Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Clarity in Policy Discussion

The following discussion thread emerged in a talk page related to attempts to revise the page Wikipedia:Blocking_policy. In summary, the discussion emerged around a comment by Martin who stated that certain contributions by User:JRR Trollkien were "unwanted".

Location discussion

User:Angela, an administrator, moved the comments to a talk page of one of the participants in the discussion, asserting they were off-topic to the discussion of blocking policy.

Angela stated on a talk page of User:Chocolate bar that she had relocated the comments to a user talk page. Since the discussion involved several users discussing a general matter of clarity and attribution, especially when characterizing the nature of contributions, I have created this page to place the discussion under a topic heading instead of under a personal heading. NeutralAction 14:50, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Discussion thread

There have been so many edits to the current policy section of Wikipedia:Blocking policy over the last few days that I can't tell whether Martin and JRRTrollkien are slowly reaching agreement on changes to the policy -- or if there is some low-level struggle taking place. For example, JRR just added a definition of an extreme case as profane, blasphemous or other clearly offensive names. Since Martin has been the main person working on this for quite a while, I'm not comfortable just rushing in and moving things to the proposal section or this page, but I'm concerned about so many edits to the current policy happening in the midst of everything else.

As a friend of mine says, "Please advise." -- Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 13:09, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

Hazards of a wiki. Try this version if JRR keeps throwing his two cents around where they're not wanted. Martin 13:44, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is a classic example of the problem. This is a Wiki. It is not the role of admins to decide whether legitimate edits are wanted or not. Unless they are vandalism, the admins should have no more role in the process than anyone else. The Trolls of Navarone 19:52, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I believe I am allowed to either want, or not want, an edit. I do not want JRR's two cents. They are unlikely to add to the credibility and support of this policy amongst the general populace, in my opinion. Further, it appears that Bcorr does not want JRR's two cents either. Thus, amongst the people in the discussion, Bcorr and myself, JRR's two cents are not wanted.

There appears to have been some confusion - you seem to have erroneously assumed that I was making a pronouncement as to the general wantability of JRR's edit to the entire world. I hope this clarifies my earlier comments. In return, perhaps you could elaborate on what "problem" this is a classic example of? Martin 21:02, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If I may pop in here with an attempt at a neutral observation, this would be a classic example of an administrator using weasel words to obfuscate the limits of authority and to imply a consensus regarding whether a particular writer is welcome or not.

If administrators are elected for their experience in precise writing, it would seem reasonable to expect they would use that skill to distinguish the subject they are talking about. For an ostensible leader say to a group discussing policy formation that someone's input is not wanted is clearly different than saying, in the first person, that a particular person does not want a particular thing. To omit such clarity is either a product of poor training as a writer, or intentional obfuscation intended to extend the boundaries of an author's status. For a person with any sort of leadership status, in any community, to use ambiguous language to cloud whether they are speaking as an authority or as an individual damages public respect for that leadership position.

One would think that at some point a few administrators interested in preserving respect for their role in the community would begin to establish some traditions in their own ranks that encourage the same sort of precise language in community discourse that the community expects in articles it produces. Wikipedia has plenty of administrators. Maybe someday it will begin to develop trustworthy leaders. Chocolate bar 00:06, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Chocolate bar, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I haven't used any admin powers in respect to this page. I haven't blocked anyone who's edited it. I haven't protected it, I haven't deleted it, and I haven't used the admin rollback feature. Nor have I threatened to use my admin powers in respect to this page, nor do I intend to. I didn't even mention my admin status till you brought it up just now. I really don't think my admin status should be an issue.

To clarify some things:

• Admin status is not meant to be some kind of formal or informal leadership status.
• Admin status is not awarded on the basis of skill in precise writing.
• While admin status has a poll-like process at administrators, this is scarcely an "election". In any case, not all admins were made admins following that process.
• People aren't meant to "respect" the admin role. It's a set of technical abilities. Getting it shows that you've been around for a while, and haven't screwed up. I don't respect admins more or less than other users.

I do understand your concerns. Some time ago, when I trolled h2g2, I criticised the leadership for failing to seperate their work and play, and failing to distinguish official pronouncements from unofficial friendly advice. I still think this is an important point - learning to be professional. I know that it's a mistake I've made on occasion on Wikipedia too, on occasion - it's an easy trap to fall into.

On the other hand, you seem to be criticising me for not making clear the boundaries of my informal status as a somewhat influential person within the Wikipedia community. It would be impossible for me to distinguish between the two. I have influence in some matters, but not others. I don't know what matters I have most influence in, nor how much. How can I possibly make formal distinctions, where no such distinctions exist? I'm interested in any advice you can give me here, because I really don't see a way round this problem, if it really is a problem. Also, perhaps we should move this discussion to wikipedia talk:administrators, since we appear to be getting off-topic. Martin 01:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Other than that you visit the same problem of stance in summarizing your perception of what administrators are meant to be, your reply suggests genuine interest in the matter. I'll consider visiting the page you mention for further dialogue, but I assert this discussion is germaine to blocking policy. The things you say administrators are not might be part of why blocking policies are not always effective. In general, whatever formal or informal role you aspire to in this community, the more precise your writing, the better you help other writers appreciate the techniques we need to compile accurate, neutral summaries of topics that summarize diverse points of view. Success in that direction can contribute to a more relaxed policy toward technical interventions. They are all just tools to be employed in the task.

Re:How can I possibly make formal distinctions, where no such distinctions exist?, that is the advice I am trying to share. Passive language often fails to identify who is acting - by saying "I think that..." rather than "It is intended ..." you clarify who is doing what. Any time you write in the "who did what" format, you improve our collective recognition of effective encyclopedic writing approaches, potentially redeeming troublesome writers who might have no better understanding of how to express their knowledge. That is what I am trying to do here.

At any rate, your list of perceptions of administrators role provides me substantive verification of areas this project appears to suffer deficiency, so even though you might be asserting them (or not) as the proper roles of administrators, disclosing perceptions and concerns is important to moving dialogue in a productive direction, which makes this particular Wiki session experience a more rewarding one than others, and I'll cop to participating in this altruisic project in part to gain some sort of personal reward, so, thanks for the attentive reply. More or less, we agree that Wikipedia has technically empowered administrators. We might agree that community leadership, even ad hoc, temporal and situational, can improve movement toward project goals. Chocolate bar 19:28, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you can reasonably expect me to qualify every comment I make with "I think that X". I do appreciate your style advice regarding the use of the passive. Another piece of style advice I've been given is to write assuming that the reader "is on your side". Thus, I might write "Nestle sucks!", confident that the reader is on my side, and sie will realise that this is an expression of opinion, rather than some definitive ex cathedra statement regarding the level of suckage of chocolate manufacturers.

Similarly, I read your comments on the benefits of precision in writing, and took it for what it is: advice from someone else who takes part in this kind of community. Because "I'm on your side" as a reader, I didn't take it as some attempt at an authoritative statement - "by the powers vested in me, I rule that all shall be precise in their writing!". If I were a hostile reader, I could have reacted angrily and disingenuously - "What gives you the right to tell me how I should act? You're not my mom!", but we both know that would be silly.

We're perhaps in danger of over-analysing things here (this is how many paras about a single sentence ;-)), and I do agree with your general advice. Indeed, as I now have my responsibilities as an arbitrator to consider (which is an official role, of sorts), this is very timely advice, even if I don't completely agree with it. Sometimes clarity is more important than precision. Martin 20:10, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly true that when an admin writes 'his 2 cents are not wanted', there is ambiguity about whether this is a statement of general community desire, policy, or personal opinion. Owning statements, ie. 'I do not want his 2 cents', 'a vote has determined that the community does not want his 2 cents' would help to clarify. Often Admins seem to willfully abuse this ambiguity, implying that their opinion 'I find your username disruptive' carries the weight of a community decision 'It has been determined through a vote that I have the authority to ban you because of your username'. The Trolls of Navarone 06:54, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The same applies to your comments, Navarone. When you say "Admins seem to willfully abuse this ambiguity", are you speaking on behalf of yourself, or on behalf of the so-called "Legion of Trolls"?

Myself - I am not aware that the Legion of Trolls has appointed any spokespeople ;) The Trolls of Navarone 16:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am not aware that the Wikipedia community has appointed any official spokespeople either. On the other hand, individuals do attempt to speak (with varying degrees of success) on behalf of the Wikipedia community, and I have seen speech that claims to be on behalf of the "Legion of Trolls", or even on behalf of trolls everywhere. A wilful abuse of ambiguity? Martin 17:20, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where this sort of ambiguity is a problem, it is a problem for both admins and non-admins. I've seen plenty of non-admins say things like "This behaviour is unacceptable" (sometimes rightly, someimes wrongly) without saying whether they are speaking for themselves or for the community, and I see absolutely no evidence that non-admins are any more or less precise than admins in this matter. Martin 22:12, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree, although Admins have more power, and so the potential for abuse and intimidation is higher. I think a higher standard of integrity is reasonable from them, or rather, the trust placed in them by the community demands a higher standard of integrity and behaviour. The Trolls of Navarone 16:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to think that it's reasonable to hold both admins and non-admins to the same, high standard of behavior. With respect to the question of "speaking for the community", I have a quote on my user page by E. T. Jaynes that is pertinent. -- Cyan 16:16, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd also like to think that both would adhere to that same high standard, by Admins have been entrusted with special abilities based on a trusted history of following those standards. If Admins do not set the tone by following the rules themselves, and by setting a high standard, it is difficult to see how regular users will not take their cue from this, and assume that the rules do not apply to them either. The Trolls of Navarone 16:19, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hold on, are we talking about possibly overly general statements like, "This behaviour is unacceptable," or general hostility, or actual abuse of sysop privileges? (I am no defender of sysop vigilantism. Far from it, in fact.) -- Cyan 16:26, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am talking about sysops abusing their priviliges, for example, by banning someone with no good reason for doing so, but my comments also apply to their general conduct. They should set a good example. The Trolls of Navarone 16:31, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I partially disagree. I regard general editing behavior as independent of sysop responsibilities. I would therefore argue that unless the behavior specifically involves the (ab)use of sysop privileges, sysops and non-sysops should be under exactly the same standards of behavior. Why should non-sysops be held to a lesser standard? -- Cyan 16:40, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure we disagree, I don't think that sysops should be held to a lesser standard, just that Sysops should, by their experience and responsibility, endeavour to set an example. As should we all, but by their voluntary extra responsibility, sysops could act as role models of good behaviour. The Trolls of Navarone 16:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, see, before you said, "should", and just now you said, "could". I agree with the latter, not the former. (Also, there's the practical difficulty that opinions differ on what constitutes a good example. There are sysops (and non-sysops) who would strongly defend their editing behavior as principled, but whom I would never recommend as role models.) -- Cyan 16:55, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I'm prepared to part company there - they certainly could set an example of good behaviour, I think it is reasonalble that they should. I'm surprised that that is contentious, but I guess it takes all sorts ;) As for what constitutes a good example, I'm talking mainly about abiding by community decided rules. The Trolls of Navarone 16:58, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree with your position if you'd replace "sysops" with "long-standing users". And I do think that sysops who exercise their privileges in contravention of policy (particularly the blocking policy) ought to have their sysop privileges removed. It doesn't happen that way, though. Some violations of policy have had popular support which has protected the vigilante sysop from repercussions. It's an extremely rare event that sysops involutarily lose their privileges. -- Cyan 17:11, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)