User talk:Abd: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Notice to IP and newly-registered editors

IP and newly registered editors: due to vandalism, it has become necessary that this page be semiprotected, which may prevent you from leaving a message here. If you cannot edit this page, please leave me messages at User talk:Abd/IP.

RfC on my conduct relevant to my block on August 11

A user-space RfC on my conduct as relating to my block on August 11, 2008, has been proceeding at a glacial pace, and appears ready to determine a conclusion on the first issue, whether or not I had behaved as charged in the initial warning. Comment from all users is welcome. The RfC summary page is at User:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block, but discussion and comment is at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block.

WELCOME TO Abd TALK

WARNING: Reading the screeds, tomes, or rants of Abd has been known to cause serious damage to mental health. One editor, a long-time Wikipedian, in spite of warnings from a real-life organization dedicated to protecting the planet from the likes of Abd, actually read Abd's comments and thought he understood them.

After reading, his behavior became erratic. He proposed WP:PRX and insisted on promoting it. Continuing after he was unblocked, and in spite of his extensive experience, with many thousands of edits,he created a hoax article and actually made a joke in mainspace. When he was unblocked from that, he created a non-notable article on Easter Bunny Hotline, and was finally considered banned. What had really happened? His brain had turned to Slime mold (see illustration).

Caution is advised.

This is one of the top ten talk pages that I have contributed to. That means we could be considered...wikifriends. Jehochman ^Talk 19:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would one think otherwise? Look, we've cooperated, we've sought to find consensus when we differed, and succeeded. But there is this little detail.[1] As you know, I've asked for comment on that, and, so far, nobody who has actually carefully read the diff you cited has agreed with your assessment of it. That warning triggered a riot, essentially, and, based on a misunderstanding that would ordinarily have blown away immediately, resulted in my being blocked. What I'm asking of you is simple: apologize (or, alternatively, if you can, justify the warning as accurate). You didn't block me, but your action set it up. As long as that warning stands unchallenged, the block is an almost trivial detail. (I.e., disruptive user, personally attacking, harassing, and driving away productive editor(s) is blocked for one incident and it doesn't matter if that incident was precisely what was claimed.) But if the warning was inaccurate, overblown (as Carcharoth already indicated), then I can turn my attention to the block.

My goal isn't revenge. Yellowbeard's claim that "come the revolution," I'd "kick you out of here," or whatever he said, was simply based on his black-and-white interpretation of this wiki as being about factions and enemies. Rather, my goal is simply to clarify the record, which is important for what I consider important for me to do here, which is about establishing better consensus process, definitely not striving for some faction to "win." That block log can be annotated. I'm not going to ask for that, though, until it's clear there would be a consensus for it. That's why there is this preliminary process in my user space. It's slow, but I'm not in a hurry. Carcharoth has suggested we work it out. Well? The RfC is pretty simple, a series of questions at this point to be answered Yes or No -- or to be altered if anyone wants to change what the questions are. The core is at User talk:Abd/RfC/8.11.08 block. That's where comments would be, and have been, placed. The RfC is not an attack on you, I don't think you will find that there. Nor is it nor will it be an attack on Iridescent, in spite of what she's imagined about it. It's simply a patient examination of the question: did I do something blockworthy? Was a block necessary?

It's only begun. So far, the only questions asked have been about the warning. It's about time to move on. If you were to say that the warning was a mistake, that would seal this part of it, and, in fact, your necessary involvement. (I wasn't thrilled about your reverts of my edits to my Talk page during the block, but, as far as I'm concerned, that is indeed water under the bridge, moot, not of importance as far as I can see.)

Please note that "the warning was a mistake" does not mean that I made no errors. Because I had no intention of "driving off Fritzpoll," yet he did, in fact, feel harassed, clearly I did not act optimally. I've later discovered that there were other reasons that this was difficult for him at that time, we've been communicating off-wiki and you might notice that he suggested and granted me rollback recently. This isn't exactly the behavior of someone who continues to think of me as a harasser! In any case, I do make mistakes and try to learn from them. --Abd (talk) 20:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When two editors have different points of view, they can come to different conclusions. Neither one is necessarily wrong, or needs to apologize to the other. My conclusion was based on the info I had at the time, and was reasonable. So was yours. We disagreed, but eventually got beyond it. Apologies are best when freely given. You are free to ask, but it is not good to ask too many times. I don't feel that I was wrong, but at this time I also don't feel that you were wrong. It was a regrettably misunderstanding. Hopefully we can get beyond it. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is enough. Could you agree with the following? "If I knew then what I know now, I would not have issued that warning as it was." But I'd like it to be more specific: "I do not now believe that Abd was personally attacking Fritzpoll, nor that he was assuming bad faith, nor that he was attempting to drive Fritzpoll away from the project." This would clear me of the claim, by you, that I did those things, but it still allows you an assumption of good faith, an assumption I've never abandoned with you in any case. In other words, I do assume that it appeared like that to you, so your warning was "proper" in that sense. Okay? --Abd (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could agree with that. We are substantially saying the same things. Happy editing. Jehochman ^Talk 04:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, Jehochman. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, just making a minor point about the ANI discussion. I'm trying to make a distinction between my personal opinion, and what I feel that the consensus of the discussion is. If you feel that the consensus is something different from what I said, you are welcome to review the thread and say, "My own opinion of what the consensus here is (whatever)". Though if someone's idea of "consensus" always matches their own personal opinion, I agree that that may raise a flag or two.  ;) --Elonka 19:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity to explore the point. Actually, I think you may have missed it. Let's back up a little. Here is what you wrote, about Jehochman's block of CreazySuit, Jehochman (talk · contribs) imposed an indefinite block on an editor, citing ANI consensus, but there was no such consensus.

Jehochman's block did not cite an "ANI consensus." Here is the block log: 12:46, 27 September 2008 Jehochman (Talk | contribs) blocked "CreazySuit (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Disruptive editing: Per discussion at AN/I)

In his explanation on CreazySuit Talk, he wrote: Editing privileges of this account have been revoked for an indefinite period of time in response to disruptive editing. If you wish to edit again, please convince the Wikipedia community that you will follow its policies and guidelines, including also neutral point of view, consensus, verifiability, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. The evidence to support this block has been presented here. To other administrators: please do not undo this block without discussion with me, or a consensus at WP:AN. Jehochman Talk 12:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not claim in either of these that there was a consensus to block. He acted on his administrative discretion to block a user, and he referred to AN/I for the evidence. At AN/I, after there had been some discussion, he wrote:

I see a rough consensus that ArbCom is not needed, and that the community should deal with this. I started this thread because I wanted uninvolved editors to provide input before I took action. My finding is that CreazySuit (talk · contribs) has been editing disruptively and tendentiously, and shows no sign whatsoever of backing down. Therefore, I am going to block them until such time as they undertake, convincingly, to follow policy. I have not edited the article ever, and have never encountered this editor before. It is longstanding policy that a disruptive editor does not get to choose the administrator who responds to their disruption. Jehochman Talk 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

He did not claim or refer to any consensus to block. Nor need he have waited for such. He was an administrator asking for comment before blocking, he asked for the comment, he got some comment, he made his conclusion, and he blocked. The way I read his request for consultation before unblocking, he was aware that there was conflict between administrators over the issues, and he saw the status quo as disruptive, so he acted to break it. It seems, so far, that he acted effectively, and he did not insist on "indefinite" as meaning "of long duration," and the block was in place less than eight hours. It meant, "until the user agrees to something that may resolve the problem." I'm not sure I'm thrilled about using "indef" that way, but I also can understand it.

I've commented on this because it revolves around how Wikipedia makes decisions; my "theory" of how it works is that decisions over the use of tools are always made by an individual administrator, never by vote, per se, and ascribing it to consensus is still determining a result from votes. "Consensus" is something that an administrator may consider, but the general obligation is to examine evidence and arguments and decide from them, being personally responsible for that decision. This is quite important, and seems to have been missed by enough of the community that I think it worth making the point. (It might seem that ArbComm enforcement would be an exception, but it isn't, though I won't go into that here.)

In other words, an admin shouldn't ever say, "I'm blocking you because that was decided by the community." Rather, "I have blocked you because of [evidence] and [reasoning]." (Except for efficiency, a reference to a community discussion may be made -- but the admin is really saying "I agree with this outcome, and I'm taking responsibility for it." --Abd (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I recommend that you try to see the distinction between your personal opinion, and the community consensus. --Elonka 21:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, clearly there is a difference between my personal opinion and the community consensus. However, what does this have to do with what I wrote? Are you referring to some specific personal opinion? I'll acknowledge that there was no consensus to block. Do you disagree? (I didn't specifically acknowledge that before, because I consider it irrelevant, since Jehochman did not claim that there was one.) I see that a miswording of my original comment may have misled you. I'll fix it. I'd written that Jehochman "did not claim a consensus at AN/I, he merely referred to it." "It," here, referred to AN/I, i.e., the discussion, not "a consensus." Sorry if that confused you.--Abd (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited that comment to reflect the intended meaning.[2] --Abd (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, Abd is making some interesting distinctions here. I think the points Abd is raising are interesting and worthy of consideration. Clearly Abd already understands the distinction between Abd's personal opinion and community consensus. I get the impression you haven't understood the points Abd was making. I'd be interested to know which statements of Abd's you agree with and which, if any, you disagree with, Elonka.

Abd, if you have time, I'd be interested in any comments you have in response to Moonriddengirl's advice to me about closing discussions: last message of this thread, and also see here which continues the same discussion. I still owe you a response to your message on my talk page but have been busy with other things and expect to get to it later.

I'm particularly interested in discussions about closing discussions because of my responsibilities as a bureaucrat at Simple English Wikiquote. When I was nominated I had to do some hard thinking. See candidate's statement. There are particular problems about being a bureaucrat on a very small project. For one thing, for now, I'm the only bureaucrat. When there are no bureaucrats at all, it's OK: the stewards will take care of things if they know there's no bureaucrat. But apparently if there is a bureaucrat the stewards may refuse to act, even if the bureaucrat has been inactive for a long time etc. Another complication is that sometimes there are very few votes on RfA discussions (possibly only one or two). I thought through how I would handle various situations and after I convinced myself I could find a reasonable course of action in any situation I might be faced with, I accepted the nomination. Anyway, I very much appreciate your comments on closing discussions, Abd, as I'm incorporating them into the way I see myself as taking responsibility as a bureaucrat. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read Coppertwig's cited discussions. There is some ambiguity I see on what Moonriddengirl wrote. However, her basic position seems to be that, indeed, the admin makes the decision. She seemed to be reluctant to make a decision "against consensus," and that's understandable. However, I see the admin responsibility as being to do just that, if the admin has researched the matter, checked the evidence, and it's clear (to the admin). I've seen an AfD close as delete when there was widespread participation, including many admins, the !vote was about 50-50, maybe a little more for Keep, because the closing admin was clearly convinced that Delete was the correct decision. And it was his right to do that. (By the way, while it doesn't really matter, I was on the Keep side, and the issues were largely procedural, that's why so many admins weighed in.) If the community doesn't accept that, there is DRV; all admin decisions can be undone, and if a decision is truly against consensus, that's what will happen.

But if it's clear to the admin, in spite of a majority in the other direction, then, presumably, the admin will have a shot at convincing the community in the new discussion that ensues. And this second discussion is likely to attract more participation, and the consensus shown is more likely to be broad; and there will be a new closing admin, who, again, makes the decision independently.

Consider the history of WP:PRX. It was MfD'd, and the !votes were heavily Delete. The discussion was closed by User:Kim Bruning on a general policy basis: we don't delete proposals, we mark them Rejected. There was quite an outcry, ironic because the reason given by most Delete voters were that "we don't vote," and supposedly WP:PRX was about voting, which it was not. It went to DRV. Bruning closed the DRV (which was improper, I'm surprised he did it); when it was realized that Bruning wasn't an administrator (he'd been one, and he could pick up the bit at any time), his close was reverted, and the DRV decided, as I recall, to reopen the MfD. Which closed a few days later with the same result. Because Bruning's reasoning had been cogent.

Having decisions made by individuals is highly efficient. It breaks down, sometimes, but it is probably one of the reasons Wikipedia has functioned as well as it has. My organizational theory would suggest confining decisions to as small a group as possible, not by excluding editors, but simply by making the decisions at as low a level as possible, and the single-admin decision model starts out with one person. Don't like it? The minimally disruptive way to question it is to go to that one person and discuss it. If a decision has supposedly been made "by the community," with whom do you discuss it?

So two people try to work it out. If they can't, there is the whole DR process, where one brings in a third person, etc., RfC, Mediation, and Arbitration. AN/I is a terrible place to try to resolve disputes, and if I were to fault Jehochman, it would be for taking that matter to AN/I. Way, way too much noise. AN/I isn't a place to seek advice, that's not what it was designed for. AN is for that, and it tends to be a bit calmer. AN/I is 911 for Wikipedia. AN/I should be prohibited from making decisions, period. It's where you call for the police: the police do not decide guilt or innocence; rather, they enforce order. That is part of the reason "we don't punish." Punishment requires a determination of guilt, and that is a job for judges and juries. Not the police.

In any case, somehow I got this impression about how Wikipedia makes decisions, early on. I don't recall reading it anywhere specific. And there is obviously some disagreement about it, as represented by the recent problem I had where an admin ascribed a decision to consensus, and therefore he couldn't change it. Yet that position contained some contradictions. He wanted to resubmit the decision to the community that made it; but the original discussion had been on AN/I and he took it to AN. Those are different editors, often. If you want the same community to make a decision, you notify them (which is sometimes done with AfDs, it's not canvassing to notify previous participants). If we were going to make decisions by vote, that's one way they could be appealed. But I still think that we'd want an executive, that is, a person charged with maintaining the decision, who would have the authority to suspend it. Otherwise we end up with cumbersome process, where it becomes too difficult to change decisions.

I see that you (Coppertwig) commented on the practice we have of collecting !votes before the evidence has been presented. This points to one way we could improve the process; organize decision process into two or three stages. First, some proposed action, and an agreement that the action should be taken (comparable to seconding the motion; we have this with user RfCs, it's basic deliberative process, saves a lot of trouble). Once seconded, discussion would begin, where evidence and arguments would be presented. It would be best if this functioned like a committee, which is going to prepare a committee report. That is, a document is prepared which is an NPOV presentation of the evidence and arguments. We're editors, we should know how to do that!

In fact, if this is done carefully, I think we'd discover consensus even more often than we presently do; but, in any case, where disagreement remains, it would be clear what the basis for it is, and there would not be reams of duplicated arguments in that report, no "per nom," or "per Deletionist." Then, when it was clear that all arguments and evidence likely to appear have been incorporated in the report of the committee, it's formally presented and then !voting begins. As part of the process, the exact question to be voted on would be formed (and there might be a series of "committee" votes in doing this); but then the result would be presented for wider !voting. Without going into the gory details and contingencies, Voting, generally, would be just that.

But still, I would have it be only advisory upon the closing admin. (And WP:PRX, if we were to have something like that in place, would simply amplify that advice in the direction of being more broadly representative, and efficiently, that's all. It would not create any binding implications for the closing admin.)

I think that, often, with good process, there wouldn't be any voting. Rather, a closing admin would simply state what the consensus was, based on reviewing the process and the document, and would state a decision as "without objection." And if any one objects, then there is a vote. It would really be pretty close to what we have, when what we have is working. --Abd (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Abd. Read and enjoyed. Just curious: where did I comment, as you said I did, on the practice we have of collecting !votes before the evidence has been presented?

In your proposed system, what about people who close according to their self-interest? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was here, but it was Moonriddengirl One of the challenges of closing AfDs is that the process falls down as a discussion. In an actual jury trial, all evidence is collected and discussed, and then the jury retires to consider it. Everyone has a chance to voice his or her opinion, and the "vote" is taken only after everyone has done so. etc.

As to COI closes, what I'm suggesting is really just a tweak to the system we have, a shift in process. COI closes would be grounds for desysopping, if not simply an occasional error, just as they are now. (I'd suggest that closing be a privileged position, though not necessarily administrative. A closer is a judge, admins are police, and I think we might be gunking things up by mixing up the two, in some ways. If action is required using tools, though, the admin must make a decision to do it or not, so that's efficient.... Separating them would be more bureaucratic, keeping them together invites some kinds of abuse.)

(ec) Moonriddengirl's position on AfDs is also explained here: [3]. "Our job as administrators, obviously, is to determine the consensus that was reached by participants in an AfD, not to contribute our own opinion." ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I disagree with that view. A false dichotomy has been set up. Participants in an AfD do not ordinarily "reach consensus." (We create a lot of trouble by using the word consensus when what we mean isn't consensus the way it is ordinarily understood, we'll judge "consensus," when sometimes it is as low as a majority. So it's often glossed as "rough consensus," which, being undefined ....) And a closing admin renders a judgment, a conclusion, not an opinion, though an opinion is often stated with it. Now, this is the question: is the judgment simply what the "consensus" was? Or is it a judgment on the question (i.e, Delete/Keep ... or No Consensus; Merge is a form of Keep, really)? Moonriddengirl apparently considers it the former. Then she implements what she thinks the community wants her to do. I have a more individualist view of what admins do. They exercise their independent judgment, informed by guidelines and policy and the community. Essentially, they are advised by the precedents and the community. Not havin this independent judgment leaves us without protection against the blindness of participation bias. In some process, those voting may or may not take the time to actually investigate the evidence; many or most of them may simply be commenting based on superficial appearances, and even very good editors do this sometimes. *Somebody* should take responsibility for the decision, which means taking responsibility for looking at the evidence and considering the arguments. And this should be done even if almost all the votes are in one direction. (For efficiency, we can consider a "side" of a question to be unworthy of consideration if there is no significant advocacy of it.) Now, if it should be done, then what is an admin to do if the admin puts in what is often significant time to do the due diligence, and concludes differently from the AfD?

Moonriddengirl gives one option: Vote in the process, don't close it. However, if the admin was neutral, did not start out with some prejudice, and comes to a clear conclusion, it could be much more efficient, and more likely, on average, to produce a good decision with minimum investment of overall administrator time, to simply close according to the results of the investigation. Whenever a close is contrary to apparent consensus, it should be carefully explained. Now, consider this:

Suppose Moonriddengirl has closed an AfD as Delete, based on an apparent consensus with which she personally disagreed. An editor comes to her with new arguments and evidence and asks her to reverse the close. I know what she will say, given the position expressed. She will say, I can't do that, go to DRV. And thus more time is wasted. Even though she might very well agree with the editor who comes to her.

Now, some parallels with standard deliberative process. When a decision is made, it may be brought up for reconsideration upon a motion from someone who voted with the prevailing side. If admins only close AfDs if they agree with the close, then they can change their mind: they fairly represent the community which presumably expressed that consensus (if it was a consensus and not a reversal of apparent consensus). For an admin to close a discussion and take action that the admin disagrees with sets up a rigidity in the process that is not necessary. If an admin disagrees with an apparent consensus, the admin can, then, not take on that closure, and could, indeed simply vote in the process. I've suggested closing contrary to majority vote only when the matter is clear to an admin who has done the footwork. --Abd (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping into this conversation, but having been effectively already "jumped in" (very odd, to find myself engaged in a debate without knowing it! :)), I figured I'd just toss in a note that my deference to consensus is inspired by Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators and particularly two of the four points on "deciding whether to delete": (1) "Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" and (2) "Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." I am of the opinion that closing AfDs is one of the more "janitorial" processes of the admin. In my opinion, the only time that an admin should close against rough consensus is when there is a clearly overriding factor of policy. In may cases, as I've stated, I think that contentious AfDs come down to the fine point of interpreting guidelines. As Wikipedia:Administrators indicates, "There is very little extra decision-making ability that goes along with adminship, and it does not add any extra voice in consensus decisions. In that sense, whether a person is an administrator is not, in and of itself, important." In my opinion, an AfD is an ordinary consensus decision and not one of those "certain topic areas" wherein Arbcom has granted "a small amount of additional authority to 'Uninvolved administrators'." I feel that taking responsibility for an admin in these cases is in interpreting the debate so as to reach a reading of rough consensus. Okay. New grist from Moonriddengirl. Again, sorry if I'm intruding. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I did not read this whole conversation, so I have no idea the context. I only noted the bits involving me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Moonriddengirl, you are most welcome here. It might be useful, if you have time, to read the whole thing.... Wikipedia guidelines for adminstrators, apparently, are a bit schizophrenic, the community may never have squarely faced the issue and come to a consensus. I.e., there may be no consensus on consensus.... You acknowledge that an administrator may close "against rough consensus." Okay, who makes the decision that it's okay? Who makes the decision that the "rough consensus" is an informed one? Does it matter? I.e., is it good administrative practice to observe "rough consensus," close that way, without investigation of the underlying evidence and arguments?

My concern arose, not with XfDs, but with a ban decision, where a ban was based on an AN/I discussion which led to a rough poll. There was a rough consensus in the poll to topic ban an editor. However, as often happens with AN/I discussions, the discussion had been rather unfocused, evidence had been requested and not actually provided, with many !voters writing, as an example, "Assuming that what [the reporter] has written is true, then a topic ban is appropriate." In fact, though, the evidence provided was utterly insufficient to support a ban. The reporter had used, consciously or unconsciously, a rhetorical trick: a pattern would be asserted, with an "example" given to support it. But the example was the *only* instance of the problem behavior. As examples, the editor reverted a legitimate change because it shortened the article, perhaps making it ineligible for DYK. The editor openly admitted this, and there was no other example found, and the editor didn't edit war over it (one or two reverts only, as I recall). This was stated, in the report, as a pattern. Again it was asserted that the editor incorporated copyvios in articles. Later on, an intensive search was made for this, and practically nothing was found. Apparently -- I never did find the original incident -- there had been some discussion of a single possible copyvio, some time back. No pattern, no repeated behavior.

So: rough consensus for ban, but not based on evidence, rather on unsupported assertion by an editor who did, in fact, have a history of harassment. Does that discussion, by itself, create a ban?

Pretty clearly not. When the reporter complained that the editor was still editing as supposedly banned, the admin to whom he complained noticed that she had not been informed of the "result." There had been no close, no admin had taken responsibility for deciding the ban and enforcing it. So this admin informed her, but specifically denied any responsibility for the decision, when she complained. "Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger."

When I pointed out that there had been no close, he said he wasn't going to go to the archive and close, but he took responsibility for it. Fine. There was now, following the theories of admin responsibility I've outlined above, a go-to person for questioning the decision. Him. But he said that he could not change it. Essentially, he took responsibility for the close, but denied responsibility at the same time, i.e., it wasn't his decision, it was the community's decision, and all he had done was to note the rough consensus.

What I'm saying, Moonriddengirl, is that when an administrator closes based on "consensus," the admin is, properly, taking responsibility for the decision. The admin was advised by the community, but is obligated to disregard bad advice, and if the decision was an error, it is the administrator's error. The community does not actually make decisions, it has very little process for doing so. (Even ArbComm and WMF board elections are not community decisions; rather polls are taken and then decisions are actually made, not by the community, but by Jimbo (ArbComm elections) or the WMF board (board elections); the WMF board voluntarily respects the votes. It could decide that something went awry in the process and appoint someone different than was indicated by the vote and rules.

I'm suggesting that an admin should never close with a decision that the administrator doesn't agree with. It gunks up the process that might ensue. If a result was truly a consensus, it should not be a problem to find an admin who agrees with it. If you close an AfD as delete, but you thought it was a bad decision and you only closed that way because of the "rough consensus," what are you going to do if an editor comes to you and asks you to reverse your close? You will be caught in a dilemma. You can't fairly represent the "community's position," because you don't agree with it, you could only parrot it. What most admins in this position apparently do is to simply refer the editor to DRV. And that's inefficient.

It would be better if an admin closes who agrees, and especially if the admin has become familiar with the evidence and arguments, and isn't simply rubber-stamping a rough consensus. Then the admin will either defend the close, considering that what the new editor has presented are not new arguments or evidence sufficient to change the close, or will accept the new arguments and reverse the close. DRV may be avoided, either way. If not, we are back to the other option, DRV, with no harm having been done.

"I'm sorry, I can't change the decision, it was the community's decision, not mine," is nothing but frustrating to an editor who sees a decision as wrong. It translates a specific concern with a specific decision into a general frustration with the community. Engaging with the community is difficult, often impossible. Engaging with a specific person who has taken responsibility for a decision and who has the power to reverse it is less likely to be frustrating. Even when one does not agree.

See, I thought this was how we made decisions, I was actually a bit shocked to discover that many admins see "rough consensus" as how we make decisions. We consider rough consensus, but, almost by definition, rough consensus can't make decisions, someone has to make a personal judgment (of whether or not rough consensus exists, if not on the primary issue).

Organizations do, commonly, make decisions by vote; there is then a bureaucracy which implements them, according to fixed rules. We explicitly don't use this kind of system. Except that it keeps creeping in, perhaps because it is what many seem to expect, the individualist model of administrative responsibility, particularly with over 1600 administrators, being pretty unusual in an organization of this size. (The "organization" isn't Wikipedia, as such, as legally defined, it is the "community" which operates Wikipedia under the general consent of the owner, WMF.) --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may read over the conversation later. I've got a passel of copyright problems waiting for me at WP:CP. Big list today. It will probably consume most of my wikitime. But looking at the meta question: "You acknowledge that an administrator may close "against rough consensus." Okay, who makes the decision that it's okay? Who makes the decision that the "rough consensus" is an informed one? Does it matter? I.e., is it good administrative practice to observe "rough consensus," close that way, without investigation of the underlying evidence and arguments?" Rough consensus requires sound basis in policy. Administrators have been theoretically vetted for familiarity with policies and, as I indicated to Coppertwig, should be able to determine when an argument is outside of policy and when it is simply a different but reasonable interpretation thereof. Going by memory, I think I used an example of widespread sourcing and how many sources that would be. (Bear in mind, please, that I am talking about AfD specifically here, which is why I cite the admin closure guidelines as my guiding document.) I have certainly made closures in AfD where contributors have come to me afterward to argue that numbers were against my closure.

So, that said, my notes here are theoretically and do not apply to any particular situation.

With respect to bans and other community decisions, other standards may prevail and some of what I say with respect to my opinion of the AfD process is not going to apply. Admins sometimes do have greater authority in other consensus cases. A ban, for instance, can effectively be imposed by a single administrator, who places an indefinite block that no admin is willing to undo. In that case, truly, silence implies consent. (Of course, even carping can imply consent as long as those who are carping don't take action.) But the consensus process has built in an allowance for varying weight. WP:CON does address cases such as you posit where "Minority opinions typically reflect genuine concerns, and their (strict) logic may outweigh the "logic" (point of view) of the majority." The deletion guidelines also note that "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." I could equate the situation you posit to an AfD discussion where somebody argues, "Keep this book. John Steinbeck is a notable author" when the book up for AfD was written by Juan Stinebeck. The keep argument might be true, but given the particulars does not apply. :) It would be discounted, as would responders who say, "OMG! We're not deleting an article on a book by John Steinbeck!" It isn't that consensus is overridden, it's that consensus requires an informed reading...much as a judge overseeing a trial understands what is legally admissible and what is not, even if he is not himself permitted to enter evidence into trial. To bring my argument for handling one's own inclinations into the situation you posit, I think it would be more analogous, say, if somebody !voted to ban based on extensive copyright violations where only one copyvio had occurred, but you believe that the single copyvio was egregious enough to warrant an immediate ban. In that case, I might participate in the discussion and try to persuade others to my view rather than closing. We are all in agreement that copyvios are not allowed and that violators may need to be prevented from participating. The point of interpretation is on when we cross that line. In all cases where an administrator closes against majority, I think he (or she) needs to be prepared to fully explain why.

Remaining with your posited situation, without reading the particulars, I agree that in my perspective an admin is not responsible for the decision if he closes a ban discussion, although I do believe that the administrator is responsible for defending his reading of consensus...which arguments he has included or excluded, based on what policies and governing principles. I also believe that if policy-based objections are raised to that consensus, he may need to reconsider or initiate further action, if the objections are not overriding. When error involves judging policy, I agree that it is the administrator's error. In such a case, the admin should overturn. When error involves finer points of interpretation, I do not; after all, the community wrote (most of) the policies and guidelines in the first place. With respect to AfDs and DRV, I don't agree that admins should only close debates they agree with. I think it is quite possible to begin neutral and end neutral, but still interpret the debate correctly. I am always prepared to defend my interpretation of the debate, and, when it comes to DRV challenges of AfD closures, that's all that matters: "if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." (The introduction of significant new information is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the closure of the AfD.)

With respect to your fears of frustrating editors who see decisions as wrong, I think it rather empowers them. They are not appealing to an authority figure; they are part of a community that gives them the ability to make effective change. If they don't like the reading of "widespread coverage in reliable sources", they can join the conversation at WT:N (there is one ongoing). This does not mean that an administrator has a Pilate-like ability to wash his hands. He still needs to be able to say, "This policy/guideline/whatever is the root of this decision." This should be true whether he interprets that policy/guideline/whatever in that same way or not. If the majority is deciding within an informed and reasonable reading of that policy/guideline/whatever, then he should not rule against numbers (imo).

(I do, however, agree with you that engaging with the community can be difficult. Insanely so. For a single example, I have watched WT:CSD go around and around the issue of including products under WP:CSD#A7 without ever reaching consensus. I myself agree that some products should be included there under some circumstances, but until consensus is reached, I will still routinely decline to speedily delete albums under that criterion.)

Getting back to what you said above (where I came in, more or less), I do agree that "indeed, the admin makes the decision." Admins must weigh arguments and evidence, must determine how policy applies, and consider many other factors that make judging consensus a more complex thing than counting votes. They must be prepared to explain why they read consensus as they did and must be prepared to reconsider if somebody points out to them a flaw in their judgment. They need to be prepared to stand by their decisions. However, I think those decisions are bound by the consensus process or by other policies, where clear special circumstances apply. Even in the matter of indef-blocking, where an admin may act alone, we are dealing with consensus—simply a general one that has been encoded in the process without the need for individual debate. If that makes sense. :)

(And I have now spent way longer here than intended in this "brief response" and must go knock out some of those cp problems!) (And please forgive my wikilinking. It's a habit that is hard to break. I find myself doing it even in e-mails. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abd,

I removed the cn-tag on Intentionally blank page, but dove in a bit to find out why it was placed. I've read your edit summary regarding the statement being false... and don't find myself agreeing, so it could be I'm not understanding your line of reasoning. Working with the text as used in the article, that is, "This page is intentionally left blank" it would appear that there is a paradox, because it refers to the present. Would the phrase be "This page was intentionally left blank", the past tense you refer to in your edit summary and which I don't find anywhere in the phrase used originally, then it obviously refers to the previous state of the article from my point of view.

Reading this, it does feel like picking a nit, a bit - but still, curious to see how you arrived at the conclusion of it being false.

All the best, Kander (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question revolves, perhaps, around timing. The most common phrasing is "This page intentionally left blank." There is no verb; however "left blank" refers to the condition of the page before the notice was placed on it. "This page is blank" may seem like a paradox; certainly there is more of a paradox there than without the verb "is." It's the same with "TPILB." But there is another semantic issue. "Blank" refers to the content of the book or document. What if a page has a page number only? Is it a "blank page"? I'd say so. Pages contain or carry the content, they are not the content, and the page numbers are only a pointer to where content is -- or, in this case, is not -- located. Page numbers are metacontent, perhaps. And so is "This page is intentionally left blank." Take the notice off the page, have you removed content from the book? I'd say not. "Blank" refers to content, not to metacontent such as page numbers or left-blank notices. Look closely at a piece of paper. Use a microscope if you have to. It has pattern to it. Is that "content?" Paper varies in brightness, is that "content"?

Have I nailed it in deeply enough? --Abd (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected your user page for a week in light of the vandalism there. Let me know if you want me to lift or extend it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of that page -- I really hadn't realized how much vandalism of it there had been -- permanent semiprotection (effectively) is a good idea. I've had to ask for that with my Talk page, then I created User talk:Abd/IP to allow IP and newly-registered editors a place to comment that I'll see, at least eventually. That page gets a fair amount of what would be vandalism on my Talk, but it doesn't matter. I can move what is reasonable, at least to some extent, to my Talk page and respond, respond there for something marginal, or just delete without comment, which also shows the editor that I've seen it. If someone else deletes it, I'll still, eventually, see it. Thanks, SI. --Abd (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I only just saw this message now (because I was coming over to send substantively the same message as I sent you last time). I'll permanentize it right smartly. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abd,

Sorry for engaging in that edit-war, but if you look at the talkpage of Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir, you might see that me, Str1944, BlessSins etc. have already justified the reverts several times. I don't know how the English Wikipedia handels sockpuppets engaging in editwars in spite of all that talk and the sources given in the talk page; I do know that in the German Wikipedia - my main "working-area" - users like that are blocked indefinitely ASAP. Of course, you can try talking to him. You'll probably understand what's going on then. If I don't revert, others will. Please read those talkpages. Greetings, Devotus (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because he continued reverting after I intervened, he'll probably be blocked. I gave him an extra warning, to give him an opportunity to revert himself; maybe he'll do that. I'm filing a 3RR report and noticed your message here. I'm not -- yet -- taking sides on the content issue; I noticed the long-term edit warring and that's why I intervened. Since it seemed that you were supporting consensus, I reverted to your version temporarily. That's not a conclusion, and I don't know if it will stick. Do not edit war to preserve the "right version." Rather, follow WP:DR, and tools like page protection can be employed. If your version enjoys consensus, in the long run, it will prevail without anyone violating WP:3RR. I understand why you were doing what you were doing, but don't. I've seen good editors blocked for doing that. Rather, follow the process. In doubt? Ask. I'll help if I can, and so will others. This went on way too long. WP:3RR is a bright line, i.e., except for Biographies of Living Persons, or blatant vandalism, which is not the case here, nobody should cross it. Period. --Abd (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention it, but I also applied for page protection for the article, which was granted for 48 hours. I've again suggested to Pioneer26 that he promise not to edit war, but, for the moment, he can't, at least not on this article. I have not reviewed all the discussion that took place, but we should do our best to incorporate what is reasonable from this editor's position. (I'm not saying you haven't done that!) Very, very good thing that you stopped reverting when I intervened. I went to 2RR, which I don't like to do, I would not have gone further. Little harm would have been done if the article had been protected into his version, all we'd have had to do is show consensus in Talk and it could have been fixed.... --Abd (talk) 18:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question, Pioneer26, has been indef blocked, a result I didn't expect, though, I must say, he was singularly unresponsive and stubborn. With some trepidation, I've offered to support his unblock if he agrees to not use edit warring to maintain his preferred version. I noticed your prior concern that this user might be a sock of User:Accredited. I'm not aware of actual sock abuse, if he uses one account to edit Banu Nadir and another for Banu Qurayza, that's not sock abuse. But if you know of some abuse, where he used multiple accounts, for example, to avoid 3RR violation, let me know and I'll look into it. --Abd (talk) 00:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'm not too familiar with the rules in the English Wikipedia, since my main working area is the German one. I thought that was abuse. It doesn't seem to matter now anyway. Thanks for the intervention. Greetings, --Devotus (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessarily abuse, but it could be. It would depend on account behavior. I've seen complaints arise when a user spiked one account, created a new one, then participated in some of the same discussions as the old account. He didn't double-vote. He wasn't concealing the connection, but, in one case, he didn't disclose it either. (When he was asked, he made the connection explicit.) SSP was filed anyway, which confirmed the totally obvious, and then .... nothing was done except that some users kept in their minds that this guy was a user of puppets, and this probably contributed to a lack of community support when he was indef blocked. Essentially, he didn't violate any policies, with regard to socks, but he was impolitic, he unnecessarily (perhaps) helped those who wanted him out of here. It's advised to disclose socks directly; but sometimes there are reasons not to do this. WP:SOCK pretty well covers it. If one of the accounts is blocked, and you have grounds to think that the other one is a sock, and it continues to edit, then WP:SSP can be filed, and if the evidence is sufficient, the second account can be blocked as well. However, admins are generally reluctant to block an account which isn't being disruptive, sock evidence would have to be very strong in the absence of disruption. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, mostly: User:Abd/Bayesian regret. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Abd,

What's up? You are such a good writer; your grammar/punctuation use is perfect, as far as I know. I was wondering if you could assist me with some punctuation questions I have. Let me know if you can, either by email or Wikipedia talk. Thanks.

You're welcome to ask here. I was a copy editor, but don't consider myself a true expert on the subject. Wikipedia has a Manual of style, which differs some from the Chicago Manual of Style that I cut my teeth on. See, specifically, WP:MOS#Punctuation --Abd (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to ask the questions via email, if you do not mind. I do not have many questions to ask, but sometimes I get confused about punctuation (rarely, though). If you allow me to email you at least once, I can better explain myself. Thanks. --Kotrt99 (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may email me. Drop a note here that you've done so. --Abd (talk) 14:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email. Thanks. --Kotrt99 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you receive my email? It was sent on the 16th.--Kotrt99 (talk) 03:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I can be slow to respond to email, sometimes. I saw it the day after it came in and tagged it as non-spam, but didn't actually download it until yesterday. And you didn't actually ask the question. You can send me wikitext, I can parse it. Go ahead and send it to me! --Abd (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm not sure that this is actually vandalism, David Blunkett is blind. That's not to say it's needs inclusion just that it might be a good faith addition. _{if you are wondering how I noticed it's because we are sorta interacting on AN/I and I was just checking out the contributions of other users.} --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. I always consider that the edit might be true, and I thought of that. I'd argue that in context it was demeaning, and not encyclopedic. I removed it. Twinkle automatically uses that vandalism edit summary, but it looks to me like I didn't warn the user. I'll agree that it could be considered a good faith edit. There isn't anything to fix, though, as far as I can see. If I'd warned the editor -- looks like I didn't; that might have been deliberate -- I'd apologize. I revert myself about once a day; if I never made any mistakes, I'd be taking far too long with each edit.

(I often look deeper into the recent changes history and find quite a few vandalism edits that have been missed. So it's important, I think, to catch as many as possible, they get buried quickly. I see a fair number of IP edits that are fixing vandalism they discovered that wasn't caught by RC patrol. I think we need a system, at present there isn't a practical way, for example, to go over all the changes made *yesterday* that have not been reviewed -- because there is no way to distinguish what's been looked at from what hasn't.) --Abd (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh sure I would have removed it as well, it was more of an "For your information" than me asking you to take any action. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like to know how to have a copy of Gyn Talk (Visual Fiction) put into my user space by an administrator who provides that service. Thank you very much. Joseph Levi (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Look at the category. You're welcome.... --Abd (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning noted.[4] I've taken the article off my watch list. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boris, that warning wasn't specifically about you, though it was triggered by your comment about Logicus. I don't consider your edit removing the Terminology section as edit warring; I saw it as a BOLD move to cut what you saw as a Gordian knot. On reflection, though, I pointed out that this removal of sourced material was improper, but you did not edit war to maintain your removal, and there is nothing reprehensible about making a bold move that is outside normal practice (i.e., could be considered improper), as a trial. Your comments about Logicus were of concern to me, I'm not sure what your intention was, but I have no trouble maintaining an assumption of good faith regarding them. I might have made a similar comment myself, the speculation about an RfC or a block is quite reasonable, if we look at the history of this article, where a newcomer can show up, make a couple of edits, and be immediately before AN/I as disruptive. Personally, I feel the more editors who are watching that article, the better, but it's also true that we need new faces.

As to my comments about a "cabal," it should be clear that I'm not claiming that a literal cabal exists, only that a constellation of editors has created an appearance of one, and this appearance is damaging Wikipedia. Editors involved in the little edit war today have previously edit warred on the article. What I worry about is that when a skeptic edit wars on that article, a seriously foolish thing to do, he's blocked, quickly, but when certain editors (whose names pop up again and again in the compilations of revert wars that I've made from the GW articles) edit war, nothing happens to them. It's easy to understand. The skeptics tend to act alone or with little cooperation from other editors, so when they edit war, they quickly run up against 3RR. But even when they don't hit 3RR, they've been sanctioned for edit warring. Our process is sanctioning one side in a protracted dispute.

So, anyway, good luck. I certainly did not consider you unwelcome to edit that article, so if you change your mind, I won't chide you. If, however, you've decided that you are too attached -- I don't know your history and I hadn't thought so --, somewhat like Durova doesn't edit articles on certain topics because they are too close to her interests or passions, fine. Enjoy your freedom. I'll see you around. --Abd (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abd. Thank you for the referral to Citizendium. Also, thank you for the link to Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. Did you read this article that is critical of Wikipedia? Here is the link to that article: http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Critical_views_of_Wikipedia I have a question. Why is it that for Wikipedia art has to be published first through a public institution by means of an exhibition and then published a second time through a written review in a journal? If a biologist has his or her research first published in a journal, does that biologist’s article need to have a review written about it and then published in a second publication in order to meet notability requirements for Wikipedia? If this is not the case for the biologist, then there is a double standard at Wikipedia against artists. Such a double standard can hardly be called neutral. Thank you very much. Joseph Levi (talk) 12:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you aren't looking at this with a full understanding of the issues. Let's start with the criticism. Wikipedia is a wiki, yes, but with a stated purpose: to build an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia isn't necessarily what most wikis create. Specifically, on most wikis, you can simply write off the top of your head, from your personal knowledge, conjecture, what others have told you, etc. And this process can come up with, in fact, material that is better, deeper, and sometimes more accurate than what appears in peer-reviewed publications or the other materials that are considered reliable source for an encyclopedia. There is a continual conflict over this on Wikipedia, between "inclusionists" who, in terms of this wiki thing, would tend toward a free inclusion of whatever edits in good faith contribute, and "deletionists" who tend to have very strict standards for notability and verifiability. This is entirely separate from neutral point of view. You can say anything with a neutral point of view, if you attribute it or frame it properly. "According to so-and-so, the moon is made of green cheese, I heard him say that." You are either making a statement that is absolutely true, or it's deceptive. Whether or not the moon is made of green cheese doesn't matter, for the report is reporting what is known with certainty by the reporter. But that statement wouldn't be allowed in an encyclopedia, even if the topic were notable.

Wikipedia publicity can be a bit misleading, because promotional words are used that are easily misinterpreted. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit, the sum of all human knowledge."

The words have to be understood specially. "Sum" has two meanings: (1) everything together, (2) summary, precis, the essentials.

Inclusionists would have it mean "sum," generally, deletionists, "essentials." It is quite clear, however, that the intended meaning, to the founder and many others, and in actual practice, it means "essentials," and this is what traditional encyclopedias were.

"Peer-reviewed publication" by a scientist is not the same as, say, an exhibition of an artist. I briefly looked at the article in question and it seems that the artist is something like a teaching assistant at an institution, and that institution put on a show of his work. (This may be wrong in details, but look at the principle.) The peer reviewed publication represents a review of the work by professionals and experts in the field (the review board of the publication), indicating an independent judgment that the work is important. The exhibition may indicate that someone's work is worth looking at, maybe. Maybe not. It might be a favor for a friend or employee, after all, what harm does it cause? It might serve some political purpose. However, if the exhibition is reviewed, say in a newspaper, more than just a report that it happened, but its importance is discussed, this starts to become usable as a source or to establish notability. Read the guidelines, this has all been explained fairly well.

So notability is one issue. There are no fixed or rigid standards, specific notability decisions are made by, essentially, whoever happens to show up to close a deletion discussion, being advised, presumably, by the comments made by editors in the discussion. In marginal cases, it's really impossible to predict what a closing administrator will decide, but it's all reversible. I.e., if something is deleted, the deletion can be appealed, and even the appeal can be appealed -- but it better be good, because the appeal process beyond Deletion Review would probably be the Arbitration Committee, which is a cumbersome process and an ordinary deletion decision would probably be considered improper to review, unless there was some specific and clear abuse in the process (which would ordinarily be worked out by discussion, not by formal arbitration, the AC gets involved, usually, only when simpler processes fail).

In the case of your article, you should understand that even inclusionist editors considered that the article didn't meet Wikipedia standards, and I think that was unanimous, last I looked. (Do I remember a "weak keep" in there?). DGG, whom you more or less attacked as biased, is an inclusionist, generally, though not strictly. He's really a librarian and, I'll note, librarians who would like to keep every book nevertheless must decide to dispose of some. Or (as is the case with Wikipedia) store them in the basement, not as part of the open collection). There are radical inclusionists who have voted Keep on everything. And they have often ended up blocked, because such a vote doesn't really add anything to a discussion, it just adds words, and it's clear that total inclusion is contrary to present policy; so a constant keep vote is like no vote at all, except it takes up time and space. I'm a radical inclusionist, I'd use editorial process to blank or file non-notable material, just as what happens now when an article is "merged." To merge an article, one adds a redirect to it so that looking for the topic directs the reader to another article. When that happens, at the top there is a little line that says "Redirected from [link]" and following that link takes one to the original article, which has generally been blanked except for the redirect tag. But in History, everything that was ever there can be read by anyone. This *is* a wiki, but ... it has this "deletion" thing which doesn't really delete the material, but buries it so that you have to have administrative privileges to read it. (The basement, and you have to have a key to the basement.) That's legally necessary for some material (such a libel or copyright violation), but my kind of inclusionist considers it unnecessary for non-notable material. It's possible that Wikipedia will move toward using only ordinary editorial process to Merge instead of Deleting, but it's also clear that an encyclopedia requires a hierarchy of notability; Wikipedia has a very primitive hierarchy: Notable (and visible) and Not notable (deleted). A more sophisticated, but still simple, hierarchy would have three levels. Notable and easy to see, Not notable but sourced and verifiable, on looser standards than presently used, and requires some explicit action to see (like looking at History), and Deleted, reserved for true trash.

I hope this helps to make it more clear. I don't officially represent Wikipeida and what I've written is simply my opinion based on my experience here. --Abd (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2008

Actually, the template he was placing on the page wasn't a "this page is protected" template, but a "I need an admin to make an edit to this protected page" template. The main problem seems to be that the user has trouble making himself understood, and becomes frustrated and finds fault in others for it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which, of course, alienates those who might otherwise be able to help in some way, etc., etc. --Abd (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the discussion on the subpage, I apologize for my slightly snippy edit summary which might have appeared to be directed at you personally. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I did not, in fact, take it personally. I simply thought that you had not been following the subpage discussion and replaced the "consensus" version (no implication is made that this is final) with what you preferred, which would ordinarily be reasonable. I've asked you to revert yourself and then to participate on the subpage, if you disagree with what's there. My goal is to end the recurring edit warring over this section, first, then, more ambitiously, on the rest of the page. My asking you to revert yourself is asking you to signal that you respect consensus and consensus process; it does not prejudice your right to future action. A version which enjoys wider consensus will always be easier to maintain. A version which essentially shuts out skeptics will guarantee that skeptics will continue to find the article and attempt to push it to a version they consider more fair, to edit war over this, etc., etc. Blocking them is damaging to the project; it's better to fairly seek consensus with them, and reserve blocking for truly disruptive editors, rather than the so-called "civil POV-pushers," whom we should encourage (and restrain in a manner that is not only civil but welcoming.) I did not create the subpage, it was created by Skyemoor partly as a justification for his 2RR removal of the entire section, but it was quite a good idea. It should be, in effect, a standing RfC on the Terminology section, so that debate over the Terminology section is confined and so that it accumulates rather than just washing over the article and the regular Talk page like a storm tide, to be repeated over and over. --Abd (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, definitely agreed about the edit warring part, and most everything else you say here. I still think the currently preferred version on the Terminology subpage is a whitewash that implicitly validates the position of many GW denialists. SBHB is on the GW talk page at present. Maybe let's see what he does; or feel free to revert my last edit if you feel strongly about what's developed on that working-group page. I'll drop a note there as soon as I have a chance. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenosis, the comment about "whitewash" betrays a POV, that something is or should be black or blackened. I'll go ahead and revert, I suppose, but I'm doing so to support consensus, and I would be better for you to do it, then to advocate your position on the working page. I have a strong opinion that the working version enjoys wider consensus than what you restored, and that's obvious from the working page. The only dissent has been KDP (who was rather vague about it) and yourself. I'm a "believer" in global warming, i.e., I generally trust what I see as the scientific consensus; but I'm an even greater believer in the power of true consensus, which is more likely to be NPOV than anything which enjoys lesser support. This does not mean whitewashing. It means being accurate as to the shade of grey that a thing is, preferable as measured, either by reliable source, or by our consensus. "Rough consensus" works, to a degree, but if we stop there, we set up conditions for endless -- and unnecessary -- edit warring, when we exclude notable positions. The "position" here is as to spin. Spin is optional. Skeptics object to spin that denigrates their position. Sometimes, then, the removal of such spin is seen as favoring their position, which isn't accurate. It only favors them in the sense that it removes a spin against them. Spin implies movement: if we achieve a stable version, such that the skeptics confine their "POV-pushing" to elsewhere, but the "believers" also see it as accurate or at least acceptable, then we've probably removed the spin. It can be hard to see spin in favor of one's own POV, it can seem like the plain truth. That's why we need skeptics to participate in the article, and to welcome them as well as educating them so that they too will work for NPOV. It's subversive, Kenosis. I happen to believe that NPOV favors The Truth (TM). If we all strive for NPOV, we will, collectively, discover The Truth. Another way I like to say this is:

If we can, at the same time, see something from more than one point of view, we get Depth perception. --Abd (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]