Wikipedia talk:Town sheriff

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q:What is the relationship between admins and sheriffs?

A:Sheriffs are a separate class of editors, with far less power than admins, but some authorities that admins do not possess. The relationship is akin to that between judges and police officers. Only judges (admins) can interpret rules and impose long-term solutions or sanctions. Police officers (sheriffs) only keep the peace: they enforce rules as given in a rather literal way. In specific contexts, sheriffs have more authority than admins (in the same way that a police officer could issue a judge a speeding ticket and the judge would be obliged to pay), but sheriffs need to defer to admins in matters that call for interpretation of policy.

Q:Does this involve some new bureaucracy?

A:In its simplest form, no. The only requirements are some system for the community to appoint a sheriff to a page and some forum for discussion of the sheriff's actions, which can easily be handled in the context of the Administrator's noticeboard. More complex systems have been suggested over concerns about potential abuses, but since sheriffs are largely controlled by the restrictions placed on the office, such complexities are optional.

Q:What special powers does a sheriff have?

A:Sheriffs have liberal powers to redact and refactor talk page content, and can impose non-cumulative 24 hour article bans or blocks on editors. Such actions are procedural rather than administrative (i.e., they do not count towards other current or future administrative actions), but they are authoritative and can be used to whatever extent the sheriff can justify as necessary.

Q:What restrictions do sheriffs have?

A:Sheriffs can only take action with respect to potentially disruptive behavior, must always apply their actions impartially, and can never take actions which influence or inhibit content development. Sheriffs who (by action or inaction) violate these restrictions can be replaced on the page or be removed as sheriffs entirely.

Policy-based demands or threats

Common forms of disruption include (but are not limited to): Policy-based demands or threats, excessive focus on policy at the expense of discussion, or other forms of bureaucratic entanglement which prevent forward movement on the page.

I strongly object to "Policy-based demands or threats" being something that the sheriff can redact or comment on. If it's "Policy-based" and appropriate, it should remain, regardless of incivility in the statement or the belief of the sheriff that it's inappropriate. I don't see the benefit of the proposal in most cases, as I've commented before; but if that clause remains, it's harmful to Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was added without discussion and it makes no sense. Discussions should be policy-based as much as possible. Maybe the text can be saved by deleting that part and retaining the threats and demands: Common forms of disruption include (but are not limited to): Demands or threats. Will Beback talk 22:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and took it out. It's a tactic used by both sides of issues, but regulating it would be almost a content decision. This is not necessary for the Sheriff to be effective. Redaction of threats get others punished might be fair game for a Sheriff, so you think? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 22:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all "threats" are unhelpful. "If we can't come to an agreement then we'll have to create an RfC". That's nominally a threat, but there's nothing wrong with it as it focuses on the process and seeks to encourage consensus. OTOH, "if you don't agree then I'll ask for you to be sanctioned" is an threat that focuses on an editor and seeks to bully them into submission. Likewise, demands can be appropriate. "If no one can find a source for this assertion then I'll delete it" is an appropriate demand, for example. Maybe we should delete the whole line as being too ambiguous. Will Beback talk 23:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted it. So are you saying that a Sheriff could redact or sanction for the unhelpful threat? The reasons you give are why I felt justified in just deleting it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Maintain peace" might cover removing unhelpful remarks, including threats that don't move the discussion towards consensus. Will Beback talk 01:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose it might. To me, one of the points of a Sheriff is that they would develop deep specific knowledge and be able to apply it without abuse. They would be able to understand nuances which a normal uninvolved admin would probably miss. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 02:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deep specific knowledge of the content, or of the editors? I was under the impression that the sheriff wouldn't have any involvement in the content, and some have proposed that they have limited appointments to keep them from getting too involved. Will Beback talk 03:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A Sheriff would get to know the editors more deeply. Knowing content might also help, since certain types of prodding or goading is content based or based on sourcing. Doesn't mean the Sheriff would get involved with content, merely be able to recognize behaviors which a Sheriff can regulate. For example, if the Sheriff recognizes that a source being brought up has already been discusses and the consensus is that it is non-RS, bringing it up again in certain ways might be goading or IDIDNTHEARTHAT and in the realm of "disruptive and distracting material." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 04:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed appointment 2

I'll split this off as a substantive policy issue. In Wikipedia talk:Town sheriff/Archive 4#Fixed appointment we discussed the issue and agreed on setting a relatively short fixed term, two or three months. Of course it's possible to get to know editors well in a short amount of time, especially if the Sheriff reviews old talk page archives. Should we rethink that issue? Will Beback talk 05:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that is necessary, but perhaps it should be explicitly said that this is a factor we're not sure about and needs to revisited at a later date. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 13:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest certainly a fixed term - how about three months but watchdog can apply to be taken on for a consecutive 2nd term if they're not burnt-out by then? Pesky (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... sounds like it might work, since the watchdog construct may have sufficient continual monitoring by the community that application for a second term would not bring on a shit-fest. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, burning out was not the only issue. There was a concern that the longer a sheriff spends patrolling a page the more likely they would favor one side or another, or at least perceive to be doing so. But if no one objects to reappointing a sheriff to a 2nd term then I don't see a problem with having that be available. Will Beback talk 23:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be possible to have a change-over period on a specific page, with overlap between incoming and outgoing watchdogs, with the outgoing watchdog taking over a different page / pages for the 2nd term, to avoid getting too 'involved' in any one page, whilst allowing a good watchdog to continue in the role elsewhere. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the idea of a fixed appointment, but I don't like the following sequence:
Appointed --> Town Sheriff --> end of appointment --> Not a Town Sheriff.
I prefer
Appointed --> Town Sheriff who is appointed to a page --> end of appointment --> Town Sheriff not currently appointed to a page
Same effect on the pages, but avoids having to vet the Town Sheriff again. Guy Macon (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following flowchart seems right:

Flowchart

Guy Macon (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the flowchart - my only reservation on it would be the 5000 edits thing - but I always have ths reservation, as it doesn't distinguish between 'real-editor' edits and twinkle/huggle-type edits at all. It's like the 'number of articles created' type of 'artificialised' qualifier - are 50 poorly-referenced stubs 50 X as valuable as one GA, for example? Are 5000 twinkle/huggle edits more 'valuable' in terms of assessing an editor than (for example) 2000 article or project-space edits / contributions? That's always going to be a stumblng block for me (and I suspect for some others, too). Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Today We Shall Discuss the Naming of Names...

Proposal: Decide on a name. Add name to list if you like it. There is also a longer list of names to consider (including joke names - they can be the source of new serious names) below.

BIG BROTHERS or BIG SISTERS

Dreadstar ☥ 01:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JEDI

Dreadstar ☥ 20:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC) [T]here's always the old standby, Jedi. "These aren't the edits you're looking for," waves hand... :)[reply]

I really like Jedi. Nerdy, fun, with just the right feel of toughness and fairness. Guy Macon (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like Jedi too, and agree with Guymacon comments on why it might be the right term for this kind of situation.(olive (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC))[reply]

I like it too, but I think it would lead to too many snickers. Will Beback talk 00:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's all fun and games until someone gets their eye poked out by a Lightsaber.. :) Dreadstar ☥ 01:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see this being used to tell people what is acceptable in a lighthearted and non offensive way:

"(Waves hand) WP:IAR isn't the policy you want. (waves hand again) You want to follow WP:RS..."

"Do not follow the dark side of the Force with personal attacks, young Jedi."

"The force is strong in this one, but he needs guidance." Guy Macon (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

METER MAIDS

As sensible as the rest, with a neat connotation. Collect (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOW TRUCK OPERATORS/TRAFFIC COPS

Closer to the nature of the job than "meter maids". Will Beback talk 11:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MINDERS

Dreadstar ☥ 01:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MODERATOR

* Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC) "Moderator" is a familiar term from other online forums. [EDIT: Jedi is better] "Sheriff" sounds like someone who is going to arrest you. "Town" makes no sense at all.[reply]

One meaning of "moderator" is one who runs a discussion, which might imply a more active role than is necessarily required. Will Beback talk

PAGE FACILITATOR

Franamax (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC) I prefer "Page facilitator" (and without the blocking power) but think it should be something other than "Town sheriff". "Moderator" may run into resistance precisely because it is familiar from other forums.[reply]

That's a really good point. I may have to change my vote. Darn you, Wikipedia! You keep forcing me to think!! (smile) Guy Macon (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bland but acceptable. Will Beback talk 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or just plain FACILITATOR. Dreadstar ☥ 15:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PEACEKEEPER

Will Beback talk 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC) This expresses the main task of the job. While it's still a bit sheriff-y, it doesn't necessarily imply anything too bureaucratic. On the other hand it's less grammar school sounding than some options. [reply]

But 'peacekeeping forces' have lost so much street-cred, over time, that it may not be seen as neutral. (As in "the purpse of a peacekeeping force is to shoot anyone who interferes with our access to the oil reserves....") Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PREFECT

Dreadstar ☥ 20:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC) How about Prefect? WP:PREFECT.[reply]

TOWN SHERIFF

(No votes for Town Sheriff)

WATCHDOG

Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Yup - mind you, I would say that, as it was my suggestion! I think watchdog is good because it implies a 'watching brief' with the underlying possibility of further action if necessary. People are used to the watchdog idea - if you don't stray into his guarded territory, he'll leave you alone and just sit there watching. But if you do, he will react.[reply]

Better than "town sheriff" but it implies a guard function, which implies there's one right side that needs to be protected. Will Beback talk 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, but it's not the 'right side' that needs to be protected, it's the territory - i.e. the page - which the watchdog protects. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(OTHER) (May be moved to new subheading if non-joke proposal is posted)

(Vote Here)

COMMENTS

Other names that might be considered:

Attendant
Babysitter
Blue helmet
Deputy
Hall Monitor
Mall Cop
Obergruppenführer
Officer
Orderly
Playground Monitor
Parole Officer
Proctor
Regulator
Riot police
Security Guard
Sheriff
Social worker
Staff Sargent
Traffic Cop
Volunteer (plus any of the above)

Guy Macon (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More added. Will Beback talk 07:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No

Just no. Most of this can already be done with existing roles, and about the only thing that can't be done is changing others comments except in a few special cases. Frankly, I don't want anyone to have the power to change mine or another person's comments except in the currently existing cases (egregious personal attacks and outing being the two main ones). This has just as much potential to cause disruption as people get pissed off when some "sheriff" comes in and starts altering what they wrote. The last 3 "powers" are already available to administrators. The first power is already covered under "WP:RPA". While not official policy, if you think it's necessary lobby to have it made official policy. The idea has been around a long time and never been made official policy and now you want to give that power to someone else? No, this is an utterly unnecessary and potentially very disruptive role.--Crossmr (talk) 23:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]