you'll be the hero I would like to be, if I could think of a way to do it. I think just maybe that this is a way of fixing them. They may need the support of this further structure. For example, they need the local knowledge the Sheriff would develop. I've seen admins get driven off, and their specialized knowledge thus lost, but it would be hard to drive a Sheriff off if he obeyed his rules. And Sheriffs should be cautious, but are given sufficient tools that they can still be effective without getting in trouble. BE——Critical__Talk 03:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- did I cover everything? --Ludwigs2 01:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
çThat's what we're trying to work out. Something streamlined but tight enough to catch those who would tend to abuse the role. Any suggestions? BE——Critical__Talk 03:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'm not worried about any 'perceived failures'. for the most part I think admins do an admirable job, though there are places where they goof up or get tangled in their own nonsense (<...ahem...>). My real interest in this (if you must know) is in developing and rationalizing the community structure. Frankly, wikipedia has reached and passed the size where it can continue to function as a semi-organized, loosely-structured, rule-of-thumb-oriented association of peers. If the project wants to mature, it has to lay down a solid, consistent set of standards about behavior, and some means of enforcing them (the way any community anywhere eventually must do). The sheriff system does both, in one neat philosophically-beautiful package.
- The RfS procedure would be different then AfD because it's not an approval process. Editors who meet the basic edit count requirement can count on being approved unless someone can give a clear and reasonable reason to reject them. no 70% thing, no silly 'me too's... I'm sure that some people will take the opportunity to vent their frustrations about various editors, but unless those frustrations come with a clear set of diffs showing some severe breach of wikipedia policy it shouldn't make a difference. frankly, I personally would even discard the discussion period and just leave it that anyone who's edited long enough and wants to sheriff should be allowed to, but people seem to feel more comfortable with some kind of discussion procedure attached.
- The appointment process isn't a vote, it's a consensus discussion. The way I see it, volunteers will only be rejected if there's some clear history - they'd had fights on the page before, they've had fights with one or more of the current participants, they've previously expressed strong views about the topic... It shouldn't be an "I don't like that person" sort of thing. And don't worry about multiple discussions, for two reasons:
- There's not that much to discuss:
- once you've become a sheriff, you're a sheriff until you quit or lose your badge (that discussion only happens once)
- choosing a sheriff only happens once (unless the sheriff screws up) and that shouldn't be a complex conversation - just a question of whether the sheriff has an obvious conflict
- Most complaints about sheriffs require no discussion whatsoever. for example, say an editor posts the comment "That was a really stupid thing to say", and a sheriff redacts it as uncivil. Well, that comment clearly adds nothing to any content discussion, and is clearly uncivil, so it is clearly within the purview of the sheriff to redact it: hence no automatic problem for the sheriff. So how far will that editor get with sysops trying to argue that a comment like that needs to be restored? Anyone who tries to make an extended argument that s/he has a right to call other editors' posts 'stupid' is probably just digging his or her own grave. In most cases (in my estimation) you'll have a two or three day period where editors try to make silly arguments like that before they start to recognize that the discussion rules have changed on the page, and after that they'll stop doing the problematic behavior and stop complaining about the sheriff.
- Compared to the normal process of a page that's in trouble - extended bitch-fests on the talk page, multiple noticeboard battles, multiple extended ANI kerfluffles - the handful of discussions related to sheriffing would be a drop in the bucket. As I've said elsewhere, I fully expect a sheriff to cut the volume of text produced on a troubled page by a factor of 100, because most of the posts on pages like that are heated comments that have no business being there. will it be totally without hitches? no. will it be anything close to the rage-fests you saw on pages like Climate Change and R&I? hardly.
- There's not that much to discuss:
- The appointment process isn't a vote, it's a consensus discussion. The way I see it, volunteers will only be rejected if there's some clear history - they'd had fights on the page before, they've had fights with one or more of the current participants, they've previously expressed strong views about the topic... It shouldn't be an "I don't like that person" sort of thing. And don't worry about multiple discussions, for two reasons:
- Last point: I don't think sheriffs want to use their powers aggressively; I kind of picture sheriffs being circumspect about things - minimal action needed to achieve desired result (which is civility and peace on the page). You can do an awful lot without blocking anyone so long as people are aware that you can block them. Honestly, the only real reason sheriffs need the power to block is that (inevitably) someone is going to challenge the sheriff's authority and engage in problematic behavior despite being warned. Those editors will get blocked once, maybe twice - as often as needed for them to realize that the blocks will stick - and then they will re-evaluate their behavior on the page. That's the goal, to trigger that re-evaluation of behavior. As I said, sheriffs are there to change the page dynamic, not to sanction people, and the power to block is just a lever to make that change happen. --Ludwigs2 06:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- If editors were angels there'd be no need for bureaucracy. We don't know what motivates sheriffs. Some may want to use their tools aggressively. That's pretty much the mandate. When constructing a new bureaucracy it's important to think about the worst that could happen. Many of the positive traits ascribed to sheriffs could also be ascribed to admins. Likewise, whatever negative attributes of admins we can think of may appear among sheriffs as well. Will Beback talk 22:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Last point: I don't think sheriffs want to use their powers aggressively; I kind of picture sheriffs being circumspect about things - minimal action needed to achieve desired result (which is civility and peace on the page). You can do an awful lot without blocking anyone so long as people are aware that you can block them. Honestly, the only real reason sheriffs need the power to block is that (inevitably) someone is going to challenge the sheriff's authority and engage in problematic behavior despite being warned. Those editors will get blocked once, maybe twice - as often as needed for them to realize that the blocks will stick - and then they will re-evaluate their behavior on the page. That's the goal, to trigger that re-evaluation of behavior. As I said, sheriffs are there to change the page dynamic, not to sanction people, and the power to block is just a lever to make that change happen. --Ludwigs2 06:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
RFS
Let's just focus on the RfS for a moment. Who sets the minimum number of edits? Do automated edits count? Is someone who's main activity on Wikipedia has been using AWB to fix typos automatically qualified for sheriff? Who decides whether there are sufficient objections to reject a sheriff and make the appointment? A bureaucrat, right? If so they would make a judgment call. If I understand you correctly, one candidate could get 40 editors claiming that he's inappropriate for the job, but the bureaucrat could decide they are not reasonable objections and approve the nomination, while another candidate could be supported by 99 editors but if one editor provides a sufficient reason to reject him then that'd be sufficient for the bureaucrat to close the nomination as rejected. Is that right? Will Beback talk 07:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will, you're nitpicking. My point (as I said originally) is that pretty much anyone should be allowed to be a sheriff, so long as they have a sufficient edit history to demonstrate a commitment to the project, and don't have some obvious red flag (like a "Death to Wikipedia!" banner on their user page). The community can decide the details when the proposal is under discussion.
- Sheriffs do not really need to be vetted much in advance, because they are controlled by the restrictions of the office. --Ludwigs2 17:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Then I think, if we're to rely on rules so much, that we should have a system of de-Sheriffing in place, which is strict enough. First, that the system is based on matters of fact, not popularity or anything else: if the Sheriff is determined to have actually done X, then that counts, and if he's warned more than 3 times (or whatever) for doing something against the rules, automatic de-Sheriffing, without having the popularity of the editor (or lack thereof) come into play. BE——Critical__Talk 17:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd even be more specific about it, I think:
- Sheriffs who grossly violate sheriff's restrictions, try to directly affect content, or clearly engage in unequal application of their powers get desheriffed automatically
- Sheriffs who are 'arguable' - do things which violate restrictions in clear but mild ways, and seem to be well-intentioned - get a chance to explain themselves, and if necessary get warnings or reminders about their limited mandate. Third warning on a given assignment means replacement, two replacements means desheriffing.
- Sherrifs shouldn't generally be warned for pushing the boundaries on their restrictions, but sheriffs should always be ready and able to explain the rationale for any act they take.
- hmm? --Ludwigs2 18:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hmmm, it sounds good on paper. It sounds strict. I guess we can't entirely insulate the process from popularity contests. And we've given the Sheriff enough power, I hope, that he doesn't have to overstep his bounds to modify the behavior of even the most popular POV pusher. That's the test: can a popular POV pusher be tamed without the Sheriff getting whacked, and also, can a Sheriff be whacked if he's a popular editor who is supporting a popular POV? Might be worthwhile to state somewhere that that is the goal, so that we can adjust the rules as necessary? BE——Critical__Talk 19:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'd even be more specific about it, I think:
- Let's focus on the RfS. "Nitpicking" is important. With a proposal like this, which would create a large bureaucracy, the "devil is in the details". We should either pin down how someone becomes a sheriff, or put a message in the proposal saying it will be determined later. Right now it's just vague, which is pointless. I've added more specific language. Will Beback talk 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confuse about why you think this would create a 'large bureaucracy'. mostly this would be a bunch of volunteer editors with certain powers and oversight by sysops. it would not make any more of a bureaucracy than becoming, say, a reviewer or a rollbacker. It would just take a somewhat higher standard for getting there and a bit more coordination with whatever sysops originally call for a sheriff. --Ludwigs2 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Admins are just "a bunch of volunteer editors with certain powers and oversight" by the arbcom. Yet most would agree that the administrators form a large bureaucratic element of the project. The powers and responsibilities of a sheriff, as described in this proposal, are much more extensive than those of a rollbacker. Anyway, I've clarified the RfS process in the proposal based on this discussion. Will Beback talk 22:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confuse about why you think this would create a 'large bureaucracy'. mostly this would be a bunch of volunteer editors with certain powers and oversight by sysops. it would not make any more of a bureaucracy than becoming, say, a reviewer or a rollbacker. It would just take a somewhat higher standard for getting there and a bit more coordination with whatever sysops originally call for a sheriff. --Ludwigs2 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let's focus on the RfS. "Nitpicking" is important. With a proposal like this, which would create a large bureaucracy, the "devil is in the details". We should either pin down how someone becomes a sheriff, or put a message in the proposal saying it will be determined later. Right now it's just vague, which is pointless. I've added more specific language. Will Beback talk 22:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
In order to give this a fighting chance of success, I strongly recommend that admins are not able to become sheriff/moderators, at least until the proposed system is bedded in (six months?). I'm still undecided about the proposed system, but I can predict it will be an utter failure if the ranks of sheriffs are full of sysops, as it will be seen by many as 'another flag'. Also, rather than make the candidacy about edit-counts, I would prefer to see nominations list three (3) content pages which they have actively participated in during heated debates, and the person is evaluated primarily on the basis of how well they were able to help those disputes without any tools. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with both points. Will Beback talk 23:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly totally agree. I was already thinking that but didn't think it would be acceptable. Also totally agree about the edit count not mattering, but rather previous experience in mediation-type disputes. Thanks John Vandenberg for saying these things. BE——Critical__Talk 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection to excluding sysops, but I don't really think the 'nominations' idea is practical. The phrase "content pages which they have actively participated in during heated debates" is odd. many people who might be good sheriffs retire from heated debates when they see them, so couldn't be seen as 'actively participating'; anyone who engages a heated debate directly is likely to say something (at some point or other) which will be used to make them look bad. The number of people who would qualify (if this metric were used in an aggressive and narrow way, as seems likely) would be practically zero. I certainly wouldn't qualify, because I have an occasional temper and a generally pithy attitude, but I'd be an excellent sheriff (if only because I understand the system better than anyone else). The minute you make this a popularity contest, you're going exclude a lot of reasonable people and jockey in a lot of people with implicit biases; that's why an objective metric like edit counts is better. again, I'll repeat: we shouldn't try to pick and choose sheriffs at nomination time; we should control sheriffs by making sure they stay within the restrictions of the office. That may mean we have high turnover for the first little while, but we'll develop a stronger and more versatile core of volunteers. --Ludwigs2 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, but I'm a couple thousand edits away :( and I don't see what edit counts have to do with good judgment. I simply don't trust our rules that much yet that I don't think editors should be vetted somehow. I think being a Sheriff would be manipulable by non-action, by just not noticing when one editor is goading, albeit nearly politely, but noticing when the other side does something similar. Maybe other ways it could be manipulated. There are editors, also, who fear to go to noticeboards because they will get whacked even when they have a legit complaint. The intent of the Sheriff is going to matter. Yet, I see what you mean, you'd make a great sheriff but wouldn't get in via a debate. So I just don't know what to do here. But... how about an automatic review process, after about 5 cases/a couple months automatically review and revise this proposal? Start out choosing a small number of sheriffs the way you say, but forget about edit counts: you aren't going to get a lot of new editors applying and edit counts have little to do with knowing the rules. I've seen editors with huge counts and hardly any comprehension of policy. BE——Critical__Talk 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Edit counts don't indicate good judgement - they indicate commitment to the project, and sufficient time to have been thoroughly acclimated to wikipedia policy and guideline.
- Yeah, but I'm a couple thousand edits away :( and I don't see what edit counts have to do with good judgment. I simply don't trust our rules that much yet that I don't think editors should be vetted somehow. I think being a Sheriff would be manipulable by non-action, by just not noticing when one editor is goading, albeit nearly politely, but noticing when the other side does something similar. Maybe other ways it could be manipulated. There are editors, also, who fear to go to noticeboards because they will get whacked even when they have a legit complaint. The intent of the Sheriff is going to matter. Yet, I see what you mean, you'd make a great sheriff but wouldn't get in via a debate. So I just don't know what to do here. But... how about an automatic review process, after about 5 cases/a couple months automatically review and revise this proposal? Start out choosing a small number of sheriffs the way you say, but forget about edit counts: you aren't going to get a lot of new editors applying and edit counts have little to do with knowing the rules. I've seen editors with huge counts and hardly any comprehension of policy. BE——Critical__Talk 17:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have any objection to excluding sysops, but I don't really think the 'nominations' idea is practical. The phrase "content pages which they have actively participated in during heated debates" is odd. many people who might be good sheriffs retire from heated debates when they see them, so couldn't be seen as 'actively participating'; anyone who engages a heated debate directly is likely to say something (at some point or other) which will be used to make them look bad. The number of people who would qualify (if this metric were used in an aggressive and narrow way, as seems likely) would be practically zero. I certainly wouldn't qualify, because I have an occasional temper and a generally pithy attitude, but I'd be an excellent sheriff (if only because I understand the system better than anyone else). The minute you make this a popularity contest, you're going exclude a lot of reasonable people and jockey in a lot of people with implicit biases; that's why an objective metric like edit counts is better. again, I'll repeat: we shouldn't try to pick and choose sheriffs at nomination time; we should control sheriffs by making sure they stay within the restrictions of the office. That may mean we have high turnover for the first little while, but we'll develop a stronger and more versatile core of volunteers. --Ludwigs2 16:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly totally agree. I was already thinking that but didn't think it would be acceptable. Also totally agree about the edit count not mattering, but rather previous experience in mediation-type disputes. Thanks John Vandenberg for saying these things. BE——Critical__Talk 01:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I'm starting to wonder why this particular point is not sinking in - I think it's a bad idea to try to pre-judge or pre-evaluate sheriffs on their character, their moral turpitude, their likability or popularity, or other subjective/emotional factors. Sheriffs are controlled by their behavior. People will surprise you: the ones you worry about might prove to be very capable and dedicated sheriffs, while many people with good reputations have questionable ethics. --Ludwigs2 12:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- What will keep these (thankfully) unnamed "people with good reputations" who have "questionable ethics" from becoming sheriffs? Since we're not judging prospective sheriffs by their character, and only by their dedication to the project (or their POV), there doesn't seem to be a mechanism for excluding unethical editors. If I understand correctly, that's OK because unethical sheriffs can be punished and removed easily through a consensus on ANI. So it's easy to approve a sheriff and easy to fire them. in other words, being a sheriff is no big deal. Will Beback talk 12:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I'm starting to wonder why this particular point is not sinking in - I think it's a bad idea to try to pre-judge or pre-evaluate sheriffs on their character, their moral turpitude, their likability or popularity, or other subjective/emotional factors. Sheriffs are controlled by their behavior. People will surprise you: the ones you worry about might prove to be very capable and dedicated sheriffs, while many people with good reputations have questionable ethics. --Ludwigs2 12:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Deputy sheriff
- Sheriffs may deputize others to act on the page when the Sheriff cannot be present, but deputies should not act independently of the sheriff's intentions.
I assume if the deputy were not an admin they would be limited to refactoring, redacting, and reverting, but that if they were an admin they could also impose blocks and page protections. If the sheriff were gone for days or weeks I assume that they'd be replaced eventually, but in the meantime the deputy would be in charge. I assume that the deputy could be fired at any time by the sheriff, and that some sort of notice would be made of the appointment. In case the deputy is also offline occasionally I suppose it might be necessary to appoint multiple deputies. I asked above why it's necessary to have a sole sheriff, and the reply was to allow for complete accountability. But the idea of an unvetted person acting with the authority of a sheriff seems to violate that principle. Will Beback talk 23:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- First, deputies should be drawn from other sheriffs, not just from the general population. second, deputies aren't intended to be 'backup sheriffs'; the only reason I included that clause so that sheriffs could draw in some help for specific tasks if they get over-burdened. Now that I think about it, we can probably dispense with the whole deputy thing entirely - I can't imaging the need for one on a single article, and if a sheriff is covering multiple articles and it proves too much some of the articles can be passed off to new sheriffs.
- Though you do raise an point: we should specify what happens if a sheriff drops of project for some reason and isn't watching the page. probably nothing needs to be done if the page is relatively stable, but if there's a flare up in the dispute we might need some process for removing the sheriff in absentia and appointing a new one. --Ludwigs2 23:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unless there's other input on deputies, I'll remove that text.
- I agree that sheriffs who go absent should be replaced if there are ongoing issues. It could be the same process by which biased sheriffs are removed. Will Beback talk 23:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done.[1][2] Will Beback talk 09:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Controlling talk pages versus content pages
In practice, a Sheriff has two goals:
- To ensure that content discussions can progress meaningfully, peacefully and quickly, either to a consensus conclusion or to a recognition that mediation or arbitration is required.
- To guide editors away from bad discussion practices towards a better, more civil communication style, by encouraging the latter and inhibiting the former.
If the aim of the job of Sheriff is to handle how discussions proceed, why is it necessary to allow them to protect and revert article pages? Reverting can be a powerful method of affecting content, and could be quite difficult to do without compromising the perceived neutrality of the sheriff. Maybe it'd be better to restrict the sheriff to the talk pages and leave the article page off-limits. Will Beback talk 23:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've added this text to "restrictions"
- No content editing: A sheriff may protect articles for 24-hour periods. However they may not make any other edits to the articles, including removing vandalism and BLP violations, as those may require judgment calls which would affect the appearance of impartiality.
- If this is acceptable I'll change other text in the proposal to make it consistent. Will Beback talk 23:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- yes. I'd assumed that would be assumed, but it's probably a good idea to spell it out explicitly. However, it might be better just to add it as an extension of the first point (strict non-involvement), rather than give it its own section. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's a significant restriction. But the exact formatting is a minor issue. Will Beback talk 23:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I removed the ability to "semi-protect" articles, since that just differentiates anons from registered users and has no clear place in this process. I also removed a clause about edit warring on articles, since that is outside the scope of this proposal. Will Beback talk 00:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I want to quibble on the second point. edit warring is a tactic used to inflame other editors, win discussions through non-discursive means, and otherwise disrupt consensus discussions in talk. I think it's useful to point out that the sheriff should ensure that that tactic doesn't give satisfaction, otherwise editors will still continue to do it. Remember, the real purpose of a sheriff is to make skanky editing behaviors unrewarding and unviable, so that editors have to return to good editing practices to be effective. it's good to keep reminding people of that point. --Ludwigs2 00:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- It will be necessary for a Sheriff to revert the article pages sometimes to versions prior to the start of POV pushing in order to ensure that bad behavior by editors, before or after the Sheriff appears on the scene, is not rewarded. But the Sheriff would not prevent consensus edits arrived at by proper process from getting in the article. BE——Critical__Talk 00:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I want to quibble on the second point. edit warring is a tactic used to inflame other editors, win discussions through non-discursive means, and otherwise disrupt consensus discussions in talk. I think it's useful to point out that the sheriff should ensure that that tactic doesn't give satisfaction, otherwise editors will still continue to do it. Remember, the real purpose of a sheriff is to make skanky editing behaviors unrewarding and unviable, so that editors have to return to good editing practices to be effective. it's good to keep reminding people of that point. --Ludwigs2 00:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- [e/c] Is the sheriff supposed to handle all varieties of bad editing behavior, or mainly talk page problems? The stated aims are restricted to talk page issues. Applying article page protection is a major exception to that, and understandable to avoid talk page arguments from being carried out on the article page. But the ability to revert to a preferred version before protecting is another matter entirely, and would give the sheriff control over content. Will Beback talk 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I thought that was one of the powers a Sheriff would have... I think we started out with that? Anyway, I've seen it where POV pushing got a lot of stuff in an article. By the time the Sheriff shows up, there is often going to be lots of stuff POV pushed into the article, and just going back to a version before that happened would really send a message, as well as really mollifying the editors who weren't POV pushing or disrupting. And reverting to a version which was arrived at by proper consensus process, or before non-consensus process started is not a content decision, it's a decision based on the very processes that the Sheriff is there to control. If the Sheriff were to control content that way, then he needs to be removed. BE——Critical__Talk 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- And if admins abuse their tools they should be removed too. How well has that worked out, in your opinion? Will Beback talk 22:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I thought that was one of the powers a Sheriff would have... I think we started out with that? Anyway, I've seen it where POV pushing got a lot of stuff in an article. By the time the Sheriff shows up, there is often going to be lots of stuff POV pushed into the article, and just going back to a version before that happened would really send a message, as well as really mollifying the editors who weren't POV pushing or disrupting. And reverting to a version which was arrived at by proper consensus process, or before non-consensus process started is not a content decision, it's a decision based on the very processes that the Sheriff is there to control. If the Sheriff were to control content that way, then he needs to be removed. BE——Critical__Talk 00:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- [e/c] Is the sheriff supposed to handle all varieties of bad editing behavior, or mainly talk page problems? The stated aims are restricted to talk page issues. Applying article page protection is a major exception to that, and understandable to avoid talk page arguments from being carried out on the article page. But the ability to revert to a preferred version before protecting is another matter entirely, and would give the sheriff control over content. Will Beback talk 00:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
If a sheriff can revert to a preferred version that they have determined has a consensus then that changes the job entirely and puts them in the position of determining content, not just helping to settle talk page disputes. I'd object strongly to putting sheriffs in charge of article content, unless that's the explicit aim of this proposal. If that's the case, it should be stated in the goals section in the intro. Will Beback talk 00:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well let's see what others think. I think that if based solely on process, not content, reversion of the page is acceptable. If not, then there is an incentive to POV push as much as possible before a Sheriff shows up, and there is the usual incentive to try and get a page protected in your preferred version. BE——Critical__Talk 00:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- How would the "consensus version" be determined on an article where there's edit warring and POV pushing, and by whom? Granted, in some cases there is a clear point, perhaps long before the sheriff was appointed, when the article was stable before the disruption began. If that point were determined somehow, then allowing the sheriff to keep reverting to that point would be neutral. But allowing a sheriff to determine which newer versions have consensus and to revert to that version he thinks is preferable, and to protect the page on that version and to revert endlessly to keep it, is way beyond what's allowed any sysop. Will Beback talk 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- This would be something it would be nice to have flagged revisions for. I'd say that if there is a clear and relatively recent version the sheriff could use that, and if no clear version is available the sheriff can add a tag template indicating that the passage is under dispute, so that whichever version is left on the page does not appear unquestioned. --Ludwigs2 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- If folks agree on this I'll add that one of the aims of the policy is for sheriffs to determine consensus and enforce it on article pages using blocks, bans, page protection, and unlimited reverts, since that seems to be what is being considered. Will Beback talk 01:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- not helpful, Will. do you have any constructive input? --Ludwigs2 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Like an article, the intro or capsule version of a policy should reflect the contents. If this policy includes a provision for allowing sheriffs to determine the contents of an article and keep anyone from changing it then we should make that clear. If that isn't the aim then we should change the provisions to keep that from being possible. Will Beback talk 06:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Yes I put that in formally once, but it was reverted [3]. I wonder if reverting to consensus versions would be an acceptable compromise, or whether that also goes too far. The concern seems to be that it is determining content by use of admin tools or powers. If that were the case, I'd object to it also. Say, do we need a Sheriff on this page? BE——Critical__Talk 01:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Either we need to remove the job of deciding which version of the article has consensus, or we need to make that a clear part of the job description. In the latter case, I'd suggest renaming the page to "content czar" instead of "sheriff" or "moderator". Will Beback talk 06:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- This might do well as the proving ground. Would this proposal offer itself as a trial run for the Town Sheriff theory? They shouldn't need any tools or authority officially. The appointee should just act as one. And we see how it plays? Professor marginalia (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- The first step in that process is to find an uninvolved editor with community support. ;) Will Beback talk 06:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- not helpful, Will. do you have any constructive input? --Ludwigs2 01:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- If folks agree on this I'll add that one of the aims of the policy is for sheriffs to determine consensus and enforce it on article pages using blocks, bans, page protection, and unlimited reverts, since that seems to be what is being considered. Will Beback talk 01:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- This would be something it would be nice to have flagged revisions for. I'd say that if there is a clear and relatively recent version the sheriff could use that, and if no clear version is available the sheriff can add a tag template indicating that the passage is under dispute, so that whichever version is left on the page does not appear unquestioned. --Ludwigs2 01:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- How would the "consensus version" be determined on an article where there's edit warring and POV pushing, and by whom? Granted, in some cases there is a clear point, perhaps long before the sheriff was appointed, when the article was stable before the disruption began. If that point were determined somehow, then allowing the sheriff to keep reverting to that point would be neutral. But allowing a sheriff to determine which newer versions have consensus and to revert to that version he thinks is preferable, and to protect the page on that version and to revert endlessly to keep it, is way beyond what's allowed any sysop. Will Beback talk 00:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm confused about what you all are talking about. the entire idea here is that sheriffs do not deal with content. If a sheriff were to do a revert on a page it would only be to stop problematic behavior, not to control content. Now either we want to do that, or we don't want to do that, but wandering off into 'content czar' territory is a pretty lame direction for the discussion to go, since it contradicts the stated purpose of the proposal. Will, ether take the concept seriously and help develop it, or leave the development to people who will take the idea seriously and restrict yourself to objecting to it when it gets opened for discussion. Ok?
That being said, I'm perfectly happy not giving sheriffs revert power, so long as they can tag the page as disputed and assure that the tag remains until the dispute is resolved. that should serve well enough to keep edit wars from being successful. --Ludwigs2 07:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I take this proposal very seriously, which is why I'm helping to work out the details.
- If we don't want sheriffs to control content then we shouldn't give them the power to revert to a preferred version. The point of the sheriff is to patrol the talk page, not the article page. Content decisions will make sheriffs quickly lose their appearance of impartiality. Will Beback talk 10:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Beback, I don't know why reverting to a consensus version or version before disruption is content controlling. If it is, could you please explain specifically why you think so? BE——Critical__Talk 16:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- And BTW, I just want to say this also: it's highly frustrating for good editors to have to try and "gain consensus" to remove material which was put in disruptively or to put back material which was removed disruptively. That's another main reason for this, in addition to not rewarding past bad behavior. BE——Critical__Talk 16:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- you know, I'll tell you, this is a very difficult psychological problem. I can see concerns on all sides:
- we don't want to let editors edit war in the article, obviously.
- we don't want editors using the article itself to claim victories or needle other editors (in the "neener-neener-neener my version is on the article" way that's so unfortunately common)
- we don't want sheriffs looking like they are dictating content, because that would destroy their legitimacy
- Finding the right balance is really tricky. I mean, the real solution is to get editors to understand that the appearance of the page in the short term doesn't matter, and that they should focus on getting it right for the long term, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. so, here's how the options look to me:
- reverting to a stable version: effective at stopping the first two points above, and would be the best approach if we could work around the third point (retaining neutrality and legitimacy). that's rough, though. we might want to revisit this idea a year after the sheriff project is adopted (if it is adopted) because by that time sheriffs might have enough innate legitimacy (just from a year's worth of experience) to pull it off.
- tagging the page as disputed and dealing out 24hr blocks to anyone who even 'looks like they are trying to edit war: i.e., as I said earlier, first revert on a passage by anyone is fine per BRD, second revert on the passage by anyone gets that editor a warning and a dispute tag placed on the page, any revert on that passage after that inside of 24 hours by anyone earns a block for incitement. less effective, but maybe enough (assuming that editors want their version to be accepted as truth and aren't just looking to disrupt the other side's point of view).
- upsetting stability: stop the edit war on whichever version, then tell editors they have 48 hours to reach a compromise or you will revert back to the other version, then another 48 hours or the page will get clocked back to an even earlier version... It's kind of gamey (which I dislike) but it would keep the page from being claimed by one side or the other except in the very short term.
- I'm open to other suggestions though. can anyone think of a better way to keep the article itself from being used as a skanky tool in talk page disputes? maybe we could figure out a middling form (e.g. the sheriff tags the page and then insists on starting a RfC where uninvolved editors get to choose a compromise version?) --Ludwigs2 17:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- you know, I'll tell you, this is a very difficult psychological problem. I can see concerns on all sides:
- Let's say a biography has received few edits for a long period. It might not be a good article, it may be a lousy article, but it's "stable". Then the subject makes news and suddenly there is a flurry of editing. The figure is somewhat polarizing, perhaps a politician, so there are arguments over how to handle the new material. Meanwhile, during the fighting, the article is expanded. Finally, the talk page disputes grow so fierce that a sheriff is called in. Obviously, he needs to quell the talk page problems, but what about the article? Does he revert to the old, poor quality version from three months ago, even though the contentious material is only a portion of the new version? Does he pick and choose which parts to keep? Or does he stay out of it and focus on being a neutral arbiter on the talk page, slapping on an occasional article page protection when edit warring breaks out?
- dealing out 24hr blocks to anyone who even 'looks' like they are trying to edit war: that's a huge power grab. The aim here is to deal with talk page disruption, not to patrol the article content.
- tell editors they have 48 hours to reach a compromise or you will revert back to the other version That's pretty harsh, and again it's putting the sheriff in control of the article, not just the talk page.
- I think page protection, maybe longer than 24 hours, is all that a sheriff would need to stop edit warring. Reverting brings up many additional issues which would muddy the waters. Will Beback talk 23:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I can see there are situations, at least, where it wouldn't work. Would the Sheriff be able to suggest that the contentious material be removed to the talk page, and characterize as disruptive anyone who reverted? BE——Critical__Talk 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The emphasis should be on adding sourced information, not taking it away. In my and others' experience, the quick removal or reversion of sourced material is a sign of POV editing. The sheriff should make clear that, unless it's a BLP, sourced information added to the article should not be removed until there is consensus on the talk page to do so. By applying this evenly, the sheriff is not making content decisisions, merely enforcing WP's rules for consensus decision-making. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's one view of activist editing, but a sweeping rule that source material may not be removed would be impractical in practice. Sourced material may be irrelevant, have undue weight, misrepresent the source, etc. The more the sheriff gets involved in deciding acceptable content in the article, the more quickly they'll lose legitimacy. Will Beback talk 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- If sourced material is wrong for the article, I think consensus on the talk page would develop rather quickly for its removal. Otherwise, it stays. If it makes the article look horrible, so be it, it will serve as a message for editors that if they had cooperated better in the first place, then it wouldn't be necessary to have a sheriff with the article imposing rules like that one. If the sheriff is consistent on doing it this way, then I don't think it will be a problem. Actually, I mistakenly put the comment above in this thread, I meant it to be a response in the next thread below. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's one view of activist editing, but a sweeping rule that source material may not be removed would be impractical in practice. Sourced material may be irrelevant, have undue weight, misrepresent the source, etc. The more the sheriff gets involved in deciding acceptable content in the article, the more quickly they'll lose legitimacy. Will Beback talk 00:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The emphasis should be on adding sourced information, not taking it away. In my and others' experience, the quick removal or reversion of sourced material is a sign of POV editing. The sheriff should make clear that, unless it's a BLP, sourced information added to the article should not be removed until there is consensus on the talk page to do so. By applying this evenly, the sheriff is not making content decisisions, merely enforcing WP's rules for consensus decision-making. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I can see there are situations, at least, where it wouldn't work. Would the Sheriff be able to suggest that the contentious material be removed to the talk page, and characterize as disruptive anyone who reverted? BE——Critical__Talk 00:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Becritical wrote: Would the Sheriff be able to suggest that the contentious material be removed to the talk page, and characterize as disruptive anyone who reverted?
- Do you mean "suggest" a move or actually actually perform such a move? If there's a consensus to remove it then there's no problem. If he does it without a consensus then he's action on his own. To put the worst possible spin on it ;) the sheriff unilaterally decides that some text he doesn't like is "contentious". He deletes it from the article and pastes it onto the talk page pending the never-to-come consensus, with the threat of topic banning or blocking anyone who dares to restore the material. This seems like it would put the sheriff in charge of deciding the content and gives him broad powers to enforce that decision. Unless the material is an clear BLP violation, why would it need to be removed in order to improve the talk page discussions? If editors are bragging about what they forced into the article then that's an unhelpful talk page behavior for which the sheriff has adequate tools to handle without reverting or deleting material from the article. Will Beback talk 00:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will - just a quick comment, because I have to run. I am not worried about sheriffs being harsh - the nature of policing is that sometimes harsh actions are called for. Harsh actions are justified by being applied under clear necessity and with scrupulous fairness. You cannot separate what happens on the article from what happens on the talk page, and giving a bunch of editors 24 hour blocks to make it absolutely clear that there is zero tolerance for mainspace monkey-business is harsh, but reasonable and highly cost effective. a 24 hour block doesn't do much to an editor except bruise his ego, but once you've done that once on a page, you can be damned sure that no further edit wars are going to crop up in the near future.
- yes, it's a huge power grab. that's what a sheriff is (here or in the real world): someone who can dominate a page by brute force in ways that are highly restricted, so that other people cannot dominate the page through brute force in unrestricted and problematic ways. Sheriffs are a distinct evil roped into the service of good editing, by making other evils ineffective. The more you water down the sheriff's power, the less point there is in having a sheriff. --Ludwigs2 02:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think that allowing a sheriff to block an editor just because he thinks they might edit war, and not allowing admins to review that block or potentially lift it, is not going to be acceptable to the community. If we did manage to pass a proposal with that provision, any sheriff who imposed such a block would probably be fired promptly. There seems to a tension here between making the sheriff a very limited role, and giving them sweeping powers far beyond what admins is allowed to do. Since sheriff's actions cannot be overturned, the only way to fix an overeager sheriff's actions is to fire him. Will Beback talk 09:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Where did someone propose that "and not allowing admins to review that block or potentially lift it"? And they can't block without banning first. (added) So there would be no reason that an admin would need to review a block. BE——Critical__Talk 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Authoritative control: Sheriffs are monitored by sysops—generally through the administrator's noticeboard—but have the final say on pages where they are installed; sysops or other sheriffs who wish to act authoritatively on the talk page must clear it with the sheriff first, and the installed sheriff can revert the actions of anyone without being guilty of wheel warring or edit warring.
- A sheriff has total control of the article and talk page, the power to "dominate a page with brute force". If an admin disagrees with a block or protection, the sheriff may wheel war with the admin without penalty. If one or more admins overseeing the sheriff disagree with the sheriff's action the only thing they can do is initiate a discussion to remove him. Until that is resolved, the sheriff continues to have complete control of the article and its editors. It's not explicit in the text now, but Ludwigs2 suggests above allowing sheriffs to impose bans or blocks for the mere appearance of intent to edit war. I just don't think the community would accept having someone with that much sole power. Will Beback talk 22:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Where did someone propose that "and not allowing admins to review that block or potentially lift it"? And they can't block without banning first. (added) So there would be no reason that an admin would need to review a block. BE——Critical__Talk 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think that allowing a sheriff to block an editor just because he thinks they might edit war, and not allowing admins to review that block or potentially lift it, is not going to be acceptable to the community. If we did manage to pass a proposal with that provision, any sheriff who imposed such a block would probably be fired promptly. There seems to a tension here between making the sheriff a very limited role, and giving them sweeping powers far beyond what admins is allowed to do. Since sheriff's actions cannot be overturned, the only way to fix an overeager sheriff's actions is to fire him. Will Beback talk 09:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- yes, it's a huge power grab. that's what a sheriff is (here or in the real world): someone who can dominate a page by brute force in ways that are highly restricted, so that other people cannot dominate the page through brute force in unrestricted and problematic ways. Sheriffs are a distinct evil roped into the service of good editing, by making other evils ineffective. The more you water down the sheriff's power, the less point there is in having a sheriff. --Ludwigs2 02:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Do you mean "suggest" a move or actually actually perform such a move?" I did mean "suggest." However, if one side of a debate removed it, should the other side be warned not to edit war it back in? That would go a long long way toward enforcing consensus as I was advocating. But hopefully in an acceptable way. And I don't think Sheriffs should give blocks before they've given bans. Block only if a ban is violated. That should be directly in the proposal don't you think? BE——Critical__Talk 03:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let's say we have an article on Italian nationalism. The pro-nationalists add a well-sourced paragraph about about an incident committed by French immigrants. The "anti-" side complains that the issue is irrelevant, and removes it. Alternatively, there's a well-sourced passage on atrocities caused by Italian police that's removed by the "pro-" side and restored by the "anti-" side. Why would these be handled differently?
- Who said they should be handled differently? BE——Critical__Talk 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- See your response below: "The Sheriff would enforce removal of content ..." Why only the removal but not the addition? Will Beback talk 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Who said they should be handled differently? BE——Critical__Talk 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- As far as bans and blocks, are we addressing talk page problems or article problems? If the Sheriff is the enforcer of his preferred version of the article and an editor dares to add something he doesn't like then he'd issue warnings and perhaps eventually topic ban the editor for 24 hours. Let's say the editor sits out the ban and returns making the same point 25 hours later. As currently drafted, there must be a waiting period before the sheriff can reimpose the ban. That period passes and the editor is still wanting to make the same point, so the sheriff imposes a second ban. After 12 hours the editor breaks the ban by posting a complaint on the talk page about the sheriff's heavy handed activity. That's sufficient to earn a 24 block from the sheriff. Is that an accurate scenario? Will Beback talk 09:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Sheriff would enforce removal of content (by others) pending further discussion; none of the above is the way I see it. BE——Critical__Talk 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the sheriff can't ban and block an editor for adding or removing text? I think that's a wise solution, but not what had been suggested. Will Beback talk 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Sheriff should be able to use powers for all sorts of disruptiveness except content decisions. If a user edit wars text into or out of an article, especially that which has been removed pending discussion, that's disruptive behavior and sanctionable without reference to content. BE——Critical__Talk 01:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean the sheriff can't ban and block an editor for adding or removing text? I think that's a wise solution, but not what had been suggested. Will Beback talk 22:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The Sheriff would enforce removal of content (by others) pending further discussion; none of the above is the way I see it. BE——Critical__Talk 16:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Let's say we have an article on Italian nationalism. The pro-nationalists add a well-sourced paragraph about about an incident committed by French immigrants. The "anti-" side complains that the issue is irrelevant, and removes it. Alternatively, there's a well-sourced passage on atrocities caused by Italian police that's removed by the "pro-" side and restored by the "anti-" side. Why would these be handled differently?
- "Do you mean "suggest" a move or actually actually perform such a move?" I did mean "suggest." However, if one side of a debate removed it, should the other side be warned not to edit war it back in? That would go a long long way toward enforcing consensus as I was advocating. But hopefully in an acceptable way. And I don't think Sheriffs should give blocks before they've given bans. Block only if a ban is violated. That should be directly in the proposal don't you think? BE——Critical__Talk 03:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think this is conversation is drifting into somewhat bizarre territory. let me try to address some of the concerns, though:
- A sheriff would not block, ban, or otherwise sanction an editor for adding or removing content. sanctions would only occur where editors are doing things designed specifically to inflame other editors. it's like this:
- Editor A adds (or removes, or edits) some contentious content: this is fine per BOLD.
- Editor B does something tantamount to a revert. this is fine per BRD
- Editor A (or a different editor C) does something tantamount to a re-revert. At this point, any reasonable editor should be aware that the proper move is to go to talk and discuss. Continued reverts at this point are not about content (because it's already clear that the material is objected to, and likely to be reverted again); continued reverts are primarily emotional (an angry response, an effort to score points, a baiting game...). If a sheriff blocks here s/he is blocking the continued escalation of the emotional responses, not defending content.
- A sheriff would not block someone for complaining about the sheriff's actions (that would be well outside his mandate), but he might redact the complaint from the article talk page and direct the editor to enter the complaint at AN or wherever sysops are monitoring the sheriff. A smart sheriff would even alert sysops himself that he is redacting the complaint and directing the editor to the appropriate forum.
- There is no effective way a sheriff could consistently block editors to maintain a particular POV without getting desheriffed - again, it simply can't happen, short of massive corruption among sysops monitoring the system (and if that's the case, it has nothing to do with the sheriff). The sheriff's authoritative control over the page only exists so long as the sheriff stays within the restrictions. A sysop cannot countermand a sheriff so long as the sheriff is playing by the rules. However, if there's a discussion and sysops decide that the sheriff made a bad block, then the sheriff would be obliged to undo it and refrain from doing similar things in the future, and probably there would be some editing to this project to clarify the situation in the rules. if it's truly bad, the sheriff will lose his position and his authority over the page.
Final point: Will, you may be right that the community won't accept this. However, I would prefer to present the idea in its proper form and have it be rejected than to present some watered-down or minimized version of the concept. Again, the sheriff is supposed to be a powerful agent restricted by a clearly limited mandate: he needs to have some explicit extraordinary powers to overpower the more noxious forms of implicit power that other editors regularly use on-project. the trick here is not to reduce his power, but rather to restrict his power to a narrow range of actions that allow him to impose order without giving him the ability to interfere with the development of content.
This discussion is useful, but let's not get over-focused on on the idea of malicious sheriffs intent on breaking the rules to muck with content. most people who will choose to be sheriffs are going to embrace both the letter and the spirit of the project, really wanting to stop the nonsense and improve the consensus process. There is no way to anticipate what every bad egg might do, and we can trust that the sysops monitoring the situation will use both good faith and common sense when dealing with sheriffs and their actions. --Ludwigs2 03:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Every bad behavior that is attributed to admins can also be attributed to sheriffs. When making rules, it's wise and necessary to consider the worst case scenarios.
- As for using tools to enforce contents of articles, I think it's a bad idea. If there's edit warring then a sheriff can call in an admin to make blocks. Edit wars are already handled well by the community. The issue that this proposal addresses which isn't handled well now are talk page disputes. I support giving sheriffs strong authority on talk pages, and little or no power on content pages.
- If admins cannot undo what sheriffs do, and can only initiate a week-long removal process that includes sanctions on the sheriff, then the oversight is faulty. Let admins handle the admin duties, and sheriffs handle sheriff duties. Will Beback talk 04:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- "As for using tools to enforce contents of articles, I think it's a bad idea" Are you saying that someone is suggesting this? BE——Critical__Talk 04:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that there are proposals for allowing sheriffs to revert content changes and block editors for article-page behavior like edit warring or having the intent to edit war. This proposal started as a way of addressing talk page behavior, and I think it should stay focused on that. Will Beback talk 05:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- "As for using tools to enforce contents of articles, I think it's a bad idea" Are you saying that someone is suggesting this? BE——Critical__Talk 04:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- BC - Will is misunderstanding, and at this point I'm not sure he's going to understand without seeing the thing in operation. I could try to explain it to him again, but he seems to be getting annoyed at my explanations, so I'm hesitant to do that unless he requests it. I think the best we can do right now is take what he says as useful considerations, but get on with developing the idea the way it should be developed. We can deal with all these misunderstanding when we present it to the community, because no doubt there will be others who share his confusion.
- Will, would you mind stepping back and letting us do that? Your input is useful, but having to spend this much time correcting misconceptions is really slowing down progress on the proposal. --Ludwigs2 05:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you'd prefer to userfy this proposal then it'd be appropriate to exclude editors from it. Otherwise, it's just as open as any other page. If you look at the talk page and the proposal, I think it's obvious that I've helped clarify a number of issues which were vague or undefined. I endorse the basic goals of this proposal: To ensure that content discussions can progress meaningfully, peacefully and quickly, either to a consensus conclusion or to a recognition that mediation or arbitration is required; and to guide editors away from bad discussion practices towards a better, more civil communication style, by encouraging the latter and inhibiting the former. Will Beback talk 06:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think that John Vandenberg's suggestions need to be considered, but otherwise I think we're about to the place where we can present it to the community. To be clear though, we do not want the Sheriff to control article content, and their behavior such as edit warring on article pages is relevant, well, to the wellbeing of the article dynamic and can't be left out. I think we've come a long way in this discussion, partly because of Beback's input, and we've answered a lot of the questions that the rest of the community would put to this proposal. BE——Critical__Talk 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you'd prefer to userfy this proposal then it'd be appropriate to exclude editors from it. Otherwise, it's just as open as any other page. If you look at the talk page and the proposal, I think it's obvious that I've helped clarify a number of issues which were vague or undefined. I endorse the basic goals of this proposal: To ensure that content discussions can progress meaningfully, peacefully and quickly, either to a consensus conclusion or to a recognition that mediation or arbitration is required; and to guide editors away from bad discussion practices towards a better, more civil communication style, by encouraging the latter and inhibiting the former. Will Beback talk 06:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will, would you mind stepping back and letting us do that? Your input is useful, but having to spend this much time correcting misconceptions is really slowing down progress on the proposal. --Ludwigs2 05:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- We've all worked to better define the nuts and bolts of how a sheriff system might work. However the intro and the definition of the purpose and goals of the sheriff plan are still vague and some if it would be better in a "cover letter" than in the proposed policy itself. There's an ongoing discussion about the purpose/goal in "How's it going to work" below. We might all look over the intro and theory sections again. Let's start a new thread on that. Will Beback talk 08:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will, I agree that you've helped a lot, but my point was that you are (i) missing some of the key ideas here, (ii) chaffing at reading through my (in your words) 'wall of text' responses that explain those ideas, and (iii) seemingly opposed to certain central ideas straight out. Of course you have the right to edit anywhere you want to on wikipedia, but as a long-term editor and a sysop you should recognize there are times when good faith contributions hinder more than they help. Many of the concerns you're raising (in this thread and elsewhere) are more imaginary than real, I'm having a hard time getting you to see that they are imaginary (and why they are imaginary), and we're going to have to go through these same discussions again for the general community anyway. You're basically forcing me to duplicate and reduplicate a whole lot of explanations. If I have to spend the time and effort doing and redoing it, I will, but I really wish we cold focus on making the idea itself clear and concrete, rather than spending all this time quibbling over what strike me unfounded fears about degenerate cases.
- I'm not asking you to leave (and would actually rather you didn't), but I would like it if we could keep our eyes on the ball and stop worrying so much about the foul line.
- BC is right, we've come a long way and you've helped a lot, so enough of this tangent. let's get back to clarifying the intro. --Ludwigs2 16:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If we hand out big tools with little oversight then we do need to make sure that they are not abused. You've expressed disdain for how the ArbCom and Admins work, yet those bureaucracies were also established with the best of intents. If admins can abuse their tools, then so can sheriffs. Will Beback talk 22:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Will, you keep saying things like this, and I keep telling you that it's impossible for a sheriff to do abuse their powers this way without getting caught at it. And franlky, your use of the phrase 'little oversight' after what's been said on this talk page just astonishes me - where is that coming from?
- Put your money where you mouth is: give me an example of a sheriff abusing his powers that would not get caught and corrected in a matter of hours (or a couple of days at the outside). If you give an example and we can talk about how to resolve it; if you can't give an example, you should acknowledge that you've misunderstood and drop this entire line of debate. agreed? --Ludwigs2 12:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Consequences
You do realize, don't you, that some people would deliberately escalate disputes in the hope of getting a sheriff appointed? I assume this already happens with Arbcom. I've certainly come across an editor who admits to having deliberately got himself blocked in the hope of gaining publicity for an issue. Always think about incentivization. If it's to people's advantage to do something, sometimes they'll do it. Peter jackson (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was just reading a dog training book. It said that when puppies are being house-trained and make a mistake it's important to move them out of the area before cleaning up the mess, otherwise they'll just learn that it's your job to clean up after them. Perhaps that's a similar effect. Will Beback talk 10:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Um... hey... just an aside to this thread, but that's why the Sheriff should have revert power, so other editors won't be stuck cleaning up disruptive editor's non-consensus mess. BE——Critical__Talk 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- lol - well, I think that would qualify as shooting oneself in the foot. If one wants to escalate a problem to get some kind of notoriety on it, the last thing to do is get a sheriff sitting on the page making sure that everyone is squeaky clean and polite. it's as the post-modernists sometimes say: history is made by the vile, the violent, by angry, aggressive, thundering bastards. quiet, unassuming, decent people never make the evening news. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. That's what I was illustrating. If someone thinks a sheriff might get the articel moving in the direction they want they might behave that way. Peter jackson (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- And given that most POV pushers believe that their view is 'THE TRUTH!' they might well think that if they can get a truly neutral (rather then those POV pushers at Admin office) their self evident truth will win out.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. and the result will be that the sheriff will make certain that the discussion focuses on content, and everyone will see whether or not the POV-pusher has a valid point to make. Sometimes POV-pushers are closer to NPOV than the other editors on the page, you know; even a broken clock is right twice a day (unless it's a broken military clock, which is only right once a day). --Ludwigs2 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- But who is this "everyone" & what are they going to do about it? It's all very well people seeing things but that's no use (unless it's the readers of course) unless they're actually going to do something about it. No amount of visibility of misbehaviour will deter it without actual sanctions. Peter jackson (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Peter... what the hell are you talking about? people come here because they want to revise what the encyclopedia says about a topic: that's not going to change. The choice is between requiring them to undertake those revisions as calm and reasonable adults, or allowing them to fight and spit and moan over those revisions like rutting baboons. The calm reasoned approach may or may not affect the outcome of the discussion, but the issues will certainly be clearer and the process infinitely more pleasant. are you griping because the idea doesn't do more than that? --Ludwigs2 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I wouldn't use the wrod "griping", but I would like something more. That doesn't mean I actually oppose this proposal. But if you keep saying things that seem to imply it'll solve everything then I'm liable to keep pointing out ways it won't. Peter jackson (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Peter... what the hell are you talking about? people come here because they want to revise what the encyclopedia says about a topic: that's not going to change. The choice is between requiring them to undertake those revisions as calm and reasonable adults, or allowing them to fight and spit and moan over those revisions like rutting baboons. The calm reasoned approach may or may not affect the outcome of the discussion, but the issues will certainly be clearer and the process infinitely more pleasant. are you griping because the idea doesn't do more than that? --Ludwigs2 18:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- But who is this "everyone" & what are they going to do about it? It's all very well people seeing things but that's no use (unless it's the readers of course) unless they're actually going to do something about it. No amount of visibility of misbehaviour will deter it without actual sanctions. Peter jackson (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yes. and the result will be that the sheriff will make certain that the discussion focuses on content, and everyone will see whether or not the POV-pusher has a valid point to make. Sometimes POV-pushers are closer to NPOV than the other editors on the page, you know; even a broken clock is right twice a day (unless it's a broken military clock, which is only right once a day). --Ludwigs2 19:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- And given that most POV pushers believe that their view is 'THE TRUTH!' they might well think that if they can get a truly neutral (rather then those POV pushers at Admin office) their self evident truth will win out.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. That's what I was illustrating. If someone thinks a sheriff might get the articel moving in the direction they want they might behave that way. Peter jackson (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- lol - well, I think that would qualify as shooting oneself in the foot. If one wants to escalate a problem to get some kind of notoriety on it, the last thing to do is get a sheriff sitting on the page making sure that everyone is squeaky clean and polite. it's as the post-modernists sometimes say: history is made by the vile, the violent, by angry, aggressive, thundering bastards. quiet, unassuming, decent people never make the evening news. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Um... hey... just an aside to this thread, but that's why the Sheriff should have revert power, so other editors won't be stuck cleaning up disruptive editor's non-consensus mess. BE——Critical__Talk 16:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
How's it going to work
Situation: Sheriff assigned to a page.
5 editors: agree on a statement.
Single editor: says the opposite.
Sheriff: asks if either side can source their opinion.
5 editors: cannot source to RS.
Single editor: can source to RS.
(big dispute about reliabilityof sources, but it all boils down to above, or some intermediate version of above)
Sheriff: says that the 5 editors cannot source to RS, and so should drop the matter... Alternately, says that the lone editor is being disruptive and going against consensus, so should drop the matter.
5 editors (lone editor) take Sheriff to noticeboard for determination of content.
You could come up with any version of that, including less extreme versions where there is only on editor on each side, but where is the line between determining disruption and determining content? Are we saying that as long as there is a group of POV pushers who outnumber the people trying to uphold policy, that the Sheriff will enforce the larger group? BE——Critical__Talk 18:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- this isn't really a sheriff situation - so long as everyone is being nice and civil, what's a sheriff to do? the only thing a sheriff could do in this case would be to let it ride for a while and then say "Guys, this conversation is tapped out and going around in circles. now you need to seek some outside help." Then the sheriff might (if he's sharp) make a clear and simple statement of the position of each side, and ask people if they want to put the issue to RfC or try mediation. At this point the sheriff would at most be a problem solver, clarifying things or giving people directions to various ways of moving the problem forward. Again, the sheriff's not there to adjudicate, he's just there to make sure the discussion progresses fairly, calmly and civilly. --Ludwigs2 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Becritical does bring up a good point, which is that the majority isn't necessarily right. For example, consensus is important but it does not override NPOV. Many contentious topics have groups of partisans who seek to skew an article in a direction that is not fully NPOV, and they may be opposed by a much smaller contingent who are either trying to make it NPOV compliant (or perhaps to skew it in another direction). It sounds like the intent of this proposal is to stop talk page discussions from being used as rancorous battlegrounds and to make editors work towards consensus. But we should remember that the consensus, if one emerges, may not even be compatible with Wikipedia standards. This proposal should stay focused on the improving the talk page discussions, not on the outcome of those discussions. Will Beback talk 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- When it comes to content discussions, the sheriff probably shouldn't give an opinion, because once they do, he/she will be "involved." The sheriff should, however, give warnings and blocks to participating editors who violate policies: edit-warring, removing reliable sources without consensus, belittling or disparaging other editors in the talk page discussions, editorializing on the article talk page in favor of a POV, etc. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- So if I'm a POV pusher, my logical route will be to politely stonewall or practice IDIDNTHEARTHAT, in much the same way it's done now. The Sheriff, therefore, does not do anything for the most difficult disruption articles may encounter, but only sifts out the overtly disruptive. Well, I wish we could come up with a way where a Sheriff could do something about harder problems. BE——Critical__Talk 23:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- And, you can't do anything about removal of sources without being involved in content: how do you know they shouldn't be removed? BE——Critical__Talk 00:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Frankly, I'm not sure that this proposal is worth the time and energy if it's really just about CIV. If the Sheriff can't go get, say, a consensus on whether a source is reliable and then quell disruption from editors who continue to argue that it is, or label as disruptive IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior, then we are not doing Wikipedia much good. I believe there are ways that one could deal with content without violating the basic principles. You do that by enforcing consensus. Beback said that consensus may not be right and that's true, but I believe that part of the Sheriff's mandate should be to determine wider community consensus (for instance on sources), and apply it to the article- not directly, but by dealing with the disruption of editors beating a dead horse, or a horse that the general consensus has determined should be dead. This doesn't have to be forever, maybe only a few days while other issues are worked on. Otherwise, you just don't eliminate the really troublesome disruption. "the intent of this proposal is to stop talk page discussions from being used as rancorous battlegrounds and to make editors work towards consensus." Yes, that's the goal, but the working toward consensus part will only work overall if the Sheriff can enforce consensus on a temporary basis. Without the consensus part the Sheriff can make everyone be polite and stop edit warring, but can't do anything about real consensus building, because all anyone has to do is sweetly say they disagree. BE——Critical__Talk 00:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- When it comes to content discussions, the sheriff probably shouldn't give an opinion, because once they do, he/she will be "involved." The sheriff should, however, give warnings and blocks to participating editors who violate policies: edit-warring, removing reliable sources without consensus, belittling or disparaging other editors in the talk page discussions, editorializing on the article talk page in favor of a POV, etc. Cla68 (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- Becritical does bring up a good point, which is that the majority isn't necessarily right. For example, consensus is important but it does not override NPOV. Many contentious topics have groups of partisans who seek to skew an article in a direction that is not fully NPOV, and they may be opposed by a much smaller contingent who are either trying to make it NPOV compliant (or perhaps to skew it in another direction). It sounds like the intent of this proposal is to stop talk page discussions from being used as rancorous battlegrounds and to make editors work towards consensus. But we should remember that the consensus, if one emerges, may not even be compatible with Wikipedia standards. This proposal should stay focused on the improving the talk page discussions, not on the outcome of those discussions. Will Beback talk 23:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
From the intro, the two goals of a sheriff are:
- To ensure that content discussions can progress meaningfully, peacefully and quickly, either to a consensus conclusion or to a recognition that mediation or arbitration is required.
- To guide editors away from bad discussion practices towards a better, more civil communication style, by encouraging the latter and inhibiting the former. [emphasis added]
This says nothing about quelling editing wars and handling article content disruption. Maybe we should work on what the goals of a sheriff should be, then decide on which tools and authority are needed to achieve those goals. Regarding Becritical's last point, if supervised talk page discussions can't handle the problem then maybe mediation or arbitration are required. Will Beback talk 00:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't it?
discussions can progress
meaningfully, peacefully
and quickly
None of which they will be able to do (necessarily), if all the Sheriff does is enforce CIV. Yes, perhaps mediation or arbitration are required in the cases I'm concerned about. Still, simply noticing what the real consensus of other editors is and enforcing that does not seem to me to be actually getting involved in content. It's just making sure the process that's already in place for inserting or retaining article content is actually followed. It has nothing to do with determining what that content should be.
If there are basic issues about which consensus cannot be reached, then we'd still go to DR. But if there is consensus and polite disruption, then I think the Sheriff should be able to remedy that for a small period of time to promote the goals of having discussion progress. Otherwise you have situations where gang editing is rewarded, and a local "consensus" is followed while ignoring outside opinion. BE——Critical__Talk 00:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That view clearly goes beyond the narrow mandate expressed in the "goals" copied above. Could you propose one or more goals which would describe the aim that you're talking about? Will Beback talk 01:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, as I figured would happen eventually, people are starting to lose their grip on the core concept. that's natural: it's a new idea and it's common for people coming to terms with a new idea to gradually reinterpret it in terms they are more familiar with (which means they lose the new idea). so let me lay out the core concept again and see if we can get it back into focus.
- First, consensus is a core principle of wikipedia, and it doesn't mean majority rule or mere agreement. Consensus incorporates sourcing, neutrality, reason, and common sense, because what editors are trying to reach consensus about is how to best reflect the current understanding of the topic in the greater world. The problem with consensus discussions, however, is that editors often confuse "how the topic is understood in the greater world" with "how they themselves understand the topic"; consensus discussions need a certain detached perspective that many editors/people have difficulty with. What happens then (particularly on contentious topics), is that editors start talking past each other, start personalizing things, tempers start rising, and people begin behaving in progressively more hard-nosed ways.
- There's a difference between someone who has strong views on a topic but is willing to take that detached perspective and someone who has strong views but isn't willing to take that detached perspective. In calm discussions that difference is clear, but in intemperate discussions it's almost impossible to distinguish between a POV-pusher and a reasonable-but-annoyed editor, because they act the same. The first major job of the sheriff, then, is to cool the page down enough so that these differences become clear again.
- Once the page is cooled down, it will become quickly evident that we have one of four scenarios:
- A polemicized debate, where all sides are rigidly adhering to some idiosyncratic ideological points (with or without sourcing). This is a likely candidate for mediation or arbitration. Polemicized debates of this sort feed themselves by conflating the person and the idea (e.g. anyone who say X must be an advocate for Y and thus stupid and useless to listen to). The sheriff can help by separating the ideological points from all of the personalizations, discarding the latter and laying out the former out as a starting point for DR.
- A hold-out situation, where one or two individuals are holding up one side of a discussion against a group of other editors. This is a slightly different dynamic: the group usually treats the hold-outs as above (conflating the people with the idea in defamatory ways), but the hold-outs are usually fairly righteous and indignant, thinking that they have something useful to say and getting annoyed at not being listened to. Once the sheriff cools this down, it will become quickly obvious whether the hold-outs have something to add to the article: It might call for a compromise of some sort, or for someone to explain to the hold-out why their view can't be included under policy, or (again) might point towards DR, but in this case simply getting the larger group to listen to the hold-outs goes a tremendous way towards resolving the dispute.
- A cock-fight, where two editors are at each other's throats for reasons that are as much personal and ego-based as content-related. Forced to talk with each other reasonably, most people will rapidly work out a truce.
- A misunderstanding, where the actual thing being fought over is trivial and easily resolved, but so magnified by interpersonal friction that no one can see clearly enough to get to the resolution. Once the sheriff has calmed things down, the problem magically disappears.
- In all these cases, what a sheriff does is cool things down, cut all the personalized comments (which ill always call for personalized rebuttals), reduce the volume of text produced (so that it's easier for everyone to follow the logic of conversations), and generally simplify the conversation to its bare, impersonal essentials. Once the talk page gets down to the bare, impersonal essentials, it will be much easier to see whether or not there are valid issues to be addressed, whether a compromise is possible, or whether the sides are so solidified that outside opinions are needed.
- Further, the reason why we need a sheriff to do this is that - particularly on the internet - the natural course is for disputes to escalate, rather than abate. human nature: once someone starts to think that someone is opposing them their ego gets involved and they will generally start opposing right back, with unpleasant results. In one sense, a sheriff is trying to detach people's egos from defending their position and reattach their egos to communicating civilly and productively: Once people start to sense that the only way they will get gratification on the page is by talking with the other side, they will commit themselves to it (because - vandals aside - the only reason to edit wikipedia is because you want the gratification of contributing effectively). This is the shift in page dynamic that I keep talking about: when the sheriff has made it impossible to get gratification by irritating or beating up on other editors, by dominating the article or the talk page through brute force, by complaining about everyone and everything, by venting in long tirades, or by any of the other unsavory ways one can gratify oneself on-project, the only form of gratification left is collaborative encyclopedia building. it's sad that we sometimes have to eliminate the unpleasant forms of gratification by force to ensure that people opt for the pro-social form of gratification, but...
- does that clear things up a mite? --Ludwigs2 02:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Walls of text don't help. If the goals of the sheriffcy go beyond improving talk page discussions then the goals should be rewritten to reflect the actual goals. Can you propose some text that will cover your view of the article page goals of sheriffcy? Will Beback talk 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the word is "shrievalty". Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- The English language is a constant source of amazement. Will Beback talk 12:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think the word is "shrievalty". Peter jackson (talk) 11:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- That particular wall of text seemed quite helpful to me. I've never seen this truly tried before, and therefore I think it's quite worthwhile to give it a chance. If the dynamic he speaks of can be accomplished, where either problems which are insoluble at that level are made clearer, or a way is created for progress, then it's well worthwhile creating a Sheriff. So I concede, let's pursue this without giving any powers that even seem to touch on content. It might work. I think it will work except in the extreme cases. BE——Critical__Talk 03:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wall of text, but as I said, it's a new idea that needs some explaining and discussion, and that can't always be done in soundbites. But to try to address your concern, maybe we could add these linee after the bullet points in the intro:
I'm not totally in love with that language, mind you, but it's a start. --Ludwigs2 02:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)The goal is to forestall or remove distractions, rhetoric, political manipulations, needless complications, tendentious actions, or anything which can embroil the talk page in confusion or heated emotions. The sheriff insists that the discussion remain simple, clear, and impersonal, so that the content dispute can come to the fore and the consensus process can work to best effect.
- Thanks. Would that replace the existing two goals or be added to them? Will Beback talk 04:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- "...after the bullet points in the intro." --Ludwigs2 05:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean it's a third bullet point? Will Beback talk 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- More Wild West: sheriffs and bullets? Peter jackson (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- @ Will, I hadn't envisioned it that way. give me a few minutes and I'll add it in the way I see it.
- @ peter: --Ludwigs2 15:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- You mean it's a third bullet point? Will Beback talk 06:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- "...after the bullet points in the intro." --Ludwigs2 05:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Would that replace the existing two goals or be added to them? Will Beback talk 04:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry for the wall of text, but as I said, it's a new idea that needs some explaining and discussion, and that can't always be done in soundbites. But to try to address your concern, maybe we could add these linee after the bullet points in the intro:
- Walls of text don't help. If the goals of the sheriffcy go beyond improving talk page discussions then the goals should be rewritten to reflect the actual goals. Can you propose some text that will cover your view of the article page goals of sheriffcy? Will Beback talk 02:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"Independent actions of this sort"
- Sheriffs should be very circumspect about independent actions of this sort,[vague] since they do not have the full legitimacy of being appointed to a page.
This text was added a few days ago.[4] It's not clear what the phrase "independent actions of this sort" refers to. I put the "vague" tag on it the other day. Any idea what this means? Will Beback talk 23:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- yes, and 'vague' describes it nicely - lol. It was related to sheriff's self-appointing themselves to pages (rather than being appointed to them) and I included it as a caution to be aware that there were legitimacy concerns. it's not essential in any case, so eel free to remove or revise it as you desire. --Ludwigs2 02:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- But sheriffs don't self-appoint without confirmation, right? So this is pointless, right? Will Beback talk 02:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Right, but that wasn't the original idea. BE——Critical__Talk 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the text refers to some older version of the proposal that's been removed then it should probably be deleted. Will Beback talk 08:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Done. BE——Critical__Talk 01:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- If the text refers to some older version of the proposal that's been removed then it should probably be deleted. Will Beback talk 08:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- Right, but that wasn't the original idea. BE——Critical__Talk 03:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
- But sheriffs don't self-appoint without confirmation, right? So this is pointless, right? Will Beback talk 02:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Intro and theory
I made edits to the intro and theory sections without changing any policy issues.[5] It was mostly to make it more policy-like, and to better segregate the theory from the practice. There's an active discussion about the goals issues at "How's it going to work" above. Are there any issues about the intro and theory that need to be settled? Will Beback talk
- I changed "privileges" to "authorities". Blocking someone is not a privilege. Will Beback talk 09:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I combined moth terms. blocking is an authority, yes, but refactoring or redacting is closer to a privilege. But if you want to set it back, I'm not too worried about the distinction. --Ludwigs2 19:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Remarks
I have doubts about this proposal, even though I've had some vaguely similar ideas in the past. I would suggest (i) change the name to "Discussion Assistant" or "Discussion Mediator" or something in that direction, to emphasise the primary purpose and get rid of a name ("town sheriff") which is slightly silly and substantially misleading/counter-productive (ii) remove the power to issue blocks, but keep the power to issue short page bans (violation of which is blockable by an admin on request by the mediator) (iii) emphasise that the aim is to mediate, help discussion along, prevent low-level disruption, kickstart dispute resolution when needed, and assist newcomers - not be a sort of "admin lite" (iv) admin powers, if the person has them, not to be used on that page (barring dealing with obvious vandalism). This position doesn't need any technical powers like blocking or page protection - requests can be made in the usual way as necessary. There, that's my 2 cents... Rd232 talk 17:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Some articles need more than that. You may be right on the name, and we should probably emphasize mediation. Blocks are only there to back up bans, and so the power would be very rarely used... but is necessary so the Sheriff doesn't have to go running to mommy every time he needs his gun. Sheriffs are not going to be sysops at first (I think). Also this isn't "admin lite," it's "admin heavy" but with restrictions. Less easy to attack than an admin (one reason they need blocking power), but under more specific rules. BE——Critical__Talk 18:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rd232: I hear what you're saying, but I can't emphasize enough that this is intended to be a cop, not a mediator. Mediators are useful for pages where well-intentioned editors with a commitment to project ideals are having trouble coming to an agreement; they are useless (or worse) on pages where editors follow an ends justify the means approach and are willing to use all sorts of chicanery to get their way on a page. How do you mediate in a case where editors are more interested in getting people they disagree with blocked or otherwise shut out of the conversation so that they can have their way with the page?
- every community, when it reaches a certain size, needs to have functionaries whose purpose it is to make certain everyone plays nice according to the community ideals (because at a certain point you will invariably get someone who thinks he can get away with playing dirty, and once one person starts doing it, the entire community starts getting nasty out of sheer self-defence). I watch pages where I see long term, reputable, otherwise decent editors turn into (pardon my french) fucking trolls at the drop of a pin, because being a troll is the only way they know to fend off editors they think are problematic. put someone with a (metaphorical) badge and gun on the street to deal with problems in a clear authoritative manner, and everyone can unwind and get back to normal life. --Ludwigs2 19:12, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- (after-thought) Let me put this another way, which might be clearer. Once a community gets to a certain size, if it doesn't have something like sheriffs, it will most definitely end up with vigilantes, and vigilantes (as everyone knows) are a very, very mixed blessing. I can only point you to the fairly extreme case of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) (aka Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs)) - an editor whose perspective I agree with on many points, but who engaged in sock-puppetry, baiting, edit-warring, general tendentiousness, and other violations of wikipedia policy, always declaiming his service to the community - as evidence that wikipedia is already at the vigilante stage. --Ludwigs2 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Admins function rather like cops, don't they? Will Beback talk 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- In some respects, yes, and you might say the "town sheriff" approach is merely duplicative admin-qua-cop-lite. But the real problem isn't inability to act, it's inability to fully understand a problem, prevent it spiralling out of control if possible, and clearly and neutrally ask for dispute resolution / sanctions when appropriate. A mediator can do that much better than a cop. This way the Mediator position is genuinely supplementary, doing things admins cannot because by the time they understand a situation WP:INVOLVED is often an issue; the Mediator is reasonably protected from this by virtue of their function, focus, appointment process and limited-but-useful powers. Rd232 talk 01:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)That's all very well about the problems of vigilantism, but the new position you're advocating is fundamentally antithetical to Wikipedia's culture, and I don't think it stands a snowball's chance in hell of being approved in what you correctly describe as "cop" form. I'd expect even the quite different "mediator" form to get substantial resistance (because of WP:OWN issues), but I think that might fly on a trial basis. Rd232 talk 23:57, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, don't you think we just need to change the name? It's too much of an issue for too many. We will have enough trouble trying to deal with those who look at this most transparent and strictly oversighted and narrowly defined proposal and then say we are handing out big tools with little oversight. BE——Critical__Talk 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- It's more than a matter of "just change the name", it's the portion of this proposal based around that faux nostalgia for the "good 'ol days" when this mythical person solved all problems. Those days never existed and people were treated just as unfairly, watch yer Rambo and yer Unforgiven. I agree fully with Rd232's opening statement here, a "page facilitator" who could ask for privileged access to admin backup (by virtue of their appointment by the community) would be much more likely to get my support than the current proposal. Franamax (talk) 04:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- And if people think the current system works, let them take a look at the current problem in the Jerusalem article, which could hardly be more under ArbCom's thumb. BE——Critical__Talk 01:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you describe the problem at talk:Jerusalem and what a sheriff could do there to fix it? Will Beback talk 02:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- There has been a reasoned discussion, and although I haven't counted votes I think a good consensus reached on the lead. But people are too scared of the ArbCom sanctions to use them, because they may well backfire on whoever tries to use them... even though those who would request them are not (currently at least) disruptive. A sheriff could go in there, count a consensus, and take it to the already established authority, without being afraid for his own account. He could have given courage to those threatened. Because of his appointment by the community as a focused agent, he could break through the disruption, even by editors who haven't broken CIV, as there is sufficient consensus. It's a matter of outside involvement with the voice of authority, and having an editor around who isn't afraid of arbitrary and uninformed admin action (as I am or I'd do something). In this case it's not a matter of tools, but of general authority. I went there from a noticeboard and responding to an RfC, and found that there was one editor who was disruptive (IDIDNTHEARTHAT) and a couple of others with minimal involvement, plus a possible sock, all POV pushing. Then there were a greater number of thoughtful editors who were able to reach a consensus. So although a Sheriff could not determine content, he could help the situation. He could also likely have lead the discussion to a more clearly defined picture of POV pushing and disruption which could have been more easily dealt with. Still, the matter might be dealt with now by anyone willing to brave ArbCom noticeboard. Why a Sheriff and not an admin? Well, why not? It's because the admins are too easily attacked, and don't want to be involved. Let's see you fix it. However, although this has been a good exercise for me, I put it here more as an example of where the system doesn't work, and where we might not have had to go if there had been Sheriffs, rather than a prime example of an article which needs a sheriff at this point... though I do think it could use one. BE——Critical__Talk 02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Much of what you're talking about seems like a job for mediation. has that been tried?
- Socks, tendentious editors, and other explicit violations of policy can be handled by posting complaints at ANI, etc. Will Beback talk 03:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yet that's not the opinion of the non-disruptive editors there. BE——Critical__Talk 03:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I don't understand your reply.
- How would a sheriff act differently from a mediator working with admins? Will Beback talk 04:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yet that's not the opinion of the non-disruptive editors there. BE——Critical__Talk 03:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- There has been a reasoned discussion, and although I haven't counted votes I think a good consensus reached on the lead. But people are too scared of the ArbCom sanctions to use them, because they may well backfire on whoever tries to use them... even though those who would request them are not (currently at least) disruptive. A sheriff could go in there, count a consensus, and take it to the already established authority, without being afraid for his own account. He could have given courage to those threatened. Because of his appointment by the community as a focused agent, he could break through the disruption, even by editors who haven't broken CIV, as there is sufficient consensus. It's a matter of outside involvement with the voice of authority, and having an editor around who isn't afraid of arbitrary and uninformed admin action (as I am or I'd do something). In this case it's not a matter of tools, but of general authority. I went there from a noticeboard and responding to an RfC, and found that there was one editor who was disruptive (IDIDNTHEARTHAT) and a couple of others with minimal involvement, plus a possible sock, all POV pushing. Then there were a greater number of thoughtful editors who were able to reach a consensus. So although a Sheriff could not determine content, he could help the situation. He could also likely have lead the discussion to a more clearly defined picture of POV pushing and disruption which could have been more easily dealt with. Still, the matter might be dealt with now by anyone willing to brave ArbCom noticeboard. Why a Sheriff and not an admin? Well, why not? It's because the admins are too easily attacked, and don't want to be involved. Let's see you fix it. However, although this has been a good exercise for me, I put it here more as an example of where the system doesn't work, and where we might not have had to go if there had been Sheriffs, rather than a prime example of an article which needs a sheriff at this point... though I do think it could use one. BE——Critical__Talk 02:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you describe the problem at talk:Jerusalem and what a sheriff could do there to fix it? Will Beback talk 02:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs, don't you think we just need to change the name? It's too much of an issue for too many. We will have enough trouble trying to deal with those who look at this most transparent and strictly oversighted and narrowly defined proposal and then say we are handing out big tools with little oversight. BE——Critical__Talk 01:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Admins function rather like cops, don't they? Will Beback talk 23:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- (after-thought) Let me put this another way, which might be clearer. Once a community gets to a certain size, if it doesn't have something like sheriffs, it will most definitely end up with vigilantes, and vigilantes (as everyone knows) are a very, very mixed blessing. I can only point you to the fairly extreme case of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) (aka Joshua P. Schroeder (talk · contribs)) - an editor whose perspective I agree with on many points, but who engaged in sock-puppetry, baiting, edit-warring, general tendentiousness, and other violations of wikipedia policy, always declaiming his service to the community - as evidence that wikipedia is already at the vigilante stage. --Ludwigs2 20:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replying to multiple people, so this may be another 'wall of text' response. apologies in advance.
I understand wikipedia culture (better than most people, by virtue of training). What I have been trying to suggest repeatedly throughout this conversation is that Wikipedia culture needs to change, because wikipedia as a community has grown too large for the current form of social organization to work effectively. Wikipedia social organization is currently an internet variant of standard 'tribal' culture: individual-oriented, anti-authoritarian, using small-group discussion as a decision model and a harassment/exclusion paradigm for social control. This works very well for small, homogenous groups, and you see it all the time in things like business offices, fraternities, web forums... It works where groups are small enough so that there is a web of interpersonal relationships that binds the group together, encouraging individuals to be reasonable in discussion and temperate in applying social control. The wikipedia community would be too large for that web-of-relationships to exist even if there were real personal interactions between people, and given anonymity and physical separation (which both heightens individuality and loosens interpersonal bonds), you can not expect a tribal social structure to function in a healthy manner on project.
Don't get me wrong: I happen to like the loose, anti-authoritarian, highly individualistic model. it suits my personality. However, advocating for it in a group this size is ignorant. Simply and unadulteratedly ignorant.
Will: no, in fact admins are not like cops. Admins are closer to tribal elders in form and function: chosen by community approval, immune to punishment except in extreme cases, passing judgement and imposing sanctions based on idiosyncratic interpretations of passed-down texts. A tribal elder system is not a bad system, such as it is, but it is limited. As you can see from the tribal elder systems that still exist in the world today (sharia law being the most prominent) tribal elder systems that extend themselves over large populations become progressively more harsh and didactic, and again tend towards vigilanteism (because vigilanteism - defending the community code as an act of one's own initiative - is an essential step for someone who eventually wants to be an elder).
Tribal elders (sysops in our case) represent a blend of legal, executive, and judicial powers: they decide what is correct, determine an individual's compliance, and measure out punishment all in the same breath. Liberal societies never do that; they always separate powers across different groups of people for reasons of efficiency, scale, and legitimacy. The point of having a police function separate from the other functions is that a separated police function allows rules to be applied more systematically and evenly across the entire group. Wikipedia needs a 'cop' function because until we have a cop function, every question of punishment and control on project will turn into a matter of politics (and every matter of politics on wikipedia becomes a matter of congested drama). Cops can separate themselves from politics to a large extent simply by hiding behind the badge: they enforce the rules they are given to enforce in a limited, single-minded way, and leave questions of whether the rules are correct to other people to decide. Cops who step outside that narrow-minded application of rules get screwed, so intelligent cops don't.
Mediation is a good thing, but mediation (as I said above) requires good-faith participation from all the participants, which simply doesn't pertain in many cases. Mediation is a good tool, but every tool has it's proper use: Don't suggest we should drive a screw with a hammer just because a hammer is the only tool we have.
I don't really care about the name. Town Sheriff got picked both because it reflected the Wild West attitudes it was intended to control and because it fit with the 'Village Pump' motif that the the project has from its early days. But I don't see a point in sugar-coating the name to make the project look like something it isn't: This is intended to be a form of police, and we should put out efforts into convincing people of the necessity of that, not into trying to lull them into it.
Really, what this comes down to is that Wikipedia needs to grow up as a project and a community. People need to recognize (in a good Kantian sense) that they need a set of rules that will apply fairly and equally to everyone (including themselves), and a group of people whose job it is to enforce those rules fairly and equally. there's no other way to get the crapulence out of the project. If it's not the TS, it will eventually be something else, because if it's nothing else wikipedia is just going to get progressively suckier as the years slide on. --Ludwigs2 13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with most of that. To follow up what you say about separation of powers. The traditional classification is legislative, executive & judicial. The first is already mostly separate. "Laws" on WP are made by the community, except for a few cases (BLP, copyvio) where they're imposed by WMF. Although the community does occasionally exercise executive & judicial powers (bans), they're mostly left to admins. So if talk of separation of powers in this context means anything it would seem to mean separation of judicial from executive, which I haven't noticed suggested here. Peter jackson (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- err... police powers are an executive power. The executive branch of a government deals with the application of laws as written: police don't judge criminals, and they don't decide what constitutes a criminal act, they simply take the laws as given and apply them, leaving legislatures to make new laws and judges to determine guilt. You may be confused if you're an american: Americans think of the executive branch as the President, and forget that it also encompasses that vast range of structures under which the laws generated by the legislature are put into practice. --Ludwigs2 18:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- In a "civilized" society police investigate crimes, arrest people (executive) & present the case to judges, who decide whether they're guilty (judicial). If so, police transfer them to prison officers for punishment (executive). On WP, administrators decide whether people are guilty (judicial) & block them (executive). Peter jackson (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- When can we present this to the community? BE——Critical__Talk 23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Just don't. The only thing doing that will achieve is poisoning the well for more acceptable forms of this basic concept. Propose my Mediator version first, and if it turns out that additional really cop-like powers are necessary, see if the community is willing to add them later (probably not, but who knows). Rd232 talk 01:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- When can we present this to the community? BE——Critical__Talk 23:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Mediation is a good thing, but mediation (as I said above) requires good-faith participation from all the participants, which simply doesn't pertain in many cases." - yes, true, but one of the things a mediator could do is neutrally evaluate participants' behaviour and take appropriate action, including requesting sanction if necessary, with greater credibility than participants themselves. Crucially, compared to the cop model, this ensures a two-step process, so that you don't have one person dispensing summary justice in a way which, in this page-focussed context, really is untenable in terms of WP:OWN. [I'm sure some will remark that admins often dispense summary justice, but at least you have WP:INVOLVED as a protection.) Another thing a mediator can do is push dispute resolution processes forward, in terms of launching them, helping them along, and also using additional dispute resolution when early attempts get bogged down (without being accused of forum shopping, since their neutrality is accepted). Rd232 talk 01:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Geez, don't give up before we try... and maybe you're right, especially with the cop name, but I'd rather see it go down than not have the necessary powers. All we need is a trial run. BE——Critical__Talk 02:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Mediation is a good thing, but mediation (as I said above) requires good-faith participation from all the participants, which simply doesn't pertain in many cases." - yes, true, but one of the things a mediator could do is neutrally evaluate participants' behaviour and take appropriate action, including requesting sanction if necessary, with greater credibility than participants themselves. Crucially, compared to the cop model, this ensures a two-step process, so that you don't have one person dispensing summary justice in a way which, in this page-focussed context, really is untenable in terms of WP:OWN. [I'm sure some will remark that admins often dispense summary justice, but at least you have WP:INVOLVED as a protection.) Another thing a mediator can do is push dispute resolution processes forward, in terms of launching them, helping them along, and also using additional dispute resolution when early attempts get bogged down (without being accused of forum shopping, since their neutrality is accepted). Rd232 talk 01:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Rd232: Ok, it's clear that you are opposed to this idea. Thanks for your input, and you will have the opportunity to express yourself more fully when we present this to the community. Don't get me wrong, I understand your opposition, but I have very good reason to say that you are flat-out wrong in your assessment of both Wikipedia and this sheriff idea. That doesn't worry me: there will inevitably be a degree of opposition to this because it represents a shift in the structure of the community, and there will always be people who live by the "better the devil you know than the angel you don't" principle, who will oppose change simply because it is change. It will be part of my task to present a sufficiently compelling argument that the change I'm suggesting is useful, good, and even necessary in the long run. Hopefully I can convince you with it, but I am aware that I will not be able to convince everyone.
- I will also highlight the fairly obvious point that creating sheriffs will in no way supplant or exclude the mediation and DR processes that Wikipedia already has. If you think mediation is a better approach, then you will always be free to suggest that mediation be tried first any time a discussion about installing a sheriff is begun. Frankly, I can't see how you wouldn't already be aware of that, so I'm not sure why you are taking this approach to your opposition. Is there something I'm missing, and if so can you clarify?
- BC: I'd like to take a day or two to read through the proposal closely for tweaks and copyedits. Maybe we can post this at the pump on tuesday or wednesday? In the meantime, I'll open another section below to talk about presentation format, since I would like to put the best foot forward here. we can discuss what needs to be clearest when we talk to people about it. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to answer your question, I support a close enough variation of this approach that I don't think it's adequate to simply say "I oppose it". I oppose key features of your version of it yes. But my variation of it is still a big culture shift from the current use of mediation (eg WP:MEDCAB), so if you're suggesting that as an alternative to my version of your idea than you're missing the point. Rd232 talk 03:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, if you have a variation on this theme that you think would work better, I'm happy to hear the details. However, the 'two-step' system you outlined above (on face value, at any rate), doesn't work. for example, when I was mediating at the Race and Intelligence debacle, I actually tried to do some of what you suggest. I had one long-term, well-established editor involved in the mediation who (with support from a few friends) spent absolutely huge amounts of time and effort trying to disrupt the mediation and discredit me personally. I could not ask for assistance from a sysop with his problematic behavior without being roundly accused and attacked on a variety of specious charges. So long as he could tangle up my requests for assistance in vituperative battles at ANI he was immune to sanction and essentially free to do as he liked. The way I managed to control him was by asserting a degree of authority (one I didn't have, mind you) and then cowing him into compliance by rigorously and heavy-handedly enforcing discussion rules by fiat (which he hated, and still hates me for to this day, but which coerced him into doing productive work on the article). Your system leaves an unempowered agent who needs to request assistance with problem editors, which relies on personal credibility and/or personal connections with sysops, which invites character assassination in the first case and accusations of 'back-door' politics in the second.
- Well, to answer your question, I support a close enough variation of this approach that I don't think it's adequate to simply say "I oppose it". I oppose key features of your version of it yes. But my variation of it is still a big culture shift from the current use of mediation (eg WP:MEDCAB), so if you're suggesting that as an alternative to my version of your idea than you're missing the point. Rd232 talk 03:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- BC: I'd like to take a day or two to read through the proposal closely for tweaks and copyedits. Maybe we can post this at the pump on tuesday or wednesday? In the meantime, I'll open another section below to talk about presentation format, since I would like to put the best foot forward here. we can discuss what needs to be clearest when we talk to people about it. --Ludwigs2 18:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- In other words, it's basically the same system we have now.
- Now, I suppose you could patch that up by giving your 'mediators' more power to demand assistance from sysops, cutting out that vulnerability to character assassination. but if you do that you might as well give the mediators the power directly, because what sysop wants to be turned in to a mere puppet of some 'mediator'? But if you give power to the 'mediator' directly then you have to start worrying whether that power will be abused, so you have to start thinking about limits and oversight on 'mediator' power. And suddenly, voila! You've got a town sheriff. How do you think I developed this idea in the first place?
- So, if I'm missing something key in the above that would salvage your idea, please point it out to me. maybe we should start a new thread on it. but keep in mind that any system which boils down to a minor, ineffective tweak on the current system isn't worth doing. --Ludwigs2 17:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Your key paragraph there is the penultimate one, and the case it makes is non-existent. Mediators having powers undermines their ability to mediate, turning them from friendly chairperson types into cops. Cops dispensing summary judgement in matters of great subjectivity is very bad; it's not like judging 3RR or dispensing traffic tickets. Compare my efforts elsewhere to get agreement that individual admins shouldn't block for civility violations, but instead propose blocks at ANI and get community agreement that the behaviour merits sanction. Same problems apply here: the issues you seem to want a town sheriff to address are not ones that an individual should be dispensing sanction for, because they're too subjective. The role of the mediator here would be to have a precious neutrality in order to encourage/support/launch dispute resolution, primarily content dispute resolution (hopefully) but also ANI threads, arbitration enforcement requests and RFC/U, with much greater credibility than an active participant in the dispute. Running to individual friendly admins to Get Done What Needs Doing would be an excellent way to swiftly lose that credibility. Rd232 talk 18:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Of course, this is precisely where you're wrong. There's very little a sheriff would do that's subjective. Discussions about content are subjective, but behavior is not: it's simple, direct, and objective. The problems sysops have when trying to evaluate behavior is that y'all get hung up on subjective considerations. for instance, let's say editors A, B, and C (in different situations) each call someone a sh%t for brains, and you get called on to deal with the incivility in each case. Well, editor A is an IP with a history of being rude to people - you block him for a week. Editor B is an established editor but known (to you) to be a civil POV-pusher - he gets a stern warning and a block threat hanging over his head if he does it again, or maybe a page ban. Editor C is an established editor you decide is in 'good standing' - he gets a pat on the head because he's obviously having a bad day. For a sheriff, if an editor calls another editor a sh%t for brains it gets redacted, and if the redaction gets reverted the editor gets a 1-day block. it doesn't matter who the editor is, how long he's been editing, what the subjective appraisal of the editor might be; everyone gets the same sanction for the same overt behavior, period end of sentence, no arguing with it.
- Your key paragraph there is the penultimate one, and the case it makes is non-existent. Mediators having powers undermines their ability to mediate, turning them from friendly chairperson types into cops. Cops dispensing summary judgement in matters of great subjectivity is very bad; it's not like judging 3RR or dispensing traffic tickets. Compare my efforts elsewhere to get agreement that individual admins shouldn't block for civility violations, but instead propose blocks at ANI and get community agreement that the behaviour merits sanction. Same problems apply here: the issues you seem to want a town sheriff to address are not ones that an individual should be dispensing sanction for, because they're too subjective. The role of the mediator here would be to have a precious neutrality in order to encourage/support/launch dispute resolution, primarily content dispute resolution (hopefully) but also ANI threads, arbitration enforcement requests and RFC/U, with much greater credibility than an active participant in the dispute. Running to individual friendly admins to Get Done What Needs Doing would be an excellent way to swiftly lose that credibility. Rd232 talk 18:08, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, like I told will, it's easy enough to make up abstract scare stories by sticking to these over-generalized misconceptions. why don't you give me a particular case of behavior, I'll tell you how a sheriff would respond to it and what effect it will have, and you tell me why that's a bad thing (assuming you can think of a reason). Go on, try to stump me with something concrete. --Ludwigs2 23:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- "There's very little a sheriff would do that's subjective." .... really? Editor B is an established editor but known (to you) to be a civil POV-pusher ... and Editor C is an established editor you decide is in 'good standing' ... huh. Contradiction much? I don't think you understand your own proposal. Admins already treat editors with different edit histories differently, but evaluating that is clearly subjective. It's less so when there's an appropriate community discussion, which is why we must distinguish between relatively objective issues like 3RR violation which is swiftly blockable (though even here interpretation plays a role) and stuff like civility and especially "civil POV pushing" and other stuff which requires RFC/U, ban discussions etc. See also the recent "advocacy noticeboard" concept which ran into many of the same issues. Rd232 talk 00:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- How about talk:Jerusalem? Will Beback talk 00:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's a big talk page, and a dispute I'm not familiar with. give me something concrete, not some vague wave at a huge mass of text. --Ludwigs2 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sheriffs will have to deal with big, complex disputes. What are the first steps a sheriff might take in a dispute with which they are not familiar? Will Beback talk 00:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- That's a big talk page, and a dispute I'm not familiar with. give me something concrete, not some vague wave at a huge mass of text. --Ludwigs2 00:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Again, like I told will, it's easy enough to make up abstract scare stories by sticking to these over-generalized misconceptions. why don't you give me a particular case of behavior, I'll tell you how a sheriff would respond to it and what effect it will have, and you tell me why that's a bad thing (assuming you can think of a reason). Go on, try to stump me with something concrete. --Ludwigs2 23:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, let's work out the details first. BTW, Will Beback, the Shakespeare authorship question is a much better example of an article that needed a Sheriff than Jerusalem at the current time. It shouldn't have been allowed to drag on for years. BE——Critical__Talk 18:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- The SAQ issue is now at the ArbCom, which seems to be handling it expeditiously. Can you give more details about that case? Was mediation tried? At what point in the past would a sheriff have been bad enough to warrant a sheriff? Note that both SAQ and Jerusalem are issues where significant disputes have long-preceded Wikipedia's existence. If WP can find solutions to these disputes then it might be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. ;) Will Beback talk 22:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Okay, let's work out the details first. BTW, Will Beback, the Shakespeare authorship question is a much better example of an article that needed a Sheriff than Jerusalem at the current time. It shouldn't have been allowed to drag on for years. BE——Critical__Talk 18:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the "cops" analogy: Inmost jurisdictions, police officers do not try to settle disputes. They simply identify if a crime seems to have been committed, then either arrest or cite the apparent violator before turning the matter over to a higher authority. Detectives get a little more involved by investigating crimes where the perpetrator is not initially known, but once they've identified the "perp" they still hand him or her over to others for punishment (or exoneration). I don't think that's the intended role of so-called "sheriffs", as I don't see any plan for sheriffs to identify perpetrators and then have a higher authority decide on the punishment. For that, and other reasons, a different name and metaphor should be chosen. Will Beback talk
- What is the SAQ issue? can you provide a couple of links? I don't really know what you're referring to.
- With respect to 'cops', we're not talking capital crimes here. anything on the level of a murder investigation would get passed off to sysops. sheriffs just deal with garden-variety things: the equivalent of domestic disputes, drunk drivers, liquor store robberies, bar fights. In most of those cases, cops don't have much concern over who started it or what it's about; they enter into the situation with one goal, which is to reestablish the normal pattern of civil interaction that ought to pertain. sometimes that means writing a ticket; sometimes reining people in until they calm down or making them walk it off; sometimes it means getting people to talk something out rather than solve it with their fists; sometimes it means throwing them in jail overnight. Cops don't resolve disputes, no; they simply put a stop to bad behavior long enough for the dispute to have a chance of resolving itself. which is exactly what I'm suggesting here. --Ludwigs2 00:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Shakespeare authorship question/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question.
- Cops don't decide if a driver is guilty of drunk driving. They determine that there is the appearance of a violation of a policy/law, then turn over the case to a higher authority, for adjudication. A cop does not retain authority over the perpetrator after the violation has been identified and the perpetrator cited or jailed.
- Admins can protect pages and block users temporarily, but only the community or the ArbCom can issue site bans. Will Beback talk 00:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I hate split conversations like this, so I'm answering all three points here.
Rd: you read what I wrote completely backwards. Sheriffs would not be making subjective evaluations of that sort (I gave that ABC thing as examples of what sysops conventionally do): Sheriffs make their actions based on the obvious, objective behavior of editors on the page. please reread my post more carefully and respond again.
Will: point 1 - you say "Sheriffs will have to deal with big, complex disputes...": where are you getting that? Sheriffs do not have to concern themselves with the dispute and its complexities at all. sheriffs deal with concrete behavior. Sheriffs really don't need to keep track of the arguments being made (except in the limited sense that they might recognize that an argument is getting made multiple times and try to condense the discussion, or that they might recognize IDHT behavior and the like).
Will: point 2 - you say "cops don't decide...". I don't get your point. Wikipedia cops are obviously going to be different than cops in the real world (for too many reasons to discuss), and an endless nitpicking of the analogy is not helping us get anywhere. what are you trying to say about the proposal?
I'll point out again that I am happy to discuss the proposal, but there is a limit to how long it's useful to keep making corrections to the same repeated misconceptions. As an old mentor of mine taught me about teaching difficult concepts: It's useful to try explaining things in different forms, because you never know whether someone will click with this explanation or that one; but some people will not click with the idea no matter what you say, and at some point you just have to move on to the next thing and hope they pick it up later. We are getting close to the 'moving on' point here. It may be that neither of you will be able to grasp the concept as intended until you see it in action (a boat you'll be in with probably 2/3 of the people who look at it). There's nothing wrong with that, and if that seems likely to you on sober self-reflection then we should stop beating this horse and get on to the next stage. --Ludwigs2 02:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Point 1 - OK, sheriffs don't deal with disputes, they deal with behaviors. How would a sheriff handle the problematic behaviors at talk: Jerusalem?
- Point 2 - The problem is that this isn't just an analogy, it's the name of the job. If Wikipedia sheriffs aren't like real world sheriffs then let's call them something different to avoid misleading comparisons. Will Beback talk 02:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I missed that you were talking about sysops in your ABC examples. It doesn't make any difference; my remarks were essentially addressed at your claim that sheriffs would somehow be able to avoid having to make subjective judgements about behaviour (" Sheriffs make their actions based on the obvious, objective behavior of editors on the page..." as you restate it), which as I've argued above is nonsensical. Trivial things like 3RR violation are reasonably objective; all else behavioural requires subjective judgement - especially in the behavioural range in question (extreme behaviour is be dealt with by admin action at present, so that's not the issue). Rd232 talk 04:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean. however, I disagree. there will be a few borderline areas, but even those should be fairly clear as borderline cases go - the system is designed to remove subjectivity. If I were to boil down the sheriff's though process something fierce, it would look like the following:
- does this edit (or parts thereof) deal strictly with content or improvement of the article? If yes, the sheriff does nothing to that edit or those parts.
- if no, could this edit (or parts thereof) reasonably be assumed to irritate, inflame, annoy, or aggravate other editors, or otherwise lead to increasing hostility on the page? If yes, kibosh it.
- So, edits which are on topic and/or productive are protected; edits which might be questionable are probably safe as long as they are not 'trigger' items; 'trigger' items are reined in or squelched. It's the logic I used when discussing BRD above: bold edits are fine, first reverts are fine, second reverts (re-reverts) are questionable and should receive warnings, third reverts (by anyone) are trigger items that need to be kiboshed. What makes this work is the necessity that anyone who wants to complain about the sheriff's actions has to demonstrate that their behavior is not what the sheriff thought it was. so, that third-revert person has to explain why he didn't read the edit history and realize it was the third revert, or why he thought it was essential to revert for a third time rather than discuss the issue in talk (arguments which will be, as you can imagine, extremely hard to make effectively). likewise, if the sheriff redacts a part of a post in which editor A accuses editor B of being a jerk, editor A will need to explain why calling editor B a jerk was important to the content discussion in progress. Occasionally, the sheriff will misjudge: redact something that really is important to the content discussion, day-block someone for something that doesn't merit it. In those cases the editor will make the argument, sysops (and hopefully the sheriff) will agree, the act will be undone and the sheriff admonished, and no real harm to the discussion will have occurred. If the sheriff is admonished a few times for similar kinds of error, he's off the page and likely desheriffed. No real subjective calls are needed, because the only real 'subjective' moment is over whether a comment is useful for the content discussion, and sheriffs will be very wary of overstepping their bounds on that point (due to the inevitability of getting called on it by the editor in question and the possibility of being desheriffed completely). checks and balances; see what I mean?--Ludwigs2 05:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that explains your position better, but those ambitions are really quite limited. Editwarring is already handled via the 3RR board and the odd bit of name-calling isn't the thing that really causes discussions to fail or go nowhere. Redaction of unnecessary/offtopic stuff is something I'd envisage the Mediator/PageAssistant doing as well. The split difference is basically "day-block"s, which gives sheriffs too much power (goes in the block log, for one thing, which never goes away) and requires subjective judgement on when it's appropriate. A better alternative I think is short term page bans, which the user is expected to respect (and can be blocked if they don't). There's still subjective judgement there, but because there are no long-term consequences and users can still contribute elsewhere, it's less contentious. And contentious is bad, because it means more time spent arguing about the discussion process, instead of discussing the content. Rd232 talk 05:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I never said that my ambitions here were high. however, now you're misunderstanding in the other direction:
- I'm not talking about edit-warring - I'm talking about interventions that occur long before the 3rr point is reached and are applied much more sensibly and with much less possibility for gaming.
- Sheriff blocks (as has been discussed extensively previously) are procedural blocks, not administrative - they do not count for any future conditions, and should either be expunged from the block log when done or clearly marked as non-escalating.
- There's still very little subjective judgement, and there's little possibility for contentious discussion about the process because the burden in on the editor to prove that the sheriff stepped outside the bounds of his mandate. Either the sheriff did or the sheriff didn't - what's to discuss?
- I'll add that you deeply underestimate the power of moderating behavior on the effectiveness of discussion, but suspect that statement won't have any impact on you. Frankly, you're not saying anything here that I haven't already dealt with elsewhere, so unless you have something that isn't already covered thoroughly on the project page or in this talk page, I'd like to move on so that I can start the process of going over these same worries with the community. There's no sense haggling it out here when I'm just going to have to haggle it out again over there. --Ludwigs2 17:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I never said that my ambitions here were high. however, now you're misunderstanding in the other direction:
- Well, that explains your position better, but those ambitions are really quite limited. Editwarring is already handled via the 3RR board and the odd bit of name-calling isn't the thing that really causes discussions to fail or go nowhere. Redaction of unnecessary/offtopic stuff is something I'd envisage the Mediator/PageAssistant doing as well. The split difference is basically "day-block"s, which gives sheriffs too much power (goes in the block log, for one thing, which never goes away) and requires subjective judgement on when it's appropriate. A better alternative I think is short term page bans, which the user is expected to respect (and can be blocked if they don't). There's still subjective judgement there, but because there are no long-term consequences and users can still contribute elsewhere, it's less contentious. And contentious is bad, because it means more time spent arguing about the discussion process, instead of discussing the content. Rd232 talk 05:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see what you mean. however, I disagree. there will be a few borderline areas, but even those should be fairly clear as borderline cases go - the system is designed to remove subjectivity. If I were to boil down the sheriff's though process something fierce, it would look like the following:
- point 1: copy a post or a short passage from that page here: put it in the left half of an {{inbrief}} (or similar) template, and I will use the right half to show you what a sheriff would do with it.
- point 2: it uses that kind of name to signify that it is a policing concept, not that it mirrors a particular kind of real world police behavior. but as I said, I'm not too concerned about the name so long as it's not a complete misdirect. 'Moderator' is bland, but would work fine for the purposes. --Ludwigs2 04:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Point 1: Problematic talk pages don't come with annotations to specify what needs to be fixed. I have no idea what the problems are there. Ask Becritical - here's involved there.
- Point 2: "Moderator" is fine with me. Bland isn't a problem, is it? Will Beback talk 05:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Bland's fine with me. I like cutesy as well, however, so... <shrug> :-)
- with respect to point 1, just grab a part at random that you happen to think is problematic (for whatever reason). there's no point my picking a section, because I'll just pick one that favors the proposal. In fact, I was initially going to grab a couple of sections from the arbcom statements for demonstration purposes, but I decided that was shooting fish in a barrel (people are pointed at arbcom), and didn't want to get busted for constructing a positive strawman. --Ludwigs2 05:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You asked us to try to stump you. Problem pages don't have single problems that are easy to solve - they have complex problems that are hard to diagnose and treat. And the statements at ArbCom may not even be an accurate portrayal of the real problems. Will Beback talk 05:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Machu Picchu, Will! You clearly do not understand this project at all, you refuse to give concrete examples so that I can demonstrate it to you, you keep going back to points that I have explained do not apply and raising concerns that I have dismissed at length elsewhere - what's up with that? Again, sheriffs do not need to deal with the complexities of content disputes because they focus on concrete behavior. If you want to give me an example of concrete behavior to work with, I will show you what sheriffs do. if you don't want to give me such an example, then you'll either have to bang your head against the copious abstract explanations I've given so far or wait until a test case is set up and see it in action with the rest of the community. Either way stop waffling. Do you want to give me a concrete example to work with or not? --Ludwigs2 16:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Machu Picchu? No idea what that means. Jerusalem is a contentious topic. User:Becritical has suggested it as an example for the kind of topic where a sheriff could help. OK, so that one has you stumped. Let's pick another. Looking at your recent contributions I see you've posted to Talk:Intelligent design, which is another well-known dispute. What specific actions would a good sheriff take on that page to improve the discussions? Will Beback talk 18:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, if you read what I said, I haven't given any examples of pages I think currently need a Sheriff. BE——Critical__Talk 18:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Machu Picchu? No idea what that means. Jerusalem is a contentious topic. User:Becritical has suggested it as an example for the kind of topic where a sheriff could help. OK, so that one has you stumped. Let's pick another. Looking at your recent contributions I see you've posted to Talk:Intelligent design, which is another well-known dispute. What specific actions would a good sheriff take on that page to improve the discussions? Will Beback talk 18:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Machu Picchu, Will! You clearly do not understand this project at all, you refuse to give concrete examples so that I can demonstrate it to you, you keep going back to points that I have explained do not apply and raising concerns that I have dismissed at length elsewhere - what's up with that? Again, sheriffs do not need to deal with the complexities of content disputes because they focus on concrete behavior. If you want to give me an example of concrete behavior to work with, I will show you what sheriffs do. if you don't want to give me such an example, then you'll either have to bang your head against the copious abstract explanations I've given so far or wait until a test case is set up and see it in action with the rest of the community. Either way stop waffling. Do you want to give me a concrete example to work with or not? --Ludwigs2 16:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- You asked us to try to stump you. Problem pages don't have single problems that are easy to solve - they have complex problems that are hard to diagnose and treat. And the statements at ArbCom may not even be an accurate portrayal of the real problems. Will Beback talk 05:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- lol - I've been trying to clean up my mildly crusty language - 'Machu Picchu' seemed like a good expletive substitute (though with my luck, some Mayan priest is going to reincarnate as a wikipedia editor just to complain about my defaming their holy-of holies).
- but to the point. You are now being explicitly tendentious, which is frankly offensive coming from a sysop. You people are supposed to be above such things. I asked you for a concrete example to work with, you failed to provide one, and instead you decided to pull some cheesy crud about "has you stumped" as though you'd actually made some point rather than evaded a direct request. There is no sense discussing the matter with you further, because it is evident you have no interest in giving the idea a fair shake, and I simply cannot take you seriously any longer without feeling like a rube.
- So, conversation over, have a nice day, see you over at the Pump where the greater public exposure might cow you from committing this kind of crapulence.
- However, I'll tell you what: If I've misunderstood you, and you really do want me to show you how a sheriff would work on the ID page, set me up as sheriff there - with full sheriff powers - and I'll show you (and at the same time I'll show you that even someone involved in the conflict can be a sheriff without too much problem, because of the constraints of the system). Not that I expect you to make this happen - you've shown no inclination whatsoever to put your money where your mouth is - but I'm up to the challenge if you are. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please avoid the personal remarks and assumptions of bad faith.
- There's no way I could set you up as sheriff on any page. The question is simply this: given a real dispute, what specific actions would a sheriff take to reduce the unhelpful behaviors? Since you don't like the suggestions I offered can you propose one of your own? Not to actually do, but to say what a sheriff would do. If we can't say what a sheriff would do in specific situations then it'll be harder to sell this to the community using broad generalizations. Not impossible, but harder. Will Beback talk 19:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- However, I'll tell you what: If I've misunderstood you, and you really do want me to show you how a sheriff would work on the ID page, set me up as sheriff there - with full sheriff powers - and I'll show you (and at the same time I'll show you that even someone involved in the conflict can be a sheriff without too much problem, because of the constraints of the system). Not that I expect you to make this happen - you've shown no inclination whatsoever to put your money where your mouth is - but I'm up to the challenge if you are. --Ludwigs2 18:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I have said several times now, if you give me a specific block of talk page text, then I will happily show you what a sheriff would do with it. However, there is no sense discussing it in the abstract, since we have done that extensively already and it has not crystalized for you. You have a choice:
- Provide a block of talk-page text for us to work with, and I'll show you how it's done.
- Do not provide a block of text, and we'll all wait quietly until (when-and-if) the community decides to set up a test case.
- I cannot see a third option that does not merely recycle the fruitless abstract discussion we already have, and the fruitless abstract discussion has been recycled so many times already that attempting to recycle it yet again can only be viewed as tendentious. This is not rocket science, Will. Make your choice from A or B, or convince me there's an option C that isn't just the same old thing recycled. --Ludwigs2 19:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- No one said being a sheriff would be easy. ;) It means wading through over-long talk page disputes. Why would anyone even want the job? Anyway, I see two issues at talk:Jerusalem: an unresolved RfC ("Poll"), and a proposal for a new lead that hasn't received much support ("Proposed new lead", et seq). Is that specific enough? Will Beback talk 20:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I have said several times now, if you give me a specific block of talk page text, then I will happily show you what a sheriff would do with it. However, there is no sense discussing it in the abstract, since we have done that extensively already and it has not crystalized for you. You have a choice:
How about how a Sheriff would function on this page? Redact some of the things Ludwigs said, and advise you both to disengage and stop disrupting the talk page with a quarrel brought here from other parts, fought out indirectly through posts designed not to trigger any of Wikipedia's mechanisms. And tell Beback that it is disruptive to goad by ignoring what other people have said. In this case the main advice of a Sheriff would be for both of you to disengage and proceed with more fruitful discussions with other editors. The Sheriff might even institute a ban on direct responses to each other. BE——Critical__Talk 21:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Huh? Ludwigs2 asked for scenarios. It was you who suggested talk:Jerusalem as an example. When Ludwig asked for more specificity I highlighted two issues that I see outstanding on that page. (If those aren't good ones maybe you could point out better ones.) That seems like a proper response. Is this the kind of discussion that a sheriff would shut down? Will Beback talk 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
convenience break (1)
Ludwigs2, this block of text here please. I'll be interested to see how you plan to deal with yourself where you indicate an intention to edit war and get people blocked. And whatever other actions you would take there. Franamax (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- @ franamax. I was waiting for someone to try to turn it back on me that way (i'm actually incredibly surprised that Will didn't jump right on it when I gave him the opening above - it seemed the natural progression from the course of discussion). but regardless, rather than pointing with a link, copy over a reasonable-sized block of text (using the {{inbrief}} template I mentioned to WIll above), and I'll show you how it would be sheriffed. Don't make it too short or we'll miss the nuances; don't make it too long or parts of it may be obviated by sheriff actions in the early part of the discussion.
- @ Will. actually, there's not any wading through old talk page disputes: sheriffs are very much in-the-now. Basically what happened before doesn't matter; what matters is that people behave appropriately starting at this moment and into the future. If the sheriff wants to familiarize him/herself with old discussions, fine (that might be useful), but it's not really necessary since the sheriff is not evaluating content and not evaluating editors. the sheriff is just evaluating behavior.
- coordinate with franamax - either pull some text from F's link or pull some text from the unresolved RfC or the proposed new lead threads on your link. doesn't matter to me; either is good for demo purposes. I'll take a look at whichever thread you choose, just to get a sense for context. --Ludwigs2 23:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I give up. I've presented three examples and none of them are good enough. Why don't you find an sample dispute, one in which none of th current editors here have been involved, to show what specific actions a sheriff could do to help resolve a complex talk page dispute. Will Beback talk 23:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ludwigs2, if you are reacting this way to people who feel there are valid points in your proposal, just imagine what is going to happen when you present it to the wider community and get the "no fucking way" people. Some of us are here trying to find evidence for why we might support this and your basic answer seems to be "because I'm right". I've given you an example to work through, you are the "sheriff" and you have watched that thread from its inception. How would you manage it as you saw it unfold? If it makes it easier, I completely disavow any interest on how you would deal with yourself, and I would just like to know how you would handle it in general. But if that is a problem, yes please, pick something of your own choosing as a demo. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- dudes, what part of post something here and I'll demonstrate are you having problems with? This is simple english that an average 10 year old would understand without difficulty, and yet the two of you seem confused by it.
- If you post something here, I'll demonstrate; if you don't, then I'll wait until the proposal goes to the greater community. I don't care which happens, and I'm not inclined to argue about the issue further. Frankly if you can't figure out what a simple statement like 'post something here and I'll demonstrate' means, there's not much point in discussing more complex concepts, is there? --Ludwigs2 00:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm only 9 years old. Do you want me to copy over the entire thread here so you can mark it up? That will make a bit of a mess, but if that's what you want, sure thing. Make a sub-page? I'm asking you how a "sheriff" would handle that particular thread. You could just list what your specific interventions would be by referring to the timestamps, but if you want a piece of copied text to work with, sure, where do you want it? Recall that I am interested in how you would handle that thread from its outset through to its end, so I'm not able to hive off any particular portion. Franamax (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said previously, I need a section of the thread that's long enough to be meaningful but not too long. remember that the outcome of the thread will be different because of the sheriff's action, so posting the entire thread is pointless. A subpage would be fine if you think that's better; however, this is just a demo so you can get a feel for the concept; you'd actually have to see it live to get the full picture, because it would change according to the reactions of the editors on the page. --Ludwigs2 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- What would be your first intervention in that thread, working by timestamp? What would your intervention be? From there, what are the hypothetical "actions and consequences"? I simply can't give you one isolated post to consider - if the basis of your proposal is that each single and individual post should be considered wholly without context, I think you should make that clear. Franamax (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- alright, first two interventions from the link you gave, to show a pattern you can extrapolate from:
- Ludwigs2 04:58, 26 January: sheriff would request a redaction or rephrasing on all or part of "I am trying to work with you all here, but I can do the work without you if it comes to that. are you guys willing to work with me, or not?" not really uncivil, but beginning to show a bit of heat, and not at all necessary to the content discussion.
- Guettarda 05:35, 26 January: sheriff would redact or request a redaction on "Apart from that, you could try to avoid twisting people's comments to mean something quite different to what they have said. In a word, you could try to listen instead of making a whole host of demands. I responded to several of your points, but rather than address what I said, you just go on and on about how I did not respond to your point about coatracking. Stop being so rude, stop demanding people cater to your every whim. And do take a moment to familiarise yourself with basic concepts like main articles and daughter articles. Then maybe we can have a constructive conversation here." leaving aside the fact that G's assertion wasn't even remotely true (which is not something a sheriff would worry about unless it became a much more serious problem), it is obviously unrelated to content improvement, intentionally personal, clearly lacking good faith, and quite heated.
- Note that the redaction in the first point may very well have generated a milder response by guettarda in the second point, and the redaction in the second point would have meant that the first (heated) paragraph of my subsequent response to guettarda would never have been written. these two redactions by themselves might have set a new tone for the discussion that follows.
- alright, first two interventions from the link you gave, to show a pattern you can extrapolate from:
- What would be your first intervention in that thread, working by timestamp? What would your intervention be? From there, what are the hypothetical "actions and consequences"? I simply can't give you one isolated post to consider - if the basis of your proposal is that each single and individual post should be considered wholly without context, I think you should make that clear. Franamax (talk) 01:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- As I said previously, I need a section of the thread that's long enough to be meaningful but not too long. remember that the outcome of the thread will be different because of the sheriff's action, so posting the entire thread is pointless. A subpage would be fine if you think that's better; however, this is just a demo so you can get a feel for the concept; you'd actually have to see it live to get the full picture, because it would change according to the reactions of the editors on the page. --Ludwigs2 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm only 9 years old. Do you want me to copy over the entire thread here so you can mark it up? That will make a bit of a mess, but if that's what you want, sure thing. Make a sub-page? I'm asking you how a "sheriff" would handle that particular thread. You could just list what your specific interventions would be by referring to the timestamps, but if you want a piece of copied text to work with, sure, where do you want it? Recall that I am interested in how you would handle that thread from its outset through to its end, so I'm not able to hive off any particular portion. Franamax (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- If you post something here, I'll demonstrate; if you don't, then I'll wait until the proposal goes to the greater community. I don't care which happens, and I'm not inclined to argue about the issue further. Frankly if you can't figure out what a simple statement like 'post something here and I'll demonstrate' means, there's not much point in discussing more complex concepts, is there? --Ludwigs2 00:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- it goes without saying that neither I nor Guettarda could reasonably argue that either of these statements are necessary for the ongoing content discussion: he or I might try to make a case for it at AN, but I suspect the result of such an attempt would be painful ridicule at the hands of sysops. and needless to say, if we try to revert the sheriff and reassert the argumentative text, we'd earn a 1-day ban (or a 1-day block if we were persistent about it). I think it's safe to say that under a sheriff's watch the thread would never have devolved to the nasty-spirited sniping it eventually devolved to. It may not have resulted in any new consensus, mind you, but it would get to the 'no consensus' stage without any of the excess emotional baggage. --Ludwigs2 02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well put. That's how I would envision it too, and you do a good job of noting how the intervention would change the future dynamic. BE——Critical__Talk 04:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the sysops who put so much time and effort into badgering me over this seem to have no response whatsoever now that I've given them the example they so desperately demanded. What do you think, BC, was my example so brilliant that they have all been stunned into silent agreement? As if... 5:1 odds on 10 wiki-bucks that when we post this at the Pump at least one of them will renew these same objections as though this thread had never happened. I'd have given you 50:1 if this were a private message, but a public post increases the embarrassment risk, so 5:1 seems more prudent. I am not made of wiki-bucks, you know...
- Well put. That's how I would envision it too, and you do a good job of noting how the intervention would change the future dynamic. BE——Critical__Talk 04:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- it goes without saying that neither I nor Guettarda could reasonably argue that either of these statements are necessary for the ongoing content discussion: he or I might try to make a case for it at AN, but I suspect the result of such an attempt would be painful ridicule at the hands of sysops. and needless to say, if we try to revert the sheriff and reassert the argumentative text, we'd earn a 1-day ban (or a 1-day block if we were persistent about it). I think it's safe to say that under a sheriff's watch the thread would never have devolved to the nasty-spirited sniping it eventually devolved to. It may not have resulted in any new consensus, mind you, but it would get to the 'no consensus' stage without any of the excess emotional baggage. --Ludwigs2 02:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- At any rate, I've been slacking on the 'presentation style' discussion because of the verbosity of this thread (prior to my providing an example, that is), so I'll attend to that later today. --Ludwigs2 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, that's about it. [Bit of redacted stuff here, sry] Well, we just need a trial or two. If we can get that, we'll be in business. BE——Critical__Talk 17:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Well I'm grateful for the example. My real life work load is jammed but I have tried to check in and follow how this developing proposal is meant to work. And I've read the so called "block of text" example through a number of times. The hypothetical solution hasn't alleviated my doubts. Maybe this is why--I don't think that any incivility there led to the stand-off. It was just noise. And no sooner did one point a finger about incivility and the other side is claiming they're an civility victim too. The stand-off was over how the article should look. Not everybody is going to agree, no matter how civil they are to each other. So when it goes on and on, then it's of course a problem of one side not letting it go and the other not willing to budge. It is exactly that. So it's content, not etiquette faux pas, causing the impasse.
- A nanny censoring the discussion will simply add to the disruption. Instead of editors learning how to either deal with each other or deal with the problem through dispute resolution, now this new nanny will blow the personal dynamics into a 3-way dispute. Above there's some of blaming of sysops and arbs for their handling of problems--and that's despite their largely peer reviewed milieu. But somehow the blame games, Monday morning quarterbacking and tribalism will cure themselves when the solution is for one person to nanny talk page comments? Heavy handed moderation in forums is stultifying. And all of us as editors already have some discretion in redacting talk page comments--I've done it lots of times. And I've asked editors to redact (with mixed success). It doesn't require any official "office", the task itself demands judgment, and title or no title, some will agree, others won't. So I'm not sold, sorry. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, that's about it. [Bit of redacted stuff here, sry] Well, we just need a trial or two. If we can get that, we'll be in business. BE——Critical__Talk 17:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- At any rate, I've been slacking on the 'presentation style' discussion because of the verbosity of this thread (prior to my providing an example, that is), so I'll attend to that later today. --Ludwigs2 16:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes well that's fine, but the real question is, would you be willing to let it be tried? BE——Critical__Talk 04:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- "Tried" is fine. "Imposed" someplace is not. I was only half jesting before that this be the test case. New guideline proposals are perhaps the best place to start. You'd have less pushback for the experiment (it's a proposal), and both the finished product and the process by which it was derived may be more dispassionately judged by the community at large. Professor marginalia (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- ProfM: I don't expect you or anyone else to fully understand the system until you see it in action. I'd hoped for a little more good faith and/or intuitive grasp than I've actually run across (not surprising, since most of the people who have contributed here so far dislike me for one valid reason or another), but it's a subtle concept and it takes some getting used to. The thing you have to know about me for this to make sense is that I am perhaps the strongest and most knowledgable advocate for the consensus process on the project. I have faith, if you will, that the consensus process - done honestly and fairly - can resolve a large majority of the problems on wikipedia. The problem is that most editors (and most sysops) have only a dim and ignorant conception of what the consensus process is (no offense to anyone), and so most debates on wikipedia have as much in common with consensus discussions as Mubarak's purportedly democratic regime had in common with actual democracy.
- This proposal is designed to enforce and reinforce the consensus process, nothing more. It doesn't mean that the discussion will actually reach a result, it doesn't mean that the discussion will reach the right result (whatever that might mean to you); it doesn't mean that editors will be any more honorable or knowledgable than they are now. It just means that the discussion will be required to be a consensus discussion in its true and proper sense, and not the steaming piles of garbage that often pass for consensus discussions on project. that's all.
- You are entitled to think that that's a stupid idea if you like, but I will remind you that consensus in one of the five pillars of the project, and this sheriff thing is a first step in taking the idea of consensus seriously. Of course, if you don't believe that we should take the idea of consensus seriously, then maybe it's time we scratched it off as one of the pillars and moved to a more autocratic form of social organization. That would be better than the (unabashedly stupid) system we have on the project now. So, you tell me what you want to do:
- Do you want to throw in the towel on consensus completely and try something else?
- Do you want to argue that the system we have is actually a good consensus system?
- Do you want to take some steps to give consensus discussions a fighting chance?
- First point - fine with me, I can work in an autocratic system at need. second point - meh, you don't have a ghost of a chance of winning that debate with me. third point - welcome to sheriffville (unless you have a better idea). This proposal will work as advertised if you give it half a chance. --Ludwigs2 07:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- You are entitled to think that that's a stupid idea if you like, but I will remind you that consensus in one of the five pillars of the project, and this sheriff thing is a first step in taking the idea of consensus seriously. Of course, if you don't believe that we should take the idea of consensus seriously, then maybe it's time we scratched it off as one of the pillars and moved to a more autocratic form of social organization. That would be better than the (unabashedly stupid) system we have on the project now. So, you tell me what you want to do:
proposing to the community
we should discuss the best way to present this to the community. I'd prefer something short and focused (to avoid TLDR complaints), but I think we need to cover at least the following:
- The fact that this is explicitly a police/moderator function.
- The new usergroup issue.
- The strictly limited but locally strong authority rationale.
- The distinction of protecting the discussion without queering content.
- The relationship to sysops (greater powers in context, but monitored and limited by sysops outside of context).
it would also be good to raise the naming issue for an open discussion, provide a couple of examples, reassure people about the strength of the limitations on the sheriffs powers, and I'd still like to suggest that we pick a page and set up a trial (because people will be much more interested in the idea if they see it in action). if there's anything I've missed above, let me know ASAP: I'll post a draft of the proposal here later this afternoon or evening. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good. And we need to emphasize that we need a trial to show how it works, and don't reject it before you try it. I think that's where the argument for this will be clinched, not in arguments prior to a demo. BE——Critical__Talk 18:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Presumably the test case would have to cover an article with behavioral problems, but one where the editors will agree to the test. (Alternatively, the community will have to show consensus for imposing it on an article.) It'd be simplest to use an existing admin for the test, so after the test page is identified a willing sheriff would have to be found and vetted. Will Beback talk 03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've been watching this discussion for awhile, and at this point, the discussion is becoming repetitive. I would agree that its time to bring in the wider community, and to implement a trial page/pages. If there are problems in the proposal they 'll be seen more clearly in an active situation and necessary adjustments can be made then.
- I'd be interested in seeing non admins handle the test. Admins aren't going to be doing this job from what I understand so seeing how an editor handles this is part of the testing situation. I'd also suggest at least two test pages, best might be three. If all three sheriffs have the same problems we might assume the problem is inherent in the proposal. If problems show up in only one or even two of the pages then possibly the problem is an editor problem, not necessarily personal but inherent in the human factor rather than in the proposal. I don't think we have to choose incredibly contentious articles either. Hopefully, sheriffs will enter the frey before things become as contentions as the SAQ or Jerusalem situation. I would think that's the whole point of this proposal.(olive (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC))
- For a test, we might use an admin who agreed to unthinkingly do what the sheriff said, with the understanding that the admin would not be blamed for anything. But in general the Sheriff should have his own powers. I'd of course like to see more than one test page if we can wrangle it. I think Sheriffs would come along some time after real contention, but some time before thinking of ArbCom. But not before there is significant contention. I do not think we should try it on an article already under ArbCom sanction. However, I have quite a lot of confidence in this proposal if properly carried out, so I wouldn't be averse to trying it on an article otherwise headed to ArbCom. BE——Critical__Talk 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Involuntary mediation
"Involuntary mediation": Would that be another way of looking at this proposal? If I read it correctly, we trying to force users to compromise, or at least get out of the way of editors willing to compromise. Under current mediation procedures, all active editors on a topic need to agree to mediation before it can begin, and the results are not binding on anyone. With this procedure, a sheriff supervises the page so long as the community decides that one is necessary regardless of whether involved editors agree to it. If they continue to disagree to a compromise they can be sidelined. Currently, mediators can complain about bad behavior on talk pages and perhaps seek sanctions on those who egregiously violate behavioral policies, but cannot use admin tools even if they have them. Under current procedures, voluntary mediation usually ends when the discussion peters out or when the mediator closes it as resolved. Under this "involuntary mediation" procedure it would continue until the community agrees to end it. Mediation usually (though not always) occurs on a separate page, while this procedure would simply cover the article and its talk page. Mediation is privileged, and the results and discussions may not be used in ArbCom cases. Under this procedure, blocks and bans given by sheriffs may not be held against an editor in other contexts. (previous text by User:Will Beback)
- They aren't sidelined except for disruption. Definitely not for disagreement. And I don't see why the results and discussions should not be used if ArbCom is needed... quite the contrary, if a Sheriff can't do the job, then that failure would generate evidence very relevant at ArbCom. We are not trying to force compromise, but we are trying to remove anti-consensus activities, that is to say general disruption or edit warring. And the Sheriff would not necessarily propose a compromise, nor would he force one. BE——Critical__Talk 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is not binding or involuntary mediation: binding mediation implies that the mediator actively dictates mediation results when participants reach an impasse. That is sometimes effective, mind you (people who refuse to budge will sometimes accept a compromise from someone they perceive as neutral - that's how wp:3O works). This isn't mediation of any sort: this is an overt effort to change the page dynamic so that by obviating problematical behaviors. comparison:
- mediation: tries to clarify content disputes by eliciting statements from participants. creates a structured environment in which particular content points can be discussed, so that some agreement can be reached over time through small steps.
- sheriffing: tries to obviate/forestall problematic behaviors by rendering them unproductive. creates an environment in which only reasonable discourse can be effective in changing content.
- If you think of this in grammar school terms, mediators would be school counselors, sysops would be vice-principles, and sheriffs would be home-room teachers - they are not there to heal rifts or punish wrongdoers, but merely to keep unruly kids in line. --Ludwigs2 04:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, this is not binding or involuntary mediation: binding mediation implies that the mediator actively dictates mediation results when participants reach an impasse. That is sometimes effective, mind you (people who refuse to budge will sometimes accept a compromise from someone they perceive as neutral - that's how wp:3O works). This isn't mediation of any sort: this is an overt effort to change the page dynamic so that by obviating problematical behaviors. comparison:
- I'm sorry but reading all of this it's sounds like to much red tape going on here. There are people put in trusted positions like administrators and more. Why do we need something like this that is somewhere between an administrator and mediation? As far as I am aware, editors try at times to keep the peace when problems occur. I can think of a few ocassions when an editor trying to keep the peace or as you are calling it, be a sheriff, has backfired and backfired big time. Why is this at all necessary and is this already in affect or is there going to be some kind of an iVote or something? --CrohnieGalTalk 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's no real red tape here - just some kerfluffles over misinterpretations of what this project aims at. this system actually makes things much simpler and much more user-friendly.
- The real reason why we need this is that the current system is incredibly inefficient and disorganized in dealing with behavioral problems, and in most cases the current system doesn't work at all. the normal trajectory of a bad conflict under the current system is something like what follows:
- dispute begins on the page, and is allowed to escalate and become progressively more personal and hostile.
- the only sysops actions likely to happen at this point are warnings from sysops who are already engaged with the problem on the page; they usually don't impose sanctions, or if they do it invariably looks biased and further inflames the dispute
- the dispute spills over into noticeboards and inflames further.
- content noticeboards can't help resolve disputes except in clear cases of violations of content policy - generally they just give a new venue for further inflamed discussion
- uninvolved sysops may start to take notice at this point, but that has poor results. most sysops will hesitate to impose sanctions without a good deal of discussion and clarity about the nature of the problem (meaning they do nothing), while the few sysops who go maverick and apply BOLD sanctions usually do so in a way that is or looks biased, further inflaming the dispute
- the dispute climbs its way up the ladder:
- mediation is tried, and fails because the dispute has become too personalized for participants to cooperate with each other
- ANI reports are filed, but break down into long ugly debates that often have no real consensus outcome
- arbitration takes on the case, and produces one of the following results:
- a few editors are banned from or limited on the page, in no particularly systematic fashion
- a general topic restriction is issued, which is then applied unevenly by independent admins
- dispute begins on the page, and is allowed to escalate and become progressively more personal and hostile.
- The general result is that the dispute is left free to grow and become progressively more ugly until someone feels justified in applying a heavy-handed solution of some sort, which resolves the problem by excluding some subset of editors from the page. basically the current system allows the problem to grow to the point where even a bad, project-damaging, biased resolution looks better than the dispute, and then it applies a resolution that is frequently bad, biased, and project-damaging.
- The real reason why we need this is that the current system is incredibly inefficient and disorganized in dealing with behavioral problems, and in most cases the current system doesn't work at all. the normal trajectory of a bad conflict under the current system is something like what follows:
- The beauty of the sheriff concept is that it stops the dispute from escalating at the first or second points above: cut out the nastiness, don't allow the dispute to become personalized, force participants to discuss content reasonably and politely, and the dispute never gets a chance to get uglier and uglier. "A stitch in time saves nine" philosophy, if you follow me. the whole thing will actually cut a lot of red tape and prevent a whole lot of vituperative threads at ANI, ArbCom, wikiquette, and etc.
- This idea is likely to draw flak from editors for two different reasons:
- those editors who misunderstand the concept and see it as onerous or oppressive
- those editors who use the current system as a tool to dispose of editors they don't like (basically an extended BAITing process designed specifically to inflame editors to the point where some admin or arb will block or ban them).
- The first group of editors needs to be convinced that the system is not oppressive, and that it is natural for any community to take early and proactive steps to rein in community members who demonstrate an inability to control themselves. The second group of editors... well, there's nothing to do about them. They will be immune to any reasoned discussion on the matter, so will have to be coped with as needed on a case-by-case basis. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- This idea is likely to draw flak from editors for two different reasons:
Fixed appointment
Would there be a benefit in adding a clause that automatically ends an appointment after a period (say six months) unless there's an ongoing need? A renewal might not require a full consensus, maybe a lower threshold like a plurality or a significant minority would be sufficient. If a consensus is needed to end an appointment it might go on forever. Will Beback talk 21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think there would be a benefit, one of the larger flaws I noted was the lack of "ending" criteria. Even if there is an ongoing need for page facilitation, I think the particular person doing it should get rotated out on a mandatory basis, to prevent burnout and any creeping favouritism that could arise. Both the facilitation and facilitator should have definite temporal terms. Franamax (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a good idea, and six months may be on the long side - i'd suggest three. pretty much I expect that most of a sheriff's work will happen in the first week or two, as editors adjust to the new discussion rules. after that, most participants will recognize that the futility of engaging in bad behavior, and the sheriff will have nothing to do except watch the content discussion unfold and make helpful suggestions, or occasional warnings or redactions when someone starts to lose their cool. maybe set up a mandatory reevaluation at three months' time: if the page has cooled off and some progress has been made, the sheriff bows out. I'll edit this in. --Ludwigs2 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea Will. We could even do two months. Less would probably be too short. BE——Critical__Talk 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Too short and the disruptive editors might just avoid the topic until the sheriff leaves. But the exact term can be adjusted as needed once the policy is in practice for a while. Will Beback talk 00:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good point, can't make it too short. BE——Critical__Talk 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Too short and the disruptive editors might just avoid the topic until the sheriff leaves. But the exact term can be adjusted as needed once the policy is in practice for a while. Will Beback talk 00:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Good idea Will. We could even do two months. Less would probably be too short. BE——Critical__Talk 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is a good idea, and six months may be on the long side - i'd suggest three. pretty much I expect that most of a sheriff's work will happen in the first week or two, as editors adjust to the new discussion rules. after that, most participants will recognize that the futility of engaging in bad behavior, and the sheriff will have nothing to do except watch the content discussion unfold and make helpful suggestions, or occasional warnings or redactions when someone starts to lose their cool. maybe set up a mandatory reevaluation at three months' time: if the page has cooled off and some progress has been made, the sheriff bows out. I'll edit this in. --Ludwigs2 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)