Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Town sheriff/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

proposing to the community

we should discuss the best way to present this to the community. I'd prefer something short and focused (to avoid TLDR complaints), but I think we need to cover at least the following:

  • The fact that this is explicitly a police/moderator function.
  • The new usergroup issue.
  • The strictly limited but locally strong authority rationale.
  • The distinction of protecting the discussion without queering content.
  • The relationship to sysops (greater powers in context, but monitored and limited by sysops outside of context).

it would also be good to raise the naming issue for an open discussion, provide a couple of examples, reassure people about the strength of the limitations on the sheriffs powers, and I'd still like to suggest that we pick a page and set up a trial (because people will be much more interested in the idea if they see it in action). if there's anything I've missed above, let me know ASAP: I'll post a draft of the proposal here later this afternoon or evening. --Ludwigs2 18:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. And we need to emphasize that we need a trial to show how it works, and don't reject it before you try it. I think that's where the argument for this will be clinched, not in arguments prior to a demo. BE——Critical__Talk 18:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Presumably the test case would have to cover an article with behavioral problems, but one where the editors will agree to the test. (Alternatively, the community will have to show consensus for imposing it on an article.) It'd be simplest to use an existing admin for the test, so after the test page is identified a willing sheriff would have to be found and vetted.   Will Beback  talk  03:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I've been watching this discussion for awhile, and at this point, the discussion is becoming repetitive. I would agree that its time to bring in the wider community, and to implement a trial page/pages. If there are problems in the proposal they 'll be seen more clearly in an active situation and necessary adjustments can be made then.
I'd be interested in seeing non admins handle the test. Admins aren't going to be doing this job from what I understand so seeing how an editor handles this is part of the testing situation. I'd also suggest at least two test pages, best might be three. If all three sheriffs have the same problems we might assume the problem is inherent in the proposal. If problems show up in only one or even two of the pages then possibly the problem is an editor problem, not necessarily personal but inherent in the human factor rather than in the proposal. I don't think we have to choose incredibly contentious articles either. Hopefully, sheriffs will enter the frey before things become as contentions as the SAQ or Jerusalem situation. I would think that's the whole point of this proposal.(olive (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC))
For a test, we might use an admin who agreed to unthinkingly do what the sheriff said, with the understanding that the admin would not be blamed for anything. But in general the Sheriff should have his own powers. I'd of course like to see more than one test page if we can wrangle it. I think Sheriffs would come along some time after real contention, but some time before thinking of ArbCom. But not before there is significant contention. I do not think we should try it on an article already under ArbCom sanction. However, I have quite a lot of confidence in this proposal if properly carried out, so I wouldn't be averse to trying it on an article otherwise headed to ArbCom. BE——Critical__Talk 04:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Involuntary mediation

"Involuntary mediation": Would that be another way of looking at this proposal? If I read it correctly, we trying to force users to compromise, or at least get out of the way of editors willing to compromise. Under current mediation procedures, all active editors on a topic need to agree to mediation before it can begin, and the results are not binding on anyone. With this procedure, a sheriff supervises the page so long as the community decides that one is necessary regardless of whether involved editors agree to it. If they continue to disagree to a compromise they can be sidelined. Currently, mediators can complain about bad behavior on talk pages and perhaps seek sanctions on those who egregiously violate behavioral policies, but cannot use admin tools even if they have them. Under current procedures, voluntary mediation usually ends when the discussion peters out or when the mediator closes it as resolved. Under this "involuntary mediation" procedure it would continue until the community agrees to end it. Mediation usually (though not always) occurs on a separate page, while this procedure would simply cover the article and its talk page. Mediation is privileged, and the results and discussions may not be used in ArbCom cases. Under this procedure, blocks and bans given by sheriffs may not be held against an editor in other contexts. (previous text by User:Will Beback)

They aren't sidelined except for disruption. Definitely not for disagreement. And I don't see why the results and discussions should not be used if ArbCom is needed... quite the contrary, if a Sheriff can't do the job, then that failure would generate evidence very relevant at ArbCom. We are not trying to force compromise, but we are trying to remove anti-consensus activities, that is to say general disruption or edit warring. And the Sheriff would not necessarily propose a compromise, nor would he force one. BE——Critical__Talk 04:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
No, this is not binding or involuntary mediation: binding mediation implies that the mediator actively dictates mediation results when participants reach an impasse. That is sometimes effective, mind you (people who refuse to budge will sometimes accept a compromise from someone they perceive as neutral - that's how wp:3O works). This isn't mediation of any sort: this is an overt effort to change the page dynamic so that by obviating problematical behaviors. comparison:
  • mediation: tries to clarify content disputes by eliciting statements from participants. creates a structured environment in which particular content points can be discussed, so that some agreement can be reached over time through small steps.
  • sheriffing: tries to obviate/forestall problematic behaviors by rendering them unproductive. creates an environment in which only reasonable discourse can be effective in changing content.
If you think of this in grammar school terms, mediators would be school counselors, sysops would be vice-principles, and sheriffs would be home-room teachers - they are not there to heal rifts or punish wrongdoers, but merely to keep unruly kids in line. --Ludwigs2 04:49, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry but reading all of this it's sounds like to much red tape going on here. There are people put in trusted positions like administrators and more. Why do we need something like this that is somewhere between an administrator and mediation? As far as I am aware, editors try at times to keep the peace when problems occur. I can think of a few ocassions when an editor trying to keep the peace or as you are calling it, be a sheriff, has backfired and backfired big time. Why is this at all necessary and is this already in affect or is there going to be some kind of an iVote or something? --CrohnieGalTalk 15:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
There's no real red tape here - just some kerfluffles over misinterpretations of what this project aims at. this system actually makes things much simpler and much more user-friendly.
The real reason why we need this is that the current system is incredibly inefficient and disorganized in dealing with behavioral problems, and in most cases the current system doesn't work at all. the normal trajectory of a bad conflict under the current system is something like what follows:
  1. dispute begins on the page, and is allowed to escalate and become progressively more personal and hostile.
    • the only sysops actions likely to happen at this point are warnings from sysops who are already engaged with the problem on the page; they usually don't impose sanctions, or if they do it invariably looks biased and further inflames the dispute
  2. the dispute spills over into noticeboards and inflames further.
    • content noticeboards can't help resolve disputes except in clear cases of violations of content policy - generally they just give a new venue for further inflamed discussion
    • uninvolved sysops may start to take notice at this point, but that has poor results. most sysops will hesitate to impose sanctions without a good deal of discussion and clarity about the nature of the problem (meaning they do nothing), while the few sysops who go maverick and apply BOLD sanctions usually do so in a way that is or looks biased, further inflaming the dispute
  3. the dispute climbs its way up the ladder:
    • mediation is tried, and fails because the dispute has become too personalized for participants to cooperate with each other
    • ANI reports are filed, but break down into long ugly debates that often have no real consensus outcome
    • arbitration takes on the case, and produces one of the following results:
      • a few editors are banned from or limited on the page, in no particularly systematic fashion
      • a general topic restriction is issued, which is then applied unevenly by independent admins
The general result is that the dispute is left free to grow and become progressively more ugly until someone feels justified in applying a heavy-handed solution of some sort, which resolves the problem by excluding some subset of editors from the page. basically the current system allows the problem to grow to the point where even a bad, project-damaging, biased resolution looks better than the dispute, and then it applies a resolution that is frequently bad, biased, and project-damaging.
The beauty of the sheriff concept is that it stops the dispute from escalating at the first or second points above: cut out the nastiness, don't allow the dispute to become personalized, force participants to discuss content reasonably and politely, and the dispute never gets a chance to get uglier and uglier. "A stitch in time saves nine" philosophy, if you follow me. the whole thing will actually cut a lot of red tape and prevent a whole lot of vituperative threads at ANI, ArbCom, wikiquette, and etc.
This idea is likely to draw flak from editors for two different reasons:
  • those editors who misunderstand the concept and see it as onerous or oppressive
  • those editors who use the current system as a tool to dispose of editors they don't like (basically an extended BAITing process designed specifically to inflame editors to the point where some admin or arb will block or ban them).
The first group of editors needs to be convinced that the system is not oppressive, and that it is natural for any community to take early and proactive steps to rein in community members who demonstrate an inability to control themselves. The second group of editors... well, there's nothing to do about them. They will be immune to any reasoned discussion on the matter, so will have to be coped with as needed on a case-by-case basis. --Ludwigs2 19:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed appointment

Would there be a benefit in adding a clause that automatically ends an appointment after a period (say six months) unless there's an ongoing need? A renewal might not require a full consensus, maybe a lower threshold like a plurality or a significant minority would be sufficient. If a consensus is needed to end an appointment it might go on forever.   Will Beback  talk  21:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there would be a benefit, one of the larger flaws I noted was the lack of "ending" criteria. Even if there is an ongoing need for page facilitation, I think the particular person doing it should get rotated out on a mandatory basis, to prevent burnout and any creeping favouritism that could arise. Both the facilitation and facilitator should have definite temporal terms. Franamax (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a good idea, and six months may be on the long side - i'd suggest three. pretty much I expect that most of a sheriff's work will happen in the first week or two, as editors adjust to the new discussion rules. after that, most participants will recognize that the futility of engaging in bad behavior, and the sheriff will have nothing to do except watch the content discussion unfold and make helpful suggestions, or occasional warnings or redactions when someone starts to lose their cool. maybe set up a mandatory reevaluation at three months' time: if the page has cooled off and some progress has been made, the sheriff bows out. I'll edit this in. --Ludwigs2 22:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea Will. We could even do two months. Less would probably be too short. BE——Critical__Talk 23:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Too short and the disruptive editors might just avoid the topic until the sheriff leaves. But the exact term can be adjusted as needed once the policy is in practice for a while.   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Good point, can't make it too short. BE——Critical__Talk 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Process flowchart

The process flowchart as described at Wikipedia:Town_sheriff#Practical_details is as follows:

--Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

This appears to be a solution looking for a problem. It'll essentially result in sheriffs "owning" a page. I see no history of sysops being unwilling to take the necessary decisions. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing, but (a) it's not clear what you're opposed to, or why, and (b) this is neither the time nor the place to oppose anything. If you want to discuss the idea, feel free; if you want to oppose it, please wait until it's been presented formally. --Ludwigs2 16:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Opposing is discussing. Maybe you don't want to hear opposes, but too bad. This is a half baked idea that is looking for a problem to solve. Demonstrate there's an actual need for this sort of person before conferring badges to would-be officers of the law (and face it, they would be regarded as such). We already have substantial processes in place to deal with problems that would fall under this umbrella, and the additional bureaucracy this would entail is just ludicrous. Wipe it out, and begin over. Find cases that demonstrate there's a need, and then find a solution that fits the need. Maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen anything that demonstrates a need. It's just an overly bureaucratic process and fancy badge for someone to wear at this point. Wipe the drawing board clear, and start over. Until then, I'll remain opposed. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Oppose all you like - that's not going to stop me from presenting it. I'm simply going to assume that the community as a whole will be a bit more thoughtful about the matter and give it its due consideration. If you have something constructive to say I'm listening; if you just want to repeat the same points that were already raised and dismissed above (as you did here), you're just wasting everyone's time. --Ludwigs2 19:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You're absolutely correct. I was completely thoughtless when I recommended you go back to the drawing board, find cases where there's an actual need, and find a solution to fit that problem. I don't know what I was thinking. Absolutely callous of me to offer any kind of idea in concert with traditional problem solving methods. I'm sorry for wasting your time. I didn't realize I was stepping on the toes of the sheriff because I didn't read all 340k+ of this page, and it's 1, 2, and 3 archives. I honestly thought that reading the proposal page was enough for me to educate myself on what this proposal is, but apparently not. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Lol - so you admit that you didn't read the talk page and archives, which have extensive discussions about all of your concerns? And now you feel offended (an assertion based on the degree of sarcasm in your last post) because I'm not all that interested in repeating the same discussions again just for your personal benefit, but would rather wait until I can discuss it with the community at large? Or are you offended because I'm blithely dismissing concerns that I have previously demonstrated to be groundless and/or entirely senseless? Dude, seriously...
As I said, oppose all you like here - it will make no difference, not unless you come up with some argument that I haven't already heard and dispensed with above. We will have plenty of time for endlessly circular debate at the Pump; I see no reason to get a head start on it on this page. --Ludwigs2 20:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is indeed quite humorous. You accuse me of being less thoughtful than you'd like, not giving it due consideration, not saying anything constructive, and wasting your time. All very funny indeed! Yes "dude", seriously. Ever so pleasant, and I thoroughly enjoy it! Believe it or not, I'm trying to HELP you. Dismissing my concerns, which have NOT been address in the proposal (frankly, that they've been dismissed in the talk pages is irrelevant; the proposal itself is still lacking), is to your detriment. The proposal specifies a 'theory'; a theory that is not based in any demonstrated reality. Case examples? None. Prior attempts at solving the supposed (unbased, but supposed) 'problem' that did not work? None. And on and on. There's a fundamental disconnect between this proposal and any concept of what it is supposed to solve. Zillions of proposals have been made here. I can't tell you how many times I've read somebody's latest greatest idea for Wikipedia that will make it such a better place, where the homework needed to even begin to get to the 'proposal' page hasn't been done. I'm not interested in you refuting what I have to say for my 'personal benefit'. I'm interested in seeing the proposal rewritten to address serious shortcomings which I've partially outlined here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
As I said, read the talk page properly and you'll see that your concerns have been discussed. don't read it, and you won't. I'm not unaware of these concerns, and I will address them in the proper place and time, but I'm not interested in rehashing the same old stuff yet again because you jump in shouting your opposition without having done your homework. There's no value in that for me at all.
Don't get me wrong, this is useful to me: it clarifies the kind of knee-jerk responses and reactions that the idea is likely to get from people who read it superficially; that helps me plan out how to present the idea and determine what things need to be changed in the project itself. I can already see two or three rhetorical positions crystalizing, and when I get a chance I'll stop-gap those to minimize their impact (because they really are senseless rhetoric). So thanks for that. However, if you really are trying to help me (as you say), then you might not want to present yourself by using phrases like "Wipe it out, and begin over" which aren't actually construable as 'helpful' in any meaningful definition of the word.
...curiously waiting to see which way you jump now. So far: blanket, knee-jerk dismissal✓, argument by heavy sarcasm✓, double-reversed incivility gambit (with optional protestations of helpfulness)✓... You've covered a lot of emotive ground in three posts. whereto next? --Ludwigs2 22:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to read 340k worth of discussion to try to pick out pearls from the haystack. If it's not in the actual proposal, then it's not part of the proposal. I have read the proposal. So, I would suggest you do YOUR homework and update the proposal appropriately, thank you. As to (yet another, thank you!) accusation of me having a knee jerk response; look in the mirror. If it's not in the proposal, but buried in 340k worth of talk page stuff you can hardly be surprised at the result. As to (yet another, thank you!) accusation of me giving "senseless rhetoric", perhaps you are unaware that problem solving is an industry unto itself, complete with extensive research? One of the first steps in most problem solving matrices is identifying what the problem is that needs to be solved. That hasn't been done here. That's been skipped in favor of the idea of having Sheriffs. But apparently problem solving matrices are "senseless rhetoric". I'm sorry that you find my suggestion to start over as being unhelpful, but the reality is that the entire proposal was produced without a basis. You've got to go back to square one and start identifying the problem(s). Only THEN can you start creating a solution that makes sense. As is, all you have right now is a solution. That's all. But, you don't know yet what it solves, because you haven't done the homework. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately in not reading the discussion you have missed the the points which pertain to the problem pretty clearly stated in the proposal which is to deal with ,"contentious, polemicized articles or topic areas where the behavior of editors has exasperated the community at large." The problem is stated and implied in the article proposal in the opening statements, in the duties a sheriff performs, and in the hoped for outcomes. Multiple editors have posted both support and concerns. Refusing to read the discussion may be understandable, most editors don't relish wading through talk page discussions, but is not reason to dismiss out of hand the premise stated in the proposal and the multiple times those problems have been stated and discussed here. If you don't feel the proposal adequately outlines the problems discussed on the talk page perhaps you could suggest changes in the text of the proposal. Otherwise, I would imagine its time to move on and open the door for the community to take a look at this... Thanks for creating and posting the flow chart...I'd like to look at it more closely later on. Fighting a flu right now.(olive (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC))
  • Stating that there is a problem on these talk pages doesn't mean there IS a problem. I see no work having been done to establish whether a problem exists, if its credible, if other solutions have been tried and how they failed, etc. Nothing's been done to establish the basis of this proposal. I could just as well say there's a serious problem with the Arbitration Committee, and since (de facto) there is a problem, here is my wonderful solution. I see no investigation. No evidence gathering to support the investigation. No analysis of the data. No opportunity for the public at large, or even a larger subset of people to give input on that analysis. Instead, here's the proposal, and if you don't like it I'm being told to essentially shut up until I'm told I can speak. If the aim is to alienate the public at large, bang up job. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I am always terrifically amazed (and amused) by the fact that the people who are most self-righteously vocal about things are always those most resistant to gathering the information they need to make a reasonable, informed argument. Your stated unwillingness to read anything renders your opinion worthless. So... have a nice day! --Ludwigs2 02:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • And now I'm "self righteously vocal". Yet another accusation against me personally. Let's see; so far you've accused me of being less thoughtful than you'd like, having a knee jerk reaction, not saying anything constructive, wasting your time, engaging in senseless rhetoric, being self righteously vocal, and (here's the kicker) you accuse me of being uncivil. We're up to 7 attacks against me now. And this from the main proponent of the proposal. Simple reality; YOU haven't updated the proposal to include the knowledge you swear is within the 340k+ of content in this talk page and its archives. Reading further below, I also note that I am not the only one who thinks this should have been done. If you want this proposal to fly, you would be much better served by updating the proposal rather than demanding that anyone who disagrees with it read 123 pages (yes, I checked) of content across this talk page and its archives. I will guarantee you that nobody who comes here to learn about this proposal is going to read 123 pages. There's a reasonably good chance they will read the 7 pages of text in the actual proposal. Please, for your own good, do the homework. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • No, it's a problem looking for a problem. There has never been consensus to have grades of admin; this supergrade of admin is also a systematic WP:OWN violation.
  • This proposal also places the sheriff in an uncomfortable fork.
    • If he knows nothing about the article, he will confuse the fire-brigade with the fire; the last thing we need is another mechanism for supporting WP:RANDY when subject experts are annoyed with him.
    • If he knows something (and he will learn much in less than three months), prohibiting content editing will both cost us a knowledgeable neutral editor and keep him from performing the most useful task of a mediator: coming up with new, compromise texts. It is often a surprise what will achieve consensus.
  • It may be that there are suggestions in the archive that will satisfy the opposition; if so, let's see them. Put them on the page, as Possibilities.
  • There is a core idea here: of an admin who is openly involved and in charge of a polemicized article, while being scrupulously neutral, which may be worth formalizing, but there would be severe supervision of any such admin.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    I don't have an opinion about your first point, aside from pointing out that I've never been overly concerned about historical consensi - consensus can always change, and change should hopefully be based on reasoned discussion, for productive goals. Prior consensus is only meaningful to the extent that it is based in reason. With respect to your second point: yes, that's essentially the idea, except that (for reasons I've explained elsewhere) it's important that the sheriff not be an admin. The core of wikipedia's problems on contentious pages is that there is no differentiation between evaluation of behavioral problems and enforcement of behavioral standards. this invariably leads to perceptions/accusations of bias and thus to heavy contestation of enforcement, which effectively eviscerates enforcement except in cases of over-the-top behavior by people who have few friends on project. With respect to your third point, that 'fork' is resolved by limiting the sheriff's scope drastically, so that s/he can only deal with enforcing behavioral standards. The sheriff explicitly has to give up any content interests, and a sheriff who tries to pursue such can lose the post. --Ludwigs2 01:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
    P.s. - hey, you reordered things while I was typing! but I'm sure you'll figure it out. with respect to 'satisfying the opposition' - that's best done on the actual proposal. as I've pointed out a couple of times already, the 'opposition' people who have responded thus far here either can't or won't grasp the proposed dynamic, and it's unlikely that further discussion of the same points in this context will bring them around. the discussion needs a good example case, and a much broader cross-section of editors commenting on it. I mean, I'll gladly give a quick recap of the major points of contention if that's what you want, but I suspect that will just encourage a new round of irresolvable dispute as the same misconceptions get floated out again. It's a bit tiring, you know, to say X a half dozen times and still have people bitch you out as though you said Y. --Ludwigs2 02:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  1. The existing and often-repeated consensus on a single kind of admin appears to be stable. There is little hope that a new kind will be approved, nor is the experiment of multiple flavors of admin one that appeals to me.
  2. If you've explained why non-admins elsewhere, you should merge the explanation into the proposal. Since the sheriff has virtually all the admin powers over his article (and why doesn't he have the page-move power too?), but is single purpose, his decisions are likely (as the proposal admits) to be hotly contested too.
  3. Your answer repeats the fork; it's still a cost (which an informally intervening editor would not bear).
  4. As for your final remarks: if you have a FAQ, do write it up and put it in the proposal; if people are still opposed, you haven't satisfied them. Leave a note on my talk page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • per your first point: As I said, I don't care. I just need to present a reasonable case and see what happens. if wikipedia is so blinkered and hidebound that nothing can ever change - no matter how good the reasoning - then so be it.
  • per your second point: as I keep saying, I will do that when the time and place are right. right now I'm just letting the die-hard opponents run amuck for a while, as they seem to have a need for that. When they lose steam I'll get back to serious considerations. Wikipedia's been the way it is for a long time, and I'm in no particular hurry.
  • per your third point: I disagree, for very good reason. one good editor can't do a damned thing on highly contentious pages (because none of the contentious editors would recognize him/her as a 'good' editor). wikipedia would lose one good-but-completely-ineffective editor in the short term, but would gain an article that is quiet and civil where other good editors can be effective. small minus, large plus, wikipedia's gain.
  • per your last point: I'll do that as I get a chance. As I've said before, I don't expect to convince everyone (and I'm quite certain that some people will never accept this idea, and am reasonably confident that I know who those people are). I just need a broad enough discussion so that those people are a smallish minority, so that I can try to convince more open-minded people on the strength of the reasoning. That's still a crap-shoot, but at least it's a crap-shoot without loaded dice.
I'm not sure what you want me to leave a note in your talk about - I assume the FAQ? I'll work on that assumption unless you tell me otherwise. --Ludwigs2 02:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Reluctantly, but here it is for newcomers who don't want to read and re-read the same 340K I have: Ludwigs2 has a great idea; if questions arise about that idea, they are most likely due to simple ignorance or a failure to comprehend on the part of those editors who are not Ludwigs2, you just don't have the capacity to comprehend just how great the idea is; this is all helpful to Ludwigs2 in their quest to overcome all this general ignorance, even including those "admins" who "dislike me for various valid [sic] reasons", as they seemingly help him to categorize which kind of wrong any questioning is; and the true test will be "when we present it to the community" which will presumably be any day now, since the whole thing is presently moribund, and the "community" will be much more sensible when L tells them how ignorant they all are. I'd estimate ~80% of talk-page content as along those lines, but there are some interesting bits.
I see some positive aspects in all this, the idea that when enacted by the community, someone would be empowered to snip out bits of TP discussion not aiming toward the goal of article improvement, possibly revert blatant attempts to game xRR, generally be a major-domo on any given page. That is worthy of experimentation IMO and should be backed by the full weight of admin scrutiny and immediate action, with the presumption being that the "page facilitator" appointed by the community has looked into the situation deeply and is almost always completely right, even if it's not immediately apparent to the person clicking the block/protect button, and the facilitator would always be able to show how policy and wiki-society would be furthered by their requested admin actions (actually I think there would be angels sitting on their shoulders ready to strike immediately on request). That sort of idea I could get into discussing, but the notion of specially empowering one single person to have more say than any other editor, bar none, unless they somehow get "fired", none of this ever to be remembered except for whichever bit editors trying to enforce it all do get sanctioned for - well...
Ludwigs2, can I ask what specific timeframe you have for presenting this to the community? Since at least beginning with Pm's post of 04:20 18 Feb, I've not seen anything from yourself or other proponents either moving this to an active proposal or dealing constructively with those who come along asking questions. If you find questions here about your idea boring, please bring it to a wider forum, else let's just mark it as historical, failed proposal. Franamax (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry Franamax, are you in a hurry for some reason? I am personally interested in getting the idea down solidly before bringing it to the community, because it's going to be a difficult sell under the best of circumstances. I don't see a reason to rush it. This discussion is progressing pretty much as I expected it to: first a period of confused interest, then a period of rather exaggerated confusion as misunderstandings of the idea start to gel, leading to a brief period of not-fully-informed opposition. Now I'm waiting for a period of calm so that I can assess the value of the critiques that have been given so far (yes, in fact, I have been listening even as I joke around), and start on revisions to make the idea more understandable and more robust. I'm pleased to see that a couple of people are starting to get the core principle of the idea, even if there's still some confusion - that gives me some hope that the idea actually is feasible.
If you do see some reason to rush things, please let me know what that is. I don't see that things will require more than another month, and if things calm down rapidly it may only be a few days. Mostly I'm waiting for a particular mood-shift here before I move ahead - there's way too much personal hostility running through the discussion as of yet (to whit, your opening paragraph above), and I would prefer to see that defuse first so that the personal crap doesn't spread itself to the Pump discussion. When we can all have a calm discussion about the proposal without it turning into a confused, mud-slinging mess of text, then we will be close to being ready to present it. Hopefully that will be soon.
good enough? --Ludwigs2 06:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
It's remarkable how at any point in time you can review events and say "I knew that would happen". One reason to move forward would be to make sure you don't get too used to this page as a comfy little bridge to build your home under. Any hostility here is entirely of your own making. The way you treated Professor marginalia above is a very good example of that, and the way you're treating Hammersoft below right now is another. It's not a "rush", project-space propoosals are expected to move forward and reach a conclusion one way or the other. Further, project-space pages are not the personal property of any one editor to sit on and tell every commenter how only that one editor truly has the intelligence and skill to understand the world, and to decide on their own when the time is right. I see no substantive progress here, I suggest you bring the concept forth for the community to judge. What are your plans to "make it more robust"? You should start executing them soon, if all I see for the next 3 days is you continuing to act boorishly, I will consider asking for consensus here to present it to the community with an RFC. If the concept is sound it will meet with approval, if not, it will be marked historical. Good enough? Franamax (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
It could always be userfied. Peter jackson (talk) 11:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Franamax - you're entitled to see things any way you like. my advice to you runs as follows:
  • make some productive contributions (e.g. questions or statements that do not involve attacking me for my behavior, and do not involve poohpoohing the idea entirely)
  • step back and let me finish the proposal properly, without all this needless drama, in which case things will move forward fairly quickly
There is no deadline for for finishing proposals like this (in fact, this proposal was sitting around half-finished for months without anyone being bothered by it - trying to impose some weird deadline now that progress is being made on it is irrational and inconsistent). As I said before, I'm an ass - I know it, and I apologize - but I expect you to judge the idea on its own merits, not on mine. If you are having a problem distinguishing between the two, you should probably go away.
I'll add that I understand this current approach as a tactic as well - you are looking for a way to force this project to be evaluated while you can still count on high-running personal emotions to work against it; I'm waiting until the discussions settle down so that it can be evaluated with a cool, detached perspective. the emotion thing is a standard gambit on wikipedia (and one of the more disgusting elements of gamesmanship that I regularly encounter). there's not a lot I can do to about it - there are going to be people running an emotional argument regardless of what I do or say - but I will take what steps I can to minimize their impact, and right now that means waiting for this talk page to settle down so that I can take stock of the critiques given and have a chance at reasoned discussion. right now I'm going to work on the FAQ (per request) - that should take care of the worst of the current misconceptions. after that we'll see what new elements get raised.
Now I will take pains to stop joking around and take everyone here seriously; that's hard for me, mind you, because I do not have a high opinion of a number of people editing at this page. that is my promise. On your side I expect you all to stop with the personal commentary about me - I'm tired of people getting in my face over stupid personal crap. I will issue polite warnings in talk about it for a while, but if it doesn't stop in a reasonable time frame I will drag it over to ANI, and ask the community to ask you all to take a hike so that I can finish the proposal in peace. does that sound like a plan to you? --Ludwigs2 23:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
(undent) 1) Save your advice, thanks but I don't need it. As I have in fact made constructive contributions here and have not pooh-poohed the whole idea, maybe you should review the proceedings and actually read all my comments; 2) If it comforts you at all, I am well able to distinguish between the idea and your own self and have suffered no such confusion; 3) Please do not attempt to classify my input as a "tactic" or tell me or anyone else what I am "looking for a way to force" - you are completely and utterly inaccurate, and I would in turn advise you to not simplistically classify and dismiss the comments of others in such fashion, as it can lead to serious errors in judgement which leave your own case looking rather weak; 4) If you are able to actually forego being an "ass" and if what you describe as "joking around" matches the unfriendly and dismissive attitude you have shown others here and you can forego that behavious too, I very much suspect that what you perceive as these "personal attacks" against you (which are not personal attacks, simply descriptions of your actions and the outcomes) will in fact cease altogether. As I said just above, it is your own approach which is causing the problems; 5) You are free to bring any issue you want to AN/I, any time you want. I will be interested to see the response to the notion that a project-space page should be given over to the exclusive control of a single editor. Nothing prevents you from "finishing" the proposal and presenting it, are you suggesting there must be some specified "quiet period" where nothing is allowed to upset you? WP:DEADLINE should not be construed as indefinite license, project-space proposals have a defined cycle, they are not held open forever because one editor is afraid they will be rejected. The option has been suggested just above, do you wish to userfy this page so you can have more complete control over it? Franamax (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Since most of the above post was unrelated to development of the concept, I will not comment on it, per my promise above.
With respect to your last two points:
  • Since I have made it clear that I will present this to the community in short order once I have had a period of calm and/or reasoned discussion in which to consider and implement the points made above and in the archives, I am well within the loose boundaries established by wp:DEADLINE. Further, I have given you a very clear and specific reason why it is important to wait - I would like to give the hostility and personal animosity that is so well-represented on this page a chance to settle out so that it doesn't poison the discussion with the broader community. If you do not believe that is a valid reason to wait I am (of course) willing to hear your rebuttal.
  • There is no practical need or justification for userfication at this time, per the statements I made in the previous bullet. Nor am I trying to exercise 'exclusive control'; I'm simply trying to express a new and difficult idea that takes some getting used to, and that not every editor will understand properly at first blush. Several editors have already made useful contributions to the discussion, for which I am deeply appreciative. Others have chosen largely to try to discredit or oppose the idea, which (as I have repeatedly said) is a perfectly valid position to take once this goes to the community, but is merely disruptive during the idea's development.
Does that make my position clear? I am happy to clarify anything that might not sit well with you. --Ludwigs2 17:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sheriffs not being admins

errr. so how does "Sheriffs have the right to impose 24 hour Breach of Peace page bans at will, and to enforce those bans with blocks if they are violated" fit with admins not being sheriffs? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WMC: part of the idea here is to separate simple behavioral enforcement from the more serious and complex problems that admins need to deal with. This would dramatically improve both the efficiency and the legitimacy of the system: Admins would be able to address serious problems without the taint of numerous minor conflicts with the editors in question, and sheriffs (who are strictly limited in what they can do, and lack the extensive powers of admins) can deal with small problems in a systematic 'traffic ticket' sort of way that doesn't require extensive discussion and precludes a lot of needless drama. (also, sheriffs need to be separate because they may need to sanction admins for bad behavior on an article, and admins can't do that without risking a wheel-war; but that's a separate issue). If you want to go a little deeper, the issue is this: admins are always required to judge people - when they consider sanctioning an editor, they have to consider the full breadth of that editor's participation on project and make a lot of subjective judgements about what the editor is doing. this leads to a lot of cross-talk, accusations of bias and bad faith, debates and discussions and complaints and whatnot. A sheriff does not judge people but only puts a stop to behavior - s/he only needs to consider whether or not a specific act lies within certain behavioral guidelines, defined in terms of the preservation of calm and civil discussion, and make sure that actions that fall outside those guidelines get kiboshed.
The reason this proposal is getting a lot of flak is the same reason why cops are hated everywhere - no one ever thinks that their own behavior is bad, and while most people would approve of limits being placed on others, many people are deeply offended by the idea that the same limits might be placed on them. The reason why this proposal is a good idea is the same reason why cops are liked everywhere - their mere presence can often keep situations that might otherwise explode on an even keel. Unfortunately, most people see the first point, but not that many grok the second. C'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 17:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • This sounds like an idea of having two different kinds of cops; (1) Cops that deal with serious crimes, such as property crime, physical crime, etc. (2) Cops that deal with traffic problems, such as speeding, reckless driving, blown light bulbs. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it's a split between judicial and executive functions, as has been explained at length elsewhere. --Ludwigs2 18:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I could, but I assume that you know how to use a browser search function just as well as I do, so unless you have a broken mousing finger, try searching for 'judic'. --Ludwigs2 21:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I think Ludwigs means the talk archive. I don't think in fact that's what the terms "executive" & "judicial" actually mean. As far as I can see, both admins & sheriffs combine the two. Peter jackson (talk) 11:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, when I did it myself there were 3 or 4 useful hits, but an intervening archive moved those sections. I'll take a look in the archives myself and see if I can find the relevant threads. --Ludwigs2 23:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Time

If, as stated somewhere, the sheriff is supposed to cut off incivility &c before they can escalate, wouldn't they need to be on duty realtime 24 hours a day? Wouldn't they need to hand out several deputies' badges? Wouldn't the officer of the watch (to mix metaphor) have to abandon all other work, both on wiki and in real life? Aren't you going to be a bit short of volunteers?

Is there an alternative? Could you apply flagged revisions to the talk page, so only sheriff-approved comments would appear in the first place? (Of course, you'd have to suspend reviewer status for disputants.) Peter jackson (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really. it's nice when a sheriff can catch someone in the act, but the sheriff's job isn't to punish, it's to inhibit. if some kind of badness happens while the sheriff is off in real life, then the sheriff will do what he needs to do when he returns (which would generally mean doing a lump of refactoring or in particularly bad cases dealing out a bunch of belated 24 hour blocks). In other words, it is possible for people to behave badly in the short term if they time it correctly, but the bad behavior won't persist on the page. remember, the point of this is for the participants to learn that they cannot get meaningful results from bad behavior, so that (eventually) they lose the urge to behave badly. There will unquestionably be editors who try to challenge the sheriff's authority on the page (just as there will always be high school kids in real life doing petty crime just to thumb their noses at the police); learning to be civilized is a slow, gradual, painful process that no one likes and everyone has to go through. --Ludwigs2 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Wouldn't this (partial quote from above) "in particularly bad cases dealing out a bunch of belated 24 hour blocks)." interfere with the policy of preventative vs. punitive? --CrohnieGalTalk 12:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
no. In fact, this is much more in line with preventative measures than current practices on wikipedia. Currently, wikipedia uses a progressive "<x> strikes you're out" model, where admins evaluate editors and impose progressively harsher sanctions based on a number of non-rational factors (such as time-on-project and perceived community support). It pays lip service to the idea that editors might improve their own behavior, but is actually exclusionary, where many sysops expect that certain editors will eventually be indefinitely blocked or banned, and simply go through the motions of 'giving them a chance' until there is sufficient justification for the more permanent solution. The sheriff system actually gives editors a reason to correct their own behavior - there is no risk that editors will be permanently excluded from the project by a sheriff, but their ability to influence article content through bad behavior is impeded, so they can either choose not to participate (of their own volition) or choose to participate using good behavior.
more deeply, the 'preventative/punitive' distinction is a really poor conceptualization. All reasonable sanctions are preventative in the sense that they put a stop to some current, ongoing problem; that's a given, and admins who impose sanctions where there is no current, ongoing problem aren't being punitive, they're being irrational and dictatorial. The real question is whether the sanction is punitive or corrective (i.e., is the sanction designed merely to make the sanctioned editor miserable, or is it designed to make the sanctioned editor a better editor). In this sense, the current administrative processes (though they have their moments) are for the most part purely punitive, whereas the sheriff system is largely corrective. --Ludwigs2 18:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the current system is inherently corrective. One of the requirements of blocking is that the blocked editor be notified of the block and what means they can use to appeal it. The block templates are handy for that, they link to the appeal instructions. The blocked editor has an opportunity to diiscuss the block and/or request unblock. If they can show understanding of what the problem is and how to avoid it in future, they get unblocked immediately and can get back to being helpful editors. If they do not show improved behaviour, the block can be reinstated. There is a powerful incentive to meaningfully change behaviour. In contrast, the proposed system allows a situation where I can go on indefinitely waiting 'til an hour after you go to bed and making a silly comment that sits there for at least a few hours. Or two editors may have not meant anything particularly nasty when commenting in mutual opposition, worked out their disagreement elsewhere (for instance by realizing they actually want the same thing) and have forgotten it completely - then suddenly are blocked for 24 hours. That certainly seems rather punitive. Franamax (talk) 20:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
@Franmax. Your explanation of how admins work is idealistic. While the system was meant to be inherently corrective, in reality, many admins. use the system and their perceived prestige, in a punitive way and/or to create control. Such is human nature. What is needed in my opinion are the eyes of a neutral party with some limited but well defined tools that can reroute discussions to the most productive track, Those "eyes" alone will change the environments on some discussion pages.(olive (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC))
Whatever part of "how admins work" I explain will inevitably be based on "how I work", yes, but it is the same way of acting I expect from other admins. But even if other admins don't conform, the point I'm trying to make is that the unblocking system allows for independent review, so 1) an editor isn't subject to totally arbitrary decisions; and 2) the editor is given the opportunity to demonstrate understanding, in which case they are given a chance to demonstrate that new understanding. The benefits of cooperation are immediate, how is that not an incentive? In terms of "punitive...or create control" - I don't see the difference in either bit. It seems explicitly designed to create control; and when bad behaviour keeps repeating (which is what this proposal aims to defeat), the distinctions between punitive and preventative blocking really do become meaningless. Perhaps your greater concern is with the judgement of those wielding the tool in question? I understand that concern, but fail to see where this proposal will select editors with better judgement. Let's face it, for the person on the receiving end of any kind of ban or block, the person imposing the restriction is pretty much always wrong, even if it's the entire en:wiki community.
Where we may have common ground though is my complete agreement with your last two sentences. Admins qua admins are prevented from engaging in that role, precisely to prevent them becoming unduly involved in any single page. I don't think anyone can really get knowledgeable with the dynamics of any given talk page without getting familiar with the content issues to at least some degree. It's inevitable that the actual humans editing here will form some opinions as they do that, and we have a system set up to attempt to ensure the opinions of admins are kept at bay from their actions. So the portion of this proposal that I favour is the part where what I think of as a "page facilitator" can get involved, first with communication, then with redaction, splitting/closing threads, stopping circular discussions, referring disputes to appropriate noticeboards, circumventing attempts to game article BRD, etc. - with a general presumption that what the facilitator does is subject to 0RR, and after warning, maybe two at the most, blockable. But I think the actual blocking should be third-party, so the review element is still there. If a reliable editor was doing those things in an "official" capacity, I believe there is no shortage of admins willing to back them up, I certainly would. Franamax (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
as I see it, you are overestimating the independence of the appeals process, and neglecting entirely the problematic subjectivity of the admin sanctioning process itself. Admins have broad subjective latitude about what sanction they choose to impose on an editor - one admin may see someone's behavior and issue a warning where a different admin might see the exact same behavior and give a two week block, because the two admins have different styles, different subjective assessments of the problem, different evaluations of the editor involved. So, since editors will often admin-shop when looking to get another editor in trouble, since admins who sanction popular editors often find themselves attacked for the act, since many admins conflate behavioral issues and content issues (e.g., "this editor talks about content I thing is fringe, all such content is advocacy, and advocacy is a behavioral problem"), I think you can see that the current system for behavioral sanctions lends itself to some very strong biases. Further, while editors can appeal, the general rule on wikipedia (as I understand it) is that admins do not countermand other admin's actions; as a rule, the blocking admin needs to be the one to unblock. Any admin who decides to be stubborn can easily make a bad block stick: other admins would be loathe to overturn his block (per wheel-warring), and unless the block is just plain stupid it is difficult to get a consensus to overturn an admin's actions. Finally, admin blocks are always cumulative - they go on your permanent record, as the saying goes - and so admins can easily administer small blocks for minor offenses just to set the scene for some later situation where they can say "well, I know this act in itself isn't worthy of a month-long block, but looking back over the user's block-history..." (this kind of gamesmanship explains my entire block log, incidentally - except for one block I actually deserved - and also explains my curmudgeonish attitude).
so, the admin system is such that an admin can (if s/he chooses) use the subjectivity of the evaluation to block an editor on mostly trumped up grounds, make the block stick so long as it is vaguely justifiable, and smear that editor's reputation permanently so that it becomes easier to dispose of that editor in future disputes. Most admins probably wouldn't do this, but it can be done, and it has been done. This is - again - typical of tribal systems, where the adjudication and enforcement functions are wrapped up in the same persons: such systems need to rely on the persons in those positions to be fair, honest and wise (the ideal 'elder'); and when there's even one person in that position who isn't fair, honest, and/or wise, the system is vulnerable to ugly forms of abuse.
When you separate adjudication and enforcement these problems largely disappear - sheriffs don't make or interpret the rules, they just enforce them; admins only enforce rules in the worst cases (where there is already a lot of community involvement and discussion) and lose some of their ability to progressively smear editors in small ways. the whole system is much cleaner and fairer.
With respect to your last point, you still do not see the distinction between the two levels of discourse (content and behavior) that makes the sheriff idea tick. Of course sheriffs are going to have or form opinions about content, but the restrictions on the position prevent them from doing anything about it. It's like being a referee at a football game: no one worries whether the referees are fans of team A or team B, because everyone knows that a referee who tries to influence the outcome of a game by making bad calls is going to get pilloried by everyone (the players, the coaches, the fans, the league itself...). A sheriff is no different - his actions will be highly visible, and everyone will be looking to call them into question, which means the sheriff has to stick to fair application of the rules if he wants to continue being a sheriff. it's a proper check and balance design. --Ludwigs2 00:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at "old west" lawmen

Treat the following as a bit of shedding light, by way of humor. I think with what follows, thinking of the people who would notionally hold this position as "old west" sheriffs just might not be the right model <cough, cough>. Looking through the first ten linked articles (to biographies of the actual lawmen in question) at List of Western lawmen, we find:

  • John Hicks Adams, good lawman but later ambushed and killed by bandits who were never brought to trial.
  • Ira Aten placed hidden dynamite booby traps on fences that ranchers were cutting (to ward off illegal cutting); later forced to remove them.
  • Elfego Baca Deputized himself, arrested a criminal, then took hostage a person who refused to press charges.
  • Charlie Bassett; clean.
  • Johnny Behan corrupt; sided with the infamous "Cowboys" of the O.K. Corral shootout fame, and founder of the Anti-Chinese League in Tombstone.
  • N. K. Boswell organized a lynch mob that apprehended and killed a local infamous outlaw, doing so without any legal procedure.
  • William L. Brooks involved in several questionable killings in Dodge City, one in particular where he killed in a man in an argument over a dance hall girl. Later stole horses and mules from a rival stage coach company. Died by lynching, after being arrested.
  • Henry Newton Brown involved in the ambushing murder of a local sheriff. When later trapped, escaped with Billy the Kid. Later involved in a bank robbery involving murders. Lynched.
  • Seth Bullock; clean.
  • Frank M. Canton robbed banks and rustled cattle. Killed a Buffalo Soldier. Caught, escaped, changed his name to avoid capture. During the Johnson County War, set house on fire to get enemies out.

So three of the ten were "clean". Most of them were corrupt, involved in lynch mobs, murders, robberies, arson, and/or more. Two of them died by lynching. This is the 'model'? Hummmm. Also of note, old west sheriff may not translate across cultures very well. This is a world wide project, not a United States project. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume Ludwigs was thinking of sheriffs as they appear in classic western films, not as they were in real life, as would be the vast majority of Wikipedians. Peter jackson (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather, the fiction of western lawmen, which occasionally was depicted in such films. Plenty of times, the lawmen were corrupt, weak, afraid, and/or killed in the line of duty. I think there's a disconnect between fantasy ideas of the noble role of sheriff and reality, even as portrayed in the 'reality' of the movie medium. Regardless, it's still a culturally centric title. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Is it? I wonder. Certainly here in Britain westerns have long been popular. Indeed there was some embarrassment among wetsern fans some years ago when it was revealed that one popular western writer was actually a granny from Darlington who'd never been anywhere near the West. What abot India &c? Do they watch westerns there? Peter jackson (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Peter, hammersoft is indulging in various kinds of sophistry at the moment (he seems to be on a bit of a tear for some reason); don't worry about it. I could tic off the number of logical fallacies and rhetorical ploys he's been engaging in his last few posts, but there's too many for a full accounting and it would be a mindlessly pedantic exercise that would have no effect on him whatsoever. suffice it to say that the historical existence of corrupt sheriffs doesn't even prove that police in the real world are a bad idea, much less that the extension of the idea to wikipedia would be bad. silliness... --Ludwigs2 17:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Would you PLEASE cut the crap with personally attacking me Ludwigs? This now marks 8 times you have personally attacked me on this talk page within the last 24 hours. Enough! Read and take to heart WP:NPA. If you can't comment on things brought here without attacking me, then please reconsider commenting. I am NOT engaging in any sophistry. Knock it off. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
So, it's your opinion that I am attacking you when I point out self-evident flaws in your reasoning? To quote a Spock: "Fascinating...". At any rate, if you'd like to discuss this issue further, please use my talk page, which is the appropriate venue for these kinds of concerns. thanks. --Ludwigs2 18:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • So saying I'm engaging in sophistry is pointing out flaws in my reasoning? How about accusing me of being less thoughtful than you'd like, having a knee jerk reaction, not saying anything constructive, wasting your time, engaging in senseless rhetoric, being self righteously vocal? These too are pointing out flaws in my reasoning? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
The last one no; the rest are all reasoning errors, yes. the last was simply a factual observation about your behavior, in that you feel perfectly justified in voicing your opinions strongly even while admitting that you haven't read the material - 'self-righteously vocal' covers that succinctly. --Ludwigs2 21:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Town_sheriff/Archive_4&oldid=1072531731"