The major issue with WP:OFFICE as I see it is an admin/non-admin problem. When [[Paul Barresi]] was stubbed per WP:OFFICE in April, the article was still editable, so an interested editor simply had to adopt the article and add carefully sourced statements one by one. No problemo.
In the case of [[Pacific Western University]], the article is only editable by admins. Several good non-admin editors have developed serviceable scratch articles in the last four months. I suppose there's a question whether these scratch articles should even be on Wikipedia if the actual article is in lockdown.
There's really no clear system to discuss those proposed versions, come to a consensus, and incorporate those changes. What we end up with is multiple people saying on the article's talk page, "Hey, check out this version I wrote," or "Let's add this well-sourced statement," but then there's no one coordinating or incorporating the consensus-based additions.
Instead, and I have found this extremely frustrating in the case of the PWU article, we get unilateral decisions made by admins regarding changes. For instance, an editor who created a well-sourced scratch article also created a [[List of Pacific Western University people]] containing a rather crufty but well-sourced list of people claiming degrees from PWU, some of whom are notable. The article was put up for AfD, but was instead quickly deleted in its entirety, edit history and all, with the sourced statements about notable alumni removed as well. I understand the need for caution, but this kind of unilateral decision to completely delete articles containing useful material that could be merged into other articles is what drives good people from the project. The information can't even be retrieved by non-admins and adds to the growing sense that non-admins are less important/less valued contributors. Because they were redlinked in the PWU scratch article, I gathered a lot of information and started articles on three officers of PWU, including the founder, president, and owner, all of which were similarly deleted on sight by JzG. The simultaneous lack of process with WP:OFFICE and the unilateral deletion of all ancillary PWU articles made today my least favorite Wikipedia user experience to date.
My from-the-trenches suggestions:
- Impartial admin(s) assigned to each OFFICEd article at the moment it is protected (preferably someone with no edits to the article prior to WP:OFFICE). Perhaps randomly chosen from an existing pool of volunteers and an a WP:COI clearance for the article in question. That person would be listed on the talk page as the coordinator and would check back in each day and respond to proposed changes. - A registration system for articles locked down by WP:OFFICE for impartial non-admins to make edits, perhaps with a high threshold (edit number, WP:COI clearance, etc.). - Barring that, a centralized location where a scratch article can be prepared and discussed by admins and non-admins alike, possibly registration-only or off-site.
I recommend adopting the first suggestion immediately, and then discussing the other options somewhere before implementing them. All the Office has to do is lock and stub the disputed article, then the WP:OFFICE admin pool would take it from there. I believe articles would slowly but surely move toward unprotection from there, rather than languishing for many months under the current system.
Jokestress
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:01:17 -0800, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
In the case of [[Pacific Western University]], the article is only editable by admins. Several good non-admin editors have developed serviceable scratch articles in the last four months. I suppose there's a question whether these scratch articles should even be on Wikipedia if the actual article is in lockdown.
Having seen at least one of the serviceable scratch articles, I disagree that they were necessarily serviceable :-) That said, I don't see a problem with having them as long as they are flagged as not being part of the encyclopaedia, and can be edited by anyone (so if the complaining party dislikes a particular statement they can cut it out). Take it in small pieces, I'd say.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/17/06, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
- Impartial admin(s) assigned to each OFFICEd article at the moment it is
protected (preferably someone with no edits to the article prior to WP:OFFICE). Perhaps randomly chosen from an existing pool of volunteers and an a WP:COI clearance for the article in question. That person would be listed on the talk page as the coordinator and would check back in each day and respond to proposed changes.
Something along these lines would be good...just making sure that whenever there is an WP:OFFICE action, *someone* is taking responsibility for it, and in particular, managing the inevitable friction that arises. The office people (understandably) don't have time to manage the article, explain what's going on etc. But a trusted admin who could just watch the article for a week or so, liaise with the office and keep the article talk page up to date...?
Steve
Steve Bennett wrote:
On 12/17/06, A jokestress@gmail.com wrote:
- Impartial admin(s) assigned to each OFFICEd article at the moment it is
protected (preferably someone with no edits to the article prior to WP:OFFICE). Perhaps randomly chosen from an existing pool of volunteers and an a WP:COI clearance for the article in question. That person would be listed on the talk page as the coordinator and would check back in each day and respond to proposed changes.
Something along these lines would be good...just making sure that whenever there is an WP:OFFICE action, *someone* is taking responsibility for it, and in particular, managing the inevitable friction that arises. The office people (understandably) don't have time to manage the article, explain what's going on etc. But a trusted admin who could just watch the article for a week or so, liaise with the office and keep the article talk page up to date...?
Sure. I think we first need to recognize that an OFFICE action is an emergency action by a person who is faced with a crisis and must act immediately. Powers exercised in an emergency have a greater likelihood of being wrong than those which have been subject to consultation and reflection. The errors do not impugn the good faith of the person exercising the power.
Extraordinary powers require extraordinary safeguards against both their intentional or accidental abuse. 1. OFFICE actions should automatically expire after a week unless there has been separate positive efforts to extend for a further period of one week. 2. Key admins should be notified of the reasons for the action, and asked to initiate a cleanup. 3. Disciplinary sanctions for defying the action should not be the responsibility of the office.
Ec
On 12/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sure. I think we first need to recognize that an OFFICE action is an emergency action by a person who is faced with a crisis and must act immediately. Powers exercised in an emergency have a greater likelihood of being wrong than those which have been subject to consultation and reflection. The errors do not impugn the good faith of the person exercising the power.
Extraordinary powers require extraordinary safeguards against both their intentional or accidental abuse. 1. OFFICE actions should automatically expire after a week unless there has been separate positive efforts to extend for a further period of one week.
I would argue for 2.
2. Key admins should be notified of the reasons for the action, and
asked to initiate a cleanup.
Can see problems with this one. I would argue that letting arbcom know after 2 weeks would provide a significant measure of protection.
3. Disciplinary sanctions for defying the action should not be the
responsibility of the office.
Who else is there? Stewards? Generaly stay away from en.
On 12/21/06, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
3. Disciplinary sanctions for defying the action should not be the
responsibility of the office.
Who else is there? Stewards? Generaly stay away from en.
ArbCom. That's their job.
Sometimes actions are needed in timescales of less than a month.
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:41:06 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes actions are needed in timescales of less than a month.
For this we have temporary injunctions.
Guy (JzG)
On 12/21/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:41:06 +0000, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Sometimes actions are needed in timescales of less than a month.
For this we have temporary injunctions.
And sometimes a couple of days isn't fast enough either.
geni wrote:
On 12/21/06, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Sure. I think we first need to recognize that an OFFICE action is an emergency action by a person who is faced with a crisis and must act immediately. Powers exercised in an emergency have a greater likelihood of being wrong than those which have been subject to consultation and reflection. The errors do not impugn the good faith of the person exercising the power.
Extraordinary powers require extraordinary safeguards against both their intentional or accidental abuse.
- OFFICE actions should automatically expire after a week unless
there has been separate positive efforts to extend for a further period of one week.
I would argue for 2.
The length of time is a negotiable detail.
- Key admins should be notified of the reasons for the action, and
asked to initiate a cleanup.
Can see problems with this one. I would argue that letting arbcom know after 2 weeks would provide a significant measure of protection.
They probably have their hands full, and I would respect their autonomy to choose what cases they will take on. In any event I wouldn't want to assume that there is a greater conflict than what there in fact is. The problems will most likely be repairable with easy agreement from the offending editor(s).as long as the required fix is clearly explained.
- Disciplinary sanctions for defying the action should not be the
responsibility of the office.
Who else is there? Stewards? Generaly stay away from en.
Ordinary admin action should be enough unless things get nasty. Taking it out of the hands of the Office is akin to not blocking people when you are a party to the argument. The purpose is to protect Danny from the crossfire.
Ec