User talk:TimS/Proposed Block Policy

From Conservapedia

Contents 1 Vote in the unofficial poll 2 Discuss 3 Liberal Blocking Practices 4 Sysop/non-sysop edit wars: block should be performed by another, uninvolved sysop 5 My Constructive Criticism 6 Two suggestions 7 Policy, rules, or guidelines? 8 The Richard Rule 9 Attempting to embarass Conservapedia 10 Name calling

Vote in the unofficial poll

Please vote in the unofficial opinion poll on the policy Here
--CPAdmin1 10:03, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I am attempting to get the votes of at least 13-16 sysops --CPAdmin1 10:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I wonder why this is being rushed to vote, with one day of discussion, and no willingness to amend? --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I am perfectly willing to ammend, make a suggestion --CPAdmin1 20:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• It is dishonest and corrupt to offer to take suggestions, once something has been put to a vote. Likewise it is the same to make the offer to me after a vote has been called for, and especially after I called you out about not asking for suggestions, and ignoring my messages and posts about it. --~ TK ^MyTalk 21:04, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• So now, rewriting history, people reading all of this, will think other users to be lunatics, complaining about nothing. If you are going to change what the vote is, CPAdmin1, you need to post explaining that you did so. But then you knew that, didn't you? So this is yet another attempt to make others look bad. Have you no shame? --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:17, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Discuss

I would enact this.-AmesG_yo! 23:17, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

Amen! So would I. --BenjaminS 00:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I know you Americans spell funny, and you spell offence as offense, but do you spell warring as waring, or is that a mistake?

I think that there ought to be some sorts of time limits. For example, if a user engages in edit warring four time in three weeks, then doesn't do it again for a year (to pick a couple of extreme examples), should that first time in a year count as the fifth time?

Philip J. Rayment 23:37, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

This is why The Boss doesn't want to start making rules. Once you do then there's all sorts of things that come to mind after the rule is in place, like PJR pointed out. I'd say 90 day turnover between incidents should be enough, though. Cracker_talk

• Your proposal, made while CPWebmaster, Ed Poor, ColinR, Palmd001, were actually accomplishing something, while begging Benjamin and CPAdmin1 to join us in chat, no longer applies to anything. Andy has installed the rule/policy about blocking here [[1]] He instructed Ed and me to move it from discussion to policy last week, I believe. So, for some Sysop to "pledge" they will enforce only the Commandments, is contrary to Andy's policy, and I couldn't in good conscience pledge to ignore some of the rules/guidlines/policy, and only enforce the commandments. Further, I think it very immature for two members of the management team to hastily assemble such a document without being informed as to what was happening to resolve this very problem, and without first seeking Andy's opinion. As it is, it can only be considered an act of bad faith, a ploy to embarrass other Sysops, Bureaucrats, and Andy. When one accepts any appointment, to be part of a group, one takes on the obligation to act as a member of the whole, and that means giving due consideration to all members of it, by consulting, asking, seeking ideas, before foisting something half-baked and very restricting, in a public manner. As Andy keeps saying, weekly, this is not Wikipedia and he disagrees with the notion that all of our policies and practices should conform to theirs. Restrictive rules actually endanger user rights. As an example, look at Federal (US) mandatory sentencing guidelines. What you have posted creates a never-ending bureaucratic nightmare of endless complaints, hearings, adjudications and fighting. Philip is very wise to see but two of the many possible problems, as does Rob. You two Sysops need to act like adults, and stop running off on your own, formulating proposals without seeking input from Bureaucrats and your fellow Sysop's before slapping it public. Andy this afternoon decided that one Sysop cannot undo another Sysop's block. If you had spent as much time making contact, Benjamin and CPAdmin1, as you have disrupting and arguing with your fellow Administrators, you would have known that. Cooperation is key here, working with each other, as a small group of a much larger community, much will be accomplished. Acting on your own, disrespecting Andy and your fellow Sysop's only sows the seeds of chaos and anger. Please stop! --~ TK ^MyTalk 01:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This is too firm Geo.Talk 02:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, Geo, the rest of us were spending time today resolving issues, instead of making divisive new rules and infantile templates, that ignore guidelines Andy approved over a week ago. Many hours worth of work, partially blown up by Benjamin and CPAdmin1. At least we managed to work out the unblocking of Myk and a resolution about Palmd001. But CPAdmin1 and Benjamin, those two, living in their Ivory Towers, couldn't put themselves out to to communicate with their fellow Sysops, even though Benjamin and CPAdmin1 were begged to. And tell me, why should any of us have to beg them to keep in closer touch? --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

This is excellent. It is clear and easy to use, and even has the appropriate lengths of blocks spelled out. This will make everything run MUCH more smoothly, as all the SYSOPs will be blocking in the same way. ~ SharonS ^Talk! 07:46, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I'll echo Philip's concerns with regards to timing. We need the freedom to consider context, which a standardized set of actions doesn't provide. As policy, this is too restrictive. As guidelines, it's a good start, though I think the section on arguing should go. We can't simultaneously ask our editors to a) discuss their issues rather than indulge in edit warring, and b) refrain from excessive discussion and get on with editing. Tsumetai 07:59, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I too have reservations about blocking for "argueing"; yes, some editors do argue in circles so there comes a limit to how much time you may wish to engge with them. On the other hand, this can be quite intimidating to a newbie who see's he can be blocked for attempting to explain his edits or defend himself. And critics outside of Conservapedia will call this naked censorship and intimidation--perhaps worse than Wikipedia. And frankly it conflicts with the basic rule of not blocking for ideological purposes.

Not blocking for ideology is something we should be proud of. There are however, two types of ideolouges we encounter: (1) an incorrigible mindless partisan who no reason will ever persuade, or one who cannot make reasoned arguements to support his beliefs, because reasoning is not important to their prejudiced thinking; (2) a ideologue who understands his beliefs, and is committed to most of them, flaws and all, and can make reasoned efforts to support what he believes. We need to respect and encourage the second, while the first can be blocked as a troll or vandal, cause ultimately that's all it is, and cannot be defended on ideological grounds (unless your ideology is little more than trolling and disruption). RobS 12:57, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Does anyone recognize the amount of time enforcing it will require, the appeals, etc.? Because I would guess 75% of users will appeal, lol. I suggested to Andy he give the deciding job to the Student Panel, if this sees the light of day. Oh, there is the matter of "The Pledge", because according to that, some of the actions in the guidelines aren't in the Commandments. --~ TK ^MyTalk 08:12, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• • The user being blocked does not have the right to appeal, the dispute procedures are for disputes between sysops --CPAdmin1 10:50, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
    • As Andy says, "Our time is better spent building the encyclopedia." Seems to me the threat of a block can be more poweful than actually having to do it, and putting this all in writing opens the door to a charges of not enforcing the rules uniformly, so and so got blocked for this but so and so's actions were ignored, etc. Regular contributors who are constructive 50 to 90% of the time we can cut a lot of slack; it's the newbie trolls that get probably 90% of the blocks anyway after their first dozen or so edits. RobS 21:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Blocking Practices

I created the policy in response to certain users acting in a decidedly unconservative manner. (which just so happens to be against the rules [No Ideological Blocks] but nobody seems to care.) Forcefully silencing those you disagree with is something that you would expect from Hitler or Stalin', or the democrat party, (see fairness doctrine,) not conservatives. I thought one of our complaints with wikipedia was that they run conservatives off the site. If we start running the liberals off, that makes us hypocrites. I am open to suggestions about how to change the proposed policy. I included in the policy a provision for unproductive editing, but with guidelines to keep ideological blocks out. --CPAdmin1 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

On the "hypocrites" bit, I disagree. We criticise Wikipedia for claiming to be neutral whilst being liberal. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, it claims to be conservative, so if we start running liberals off (which I'm not advocating), we are not being inconsistent with Conservapedia's goal of being conservative. Philip J. Rayment 21:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

While I don't appreciate the equation of the Democratic Party with Hitler and Stalin, I know your heart is in the right place. If I might offer some suggestions to make this policy more palatable to its objectors.

• Include a provision to add more blockable offenses as time goes on. The presence of these rules does not preclude the addition of rules in the future. So if someone is blocked for something not in the rules, it can become a rule and thereafter everyone will know it is a blockable offense. Unfortunate for the first violation, but fair for all subsequent.

• Include language stating that all warnings and notifications of blocking from Sysops must be kept on the user talk page or in an appropriately labeled archive. This will make it easier to enforce the increasing penalties and the "90 day rule."

• Give yourself some leeway. "May be punishable up to" instead of "this is what it is." If a valuable editor is having a bad day and lets slip a minor obscenity, the sysops should have judgment. The notification of blocking should still be given, but maybe a block of only an hour given. If the offense is repeated, the full 2nd time penalty can still be given.

As Cracker noted, delineating rules means people are going to find ways around them. Leave yourself some flexibility. Myk 12:30, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Overall the policy looks good, but what constitutues edit warring? One revert of another's work, 2, 3? Does undoing a user's (or sysop) work without commenting fit the description? This might need to be cleared up to avoid arguements over potential blocks. Jrssr5 17:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sysop/non-sysop edit wars: block should be performed by another, uninvolved sysop

I'd like to have the policy say something like this:

In the case of edit warring where a sysop is involved—particularly with a non-sysop—the sysop involved should avoid blocking the offending user personally, but whenever possible should ask another sysop—preferably one not heavily involved in editing the page—to perform the block, unless it is an emergency situation where delaying the block would significant harm Conservapedia. Dpbsmith 19:01, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, that might work in some places, but here, taking the job of Sysop, doesn't seem to carry the need to communicate with other Sysop's. Several of them refuse contact or communication..... --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:07, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

If so, that needs to be fixed. Defining some situations in which the rules call for a sysop to communicate with another sysop might even help. Dpbsmith 19:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Well, I am only one person, and Andy dislikes overly detailed rules, or too many of them, and many Sysop's refuse any communication whatsoever. It is difficult to discuss personnel matters publicly at times, for fear of painting someone with a brush they don't deserve, and tainting them forever because of charges they might not be guilty of. --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

So a tag team of sysops should be policy, just as in Wikipedia. Whereas a sysop performing his sysop duties becomes an edit war regardless if the non-sysop has violated the Commandments. RobS 20:14, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I have slight problems with these two parts:

Between A Sysop and a non Sysop
The Non-sysop will be blocked

Between 2 Sysops
Discuss issue on appropriate talk page, If an agreement cannot be reached, then the panel will decide the dispute. Sysops will not be blocked for edit warring.

The issue should ALWAYS be discussed on the Talk page first. Sysops should not have the right to simply stand above discussion just because their opponent happens to have less power. And I am EXTREMELY shocked to see the (so far unofficial) policy "If in doubt, the sysop is right, and the non-sysop should be trampled down" here. I had to revert(-war) edits by sysops and bureaucrats often enough, but with this rule, sysops could simply engage in a revert war (even to enforce the inclusion of completely wrong or unencyclopedic material) without ANY risk. --Sid 3050 20:43, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• The Non-sysop will be blocked by an uninvolved sysop
  • This is an encouragement to edit wars and "wikicliques". If a non-sysop knows there's no risk of being blocked, he'll edit war. And the only way to stop it is build wikicliques and tag teams. We've all experienced it first hand in that, ahhemm, other place. RobS 21:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Exactly, Rob. Since the people offering these refinements are the primary cause of the problem, in that they refuse to "lower" themselves to direct communication, except public communication on these pages. That is the real "chilling effect"; forcing people to decide to brand people publicly, without all the facts, in order to solicit comments by other Sysops. Since they refuse even the common courtesy of emailing or Instant Message, to discuss things before they are moved out here, with sometimes explosive results. Throwing around words, such as "Vote" without owning them, is reckless. One cannot offer discussion, for less than a day, then say "lets go vote on this!", and then change the document after someone has voted. That isn't a slip-up or mistake, it can only be viewed as deliberate, since the people will not communicate, and head off possible misunderstandings. Doing things their way is what prolongs these silly arguments. Failing to use IM, email and the like, before springing things on other managers would, in private industry, get a person terminated.

• The only request I received from CPAdmin1 was to discuss this proposal here. At no time did he say he was willing to make changes. Then, as if "everyone" who counted had been heard from, without announcement or message, suddenly one had to vote on it. Why would anyone vote on something, while it is in the process of change? --~ TK ^MyTalk 22:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

The vote is a form of opinion poll to see if there is reason to further pursue trying to craft such a policy. The "policy" as it stands is sort of a hypothesis, "testing" this hypothesis means it is put to a vote and discussion is held during the vote. No-one has "excluded" you, except yourself, by claiming that you were not consulted. You are being consulted now, but your refusal to participate only further excludes you. Cracker_talk 22:34, 13 April 2007(EDT)

• Sorry, Rob. Words have meaning. Vote means vote, discuss means discuss. The people who have been the biggest problem (lack of communication) are the same people now proposing "rule" that will only make it more important to do (communicate) what they have refusing to do. CPAdmin1 is the king of reversing other's blocks. Always without asking for a reason, or proposing lessening the duration, etc. I can't but feel insulted, him laying this off on others, making them the problem. --~ TK ^MyTalk 22:45, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, "the non-sysop will be blocked by an uninvolved sysop" was my suggestion. Indeed it was I who "offered that refinement," but I don't recall ever engaging in an edit war here and I don't think I am "the primary cause of the problem." The explanation I gave to CPAdmin1 was:

---

I, for one, cannot retain anything approaching objectivity when I'm in an edit war with someone else.

Requiring another sysop to execute the block won't normally hold up anything for very long, as there are usually other sysops around and in any reasonably clear case they'll just take a glance and execute the block. If you're sure you're right, you should be confident that almost any other sysop will support you. As you say, they're given authority for a reason, and that reason is that they are trusted to be in tune with site policy.

I can't believe there are very many pages where it's so important to make an edit that it can't wait for half an hour. While you're waiting for another sysop you can always try to see whether you can just convince the other user to stop; if that succeeds, it's more effective than a block. "Conversion, not coercion," don't you know.

And finally it tends to help convince the world that sysops are acting in accord with policy, not just throwing their personal weight around.

P. S. Obviously if the edit warrior is inserting insults, obscenities, etc. they should be blocked, but that's covered elsewhere in the policy.

---

If RobS wishes to call this an invitation to tag teams and wikicliques, so be it. Those are bad, but I don't think they're as bad as having a judge try a case in which he is also the plaintiff. Ideally the "wikiclique" ought to be the entire community of sysops. Dpbsmith 22:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

My Constructive Criticism

• Obscenity: My first concern about this is that there is no good definition of obscenity here; I could see this causing a big problem later. And I think the first offense should be a few days or weeks, because some people are more used to swearing; it could just "slip out". User:Tash and User:Jaques aren't sysops, but they have been valuable contributors, and I would hate to see them blocked for a slip of the tongue. There are more important things to be worrying about than an easily-censorable obscenity. As for the implied obscenity, don't take it too far. And "penis" and "vagina" cannot be considered obscene, as they are anatomically accurate.

For implied obscenity I was thinking more along the lines or letters mixed with asterisks. and the like. however, i think we have to leave the definition of obscenity up to Aschlafly. --CPAdmin1 20:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Arguing: The "arguing" section is redundant, since arguers can just be tagged for another offense, such as insults or edit warring, after too much arguing. And some people are just better at arguing. And not all activity on talk pages can be considered unconstructive arguing; Talk pages are built for arguments, debates, thoughtful discussion, etc.

I agree, not all arguing is bad, what change would you propose. --CPAdmin1 20:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• User talk blanking: This is an important issue to bring up. I know Andy has said that the "user talk page is a user's castle", though I sincerely think he is confusing the user page and the user talk page. A user talk page is supposed to be a conduit for other users to contact you. This means that user talk pages should never be locked, and that legitimate messages (addressing concerns about editing, warnings by sysops and clearly superior non-sysops, etc.) would be required to stay on your page until archiving (which should be mandatory at a point between 25 and 75 messages). Deleting these messages causes unnecessary harm.

I am against user talk blanking, but i do not think it should be a blockable offense.--CPAdmin1 20:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Non-sysop priviliges: Is there some way we could assign authority levels to non-sysops? Like, after ten edits the user attains a rank of 1, after 50 edits they get rank 2, 100 edits gets them rank 3, etc. This way, non-sysops could warn other non-sysops with an equal or lower number of edits. Just a thought, it could strengthen the legitimacy of disputes between non-sysops.

I would be for this, however this would also belong on a different policy. Try making a Proposed User-Rank Policy --CPAdmin1 20:25, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I suggest that newly-promoted sysop be called Thrones, ones with ten edits Dominions, ones with a hundred Virtues, ones with a thousand Powers, etc. Not gonna sign this one, no sirree 22:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for listening, Hojimachong^talk 19:21, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, Hoji, it has already been moved to a vote, under common rules, no further admendments or changes can be permitted. --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

It is in no way an official vote, at all. Just a public opinion poll. --Hojimachong^talk 19:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Really? Maybe the word VOTE coupled with Tim's call and Sharon's for it to be enacted ASAP is throwing me off. --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly says it isn't a democracy, so a vote can do nothing except to chack the public opinion. I am looking for constructive criticism to make the policy as good as it can get. --CPAdmin1 19:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• You are looking to disrupt and abuse the trust given to you, since you have never worked together with the Sysop group on anything. You are the classic example of a thug. --~ TK ^MyTalk 19:56, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• • You are mistaken, I have worked together with other Sysops and am trying to do that now. Please refrain from insulting me. --CPAdmin1 20:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Arguing: The argueing part is already covered in Commandment 7 and elsewhere. Editors need to be free to argue things like asking to remove page protection, etc. Let's just call it trolling if an editor is breaking the 90/10 rule. If his arguements are invalid or fail a reasonability test, no one's taking him serious anymore and he probably deserves a block for wasting everybodies time. RobS 20:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Tim, you are deceptive. You have never asked for my opinon on this, and have refused my input. Speaking truth is not a insult.--~ TK ^MyTalk 21:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

I posted on the Conservapedia:Sysops Page asking all of the sysops including you for input Here, and I asked you personally for input Here. I meant to post the first message on your talk page when I posted it on others, but I accidentally missed you. I am doing my best to try to involve you in the development of this policy, but all you have offered so far is insults. Please make suggestions. --CPAdmin1 23:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

CPAdmin1, I assumed that you simply overlooked TK (that could easily happen), and perhaps you simply did inadvertently overlook him, but it seems that you only posted notices on the talk pages of 18 of the approximately 30 sysops. Am I missing something, or what's the story there? Philip J. Rayment 08:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I attempting to post on the pages of all of the sysops that were active. (some are rarely on) I accidentally overlooked TK. Also a few of the sysops are duplicates of the same person, (Conservapedia Webmaster/CPWebmaster and their are others) so i did not post them multiple times. --CPAdmin1 09:43, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I realised (just) that Conservapedia Webmaster and CPWebmaster were the same person, and I wondered about one other one, which is why I reduced the actual 32 sysop accounts down to "approximately 30". I understand your intention to only contact the active ones, although I'm not sure that I agree that that was the right thing to do. Also, if you only contacted 18 (and meant it to be 19), plus yourself makes 20, you were perhaps being a bit ambitious in hoping that at least 15 or 20 would vote. That might be a reasonable expectation out of 30-odd sysops, but out of 20? Anyway, on the evidence available, I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt on this matter, and thanks for answering my query.

I'm intrigued that only about two-thirds of the sysops are what you would consider "active". Philip J. Rayment 09:57, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

List of inactive Sysops: Admin, AustinM, ChrisS, Goose89, John, NSmyth, PhilipB, Republican, SarahB. That leaves 23, minus Conservapedia Webaster and myself leaves 21, So I missed TK and 2 others. Yeah, I forgot to subtract the inactive users when diciding how many votes i wanted. --CPAdmin1 14:33, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Date (and time elapsed) of the last edits of those "inactive" sysops prior to you posting those messages on 13th April (according to my time zone):

Admin	18th March (26 days)
AustinM	8th April (5 days)
ChrisS	13th April (1 hour 21 minutes)
Goose89	24th March (20 days)
John	17th March (27 days)
NSmyth	12th April (14 hours)
PhilipB	29th March (15 days)
Republican	12th April (1 day) (only edit since 1st April, 12 days. Has also edited since)
SarahB	24th March (20 days)

It looks like you missed a few. Philip J. Rayment 03:20, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm guessing that what TK means is that he wanted to be consulted before the vote, which is a standard practice in most of the "meat world". Obviously a wiki lets us do things differently, but it's disconcerting to have a "vote" take place and then the thing being voted on changing during the polling process.

I don't think either of you has done a blessed thing wrong - this is purely a misunderstanding: ironically, just the type of misunderstanding that CPAdmin1's proposal is designed to head off in the future. So I'm still voting for it, even though there's egg on my face (if that's the right metaphor ;-) or there's a lot on my plate - something like that, anyway. --Ed Poor 23:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Treason: Um... this is a gag, right? Treason is selling nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union or something, not saying something HRH ASchlafly doesn't like. --BobD 22:28, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

What is it exactly you want, TK? Are we to come to you before making an edit or proposing a change? Even if that were true, he did come and ask you on your talk page here! It isn't clear what you want from everybody else! --Hojimachong^talk 22:48, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

• Hoji, CPAdmin1/Tim posted on my talk page about this just a while ago. Here is my reply:

"As I said, you inviting comments, AFTER you started the vote is corrupt. You mistake what I am saying for being against all your efforts. It is just I view any type of railroading of ideas as intolerence. Anywhere I have been, something isn't voted on before the proposal is finalized. You have circumvented all discussion and change by putting it to a vote! Why cannot you see that? Documents/Proposals/Rules shouldn't ever be changed after someone has voted! If it isn't a vote why say it is, and have it? What was wrong about having the discussion, then forging something to vote on, as is common practice?"

And since there isn't a Commandment about doing things "Wiki-like" please drop those references, or start a tutorial for those of us unfamilair with systems that don't operate on the common political/parlimentary rules of order, most of us have been taught since school day one. In the real world, this type of deal is called "sand bagging". --~ TK ^MyTalk 00:03, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Two suggestions

A policy locks us into the law of unintended consequences, which of course always arises, and we haven't discussed a way to amend it yet. But the idea of some practical Guidelines for Sysops to recommend an appropriate duration of a block would be fair to non-sysops and is probably a good ideal.

Another suggestion is having a Block Review, or Appeals process for editors who think they've been unfairly blocked. This would need discussion because a single Sysop undercutting another Sysops decision is probably not a good idea. So perhaps two or three Sysops could review an action on request of a party and determine if the blocking Sysop adhered morelesss to Guidelines. It wouldn't be fair to dump this all on a single group of Sysops, so perhaps an arrangement could be made where Sysops rotate every few weeks on a Review Board to hear a brief Appeal from the blockee, get a statement from the blocking Sysop, then vote to either shorten or uphold the original decision. A standing Committee of permanent Review Board members would get to much power themselves, so that's why it should be rotated. And there should also be the possibility of a penalty of an extended block to the non-Sysop for filing a frivolous or bogus claim and wasting everybody's time also. RobS 22:08, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Policy, rules, or guidelines?

I'm unclear on what weight this "policy" is meant to carry. It is intended (if accepted) as rules, or what?

I support what RobS said about it potentially having unintended consequences. I also support Aschlafly in not wanting too many rules.

However, as a sysop (and as a fairly new one I guess), I would appreciate some better guidelines on when to block and for how long.

Courts work on rules (statutes) and also on precedents. Court decisions are recorded and may be referred to by other courts in the future, in order to provide guidance and consistency of rulings. I don't think that it is practical for us to record sysops decisions in a single place in order to provide a ready reference of precedents, so something like this policy, if used as guidelines, could be quite useful, without having to tie us up unnecessarily. The move to make the block lengths maximums rather than absolutes, allowing a sysop discretion is a good move in this direction, but I'd still prefer to see this policy as guidelines, not absolute rules.

Philip J. Rayment 00:37, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree that the policy should not be absolute rules. It was intended as more of guidelines. I really created it for the dipute resolution section, because of the diputes that had been going on over blocks. --CPAdmin1 00:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The Guidelines for duration is a good idea, perhaps setting ranges and not absolutes. Then a rotating Review Panel of say two Sysops to hear Appeals. Terms would be like two weeks. Because of bureaucracy and timeframes, blocks of a week or less probably wouldn't get heard. The Panel would hear why the blockee feels Guidelines were ignored and give diffs. Then the Panel would ask for a statement from the Sysop. The Sysop would explain the special circumstances why Guidelines were not used. The two Sysops would then have to agree unanimously to reverse the length and reset to within Guidelines, or overturn completely. A split decision would be essentially a 2/1 Admin vote against the blockee. This isn't too bureaucratic, not a big burden on everyone, and gives an agrieved party recourse and a sense of fairness. RobS 01:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• If some people, upon seeing a block, and having some knowledge of the person's work, history and the rest, would merely email or IM the Sysop who did it, 99.5% would be resolved within an hour, and there wouldn't be any need for yet another panel. Some people don't want communication, is why this is considered needed. And of course, without the ability to remove Sysops or Bureaucrats who refuse to abide the "dispute resolution" process, what good is it? The argument about duration is a straw man. Even blocks I intended to remove in one hour, I made infinite, per Andy's instructions to me. The fact that some people refuse contact, and assume (on purpose I now believe) that someone of good spirit and integrity would actually intend to block someone forever for a small infraction, speaks to their suspicious and mistrusting mind set, than to anything else.--~ TK ^MyTalk 01:55, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

I think maybe part of the problem here is that TK sees wiki-editing as something that should happen after discussion, while others see wiki-editing as the discussion itself. I think the latter view is based on the fact that e-mail and IM exclude everyone but the participants, while wiki-editing is open and inclusive. TK, could you maybe explain your point of view? Also, can you explain the rationale for using infinite blocks when you intend them to be short? That's the first I've heard about this practice, and I can understand why someone who hadn't seen these instructions (which apparently happened off-wiki and thus excluded everyone else), knowing that you had the option to put in a 1 hour block but instead put in an infinite block, might think you actually intended to block forever. That doesn't seem to me to require a suspicious and mistrusting mind set, just a straightforward one. --Jtl 02:50, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• This is the one I don't like, The Non-sysop will be blocked by an uninvolved sysop, cause truthfully, the threat to block is more powerful than blocking itself. And this provision removes the threat. I am not in the habit of blocking ordinarily productive editors--page protect solves the problem if they edit war. And 92%+ of all blocks are handed out to new accounts who made a dozen edits only to vandalize pages. We only lose power on this one. RobS 02:06, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

• I think you are missing the point, that is exactly their intent. Some will not quit until they have made this place exactly as dysfunctional, bureau riddled, panel infested, as Wikipedia. I was enlightened tonight by one of our editors, age 13. He was telling me he considered all wiki's to be the property of everyone who contributes to it. Therefore rules and blocking were unfair, sysops had too much power over the "real" owners. This whole deal will saddle us with more problems and even more constant arguing. It will continue until the "elites" communicate with the whole, and support each other, and act in concert. --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:14, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The Richard Rule

How is the rule about Richard compatible with the new addition to the Differences with Wikipedia?

15. We do not ban users based on their comments elsewhere, such as on their own blog. Wikipedia will monitor users' blogs and ban them for their exercise of free speech on their own blogs.

While I definitely approve of the implied rule (though I honestly can't see how "Wikipedia monitors users' blogs", but whatever), I don't see how it can coexist with "Any editing done in an attempt to embarrass conservapedia, particularly on other websites such as blogs". --Sid 3050 09:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The rule regarding "embarrassing conservapedia" can be done without references to external sites. The fact misinformation is placed here is sufficient cause. RobS 15:40, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you "embarrass" Conservapedia? You could embarrass the Conservapedia community, or a member of it, but Conservapedia itself has no emotions. Do you mean "be critical" of Conservapedia? Does that mean no constructive criticisism is possible? Sterile 14:54, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you "embarrass" CBS Radio? You could embarrass CBS Radio employees and stockholders, or Don Imus, but CBS Radio itself has no emotions. Do you mean the reputation of CBS Radio employing racists and sanctioning racism? Does that mean free speech isn't possible? RobS 15:21, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Fine. But one could argue that there is a lot of woefully embarassing behavior that goes on by legitamite editors here everyday. Sterile 17:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

It's all in the name. A name and a reputation are one and the same. And it is either trustworthy, or it's not. RobS 17:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

This deal has been scrapped, the votes are in, the majors have said no. CPAdmin1 has asked for help, we will work this all up, thrash it out, and present to Andy, via email, the consensus. There is no need for this horse to be beat when dead. I suggest these pages be archived or deleted. BTW, CPAdmin1, still waiting for your email, so suggested changes can be sent to you. --~ TK ^MyTalk 17:50, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, let's begin calling it a Guideline; if necessary, it could be embalmed into policy at some future point. RobS 20:10, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Perhaps it should be attached, at some future point, to the Administrator guidelines already approved by Andy? In the mean time, the text of CPAdmin1's block suggestions could be moved over to the proposed guideline area Ed Poor created. --~ TK ^MyTalk 05:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Attempting to embarass Conservapedia

I think it might be a good idea to include the word deliberately before the transgression Attempting to embarass Conservapedia. Many good-faith edits such as Exotheology (see AFD Exotheology) are seriously embarrasing for Conservapedia, but are locked to prevent remedy. WhatIsG0ing0n 10:35, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

I may have misinterpreted. Is there a difference between attempting and succeeding, where attempting is a big NO NO, but succeeding is ok?

WhatIsG0ing0n 10:38, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

• "TK glances sideways at WhatIsGoingOn. And keeps moving." --~ ^Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

Name calling

Perhaps we can insert as a precedent somewhere (insults?) a recommended guideline for the infraction of name calling [2] RobS 17:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)